24/7 Customer support here

Latin America and its Relationship with Postmodernism

   Garcнa Canclini is the author of “ Hybrid Cultures” a book which will be the basis of this essay and through which the major points will be argued. For the author, postmodernism helps recognise the impureness of traditions and dissenting result of the modern project. Moreover, the written style of the book gives the impression of flirtations with a post-modern style. Nevertheless, despite the alleged ability of postmodernism to incorporate dissenting components, the reader is left with some puzzling questions in his mind at the end of the book. Inquiries such as why the author chooses a post modern approach as the most suitable for Latin America or, the intended audience the book was written for?

   Garcнa Canclini, among other scholars tries to explain the direction culture is heading and what outside hegemonic influences and pressure to change is doing to a determine culture, in this case Latin America. Garcнa Canclini believes culture is and entity and must not be examined within a dichotomy paradigm, culture should be examined as one. The post modern movement seeks to part from divisions such as traditional and elite expressions of art to dissolve the tensions within the arts that create divisions. Garcнa Canclini, examines culture, in turn trying to find meaning as well as the role it plays at providing an identity –if any, to a given population. People, the perpetuators and creators of culture are unaware of government policies affecting the evolution of culture. Yet, people are the ones who have the power to perpetuate them or contest them.

   It is common to wonder whether Latin America culture can be described as post-modern, when the modernisation debate has not yet been resolved. Scholars are not sure if Latin America has reached the stage of modernisation or if it is a desirable path. Hitherto, politician’s agenda still point towards a desire for industrialisation, following the linear pattern proposed by modernisation theorist such as Rostow. Yet, in conjunction, scholars speak of post-modernism existing in Latin American cultural expressions such as literature, art, music, etc. Evidently, an incongruity exits regarding whether post-modernism is an appropriate theory to describe Latin American culture, hence, the issue becoming a puzzling one.

   By providing an overview of Mexico, the theoretical concepts examined in the next section will be better understood. Culture defines a people’s identity; since external and internal forces influence identity, the task of defining it is complicated. Most Mexicans will assert on the existence of an identity, yet even they are not able to provide a clear illustration or definition, let alone a homogeneous one. Since Independence in 1821, the country’s main aspiration became the construction of a modern state. In conjunction, a society who had the desire to articulate a new ‘Mexican self’ emerged. A ‘modern’ being was comprehended as a replica of the parameters outlined by the hegemonic foreign culture of the time, predominantly European. In other words, culture was regarded as a civilized exported good. One can easily observe a trend in Mexican timeline; after the conquest of 1521 the Spanish society was the model; during the ‘Porfiriato[1]’ in the late 19th century, France was the culture du jour[2]; today it can be argued the United States provides the mould for fashion, food, culture, language.

   After the culmination of the Mexican Revolution the forging of a New Mexican identity became essential, the nation was inventing a past and a future as it went along. Aspirations, where Mexico did not have to choose between being rural and urban, traditional and modern, but could be both at once, were slowly coming through.[3] A notion that has been heavily pushed by subaltern expressions of culture. Yet, they contest modern influence as well. By the 1940’s, the ruling party the PRI[4]- a product of the Revolution, acknowledged the importance of fabricating a new Mexican identity that legitimizes the modernization paradigm promising to bring progress to the entire country by trickle – down economic growth. In order to prepare the country for technological changes the social fabric needed to be adjusted so the ‘people’ would legitimize the hegemonic discourse[5]. The elite recognized that its popular acceptance was crucial. Mexico was aspiring for a hybrid Mexican identity that embraced its indigenous roots. The idea contrasted with ‘Porfirian’ thought, where expressions of Indian heritage were constantly oppressed or hidden, for example with European clothing.[6] Today, authors like Bonfil Batalla highlight the negative influence that type of notion, of “the imaginary Mexico” has had on the country as well as other Latin American countries.

   The former politics of class struggle became the social politics of unity around ‘mexicanidad’, with a dichotomy nature, simultaneously traditional and modern[7]. Class differences of the past appeared to fade through the creation of a Mexican citizenship, yet at the same time development programs were furthering social inequalities and marginalizing the majority of the population. Further, the government’s centralized project affected the production of culture, for instance mass media main focus on urban centres, primarily Mexico City generated a culture sensitive to the centre needs, forgetting the periphery the majority of times.

   The challenge politicians faced was complicated. They managed to define Mexican modernity as a delicate discursive balance between rural and urban culture where a common identity was sought. The country began to share a common identity through consumption patterns exemplified in food, movies, TV. The consumer language provided a cohesive force were people were able to share a common experience. Nevertheless, the cohesive force was itself separating the Mexican nation. An underground type of culture emerged that gendered a second-class status to cultural expressions, subaltern expressions were pushed to the margins. Therefore, the alleged similarities produce a magnificent tangible differentiating chart making it simple for Mexicans to determine their relation and interactions with each other.

   The essence of the Mexican identity rest on the knowledge of what one is not, acknowledging there is a popular culture that alludes to the failure of the modernization process must be ignored. Six decades have gone by since Mexico set out on a quest for modernity; nevertheless, the social fabric appears to remain the same. Yet, profound aspects of the meaning of ‘mexicanidad’ have changed. The promise of the paternal government was not full field and the high hopes of the Mexican Revolution were forgotten. Therefore, it is clear that it is impossible to understand Mexico with out considering the politics of culture. The political ideology has indeed influence the way the Mexican perceives himself. The majority of the people cannot go back being Indians, and those that retain ties with the countryside are undergoing a social process that is influence by increase migration to the United States, putting pressure in their traditions creating once again a hybrid culture. What does it mean to be Mexican or to express Mexican culture? Garcнa Canclini would describe it as interwoven complex identities, that are not arranged in linear patter, encompassing different strata of social life that are a product of the path of history. Being aware of the diffused and hard to define boundaries is crucial to the understanding of the present identity of the Mexican nation complex and chaotic culture. To be part of a whole that can only be understood by its defragmentation slowly illustrating the nature of its origins. A ‘high culture’ still prevails where the Indian cultural expressions in order to be recognized must go through a mestized process to culminate in mainstream culture to be legitimized by all, nevertheless they are produced in relation with each other.[8]

   At the end, the eternal prevails and the Mexican is what he has lost and what he will choose to be. Consequently, the narrative remains unchanged, perhaps the words to describe Mexican culture might change, yet for example, children begging on the streets of downtown Mexico City are not a product of the last couple of decades but were common a century ago.[9] The culture of today could not have been written without the accumulated cultural experience of past-revolutionary state formation and post- revolutionary production of national culture. For the Mexican today, fabricated or original experiences are now lumped into one, unable to distinguish between the real and the imagined.

   Nevertheless, the problematic between popular culture understood as that relevant to the people and the construction of a national identity (elite) remains unsolved. There is no point in denying that in Latin America there is an unresolved issue of cultural representation, consequently it is necessary to examine what is modernism and postmodernism. In addition, consideration of the effect globalization, consumption and marketing affect the outcome of the process of the production and expression of culture. Yet, culture is lived and experienced everyday, it is a force of expression, nevertheless one must not forgot its dual power as it is also a force of marginalisation and manipulation.

1  2

BACK TO COMMUNITY STUDIES