What is popular culture in Latin America?

As a lot of you already said in your blogs, this text was amazingly long and dense! I am sorry to be late posting my comment but I have to say I really had a hard time this week trying to find time between my mid-terms and my medical appointments, in order to read this 100 pages article! However, although I think there was too much details in their analysis, William and Schelling really dealt with some interesting points and issues.

I would say that the authors tend to present the common perspective about popular culture as the idea that it is an entity in perpetual danger as well as in constant opposition to hegemonic forces. The danger for popular culture has to do with modernity and everything that disrupts and undermines traditions and authenticity. Once again, as it was the case in Eva Peron's text, we have this idea of the people (synonym of popular) systematically in opposition to dominant forces. However, this is not the point of view which is displayed by William and Schelling. Their idea is a far more optimistic analysis of popular culture. According to them, because popular culture always believes itself to be threatened, they have invented each times really efficient ways of resisting, adapting and asserting their identity in new environments in front of new competitors.

Actually, the similarities between this article and what I learned in another class called "Ethnic Relations" really striked me. According to Ericksen "Ethnicity is not a property of a group, but an aspect of a relationship". Relationships, encounters or confrontations of a group with other s is what creates cultural activity and a reinforcement of identity. Indeed, I think that this article really deals with the processes that trigger culture and ethnic vitality and identity politics. People usually hang on to traditionnal identities and to the past in order to overcome the new challenges of the present. Identities assert themselves in opposition to other identities, cultures, ethnicities, civilizations. They often know a revival of energy when they feel threaten and put in competition with others. Thus there is always a great issue of power in regards to ethnic and cultural phenomenons. Culture and identities arouse when they have to compete for controlling the production of cultural symbolism, especially when they have a subordinated position. in the society. I think that what William and Schelling tried to show is that popular culture has actually been stimulated by these processes, fighting for its continuity and adaptation. This natural action of resistance coupled with inevitable exchanges between cultures is actually what brings dynamism into cultural production. The authors seem to favour mobility and interactions rather than fixity and traditionalism regarding to popular culture.

I think we could finally try to separate these different 'faces of popular culture' described in the article which also corresponds to different historical phases. To start, native culture in Latin America has been confronted to European Imperialism and threatened by the assimilation that was expected from native people. While obviously being dominated, native culture would have also found ways of resisting to acculturation, ways of adapting European cultural features to indigenous culture. The authors seem to think that 'culture offers a symbolic universe that helps to transcend subordinate position'. Concerning these societies in Latin America that succeeded in maintaining their native cultures in parallel to the dominant ones, one could extend our reflexion and speak about the current resurgence of ethnicity and ethnic politics in the region. Popular culture has always been really tied to the idea of counter-hegemony. We actually can observe the political strategies of certain Latin American leftist leaders who capitalize on the indigenous oppressed culture and identity in order to symbolize a change.

The article also deals with rural/peasant culture facing modernity, industrialisation and urbanisation. The first reaction would be to predict the disappearance and degradation of popular culture. However the authors seem to think that modernity and new technologies have also played a positive role for the continuation of popular culture. At the beginning of industrialisation, new technologies of communication would have permitted to popularize and standardize both aspects of popular culture and other cultures and created a single common national culture. This process was actually really tied to a deliberate state initiative to 'construct' more or less artificially a nation-state sharing memories, historical myths and culture. Here, popular culture has been appropriated by the national culture in an enterprise of folklorisation, a concept that we kind of find in every national construction. Peasant culture has been used in Mexico as a national folklore, a fact that definitely questions the authenticity of popular culture and others kind of culture in every single nation. Again I would argue that culture is more an issue of social construction than anything else. I do not really agree with the positive side of this process because I really think the new national culture was framed by the social elite of the countries without any considerations about traditions people wanted to keep. At least, in a country as France, people speaking local dialects had been forced to abandon them and this was made in a very coercive way!

Finally I would say that the third aspect of popular culture in a context of resistance would be popular culture or even national culture (seen as popular) against globalisation and transnationalism. Rather than the spread idea of a destructive homogenisation of world's cultures around commercial culture, the authors argue for a more positive interpretation and again emphasize the resistance of popular culture. They do recognize that this new stage is particularly traumatic given that it reopens in Latin American popular memories the shock of the first invasion. Nevertheless, these memories and traditions are precisely what allow the public to resist in the sense that they still have the freedom of interpreting messages diffused by global mass Media. This is what they call the process of resignification which gives the people a margin of control and constitutes their main mean of resistance. They also explain than although industry culture has tried to eradicate popular culture, the latter have learned to use the same tools than its enemy, which means technologies and mass media. This allowed popular rural culture to remain significant and known, and to create alternative Media in order to counter the hegemonic force of mass communication. Thus from pre-capitalist period to late- twentieth century internationalism, native/rural popular culture have always found effective ways to resist. However, as we said in class, this point of view tends to hide the reality of power relationships.

What is people?

Concerning Eva Perón's text, I would like to highlight three main points. First of all, to define what she calls "the people", "her people", she uses a specific lexical field choosing terms such as "race" of the people, or "blood" of the enemies. This gives us an idea of a bounded community, potentially defined by a racial criterion. More than anything else, the people is defined by opposition to a threatening other, and distinguished from its enemies, which would explain the racial reference. I would personally moderate the meaning of the racial aspects of her discourse in the sense that she also suggests that anyone could become an enemy of the people, implying that belonging to her people is mainly the fact of being committed to its cause and willing to be part of it. Another and more important element is the actual assimilation between the people and the working class (which also means the poor, the oppressed and so on). Her text does give the impression that the whole nation should become part of what is truly the Argentine People; the workers. There is her socialist trend, but she insists on distinguishing her from Marxist radicalism. Her Message is particularly impregnated with the social doctrine of the Church, given her concern for poverty and her will to share her people's pain.

She constantly emphasizes how much she loves her people and advocate for the convincing idea that everything should arise from the people and work for its well-being. She establishes the people as the primary source of power, an idea which constitutes my second point. Her rhetoric allows us to think of a democratic inspiration. She condemns any imperialism and stand up for the sovereignty of nations. Once a nation independent, she claims the importance of putting the people's will at the centre of every political decision. She asks for elections of leaders and accuses oligarchic powers, especially the hegemony of military and religious high circles in Argentina.

This leads us to my third point, her view of fanatism. According to her, fanatism should be living in anyone who embraces the people's cause. She condemns all declared enemies and all those that would be driven by selfish concerns rather than the people's well being. Rather than serving their own privileged interests, religion and the army should be executing the people's order. She completely despises anyone that would be indifferent to the people's future, and would neither be an opponent, nor a defender of the people. To her this question is fundamental! She has a very virulent, passionate, and emotional way of expressing her commitment. Her discourse is clearly radical. She uses strong and violent words. She is also a profound hoper concerning the good fate of her people and she is obviously deeply religious, a fact which is confirmed by Dominguez.

Of course, at the first glance, her text appears as full of good intentions! However it is important to have a critical mind and think about the historical reality of the social and political movement she supported. To me, My Message presents numerous ambiguities and contradictions. She seems to be entirely dedicating herself to her people and her discourse is obviously very populist (people versus elite). Unfortunately the World have often observed that populist leaders also often tend to be demagogue because they use the people's needs to win the power. I think that the distance between 'doing what the people wishes' and 'saying what the people wants to hear' is very thin. For instance, Eva Perón starts a kind of anti military speech or condemns very strongly every enemy of the people. However she also tries not to be too revolutionary in order to insure popular support. She seems to fear the consequences of her attacks against historical institutions of the country such as the army or the clergy. Similarly, she condemns ambition but her writings seem to describe her as an ambitious woman, very confident in the way she gives her life as an example.

All of this is particularly ironic coming from someone who evolved in the highest circles of the Argentine society. She wants to stand by her people but I really doubt she had never been one of them, despite what she said. The last thing that striken me was her deep admiration and unlimited devotion towards Perón. Although she was apparently really influent within the worker’s movement, all her fight and all her convictions were primarily coming from the man she loved and his own doctrine. Actually, it seems that she had the same profound faith in their charismatic leader as anybody else that supported Perónism. There is the huge contradiction of these regimes I try to criticize here. They claim the people’s power against the hegemony of the elite but everything lies on one man’s shoulders. This situation definitely put democracy in danger!

I am glad we had these two articles to compare because the second one is a fantastic denial and critic of Eva’s vision. Although I do share her socialist inclination, the generosity and the promises of her discourse have a blinding effect. Perón have been supported by the majority of the population during a long time, however populism often mask the reality of regimes that usually need a military order and a doctrinal homogeneity to survive. I would not dare to make such hypothesis concerning Perónism however the least we can say is that they was an opposition in Argentina. People such as Borges have known censure and political isolation. With his text he suggests that there was certainy an authoritarian and indoctrinating aspect of the regime. Indeed, Perón has been very controversial and also very harsh towards any kind of opposition. Borges helps us remind the downside of the regime. I am very sceptical towards populist discourses; I have always felt that they were speculating on the people misfortune, promising anything to reach the power. However, it is more the rhetoric than the famous Evita that I tried to criticize. I am sure she really was concerned with her people, however she was also really idealistic.

What is culture?

The main statement of Williams' article relies on the sentence ‘culture is ordinary’. Saying that, the author means that culture is produced, constructed, influenced, transformed and carried by ordinary people. In order to support and explain his idea, he criticizes and analyses two main theoretical trends. He first explains Marxism and the way it describes culture as dominated by upper-classes ruling the capitalist system and their values. Culture would be unavailable to 'ignorant masses'. On the contrary William asserts that culture is a product of these different layers of society and that culture is not only concerned with elite and high education; culture is ordinary. According to him this mistaken interpretation of culture has led Marxism to the idea that culture can be prescribed and predicted, which apparently played a role in the authoritarian drift (prescribed ways of learning, writing and so on). Then he quotes Leavis whose theory was that our good old and traditional culture has been replaced and even undermined by our modern and industrialized state, the only last rampart being education to keep culture alive. This theory is related to the idea of a modern ‘cultural vulgarity’ especially with the new commercial aspect of culture. However (and to make things short), William refuses the link which seems to be often made between this transformation and the so-called 'masses' believed to be responsible for this new bad commercial culture. He thinks this is reversible. He makes a point at the end arguing about the importance of a more liberal and broadly expanded education to avoid the 'polarization' of culture, which also means that culture might be changing through its necessary acceptance of sub-cultures' influences!

This allows us to make a link with Keesing's article through a point that appeared to me as the critical issue of these two articles. Williams ends his article saying that they are no masses to control and that culture is ordinary and driven by the whole society. However, speaking of 'masses', 'bourgeois culture', or capitalism, he does point out the ambivalent relation between power and culture. I agree with him in the sense that one should consider culture as a production of the whole society, however I do think there is also a question of power which might influences a society's culture at certain points of its history, as well as the interpretation of the concept of culture.

Indeed, he thinks that ‘cultural studies’ stressing on ‘the articulation of symbolic systems with class and power’ (such as Marxist or feminist theories) could help anthropology to challenge the reified and essentialist trend it has taken in regard to the concept of culture. Thus it is worth asking if there could be an important role played by dominant groups and powerful social circles in the production of culture and its transmission. William talked about the role of advertising in mass culture which could be seen as pursuing the interests of a capitalist system. Keesing alludes to the construction of European nation-states in the nineteenth century which precisely consisted in the creation of an ‘authentic culture’ by the elite in order to justify the concept of nation. Education was a crucial mean of cultural reproduction and national strengthening. We could also exemplify this peculiar relation between culture and power with the ‘cultural nationalist rhetoric’ of ‘third world elites’ used to trigger decolonisation and independence for these new states. I do think power and hegemony are important variables concerning culture and especially its essentialization. The relation to the other is crucial for the definition of a distinct culture and there is always a process of differentiation from the outsider. Keesing emphasizes on the concept of difference and ‘radical alterity’ and explains that anthropology has been focusing on seeing culture as ‘a bounded universe of shared ideas and customs’. Who defines who is in or out? Who has an interest in doing so? Most of the time political leaders or intellectual elites: the power. Labelling the other as radically different has always been a political tool at the international scale for instance. Advocating for a shared culture allows to hide potential conflicts and contradictions within a society.

That is why I think there is an ambivalent relation between culture and power. Our trend to essentialize cultures plays an important political role and fuels the misleading idea that the world is composed of inherently different cultures or civilizations (see The clash of civilizations – S. Huntington). Even though I do believe there are different cultural traditions and customs, I think it is dangerous to forget that culture is partly (at least) a social construction.

Test

Hi everyone!

My name is Maite Fernandez. I am a French student in exchange here for one year. I study political and social sciences in France and i am especially interested in sociology and anthropology. Generally speaking I like the Latin American area and i would like to know more about it. I am also learning Spanish.

See you all soon!!