Week 13: Towards an Uncertain Future

Leave a reply

I can’t believe how fast this month has passed! It feels like only last week we were being introduced to the complex dynamics of Latin America, and now we’re finishing up our final  projects. I hope everyone’s doing well in these busy last weeks.

As I expected, this week’s lecture and readings culminate with uncertainty, as the title suggests. Also, many of the themes we’ve tracked during the course show up here as well. I noticed a revival of extractive colonialism, power and corruption, and of course protest in the context of modern or recent Latin American events. We’re prompted to think about how these themes, embedded in the history and culture of Latin America, will affect the region in years to come.

Something I found quite interesting was how Latin America shifted to the right in terms of privatisation in the 80s and 90s after the brutality of the governing forces in decades previous. I’m also taking a course in American history this semester, and a similar thing happened in the United States around the same time. Largely influenced by their participation in the Vietnam War, the American population became disillusioned with the government. A shift to conservatism occurred in the 80s, exemplified by the election and administration of president Reagan. I think it’s interesting to compare this with Latin America. Latin Americans also became disillusioned with their government at this time. This is in part because of the devastation caused by brutal authoritarian regimes, but Dawson uses the example of the earthquake in Mexico City to show us that the governments were simply incapable of handling crises and catering to the needs of the people. In America, it seems like external forces shaped the shift to the right, and in Latin America, it was much more internal, when historically Latin America was the one to have been constantly influenced by the actions of other countries.

I think this leads us into discussing the current Left identity of Latin America. This week’s legal readings suggest that there still exists a power struggle between those who have traditionally held power (elites, the US, etc.) and those who rise up against traditional power and corruption to voice a common, popular issue. They highlight the power of democracy in allowing people to voice their concerns against institutionalised power. I think the autonomy that Latin America has now will largely influence democratic experimentation in the future of the region and I’m interested to see how these themes will continue to appear (hopefully in a positive sense) as Latin America continues to grow and develop.

Video Project: Revolutionary Cuba – A History

Leave a reply

Revolutionary Cuba: A History is a comprehensive book detailing the prolonged revolution Cuba experienced under Castro. Chapters 2 and 3 explain what happened in the first decade of the revolution, the timeline our video project will focus on. Martínez-Fernández argues what Dawson argues: that the revolution in Cuba was a process, a movement, rather than a single military and political event that consisted of a militia group overtaking a government. 

Martínez-Fernández outlines the most important aspects of the Cuban Revolution. He mentions the popular nature of Castro’s leadership, a revolutionary movement endorsed by the people. He also follows the island’s increasing transition to socialism and communism, especially while under the pressure of foreign relations tensions with both the United States and the Soviet Union. The sugar economy is a consistent theme within the book as well. Martínez-Fernández examines both the negative and positive outcomes of Cuba’s first decade under Castro’s revolutionary structure, information we will use to draw conclusions on patterns in revolutionary Cuba and to connect to larger course themes.

This source will be extremely useful for our video project. It describes the core of the revolution from multiple different angles. We hope to do an overview of the key angles in which the Cuban Revolution can be looked at, most likely focusing on culture, the economy, and foreign relations. Martínez-Fernández traces these themes throughout the revolutionary decade. We will be able to see patterns within the Cuban Revolution because of the text’s wide scope and will also be able to allude to more general course themes using this information. 

Martínez-Fernández follows the revolution throughout the entire decade of the 1960s and speaks on every element also present within our Guevara primary source, the “Letter from Major Ernesto Che Guevara to Carlos Quijano, editor of the Montevideo weekly magazine Marcha” that outlines the New Man ideology and tactics that were so valued within Cuban Revolutionary leadership. We will be able to follow the rise and fall of the New Man, an extremely significant aspect of the Cuban Revolution, using these two sources together.

This book is also in direct contrast with the biased American primary source from 1963 and provides a good foundation for reliable information that we will need while composing the video project. We will be able to contrast views from the 1960s with a recent historical perspective on the Cuban Revolution. We will be able to mention Cuba’s relationship to the United States through both these sources, using the video with a more indirect, cultural interpretation and using this book as direct facts and arguments to meld with our own argument.

Martínez-Fernández, Luis. Revolutionary Cuba: A History. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2014. muse.jhu.edu/book/36010.

Video Project: Inside Communist Cuba

Leave a reply

This source is a news story from the Associated Press dating back to 1963. It shows Cuba in a post-revolutionary state under the leadership of Fidel Castro. Differing from the 1959 video, this is American-produced content and shows us Castro’s Cuba from an American perspective. The video begins by introducing Cuba under Castro as “a sorry island” “conquered by communist imperialism,” playing on Cold War fears of potential Soviet and Communist invasion in the United States. Yet, the shots Soviet-influenced armed guards guarding an incoming shipment that accompany this narration show the men smiling with casual posture, typical signs of being happy and in a good mood.

The video then explains Cuba pre-revolution when it was under the rule of Batista. This Cuba seems much more appealing to the Americans; the narrator describes it as a massive tourist attraction, bringing in many Western tourists to significantly boost the island’s economy. The people of the island are described as “peace-loving and good-natured,” and the island is said to be joyful, fun, relaxing, and carefree. A lot of positive language is used to accompany the footage of Cuba before the revolution. People, Cubans and tourists alike, are shown dancing, dining, and smiling.

Then the video explains how sounds of joy turned to sounds of shooting as Castro’s militia violently took over the government. No kind words are said about Castro. He is portrayed as a manipulative figure who slyly convinced Cuba to support his position as Liberator, a government position he apparently betrays as he shifts the island toward communism. Under Castro, the narrator says the island’s life and joy has vanished. Sugarcane fields may be sabotaged, there is no fresh bread or meat, education and entertainment are both extremely influenced by Soviet propaganda, and the island heavily relies on communist (Chinese and Russian) support. Finally, it ends alluding to America as a saviour, as sick Cubans and refugees are taken aboard a ship embarking for the United States with food and medical supplies funded by the Red Cross, aid the narrator said they could not get in Cuba.

Being an American source looking into Cuba from an outsider’s perspective, this newsreel allows us to see the views Americans had on Cuba at the time when Cuba so adamantly opposed any American intervention. It is extremely biased and explicitly anti-communist and anti-Castro, so using the video as an informational source will be not be a priority for our video project. The American perspective of this video will be useful to exemplify the tensions between the United States and Cuba in this time period. We will reflect on the lasting anti-American ideology during the Castro regime, and this American source will come in handy when dissecting why Cuba felt so strongly against American interference in the island.

Instead, the footage itself is very telling of the conditions and affairs that went on in Castro’s Cuba. Sugarcane is a huge part of the Cuban economy and is linked to the revolutionary movement both motivating the government takeover and after during the revolutionary process. Having footage of that crucial aspect of the Cuban economy will be helpful in telling a complete story of the Cuban revolution. Also, the video provides shots of Cuban militia members, most of which are smiling and seem happy. From the armed guards protecting imports and exports to the young militia members patrolling the streets in groups at night, they sport smiling faces and a hopeful attitude based on body language. While the narrator does not attempt to analyse this, we will most likely use this footage to accompany information about the popularity of the Castro regime, especially in the early years.

British Movietone. “Inside Communist Cuba – 1963 | Movietone Moment | 2 Dec 2016.” YouTube. December 2, 2016. Video, 6:44. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwLmYpy2PCc.

Week Twelve: Speaking Truth to Power

1 Reply

This chapter is no less depressing than last chapter. It seems the patterns of repression, disappearance, and corrupt leadership continued well into the 80s and 90s throughout Latin America. I think the information we read about the Madres organisation shows the desperation felt by the general public. Their strong opinions and passion when speaking into the journalists’ microphones, their “por favor”s, all show how affected they are by the government’s actions. The disappearing of “subversive” citizens that we saw last chapter in Peru and that happened also in Cuba post-revolution continues into the 80s in Argentina. While these countries all had relatively different dictatorships it’s interesting to see how the same authoritarian government tactics were used across Latin America. Just like authoritarianism is a common Latin American pattern, it seems the evolution of government repression tactics in this time period is too. The affects felt by these governments certainly still exist today as the Madres continue to march.

I noticed some themes in this chapter that connect to what we’ve previously seen in the course as well. The corruption of leadership and authority is something that really captured by attention in the readings. We’ve seen multiple times and it is again a key aspect this week. In the context of the emerging drug economy and crackdown on drug crime in both Latin America and the United States, the dynamic of authority changes yet experiences the same kind of corruption and inequality we’ve seen through decades of Latin American leadership. Police and political figures begin to lose control, as Dawson argues, and the fear of losing control results in authoritarian leadership. This would explain the pattern of leadership in Latin America, from colonisation to the 80s, as elites and those in power fear the rise of the repressed and lower classes.

In the context of the drug war, the open letters to the drug cartels and Mexico’s politicians and criminals show the shift of authoritarian power from government to drug lords. Instead of addressing the government that theoretically could act to solve the problems journalists are facing by covering drug stories, the Diario directly addresses those who could actually make a difference, those who hold the most power currently: the drug lords. So the authority that holds the power has changed, but the same repressive patterns continue. People disappear, turf wars and the underground economy inspire conflicts among influential groups as they each strive to maintain a monopoly, and the general populace is afraid of those who are in power. Even the police switch from being a (corrupt, when considering the Aguas Blancas Masacre) government authority to being the corrupt puppets of drug cartels. Sicilia embodies the theme of “literary figure to political figure” transition we’ve seen in Latin America as he also addresses corruption and repressive authority in his open letter to both politicians and criminals.

I wonder if we can see this theme in the US as well in the context of the war on drugs. While cartels may not hold as much power in the US and don’t directly steal power away from American governmental authority, drugs certainly have a massive influence in US criminal and justice policies starting from Nixon’s crackdown, grown throughout Reagan and Bush’s War on Drugs. If so, I wonder if this would support the closeness of the relationship between the US and Latin America, or further increase the tensions between them.

Week Eleven: The Terror

1 Reply

This week’s focus is on Peru, specifically movements concerning peasant’s rights, freedom from repression, and institutional corruption in the 1980s. Focusing on the Prolonged People’s War of the Shining Path and administration of Alberto Fujimori, Peru experienced another wave of conflict later than other Latin American countries. Rather than the communist revolutions earlier in the century, Peru’s was sparked by events in the 1960s.

Land reforms are again hugely important as a basis of conflict in Latin America. I believe this is because of Latin America’s history having experienced extraction from colonisers. The region is largely an export economy, one that was founded on and used for raw goods and materials rather than industry and production that characterises the North. Of course, there are still many examples of industrialisation and modernisation, especially in the former weeks of this course, but the legacy of extractive colonialism remains important to Latin America as an economic structure in rural areas as well as bearing continuous social influence on conflicts. As was demonstrated in the Mexican Revolution, land and land reforms are of huge importance to rural Latin American peasants. The Mexican Revolution is shrouded in “land and liberty” ideas and images of the rural peasants taking over the urban environment, arguably taking back what has been kept from them through extraction and the inequality that comes from economic divisions. Like Mexico, land reforms were an integral part of insurgency in Peru, however the unique Peruvian aspect is that middle-class people were the perpetrators of these insurgencies, not peasants. The perpetrators fought on the basis of helping the peasants, but the Velasco coup and the land reforms he imposed to theoretically help peasants aggravated the conflict even further.

In response to the unsuccessful land reforms, more middle-class people founded the Shining Path in an attempt to actually help the peasants. This organisation gained support because it communicated with the peasantry and came to understand their demands and was willing to help and protect them, unlike the government. The tensions between the Shining Path and the government came to a head under Fujimori; violence from both parties and restrictions imposed by the government rapidly increased, resulting in an extremely traumatic dirty war and ultimately, government victory.

Cameron’s video lecture brought up an argument I found quite interesting: the idea of cyclical violence. Peasant repression brought about the Velasco coup which brought about land reforms which brought about the Shining Path which antagonised society to the point of terroristic government retaliation which left a deep fear in Peru still existing today. It seems as if every event that occurred that tried to alleviate repression caused further repression. Perhaps this is because no single movement, event, regime, etc. can cater to every member of the population, and so some people will always be favoured over others. Yet, does this result in a revolution, violence, and further repression every time? The Peruvian case certainly is interesting in this perspective and I’m happy I was able to note some connections to other Latin American happenings that have been discussed in class!

Week Ten: A Decade of Revolution in Cuba

1 Reply

I believe this week’s topic is the topic for my group for the video and research assignments! I hope I was able to interpret it correctly to apply it to our upcoming projects, and I definitely look forward to reading what my classmates have made of the information in this week’s readings as well. I found the Che Guevara letter quite interesting as it highlighted the main goals of the revolution and mentioned where the process needed to improve. The Paz excerpt provided insight into the individuality of the revolutionary process, something that Guevara in his letter mentioned was at the core of the revolution (if done right). Finally, I thought the Sánchez blog posts were a really good addition to this chapter. We haven’t seen too many recent primary documents (I think the only other one was the Chávez speech?), despite the theme that all the patterns we see in this course are still relevant today and still have modern implications and legacies in Latin America.

I keep thinking of the term “revolutionary process.” Based on what I’ve read, I believe Cuba’s revolution really was a process, and Dawson argues this as well. I think this is one of the main themes we’ve explored throughout the semester as well. Revolutions may begin with a conflict between the suppressed and the people in power, but they don’t really end with the overthrow of power. Revolution is really composed of a process including the fighting, establishment of a new leader, reforms, and most important to understanding thematic patterns, the legacy and underlying remains of the revolutionary process.

Guevara’s letter outlines the founding themes of the revolutionary process while Paz’ “El Lobo, el Bosque, y el Hombre Nuevo” explains how those themes affect individuals and their involvement in the revolution. Both of these documents seem a little distant and dated compared to Sánchez’ blog posts. While they do provide a good example of revolutionary (and counter-revolutionary) mindsets during the height of the revolutionary process under the Castro regime, they show only a small slice in the timeline of revolutionary patterns. Sánchez proves that the revolution remains in Cuba and her activism online allows for the world to take notice. Sánchez’ posts are mostly critical of the revolution, as in they oppose or disagree with many of the outcomes the revolutionary process has caused. As a closing note, this leads me to wonder, with every revolution and its continuing legacy, will there be an influential critical or counter-revolutionary legacy like there seems to be in Cuba? And does this clash further fuel the influence and longevity of the revolution?

Week Nine: Power to the People

2 Replies

Contrasting the political leaders who favoured the middle-class or elites, populist leaders appeal to the working class. These people often felt forgotten by repressive regimes and were empowered by leaders who respected them. Dawson argues that populism’s massive influence in Latin America came about at a time of social and technological change that inspired populists to change the role of a political leader while “crowds” became a unified “people.” He relates populism to caudillaje as well, claiming that both these types of leadership encompass a vast amount of leadership that otherwise is not defined as left- or right-wing leaning. These types of leadership seem to cater more towards the “people,” or at least, they appeal to the people’s demands and reflect what the people need and want at the time.

Social changes, like larger cities and a larger working class, coupled with new forms of media like the radio, inspired politicians to take advantage of technology to reach (and appeal to) a wider audience. Attempted by Getúlio Vargas and Carlos Lacerda in Brazil, and Lázaro Cárdenas in Mexico, Juan Domingo Perón and Eva “Evita” Duarte seemed to successfully grasp the power of new media (radio, popular culture, music) to appeal to the working class of Argentina.

Perón’s emphasis on political loyalty from the working class is reflective of the caudillaje loyalty system. Caudillaje was popular in its time, and Peronism became very popular too. Perón coupled this loyalty with government-partnered unions to empower industrial workers while achieving his goal of rapid industrialisation that was successful during Argentina’s postwar economic boom due to its export industry. Dawson says that Perón was successful because he was charismatic, delivered on his promises, and respected workers.

The primary sources this week surround Evita’s speech about refusing the VP position alongside Perón. Though both Perón and Evita “subject [them]selves to the decision of the people” and “do as the people decide,” Evita really captured the people’s attention. From my analysis, she acted as a bridge connecting the people and their demands with Perón and his political actions. Dawson argues her relationship with the masses was due to her unique perspective on Argentina, created because of her working class upbringing and professional career later on. Before politics she was a bridge between worlds, and her association with Perón only strengthened that role. The question I had while reading this chapter was “why did Evita so badly not want to become VP?” In the documents she mentions the struggle and the honour of the VP position, and reliquishes the honour portion. She implies she would still be heavily involved with Peronism and the people. so why does she not want the VP position to make that responsibility official? Was she afraid this official title would lead to her being caught up in a revolutionary overthrow? I came to the conclusion (but am definitely open to other opinions!) that she appealed to the people through her humbleness (always crediting work to Perón, her one goal of supporting Perón, explaining her infinite debt to the descamisados) and an official title, anything other than “Evita,” would cause her to focus more on political bureaucracy (Perón’s responsibility?) than being a bridge, a voice for the people, the thing that made her popular in the first place.

Week Eight: Signs of Crisis in a Guilded Age

3 Replies

Dawson’s definition of revolution is interesting. He states that “revolution is a claim of ownership on history” and “an attempt to shape a view of the past that organises power in the present” through inheritance or attributing meaning. Before the American Revolution, “revolution” was a much more literal word. Revolutionaries would want to “revolve” or revert back to the old method of operations because they were unhappy with a new government. I’d like to argue that American revolutionaries redefined this term as their government did not revert back to British rule pre-reforms that caused the revolution in the first place. This form of revolution took global hold, as France, Haiti, and eventually Latin America revolted under this new definition. To my understanding, in Latin America, the goal of revolutions was to create new governments that would better represent the population (or at least the population in power); whether they achieved this is a different question, but I’d say in the context of Latin America, revolution is definitely more of a “claim of ownership on history,” or on a time period in history where the revolution and its leaders is the most significant aspect, than Dawson’s other argument.

I believe some themes we brought up early in the term appear here again. Continuity vs change, for example, can be applied to revolutions. Earlier in the term we discussed if revolutions really change anything. Dawson argues in the lecture that politically, revolutionary governments often revert back to the past, but socially and economically a new order emerges. So perhaps both occur. The theme of “a past that hasn’t passed” appears here as well. Dawson’s evidence for this argument is the Mexican PRI, which claims an ongoing revolution through a series of reforms. Dawson also doesn’t want to outright state when the revolution happened, its beginning, its ending. He doesn’t want to limit it to within a certain time-frame as the ideologies still exist even today. “The claim ‘land and liberty’ never goes away” and is still a very dear part of many Latin American peoples’ values and heritage, though we may tend to otherwise see it just as history. This brings us back to another question: what is a revolution? Is it bloody and violent? Is it sudden and significant? Or is it a less dramatic, constant process of bureaucracy, protests, and reform? Are revolutions more common than we think, if we give the term a less rigid definition?

Week Seven: The Export Boom as Modernity

2 Replies

In the lecture, Alec Dawson revealed that the concept of modernity is usually split up into 4 categories when looked at by historians and analysts. Innovation includes the improvement of society through development and the creation of new things. Emancipation suggests the emergence of liberalism and rights. Secularisation promotes inclusivity because places and people of power would not have a religious bias. And finally, universalism combines these 3 categories into a 4th one that favours the value of sharing modern ideas throughout society and the world and values rational thought above all else.

In the reading, Dawson also mentioned that modernity in Latin America can be seen through different lenses. Ideological and professional narratives clash to focus on certain aspects of Latin American modernity and create an incomplete narrative. But by looking at all the different types of narratives together, we can see the general, important themes and how they matter to these different lenses and points of view. Dawson again suggests 4 different narratives that exist in studying Latin American modernisation: tragedy, epic, comedy, and romance.

I’d like to take a look at these 4 ideas and see how the reading, “Porfirio Díaz, Hero of the Americas,” an interview conduced by James Creelman, fits in with them.

In the context of a tragedy, we can take a historical approach and identify elements of this interview that lead to the “tragedy” of incoming, brewing revolution to Díaz’ Mexico. Díaz says the middle-class is a recent development and it is considerably favoured in the order, progress, and prosperity of Mexico in this era. This shows the inequality, political and economic, that the other classes (especially the poor) face. How can they reap the benefits of progress if they are too “ignorant” to participate? How come this isn’t seen as the state’s fault? Why do the rich have no responsibilities in progress as they are too “preoccupied?” How come they aren’t contributing, working, or perhaps suffering in the same manner as the other classes? It seems even the rich aren’t free to participate in Díaz’ peace.

Regarding the epic narrative, immediately we can identify how this relates to Creelman’s portrayal of Díaz himself. The title of the interview names Díaz a “Hero,” and Creelman quotes an official as having said that Díaz is “one of the great men to be held up for the hero-worship of mankind” (139). Even the progress that Creelman identifies is written about in a very impressed and admired manner. This is the story of Díaz’ triumph over Mexico, a story of a self-made man transforming the country into a disciplined and practical one through his venerable independent thought. Interesting how Díaz is seen as the one fighting the good fight while so much of the country is repressed. Or is Díaz’ idealised portrayal by those who have an influential voice more the avoidable problem?

Dawson looks at the comedy lens through a 20/20 hindsight historical perspective, how we see how certain elements are left out of the primary document portrayal of Mexico and how that contributes to the revolutions. I believe this same idea can be applied to the Díaz document. Rather than exploring the tragedy of the victims through Mexico’s modernisation, we can see as Díaz lists all his achievements and Creelman admiring them, political progress and the idea of emancipation is greatly limited. Díaz seems to favour the middle-class and disregard all else. How can he ignore so much of the population and consider the poor “ignorant” and the rich “preoccupied” when they still contribute in their own way to Mexico’s development and subsequent revolutionary spirit? Is this class-based repression, one that could have been avoided if more attention was diverted from economics to politics, the reason for Mexico’s revolutions?

And of course, Creelman’s journalistic writing style is extremely romantic. As mentioned in the lecture, he describes Díaz in an incredibly poetic manner. He even describes the surrounding environment and the information he has learned about Díaz’ progress in the same way. Perhaps this reflects the narrative of the appeal of innovation, the romance of progress, that Creelman believes his readers will want to surround themselves with.

 

Week Six: Citizenship and Rights in the New Republics

2 Replies

All of this week’s readings have an “action” type feeling to them, that they contribute to a higher calling and whoever wrote them felt as if they specifically were in a position to help or educate others in some way. The textbook mentioned that the literature of post-emancipation represents both liberalism and scientific racism of the 19th century.

Unfortunately I didn’t really understand Nina Rodrigues’ “The Fetishist Anamism of the Bahian Blacks,” and I didn’t quite see the point of the Santa Rita de Casia y San Lázaro Manifesto. So I’ll comment on those in a limited manner, based on what I did understand.
From the perspective of someone living in a generally liberal society looking back on historical moments, I found that all these works fell in either “liberal” or “could be liberal” or “scientific racism” categories. Also, I identified many instances of the “affect” theme that Jon mentioned in the video lecture throughout the readings, and I’d like to analyse that too.
I think the point of Nina Rodrigues’ text was to understand the different religious customs of Afro-Brazilians. He interestingly pointed out that the “African element” of their culture had been “diluted” in the diverse environment of Brazil, and that the only pure thing left was “the feeling that animates beliefs.” Take that as you will, here the idea of “feeling” or “affect” comes up. Is Nina Rodrigues using the affect argument to deny these people access to equal, unemotional rights? Or to define specific rights that would suit them? I think this work fits into the “scientific racism” category.
I was surprised at how liberal the Political Program of the Partido Independiente de Color was! Some of what they call for is even controversial today, like the free university idea. I think this fits into the “liberal” category. Words like “love” and “worthy” are used to address the nation and its citizens, respectively. Did this “affect” aspect affect how rights and responsibilities are defined within the nation, with all of its diversity?
The only thing I managed to analyse from the Santa Rita de Casia y San Lázaro Manifesto is that death symbolism was used a lot in the wake of a massacre (context given by the textbook). Liberal notions of this text are paired with imagery of death: “Death is Nature’s justice,” and mentions of everyone being equal since everyone is born to die. Also interesting is the amount of times they declare they are “true Christians.” Is this to appeal to whoever they are writing to? This plays on the cultural/feelings/affect argument I believe. Elites may have a better impression of them if they share spiritual values.
Brush Strokes by Echenique is almost explicitly liberal. She critiques affect in favour of women’s rights and emancipation. She clearly rejects tradition, stating that “the women of today are not the women of the past.” And she defines rights and emancipation in the context of women: they must be more philosophical.
In Josefina Pelliza de Sagasta’s piece, she takes the opposite stance and fights for tradition, mostly on the basis of “affect” spirituality. This immediately seems illiberal, as she calls for tradition and not progress, but interestingly her support for women (at least women in her own class) is quite uplifting and inspirational. She clearly uses the idea of “affect” as she praises womanhood through words like “love” and “exalted.” Also her use of empowering words like “queens” and “strong” could be seen as catering to the individual.
One last thing: I feel like these readings especially pointed out some flaws of liberalism (building off the discussion my section got into on Tuesday!). Can liberalism lead to the loss of individuality while trying to protect the concept of the individual? All for the “greater good” of society? I think this especially shows in Echenique’s writing, she almost calls for the erasure of female feeling in favour of emancipation. Just a thought!