The survey with non-engaged audiences was conducted by the Ipsos, one of the world's leading market intelligence and research companies.
As detailed in the Introduction, 100 in-depth interviews were carried out. Participants included the general public and opinion formers, more specifically economists, political leaders, business leaders, and regional journalists. All interviews were conducted between June and October 2021, and the resulting data were systematised between November 2021 and January 2022.
This study sought to investigate people’s understanding of the term traditional peoples and their perceptions on the role of Indigenous peoples in Brazilian society (in the present and in the future), their constitutional rights, their actions, and their political demands and manifestations. Furthermore, it intended to explore ways to strengthen dialogue and engagement with these specific audiences.
In addition, the project intended to identify the degree of knowledge about the political-economic relevance of the climate agenda and the fundamental role of Indigenous peoples as part of the solution to the problems.
Economists, business leaders, political leaders, and regional journalists were chosen as important non-engaged segments because they are among the most influential decision makers and opinion formers in the country — despite the fact that many people in these segments are known to have views and actions that are contrary to the rights of Indigenous people.
In view of the current political context, a small sample of the general public with a more conservative profile — centre to right on the political spectrum — were also included in the survey.
A summary of the main findings of the Ipsos survey is presented below. Click here to view the full report.
Ignorance and Generalisation: From Empathy to Resentment
As pointed out in the Indigenous Peoples and Traditional Communities chapter, non-engaged audiences still show a great lack of understanding of the reality and diversity of Indigenous peoples, and consequently their social organisation, their history of struggle and resistance, the work of civil society, and academic studies on this issue.
Although there are now more points of contact and information available, little is known about even the most important Indigenous leaders and thinkers in the country. In other words, Indigenous peoples seem to be invisible for these segments.
Views on Indigenous peoples are formed from fragments of information: sometimes, just news headlines or social media posts, with little depth.
Regional journalists are an exception, as they tend to have a critical and well-informed perspective on national and local realities, and during the interviews, they contributed with examples of local indigenous associations and leaders, enriching the discussions with evidence from real life.
The more informed the non-engaged audiences are, the more aware they tend to be of how diverse and complex the topic is, and the more interested they are in developing a better understanding of the reality of Indigenous peoples. On the other hand, the less informed they are, as in the case of a large portion of the conservative population, the less interest there is. Ignorance is commonly mistaken for supposed knowledge, thus ending the discussion: ‘you don't know how much you don't know‘. In these cases, the path to dialogue seems even longer and more complex.
Based on a world view grounded in their own culture and official history, they often tend to project these expectations onto Indigenous peoples, that is, expecting them to ‘evolve’ and become part of Brazilian society.
When talking about Indigenous peoples, respondents mentioned feelings of impotence, embarrassment, distance, and incomprehension, occasionally showing respect, empathy, or sympathy. Many talked about injustice, while some showed indifference, and others, resentment — mostly among the general public.
There was a distinct lack of recognition of the organisational strength and representativeness of Indigenous peoples in Brazil’s public agenda, as they were more associated with weaknesses and threats. This was compounded by historical views that tend to ignore the resilience of Indigenous peoples, their achievements, and their ability to overcome difficulties.
There is also a static view of culture. Participants showed some difficulty in understanding culture as something alive, which includes changing and incorporating elements from surrounding society. People tend to see the social contribution of Indigenous peoples as something set in the past, manifested in the form of language, food, and habits that Brazilians inherited from indigenous societies. In general, there is no spontaneous association with the positive environmental impact of indigenous territories — see more on this subject below. Cultural diversity and the lessons learned through interacting with different ways of living and thinking were also rarely mentioned as a value in itself.
It was pointed out that Brazilian society is not interested in, nor does it identify with indigenous populations because they are geographically and culturally distant: in this regard, there is a sort of invisibility attached to these groups, which creates an additional barrier to respecting their agendas.
It is in this context that we see the emergence of a vision of an unbalanced equation of ‘exchanges’ between Indigenous peoples and surrounding society, in which Indigenous peoples demand more than they offer, and their demands are seen as harmful to other segments of society.
It was also almost a consensus that, under the current administration in Brazil, attacks by land grabbers, illegal miners, and ranchers have increased even more, together with the vulnerability of Indigenous peoples. Among opinion formers, many believe that not only has the situation of Indigenous peoples worsened in the past decade, but societal prejudice has also increased. Asked about an alleged increase in international interest in traditional peoples in Brazil, most disagreed — crediting such growing interest in the country to environmental concerns.
Indigenous People are ‘Them’, and Brazilian Society is ‘Us’
Although Indigenous peoples are recognised as part of our history and culture, the current view revolves around their displacement in relation to the prevailing economic model in the country, questioning their constitutional rights and showing detachment from their ways of life and sociocultural particularities, which are distinct from the rest of society. Indigenous people are ‘them’, and Brazilian society is ‘us’.
Many associated Indigenous peoples with social and economic vulnerabilities, and some respondents saw them as poor and needy, or in the same category of minorities that face prejudice, along with black people and the LGBTQIA+ population. In particular, journalists from states in the North and Mid-West regions highlighted social problems such as hunger, poverty, alcoholism, and even suicide as striking facts among Indigenous groups in their regions. This perception of vulnerability, while attracting sympathy, also tends to place this population in a less empowered place, with more limited social space and voice.
As in the speeches of some politicians, it was common among these respondents to make reference to specific situations to describe the whole — such as toll collection on indigenous land, or the fact that some Indigenous people were favourable to mining on their land. These references denoted a lack of proper understanding of the historical context and the specificities of each case.
Perceptions about them often tend to be wrong, with the exception of a small group of opinion formers, especially regional journalists and business and political leaders.
Rejection and Strong Challenging of their Constitutional Rights
Although very generally, the main demands of Indigenous peoples are known, such as, for example, health, education, access to technology, and land demarcation.
Brazilian society seems to find it difficult to understand the constitutional rights of Indigenous peoples.In fact, these rights tend to be seen as 'countering' the rights of other segments of the population in general — the perspective, therefore, is one of an arena for dispute. This is the area in which Indigenous peoples most disturb the non-engaged audiences of the survey.
A central part of this debate included a strong challenge of indigenous identity in their contact with the rest of Brazilian society, as well as a great difficulty in conceiving a relationship that contemplates the otherness of these peoples. The acquisition of material goods, such as cars and mobile phones, and access to higher education by Indigenous people, for example, were used several times to describe a process in which these peoples cease to be Indigenous, deserving the same treatment given to the rest of society.
In addition, in some interviews, suspicions were also raised that the right to land was being exploited by ‘Indigenous people who knew the Western way of life’ or who ‘kept one foot in both camps’ (indigenous culture and Western culture), according to their interests. Some respondents raised these points, while others attributed this doubt to society, especially agribusiness representatives.
At the federal legislative level, there was recognition of the importance of the organisation and presence of Indigenous peoples to lead on their own demands. Some politicians identified a greater presence of Indigenous people in legislative environments.
Many pointed out, however, that there is still little representation and coordination.
The idea of Indigenous peoples’ assimilation and cultural dilution came up in several interviews, especially among economists and the general public.
On the other hand, this view also arises from the perception that Indigenous peoples and their lands are under intense attack, which would then make them very vulnerable. The current Brazilian reality, with a government perceived as unfavourable to Indigenous peoples, certainly impacts the idea of cultural assimilation as a probable and very close possibility in the next ten years, for example.
A 2020 study by the Ipsos evaluated theSocial Cohesion Index in 27 countries. This index measures how much a society works for the well-being of all its members; fights exclusion and marginalisation; creates a sense of belonging; promotes trust; and offers its members an opportunity for upward social mobility. Brazil ranked 21st among the 27 nations investigated. Based on their answers on social relationships (trust in people, shared priorities, and diversity), connection (identity, trust in the system, and justice) and focus on the common good (help to others, respect for the law, and corruption), only 13% of Brazilians have a strong sense of social cohesion.
In view of this, it is not surprising that the rights of Indigenous peoples are seen as a space for dispute in which, if you win, I lose.
In the cultural characterisation of these peoples, there is recognition of their connection with the land they inhabit. Their right to the land, however, was the most controversial topic in the interviews, around which the most critical arguments towards Indigenous peoples were presented. The possibility of using and exploiting their lands, directly or by third parties, is the most sensitive point in the discussions.
Not everyone thinks the same way. In more than a third of the sample of conservative voters, there are also signs of sympathy for Indigenous peoples. These people tend to have a more curious and comprehensive view of indigenous cultures; they understand the strength of their connection with the land, and in some cases, they also mention the importance of collectivity.
Segment Highlights:
-> Economists: The views on Indigenous peoples vary between optimistic and pessimistic. It has been noted that, when they mention attacks suffered by these peoples or focus on the problems of quality of social services, economists tend to put them in a place of social marginalisation. In contrast, others in this group reinforce a view that highlights the possibility of a positive contribution by Indigenous peoples. This perspective assumes that there is a ‘functional’ space for Indigenous peoples as a condition for equating their place within Brazilian society. On the one hand, these proposals involve the idea of Indigenous peoples pursuing self-sustainability as a solution to be lifted out of poverty and acquire autonomy. They share a perspective that seeks to add legitimacy and economic value to cultural diversity.
-> Entrepreneurs: In this segment, traditional peoples are often presented in a way that highlights their way of life outside the prevailing economic system (production and consumption), and the tensions or possibilities that this entails. In this sense, there are different approaches, which result in points of view that can weaken or strengthen the place assigned to Indigenous peoples. One of the approaches, closer to the eyes of the general public, tends to correlate such a way of life outside the market with poverty, the need for government aid, and hardship in general. This approach tends to reinforce the idea of vulnerability, and may also raise questions about differentiated rights. However, it represented a minority in the sample. Another view, more present in the sample, is the one that also touches on the vulnerability of traditional peoples, but proposing discussions on their potential and relevance. In this regard, the view that most empowers them is their association with environmental knowledge.
-> Regional Journalists: The segment of journalists tends to have a closer understanding of Indigenous peoples, as they address or have already addressed this topic at some point in their professional careers. Most of them are empathetic to the indigenous cause, and their position tends to be that they want to act, and do even more than they have been doing in terms of disseminating information on the subject. In this segment, indignation and a sense of urgency are expressive. They are also critical of the media itself and reflect a lot on the values and beliefs of surrounding society, understanding that public opinion is very unfavourable. They were the ones that presented the most data on the local realities of some Indigenous peoples and described situations of poverty, neglect, conflicts and even cases of indigenous leaders who had been corrupted by illegal miners and land grabbers. They also described power games and local influences working against Indigenous peoples. They recognise the struggle and resistance in the face of significant oppression, and consider that the presence of Indigenous peoples in the public and political scene is still incipient, and that they lack a level playing field.
-> Politicians: Among politicians, the balance of political power in the composition of the National Congress and State Legislative Chambers was frequently raised, in addition to the difficulty of giving greater resonance to indigenous issues in political discussions, pointing out a certain lack of interest among other politicians. Views, of course, vary according to political orientation. One of the points that seems to be more consensual is the need for public policies to support Indigenous peoples in their basic rights to health and education, among others. In general, they recognise that the State has been inefficient. The land issue generates very different reactions. Like the economists, politicians stress the need for Indigenous peoples or third parties to exploit natural resources in indigenous territories. Some respondents confronted indigenous land rights with the wider society interests. Furthermore, they saw the size of indigenous territories as something problematic, and mentioned discussions on the possibility of allowing economic exploitation, as well roads, railways, and transmission lines on indigenous lands. NGOs are mentioned in a generic way: on the one hand, they represent support and intermediation for indigenous causes, but on the other, they are accused of manipulating Indigenous peoples. Among those who show greater empathy towards indigenous issues it is assumed that respect for Indigenous people and their lands should be protected and not questioned. However, they are a minority.
Recognised Links with the Environment, but not Spontaneously
Indigenous peoples' links with the environment are generally recognised, especially among opinion leaders and the general public that are more empathetic to the cause.
However, this recognition is not always manifested spontaneously, or pointed out as an important contribution by Indigenous peoples. Their deep and distinct relationship with the environment tends to be spontaneously cited by those who are already involved or interested in sustainability.
When prompted, the idea is generally accepted, albeit with reservations. In other words, this narrative tends to be recognised as a reality for some peoples, or as a possibility to be better developed, but not for everyone. It is also not accepted to generically associate this idea with Indigenous peoples as a whole.
In this regard, the concept of forest guardians tends to attract both support and criticism among all segments: on the one hand, there is this relationship with nature that is particular to Indigenous peoples and that justifies the recognition of their role as guardians. On the other, it is understood that not all peoples act with the same care — more in Narratives chapter.
There is little understanding of the political capital that Indigenous peoples have acquired globally on the climate agenda in the last decade, with rare exceptions.
In any case, the suggestion of a link between Indigenous peoples and nature was well accepted. In addition to protecting biomes, they understand that this care for nature includes differentiated knowledge and the specific contributions that Indigenous peoples have to offer, and they argue that this could be a value to be shared with Brazilian society. This point was highlighted only by those respondents who were more engaged and involved with sustainability issues, as well as a smaller group of political leaders.
Possible paths for approach and dialogue
Despite a general context that does not show to be favourable, there are possible ways to establish communication bridges.
Most opinion formers were open to reflection, and some of the general public seem to be willing to open a channel of interest and awareness in relation to the topic. This availability signals a general desire to get out of the dichotomy of discussions. People aspire for good quality information, and universities and scientific institutions are a very credible source.
A certain anxiety about what is not known becomes evident — thus opening space for a qualified dialogue based on studies.
Although the main demands are known, there is still a lack of recognition of why these causes are necessary and legitimate, as well as a more tangible knowledge about how to make them effective.
Among opinion formers, especially economists and businessmen, there were some attempts to identify ways and proposals that involve assigning economic and productive functions to promote more inclusion and sustainability for Indigenous peoples.
Among economists, there is an understanding that the environmental issue is already closer to their concerns, being incorporated into the sector's evaluation and remuneration metrics. The perspective is that environmental costs are incorporated into economic activities. In this context, they mentioned the idea that Indigenous peoples could ‘piggyback’ on environmental issues.
For some of the respondents, this path also includes moving forward in relation to historical impasses, with discussions on the use of territories for energy generation and transport.
This segment also highlights self-sustaining activities as a solution to move out of poverty and develop more autonomy, depending less on State interventions. This could be done, for example, by playing an environmental preservation role, benefiting the community, and contributing to society as a whole.
Economists, in addition to businessmen and some politicians (leaning more to the right), also mentioned an ongoing debate on the self-sustainability of Indigenous peoples, making reference to economic alternatives such as agricultural production, tourism, and handicrafts.
Even without verbalising the concept of bio-economy, some businessmen made suggestions for sustainable economic development (particularly forest management) in the territories held by traditional peoples. Natura's experience was used as a very positive example in this regard. The ESG agenda, the carbon market, and potential partnerships involving local governments, businesses, and Indigenous peoples were also mentioned.
Respondents from large corporations with an international presence identified market pressures for more sustainable actions, as well as a demand for businesses to incorporate environmental concerns into their work. This could also bring them closer to traditional peoples and their agendas.
From their perspective, they highlighted that Indigenous peoples, as they represent a numerical minority, count as fewer votes, and therefore have little political strength.
Politicians, when positive, bet on the possibility of a policy to increase indigenous representation and the continuous mobilisation of these peoples. They also see more engagement among the youth, and the emergence of a sustainability awareness in the agricultural segment, with impacts not only on the environment, but also for traditional peoples.
Senators and federal deputies consider the visits they receive from indigenous representatives to be important, but point out that this is something rare, with the exception of politicians with a specific engagement in this agenda.
Journalists stress the importance of educating the population; of promoting greater awareness in society about indigenous causes, building on wider awareness; and of ongoing indigenous resistance.
In Bolsonaro's Brazil, Future Projections are Negative
Future projections vary from different perspectives. Those more engaged in sustainability-oriented actions or social projects tend to be more positive. Overall, however, future projections are mainly negative, influenced by the actions of the current administration against the interests of traditional peoples, by the current deconstruction of public policies, and by the limited perception of the political capital of Indigenous people on the public agenda.
Some consider this to be a defining decade, both for environmental issues and for Indigenous peoples.
The turning point for our future, according to most opinion formers, is the re-election (or not) of Jair Bolsonaro. With Bolsonaro re-elected, the observed and predicted regression for social and environmental agendas, and especially for Indigenous peoples, points to a scenario, according to the respondents, of cultural assimilation as a very likely and immediate possibility (in the next ten years, for example), and possibly even extermination.
If Bolsonaro loses in 2022, a social reconstruction is expected, but possibly over a rather long period.
On the other hand, the narratives of a more positive future build on the belief that the environmental movement is strong, global, and unstoppable.
Fewer mentions about a positive future for Indigenous peoples include cultural exchanges, access to technologies and education, without this being treated as cultural loss and assimilation.
The research findings point to a long and necessary journey, with the occupation of more political spaces and greater awareness of the reality of Indigenous peoples. This can be achieved through information and education, in addition to a greater organisation of society in favour of Indigenous peoples, and the growing strength of their self-organisation.