ABSTRACT
This article discusses how the ambivalences between the order of development and a new epistemic order, in the proposals of the Santiago Round Table in 1972, are manifested in the discussion on the relationship between the museum and the rural environment. Alongside the historical questions that the new museum was then opening itself up to, current phenomena such as the climate crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic brought with them the need to broaden the topics covered by “rurality” to include forest, nature, and environmental issues, as well as the traditional wisdom of peasants, indigenous peoples, quilombola communities, etc. To unfold these ambivalences, the article is divided into four sections: (1) the first analyses how agrarian reform and the “green revolution” are combined in the proposals of the commentator in charge of discussing the relationship between museum and agriculture at the Santiago Round Table; (2) the second presents a small set of alternatives to traditional or industrial agriculture, complementary to each other; (3) the third deals with the differences between the development perspective and the proposal for a new epistemic order, from a discussion about the meanings of tradition and community for post-developmentalism; (4) the fourth particularises the previous one in a debate on education, which contrasts the idea of mutual nurturance with that of conscientization. Finally, it returns to the recommendations made by the Round Table to discuss their current relevance.
KEYWORDS:
Santiago Round Table; Rural environment; Climate crisis; Post-development