Professora e pesquisadora, Programa de Pós-graduação em Ciências Humanas e Sociais/Universidade Federal do ABC; pesquisadora associada, Museu Histórico/Faculdade de Medicina/Universidade de São Paulo. São Bernardo do Campo - SP - Brasil gabriela.marinho@ufabc.edu.br.
3 papers in the library · 2 citations · publishing 2023
Between 1850 and 1950, reports from expeditions to Amazonia described indigenous uses of ayahuasca, which later became entangled with Western scientific and pharmaceutical interest. This history sheds light on current controversies in the "psychedelic renaissance"—a movement that gained scientific attention after 2000 but traces back to research halted by anti-drug policies in the 1960s and 1970s. The article uses actor-network theory to analyze historical reports and argues that this history illuminates ongoing political debates about indigenous classifications, meanings, pharmaceutical interest in ayahuasca, and the broader debate about "drugs."
Between 1850 and 1950, encounters between indigenous and Western uses of ayahuasca set the stage for the current "psychedelic renaissance." Scientific interest in psychoactive substances revived around 2000 after being halted by anti-drug policies in the 1960s and 1970s. Early twentieth-century studies and expedition reports from Amazonia, analyzed through actor-network theory, reveal how historical accounts illuminate present-day political debates over indigenous practices, classifications, and meanings of ayahuasca, as well as pharmaceutical interest and the broader debate on "drugs."
During the first half of the 20th century, newspaper coverage in O Globo reveals that scientists were interested in the botanical, pharmacological, and psychiatric aspects of ayahuasca, yet their reports also encouraged the criminalization of Indigenous uses. This early journalistic framing challenges the common association of the “psychedelic renaissance” with the 1960s–1970s, showing that scientific and media attention to ayahuasca began much earlier and carried contradictory impulses—curiosity about the substance alongside support for repressive policies. The findings invite a more plural debate about the history and politics of psychedelic research.