Introduction Latin American Subaltern Studies Revisited

Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Introduction: LATIN AMERICAN SUBALTERN STUDIES REVISITED: IS THERE LIFE AFTER THE DEMISE OF THE GROUP? Author(s): Gustavo Verdesio Source: Dispositio, Vol. 25, No. 52 (2005), pp. 5-42 Published by: Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41491785 . Accessed: 08/04/2013 21:29
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Dispositio.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 24.16.51.22 on Mon, 8 Apr 2013 21:29:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
52, volXXV 5-42 Dispositio/n andLiteratures, ofMichigan 2005Department ofRomance Languages University
LATIN
AMERICAN LIFE
SUBALTERN AFTER THE
STUDIES DEMISE OF THE
REVISITED: IS THERE GROUP?*
Gustavo Verdesio Universityof Michigan
may ask, why botherto wonder about the fateof the Latin AmericanSubalternStudies (LASS) groupnow? Why discuss its 5ome accomplishmentsand failures at this point, after two of their most prominentmembers have declared it defunct?Well, the answer is simple: because the collective has been one of the most influential endeavorsin thefieldsof Latin Americanliterary and culturalstudiesin the * I would tothank like some whomade this issue ofDispositio/n colleagues possible. First andforemost, a bigthank without whose youtoIleana Rodrguez, this volume would have never seenthe ofday. Innumerencouragement light ous andlongconversations that took locations placeat different geographic NewOrleans, andAnn andbymore virtual Columbus, (EastLansing, Arbor) shewasalways togive, media likethe ande-mail, her phone ready candidly, this I would liketothank invaluable for, on,andsupport Next, input project. friend andcolleague Fernando for time towrite a brilliant Coronil, my finding andinspirational ata time that wasnot the easiest for him andhisfamily. piece Another and former landlord, big thank youto mygoodfriend, colleague Gareth for hiswillingness todiscuss subaltern studWilliams, (from anything toa certain iesto80sBritish Marxism soccer star whousedtoplay pop,from for Manchester with orwithout Scotch onthetable. Thank me,with United) andcolleague Javier for hispermanent youtomyfriend Sanjins, goodspirits andhisgreat sense ofhumor, andfor inspite ofhis made some time, having schedule andthe hewasunder, a very tocontribute busy huge pressure important A final thank volume. Guru andMeiga, piecetothis youtomy personal Cristina whowasthere tosupport, all the time feed andpsyMoreiras-Menor, a tired and friend. editor choanalyze very
GUSTAVO VERDESIO
intellectualenterprise United States. It has been, also, a very controversial resistanceto it among some of the most important thatfoundthe strongest who workin Latin America. The name calling that progressiveintellectuals took place Latin America-based scholars used words as strong as US colleagues' practices,while the to their "academic imperialism"to refer lattercalled the formerby such dismissive labels as "neo-Arielistas" or - should not stop us fromanalyzing the group's legacy "neo-Criollistas" from a calmer, more distanced perspective. This is possible, I believe, because, among other reasons, the worst of the name-callinghas passed, and the time elapsed between the peak of the confrontation (the 1997 LASA conferencein Guadalajara, Mexico) and the presentallows us to of the have a more detached and productive view of the contributions group. When I planned this issue I thoughtvery carefullyabout both its I must admit thatI triedto possible formatand its potentialcontributors. tendenciesthatcomprised of all the balance the need to be representative thegroupand mypersonalopinions about who was influential enoughto be decided to send I asked to respond to a questionnaire. finally it, also, to people who were not membersof the groupbut who, in my opinion,could contribution to the evaluation of ten years of subaltern make an important studies presence in the field of Latin American studies: Ishita Baneijee, none of Saurabh Dube, Enrique Dussel and ErnestoLaclau. Unfortunately, of this at the timeof the writing themwere able to send theircontributions articles to this preface. The othernon-membersI invitedwho contribute issue are Abraham Acosta, Bruno Bosteels, Horacio Legrs, Florencia Mallon, Eduardo Mendieta, Daniel Mosquera, and Ximena Soruco. I invited some former members as well, like Gareth Williams and Alberto to this reasons, ended up not contributing Moreiras, who, for different to this volume are issue. The ex-membersI invitedwho have contributed John Beverley, Sara Castro-Klarn,Fernando Coronil, Walter Mignolo, Jos Rabasa, Ileana Rodrguez,JavierSanjins and Patricia Seed. I also sent a questionnaire to all the participants.They were not expected to respond to all the questions: it was just a way of in seeing discussed. to themwhat issues I was interested communicating Here's thequestionnaire: y otras Qu relaciones hay entrelos estudios subalternoslatinoamericanos los estudios como los estudios tales corrientes, postcoloniales y
LATIN AMERICAN SUBALTERN STUDIES REVISITED:...
culturales? Qu relacin podran tener con la crtica cultural propuestadesde Latinoamrica? Piensa usted que los estudios culturales y los estudios subalternos o estn latinoamericanosson proyectos con genealogas diferentes conectados de alguna manera? De qu manera se relacion o se debi relacionar el subalternismo latinoamericano con el sudasitico? Por que los subalternistas sudasiticos ignoran, en general, olmpicamente a sus pares latinoamericanos? escogido para Qu ventajas o desventajas tuvo, en su opinin,el formato ser un grupo a ser un movimiento funcionar? Es decir: fue preferible ms abierto? Qu tipo de influencia han tenido los estudios subalternos latinoamericanosen el campo de los estudios latinoamericanosen general? de lengua y literatura? Qu Han pasado la barrerade los departamentos influenciaespecfica han tenidoen estos ltimos? Qu legado concreto ha dejado el grupo? Es posible construiralgo distintoa partirde lo producido hasta su disolucin como tal? Es sin que decir: son posibles los estudios subalternos latinoamericanos exista el grupo? Qu limitacionestuvo el grupo? Qu pudo haberhecho y no hizo? Por qu hubo y hay, en Latinoamrica, tanta resistencia a los estudios latinoamericanos? subalternos camino a seguir,hoy, por aquellos que siendo o no parte del es el Cul grupo simpatizancon la mirada subalternista? Cul debera ser el o los objetivos de una teora o una corrientede pensamiento que intenteentendera Latinoamrica en el contexto acadmico de hoy? [What relationshipdo you see between Latin American SubalternStudies trendssuch as Postcolonial Theoryand Cultural and othertheoretical Studies? kinds What relationships do you see betweenthese trendsand the different of culturalcritiqueproposed fromLatin America? Do you thinkCultural Studies and Latin American SubalternStudies are connectedsomehow or are theyprojectswithdifferent genealogies? How did Latin Americansubalternism relate-or how should it have relatedto the South Asian one? do South Asian subalternists olympically ignore the work by their Why Latin Americanpeers?
GUSTAVO VERDESIO
What advantagesand/or disadvantageshad the groupformat? to be a groupor to become a more open movement? Was it preferable What kind of influencehas LASS had on Latin Americanstudiesat large? Have Latin American Subaltern Studies reached people beyond the of language and literature? departments What kind of influencehave said studies had on language and literature departments? What are the legacies of the group? thefoundation in thefuture, different Is itpossible to build something being theworkproducedby the group? theexistenceof the Are Latin American SubalternStudies possible without group? of thegroup? What were the limitations What could the grouphave done thatit did not do? Why was thereso much resistanceto the group in Latin America and why does such resistancestillexist? What are the paths open to those who were not membersof the group but witha subalternist who sympathize perspective? Which should be the goals of a theory or a thinkingthat attemptsto understand of today'sacademic context?] Latin America in the framework As the readers will see later, some of these questions remained of fact,thequestion I As a matter unansweredby some of the contributors. and academic theoretical was most interested in, the one about the possible was leftunansweredby most roads we should walk today and in the fixture, of a progressiveacademic of them.Is thisreason to worryabout the future endeavors by theoretical agenda thatbuilds upon the advances contributed to ask it is reasonable such as LASS? Not necessarily.However, yetanother still so invested in past theoretical question: are some of the contributors Or is it thatwe need to wait lies ahead? practicesthattheycannot see what yet some more timeuntilthewatersbecome even calmer? Regardless of the answers one could give to all these questions, it in the seems to me that the futureof Latin American theoreticalefforts new of In the absence is not clear. studies and cultural fields of literary to give to the theoretical agendas, I believe the responses LASS was trying socialism are existent of the fall of the world after actually configuration
stillworthour attention. The articlesincludedin thisissue of Dispositio/ntouchupon so many overviewof theircontents. to give a comprehensive topics thatit is difficult
However, in this IntroductionI will try to at least offer a precarious mapping of the standpointsand intentstheyreflect.Let us startwith the to the on the responses,director indirect, articleswritten by commenting first series of questions I posed- those that deal with theoretical genealogies. The personal narrativethathas had the most exposure until of thegroup several now is thatof Ileana Rodrguez,who has told the story "La encrucijada,""El grupolatinoamericano" times("Reading Subalterns," contribution to this and her volume). This version has become something of originsas of the Group and it entails a narrative like the officialhistory own memories on well as a theoreticalgenealogical tree. JohnBeverley's the creation and evolution of LASS and the ideological and theoretical Rodriguez's version provenanceof its members,did generallycorroborate to his and for the Introduction Subalternity Representation). (see, example, 's and Jos Rabasa's However, as we see in Sara Castro-Klaren members to this issue of Dispositio/n,thereare otherformer contributions storiesto tell. who have different The officialnarrative goes more or less like this: a group of Marxists disenchanted by the failureof actuallyexistingsocialist regimesfindsitself and ideological program.As Beverleysays in in searchof a new theoretical the aforementioned book, SubalternStudies is not a Marxist projectbut it can be considered,at least, a projectthatemergesfromMarxism (21). It is, so to speak, the offspring of a disenchantedgroupof Marxistscholars.This may have been so at theinceptionof thegroup,but as some othernarratives silences tell us as much of originstellus in thisissue- and othersignificant for or even more about this particulartopic othersjoined the enterprise differentreasons. As Castro-Klarn says, for example, her personal narrative the factthatnot all scholars who findSubaltern "mightillustrate Studies a productiveand promisingtheoreticaland political vantage point departfromthe same location, sense of crisis or search" (96). She retraces her own intellectual itineraryas one that starts at a traditionallyless studies. More concretely, she starts politicized point of departure:literary notion of difference and other that will later lead her to the thinking topics join LASS thanksto her readings of authorslike Julio Cortzar and Jos Mara Arguedas. The latter's work, according to Castro-Klarn,was a challenge for the then predominantcritical paradigms, which could not accountforit satisfactorily. Cortzarand his treatment of thefragment were other sources of inspirationfor her. She was, in her own words, "not so much concerned with the general dimensions of an epistemologica! and
10
GUSTAVO VERDESIO
thus a political crisis, as both Ileana Rodrguez and John Beverley state theywere" (99). Another member of the group, Jos Rabasa, was an intellectual interlocutor of Castro-Klarn in the early nineties, a time when they Butler was teachinga coincided in the WashingtonDC area, where Judith Butler's syllabus did seminar on her book Gender Trouble. Interestingly, not include a single Latin American intellectual.This notoriousabsence when I address the receptionof will be discussed laterin this Introduction But let us go back to Rabasa, who LASS among South Asian subalternists. invitedCastro-Klarnto the group. He, also, has a different genealogy to offer:he was doing postcolonial theorywithoutknowing it (malgr lui?) and his affinities were closer to what was known at thattime as minority discourse. but I Others,like WalterMignolo, do not give us his own narrative, can do it in his stead: he startedas a semiologist fromthe French school who later opened up to other schools of semiotics and epistemological thinking,only to take a surprisingturn at the beginning of the 1980s towards colonial Latin American studies. He can be considered,together with Rolena Adorno, as one of the foundersof the most recent mode of intellectualproductionin that field. For reasons thathe does not explain to this issue, but which are understandableto fully in his contribution who is familiar with his work,he ended up embracingthe LASS anybody cause. Patricia Seed and Fernando Coronil,unlike most of the ex-members This is not of the group,come froma different discipline: historiography. for the disciplinarybackgroundof the diverse an insignificant difference, membersof the group was, at times,an issue. As Seed herselfasks in the to this volume: why was subalternstudies so piece she has contributed scholars in the field of Latin American studies? successful among literary Why did not it have a similar reception among scholars from other disciplines?These questionsentail,I believe, a not-so-veiledcritiqueof the group for not being able to incorporatescholars from other disciplines or culturalstudies.But thisis a topic thatI will go back to outside literature and its role in when I commenton Rabasa's musings about disciplinarity South Asian LASS and the between the partiallydetermining relationship SubalternStudies group. The officialnarrative also states thatmost of the foundersof LASS is had been political activistsbeforetheybecame academics. This narration former list of a detailed who at Ileana provides Rodrguez, given lengthby
11
in "Reading Subalterns" (2-3). This narrative is activists/founders corroboratedby Seed's own account of the process throughwhich she to thisvolume). This may be truein joined the group (see her contribution to most cases with regard founders,but it may not be as accurate a depiction of some of the members who joined later. In any case, this would clash, emphasison political activism,prevalentamong thefounders, newer members,in several occasions at the veryfew over time,withother, of those meetingsof the groupthattook place (see Rodriguez's description These confron"El for grupo latinoamericano"). example, meetings in, tations at the ideological or, if you prefer,theoretical level, led to a of theinternal conflicts of thegroupas follows: therewas a characterization the in social activism(or in understanding core of people more interested subaltern as a real-life,social subject) and anothersectorof the group that At least, this is the favoreda more philosophical approach to subalternity. to and Bruno Bosteels in which Ileana (see his contribution Rodrguez way this issue of Dispositio/n), in different ways and from very different the of major conflictat the core of the philosophical points view, depict between group. The formerhas expressed, repeatedly,that confrontation to was thedeconstructionist comprisedof wing (which according Bosteels, at least two people: AlbertoMoreiras and GarethWilliams) and theMarxist withat least two people: JohnBeverley one (thatBosteels, again, identifies and Ileana Rodrguezherself)was one of thethingsthatled to thedemise of the group ("El grupo latinoamericano" 77, "A New Debate" 14-15). wing, the subalternwas According to Rodriguez, forthe deconstructionist and for our intellectual muscle "a pre-text using it as a way of flexing of the thinkingthe unthinkable"("A New Debate" 14). This treatment to to with and and come notionallowed its practitioners "play syntax logic up withprestigioustextsthatput us at an advantage in the market.In this was used as exchange value and we cashed on it" ("A respect,the subaltern was a real and not only a New Debate" 14). For others, "subalternity discursive condition of subordination,and as such it stood for a social position embodied in the oppressed, a condition that generated the colonialityof power" ("A New Debate" 14). I quote Rodriguez at lengthbecause the followingpassage confirms thatBosteels's assumptionabout her alignment withtheMarxistwing is not theoretical whimsical: "These workswere not characterized by their utterly bent but by their interestin excavating sites and explicitlyor implicitly setting up policy recommendations...We considered that making the
12
GUSTAVO VERDESIO
subaltern and the subaltern positions more visible was a way of demonstrating solidaritywith the poor" ("A New Debate" 14). The first could be characterized as the philosophyof praxis (because of its tendency more theoretical while the otheris betterdescribedas a praxis orientation), of philosophy,due to its more political or historical tendency("A New Debate" 15)1. She continues:"those subalternists who are less politicallyor even historically inclinedtendto dismiss as mere 'activism' the tendencies in those more or politicallyoriented, while thelatter, in implicit historically inclined as 'careerist', or turn,tend to see the work of those theoretically academic mere academicism" exercises, merely ("A New Debate" 15). Finally,she statesthatwhile some scholarswere concentrating on the deconstruction of ideas and epistemes, others were still interested in subaltern consciousnessand agency. The questionwas whether or not we could reallylimitourselvesto thinking the subaltern solely as a or and limit of metaphor negation hegemonic knowledge or whether we werewillingto seriously entertain theagencyof flesh and blood sufferers (15) of First,I mustsay thatI do notagree withRodriguez's representation the motives of those she characterizesas membersof the deconstructionist pole: I am persuaded that they were looking for the same kind of between the progressivethinkingthe Marxist sector was. The difference two factionscould be found more in theirtheoreticalpreferences than in theirintentions career-wise.I am persuaded thatit would be unfairto say thatthe careers of the membersof the more theoretical (the one Rodriguez calls deconstructionist) benefited more than the others from their pole embrace of subalternist If the grouphad a positive effect-due to the theory. aura or prestige that surrounded it at a certain historical moment-on academic careers,I thinkit is safe to say thatit had it on all membersof the group. I stronglysuspect that in Rodriguez's dichotomous presentation of the two main trends that coexisted in the group, Walter Mignolo, who would be surprised and probably hurt if he were labeled as a deconstructionist (which, he will hasten to say, he is not), would enterthe ranksof those more preoccupied by theoretical issues thanby the fleshand blood subaltern.Let me pause here to clarifywhy I am consciously going in the first versionof his paper (read at against Bosteels's recommendation
13
theMLA Congress held in New Orleans, December 2001), to think without on the name. I am so because not relying proper doing everybodyis an insider(one of the most salient traits of the group,in my opinion, is thatit as an exclusive club but more about this later) and most people operated who read these lines may not know exactly who is who in the divide Rodriguez describes. Having said that,I acknowledge thereis a veryhigh or misconstruingthe situation. probability that I am misinterpreting I believe it is worth our time to tryto unveil the identities of Nevertheless, some of the key playersin thecreation,developmentand dissolutionof the group. Let us go back to Mignolo, whose case I am focusingon because I thinkhis situationcould help me shed some light on the limitationsof of forceswithinthe group and Rodriguez's explanationof the distribution the scholarlyagendas and ideological tendenciesthatwere part of it. As I mentionedearlier, his background is not that of the sixties activist that Seed, Beverley and Rodriguez talk about. It should also be pointedout that in his last book-lengtheffort he has made it clear, repeatedly,that it is necessary, in his opinion, to think outside the frameworkprovided by and the West. Marxism, a school of thoughthe identifieswith modernity Besides, he has always been considereda very(and in thecontextof a very milieu- the world of Spanish programs in the US - perhaps anti-theory "too") theoreticalscholar. These considerationslead me to surmise that in the Rodriguez would include him in the ranks of those more interested subalternas a category fromwhich to thinkthan in the group of those promotinga political activism that would result in activities that entail solidaritywith the flesh and blood subalternsof the world. Yet, as I said as a deconstructionist. earlier,he cannotpossibly be characterized I am trying to fitMignolo in the taxonomyRodriguez proposes only to show how reductionist it may be. I am persuaded thatthe intellectual, theoreticaland ideological varietywithinthe group was much wider,and richer, than Rodriguez's classification may lead us to believe. Her representation may be useful fora descriptionof how two of the important trendsat work in the group relatedto each other(maybe a relationship that was based on a struggle forleadership?),but it is wanting, as a nonetheless, of the wealth of theoretical trends and that its depiction backgrounds membersbrought to the collective. We could also considerCastro-Klarn's who in her contribution to this volume, thatpolitics case, openly admitted, and the leftwere not her main reasons to join the subalternstudies group.
14
GUSTAVO VERDESIO
I do not thinkso. Does thismake her a memberof the deconstructionists? What Rodriguez's depictiontells us is, I believe, how she views the forces forleadership.Othermembersmay at workin thegroup,and theirstruggles to thisvolume suggest. as some of the contributions view thingsdifferently, into is the Anotherissue to take account following: how would the so-called deconstructionist members react to Rodriguez's depictionof the of forcesin the group? Or, better distribution yet,how would theydescribe and academic terms?Would theycall themselves themselvesin theoretical Or would theyimagine themselvesin a more complex deconstructionists? fashion? My guess is that they would not be very pleased by such a simplified depiction of their theoretical interests.They might say, for theirwork. Moreiras,forexample, has instance,thatMarxism also informs writtenan article stronglybased on the Marxist notion of primitive accumulation and Williams considers himself a serious reader of Marx Yet, thisis just my take on whatthey (countlesspersonal communications). words in theirmouthsis that excuse for could have said. My only putting although they were invited to contributea piece to this volume, they decided notto do so. This brings us to another issue: the meaning of silence. TheirsMoreiras's and Williams's- is symptomatic: the two so-called or theoreticalmembers of the group decide not to talk deconstructionist about the deceased collective. This should be telling us something,but do notknow forsure.What I do know is thatit would have what? I honestly to see what these two scholars had to say about, for been very interesting example, the process thatled to the demise of the collective-orabout how they viewed the development of the group from its inception. Other silences that are also very significantand that I regretenormouslyare to see how these Dussel's and Laclau's. It would have been veryinteresting and culturalstudies thinkers fromoutside thefieldof literary two important how of and and limitations LASS, saw the contributions they saw their work in relation to the collective's. As of today, we are left wondering well about all these non-contributors opinions about the aforementioned-as as other-issues. Yet, because I am not much of a mindreader,I will leave it at that. thatis not directlyaddressed by all the Anotherpoint of contention I invited, is whether LASS comes from a US version of contributors culturalstudiesor stems directlyfromthe admirationsome of its founders professedto Ranajit Guha and the South Asian group. Beverley seems to
15
favor the first genealogy mentioned (in his Subalternity and , among othertexts),while Rodriguez has clearly statedthat Representation - which the inspirationcame directly(at least to her) fromGuha's work seems to be the case of Seed too, according to her personal narrative and other publishedhere as can be seen in her"El grupolatinoamericano" in thediversepersonalgenealogies, texts.In any case, forreadersinterested I referthemto the detailed ones withwhich some of the contributors have providedus. withinthe group, as An alternative the diversity way to understand is to focus on several key topics they well as thereasons thatgot it together, discussed throughoutthe years. In their respective solo efforts,the membersof thegroupdealt withseveral issues thatseemed to be crucial for the passage of a bipolar to a unipolarworld, and the advent understanding of what most people call globalization. One of themwas the statusof the Nation-Stateas both a vantage point fromwhich to thinkand an object to be thoughtabout. I am convinced thatthis is a productivesite of inquiry and I am going to briefly explore it in theparagraphsthatfollow.However, I mustwarn the readerthatthe examinationof this and othertopics might reveal as many similarities as differencesin the ways in which the collective'smembersdealt withthe same issues. As Florencia Mallon clearly statesin hercontribution to thisvolume, the relationshipbetween subalternity and the Nation-Stateis much more of than some the subalternists would desire. She remindsus that, complex accordingto Beverley,it is theoretically impossible thatthe subalterns play a significantrole in the discourse of nation-building.However, in her opinion, it is necessary to de-romanticizesome of the conceptionscertain intellectualshave of the subaltern,which present him or her as a pure leftout of the structures and institutions subject thathas been permanently providedby theNation-State.In herbook and in her articleforthisissue of she remindsus thatsubaltern Dispositio/n, subjectshave been, on morethan one occasion, complicitouswith state power (172); thatsubalternpolitics vis--vis the State have not always been, at least in Latin America, strictly based on negation(173). However, some subalternists do not wantto admit thatsubalterns have often"sat down at thetable of thenation-state" (172). Beverley,forexample, believes thatto keep the antagonismpeople/ and power block today is a way of legitimizingthe state ( Subalternity Representation). This statement,according to Mallon, comes from an of the state as a tool that serves only the dominantclass. understanding
16
GUSTAVO VERDESIO
the statecannot thatin orderto be effective, Such an understanding forgets always act on behalf of the dominantclass: the state needs to open the possibilityforotherclasses to have a say on the elaborationof policies and on the way state institutions operate forexample, by using one sectorof the state against another (173).2 And as Mallon herself reminds us, the Chiapas movement, considered as one of the most conspicuous "new withthe movements"or new social agents,has been in constantnegotiation Mexican state,of which it claims to be a part(173). to notice thatdespite Beverley's belief in the need to It is interesting and rethink the state fromthe vantage point of subalternity ( Subalternity cannot ever 151), he, at the same time,avers thatsubalterns Representation win even if theytake over the state,because by doing so theybecome its thathad been the the values and structures reaffirm other and, therefore, stronghold of the dominant class ("Puede ser gay la nacin?" 93; the and Representation133). So, in orderto become therulers, Subalternity argument goes, theyhave to embrace or reassertthe values of the former
hegemonicblock. This view of subalternidentityis, as Javier Sanjins states in his one. In otherwords, it is a static to this volume, a synchronic contribution much room for a diachronic it does not allow and of view subalternity perspectiveor forhistoricalchange. I believe Sanjins is rightand I will of a subalterncultureas add somethingto his argument:a representation identicalto itselfthroughout time,regardlessof its development something historical conjunctures as well as of its changing social at different positionalities,entails several dangers. One of those dangers is that it freezes the subalternas a pure essence that remains always identical to warns againstunderstanding itself.GarethWilliams, forhis part,rightfully insteadof as a series of practices(86). For him, as an identity the subaltern (of which the subalternis an incarnation)is always a negative difference practice, not an identity(90). This definition resonates with the one to this volume: to be an proposed by Ximena Soruco in her contribution be mean to an Amerindian(a subaltern)does not essence, but to have a relationalidentity (232). The most dreadfuldanger of imaginingsubalternsin termsof fixed identities is that it precludes any possibility of evolution for them. It precludes, also, the possibilityof any active role of the subalternin the of the state and its institutions. framework However, as Mallon ( Peasant Karen as authors and other and Nation) Spalding and Steve Stern, (such
17
just to name only two authors who have studied the relationship of Amerindian subalterns with the colonial and postcolonial states in the Andes) have shown, subalterns have chosen, throughouthistory,to when they thought negotiatewith, and to participatein, state institutions such a strategy could be appropriatefor the advancementof theircause. And from the very ranks of subaltern studies, Marcelo Bergman and Monica Szurmuk show, in their study on citizenship and new social thatsubaltern to struggle movementsin Argentina, subjectsare oftentrying of the state and its forcitizenshipand theyare doing it in the framework for (bourgeois) legality(385). The legal, bourgeois rightstheyare fighting are not a giftfromthe state,but a productof a political and social struggle that demands a space and a recognition for the individual within the as citizensof a modernstate framework providedby thelaw and theirrights (389).3 Subalternsdo not remain identical to themselvesbecause, like any do not remain cultureor human group,theychange over time. Institutions identicalto themselveseither,and the state is no exception to this rule. It seems to me that to declare, as Beverley does, that subalternscannot possibly win a war against the hegemonic block because thatwould turn which is theminto somethingelse (that is, theywould lose theiridentity, the need to rethink conceived of as fixed) while at the same timeaffirming It is my the statefroma subalternist perspectiveis, at least, a contradiction. to their that in that new subalterns could still be faithful contention state, calls '4he timeof thegods") while culturalroots(what Dipesh Chakrabarty of a state (a secular being able to operate successfullyfromthe structures institution that belongs, again in Chakrabarty's parlance, to "the time of - ProvincializingEurope 72-96) thatwould now be at the service history" of the subaltern classes. of some subalternist The limitations thinking involvingthe NationState are shown, also, in the article by Ximena Soruco included in this volume. In thispiece, theauthorshows how misleadingit can be to neglect to take into account the national historiesof the different Latin American Nation-States.In her analysis of Beverley's classificationof the Quechua frombelow, she avers thatthe play Ollantay as a case of transculturation is conceived ends up way in which that kind of transculturation In her (229). essentializing subalternity opinion, Beverley's thinkingis based on an opposition of fixed identitiesthat depends on the power relationsbetween a given pair of subject positionalities(230).4 To classify
18
GUSTAVO VERDESIO
without because of the language in which it is written, theplay as subaltern taking into account the social context of its reception during postindependencetimes,is a way of bothessentializingtheplay and makingthe a fixed one (230, 234). In Soruco's opinion, position of subalternity not frozen in time but are, instead, negotiated are subaltern products frombelow" This is why she findstheconcept "transculturation constantly. the product that underlie for wanting:because it omits the struggles power and its successive uses (230). Her studyof the receptionof the play by the Cuzco elites in need of recognitionbefore the national hegemonyexerted fromLima's elite shows that Ollantay was reappropriated by the lettered That is, intothecanon of Peruviannationalliterature. cityand incorporated her study shows the long and changing life and meanings of subaltern cultural products in the frameworkimposed by the Nation-State and its
nationalnarratives. to the ideas advanced by my dear friend Finally,I would like to refer and colleague Gareth Williams (who excused himself when invited to a piece to thisissue of Dispositio/n contribute ), because he, like those who between the sees a the logical relationship "Founding Statement," penned vindicationof subalternhistoriessilenced by the Nation-Stateand a toutbecause this theoreticalcorpus rests courtrejectionof dependencytheory, model (Williams 84). It upon a worldviewthatpresentsa center/periphery are so persuadedthat me thatmostof the subalternists has always mystified of subjectsby theNation-Statesomehow precludesany thesubalternization division of labor thatorganizesthe of theunjustinternational consideration world. What I mean is that by rejectingthe basic tenets of dependency the Nationthatwhateverprocesses of subalternization theory, theyforget State undertookin Latin America, they were often stronglyencouraged, fromoutside thoseNation-States. and most of the timedirectly engineered, model proposed by dependency theoryis vilified,I The center/periphery similar to the ones Williams himselfuses to explain the reasons for believe, limitations of Nestor Garcia Canclini's thoughts on citizenship and critictoo readilyaccepts Williams statesthattheArgentinean consumption. - thatis, the the intellectualrules of the game proposed by neoliberalism categories and concepts with which neoliberalismwants us to understand the world (84). I believe Williams himself too readily accepts the death the international certificate righthas issued to dependency theoryand to models. Like James Petras, I am convinced that some center/periphery intellectualsfromthe leftend up accepting,and using in theirown work,
19
the notionsand categories,the knowledge and the protocolsproduced and/ or recommended (Petras 1-2). by the right The attitude of most of LASS's membersagainst dependencytheory (with the exception of Beverley, who, at least since Subalternityand is rethinking therelationship betweensubaltern studies,the Representation, and the front see for seems to be Nation-State, 103-104, popular example) to fall into this trap: they accept, at face value, the advent of a world thatmakes the center/periphery organizationand a conceptual framework model unthinkable and obsolete. The authorswho adhere to this portrayal of theway in whichtheworld worksgive veryfew arguments and zero data to supporttheirstatements on the demise of dominationof poor countries the rich ones. At their circle around invectivesagainst best, by arguments eitherdichotomousthinking or models based on fixedpositionalities.5 But is said about how the economic nothing systems of the world and the enforce work. For this theiropinions on thistopic are reason, policies they but opinions or,better of belief. In the same vein, and nothing yet,a matter withoutfeelingcompelled to respondto belief withdata or science, I, as a believer as well, but of a different creed, considertheirssimplywrongand dare to affirm: there still are countriesthat impose policies and rules of behavioron others;thereare countries at thecenterof theworld systemand othersat its margins.The last war on Iraq should have made thisveryclear by now. There would be much more to say about this complex and slippery - the relationsbetween the nation,subalternstudies and subaltern subject - but let us now move to another, nations somewhatrelated,relevanttopic: the relationship between LASS and their Latin American colleagues workingin Latin America. The polemics thattook place afterthe reading and publicationof some papers by Mabel Moraa and Hugo Achugar in the Latin American Studies Association meetingin Guadalajara, in 1997, have been extensivelycommented upon by some subalternists, among them, John Beverley (see, for example, his discussion of what he calls NeoArielismo in Subalternity and Representation18) and Ileana Rodriguez. I would like to pointout,verybriefly, thatI see a milder,less confrontational tone in theircontributions to thisvolume. Beverley,forexample, says that the thingsthatunite Latin American criticsto theirNorthAmerica-based ones are, in thelong run,more important thanthosethatseparatethem(70). And Rodriguez dedicates a long paragraph to point out the points of convergenceof both camps (43). Of course, both Beverley and Rodriguez
20
GUSTAVO VERDESIO
with Latin American critics,occasionally keep voicing their differences terms such as Neo-Arielistas or labeling them under not very flattering social-democrats (Beverley 70; Rodriguez 50; both in this volume). However, there are signs of tirednessand a growing awareness that the differences of therecentpast, whose causes are complex and relatedto the of intellectualpower- a globalization that new international distribution displaces Latin American intellectualsand depletes the economies of the universities they work for (Beverley 70, this volume)- should be overcome. They do not say it in so manywords,but thisis whatI read from the tone in which theirmostrecentpieces are written. this of fact,one of the reasons I decided to put together As a matter issue of Dispositio/n is my feeling, shared by many colleagues of my generationand younger,thatthese disputesbetween intellectualsfromthe between Northand the South and, to judge fromthedemise of LASS itself, intellectualswho work in the North,are in the end internecinedisputes forces whose onlyconsequence is to debilitatetheintellectually progressive in the face of the multiplethreatsposed to education by the most recent the neoliberal one. This is why I have version of the corporateuniversity: been always mystifiedby the violence of the debate between Latin America-based and North America-based Latin Americanists,and by the worhip some members of LASS showed for intellectualsso far removed and professionalties. fromtheirmore immediateintellectual shown by some members I am referring, of course, to the admiration like Ranajit Guha and othermembersof the South of LASS forintellectuals Asian SubalternStudies group. Rodriguez has explained in several venues her and/or what attracted (in mostof herpieces quoted in thisIntroduction) to who she is it is not clear thefounders speakingfor) theSouth (sometimes some of herreasons but stillremainskeptical Asian collective. I understand about the convenience of naming the group after its South Asian counterpart. Fernando Coronil, in his contribution to this volume, brilliantlyanalyzes the consequences of the act of naming after a role - family,in this case, standing model thatdoes not belong to one's family for the Latin American intellectualtradition,of course. In his opinion, LASS established affinitieswith distant subjects at the risk of not ancestorsin the acknowledginghow much it owed to theirown intellectual field of Latin American studies (339). To LASS's credit,though,Coronil or the disciplinaryorientation avers, theydid not copy eitherthe structure of the South Asian group,but took theirworkjust as a source of inspiration
21
(340). For example, LASS did not have a leader like Guha nor did it take or thedrivebehind theformof an editorialcollective (340). It was thespirit the South Asian group that promptedthe foundersto name their Latin them. Americangroupafter There is still anotherissue related to the relationshipbetween both to theevidentlack of groupsthatI would like to touchupon. I am referring between both groups. I can say, withouthesitation,thatthis is reciprocity the firsttime that I see members of the group addressing this issue. in her answer to my question about Rodriguez,forexample, has admitted, between the groups,thatthe South the one-sided natureof the relationship Asians never showed, to her knowledge, any intellectual interest in this lack of interest to the engagingthe work of LASS (55). She attributes structure of area studies,which is a consequence of thecolonialityof power to see that several ex-members(Sanjins, Castro(55). It is interesting and non-members Klarn, Rodrguez) (Abraham Acosta) respondedto my questionnaire having recourse to this term coloniality of power that Mignolo who firstborrowed it fromAnbal Quijano elaborated on in his Local Histories/Global Designs. This is a veryusefulconceptcoined by a Latin Americanintellectual producingin Latin America and it illustrates, partially,what Coronil means by the risks, and the potential losses, of the intellectual family. legacy coming fromone's own intellectual ignoring of the lack of her continues acknowledgement reciprocity Rodriguez in therelationship betweenthetwo groupsof subalternists by remembering that thatourswas "a different theyalways dismissedus by sustaining of seriously buttheynevertook thetrouble engagingin a thing," on thenature of that"difference." conversation So, while we did locked and in so doing,we all remained our thing theydid theirs, withinour own formsof localism.... That was our loss. We missed the opportunity to transnational peripheral intelligentsia converse(55). Jos Rabasa also respondedto my question about the silence keptby I am mocking on LASS. He asks himselfwhether South Asian subalternists of theLatin Americangroup (fortherecord:I am not) and theex-members I shall admitit: I do. I believe to recognition. statesthatI grantimportance thatone should not pay homage, endlessly,to people one does not even know withoutat least having some significantfeedback. This has never
22
GUSTAVO VERDESIO
happened, as Rabasa himselfacknowledges: therehas been no reciprocity in the occasions thatSouth Asian subalternists have (84). On the contrary, been invitedto contribute a piece to a volume editedby a memberof LASS of the volumes compiled by Rodriguez), theyhave written (I am thinking about whateverproblems they were concerned with and never addressed any issues that could possibly be considered of mutual interest.Good in examples of what I am saying are the articlesby Guha and Chakrabarty the collections edited by Rodriguez. Honestly,I, as a Latin Americanist, have no use for those pieces. They reflect no interestwhatsoever in dialogue withLASS and thetheoretical problemstheyposed. I mustadmitthatI am almost certainthatno South Asian subalternist will ever read these lines, but that should not stop me frompointingout - towardstheir - and I would dare say sensitivity theirlack of interest Latin - albeit not Americanist counterparts. Besides, this text is mostly audience, given the factthat exclusively intendedfora Latin Americanist have shown no and Literature English language Comparative departments interestwhatsoever in any theoretical elaboration coming from Latin Americanism. The article by Abraham Acosta in this collection states, loses by ignoring,at its own precisely,how much Comparative Literature of LASS. In Acosta's risk, the contribution opinion, this discipline is reaching an impasse that could only be solved by questioningtwo of its most solid foundations:the notionsof literature and the nation. The work some members of in Acosta's LASS, by opinion,could be of greathelp to accomplish such a questioningof the discipline. According to Rabasa, in his contributionto this volume, the - and I will add, following Acosta's subalternistsworking in English - departments, are too busy with their reflections, Comparative Literature multiculturaldebates and do not have any need to incorporate other theoretical contributions coming fromLatin Americanism:it is enough,for boom (I them, to incorporatethe novels of the Latin American literary of Realism and "lo real Rabasa is here suspect thinking mostly Magical maravilloso") and the testimonio of Rigoberta Mench (82). He also of the original South Asian subalternists suggests thatthe lack of interest may come from their disciplinarybackground as historians (85). Most in thesense given to LASS members,Rabasa avers, are not good historians the expressionby the South Asian group. Actually,this should not surprise anybody,because most members of LASS were not very interestedin producing good historyor in confiningthemselves to that or any other
23
so as to be able to discipline: theydefinedthe group as non-disciplinary, theconstraints of thedisciplinary boundariesand protocols(85). transcend This bringsus to anotherquestion: did a desire fornon-disciplinarity criticsto LASS? Was non-literary precludethe possibilityof incorporating it precisely the corporate interestsof its members, who came in their what determined the compositionof majorityfromliterature departments, end up meaning no other disciplines? the group? Did non-disciplinarity This has been a shortcoming of the group,I believe, and it has constrained To be moreprecise, its efforts to thelimitedworld of literature departments. it has limitedits area of influencemostlyto Spanish literature departments. like Coronil and Seed, but the There were, of course, the tokenhistorians, group never went out of its way to incorporate anthropologists, archaeologists, political scientists or economists to its ranks. It is my would have made it constituency impressionthata more multi-disciplinary work. Then to the of an eventual easier to live up non-disciplinary promise to fact and we will never know if this conjectureis again, this is contrary correct. Eduardo Mendieta, a non-member who comes from another discipline, philosophy, seems more inclined to put emphasis on the intellectualheritageproduced by Latin Americans to which Coronil was thatshows a clear support of thework In Mendieta's contribution, referring. a rather overview of Dussel, philosopherEnrique thorough by Argentinean He is more interested the different phases of Latin Americanismis offered. in the movement he calls post-occidentalism,which encompasses the theoriesdeveloped in Latin America in the 1960s. Post-occidentalism was, that took much to an revolution place according Mendieta, epistemological both produced by Indian earlier than postcolonialism and subalternism, intellectuals in more recenttimes (195). In his view, postcolonial theoryis so young and it is concerned withsuch a recenthistoricalperiod that,as a consequence, it is not capable of offeringa long-termview of the development of colonialism (196). He follows argumentsadvanced by is concernedonly withthe Mignolo when he statesthatpostcolonial theory have developed second wave of colonialism and thatis why itspractitioners an obsession fortheissue of thenationand thenational(197). He also takes issue with the solutions given to the problem of the subalternby Indian scholars. He believes that respecting the absolute alterityof subaltern subjects leaves the statusquo intact,and thatthe solution is to respond to them without tryingto assimilate them. This latter solution was, in
24
GUSTAVO VERDESIO
Mendieta's opinion, directly addressed by Dussel's ethics of liberation (197). To sum up Mendieta's position, let me quote him directly: "The critique of the political economy of knowledge that is developed by the by steppingbackfarthersince it postoccidentalist critiqueproceedsfurther seeks to begin fromthecrisis of reason itselfat themomentof its inception, is ever before the thrust to turnnarrativeinto onto-logical ineluctability launched" (198, emphasis in the original). That is, the advantage of postis occidental thought over postcolonial theoryis thatits point of departure formof colonialism. This position is veryclose to the the studyof the first one Mignolo has been maintainingsince, say, The Darker Side of the between Mignolo's views and Renaissance. Althoughthereare differences Dussel's, theyhave been known to work togetherand even to co-teach a so Mendieta's views could be viewed as akin to seminarat Duke University, Mignolo's. Post-occidentalismfor Mendieta holds the promise of future universalityenunciated from a world that is multiple and one in its plurality.If I am not mistaken, LASS recovered or revisited, without To my knowledge, the acknowledgingit, the spiritof post-occidentalism. fromDussel was Mignolowho foundsome inspiration only subalternist to this volume, which is, thatstill shows in his contribution an inspiration in Spanish. He has been, also, the by theway,one of thetwo articleswritten never foundinspiration in Dussel's LASS one to wonder (in print)why only workin spiteof thefactthatthecollective had goals and views so similarto theArgentinean philosopher("Dussel's Philosophyof Liberation"40-41). I believe thatMendieta, by not acknowledgingthe genealogies and contributions of other theoreticaltraditions,and by refusingto see the of Dussel and LASS, is makinga between the ideas and intent similarities mistakesimilarto the one made by LASS when it did notrecognize its debt The fact thathe criticizesthe South Asian with Latin American thinking. but does not address directlythe tenetsadvanced by LASS, subalternists of LASS, which, in my preventshim fromacknowledgingthe contribution be credited to the Indian from the ones that can is different opinion, collective. As a matterof fact, I would even go as far as to respond to the question Rabasa asks himself (83): has LASS gone affirmatively beyond thegoals and objectives of the South Asian group? One of thereasons why I am respondingyes to thisquestion is thatit is people like Rabasa himselfwho think,unlike people like Chakrabarty, that it is possible for subalternsto write their own historywithoutthe
25
mediation of intellectuals educated in the Western tradition ( Writing Violence275, 277-278). For Rabasa, subalternsubjects have been and are stillcapable of inhabiting two worlds at the same time since the beginning of colonization in the sixteenth century ( WritingViolence 283; "Los Franciscanos" 385 and passim). Those Amerindians who were able to remain loyal to "the time of the gods" while being able to negotiatetheir way out of the problems posed to them by secular or historicaltime are worlds apart from the passive subalterns in need of Western-educated intellectualspresentedby Chakrabarty ( WritingViolence 284). Rabasa is of colonial times Amerindians, but his thoughts are thinkingmostly ones too. I am thinking, for instance,of people applicable to present-day like Roger-Echo Hawk, who is a Pawnee Indian who not only writes butwho also repatriates In him we history indigenousremainssuccessfully. see Western science at the service of the subaltern, but thistimeit is not the - and non-subalternintellectual who masters the hegemonic knowledge uses it to graciously help the subaltern but the subalternhimself in his role as historian. There is also anotheraspect in which LASS has gone beyond,in my opinion, the South Asian group's agenda. The project was presented,in a , as one thatshould go beyond the boundaries special issue of Dispositio/n of the disciplines and reach forthe fleshand blood subalternsubjects: one of the group's tasks was to elaborate strategiesforlocal strugglesand for thenew forms of social agency,as well as to develop new formsof thinking and actingpolitically(Rabasa and Sanjins v, vii). This agenda is partially confirmedby the "Founding Statement" reproduced in that very same issue, where one reads thatthe group does not intendto elaborate a new formof viewing or understanding the subaltern, but to build new formsof relating to that subject (10). This plan is completed by their call for withtheacademician's Others(see Rabasa and Sanjins x). None solidarity of thesegoals and plans are at odds withDussel's ideas, which makes more notoriousthe lack of awareness of his works and ideas in the textspenned LASS members, withtheexception,as we alreadysaw above, of by former Mignolo. I would like to move now to the question of the concrete political strategies that should arise from a dialogue like the one I have just described.On this subject,thereare at least two possible attitudes: the one John who avers that subaltern studies is a expressed by Beverley, project within the universitythat, despite proposing a certain solidarity with
26
GUSTAVO VERDESIO
subaltern subjects,does not need to leave its academic home to go out and reach for said subjects ( Subalternityand Representation38; and in the interviewincluded in this issue- 354). The other attitude,as we already saw, is theone advanced by Rabasa and Sanjins in the Introto the issue of Dispositio/non subalternstudies (v, vii) and by the "Founding Statement" thephysical and ideological boundaries to transcend (10): one thatattempts of the universityin order to be able to enter in a dialogue and in a relationshipof solidaritywith the subaltern.Although it is not easy to to have an impacton societyand to escape the teaching elaborate strategies of the university machine prison house, I believe thatthe democratization and thatBeverleyproposes (< 38) does not need Subalternity Representation thereis a lot left to be the scholar's only educational goal. On the contrary, in universitiesand we the to do with regard to both produce knowledge whatwe do withit. To help change, as I propose elsewhere("Todo lo que es slido"), the curriculum at the primary and secondary levels of the like the educational systemis a doable task thatdoes not implyan attitude one promotedby narodism,a movement ridiculed by Beverley, by the way which defended,forexample, the idea thatintellectualsshould work
in thefieldswiththepeasants (38). It is my contentionthat we need to develop an agenda for the of scholars of Latin American studies that goes beyond the intervention boundariesof the academy. Such an agenda necessitates,in my opinion, a to review some of the inflection. first, subalternist However, it is important, limitationsof the subalternstudies project. One of those is the lack of concrete political strategies or plans that has characterized the Latin because American SubalternStudies group's activities.This is surprising, the and Statement" of the positions we saw both the "Founding Introduction aforementioned by Rabasa and Sanjins advanced. To thislack lack of monographs one can add the striking of concretepolitical strategies of the subalternist thatactualize the theoreticalfoundation project.One of momenthad the that once wrote its formermembers,Alberto Moreiras, come to stop writingmetacriticalpapers and startwritingmonographs about case studies. Otherwise, the use of a subalternist perspective will never be demonstrated (141). To this limitation,one could add another, which is the shortage of studies based on empiric data produced by is thatthereare very scholars.A consequence of thislimitation subalternist of social life, the on studies few Latin American subalternist materiality
27
past or present(for a call to give more importanceto the materialin our studies,see my 'Todo lo que es solido" and "En busca de la materialidad"). Althoughas academics we have less contact with flesh and blood people, as Clifton Poodry rightlystates (29), I believe that projects that promote solidaritywith subaltern subjects are still possible for us. For example, a project thatattemptsto retrievefromoblivion the role of the labor and theknowledges of indigenouspeoples across theAmericas in the emergence of modernity may be a way of practicingsolidaritywith the subaltern.An activityof thiskind may have veryimmediateconsequences forthose Amerindiangroups who strugglefor theirrights, today,froma of the dominant 'Of course, the position subalternity against system. incorporationof subaltern knowledges and cultural production to our researchagendas should be done in the understanding thattheydeserve the statusof criticaldiscourse,as Horacio Legrs proposes in his contribution to thisvolume,insteadof being regardedas "hallucinateddifference" (211). thereare otherkinds of academic work thatcould have Additionally, consequences for the different indigenous groups of the Americas. I am to studies like the one by Andr Luis R. Soares on the Guarani referring fromBrazil, that purportto demonstrate, througha study of that ethnic of some of theirculturaltraitsand group's materialculture,the continuity a of sixteen centuries.A workof thiskind,that practicesthroughout period establishes ties between Guarani societies fromthe distantpast and from the present,could be used both to substantiatetheir land claims and to of one of theethnicminorities of modern-day Brazil. legitimizetherights This lattercase bringsus to one thathitscloser to home forthose of us workingin the US academic system.I am referring to the new situation created by the passage of a law known as NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protectionand RepatriationAct), which has forcedarchaeologists and physical anthropologists to work together withAmerindianswho were This law has made the considered,beforethatlaw, as mere objects of study. of Native American than ever and their claims to positionality stronger more effective, ownershipof theirown history by takinginto account their own views on indigenouspasts as knowledgeto be consideredas serious as thatproducedby Westernscience. I believe thatwe Latin Americanists can learn a lot fromthe strugglesand the achievementsof subalternsubjects in the framework of NAGPRA (fora history and a studyof thecontent of this act see: JackF. Trope and WalterR. Echo-Hawk).
28
GUSTAVO VERDESIO
Since, and even before that legislation passed in congress, some indigenous groups, like the Zuni, the Hopi, and the Navajo, have been organizing their own archaeology programs (see, among many other articles, the ones by T.J. Ferguson, Roger Anyon and Edmund J. Ladd; Billy L. Cypress; Richard M. Begay). This raises the question about the role of Westernscience in theproductionof indigenousknowledge and the of theirown history. That is degreeto which it could conditiontheirwriting a valid concern.However, it has, at the same time,the potentialof helping of human and associated different tribesto identify the culturalaffiliation but one forthe subaltern, remains of the past. It is, of course, a trade-off with which some indigenous groups have started to experiment.This choice entails, of course, as Larry J. Zimmerman avers, the trainingof indigenous subjects in Western science so that they can apply it to the reconstruction of theirown history (301). In thisway,these tribesare being able to writetheir own versionof their veryown pasts, as Rabasa proposes. There is anotherside to this storyand it has to do withthe impactof of subalternsubjects in the elaborationand controlof our the participation disciplinaryagendas (Zimmerman 300). This would entail teaching an indigenouspast thathas nothingor very littleto do with the one we have - an indigenouspast thatwould incorporate, been tellinghitherto now, the who had been hitherto considered views of those subjects,theAmerindians, as objects of study in our disciplines (Zimmerman 302). This is why archaeological knowledge is now supplemented by oral indigenous whose degree of trustworthiness and historicalcontentcan be traditions, "fictional" or ornamental from its parts6 that is, those distinguished segments storytellers employed both to entertaintheir audiences and to - if analyzed throughmethods that make their stories more memorable follows certain reasonable rules, as Roger Echo-Hawk has shown ("AncientHistory"and "Forginga New AncientHistory"). Science in general, Zimmerman tells us, must be put in a social I believe, as a warning to any context(303). This should be interpreted, discipline thatdispenses with the knowledge of subalternsubjects. In his opinion, archaeology in particularwould be able to realize its humanistic potentialif itwere at theservice of theindigenoussubjectsit studies(304).7 In otherwords, archaeology and the disciplines in general would be better servedand would be much more dignifiedif theywere put at theservice of the subaltern. This way of reasoning is very close to that of Paul of scholars vis--vis the Feyerabend's,whose ideas on the responsibility
29
general public could serve, despite their hyperbolic formulation,as forour academic practices.His rule R5 statesthatthe important inspiration issues in any given society must be considered and decided upon by the people affectedby them and not by abstractagencies or distantexperts ("Notes on Relativism"48). This is veryclose to Dussel's opinions on the role of the philosopherof liberation:he or she should "never propose the guidelines 01 the goals but will instead reflectin solidarityand, fromthe rear guard,justifytheoretically (or introducesuspicions into) the decisions of a given community" ("Epilogue" 272). Of course, there are risks involved in a position like this. For example, it could degenerateinto a position like Richard M. Begay's, who to help Amerindians expects archaeologistsand otherWesternintellectuals to reconstruct theirpasts, but withouthaving the chance to disagree with whateverthe indigenous subjects they are workingfor want them to say (165). This is very far from the way Dussel envisions the role of the Westernintellectual withregardto the subaltern, as we saw in theprevious is because paragraph.Begay's position surprising indigenouspeoples have been able, forcenturies, to live in,and to understand, two worlds,as Rabasa and others remind us (see, for instance, the article by Jeffrey van Pelt, Michael S. Burney and Tom Bailor 171) and, therefore, theyknow that otherhuman groups have beliefs thatdiffer fromtheirs.I seriouslydoubt thata dogmatic affirmation of only one of the possible worldviews is the best way to advance thecause of indigenouspeoples. The resentment of indigenouspeoples withregardto archaeology is well founded (see, fora review of the horrorscommitted very historically in the name of science, the article by Robert E. Bieder and the book by David HurstThomas, among manyothertexts).Yet, thisdoes notmean that archaeology as a profession (with a long history of crimes and It is as a misdemeanors)is the same as archaeologyas a way of knowing.8 In way of knowingthatarchaeologyholds some promise forthe subaltern. the same fashion, and despite all their differences as far as disciplinary frameworks and protocols go, literary and culturalstudies can be of some to subalterns. help Admittedly,literary and cultural studies, unlike do not always have subalterns as objects of archaeologyand Anthropology, but are sometimes textsthateither study, they always, unwittingly, studying of their endorsement of the official narratives (because produce subalternity of nationhood) or represent it in various derogatory ways: either as background(almost like partof thelandscape or decorativefolklore)or as a
30
GUSTAVO VERDESIO
lack thatshould be eliminatedin orderforprogressto develop. However, as I argued elsewhere ("Forgotten territorialities" and "Todo lo que es we can the tools used to dominate subaltern slido"), give traditionally role: we can putthemto workfora researchagenda that subjectsa different would be at the service of the subaltern.9 I have said elsewhere, also, that despite its problems,there is one thingarchaeology can do forLatin American literaiyand culturalstudies scholars: to put us in contact with the actual objects, with the material textualproduction aspects of a culturethatwe usually studyonly through lo es can also teach us some lessons ("Todo que slido"). Archaeology because, althoughit is a discipline thathas been forcedby law to respect the subaltern,it has starteddoing it effectively. Its trajectorycould be compared to our discipline's: their long process of disregard for the Amerindianended up in this current, albeit forced,collaborationwiththeir victimsof yesteryear. Our disciplinecelebratedfordecades a literary canon thatexalted Westernvalues and despised the marginalclasses and ethnic groups of Latin America or represented them from an Occidental of critics.Today, the perspective,even in the case of the best intentioned situationis different for Latin American literary and cultural studies: we can be proud to have witnessed the development of LASS with its proposals of voluntarysolidaritywith the subaltern,shown by several means, one of which is worth mentioning:to get out of the teaching machine and reach forthe flesh and blood subaltern.There is still another way of reachingout forthe subalternand it is related to what I proposed above (which is what is being enforcedin otherdisciplinaryfields,as we saw in the case of archaeology under NAGPRA): to bring subalterns, or theiropinions, to academia, in orderto get theirinputabout our research agendas so thattheycan be a partof theprocess of shapingthem. This is, if I interpret him correctly, Alvaro Felix Bolaos's proposal in his articlepublished in thisissue: to bringthe subaltern(the real person, flesh and blood) to the university. This is not, as a colleague from the at theUniversity of Florida told him,(286) to make the Historydepartment of a a circus or a freakshow. Or as Beverley would indigenoussubject part have it, "some kind of radical otherness that can be brought into the classroom in the manner of a scarecrow" (interview 362). It is, on the an attempt to make the people we have, as university contrary, professors, contributed to oppress, to the very same place thatcreates subalternity, so thattheycan at least express theirown demands in theirown words in a
31
and a milieu thathas almost always been deaf to theirmessage. framework The conferencehe proposed to his colleague fromhistorywas intended, to express themselvesin then,to give indigenoussubjects the opportunity a It words and theirown languages. was, too, logical consequence of a withthe descendenteof subaltemistagenda and a way to express solidarity as a colonial he studies Amerindians the oppressed expert (287). The attitude of the history (who did not want to professor respectful apparently of a be make Amerindians denigratingshow) has at least two part it fostersa comfortable passivityon problems,accordingto Bolaos: first, the "bothersome avoidance of an even the academic's part or, worse, contact"with subalterns;and second, the foreclosureof any possibilityof solidaritywith subaltern subjects coming from scholars and professors (293). In sum, LASS has been a very progressive attemptto open the It has left,as Coronil and fortress of the teachingmachine to the subaltern. to thisvolume rightly pointout,a legacy to Rodriguez in theircontributions influenceboth in theUS It has had, also, a significant youngergenerations. academy and in Latin America. It has, as Acosta has shown in his piece, the and English) in potentialto help otherdisciplines (Comparative Literature the US academy to overcome some of theirpolitical and epistemological limitations. It shares, too, the ideals promoted by Mendieta as a to and it contributes spokespersonforLatin American post-occidentalism, an-other in calls this in his article what Mignolo, volume, published - that is, one that tries to understandsubalternity and social paradigm the colonial of and injusticefromthevantagepointof thecoloniality power But most of all, it has given us a lever to help us produce a difference. a sortof external a space fromwhich to imaginethingsotherwise, thinking, - as Horacio Legras ("Subalternity and Negativity"),and before negativity him, Enrique Dussel, have proposed thatmakes a critiqueof Occidental reason possible, a limit,as GarethWilliams declares, to constituted power and acting alternative fromwhich to create constitutive ways of thinking That space gives us the chance to both revisitand vindicate those knowledges produced by subalternsthat Westernsociety has dismissed, to what Michel Foucault called ignored or destroyed. I am referring subjugated knowledges, those that have been de-authorized by the dominant epistemic rules and discourses for being local and partial. However, they, unlike Western dominant knowledge, do not construct (11)-
32
GUSTAVO VERDESIO
unitary,totalizing theoretical systems that seek to subsume all local elementswithina single umbrella,and theirvalidity, accordingto Foucault, is not dependenton the approval of the prevalentregimes of thought. It is here, in "these local popular knowledges, these disqualified knowledges, thatcriticism its work" ("Two lectures"21). performs The subalternas a place fromwhich to thinkgives us the vantage point needed to criticize our present. As Linda Martin Alcoffs of the role of subjugated knowledges in Foucauls work interpretation suggests, the historical a priori, the social conjuncture, can only be subvertedfromthe outside, frombeyond what thathistoricalconjuncture can comprehendor accept (Alcoff 261). This Foucauldian position is akin to Enrique Dussel's in thatthe latter 's philosophical project presupposes a - thatis, an outside thatis not criticism froman exteriority performed only ideological but also material,whose ultimateinstanceis life itself(Dussel, "Epilogue" 273). And it is fromthe realm of thematerial,more concretely, from the material recognition of the sufferingof the oppressed that, according to Dussel, many criticalmovementshave departed("Epilogue" 10 274). For Linda MartinAlcoff,thereare at least two good reasons forthe assignationof epistemicprivilegeto marginalor subjugateddiscourses: the way in which they relate to power- they require less violence than - and the factthat Eurocentric knowledges theyallow fora more effective of due to their critique totality exteriority (262). Those knowledgesdeserve, a then, respect that it is based not only on ethical but also on epistemic grounds.Withouta basic respectforthe oppressed and theirknowledges,it will be impossible to take theircontribution to humankindseriously.This of our research,understoodless as respectshould be thepointof departure a merelyacademic enterprise than as a de-totalizing practice of solidarity with the Other.I believe this line of thought is not alien to, or at least not incompatiblewith,some of the agendas proposed and embracedby diverse membersof LASS. In spite of all the praise the trajectory of LASS deserves, it is true that,as some of its members admit, there were internecine disputes and terriblestrugglesover power withinthe group. As Rabasa tells us in the article published here: "The worm of desiringrecognition,of jealousy, of possessiveness, and the ambitionof laying claim forthe latestparadigmin Latin American Studies devoured the Latin American Subaltern Studies group" (86). It is also truethat,as Rodriguez admits,some membersof the
33
group who thought of themselves as the left of the left, manifested symptoms of a vanguardism that we should dispense with (see her - thatis, of contribution to thisvolume, 50). That self-perception being the most revolutionaryones- together with a sense of belonging to an exclusive club, may have been some of the causes behind the numerous attacks the group sufferedfrom Latin Americanistsbased in both Latin America and the US academy. If you add to these signs of disfunctionality were never discussed Rodriguez's declarationthatthe internaldifferences in public and thatthe lack of internaldialogue precipitated the end of the Latinoamericano" it group ("El grupo 77), is clear thatthe group had real problemsas a collective. Beverley,for his part,offers(in the interviewby Fernando Gmez of what published in this issue) a different, very personal interpretation to the happened group due to what he seems to characterizeas a certain with elite institutions that took place at a certain momentof the flirting life: group's thatpositionof our own manufactured relativesubalternity in the I the work of the initial profession energized, think, group.Then we started to catchon. Mignoloand Alberto Moreiras joined. And Duke comes intothepicture withits greatresources, and thereis this big conference.Lots of money. Big names. MLA-style. Whereas our previous meetingshad been very informal, low affairs. We would sit down for a weekend at someone's budget campus and talk like you and I are doing now. Nobody gave to come or anything like that. papers.Audienceswere notinvited So the Duke thing was much more dramaticand ambitious (interview 358). A littlelater in the interview, Beverley remembersthatthe Dean of Humanitiesat Duke announced thatSubalternStudies was going to be the model forthe Humanitiesat said university and thatthey(the membersof "did not want to resist that LASS) [thatis, being welcome to the house of knowledgeand power], because in a sense we took seriouslythatSubaltern Studies wanted to hegemonize the field by providing a new paradigm. Because it was a political project. We did not want to be abject and humble"(358). And laterhe adds, in praise of resentment: I thinkif we all had been at prestigious Ivy League institutions and had been getting from theRockefeller our grants Foundation,
34
GUSTAVO VERDESIO work would not have the kind of consequences that it had. It would have been perceived as yet anotherhigh-levelacademic So you can thancareerism. forcebehinditother projectwithlittle operativein our own say therewas an elementof subalternity make not to I am any special claim to political trying project. here. We were all college-educated,middle-class, correctness resentment. and relative is relative But there etcetera. subalternity all come are We say to ourselves"how getting the grants? they we are goingto do O.k. Fuck them.We are goingto do ourthing, it differently, collectively.We are not into academic ego-trips, will papers,we are goingto be morelike a sixtiesnobody present group"(366). styleaffinity
Others, like Bosteels, who were not part of the collective, sees in the ranks of LASS (149), but they are, in his generationaldifferences thanthe uneasy encounterthattook place between opinion, less important the two strandsof thought(the Marxist and the Deconstructionist)that predominatedin the collective and the challenge to articulatethem(149). and practice Basically, he asks himselfhow to achieve the fusionof theory (149). His take, like mine, is thatwe don'tneed to choose between the two but to seek a harmoniccombinationof both (150). formsof subalternism, of thedeathof revolutionary He is proposing,in sum,a theorization politics of the of the deconstruction the and a of metaphysicsof politicization past themembersof LASS presence (150). Instead of looking forthatharmony, to show who is in the debate the ante politics,trying regarding keptupping what Bosteels is If I read him correctly, thinker. the most revolutionary is its demise the inabilityto solve the group's proposing as a cause of and formsof thought tensionbetween a logic thatremains transcendental to be thoroughly are and thus and "evenmental" that are sequential historicized without renouncing the rigor of deconstructivenegativity to presentthe groupas one comprisec (157). Althoughit is a simplification it is undeniable thatthe tensior only of Marxists and Deconstructionists, tendencieslies behind the demise of the group. Ir between two theoretical other words, it could be said that it was their inability to bridge tht between the main-albeitnot the differences theoretical gap, the theoretical thatcomprisedLASS thatled to its dissolution. only-twostrands of LASS as a project All these internalcriticismsshow us a portrait and divergent views, who that included members with very different versionsor accounts of theprocess thatled provideus now withconflicting to its demise, and thatlay bare its several flaws and problems.However, it
35
thatthegroup'scomplex and richlegacy cannotbe thrown is mycontention problems and because it has away just because it had the aforementioned declared defunct.There must be life afterthe demise of the been recently to this volume, following group. As Mosquera states in his contribution agenda a more modest Beverley: one can still be loyal to a subalternist one- by keeping a constantwatch on its genealogy,its methodologiesand affiliations(270). Some people would like to see a new edition of the group.Among thesepeople is Ileana Rodrguez,who believes thatthereis a thatit is necessaryto avoid the the projectand its structure; need to rethink to this volume 59). She also her contribution mistakes of the past (see believes thatifa new groupis to emerge,itwill be necessarybothto writea and to findnew leadership(59). Her new manifestoor foundingstatement there is no opinion is based on the assumption that withouta structure that the believe like subaltern studies project (59). Others, Coronil, influenceexertedby the group and the plethoraof works it inspired,made subaltern studies outgrow "the confining frameworkof its Founding richnessof these openings that Statement...It is perhaps the multifarious of fortheGroup to containthem"(341). The verystructure made itdifficult the group,then,was not able to comprehendthe wide varietyof subaltern studies it triggered:"the project it allowed [us] to imagine exceeded its as "subalternstudies" incarnationin the group and even its identification (338). Subaltern studies, in his opinion, is "the promise it [the group] but could not quite contain" (341). And he concludes, "freefrom generated parental tutelage, subaltern studies may now grow ever strongerand like its parent,will shed its skin and give rise to even perhaps eventually, outfitsfromlocations no more empoweringengagementsunder different
(341). by our familiarcartography" longeridentified efforts to continuetheir decide of the Whether discipline practitioners the new to create a legacy of group, individuallyor whetherthey prefer LASS cannotbe ignoredby those who believe theirworkis notjust a mere fromthe ills of everydayrealexercise or a way to be protected intellectual life.11 Beverley says at the end of his essay that perhaps a certain melancholy perceptible in some of the recent work of the foundersis peculiarto theirgeneration: to The natureof the impasse our own work has contributed in our crisis of mid-life discourse, produce,plus the clear signs produce a kind of melancholy or desengao which is not necessarilyshared by our youngercolleagues, who bringnew
36
GUSTAVO VERDESIO energies, new experiences and new imaginarlesto the field. our Perhapsthe timehas come forthemto take thebannerfrom handsand to findsome way of changingthetermsof thedebate (75).
Whether one agrees or not with Beverley about the role his generationneeds to play in the present(I, for one, wish theywould stay to the field's theoreticaldebates), it is also around and keep contributing truethatthe legacy of LASS needs to be re-actualizedby youngerscholars. I reallymean it: I am referring to young assistant And when I say younger, professorsand graduate students.This would bring freshair to the space opened by the group. This would also be a celebrationof, or a homage to, tradition. not only LASS, but also to the Latin Americanpost-occidentalist the Latin As Fernando Coronil aptly puts it: "However briefand stormy, American SubalternStudies Group had a fecundlife. This note celebrates its achievementand the mutable vitalityof subalternstudies; it is postnot an obituary.We are dead. Long live subalternstudies in the obituary, Americas!" (341). to the after-life I am one of those who are willing to help contribute of the spirit,or if you prefer,of the inspirationthat broughtLASS into the multiple to discuss the history, being. This special issue is an attempt and the various legacies of the group. Hopefully, agendas, the limitations debate about their more venues will offer pages to a renewedand refreshing this seminal group and the theoriesthatcame fromLatin America in the sixties. Those who believe, like Choctaw archaeologistJoe Watkinsstates in Indigenous Archaeology , that our role as members of a privileged clothe the poor, and establish is to "feed the hungry, of segment society global peace" (170), will share Fernando Coronil's post-obituary's optimisticending. However, if you find Watkins'swishes too ambitious, here's what he has to say about it: "Okay, perhaps the heading for this section is a rathertall order,but sometimes I feel that that is what final chaptersare supposed to be" (170). I, too, sometimesfeel thattheendingof papers or introductionsshould take the form of a rather tall order. Otherwise, why bother? that seeks the liberationof the poor and Long live criticalthinking theoppressed.
37
NOTES 1Itis that inthisvery interesting Beverley says,intheinterview published inhisownarticulation sameissueofDispositio/n ofsubaltern studies "there is , that in whichdeconstruction a moment and subaltern studiesmove away from each other. Andthishas to do with a recognition ofthelimits ofcritical andthe thinking limits of intellectuals. I think one of thekeyissuesthat brought together initially theLatinAmerican Subaltern Studies was a senseofthelimitations ofintelGroup ofhistory lectuals as agents andhegemony" later intheinter(348). He also states, "deconstruction is stillan ideology of intellectuals that is textcentered, view,that stillessentially framed in thesenseofcreatHumanism, bythelegacyofEuropean to a read texts to educate an elite no educated inprinciing way longer adequately ples that derive from theology and scholasticism"(353). He adds that "deconstruction becomesfor methenewideology oftheliterary at a moment when theliterary itself has comeintocrisis. Deconstruction offers itself as a wayofsavthe essential in criticism and therefore theroleof ing impulse literary redeeming intellectuals" (354). 21 discussed thiskindof situation that consists ofa sector ofthe precisely stateoperating in an article on thereinagainsttherestof thestateapparatuses of thesocial fabric forcement from the Government of Monpromoted Municipal tevideo de Montevideo"). ("La democratizacin 3 See also Rabasa's of a rebellion in Tzepotlan, where the Morelos, study Amerindians are shownfighting a battle in thelegal framework by the provided Mexicanstate without of their own traditional and losingsight legal political practices("BeyondRepresentation?" 193,208 andpassim). 4 himself has insisted on thefactthat Interestingly, Beverley subalternity is nota fixed buta relational Literature 104; Subalternity identity position {Against and Representation 30). 5 for states that thecenter/periphery modelsisolate the Williams, example, as a defined as a within a network of object specific position, particular place global objective whichcorresponds to a beliefin thesingularity of culrelationships, turalidentities. the domination exerted NationWell,I beg to differ: by central States on theperipheral oneshas very little to do with andmuch more with identity thepowerrelations thatdevelopbetween statesas a consequence of a history of colonialism andneocolonialism. 61add the marks to theword"fictional" which is used,in Echoquotation Hawk'sstudy, in a somewhat naveanduncritical way. 7Thisis a viewshared Cecile ElkinsCarter by,amongothers, (154-155).
38
GUSTAVO VERDESIO
8About as I haveshownin mind which, you,I havealso myreservations, "Todo lo que es slido." 9 See thecase I mention wherecartograin "Forgotten Territorialities," at theserto subalterns oppressive traditionally puta science(cartography) phers from vice ofan indigenous modern-day Guyana. people 10 culand material Again,I have been callingfora focuson materiality "Todo lo que es solido,""En busca de la materialarticles: turein at leastthree Daniel Mosquera also calls, in his Territorialities." idad," and "Forgotten ofthestudy ofmaterial culture. for to thisvolume, an emphasis contribution 11Thereis a of LASS, Robert article by one of thefounders mystifying I haveconsulted that of information is in who Carr, nobody apparently possession LASA to a recent his contribution seemsto be awareof. He declares, throughout of the of LASS evil version that there is an Forum , conspiring against spirit already this Carrtellsthepublicwhere ifthisis true, theoriginal LASS. Let us hopethat, are its it and who members. kind of work what publishes group operates,
WORKS CITED A propsito de las memorias Achugar, Hugo. "Leones,cazadorese historiadores. 180 (1997): RevistaIberoamericana de las polticasy el conocimiento." 379-387. A Diain theColonial Unconscious. Linda Martn. Alcoff, "Power/Knowledges of fromtheUnderside logue BetweenDussel and Foucault"in Thinking Linda Martin Liberation . Eds. Dussel's of Philosophy History. Enrique Alcoffand Eduardo Mendieta.Lanham,Boulder,New York,Oxford: 2000. 249-267. Rowanand Littlefield, on Indian Lands. The Navajo Begay, RichardM. "The Role of Archaeology and Archaeologists. Nation" in NativeAmericans SteppingStones to KurtE. Dongoske,RogerAnyon Eds. Nina Swidler, CommonGround. and Alan S. Downer.Waltnut P, Creek,London,New Delhi: Altamira 1997. 161-166. and Social Protest: MarceloandMnica Szurmuk. "Gender, Citizenship Bergman, Subalin TheLatinAmerican in Argentina" The New Social Movements London: Duke Durham and Ed. Ileana ternStudiesReader Rodrguez. UP,2001. 383-401.
39
U ofMinnesota Literature. John. P, 1993. Minneapolis: Against Beverley, , "Puede ser gay la nacin? Subalternidad/Modernidad/Multiculturallati. Estudiossubalternos/contextos de tiempos ismo" in Convergencia Ileana Ed. subalternidad. estado cultura noamericanos , , , Rodrguez. GA: Rodopi,2001. 91-102. Atlanta, Amsterdam, in of Politics:Subalternity, , "The Im-possibility Modernity, Hegemony" The Latin AmericanSubalternStudiesReader. Ed. Ileana Rodrguez. Durham andLondon:Duke UP,2001. 47-63. Durham: in Cultural . Arguments andRepresentation , Subalternity Theory. Duke UP, 1999. of IndianBodies in Nineteenth-Century Bieder,RobertE. "The Representation in American Reader,WhoOwnsAmerican Anthropology" Repatriation Indian Remains?Ed. Devon A. Mihesuah.Lincolnand London:U of Nebraska P,2000. 19-36. Studies"LASA Forum 33.2 Carr,Robert."Elitismand the Death of Subaltern (2002): 12-13. inNative andArchaeolAmericans TalkandTrust" Cecile Elkins. Carter, "Straight KurtE. Ground . Eds. Nina Swidler, Stonesto Common ogists.Stepping Creek,London, Dongoske,RogerAnyonand Alan S. Downer.Waltnut New Delhi:Altamira P, 1997. 151-155. de tiemhistoria de socialidad"in Convergencia "Adda: una Chakrabarty, Dipesh. latinoamericanos , cultura , , estado pos. Estudiossubalternos/contextos GA: Ed. Ileana Rodrguez. subalternidad. Atlanta, Amsterdam, Rodopi, 2001.425- 469. and Historical , Provincializing Difference. Europe.PostcolonialThought Princeton Princeton andOxford: UP,2000. in theSeminole Tribeof Florida"in BillyL. "The Role of Archaeology Cypress, Native Americansand Archaeologists. SteppingStones to Common andAlan S. Kurt E. Dongoske, Eds. Nina Swidler, Ground. RogerAnyon New Delhi: Altamira Downer. Waltnut P, 1997. 156-160. London, Creek, in the Underside Dussel, Enrique."Epilogue" Thinking Enrique ofHistory. from Alcoff andEduardo Eds. LindaMartin DusseVsPhilosophy ofLiberation. Rowan and Littlefield, New York,Oxford: Mendieta. Boulder, Lanham, 2000. 269-289. en la edad de la globalizacin , Etica de la liberacin y de la exclusion. 1998. Madrid: Trotta, OralTradiin theNew World: "Ancient C. Echo-Hawk, Integrating Roger History Recordin Deep Time"American tionsand theArchaeological Antiquity
40
GUSTAVO VERDESIO
65.2 (2000): 267- 290. a New Ancient forNativeAmerica"in NativeAmeri, "Forging History cans and Archaeologists. Ground. Stonesto Common Eds. Nina Stepping KurtE. Dongoske,RogerAnyonand Alan S. Downer.Waltnut Swidler, New Delhi: Altamira Creek, London, P, 1997.88-102. T. and Edmund J. Ladd. at thePuebloof J., Ferguson, RogerAnyon "Repatriation to ComplexProblems" in Repatriation Zuni: DiverseSolutions Reader, WhoOwnsAmerican IndianRemains?Ed. Devon A. Mihesuah. Lincoln andLondon:U ofNebraska P,2000. 239- 265. "Notes on in Paul Feyerabend, Paul. FarewelltoReason. Relativism." Feyerabend, London:Verso,1999 [1987]. 19-89. in Critique theFoucault/ Michel."Two Lectures" and Power.Recasting Foucault, HabermasDebate. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London:The MIT P, 1994. 17-46. Studies: forOurTimeand TheirConvergence" Guha,Ranajit."Subaltern Projects in TheLatinAmerican Subaltern StudiesReader . Ed. Ileana Rodrguez. Durham andLondon:Duke UP,2001. 35-46. : Kennewick Hurst David. SkullWars and theBattle Man,Archaeology Thomas, for Native New York:Basic Books,2000. American Identity. LatinAmerican StudiesGroup."Founding Statement." 46 Subaltern Dispositio/n (1994) [1996]: 1-11. 49 (2000): 83-102. Horacio."Subalternity andNegativity" Dispositio/n Legrs, : The Postcolonial Mexicoand Florencia. Peasant and Nation Mallon, Makingof U ofCalifornia Peru.Berkeley: P, 1995. Subaltern KnowlWalter. Local Histories/Global Designs. Coloniality, Mignolo, Princeton New Jersey: UP,2001. edgesand BorderThinking. The the Renassaince. and ColoniDarker Side , Territoriality of Literacy, zation.AnnArbor: U ofMichigan P, 1995. ofLiberation: EthicsandtheGeopolitics ofknowl, "Dussel's Philosophy EnriqueDussel's Phifromthe Underside ofHistory. edge" in Thinking Alcoff and EduardoMendieta. Eds. Linda Martin Liberation. losophy of 2000. 27Rowan and New York,Oxford: Littlefield, Lanham, Boulder, 50. 15 (1997): Revistade crticacultural. Moraa,Mabel. "El boom del subalterno" 48-53. of AntiCulturalism "The Orderof Order:On the Reluctant Alberto. Moreiras, Cultural Studies8.1 Journalof LatinAmerican Subalternist Critiques" 125145. (1999):
41
Cultural van, Michael S. Burneyand Tom Bailor. "Protecting Pelt, Jeffrey in NativeAmericans Resources on theUmatillaIndianReservation" and Stonesto Common Ground. Eds. Nina Swidler, Archaeologists. Stepping KurtE. Dongoske,RogerAnyonand Alan S. Downer.Waltnut Creek, New Delhi: Altamira London, P, 1997. 167-171. and the DesperateSearch forRespectability" Petras,James."Left Intellectuals ALAI , LatinAmericain Movement (11-07-2000)http://alainet.org/docs/ 994.html. Clifton. "How to Get WhatIndianCommunities Need from Science" in Poodry, Scienceand NativeAmerican Communities. Legacies ofPain, Visions of Lincolnand London:U of Nebraska Promise. Ed. KeithJames. P, 2001. 29-35. of theLocal (Noteson The Impossibility Rabasa,Jos."BeyondRepresentation? in Tepoztln, Subaltern Studiesin Lightof a rebellion Morelos)"in The LatinAmerican Studies ReaderEd. Ileana Rodrguez. Durham Subaltern andLondon:Duke UP,2001. 192-210. de un Tla, "Los franciscanos y los dominicos bajo la mirada penetrante cuilo. Cmo residiren una pluralidadde mundos,segn un cdice in Convergencia de tiempos. Estudiossubalternos/contextos pictrico" latinoamericanos subalternidad. Ed. Ileana Rodrguez. , estado,cultura, 200 1 . 3 8 1 -403 . GA: Amsterdam, Atlanta, Rodopi, Violence on theNorthern Frontier : The Historiography , Writing of Sixteenth New Mexico and and Florida the Century Legacy of Conquest. Durham andLondon:Duke UP,2000. The Politicsof Subaltern Rabasa,Josand Javier Sanjins.1994. "Introduction: Studies." 19.46 1994 [1996]: v-xi. Dispositio/n Subalterns Ileana. AcrossTexts,Disciplinesand Theories: Rodriguez, "Reading From Representation to Recognition" The Latin AmericanSubaltern StudiesReader.Ed. Ileana Rodrguez. Durhamand London:Duke UP, 2001. 1-32. de los estudios subalternos: deconstruc, "La encrucijada postmarxismo, in Convergencia de cionismo,postcolonialismo y multiculturalismo" Estudios subalternos/contextos cullatinoamericanos, estado, tiempos. Ed. Ileana Rodrguez.Amsterdam, GA: tura,subalternidad. Atlanta, 2001. 5-47. Rodopi, de estudiossubalternos: una entrevista con , "El grupolatinoamericano IleanaRodrguez" Revista de critica 24 (2002): 72-77. cultural Studies?" LASAForum33.2 (2002): 14-15. , "A New Debateon Subaltern
42
GUSTAVO VERDESIO
PortoAlegre: Soares,AndrLuis S. Guarani:OrganizaoSocial e Arqueologia. EDIPUCRS, 1997. An AndeanSocietyUnderInca and SpanishRule. Karen.Huarochir. Spalding, Stanford Stanford: UP, 1984. : Hua Indian Peru's Steve. peoples and thechallengeofSpanishconquest Stern, Wis.:U ofWisconsin P, 1982. mangato 1640. Madison, GravesProtecAmerican Native "The Echo-Hawk. R. Walter Trope,JackF. and inRepaand Legislative Act: Background tionandRepatriation History" A. Devon Ed. Remains? Indian American triation Reader,WhoOwns LincolnandLondon:U ofNebraska Mihesuah. P,2000. 123-168. of Indigenous The Territorialities: Materiality Verdesio,Gustavo. "Forgotten South2 (2001): 85-114. ." Nepantla.Views Pasts from , "Todo lo que es slido se disuelveen la academia: sobrelos estudios y la cultura coloniales,la teoraposcolonial,los estudiossubalternos 633-660. de Estudios Revista material." Hispnicos35 (2001): de a los proyectos crtico un aporte materialidad de la "En busca perdida: , Dussel de las tradiciones porKusch, propuestas aborgenes recuperacin 625-638. 192 Iberoamericana Revista (2000): y Mignolo" Entrela sociedadde control de Montevideo: y la , "La democratizacin de anlisispoltico.5 (2001) comunidad que viene."Escenario2. Revista verdesio.html. http://www.escenario2.org.uv/numero5/cultura Valuesand Scientific Indian American Joe. Archaeology. Watkins, Indigenous New Delhi: Altamira P,2000. Practice.Waltnut London, Creek, in and Neoliberalism the Side Other The Subalternity Gareth. of Popular. Williams, andLondon:Duke UP,2002. Durham LatinAmerica. on Witha Postcript J."A New and Different Archaeology? Zimmermann, Larry WhoOwns Reader, oftheKennewick theImpact Dispute"inRepatriation and LonLincoln Mihesuah. A. Devon Ed. IndianRemains? American don:U ofNebraska P,2000. 294-306.

Introduction Latin American Subaltern Studies Revisited

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Introduction Latin American Subaltern Studies Revisited

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

SUBALTERN AFTER THE

STUDIES DEMISE OF THE

REVISITED: IS THERE GROUP?*

Gustavo Verdesio Universityof Michigan

LATIN AMERICAN SUBALTERN STUDIES REVISITED:...

LATIN AMERICAN SUBALTERN STUDIES REVISITED:...

LATIN AMERICAN SUBALTERN STUDIES REVISITED:...

LATIN AMERICAN SUBALTERN STUDIES REVISITED:...

LATIN AMERICAN SUBALTERN STUDIES REVISITED:...

LATIN AMERICAN SUBALTERN STUDIES REVISITED:...

LATIN AMERICAN SUBALTERN STUDIES REVISITED:...

LATIN AMERICAN SUBALTERN STUDIES REVISITED:...

LATIN AMERICAN SUBALTERN STUDIES REVISITED:...

LATIN AMERICAN SUBALTERN STUDIES REVISITED:...

LATIN AMERICAN SUBALTERN STUDIES REVISITED:...

LATIN AMERICAN SUBALTERN STUDIES REVISITED:...

LATIN AMERICAN SUBALTERN STUDIES REVISITED:...

LATIN AMERICAN SUBALTERN STUDIES REVISITED:...

LATIN AMERICAN SUBALTERN STUDIES REVISITED:...

LATIN AMERICAN SUBALTERN STUDIES REVISITED:...

LATIN AMERICAN SUBALTERN STUDIES REVISITED:...

LATIN AMERICAN SUBALTERN STUDIES REVISITED:...

Potrebbero piacerti anche