Month: March 2017

Guillermo Gomez-Pena’s excerpt was super interesting to me as Marcos ingeniously inspired the people and constructed his whole persona with the ways, desires and tendencies of the people/media. El Sup observed the structures in which people interact with and create their own knowledge (which in turn create themselves and their own perceptions) and infiltrated  peoples perceptions with relatability and dominating sources of information (with powerful images etc). With an almost dialectical technique, Marcos was both powerful and humble, of the people and of the world, a revolutionary leader and a sex icon, everything people wanted him to be without anyone knowing who he was. As humans, we are extremely dialectical and it was interesting to me how Marcos utilised this human tendency to help construct his identity and his relations/grip on the people and the media. That being said, the love affair with el Sup had to end, just like telenovelas, and the people moved on to the next big thing, as we tend to do with our diminishing attention spans.  In relation to our last reading on hybridity, it was interesting to see how Marcos’ ” sophisticated internationalism” and ability to relate  and be a part of pop-culture (as an exotic sex icon) allowed him to be connected and liked by the people.

“At one point it became hard to draw a line between radical politics and pop-culture, between solidarity and revolutionary consumerism”

Mary C. Beltran explores “the politics of representation” specifically in the case of Jennifer Lopez’ ‘star image’ at the end of 1998. Beltran investigates the sexualization of Lopez  as a ‘cross over figure’ moving into the hollywood mainstream. The question is raised whether the sexualization of Lopez perpetuates the stereotypes of Latinas or is an image of empowerment supporting those with non-model-thin bodies to celebrate their curves. Reading this made me a little itchy as it is a sensitive topic that can deals just as much with the politics representation as a woman as well as a person of a minority. Additionally the comparison between Spanish-language-media vs english-language-media was intriguing. The depiction of Jennifer Lopez could be an indication to what is seen as favourable traits to either culture. In spanish-media there could possibly an emphasis on family and relation to the people and western media– the body and sex. Jennifer Lopez claimed power to her own body by loving and showing off her butt, an asset (pun intended) that is glorified in our current day.

— I wasn’t able to do the full Patria Roman Velazquez reading as essays are piling up but will return to this.

This reading had a similar theme of reinvestigating a commonly used term (hybrid/hybridisation) and deconstructing and critiquing the current and potential application of the term. Canclini’s writing was intriguing as his thoughts and findings are applicable to many aspects of how the world functions in these globalised times.

One thing I found interesting was, the concept of a ‘pure point of origin’ never really existing in this globalised state. This reminded me of an advertisement I saw recently by the travel company Momondo (even though it might be a bit of a tangent in regard to Latin American studies). The ad had 67 participants  take a DNA test that shows their ancestry (click here for video). Prior to showing the participants the results, the people were asked where they thought they were from and a few participants expressed dislike for particular ethnicities and/or superiority of their ancestry through prejudices or their ‘purity’. Upon receiving the tests back most of the participants were shocked humbled to find how mixed their ancestry actually was. Although the ethnicity testing was critiqued amongst people in the field of DNA testing, the point was to depict how we are not as far away or unrelated to one another as we like to think! As Canclini stated “We can chose to live in a state of war or in a state of hybridisation” (xxxi). So, we must chose to embrace the overlaps between cultures, people, societies or we must be in constant collision, fighting for what belongs to whom and not progressing together. But what can be lost and how do we respect the tragedies of the past?

In the context of humans as a whole, the rise of technology (from biological DNA testing to social media)  allows every one in the world to share and be connected on some level.  Globalisation has created a form of mass hybridity to a certain extent, yet we are all still grounded in our own differences –cultures and beliefs. This is particularly interesting to me as  it  is relevant in our ever-globalising world but at the same time, fundamental traditions/beliefs must still be treated with respect and not appropriated as a pseudo hybridisation or just lost.

This week I decided not to summarise the readings as much, but instead write down my personal reactions to the pieces as a whole:

For both pieces, it was incredible to see the depths at which popular culture can be embedded within a society.  In the case of Latin America, it is embedded in ways that are not detached and languid as seen more commonly within other societies. Instead it is integrated in through greatly personal and emotional attachments to the pop culture (ie. sport/telenovela). Yes, these passionate attachments to a ‘pop-culture’ are also seen within Western and other societies (most commonly in sport, politics, religion music and art) however, these attachments  are not as all encompassing in terms of the mass population. Latin American culture continues to merge and explore the polarities of their people and unite them in a love and passion for something (an aspect of pop-culture),  making that ‘something’ core to everyday life and to what it means to be  from that country.

These readings fascinated me as the lines between  the experience of the mass and the experience of the individual are very shared. On their own accord people are passionate about something and that is shared in the masses making them insanely powerful. The power of the people is seen in the political unease created by the telenovela and the mourning of Brazil’s 1950 world cup loss. It was interesting to see how emotion, passion and simply loving something A LOT, dictate to some extent the political actions, decisions and social order.

 

Ortiz, Fernando & Millington, Mark. 

Reading Ortiz was interesting as it advocated for a liberated, more all encompassing perception on the social, cultural, historical and political aspects of colonisation in Latin America (more specifically Cuba) yet it still exhibits a ethnocentric perception.  This slight racism reflected the common thought in anthropology at the time which was sociocultural evolution. As a result of this context,  I felt slightly suspicious of Ortiz but not as bad as  with Vasconcelos. Ortiz refers to the palaeolithic Indian as having an “inability to adjust himself to the culture brought in by the Spaniards” (99) as well as referring to people as Mongoloids and Negroes and comparing their cultures as less  “advanced” in comparison to Indian and European.  But other than those contextual semantics, Ortiz was arguing for a more attentive perception! Ortiz vouches for a better, more respectful and aware way to address the convergence and collisions of culture throughout Latin America.

Although in theory and on paper this is a positive thing, as seen in Millington’s article it brings up much criticisms as well. Millington critiques Ortiz by bringing up the point that it is not possible to encompass the intricacies of culture in Latin America and instead it just becomes a generalised term, commonly used but not really understood in its historical, political, social and cultural contexts.