week4—against abstraction; a challenge of concrete action and wasted breath—
reading blog #6 – on Mariategui’s Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality.
I think this was one of the most interesting readings we’ve had thus far. Coming from a Canadian and North American context, thinking about Indigeneity and the ‘Indian Problem’ as an economic one, rather than a moral, social, or pedagogical one was extremely fascinating. I don’t know if I agree with everything that Mariategui describes, but I can certainly sympathize with his points and see where he’s coming from.
I have always thought that solely politicizing or economizing an event and taking away the moral/ethical aspect was problematic. I think this text definitely challenged me on that aspect.
“As long as the vindication of the Indian is kept on a philosophical and cultural plane, it lacks a concrete historical base. To acquire such a base—that is, to acquire physical reality—it must be converted into an economic and political vindication. Socialism has taught us how to present the problem of the Indian in new terms. We have ceased to consider it abstractly as an ethnic or moral problem and we now recognize it concretely as a social, economic, and political problem. And, for the first time, we have felt it to be clearly defined.” (29)
This idea of the focus on the abstract reducing the importance of the concrete was challenging for me. At first, I felt a bit of offense, but after I dusted off my ego, I started to understand more. Perhaps, what Mariategui argues for—in his line of questioning against the social abstract and for the economic concrete—is action. Not simply action as well, but revolutionary action as the inevitable route towards change.
“Humanitarian teachings have not halted or hampered European imperialism, nor have they reformed its methods. The struggle against imperialism now relies only on the solidarity and strength of the liberation movement of the colonial masses.” (26)
It was fascinating and perhaps a tad nihilistic to think about how these ‘humanitarian teachings’ or ‘social abstractism’ has obstructed the real and inevitable change, of which Mariategui argues is fated to coincide with socialism. This mode of thinking seems to me, to have been at the forefront of our education and academia.
“Those who have not yet broken free of the limitations of a liberal bourgeois education take an abstractionist and literary position. They idly discuss the racial aspects of the problem, disguising its reality under a pseudo-idealistic language and forgetting that it is essentially dominated by politics and, therefore, by economics. They counter revolutionary dialectics with a confused critical jargon…” (29)
It was challenging in other ways as well. I have never been one to look to communism, Leninism, Marxism, or socialism as a solution, (perhaps this is because I am not an expert on it), but I can understand and reflect that this wariness and hesitation may come from biases in my Western education. So, to hear that the Inka’s mode of production can essentially be defined as agrarian communism came as a bit of shock to me.
It was also interesting to think about the Indigenous collective mode of production, particularly how this kind of economy—of whose is the foundation of Peru—still plays into the way community is lived nowadays. Perhaps, it is seen in the markets, or just the friendly, neighbourly ways that people operate under, but another part of me thinks that the most prominent example we’ve seen it play out is at Kusi Kawsay school. Are these examples a way of enacting concrete and economic change?
I am curious to know what others think about the social abstractism that may or may not be present in our education—especially regarding this course. To me, I don’t feel my education has been a waste of breath, in fact, I think it’s been very worthwhile to my understanding of Indigeneity. (This perspective of mine, of course, is limited to a Canadian context; but slowly expanding, nonetheless). However, I do recognize and agree that this tension between knowing and doing is palpable, and it seems inescapably unresolvable to me. How are we—as visitors, tourists, settlers—meant to understand and resolve this tension? I myself am leaning towards the answer of solidarity, but perhaps that is a return to social abstraction. Is it our place to (help) enact change or liberation?
3 replies on “week4—against abstraction; a challenge of concrete action and wasted breath—”
Hi Jasmine! You present some complicated questions and views in this post. When I think about social abstraction I think about the theoretical frameworks and how they are essential for understanding patterns in behaviours and social phenomenon. There are varying levels of social abstraction and each have its own merits. Of course, we also have to recognize the nuances and complexities in whatever we are discussing as no theory will perfectly encompass a given event.
“Perhaps, what Mariategui argues for—in his line of questioning against the social abstract and for the economic concrete—is action.” Personally, I am against many things, and abstraction is one of them. Perhaps, without knowing it, you have reached the same point as the most important question of Marxist-Leninists: “What is to be done?” This, of course, in specific situations, in front of specific actors, after a deep analysis – often painful – of the situation in which we find ourselves and from the personal moment from which we face a problem. And as you may already suspect, there are no easy general answers. We can only move forward with community discussions and a critical approach, knowing that we are severely limited by insurmountable biases. And yet, what is to be done?
Mhm. Very complex questioning you evoke. I admire your attempt and ability to hold these tensions. I am leaning toward the feeling that abstraction can in fact be an active engagement with thought and theory which materialises through our behaviour and decisions. The imaginative aspect of abstraction, ideation, idealisation is important as we give ourselves and our collectives the space to believe otherwise,, and then enact otherwise. I’m too am also really glad to participate in a “liberal Bourgeois education” … because I learned about the system right along side theories of change.
Our solidarity work with the political, in these moments might be more personal — deciding which ways we want to learn (transformative education, which balances the intellectualised and the embodied) how we are living in the world we wish to be a part of (if that’s communalism, socialism, or whatever tf) in our localised, inter-personal worlds.