"The Space In-Between"

In Silviano Santiago’s The Space In-Between he examines the issues of hybridity and the so-called “space in-between” in postcolonial Latin American culture. Santiago discusses the issue of original versus copy when he states, “It is a curious truth that preaches the love of genealogy and a curious profession which, with it’s gaze turned toward the past and to the expensive of the present, establishes value as dependent on the discovery of a contacted debt, a stolen idea, or a borrowed image or word. The prophetic, cannibalistic voice of Paul Valery calls us: “nothing more original, more intrinsic to itself than feeding on others. But it is necessary to digest them. The lion is comprised of ingested sheep”” (Santiago 32). In other words, Valery is saying that it is crucial for a country to considered and be informed of outside countries in order to be a strong well-rounded country. He also brings up the idea of dominant and dominated culture but also acknowledges how problematic European historical influences can be in Latin American culture. One of my favorite quotes from Santiago’s text is when he states, “Somewhere between sacrifice and playfulness, prison and transgression, submission to the code and aggression, obedience and rebellion, assimilation and expression there, in this apparently empty space, its temple and its clandestinity, is where the anthropophagous ritual of Latin American discourse is constructed” (Santiago 38). This quote caught my attention because it basically sums up Santiago’s text. He is talking about the in-betweeness and how Latin American culture is a consumption of all those things and in-between.

Tropicalia links

Hi guys, I've been meaning to post these links for a while:

Caetano Veloso, "Alegria, alegria"

Gilberto Gil, "Domingo no Parque"

Polar’s Indigenismo and Hetergeneous Literatures: Their Double Sociocultural Statute

Antonio Cornejo Polar’s Indigenismo and Hetergeneous Literatures: Their Double Sociocultural Statute is extremely dense. To be honest I had to reread a few different quotes and sections of the piece. Polar’s piece was a little complicated for me so I did my best to pick out a couple of his ideas and discuss those. What stood out to me in Polar’s piece was when he does into depth about Latin American historical textual ideas. It was extremely interesting to me when Polar state Retamar thoughts on the “three stages of regional intercommunication: romanticism, modernism and avant-guardism, which underpinned the most solid unity forged by the new Spanish American narrative. Polar believes that this model would be sufficient for comprehension because the system is divided up into smaller divisions. Polar continues to discuss the framework of Latin American Literature through the eyes of Alejandro Losada. Losada has proposed to delimit three literary system: the realist, the naturalist, and the subjectivist. This general structure of Latin American culture creates a very wide range of autonomy. This greater structure can be divided into smaller divisions, more specific, and these diverse structures do not have to be necessarily contradictory but yet similar frameworks. In conclusion, he finishes the topic, entitled The Question of National Literatures, by saying, “In fact, even literatures from conflicting social groups vying for power correspond to a social structure that, not because of its stratification, ceases being unique and absolute” (Satro, Rios, Trigo 104).

Untrue

Early on in “On the Myth of Racial Democracy,” Joshua Lund comments on the faulty manner in which the “orthodox” critics of Casa-grande e senzala have used the term myth to, as I understood it, generally discredit the model of Brazilian race relations Gilberto Freyre proposes in his text. For these critics “myth,” Lund argues, “…becomes a way of saying something like ‘not truth.’” He then goes on to say that, “This approach, however, rests on a naïve notion of the complex sociological and psychological workings of myth, which, as Roland Barthes has proposed, is not a  ‘lie’ at all, but rather a kind of representational ‘inflexion’ that works by converting ‘history into nature’ (143). First, I’d like to know to what extent is this seemingly essentialist portrait of Freyre’s critics true? I’ve not been exposed to their writings, so I wonder if someone who has (hi professor) could (at her convenience) provide a second opinion. Now, if these critics really did hold this essentialist notion of mythology as non-truth, then I’m quite fond of Lunds argument, or rather his use of Barthe’s argument, that mythology, something “untrue”, brings about its own truths. Lund navigates the uncertain middle ground between different essentialist positions, where myth is false and history is unassailable. Similar to Lund’s thoughts on mythology, there is a reference in the piece to the ability of literature, something similarly “false,” to reflect worldly truth, and also, more significantly, produce its own “true” system of rules and meaning. Here the distinction of literature as something separate from the “real world” becomes troubled, much in the way that Lund troubles any essential notion of Freyre’s critics and of Freyre's assertions in Casa-grande e senzala.

Guaman Poma's drawings

If you are curious about the drawings in Guaman Poma's chronicles that Cornejo-Polar discusses on page 108, check out the following link to the chronicle:

http://www.kb.dk/permalink/2006/poma/info/en/frontpage.htm

Retamar's Caliban

Roberto Fernández Retamar’s “Caliban: Notes Toward a Discussion of Culture in Our America” concedes the impassible aporia of foreign influence and a distinct Latin American identity in a way the previous thinkers we’ve read have not. He writes “In proposing Caliban as our symbol, I am aware that it is not entirely ours, that it is also an alien elaboration, although in this case based on our concrete realities. But how can this alien quality be entirely avoided?” (97). The answer, Retamar implies, is that it cannot. . Because of this acknowledgment, his argument for a national identity seems to be the most compelling one in the readings we’ve had in class thus far. Martí argued the possibility for an enlightened upper class that could beat back Euro-American influence. Rodó welcomed that influence. Andrade desired an active consumption of the foreign conflated with the indigenous that, inherently, produces a Latin America with agency, but fails to mention the dependence of Latin America on European ‘exports’ that is not reciprocated by the continent with Pau-Brasil Poetry.  

Latin America is Caliban opposed to the US in Retamar's "Caliban"

From reading Retamar's work I got the impression that his interpretation of Shakespeare's work The Tempest is the opposite of Rodo mentioned in his. For Rodo he used the characters from the Tempest to identify with the nations. Such as having Caliban being North America(United States) having the characteristics and traits from the play. But for Retamar he goes against Rodo's idea and believes that it is the other way around. Rematar has Latin America identified as being Caliban instead, and pretty pretty much the other territories that have experienced imperialism and colonialism. Before the arrival of European(Prospero) influences the lands were only inhabited by the natives(Caliban).

The island in The Tempest could be connected to Cuba and Rematar discussing the colonization of his native ancestors. The characteristic of the natives having colored skin can be linked to Caliban being described as a deformed monster. So here the natives deformation is their different appearance to the European settlers, mostly their color of skin. And then the act of colonialism is tied to the enslavement of Caliban.

After the action of colonialism in certain areas it has left a question of one's identity as Rematar discusses in the beginning about one's existence. Large number of people were identified being "mestizos", being of both indigenous and European. Creating an issue regarding one's origins and culture, but it also helped create new ones.
What I am trying to do is ask if you think colonizing destroyed cultures or helped create new ones?or both?

"Poetry for Export" in Brutality Garden

Christopher Dunn’s “Poetry for Export” in Brutality Garden is immensely informative. Throughout Dunn’s work he discusses the work of a man named Oswald de Andrade who wrote a book entitles “Brazilwood Manifesto”. Oswald in fact believes that there needs to be “more inventors and engineers to produce and implement new forms of modern technology, as well as for new artists to create “agile and candid” poetry using Brazilian street vernacular “without archaisms, without erudition” (16).” In other words, Oswald believes that one should create as long as one is not adopting an artistic or literary style as well as not acquiring extensive knowledge from profound books. He believes in originality, like Martí, and does not believe in imitation. Oswald, Martí, and Rodó all accept the idea that the mind is a crucial tool that we should use as a way to be creative and individualistic. Oswald and Rodó’s views clash because Oswald does not believe one should use enlightened books as a form to create or invent and Rodó defends the thought that there is power through books. Oswald, Martí, and Rodó are all modern thinker’s who have very similar and diverse ideas. Oswald seems to be really focused on the future and technology and Rodó feels that Latin American culture should some what revert back to classical western traditions. Oswald has an extremely contemporary view on Latin America and how society should continue to progress in the future. I found this book interesting for the fact Dunn incorporates several types of ethnicities into his work. I feel as though Dunn’s work is a bit more open minded where as Martí and Rodó’s work is extremely bias and inflexible to outside opinions.

Speculation on the Politics of Homosexuality in "Ariel"

While reading Jose Enrique Rodó’s Ariel, I was struck by the strong currents of homoeroticism present in the essay.  I do not mean to point to this to suggest that Rodó was a closet homosexual. Perhaps he was, I am unaware. Regardless, I am not concerned with it. Instead, I mention this because I’d like to pose that it functions directly into Rodó’s central argument, that the practice of homosexuality embodies the ideals he wants to imbue in the Latin American youth and country.

            The piece is rampant with homoeroticism. There is the exclusively male nature of the dialogue (or, more accurately, monologue) that resembles the practices of Athens, which is known to have fostered sexual relationships between older and younger men, and which, along with Plato who idealized homosexuality, is championed by the text. The character Ariel is sexually ambiguous. There is frequent mention of the physical beauty of the body, and of how a preservation of the mind leads to the same in the body, and to stay away from utilitarian practices that would mutilate the body. This body fixation, we can assume, is directed towards a male one. Homosexuality here displays a system that would function well in Rodó’s desired Latin America, and enacts many of its ideals. Take for example the nature of homosexual sex. It is decidedly un-utilitarian; it does not produce babies. In fact, Rodó thinks about what it could be like ‘impregnate’ men with ideas instead: “…the spirit of youth is as a generous soil, where the seed of an opportune word may in a short time return the fruits of an immortal harvest.” (6). It is also the physical extension of loving the interior by making love with a man who is intellectually and spiritual similar to oneself. Homosexuality exists outside of the traditional capitalist society and is an embodiment of many of Rodó’s ideals.

           

"Ariel"

Jose Enrique Rodó specifically spoke to the Latin American youth. He believed that they should stay focused and help to develop Latin American culture. He disliked materialism and supported self thought. Like Martí, he believed that the mind is a powerful tool that should be utilized. Rodó celebrated the world of ideas. Both Rodó and Martí were modern thinkers who used literary language to make a political statements. Furthermore, they both retreated from globalization. As we spoke about in class, Rodó’s Ariel was inspired by Shakespeare’s The Tempest. I personally believe that Ariel represents Latin America and Caliban represents the United States/North America. He really enforces the importance of classical western tradition. Rodó continually discusses the significance of classical traditions and culture. On page 89, Rodó states, “If one could say of utilitarianism that it is the word of the English spirit, the United States may be considered the incarnation of that word. It’s Evangel is spread on every side to teach the material miracles of its triumph” (89). In other words, utilitarianism goes hand in hand with specialization and materialism. Rodó does not believe a society should strictly rely on and depend on those who are specifically specialized in one field or area of work. An individual should specialize in a series of fields so that they are bringing something to the society and they are not strictly focused on income, money. Like Martí, Rodó depicts the United States or the “North” negatively. In conclusion, Rodó and Martí’s works are very similar but they differ in the fact that Rodó focuses on the celebration of world ideas and Martí focuses on taking action.

"Our America"

“The literary prizes must not go to the best ode, but to the best study of the political factors in the student’s country” (291).

This quote speaks to the problematic tension created by the overwrought, glaringly literary writing style of Our America. Martí seems to denounce the aesthetic literary object, epitomized by the ode, in favor of a more clear and straightforward method of textual communication deployed in the study. Yet, in his present piece he relishes in the very signifiers of the literary: metaphor, strikingly visual language, drama, etc. Is this simply an ironic oversight? More likely, the text enacts Martí's ideal literary product, where the study, which Our America could be categorized under, is more deserving of the ode's stylistic tenants that label it literature. The equation of the political study to the object most deserving of literary prizes suggests as much. However, the tension created by the piece's overly written style is not limited to the value and function of the style as signifier, but to the style's relationship with its audience. Martí is writing in some respect for a subjugated, “uneducated” group, and because of this I find it troubling that his text's form would likely hinder the ability of that group to easily approach and understand the piece. Does this not widen, or at least illuminate, the gap between Martí and the lower masses, and possibly cause Martí to participate in the very subjugation he criticizes? Or does writing Our America in such a way that constantly points to itself as literature have a more positive effect in relation to the "mute" population of his America?

"Our America"

In Jose Martí’s “Our America” the intended audience is South American people. We know he is a political thinker but I feel like his writing style is very unique. I believe this essay is very broad which leaves room for interpretation. Martí believe in the power of ideas and the power to create. There is an obvious negative connotation toward the United States. This essay is extremely poetic, for example, Martí states, “These sons of carpenters who are ashamed that their father was a carpenter! These men born in American who are ashamed of the mother that raised them because she wears an Indian apron, these delinquents who disown their sick mother and leave her alone in her sickbed!” (289). The use of language throughout the entire essay is extremely poetic. Martí makes very bold statements throughout his essay and it is very clear how he feels about America and his political views in Latin America. One quote that stuck out to me was when Martí stated, “Governor, in a new country, means Creator” (290). Now what I got from that is that he is comparing a Governor to God. I feel like that’s a pretty bold comparison. Maybe I am miss interpreting this excerpt but I cannot imagine how powerful a Governor was in the late 1800s. I was also intrigued when Martí said, “In America the natural man has triumphed over the imported book” (290). In other words, Americans get their literary works from all over the world and we thrive off of other people work. It is pretty clear Martí isn’t a fan of Americans. Throughout the entire essay Martí continues to use the statements, “the natural man” and “the real man”. Why? What is the significance of that? Technically aren’t all human beings “natural” and “real”. Again Martí uses the word “create” when he states, “Create is this generation’s password” (294). This is my favorite quote because Martí is really proving the power of literature. He is basically stating that creation, art, is the answer to this generation. The answer society is looking for lies within the power of creation. Art is the key.