ABRIL TRIGO General Introduction view, documented through established texts and authors, of the specific problems, topics, and methodologies that characterize Latin American evltutal studies vs--vis British and US. cultural stud- jes, The reader, which inchudes essays by many of the most prominent in- Tellectuals from both Latin America and abroad who specialize in this field, aims to provide scholars and studenes fom all the disciplines ia the humanities and tke social sciences with a condensed but methodical and exhaustive compilation, but lso to map out, fom a critical perspec- tive, the concrete sociohistorical and geopolitical circumstances as well, as the specific problems and relevant polemics that make up the field in ialogue and in contest with other theoretical and critical discourses Given ts goa, the book's to axiat hypotheses are fst, that Latin Ameri- can cultural studies area disputed field ina gicbal scenatio, which can- not be fully understood or further advanced without considering its historical grounding in Latin American sociocultural processes, and sec: ond, that despite common interpretations, Latin Americen cultural stud Jes are not just the product oF an epistemological beak, postmodern or otherwise, but also the result of specific historical continuities. Thus, through the introduction of selected readings, the book traces and dis plays the genealogical lines and epistemological erosstoads that mark the socighisorical and geocultural specificity of Latin American cull studies by signaling its peculiar aesthetic, institutional, politcal, and cultural problematis, its diverse methodologies, and its historical ante- ‘cedents, precursors, and founders always in dialogue with a multiplicity ofexternal influences. Inorder to offer different possible paths of reading amid the synchonic and disehronic tensions, confiets, and transforma- tions, as well asthe overlapping critical trends and heterogeneous socio T= main puspose of this reader is to provide a comprehensivecultural vealities that make up the specifiy of Latin American cultural studies, the selected texts are imnodsced along with 3 map that charts the cognitive constellations, thematic nerworks, critical interventions, ideo- Togieal faxes, and chronological developments, as well as the position fat every author it this book has in the development of the fick, thus allowing the tesder to choose among different routes and invent ness ones. ‘he selection, organization, and introduction of a representative cor pus of exts—an anthology, a colleczon, 2 compendiuas ot aay sort—is, always 2 ditficul task. To decide which texts and authors will be included is an agonizing process; zo decide which ones will be excluded is even worse. In chat senée, no definitive anthology is possible, and this reader oes not intend to be the culmination eFa field fill of contradictions and divergent methodological, epistersological, and hermeneutic ten- Gencies, is yur owt introductions clearly demonstrate, On the contrary, ithas to be read asa open work, ene tat isin the ptovess of becoming However, a few words about the criteria of selection are in order. Many ‘people would disagree wich our selection, with che inclusion of eertain authors of texts and the exclusion of omens: many toe would ask them selves why certain authors ate included in one section instead of another: others might demand a better representation for women, gy nic groups, ora tore nuanced balance between different between authors from Latin America and abroad. Furthennore, some people woutd complain about the absence of Latino critics, but in fact, Gespite hs many obvious connections with Latin american cultural stud ies, Latine cultural studies coule be understood a5 a separate field with & different set of problenis, methodologies, and inllectual eraditions. As -asnarter of far, the four sections in which we have organized the anthof- ogy respond to the chronological impser of cenain authors of texts upon the formation and development of the field, and should not be under stood as hierarchical categories. The absence of an aathor fiom any see- tion does not imply any sort of negative judgment on her oF bis work Nevettheless, after the exhausting coasideration of several, sometimes opposite criteria of selection and methodological strategies, we have come up with a list ¢ftexrs and authors thatis aot only representative of the current stats ofthe field but, more impartanty, also provides an 3e- ccoustt oF its histosical formation, its inost outstanding ideological and moetiodological trends, acd its main themazic axes and theoretial com tcoversies, Thetefore, we have put together a selection of wexts that, fOr the most pazt, have had a significane role i. the development of the itd orrepresent a significant contribution to its current status. iia 2 ABRUTRIGO , 7 ‘An Operational Definition of Latin American Cultural Studies What isin a name? She ame is of no importance and, nevertheless, we are not so disingenuous as to believe that names are value free, empty signifiers. because itis too well known that every name is charged, in~ actably, with sedimentations of meanings linked to concrete historical foundations and institutions of power, Partially at least. to name is to possess. S0, why are we including under the cubric of Latin American ‘eultural studies so many diverse practices, which are usually assessed by theie own practitioners under differing rubrics? Given the fesce resis tance to the invasion of “cultural studies” from so many camps, pactica- larly in Latin America, we could be accused ofacademie opportunism, of trying to capitalize on the euerent populatity of “cultural studies” in the US, academy, Or we could be accused of miscalculation. W's publish Latin American cultural studies reader, in English, previsely when both US, and Latin American cultaral studies have been so harshly eviicized for having become institational gears for tie plebal control of knowl- edge? Should we not adoptanother rubric, oradapt one ofthe many Lacia ‘American historical variants? Our decision isa strategic oné. We do not ‘accept the consideration of “cabnaral sadies” as a universal rademari; swe cannot accept the historical precedence octhe epistemological preem- inence of any particalar definition of “cultural studies,” ot believe itis politically prudent to vede the privilege, not ofa rubric, but af the prac tices tha that mbric names. We vindicate the specific political trajectory ‘and the epistemological space of Latin American cultural studies, noc az abranchof same universal “cultural studies” or a8 a supplement of Brit ish or U.S. cultural studies, butas a fll-fledges field of inquiry that has its own historical problematies and trsjectories. By way of susnmnary, but with ne pretense of proposing a definitive or prescriptive definition, we outline the axial features of ous working interpretation of Latin Ameri cancultural studies. Latin American calturat studies constitute a field of ingulry histori cally configared feom the Latin Ametican critical tradition. and in con- stant, sometimes conflitive dialogue with Western schoo's of thought, ‘such as French structuralist, poststructuralist, and postmodernist ‘gustics, philosophy, anthropology, and sociology of euleure; German Frankfurt school and reception theory; semiotics and feminisms; and more recently, British and U.S cultural studies: The main objects of i ‘quity of Latin American cultural scudies are the symbolic production and ( tiving experiences of social teality ip Latin America. in a word, what can General introduction 3be read as a cultural text, what carries a sociohistorical symbolic mean- ing and is intertwined with various discursive formations, could become 4 legitimate object of inquiry, from are and literature, to sports and me- dia, to social lifestyles, beliefs, and feelings. Therefore, Latin American cultural studies produce their own objects of study in the process of in- vestigation, This means that cultural studies cannot be defined excli- sively by their topics of research or by any particular methodological ap- Proach, which they share with several disciplines, but inscead by the «epistemological construction of those topics. Precisely in this operation, which has a cognitive (heutistic, hermeneutical, explicative, analytical) and practical (prospective, critical, strategie, synthetic) value, lies theit strongly politival thrust. In this sense, Latin American cultural studies focus on the analysis of institutions, experiences, and symbolic produe- tion as intricately connected t0 socizl, political, and material relations, relztions to which these elements in turn covteibute. Consequently, cil tines can be defined as historically and geographically overdetetmined symbolic and performative institutions and lifestyles specific to concrete social formations, which develop under particular modes of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and aztifacts with symbolic ‘value. Phecultwal is perhaps a better term to capcure the kaleidoscopic na- tate of ovr object of study than culture, which generally implics some de. agree of reification, Thus, the cultural can be conceptualized as a histori- cally overdetermined field of struggle for the symbolic and performative Production, reproduction, and contestation of social realty and political hegemony, through which collective identities evolve, As such, the cul- tural can be considered Latin American cultural studies’ ptivileged fild of inquiey inasmuch as it is ceeiprocally produced by and a producer of whats experienced at the soit and the political spheres, The sociohistori- cal overdetetmination of the cultueal guarantees its inextricable connec- fom to the political. A cultural text is always part of a wider and more ‘complex symbolic systera, afield of strugele for the symbolic reproduc tion of social reality that is ultimately ettcidated at the political sphere, Upon this operational definition, we ean sumaesrize the central rencts of ‘our hypotheses. SOCIOHISTORICAL CON TEXTUALIZATION Latia Ametican cultural studies are a dispated field in a global scenario, which means that they must necessarily be read against the histor ical background of Latin American socioeconomic and geocultural en- ‘meshment in worldwide affairs and external influences, Just as Latin ‘American cultural pRenomena cannot be fully explicared as either ex- 4 ABRIL TRIGO li lusively endogenous of exogenous processes, Latin American cultural studies cannot be fully grasped without considering their ccation to Brit- ish and U.S. cultural studies, This requires 2 duaily contextual bifocal hermeneutics, capable of interpreting the text against the sociohistorical { milicu in which it originated, and simuitaneoushy against the sociohit | torical milieu it: which che subject’s own interpretation is being pro duced. This critical methodology. by pitting historically set meanings and values against each other and situating the subject in the actual flux of history, prevents the entrapment of contingency politics—merely em- pirical and conjunctutal, like identity polities—and guarantees the grasping of the contingeatin comprehensive social ad geopolitical for- mations. RELATIONSHIP WITH 9RITISH AND U.S. CULTURAL STUDIES Latin American cultural studies did not originate i British ealroral stud- {es or in Western postmodern theorics, Well before British cultural stud- Jes and postmodern writers reached Latin America, and well before Brit ish cultural studies were coined in Britain and postmodernism was born, many Latin American ineelectuals were already doing some sort of cul- tural studies, Simiauy, the genealogy of atin American cultural studies is manifold and eclectic, and does nor relate divectly and solely to post- structural and postmodernist theories, They aze not an offshoot of US. cuteual studies either, which they actally autecede. Instead, they arean- uber locally and historically gounded practice of that abstraction called “cultural studies,” a, for instance, Bish, U.S., and Australian cultural studies are, Hovicve, the consolidation of Latia American cultural stod- jes in the ro80s and 1990s coincided with 2 dramatic turn, inextricably connected othe formation ofa global theoseical marketplace, from the long-lasting influence of European mxlera values, theories, and think: ers (parciculaty fiom Frazce and Germany) to Anglo-American postin- dustrial and postmodern academic hegemony, a phenomenon further ‘dramatized by che large number of Latin American intellectual migrants. SociobisraRicAt CONTINUITIES Latin Ametican cultural studies are not just the product of an epistemso- logical break, postmodern or otherwise, but the result of specific socio- hiltotical continuities in the Latin American political and cultural Jiews, despite the fac that some celebrities in Latin arnerican cultural studies trace their roots directly to European schools of thought while circumventing the opulent Latin American critical tradition. Néstor General Introduction 5Gaccia Canctini, arguably the most internationally emblematic represen- tadive of the fied, and Beatriz Sarlo, a Latin American cultural studies scholar malo, rately exedic any Latin American cultural thinker be- yond their own circles. This silencing is somewhat contradicted when Garcia Canclini claims thet he “became involved in cultural studies be- fore (he realized this is what irwas called,” geen Sarlo says that she “shought [she) was doing the history ofideas” (Gare(a Canelini 1096, 84; Satlo 19979, 87). Obviously, if prior to becoming acquainted with cul- saralstudies as such, they were alreacy practicing them, its because the field's issues and methodologies predate as such. Both Sacto, a literary critic, and Garcia Canelini, 2 cultural anthropologist, were working in ficids aleeady permeated by theoretical, methodological, ard ideological concroverses that constitute pata isves within Latin American cul tural studs. According to Julio Rainos, «literary critic who is conceraed with the discursive, disciplinary, ard institutional genealogy of national liteta- tures, and with che central role of cuteorat policies in the consolidation of nation-states and theic national imaginaries, Latin Anterican cultural studies deal primacily with the emergence or the survival ethnic idemti- ties, diaspoxic subjects, and subaltern lores, copies that nurture an episte- ‘mology at the limits of traditional disciplinary boundaries, These copics reflect {upon the intensification of confices in heterogeneous sacial for- mations, such as the border culture of U.S. Latinos and the uneven m0 dernity of Latin America throughout its history. The difference etween current Latia American cultural studies and traditional Latin Anseviean thought is chae the later bet onthe integrative capability of national liter- sures and.art, while the former questions them as apparatuses of power, “The fact reniains, however, that not only the topics of inguiry, but most importantly the institutions and practices of knowledge in Latin Ametica have always been “heterogencous, irreducible to the Principles of auton- ‘omy Which Fraited the disciplines in the United States or France, for in- stance." Latin American cuitural thinkers since the early smereenthecen- cury have *wocked, precisely in the iaterstital site of the essay, with transilisciplinary devices and ways of knowledge” (Ramos 1996, 36) “they ate, in the truest sense, the eatly precursors of Latin American cul tural studies. SOCIOPOLITICAL FRACTURES “Latin American cultural studies also originated as a hermeneutical and Critical response to the econemic, social, poltictl, and culeural transfor mations of Latia American counties and societies under the impact of 5 Agri rico. transnational france capitalism and the globalization of culture experi- enced since the eatly 19708. The erushing of democratic populat move” ‘ments and the instalacion of repressive regimes paved the way for the evltberal dismantling of local industries and social legislation, the pri- vatieation of state enterprises, the deregulation of labor ar speculative capital, the twenty-fold increase of national debts, and the overall im- rmersion jp global capitalism and rransnational mass euleute as the national question been superseded by globalization? Do new social movements and the emergence of previousty supyressed identities replace national imaginaries? Is civil society outside, above, or against the nation-state? Does the derertitorialization of capital deteritorialize ‘old territorial allegiances? Two axes intersect here, On one hand, the _probleanatic of the nation-state dnd its articulation tothe global markers, hich leads to the coze issues of citizenship and consumption, identities ‘and ee subjecs, on the other hand, the problematic of modeity, with the subsequent impact of the postmodern and she pastnational, global iation and its articulation to the local and the national, and the passage from an international sphere to transnational networks. “The politics of the 1960s were guided (and many times dogmatically tnisguided) by che premise that the main contradictions of vive times sere bourgeoisie vers proletariat and impel versus nation, Such contra ictions subsumed every single sociopolitical conflict and allowed for the formation 9f popular national bloxs inorder to carry curthe pending national-demoeratic and social revolutions, Dependeney theory, peda gouy of the oppressed, aid theology of liberation, amomg the mast im- _ portant critical paradigms (0 emerge from Latin America in shat period, directly nurtured andlor responded ro the said presise, Lace. imperial- jm and the nation, the main characters in this dram, faded from the scene, alongside the mere concept of social cass. Imperialism, with the end ofa bipolar world, the advent of flexible postindustrial capitalism, and the dispersal ofits centers, lost its currency. Ifitis no lange possible tothinkin tems of modem economicand culeural imperiaismt, how ean. the peoples of the periphery name these postmodern, spparentiy de- centered, transnational centers of power? Haw can they devise liberating political strategies without being able to name this imperial postmod- etn, this flexible, ubiquitous, omnivorous regime? Corrlatively, ow can these peoplee aame themselves, that is, create themselves as agents of their own destiny? The national question iy ill « capital issue in Latin America, alongside neocolonialism, the popular, modernity, and mod- cenization, So is dependency theory, a vernacular form of post-Marxisti— otto be confused with other forms ofpost-Marxism, which proclaim the General introduction 7demise of Marxist thougit—and anticolonialism=not to be confused with postcolonial studies, which assume the demise of anticolocial strug- gles-—whose main objectives of economic justice, popular democracy, and cultural emancipation aze still unfilled. This is the reason why the need to insist upon the political is medullar tony project within Latin American cultural stedies. Asa matter of fact, Latin American intellectuals have always been intricately linked to poli- ties and the politcal, both in theory and practice, But since politics has become old-fashioned and reading cultute in political eems has become ala mode, mote than ever the status ofthe political necds tobe elucidated politically (laineson 19gea, 44), What is the articulation between culture and polities, or bener yet, henveen the culeueal and the political? The imerpretation of cultures in political terms should net end up epoliti- izing politics. On the contrary, a more rigorous discernment of the mo- tually overdetermined status of the politcal and the cultural shoutd allow for a deeper and renewed politicization of both polities and cul tures on the understanding that they still constitute wo discemnible— though never discrete or actonomous—spheres of social action. Culture is overdetermined by the political as politics is overderermined by the cultural, but ye there is a specifically political praxis as well as a specifi- cally cultural one. And here is where utopia comes in, because if uropia is basically 2 necessarily evasive horizon, it needs to be permanently re- inscribed in aur ertical practice in the sarme way politics has always been inscribed in cultueat studies asa tension bevween the intelleetuat and the academic, desire and knowledge (Fall 1980, 17). As Jameson has said, Utopia must be named (19goa. 52), and this utopian will, renovated as practice and not just as desice, is what recreates the long tradition of Latin American chought that resonates in the intellectual adventure of Latin American cultural studies. LATIN AMERICAN UNDISCIPLINED THOUGHT Ithas become sort of commonsensical to affirm char the most charactet- istic feature of Latin American cultural studies is their multidisciptinary, imerdisciplinary, ot tansdisciplinary methodology, and some of their most distinguished practitioners assume this decidedly. On one hand, Joha Beverley speaking from the strong U.S, academic disciplinary trad tion, stresses that “the point of cuteural studies was not so much to create 4 dialogue between disciplines as to challenge the integrity of disciplin- sry boundaries per se” (1993, 20). Nestor Garcia Canclini's position, of the other hand, is cautiously nuanced. Although he applauds cultural studies’ interdisciplinary methodology, he warns that “ie must net Be ili 8 Awan rico cote a substitute forthe different disciplines fwhich] should become in- volved in the study of culture, inform one another, interact, and make their respective boundaries as porous as possible. But from the peda- god point of view, it seems to me that a university level the differences between disciplines should be kept” (1996, 86). While Beverley cele- brates transgression, Garcia Canclini recommends a complementary balance between the disciplined pedagogic moment and the alterior 1multdisciplinary professional practice. But the core of te mater is that ult, inter, or transdisciplinarity are deeply engrained in Latin Ameri- can writing, in the form of an essayist thrust that evolves from the nineceenth-cencury polygraph intellectal (che lawyer by profession who twee also a poet, ajoumalist, an ideologue, a politician,» ctatesman).teis precisely that, polygraphic practice—-very close indeed to the kind of contingent, impure, deprogramined “border text” proposed by Nelly Richard, quoting exckasively European poststracturalist writers, as par2- digmatic of “caltural criticism” (1998a)—which has always already tr3- versed discursive formations, confused social spheres, and conta ‘hated the disciplines even before theit academic institetional inception atthe beginning ofthis century. For chis reason, Latin American cultural studies cannot be defined either by its multi-, inter-, or tansdisciplinary methodology, an issue which, as Neil Larsen correctly argues, is not “a serious issue any more” (Larsen 1998, 247). Moreover, as Walter Mignolo writes, “One could say thar there is 2 style of incellectual production, in and from the Thicd World, which consists of a certain undisciptinar- 489.21. tis not essentialism that explains this: iti rather the history of “Golonialison and the game of power and cultural scholarship in the his- tory ofthe colonial countries and inthe history ofthe colonies” (Migaolo 19984, 112) In this sense, the undisciplined chacacter of Latin American (cetial chinking would be a byproduct of the historical unfolding of co- lonialista in ite various forms, not merely as its rhetorical and stylistic inadvertent syndrome, but also as 2 methodological steatagem and at epistemological tactic dependent upon the uneven development of the 1odern relations of cultural production: EPISTEMIC SHIFTS Latin American cultural studies are also the aftermath of the epistemic shifts experienced by several scientific disciplines and discursive for ‘mations. In that manner, they are the locus where human and social sciences, such as anthropology, sociology, historiography, communica- tions, and literary criticism, converge around a new conception of tecul- tural ( 9f struggle that began to take shape in the 1960s and General introduction 91970s. A few centers of literary research, such as the Centro ROmulo Gar legos, in Caracas, othe Insitute for the Study of Ideologies and Litera tures, athe University of Minnesota, and influential cultural or political journals, such as the Revista de Case deias Amica, published in Havana, or ‘Martha, publisked in Montevideo, had 2 prominent role in this process. A case in point is Angel Ratna’s critical, methodological, ideological, and political confrontation in the 1960s with Emir Rodriguez Monegal. As Rama summarizes this intense period, Redriguez Monegal, whe prac tied an extremely elegant brand of New Critieism, played an important role in disseminating Larin American literature worldwide “from the restricted appreciation of literature by a ‘pure literati.’ " Howewe., S298 Rama, “I had to reinsert literature into a general structure of culture, which inevitably led me to its grounding in the historical, and to work with sociological methods capable of holistic constructions, recon- verting criticism te the process of letters and committing it w social de- mands and the Latin American community.” And he adds, defining in unmistakable terms the paradigm shift: “Criticism began to be histori- cal, sociological and ideological, providing explanations that related the ‘work to its context and scrutinized the concrete grounding of cultural phenomena, This movement emphasized the interest in a sociology of culture... . aad Matvism” (1972, 88-89, 108). ‘As Herman Vidal has put it, Rama’s position embodied a “social un- derstanding of literature” according to which “the literary critic was Sup- posed to abandon his identity as a technical analyst of privileged teats in order to take on the identity of a producer of culture from a consciously Gefined political position.” Afterthistarn, concludes Vidal, “literary crit icism thus moved closer to symbolic anthropology, sociology, and polit cal science” (6993, 115). The debate between these two eamgs, or better yet, within these two moments in the development of Latin American criticism, ranged from the status ofthe literary text to the composition of the canoa, from the relation between literature and art to che limits with regard to che popular, and from the technologies of literary and cul- tural criticism to the political role ofthe intelectal. All of these topics would become medullar issues for Latin American cuftutal studies dut- ing the veBos, The passage fom the centrality of literature (and its aes thetic interpretation) to culture (and its nuanced historical, sociological, and anthropological analjsis), while it signaled a mew hermeneutic strat- egy, which requited new methodologies and assigned a new episte- mological status to diverse texts, discourses, and practices, should be understood, nevertheless, more as an epistemological shift than as paradigm break to AgRIL TRICO COGNITIVE CONSTELLATIONS AND THE THREE MOMENTS IN LATIN AMERICAN CULTURAL STUDIES One ofthe most salient features of Latin American cultural historyis the continua], always renovated transformation of afew cognitive constella- tions (see map)— ideological, thematic, and theoretical clusters around Which most ofthe imaginary signifies ofthe first long century of Latin American posteoloaial life converge. The obsessive questioning of neo- colonialism, the popular, the national, modernity, and modernization, 2s wellas national and continental identities and their internal and external others, galvanized the critical and exeative efforts of generations of art- ists and intellectuals, thinkers and activists wha weee cormmitted tothe construction of modern national cultures. In the 1960s and 1970s, Letin America went through one ofits most intense historical periods, in political, economic, social, and cultural terms: from consersative and populist nationalist regimes, 0 revolution- ary projects inspized by the Cuban Revolution and the anticolonial move= ‘ment, (0 the military dictatorships thar cleared the way for neoliberal policies and the assauit of global finance capitalisis ftom economic neo- colonialism ad import substitution modernization to conservative de- velopmentalism and its critique by dependeney theory; from the urban- lation and secularization of rural popalations to the expansion of the ‘middle classes and the explosion ofthe college population, the progres- sive inclusion of new sociat agents in politica life, and the overwhelming power ofthe culture industry; fiom the expansion of national and inter- national mass culture to the emergence of youth countereultures and ethic subcultures, che literary boom, the new Latin American cinema, the street theater of collective ezeation, and the movement ofthe procest song. Asa consequence of this sociopolitical effervescetce, these were ‘extremely fermentative Intellectual times, which witnessed the emer- Bence of diverse theoretical proposals, characterized by a strong histor! cal and political urgency matched by anti-imperialist and anticolonialis feelings and a new Latin American utopia. Among the main theories to ‘emerge inthis period, the theories of culeusa! imperialism, internal colo? «pls; pedagogy of the oppressed, theology ant philosophy of tibera- fon, and dependency theory stand out. ll these theories and sociopolit ‘al piacices were able to crystallize, upto certain point, a utopian Latin ‘American imaginary by rapidly spreading through the subcontinent and becoming the first Latin American theoretical product for export, purtc- ulaily to other Thied World regions and amid certain metropolitan ace demic cieles. Alongside Che Guevara's mystical look and the exotiism ‘of magical realism, they helped to fx the extemal image of an unruly General introductionperersrrey ae aoe , i ae SIDIDND-O1905 Te . ae Gea ances ea } suausinaaiog swogopunog € ‘sun pup seu) continent. In these circumstances. the old cognitive constellations drifted into new ones adapted tothe times. “Forerunners," the frst part in this reader, presents Antonio Candido’s sociocrticism, Darey Ri- beito’s geocultural anthropology, Roberto Femindex Retarat's Cali banism, Angel Rama's transeulturation, and Antonia Cornejo Polat's heterogencity {map}. These cognitive constellations amalgamate the most cogent issues and theories of the 19708; concomitantly, these au- thors are dicect precursors of Latin American cultural studies msofat 25 they Fonction like a bridge between current practices in the eld and the Jong tradition of Latin American critical thinking. ‘The 1980s repeatedly have been called the “Latin Ameriesn lost de- cade” du to the fac ehat the consolidation of neoliberal socioeconomic polices, now under the blessing of neodemocratic zegimes led by teeh- rnocrats and electronic politicians, had terrible consequences on the na- tional economies andthe social fabrics: underemployment an Hexible ‘employment, a erely postmodern euphemism: widespread impoverish- ‘ment, particularly among the lower middle sectors; the widening of the ‘aap between rich and poor; stratification of a small, bigh-consuming slobalized upper class and a large, tow-consumning marginalized work- ing force; and last but aoe leat, the brutal increase ofthe migratory lows toward mesropolitan countries. The globalization of Latin American economies, Societies, and cultures reached, in the 1980s, intensity and complexity of higher proportions. In that context, Latin American cul- tural studies tried to elucidate and come to terms with neolibesalism as an economic mode! anda market ideology, with the substitution of party politics by mass-media and consumerist democracy, and with the added Social and symbolic value acquired by tte cultural im everyday lite, as 4 consequence of the new economic centrality of the symbolic—and primarily of transnational mass cutcure—in the information age. Ac- cordingly, this expansive foundational moment and its necessity to ap- Prehend such deep and vertiginous transformations is framed in the ideological skirmishes of the postmodera debate, which in Latin Amer- ica begins inthe socialsciences entrenched in research centers founded by metropolitan foundations. In other words, contemporary Latin Amet- ‘ean cultural studies are actually founded in the ineersection of the Latin Amirican treition of cultural analysis and the postmodern self-reflexive irreverence, at the most neutalgic moment of globslizatioa, The old cog- nitive cOnstellations shifted once again, this ti completely eno- ‘ated subfiekis of inquiry emerging, such as colonial studies, gender and minorities, modersty andfor postmodemity, media and mass culture, and culturat hybridity (map). Jean Franco, Carlos Monsivais, Roberto General introduction 43Schivare, Beatriz Sarto, Walter Mignolo, José Toaquin Brunner, Jesis Martin Barhero, and Néstor Gazeia Canclini, all included in the second part of this reader, are the mast prominent founders of comtemporary Latin American cultural studies Over the backdrop of these cognitive constellations, which estab: lished the main theoretical, methodological, and tematic lines of contemporary Latin American cultural studies, the z9gos staged the blooming and the subsequent implosion of the field. The third part, “Practices,” incluces a selection of outstanding essays that deal with some of the most recurring topics in ehe field, thas providing an inevitar bly partial though represercative picture of Its curren status and major trends. The frantic search for new critical paradigms and the opening of epistemological frontiers nurtured an intense theoretical exchange between opposite tendencies vying for the hegemony of the fied, and seached levels of theoretical oversaruration and deconstructive hyperteo- phy that imploded the field, eading to the present mood of uncertainty, disorientation, and fatigue. Colonial studies led to postcoloniatism and postoccidentalism; studies on media and mass culture, combitied in dif- ferent Gegrees with the madernity}postmodernity debate and cultural hy- bridity, led to globalization and subsliern seudiess gender and minori ties, filtered through postmodernism, nourished cultural criticism, The debates between these different positions, recapitalated in part 4, “Posi- tions and Polemics,” exploded around the definition and the projection of Latia Americanism and Latin American cultural studies (see map). Seerningly, by the turn of the century, most ofthe theoretical proposals hhave reached their limits, which explains their gradual zeturn to che cog- nitive constellations of the 1960s and 19708, directly ot indicectly con- nected to classic Latin Amecican cultural paradigms, such as dependency theory, liberation theology and philosopiy of liberation, the pedagogy of the oppressed, and the theories of internal colonialism, third civema, and collective theater. The cycle, which started with the optimistic drive ‘of the focerunners in the 19798, is closing upon itself. After the theoret cal frenzy of the 19908, unintelligible without the explorations of the 1970s and the discoveries of the 1980s, the study of the cultures of Lait: America would never be tie same, and still, iewill ever be what it has ah ‘ways atready been. 14 ABRIL TRIGO Forerunners Introduction by Alicia Rios TRADITIONS AND FRACTURES IN LATIN AMERICAN CULTURAL STUDIES tural studies are a disputed fielé in a global scenario, which can- not be fitly understood or farther advanced without considering, its historical grounding in Latin Amezican sociocultural processes.” Thus, "despite common interpretations, Latin American cultural studies are not just the ptoduct of an epistemological break... butalso the ze- sult of specific histocical continuities." Ik is afield oF enquiry that has been mapped out through a series of conflicts, combining the rich Latin American critical zradition with European and North American schools of thought. 1m this introduction to past rT would like to consider the manner in which the very long and important tradition of the Latin American eriti- calessay has been intersected, througitout its history, by certzin thematic axes and enunciative positions marking many af its pivotal cancerns: {questions of the national and the continensat, the rural and the urban, tradition versus modernity, memory and identity, subjects and citizen- ships, and, especially, che role of intellectuals and institutions in the for- mation of discourse as well as social, cultueal, and political practices. ‘These concerns all lead into five cognitive constellations: neacolonial- ism, modernity and medcrnization, tne national question, the popular, and identtiestaltetties/ethnicities. From the 1820s—the period imme- diately following independence—well into the 19608, Latin American K the preceding introduction has established, “Latin Amezican cul-