Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Notas sobre “Reading the Border, North and South” Rolando Romero escribe “Border of Fear, Border of Desire” Borders are perceived very diffently by people because they have different cultural lenses when they cross it. He speaks about the imaginary and material border (Mexican immigration and gringo tourism). It is on the one hand a material line that divides territories and an imaginary metaphorical line that affects individual and cultural identities. Gloria Anzaldúa comments in Borderlands?La Frontera that the border studies have become very prevalent sind mid 1980’s in the U.S. where it’s been used as a locus of discussion on the deconstruction of monolithic nationalistic structures She says it is an intellectual project on the one hand of a nationalistic discourse and on the other hand of a heterogeneous transnational space of construction of identities From the Mexican side of the border it is difficult to see the border as a metaphor but it is seen as a mean to relocate discourses about the Mexicanidad. From the U.S. border it is seen as a definition of monolithic and national structures but also as an objective correlative for discussions of U.S. dominant cultures and its margins, or spaces of resistance (3) The Mexican border is also seen as a obstacle against Mexican national’s dreams. To think of the border as the line shared by inhabitants on both sides it is important to take both sides into consideration or to be specific about either one, and to see the metaphorical differences involved in such transnational analysis (Garza) The social space does not corresponds any longer toe the abstract cohesion of a compact national State that can be defined because of its relation with a specific territory neither to the opposition between center and peripheries. That is, the border it is what Homi Bhabha has called “The beyond” in the sense that it is not a new horizon or space that leaves out the past but it is a space where the time and space traverse each other to create new and complex identities beyond the structures of nationalism. It resists the concept of culture as an internally coherent nationalistic universe because it is not static place with people with fixed identities but rather “as dynamic territories and peoples with multiple identities” (4). Garza resists this possibility Garza pretends to live in a space of in-between? Without considering other posibilities of being, or identity or subversion to define society itself. This is due to the strong nationalism of the Mexico de Afuera Within the border metaphoric space Mexican Border occupies the subordinate space as oppose to U.S. Mexican Literature becomes dominant in this space but yet it is a minority literature within the U.S. cultural production Is a border of gender as well, a world with borders (Mexico/U.S., man/woman, Mexican woman/American woman, Eva/Mary, la pelona/la matrona. Etc in GARZA The border is at the same time a space of agglomeration in which other (sub)borders are drawn or blurred. The borders transgress the traditional chronotopes of patriarchal literature through focusing on a narrative voice of a female subject. Reading together the Mexican woman with her Chicana counterpart yields to a dialogue of relationships within the private and public spaces in relation to a wider national reality, to the local cultural enclave, the (re)interpretation of the dominant national culture, to the rethinking of transborder dynamics (8) Garza’s language is direct and taken from the everyday life. She does not hesitate to express when necessary her nationalism, to express her individual and social voice. Nelly Richards in “Cultural Peripheries: Latin American and Postmodern De-Centering” suggests that in order to decenter the centers it is essential to incorporate the rhetoric of the other within the concerns of progressive intellectuals. It is fundamental to achieve democratization of the mechanisms of cultural meaning which depend on the dehierarchization of those discourses that comprise the production circuits of critical discursive exchange. “Border writing stresses the relevance of otherness whose locus is to be found in a nonplace of transition that gives rise to either a game or a struggle between two or more cultures and languages” Harry Polkinhorn. Border literature is subversive because it is a “bastard” form since it takes root in a transformation of linguistic code for one matter, and an unawareness of an external identity, external to the nationalistic structures. The offspring (the border lit) is a threat to the status quo because it produces a fragmented and marginal literature (identities). By border thinking Mignolo means the moments when the imaginary of modern (nationalistic) nation states collapse. By means of ideological strategies the Anglo Culture mystify the relationship between the minority culture and itself and such act extends American cultural imperialism beyond borders. For Hicks the border is much more a metaphorical border of ideal types of creators/writers and blurs the social, economic, political and economic policies that affect the real life of the border peoples. To see the border as a metaphor is to reduce it and to omit the convergence of different discourse of ethnicity, class, gender/sex etc that happens and this dynamic essentialize the relations between Mexico and the U.S.. A third country emerges between these two defined nation states (El Mexico de afuera) narrated by the perspective of the other two nations. Garza: For her “us” is limited to a minority, a cultural enclave that extends form the nation state, her “them” is the dominant culture. For her this is a space inhabited by morally superior peoples (Mexicans) but by mulish persons, from the Anglo perspective. Therefore the need for such division Garza is screating her own utopia, under the guise of a quest for knowledge and ressistance to assimiltation. She inverses the Other (the dominant culture) as the inferior culturally and morally reinforcing a romantic notion of national identity, to preserve the essence of what it was to be Mexican. Her concern is one to nationalization to avoid disruption and hybridity by means of acculturation. Thus, she is suggesting homogenization of culture with a very specific- agenda, agenda that is romantic in nature and based on the nineteenth-century models of nation formation. For her purpose she uses “a narration of fulfillment” that is, to identify the Mexican woman with civilizing force of national culture (as opposed to la pelona/la Eva or the savage and uncivilized) in order to impose another discourse (more liberating) for (Mexican) women transforming and normalizing it within the national taxonomy system. She evokes the tension of living in two cultures that conflict not only with each other but with presumed cultural underpinnings that are highly charged.