I don't think there's any need for enforcement...language has a way of doing what it will and people use language for many different purposes, effectively rendering enforcement useless (along with most forms of censorship, generally speaking, imo).
I just think when we are talking about ayahuasca in English or any other non-native term that has different cultural significance attached, it's very important to consider the effects of language beyond being a medium to convey ideas. Imo, this becomes even more important when dealing with indigenous, minority, or oppressed groups in general, given a global context of colonialism, white supremacy, patriarchy, etc.
First and foremost the word "ayahuasca" in english has no meaning...no context...no history. It's not an english word. Afaik, short of various bastardizations of ayahuasca (mimosahuasca, anahuasca, acaciahuasca, haomahuasca, etc) there has never been an english term that referred to ayahuasca, as either vine or brew (B. caapi is latin
). The point being that the word ayahuasca was taken out of its original context (as frequently happens with language) and used by a plethora of people to mean whatever they felt like applying it to.
In some senses, this is what it is, and is how language has functioned frequently throughout history. However, at the same time, this steamrolling of the traditional context(s) and meaning(s) by (generally speaking) white(r) folks from the global north and/or who live in industrial contexts creates pressures and situations that jeopardize the traditionally understood meaning(s) of these indigenous terms.
While language generally grows, morphs, and fits itself into new words, syntaxes, and situations, I would posit that there are cases where historical domination cannot be removed from the equation and presents for consideration, issues regarding the "sanctity" of traditional words and their meanings when viewed through the lens of oppressor/oppressed.
We cannot escape the history of colonialism and its effects on people around the globe. We cannot escape the horrific histories and presents that have stemmed from colonialism. We can, however, examine our actions in the present and attempt to situate them in the least detrimental ways we see possible.
Essentially, my point is that when it comes down to what indigenous terms mean in English, I think it's best to stick to w/e cultural variations we know to traditionally exist, even if there are discrepancies and disagreements among cultures or subcultural groups as to the terms at hand (as there almost always will be). This is not out of any desire for greater accuracy, this is because, imo, it's not our place to determine the meaning of words that don't belong to us. I have no cultural, familial, or historical tie to ayahuasca, so I can't possibly understand the significance of altering any traditional meaning(s) of the term.
These sorts of discussions really bum me out. It reminds me of a discussion that took place at the MAPS conference last year, labelled the "Ayahuasca Researchers Discussion," that included a bunch of experts on ayahuasca in various contexts. At one point, the conversation became about indigenous opinions on ayahuasca and essentially turned into a bunch of people from northern/industrial contexts stating "the indigenous want this," "the indigenous think that," "the indigenous believe X."
When I was finally given a moment to speak, I questioned, "Where are the indigenous? I hear a lot of people talking about what the indigenous want and what they think and the need for discussion with them...but you are not discussing with them, you are talking about them. You can't have a conversation with one party absent, you can't dialog about what you think someone wants and claim to represent their interests. If you really want to have an open/honest discussion about these issues, you have to include the people you are talking about, and start listening. Anything less is a charade of a conversation at best" (or something more or less to that effect)
The point is, here we are again. A bunch of privileged folks from northern/industrial backgrounds arguing over the meaning of indigenous terms. People are obviously going to call it what they want. I think anahuasca might be a decent term for all forms of "ayahuasca" (heh...see, now what other term could I stick here to simply indicate my meaning?) created outside of a traditional context, for a myriad of reasons.
Ultimately, I'd just like to see some consideration about the sociocultural implications of steamrolling the linguistic nuances of words taken from other cultures, especially when it's folks from imperial/colonial backgrounds that are so blase about such steamrolling. These are more than words we are talking about here.
