The most philosophically radical version of the relational ontology argument comes from Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, the Brazilian anthropologist who has spent decades working with Amazonian peoples and developing what he calls Amerindian perspectivism into a full philosophical position.
The central claim of Amerindian perspectivism is an inversion of Western naturalism. Western naturalism holds: there is one nature (the objective physical world described by science) and many cultures (the varying interpretations that different human groups project onto that nature). Cross-cultural understanding, on this view, means understanding how different cultures represent the same underlying reality differently.
Amerindian perspectivism holds the opposite: there is one culture (or rather, one social and spiritual form, the form of the person, the subject, the one-who-has-a-perspective) and many natures (different bodies that generate different objective worlds, different perceptions of what counts as food, shelter, danger, and beauty). A jaguar does not represent the world differently from a human; the jaguar inhabits a different world because its body constitutes a different nature. What the jaguar sees as prey, humans see as companions. What humans see as manioc beer, jaguars see as blood. These are not different descriptions of the same things; they are different natures produced by different bodies.
This is not relativism, it is what Viveiros de Castro calls multinaturalism. And it has a sharp philosophical consequence: if different bodies produce different natures, then the Western claim to have access to the one objective nature is itself a perspectival claim, it is the claim of a particular body (the body of modern Western humans, equipped with scientific instruments) to have achieved a view from nowhere. From within Amerindian perspectivism, that claim is not obviously better than any other body's claim to its own objective world.
Viveiros de Castro uses this to develop a methodology he calls controlled equivocation: instead of translating indigenous concepts into Western equivalents ("their 'spirit' is what we call 'mind'"), the anthropologist should attend to the difference between indigenous and Western concepts, the equivocation that translation produces, because that difference is where genuine philosophical learning occurs. The goal is not to understand the Other by assimilating them to the Same; it is to allow the Other's concepts to destabilize your own.
The broader philosophical project that Viveiros de Castro, Kimmerer, and others are engaged in has been called ontological pluralism or the pluriverse (a concept we touched on in the Pachamama path): the recognition that different peoples inhabit genuinely different worlds, not merely different descriptions of the same world, and that political and intellectual life must find ways to take this seriously rather than subsisting on the assumption of a single universal ontology.