Legal Typologies and Topologies: The Construction of Indigenous Alterity and Its Spatialization Within the Colombian Constitutional Court Diana Bocarejo This article examines the different legal articulations between indigenous typologies and topologies, that is, the relationship between someone classified as an indigenous subject, a grantee of minority rights, and the spatial arrangements such as reservations or ancestral territories considered necessary for indigenous “cultural survival.” I analyze how the jurisprudence of the Colombian Constitutional Court manifests and rests on the diverse combinations of these two factors. The typology/topology binary characterizes the manner in which these legal discourses portray indigeneity and culture. This binary also offers insight into a broad range of issues, including the access that indigenous peoples have to minority rights, the use of customary law, and the spatial delimitations that frame indigenous legal jurisdictions. Some of the complexities that arise from this binary are: the conceptualization of indigenous places as habitats, the idea of culture as a list of traits, and the concept of “degrees” of indigeneity that determine these peoples’ access to minority rights. INTRODUCTION Multiculturalism is a multifaceted political construct that addresses a wide range of topics—from public policies for recognized cultural minorities to the experiences of living within legally and culturally pluralistic societies. I understand multiculturalism broadly as a form of political liberal rationality embodied in legal mechanisms designed to recognize historically excluded cultural minorities. These exercises of multicultural- ism envision a political landscape that is less multicultural than policultural (Comaroff and Comaroff 2003). That is, this landscape is characterized both by the cultural pluralities that are recognized within it and the political mechanisms that define those pluralities. In many parts of the world, such politicization hinges on constitutional provisions, which grant minority rights and recognize indigenous customary laws that in turn might come to challenge the very same legal liberal principles in which multicul- turalism is sustained. A legal conundrum frames this article: national legislatures are asked to solve cultural conflicts but they cannot easily classify or address the different cultural practices that undergird those conflicts—that is, how does a “multicultural” court render Diana Bocarejo is a Professor of Anthropology, Universidad del Rosario. She may be contacted at dbocarejo@gmail.com or diana.bocarejo@urosario.edu.co. She gratefully acknowledges the three anonymous reviewers of the article for their generous comments and suggestions, Esteban Hoyos for his comments and help, and Emily Levitt for her work in editing and proofreading this article. This research was in part funded by the Wenner Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. Law & Social Inquiry Volume ••, Issue ••, ••–••, •• 2013 Law & Social Inquiry Journal of the American Bar Foundation © 2013 American Bar Foundation. 1