Paper short abstract

This paper offers a comparative ethnographic analysis of Nahua and Otomi engagements with the figure of the devil in the Huasteca region of Mexico. By examining how relationships with an entity associated with land, abundance, and prosperity articulate shifting moral economies.

Paper long abstract

The figure of the devil in the Huasteca region of Mexico acquires differentiated meanings and modes of relational engagement across communities. Drawing on a comparative analysis of Nahua and Otomi populations, this paper examines the narratives and practices through which relationships are configured with an entity associated with land, seeds, and abundance, locally referred to as friend, patron, or owner.

In both contexts, relationships with the devil are commonly linked to episodes of material prosperity and enrichment; however, these relationships are embedded within broader historical processes associated with the commodification of life and the reconfiguration of rural economies. The central argument advanced here is that such transformations have entailed shifts in the moral economies that organize relationships with this entity, generating tensions between affective and relational bonds, on the one hand, and more instrumental forms of engagement associated with calculation, debt, and exchange.

From an ethnographic perspective informed by theories of value, the paper proposes to approach the devil not as an exclusively religious or moral figure, but as a relational agent through which local conceptions of value, abundance, and reciprocity are articulated. In this sense, the relationships established with this being make it possible to problematize transformations in both value and the forms of affect directed toward him.

The comparative analysis identifies the forms that emerge from the relationships different communities establish with the devil, demonstrating that, although they share certain imaginaries surrounding this entity, the modalities of relational engagement and the associated moral economies differ significantly.