Nationalist Myths and Ethnic Identities: Indigenous Intellectuals and the Mexican State
242
Nationalist Myths and Ethnic Identities: Indigenous Intellectuals and the Mexican State
242eBook
Available on Compatible NOOK devices, the free NOOK App and in My Digital Library.
Related collections and offers
Overview
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9780803288607 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Nebraska |
| Publication date: | 11/01/2015 |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| Pages: | 242 |
| File size: | 1 MB |
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
Nationalist Myths and Ethnic Identities
Indigenous Intellectuals and the Mexican State
By Natividad Gutiérrez
UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA PRESS
Copyright © 1999 University of Nebraska PressAll rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-8032-8860-7
CHAPTER 1
Theories of Nationalism Revisited
* * *
The question of how and when a nation exists has given rise to particular schools of thought offering different explanations: primordialists; instrumentalists, modernists, and a comparatively recent model emphasizing study of the cultural and historical background of modern nations, a school referred to in this work as the historical-culturalists. These theories chiefly discuss the varying factors involved in the making of nations in Europe or the emerging nation-states in Asia and Africa after the Second World War (see Mayall 1991). European internal transformations and the colonial impact of British and French imperialism have inspired the theoretical frameworks of the Anglophone branches of nationalism. This legitimate and comprehensive perspective has, nevertheless, neglected to include the early nationalist movements for independence in the Americas from the late eighteenth century and the subsequent problematical nature of nation-state formation in these areas — a task brilliantly accomplished in the classic historiography of J. Lynch (1986) and by D. Brading (1973; 1991). Historians studying Mexico and Peru have recently raised theoretical concerns with regard to the identification of types of Mexican nationalism (Knight 1994, 136) and the prevalence of Eurocentric theories that continue to overlook the nationalisms of Latin America (Mallon 1995). More research on Mexico and borrowing inspiration from the state's capacity to transform cultural processes, symbolized by the "Great Arch" of Corrigan and Sayer (1985), are useful in providing historical material for one side of the debate under review (Gilbert and Nugent 1994), namely that the state has been instrumental in forming the national community of Mexico through the inculcation of a civic cult consisting in establishing routines, rituals, and institutions. While the various essays of the Gilbert and Nugent collection address popular capacity to contest the involvement of the state throughout the revolutionary periods of Mexican history, I am here also including the mythological and ethnic facets, which add special significance to the conceptualization of the nation, distinguishing it from the state.
Mexico's Ethnic Roots and Modern Policies
The peoples of the Mexican nation can be defined as a collection of fifty-six ethnic indigenous groups and communities of immigrants coexisting with a dominant mestizo majority under the sovereignty of a modern bureaucratic state. It was not until the twentieth century that state agencies formulated and implemented a consistent set of policies aimed at integrating the multiethnic population of Mexico; or, to state it another way, initiated a state project of cultural transformation (Gilbert and Nugent 1994). These policies are of two kinds: on the one hand, cultural policies (i.e., indigenismo) and the establishment of institutions concerned with cultural and ethnic affairs (the INI, or National Indigenist Institute, INBA, the National Institute of Fine Arts, and CONACULTA, the National Council for Culture and the Arts — see abbreviations list for full Spanish names); and on the other hand, the consolidation of a single, compulsory and free public education system.
Mexican nationalist policies, which have been disseminated throughout the whole population through educational infrastructure, rely nevertheless on the invocation of ethnic mythologies and imagery (as appropriated by the state), both traceable to the pre-Hispanic and colonial past. The recourse to the past by nationalists is also selective; that is to say it favors and reproduces the motifs and cultural symbols of central Mexico, largely Aztec in inspiration. The integration of a multiethnic society is thus motivated by ethnic memories codified into mythical narratives and by emphasizing the virtues of civic heroes or "invented traditions" (Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983). By the same token, the state has also encouraged artists and intellectuals to use and exploit the ethnic past and present indigenous cultures in its search for cultural uniqueness, so that it is propagating an integrative formula imbued with ethnic and civic symbolism.
Despite the inculcation of a unifying nationalism through the education system and the constant invocation of the ethnic past appropriated by the state, indigenous loyalties to local communities, far from the national mainstream, not only persist but are reproduced and seek recognition. This leads to a more concrete proposition: the nationalist goal of the education system will never be realized uniformly as it allows for the continuity and survival of ethnic identities through their relatively recent access to education and social mobility. One way to look at such survival in the present situation is to consider the emergence of indigenous intellectuals and intelligentsia, who — although not claiming to put forward a single project of "Indianismo" or "pan-indianismo," an ideology common to all Indian peoples, (Barre 1988) — have campaigned to become involved in the definition of the role of Indian peoples within the nation.
The vitality of indigenous identities cannot be explained as the result of cultural continuities framed by traditional ethnicism. Its renewal has also found channels of self-expression in the modernity promoted by the state. One sole academic approach is not enough to encompass the interplay of modernity and ethnicity; such a phenomenon is better explained by looking at the debate between the theoreticians of modernity and the followers of historic culturalism.
The Modernists' Break with the Past
Gellner is the leading exponent of the modernist theory of nationalism, conceding paramount importance to state education in the making of modern nations. Central to an understanding of this position is the claim that the possession of a "nationality" or the belonging to a "nation" is not "natural" or "universal" (Gellner 1964, 151; 1981, 754; 1983, 5). Thus he denies any primordial explanations of the existence of nations and nationalism, as the aspirations of nations do not create nationalism. Quite the opposite applies: "It is nationalism which creates nations" (1983, 174), and "The state has certainly emerged without the help of the nation" (1983, 6). In order to understand this sine qua non perspective of modernist approaches, it is useful to explore the social and economic conditions that have initiated a stage of urban culture produced by state nationalism.
Gellner relies on dichotomous explanations, the most salient being the polarization between agrarian/rural and industrial/urban. This dichotomy is based on an evolutionist paradigm oriented toward progress and collective well-being, suggesting a continuing improvement introduced by industrialization and limitless growth, a scenario which is clearly opposed to agrarian stagnation. For Gellner, the agrarian/rural element cannot generate nationalism; neither is nationalism a phenomenon necessary for rural existence because agrarian societies lack the means of enhancing social cohesion, and cohesion explains the emergence of nationalism.
From this, Gellner postulates that the nation-state (the result of nationalism) is conceived as a stage of human evolution. His line of argument, then, is as follows: nationalism comes into existence through state education, which facilitates communication beyond local boundaries, and not through "families and villages." The components associated with rural life, such as tradition, "the folk," peasantry, and underdevelopment, are not required by nor do they generate nationalism. In this view, nations are the products of modern conditions and the ethnic legacy is of secondary relevance. For example: "The self-image of nationalism involves the stress of the folk, folklore, popular culture, etc. In fact, nationalism becomes important precisely when these things become artificial. Genuine peasants or tribesmen, however proficient at folk-dancing, do not generally make good nationalists" (1964, 162).
Nationalism, in Gellner's conception, plainly emerges from a definitive break with the agrarian past. If small and scattered communities cannot produce an all-embracing identity, the state has to unify and mold them into an urban-centered society (1973). Thus two opposing tendencies converge in the existence of a nation: increasing diversification produced by a complex division of labor, and a growing homogenization and similarity induced by standardized modes of education and training (1973; 1982).
Monopoly of Education and High Culture as Conditions for Nationalism
In Gellner's interconnected argument, involving industrialization, the division of labor, and occupational mobility, the centralization of the state plays a prominent role in the sphere of education because it facilitates the correspondence between the nation and its territorial boundaries. Such a correspondence implies a certain level of internal cohesion and communication through a "standardized linguistic medium and script" (1983, 35; 1987, 27; 1994). Thus Gellner assumes an ideal type of industrialization: the need for literacy and technical competence required of citizens is not provided by local communities but can only be provided by a modern and national education system, "a pyramid at whose base there are primary schools, staffed by teachers trained at secondary schools, staffed by university-trained teachers, led by the products of advanced graduate schools" (1983, 34). Such a pyramid is necessary for national unity. More important than the Weberian concept of "monopoly of legitimate violence" is the "monopoly of legitimated education" controlled by the state and not by natural or emotional processes: "Contrary to popular and even scholarly belief, nationalism does not have any very deep roots in the human psyche" (1983, 35). Nationalism not only provides "specialized training"; it also "makes citizens" and provides a common cultural identity. "A Nuer village produces a Nuer, but it does not produce a Sudanese citizen" (Gellner 1964, 158). If nationalism is not a natural process simply absorbed from the family or village, then it is transmitted and inculcated through a state education system. In Gellner's view, nationalism is realized once societies reach a stage of "high culture" sustained by the polity. But not all the many cultures existing in the world can have their own "political roofs." Only cultural imperialism can produce this, through efforts to dominate and create a political unity (1983, 12). To justify the domination some high cultures exert, Gellner uses another dichotomy, in the form of a metaphor comparing appropriate and successful nations with "cultivated varieties of plants," unlike the "savage kinds," which only reproduce spontaneously.
A "savage culture" can become a high culture, but this will not necessarily engender nationalism. However, he says, some savage cultures struggle and create a state with their own territory. This struggle attempted by weaker cultures in search of nationalist status creates a kind of "nationalist or ethnic conflict" (1983, 51). In Gellner's view, prospects for new and potential nations are extremely poor, because they lack educational and communication systems that can engender cohesion. Only high cultures can survive the industrial era, while folk cultures, traditions, and languages survive artificially and are preserved by ad hoc societies in "cellophane-packaged form" (1983, 117, 121). From this perspective, Gellner salutes the imperative homogenizing needs of nationalism and sees its overall dynamic as justified due to its creation of productive literate citizens in an era of progressive egalitarianism.
Nations exist because of nationalism — homogeneous cultures protected by the state — and not because they are there "waiting to be 'awakened' by the nationalist awakener." This argument emphasizes once more his view that nationalism is not derived from any kind of ethnic consciousness by awakening mythical, natural, or divinely given elements, but Gellner concedes that nationalism takes preexisting cultures and turns them into nations, "sometimes invents them, and often obliterates pre-existing cultures" (1983, 49). He contends, however, that the ideology of nationalism, pushing toward the delimitation of a high culture, does not occur in a cultural vacuum; although nationalism in his view emerges from a definitive break with the past, "it claims to defend folk culture while in fact it is forging a high culture; it claims to protect an old folk society while in fact helping to build up an anonymous mass society" (1983, 124). At this point we face a twofold puzzle: on the one hand, it seems to be clear that only dominant and expanding high cultures can achieve statehood in their own right — that is, political independence achieved by nationalism; but it is the force and monopoly of the state, on the other hand, that is required to engender the construction of a homogeneous high culture — that is, to conduct the nation building. These two possibilities are reflected in today's nations but are contradictorily explained by Gellner's model.
Ethnic Pluralism as the Weakness of Nationalism
So far we have seen that in Gellner's view, nationalism is a question of power and dominion over obsolete and weak ideologies or structures. Nationalism facilitates the transformation of premodern societies into modern ones through the division of labor and through education. But this theoretical approach overgeneralizes processes and contexts, and this leads to the conclusion that certain key factors are taken for granted. For example, we never learn explicitly from Gellner how such an essential high culture is formed and at what cost to other coexisting cultures. This brings us to considering the sociocultural position of ethnic cultures exposed to the embracing force of nationalism.
Gellner does not discuss this consideration in terms of ethnic groups or ethnicity, but it is implicit in his treatment of "sub-units of society who are no longer capable of self-reproduction" (1983, 32; 1992, 33). Examples of such subunits are a family, kinship unit, village, or tribal segment, and these are perpetuated individually; that is, individual infants are obliged to be socialized into the community and to carry out rites of passage, precepts, training, or perhaps oral history and learning the mother tongue. The infant grows to resemble the adults of the community and thus the community is perpetuated. In this sense, the members of the community reproduce themselves independently of the remaining society. As already noted, Gellner's characterization of agrarian societies is such that no matter how well they reproduce themselves, this cannot be considered nationalism.
Ethnic groups or Gellner's subunits of society are of no importance from a modernist perspective. Small-scale "low cultures" are incapable of evolving their own destiny. Rather, a common destiny has to be imposed upon them: assimilation into a larger culturally homogeneous nation. Only effective nationalisms can survive, although there may be many potential ones alleging a shared historical past or having languages in common. Many potential "nations" disappear or are overwhelmed by the culture of a new nation-state and industrialization, "without offering any resistance"; language or culture do not provide bases for nationhood (Gellner 1983, 47). There are many cultures on the earth but only a limited number of nationstates. Not all aspiring nations are successful in claiming an independent status; only powerful nationalisms can succeed. For Gellner, it becomes clear that nationalism is a movement for unification and homogenization produced under modern conditions through state agencies, and this view opposes the argument that nationalist movements seek self-determination as a result of ethnic awareness.
Gellner's view regarding the assimilation of ethnic subunits might be treated as polemical, in that full assimilation and cultural homogeneity are not found anywhere in the present system of nation-states. For Gellner, the appeal or the appraisal of "human attributes" in the form of patriotism, xenophobia, "call of the blood," folk culture, the vernacular, popular sentiments against foreign or colonial rule, or other atavistic manifestations does not explain the functional role of nationalism aimed at forging national states in an industrial epoch. Such sentimental archaisms may be insufficient to explain nationalist movements for self-determination, but they are components in creating an ideology that will be reproduced by the state's education system (i.e., the process of homogenizing the nation). Thus, a critical reading of the modernist theory would look at the following points.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Nationalist Myths and Ethnic Identities by Natividad Gutiérrez. Copyright © 1999 University of Nebraska Press. Excerpted by permission of UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA PRESS.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
Contents
List of Maps and Tables,Preface,
Acknowledgments,
List of Abbreviations,
Introduction,
1. Theories of Nationalism Revisited,
2. The Composition of the Educated Indigenous Elite,
3. The Historical Transformation of Indian Identity,
4. The Nation Made by the Educational System,
5. Textbooks and National Identity,
6. Mexicanization or the Plurality of Mexico,
7. The Emergence of Indigenous Intellectuals and Their Responses to National Identity,
8. National Myths as Seen by Indians,
9. Civic Heroes of Liberalism,
10. Indian Women Writers,
11. Indian Intellectuals after the Chiapas Conflict,
Conclusion,
Notes,
Bibliography,
Index,