Had I posted this on Lund?

I really like him and I seek to emulate him.

Some notes on Lund, The Mestizo State

Every nation produces and identity through which it expresses its history as a political formation. In European derived societies, these identities emerge through and in dialogue with racial discourse. Mexico is an archetypal case of this. Yet the idea of race in its modern Mexican specificity has been insufficiently thought.

Race in Mexico is blindingly present and central to the stories the country tells itself about itself, and still the idea of race there has not been well enough looked at. The mestizo has Mexican subject has a long history, since Independence at least. Blond Maximilian took over; Zapotec Benito J. through him out; mestizo Porfirio D. completed the dialectic and converted a war between races into the totalizing racial discourse of the state (A. Molina E., suggestion that Porfirio put Mexico at the vanguard of a greater Latin American hybridology).

What Vasconcelos does is take that mestizo and use it to universalize Mexico (to make it cosmic). His thesis is megalomaniacal, and the cosmic race is universal, apparently antiracial but really hyperracial race to come. His book was published in exile and did not circulate in Mexico until later, but it did give the country a certain language of race. Cf. the UNAM slogan “por mi raza hablará el espíritu”, murals on the rise of the mestizo and its export appeal … which would stretch all the way to the Chicano movement.

Scholarship up until now has covered three issues: relationship between indigenismo and mestizaje, limits of the allegedly inclusive discourse of mestizaje, and the veiled African presence. All of these foci take the basic category of race as self evident, i.e., they assume it is a thing. Lund, on the other hand, will address race as a cultural-political problematic. He says it is integral to the very production of national history … indeed, it stands as the central pillar for the very conceptualization of the social and historical dynamics out of which modern Mexico emerges. It is through race that we “think” this cultural history.

Krauze: mestizaje stabilizes and Mexicanizes, and the national territory has spaces that are more and less mestizo and thus less more and less successful examples of Mexicanness. Lund, meanwhile, has three points. First, race is a theory of the organization of human difference that hierarchizes this. Second, it is dependent on an aesthetic vision of the human: it is tied to beauty, form, representation, and narrative. Third, it is productive of group identity. So, it can form networks of hierarchy; but, because it is governed by a hierarchical impulse, it always returns to segregation.

Race is written, and thus produced in major Mexican work after major Mexican work, but critical reflection does not move beyond the mestizaje paradigm. But race is also a question of space and of land. Indeed, i becomes meaningful only as it operates at the division of material resources and the institutional vigilance over that division. Racialization is the aesthetic mode for the representation of the battle over space and land resources.

The mestizo state has 3 dimensions: 1. Mexico’s institutions of sovereignty: this hegemonic state formation has been explicitly conceptualized in a way that resonates racially, at least since Molina’s 1909 text Los grandes problemas nacionales. 2. The national state of being, the fictive ethnicity, the national race. 3. Most importantly, the mestizo state resonates as a historical and political process of state formation and capitalist penetration that explains itself to itself, indeed sustains itself, by drawing on a discourse of race. That is: it is the name for the historical consequences of the confluence of race and nation in Mexico.

Lund is trying to read race, but not “read for racism.” He is interested in finding out how racism works, what its comceptual bases and govern categories are, how it changes, and how it does not.

CHAPTER 1. Colonization and Indianization in Liberal Mexico. The Case of Luis Alva.

We are in a postmulticulturalist moment, contemplating the theories, practices, and legacies of race; hybrid identities and their critique reign. La raza cósmica is only the most spectacular example of attempts to think beyond race.

In Mexico, this stylized mestizaje plus the postrevolutionary turn to a discourse of indigenous rights, helped consolidate the vocabulary of a conversation around race that is still playing out, often in pantomime form, on the national stage. For example: the white V. Fox called Indians his brothers (not fellow citizens), and at the same time S. Marcos was called to white to be an indigenous leader. And more generally: Indians really are the source of the nation’s cultural patrimony, and yet it is founded on their abandonment. These are the outlines of the discourse that resides at the heart of the mestizo state.

SO: MEXICO IS IN FACT AS SCHIZOPHRENIC AS PERU, says Leslie. And furthermore, says Lund, Vasconcelos’ thesis was already derivative; these ideas had been consolidated during the Porfiriato and they retain hegemony today.

Key: Mexico´s liberal concensus has always had to address the place of indigenous communities in the heterogeneous cultural landscape. Thus the history of racialization in Mexico is particularly useful for thinking about the limits of the liberal critique of race and rcism generally.

These limits arise at the very formulation of liberalism’s assumptions and are reached at the basic articulation that converts the idea of race into racist practice: the joint that binds economic and social relations, i.e. modes of production. Liberalism, as an ideology of freedom and equality, cannot deliver what it teaches us to demand because it is committed to capitalism, which precludes these. And in the modern world, modes of production have a racialized analogue.

19th century essays on the process of “colonización” (cf. Alva), can shed light on a process that is still unfolding. There is much to be distinguished between the neoliberal state (1994 forward) and the simply liberal state of the 19th century. But if liberalism in general relates to space, it does so by trying to make space productive in the capitalist sense and enlisting the state in this task. People get in the way of this. That was the problem for Porfirio and it is the problem now.

1880s “colonization” was taking over of land held by indigenous groups. Modernization thus understood of course was not trusted by such groups. So there is tension between capitalist expansion and popular sovereignty, which creates dilemmas for the liberals (who believe in equality and freedom).

By the late Porfiriato it is common to see Indian as victim of history; at this point a new rhetorical device emerges, Indianization (Indianizing the national image, e.g. putting the statue of Cuauhtémoc on Reforma, etc.).

Alva: fearless polemicist. Serious about rights oriented liberalism and also about technocratic perspective on relations between society and the state. All of this gives him an interesting off center perspective.

1893, when Alva died, was last moment for doctrinaire liberalism, as the state turned more statist. At the same time, news of military atrocities in the hinterlands — Tomochic — began to circulate. And the issues Alva had raised were the issues that would give rise to the Revolution.

Lund: Alva’s take on race marks the limits of the liberal critique of racism. It rejects the idea of innate inferiority and degeneracy. His question is how to fight barbarism, which can arise in anyone. Alva’s Indian has economic power and juridical rights, and so is a real person as opposed to a rhetorical device. Because he is so forthright and because he cuts to the heart of real issues, it is possible to see in him the limits of liberalism. He also speaks to the relations between liberalism and race in a way that points toward an indigenism to come.

This entry was posted in Race. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Had I posted this on Lund?

  1. j says:

    Lund’s thesis is interesting, but its has some flaws because it understands liberalism in a XX century way. The contradiction between capitalist vs liberalism (popular sovereign vs capitalist expansion is just to reductive). During all the XIX century there were debates about popular sovereign and the legitimacy of politic and violent states actions (the Porfiriato aint a exception). The other chapters of the book are really pertinent to understand Mexican state during XX century.

  2. Z says:

    Thanks for commenting! Do you think he contrasts capitalism and liberalism? I thought they went together, especially in the 19th century, and did not see he implied they didn’t.

  3. j says:

    Me parece muy interesante hablar de este tema. Voy a cambiar a español porque quiero ser más preciso y mi inglés a veces es un poco (en realidad bastante) más ambiguo que mi español. Josh es un pensador muy interesante y su tesis es valida. Sin embargo, con respecto a la lectura de Alva y el XIX tengo algunos puntos en los que desacuerdo con Lund. Josh establece que Alva representa el límite de la crítica del concenso liberal con respecto al concepto de raza. Lund argumenta esto basado en su idea de un entronque entre el proyecto liberal y el desarrollo capitalista. Sin embargo, tengo un problema con esto: el primero, el concenso liberal es bastante problematico. Estudios como los de Palti, Pani o Connauhgton muestran la agitada vida politica y la inestabilidad de un acuerdo liberal desde Maximiliano hasta Porfirio con respecto a muchos ideas liberales (anexionismo, desarrollo economico, entre otros) que hoy entendemos como propiamente liberales. En mi opinion, el proyecto de Alva tiene más vectores que capitalismo y liberalismo. Además, el capitalismo desarrollista muestra varias contradicciones dentro del liberalismo republicano (una de ellas, la tensión entre soberania popular, la ciudadania y el poder coercitivo estatal). Estas ideas desarrollistas tiene una geneologia larga durante todo el siglo XIX mexicano y no son propias del momento de Alva exclusivamente.

    • Z says:

      Hola — está super interesante esto y gracias por comentar — en especial porque yo no he leído a Alva.

      Así comprendo yo lo que dice Lund sobre los límites de la críica liberal del racismo: desde la perspectiva del liberalismo sólo se puede criticar hasta cierto punto, porque el proyecto quizás mayor del liberalismo es el desarrollo capitalista, que supone desigualdad. O sea: el liberalismo, por lo menos en su vertiente más liberal socialmente, quiere ser igualitario o se pretende igualitario, pero sus prioridades económicas van en otra dirección, de modo que hay una negociación constante ya que la conjugación del desarrollo capitalista y la justicia social no es fácil aunque se puede querer que lo sea.

      Estoy leyendo al mismo tiempo D. T. Goldberg, The Racial State, y Denise Ferreira da Silva, sobre raza y modernidad; el primero dice que el estado moderno es necesariamente racialista y la segunda, que el propio paradigma moderno lo es. Estoy viendo un argumento similar en Lund, pero no sé si seré yo o será él demasiado esquemátic@s.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s