University of East Anglia School of Development Studies

"Constructing problems and solutions for indigenous peoples: A Critical discourse analysis about identity and cultural violence in Mexican main political platforms." J. C. Barrón-Pastor

A dissertation submitted to the School of Development Studies of the University of East Anglia in Part-fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Research in Development Studies.

August 30th, 2006

1

"Constructing problems and solutions for indigenous peoples: A Critical discourse analysis about identity and cultural violence in Mexican main political platforms." By Juan Carlos Barrón-Pastor

ABSTRACT The

dissertation

is

a

critical

analysis

of

representative social discourses about identity and cultural violence in Mexican political platforms. The paper is divided into three parts: the first is a complement to a previous literature review; the second is a critical analysis on Mexican identities through caste analogies (criollos, mestizos and indígenas). The third part is a critical discourse analysis of two Mexican political platforms of the 2006 election, based on an adaptation of Fairclough’s model. The dissertation provides a strong argument to linking cultural violence as a source of inequalities.

TOTAL WORD COUNT: 11,248 without tables, figures and references

1

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Historical context Methodology antecedents Research design Structure of the dissertation Table 0.1. Transition to democracy? Figure 0.1 Adaptation to Fairclough’s model

4 7 9 11 13 15

1. Identity and cultural violence: Legitimating inequalities through selfidentification Culture and Identity The problem of the other: stereotypes One source for inequality: cultural violence Conclusion

16 17 18 20 22

2. Identity and social discourses in representative political discourses Common territory PAN: a Criollo discourse AMLO: his mestizo discourse Zapatista indigenous discourse

24 25 28 31 34

3. Unveiling cultural violence in Mexican political platforms Text Analysis Genre Discourse Style Context Analysis

37 37 39 42 43

Conclusions

45

References

47

Endnotes

52

Annex 1. PAN electoral platform (extract) Annex 2. AMLO electoral platform (extract)

53 55

2

3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful for the academic support of the School of Development Studies of the University of East Anglia, the financial sponsor of the Fundación Mexicana para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Tecnología (FUNED) and the economic and emotional back of Lourdes Pastor.

I particularly thank Georgina García, her direct collaboration for this research. Also, I appreciate feedbacks on this paper of Patricia Almaguer-Kalixto, Marilú Cuevas, Yael Velleman, John Cameron, Bryan Maddox, Catherine Locke, Anna Magyar and Sian Sullivan. Additionally, I want to mention the discussions and a debate that took place in the Mexican Society during the elections period in Mexico; particularly, the conversations with Marco Salas, as an inspiring source. Finally, I would like to reiterate that this is a collective fruit of tutors, teachers, colleagues, friends and authors; I hope this dissertation can be found useful and honour our dialogues. Thank you all.

3

4 INTRODUCTION

This dissertation is part of a larger research project that aims to derive theoretical implications from the different discourses of actors involved in intercultural policies in Mexican High Schools. The Master of Research dissertation intends to provide a background of the representative social and political discourses about identity and cultural violence that might anticipate the reproduction of those discourses in education policies.

The main justification for the dissertation is the necessity of having a systematic interpretation of discourses as it can help in a better understanding of potential assumptions that may influence further policy design. A second but not less important justification is to practice discourse analysis, as it will be one of the main tools to approach multi-modal and multi-voiced social meanings of participants in Mexican policies for multicultural coexistence.

The structure of the Introduction contemplates a historical context that aims to give a fast immersion in Mexico’s actual situation. After the context, the research design is laid out and includes a brief problem definition that will be extended in the first chapter. From this statement, a question, a goal and some objectives will be outlined. To follow the line traced, the methodology presents a framework about critical discourse analysis. Last but not least, a brief summary of the dissertation’s structure will close a long introduction. Historical context In 1994, the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN) broke the appearance of social peace in Mexico. The indigenous insurrection brought indigenous peoples to the political scene and obliged Mexican society to see 13 million ‘forgotten’ Mexicans. Since the conquest and invention1 of the continent (O’Gorman, 1958), identities, cultures, and knowledges of the Mesoamerican civilization have been systematically denied (Bonfil 1987; Montemayor, 2001a) 4

5 and their existences have been perceived as ‘problematic’ by the political power (c.f. Carbó, 1995; Montemayor, 2001b, Coronado & Hodges, 2004). In more than 500 years of this violent process, indigenous peoples have been pushed towards poverty, resistance and oblivion.

Historically, it is common for the conqueror, criollos and mestizos, to design laws, policies, programs and projects to ‘overcome the problem’ of developing and integrating indigenous peoples into the ‘national project’ (c.f. Bonfil 1987; Montemayor, 2001a). In 1996, after some faux pas2, Mexican State, through the representation of the three main parties and the National Government signed an agreement with the Zapatista movement. This agreement is based on Convention 169 of the International Labour Organisation (ILO, 1989), and is commonly known as “San Andrés Accords” (SAA, 1996). A new national indigenous movement created the Indigenous National Congress (CNI) to have a common representation to be considered in the agreements that also endorse the document. A group of parliamentarians, representative of all the parties in the Congress, wrote the legal document to apply the ‘San Andrés Accords’ and the consequent legal reforms, commonly known as ‘Cocopa initiative’ (Cocopa is an acronym of ‘Commission for Concordia and Pacification’).

But the government broke the agreements and tried to push a legal reform that did not satisfy EZLN, CNI, and even the Cocopa3. Vicente Fox, President of Mexico, when he was a candidate claimed in 2000 that he was going “to accomplish the San Andrés Accords and to solve the problem in 15 minutes”. In spite of his promise, Vicente Fox sent to the parliament a proposal that was almost identical to the one that Ernesto Zedillo tried to pass three years before. Even was public the opposition to this reform of the EZLN and the CNI, the three main parties voted the law that in practice cancelled the San Andrés Accords. Even the Democratic Revolution Party (PRD), considered moderate left and ‘natural allies’ of the Zapatistas, surprised the public opinion voting against the accords.

5

6

In 2001, EZLN revolted peacefully to have permission to defend San Andrés Accords in the National Parliament4. After hard negotiations and massive popular demonstrations, most of the parties acceded to let the use of the ‘first tribune of the Nation’ to the Indigenous EZLN leaders. Only the ruling National Action Party (PAN) voted against the permission and most of PAN parliamentarians left the Parliament to avoid listening the message of the Zapatistas. Felipe Calderón, then a parliamentarian (2006 PAN candidate to president), considered then that the action “humiliated, insulted and denigrated” the Parliament (Jornada, 23-03-01).

During the last five years, EZLN, CNI and other civil organisations linked to left and minorities’ movements, exhausted all the legal appellations, stopped any interlocution with the government and the parties, and since 2006 are constructing a new political force known as ‘the other campaign’. PAN government, supported by the parties in the parliament, reformed the Constitution and several laws to ‘promote a new relation with indigenous peoples’

through

the

National

Commission

for

Indigenous

Peoples

Development (CNDI) (c.f. CNDI, 2005). All political actors claim commitment to indigenous peoples rights, the necessity for inclusion in diversity, and an iron will for indigenous peoples development. So, What is impeding a minimum agreement among these political actors? Maybe they do not share word’s meanings.

2006 is being a politically explosive year. After a period of 18 years commonly known as ‘transition to democracy’ (see table 0.1), Mexico is living actually a period of polarization and historical ghosts such as ‘fraud’, ‘racism’ and ‘revolution’ are here. Felipe de Jesús Calderón Hinojosa (FC) is the candidate of the conservative ruling party PAN and alleges he won the election by a 0.5%, supported by the official institutions, the mass media, the businessmen and the catholic church. Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) also claims he won the election bonding a left coalition (“for everybody’s wellness”) formed

6

7 by the PRD and some other small left parties and is supported by intellectuals, civil society organizations, Mexico City government, and millions of peoples in demonstrations that truly believe that there is fraud against their leader and have literally taken and paralysed Mexico City centre during the summer of 2006. The 70 years ruling party, Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) and its candidate, Roberto Madrazo Pintado (RM) is in a far third place. The EZLN and the Other Campaign affirm there is a ‘gigantic fraud’ against AMLO and claim that they know by experience that the government is not going to accomplish agreements and invites civil society to self-organization and autonomy. “The results of July 2nd show trends of social and political polarization. As only seen as few times, social and regional inequalities are crystallizing in political differences. Post-electoral movements only will contribute to reinforce this pattern” (Buendía, 2006:5, My translation)

Methodology antecedents

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) has received attention from very different disciplines and across-disciplines studies (cf. Jaworski & Coupland, 1999; Toolan, 2002, CADAAD, 2006). Maybe one of the reasons for this attention is an implicit convention of seeing discourse “as a type of social practice” (Fairclough, 1992: 28). Bayley (2004) explains that CDA is an interdisciplinary approach, which is socially and politically implied and committed. It is aimed to intervening for oppressed groups, as it posits the discursive nature of power relationships, and to recognize the inherent meanings using a systematic analysis through “the network of conventions that underlie and legitimate discourse practices” (Bayley, 2004:28)

History of CDA can go even farer than when Gramsci (1971) proposed praxis to materialist dialectics or George Orwell associated politics to English language. CDA come from two main currents, one related to social theorists and the other from linguistics. The first line attached social theory, ideologies and power relations to language and explained social relations through

7

8 discourses during the sixties. Representative authors are Louis Althusser and Michel Foucault. On the other hand, contrasting the more influential tradition of Noam Chomsky, Michael Halliday (1978), opposed Systemic Functional Linguistics to Generative Grammar, to emphasise the social construction of meaning as an alternative to the psychological one.

From social theorists, Pierre Bourdieu, explained language as a struggle for power, and detonate polemics in discussions about the limits of human agency.

In the linguistic field, following Halliday’s tradition, Norman

Fairclough (1985: 334) stressed, “In acquiring the discursive norms one simultaneously acquires the associated ideological norms”. Giving a critical scope to Halliday’s position about the choices that are made available to speakers of a language. Also in the linguistic tradition but focused especially on context and the reproduction of racism and prejudice in discourse, Teun Van Dijk stated, “many inequalities and injustices are enacted, reproduced and legitimated by text and talk” (1998: 132).

Discourse analysis can show differing contexts, experiences and forms of inequality and cultural violence expressions. As Van Dijk argues, discourse analysts should study the ways that distinct forms of domination and discrimination are “expressed, enacted, legitimated and reproduced by the many forms and meanings of text and talk” (Van Dijk, Teun 2004:163).

“Unravel the ideological framings of discursive practices and is firmly grounded in the analysis of the lexico-grammatical structures of language.” (Galsinski et al 2001:25) This separation of meanings can be made through representations, actions, and identifications of texts (Fairclough, 2003). Dialectically, three dimensions -knowledge, social relations and social identitycan

be

inferred

from

the

representational,

the

actional,

and

the

identificational meanings (Fairclough, idem). The method of deconstruction identifies

genre,

discourse,

style,

intertexts

and

assumptions

in

a

representative text of the selected actors.

8

9

Research design

Problem construction

One of the main discussions in development studies is about the source of inequalities. It is widely recognised that, in Mexico, indigenous peoples represent the poorest 10% of the country (Serrano, Ambríz y Fernández, 2002; CNDI, 2005). According to Johan Galtung (1995), a source for inequalities can be found in structural violence that precludes people from developing their potentials. Horkheimer and Adorno (1994), linked elites to mafias and trace some sketches to explain how [structural] violence from dominant classes can be attached to cultural identities. In Mexico, identities have been attached to racial stereotypes based in the system of castes that Spain imposed to this country as a colony (Ramos, 1934; Paz, 1950; Bonfil, 1987; Coronado & Hodges, 2004). These identities will be used as a base for the analysis but stripped of its racial explanations and leaving only processes of self-identification through common histories and socio-cultural values (Díaz-Loving, 1999). It is important to remark that race is not synonymous with culture. This dissertation assumes that attaching conjectures of identity to biology is a intellectually illegitimate mistake that promotes prejudices and stereotypes that validate cultural violence (Barrón-Pastor, 2006).

In the reproduction of social discourses related to self-identification, cultures reproduce and legitimate systems of beliefs and rationalisation (Adorno and Horkheimer, 1972). As “discourse constitutes the social” (Fairclough, 1992: 8), a manner to approach how social relations are constituted is analyzing critically the texts of social actors. Through the analysis of discourses, it is expected to explain how the actors construct problems and to infer some social assumptions and perceptions reflected in political platforms selecting specific ‘markets’ for votes.

9

10

Question of research

How do political actors in contemporary Mexico reproduce social discourses of identity and cultural violence?

Goal and objectives

The main goal of the dissertation is to analyse identity and cultural violence in social discourses of electoral platforms of representative political actors.

General objectives: 1. To complement the review of literature related to identity and cultural violence in discourses. 2. To recognize the identity of political actors in social discourses and their respective patterns of cultural violence. 3. To analyse the political discourse related to identity and cultural violence in two electoral platforms.

Specific objectives: a) For ‘identity’, to recognize common history, common territory and common socio-cultural values in some Mexican social discourses associated to political parties b) For ‘cultural violence’, to recognize stereotypes, legitimacy and resistance in the same actors

Research stances

The dissertation is a qualitative research within a cross-sectional design. It assumes social actors as historical, constructing complex phenomena,

10

11 meanings and problems, through inter-definition and interaction of relations, while the subjects redefine themselves (González-Casanova, 2004).

As political discourses will be seen as representative of social discourses, which will be critically analysed as symbolic interactions constituting the social (Hammersley, 1989) through three dimensions: identity, context and text (Fairclough, 1992, 2003). Context and text will be based in an adaptation of Fairclough’s model (2003) (Figure 0.2), based on a previous analysis to recognize the identity of the text-makers (Diaz-Loving, 1999).

The method consists in three levels of critical analysis: a documental analysis, a context analysis and a text analysis. The documental will review the construction of identities and cultural violence from a theoretical perspective. The context analysis will ‘introduce’ the actors (criollos, mestizos, indígenas) under territorial, historical and socio-cultural common elements. The text analysis will deconstruct critically two Mexican political platforms for the electoral process of 2006. The conclusion will infer some explanations from the three analysis made.

Structure of the dissertation

Chapter one is a complement of the critical review of literature and is a brief summary about the theoretical discussion related to identity and cultural violence. Concludes showing the necessity to recognize social discourses in representative social actors.

As political discourses can be seen as representative of social discourses, chapter two is an approach to social identities possibly reflected on actual Mexican political groups.

The analysis is based in Díaz-Loving (1999)

definition of identity and uses Castells (1997) and Van Dijk (1998) perspectives to incorporate notions of power.

11

12 Chapter Three is the discourse analysis of political platforms of two emblematic political positions based on an adaptation of Faircloughs’ model (2003). This analysis is based on two Mexican political platforms for the electoral process of 2006. Aspects such as text and context will be differentiated. From the text, the analysis will infer genre, discourse and styles and some possible interpretations under the light of the previous chapter. The context analysis of this chapter is limited as it is only based on the selected documents. However, it is expected that the reader will be able to do some links with the identity traces of chapter two.

Conclusions will show some coincidences of political discourses to social identities such as criollos, mestizos and indígenas in Mexico. Also conclusions will point some stereotypes of political actors about to indigenous peoples and these stereotypes will be contrasted to indigenous claims, and will infer some traces for cultural violence.

12

13 TABLE 0.1 Transition to democracy? Very brief chronological table to the last political 18 years in Mexico Year 1988

Main events Fraud in elections Carlos Salinas, president Deepening of neo-liberalism

1992

Neo-liberal counter-reforms to land ownership Democratic reforms Economic prosperity Stated owned companies sold to private investors

1994

Zapatista rising. Massive support to the movement demands a pacific exit for the conflict PRI presidential candidate, Luis Donaldo Colosio is murdered Democratic elections, PRI keeps the power, Ernesto Zedillo is the President Economic spectacular failure Treacherous vain attempt to capture the EZLN leaders Agreement for a peace process after massive mobilizations Signing of San Andrés Accords Withdraw of the government to San Andrés Accords EPR uprising: Government crushes the traditional guerrilla but it is still in operation

1995

1996

Position of actors related to the context PRI: Internal fracture, President decides neoliberal technocrats keep the power. ‘Democratic wing’ leaves the PRI. PAN: starts preparing civil resistance, after negotiations, they desist and validate election PRD: first antecedent: national opposition movement EZLN: Clandestine guerrilla of less than 20 persons PRI: technocrats displace most of traditional politicians PAN: They affirm Salinas is stealing their economic program PRD: Birth in 1991, claims for a democratic reform EZLN: Clandestine, pass from 20 to 2,000 persons EZLN: successful burst in political scene, claims for indigenous rights are wide accepted in the discourse of most of political actors PRI: ‘populist’ candidate is shot, replaced by a technocrat. PAN: Second political force in elections PRD: Third place in the election, at least 500 supporters killed during Salinas period

PRI and PAN: support to military incursion against EZLN, after fiasco, regret and retreat PRD: rejects military incursion, claims for a dialogue EZLN: Strengthen its claim for a autonomy and a new Constitution, accepts dialogue PRI, PAN & PRD: The three parties sign the accords as guarantors of the sign of the President. PRI and PAN support President decision of breaching the accords. Massive media campaigns affirming the accords were accomplished PRD: Claims for accords accomplishing EZLN: suspends dialogue until the accomplishment of the signed accords. First International meeting of Zapatista’s supporters, construction of national indigenous movement (CNI)

13

14 2000

PAN candidate, Vicente Fox wins the election for president, ends with 70 years of one ruling party in the presidency

2001

President Fox sends a proposal to the congress for indigenous rights. Zapatistas speak in the National Parliament

2006

Elections under spotlights. Governments support openly their candidates. The other campaign travel across 21 states; ‘Subcomandante Marcos’ (now ‘delegado zero’) moves from Chiapas to Mexico City. Repression against the town of San Salvador Atenco, one person is killed, tenths of injured, at least 8 were raped, 200 people jailed. 300 organizations of Oaxaca revolt claiming for the state governor resignation. After elections AMLO supporters announce civil resistance; demonstrations of more than 2 million persons; the movement is going beyond parties’ control

PAN: The winner candidate affirms that is going to “solve the problem of Chiapas in 15 minutes”, during the campaign affirms once and again that he is going to accomplish the San Andrés Accords PRI: Looses the presidency but keeps control of the Parliament and the Senate PRD: Claims for an internal restructuring EZLN: Announce of a long pacific march to Mexico City and the intention of using all legal appeals to recognize indigenous rights in the constitution PRI, PAN, PRD: The three parties vote and pass Fox proposal for indigenous rights ignoring indigenous claims for a full recognition of rights EZLN: Rejects the reform passed by the parties and claims for a full recognition of rights based in the San Andres Accords and the 169 OIT Agreement. After the parties’ decision of ignoring San Andrés accords as the base for indigenous rights recognition, CNI and EZLN exhaust all legal appeals during the next four years PRI: Elba Esther Gordillo, leader of the corporative teacher’s union transfers her influence to support PAN candidate, PRI falls to a third force in the Parliament. PAN: Felipe Calderón affirms he won the election; official institutions and mass media say he won by 0.5% and PAN is the first force in the congress. They reject the proposal for a re-count of votes. PRD: Andrés Manuél López Obrador affirms he won the election; claims for a fraud. Civil resistance of his supporters. Some AMLO followers complain EZLN did not join him during the campaign. EZLN: Organizes the ‘other campaign’ not to discuss with the parties or the government, but “to listen, dialogue and construct an anticapitalist political program within adherents”. They also affirm a ‘big fraud’ is being conducted against AMLO.

14

15 Figure 0.2. Methodology Adaptation of Fairclough’s model (2003)

15

16 1. IDENTITY AND CULTURAL VIOLENCE: LEGITIMATING INEQUALITIES THROUGH SELF-IDENTIFICATION

Introduction

This chapter is a complement of the review of literature submitted to UEA (BarrónPastor, 2006). It is a framework about the discussion of the two main topics that will be further analysed: identity and cultural violence. Its aim is to enlighten critically some structural aspects that social relations might be reproducing.

Some of the main discussions around development studies are related to the constructions and approaches to concepts such as poverty and inequality. Most of contemporary tendencies focus on individuals and their characteristics, their capabilities (c.f. Sen, 1999) or vulnerabilities (c.f. Chambers, 1995). But these approaches tend to ignore or minimize the power relations that are producing and reproducing those ‘gaps’. One of the ideological manners to legitimate inequalities is reproducing the discourse of inequalities as natural, not as a construction of dominant cultures. To keep focus on those relations that use and reproduce inequalities, there are some alternative notions using relational or network approaches (c.f. Wellman & Berkowits, 1988; Tilly, 2005; Van Dijk, Jan. 2005). From this point of view, “inequality is not primarily a matter of individuals but of categorical differences between groups of people” (Van Dijk, Jan. 2005:10). But the problem does not stop there, as these relations are not lineal but systems of organised complexity (Morin, 1995; Gonzalez-Casanova, 2004), which reproduce violence structurally (Galtung, 1995).

A manner to identify structural violence is through social discourses (Fairclough, 2003), where legitimacy and hegemony of social relations occur (Van Dijk, Teun, 1998). Discourses help to maintain and reproduce established order (Peña Sánchez, 2003), but at the same time, they “deny, mitigate, hide or excuse” it (Van Dijk, Teun, 2005: 161). In this sense, discourses can both restrain or open possibilities for all human beings (Peña Sánchez, 2003: 144). This is a main reason to examine aspects of structural violence reproduced by ideology (Van Dijk, Teun, 1998) and culture (Gjerde, 2004). In

16

17 Latin America, identity is behind the ideologies, beliefs and practices of inequality, marginalizing and oppression (Van Dijk, Teun, 2005). In Mexico, ideologies are intimately connected to cultural identities (Bonfil, 1987, Montemayor, 2001a, Coronado & Hodges, 2004), as they express tension between public representations and personal subjectivities (Paz, 1950; c.f. Gjerde, 2004).

Culture and identity

Culture is a problematic notion (c.f. Barrón-Pastor, 2006) limited by hegemonic and political forces (Gillborn, 2004). On the one hand, it represents the subjective representations of reality (Eelen, 2001, in Gjerde, 2004: 153), and on the other, it “structures the environment for development” (Super & Harkers, 2002, in Gjerde, 2004: 144).

The notion of culture is commonly attached to races, ethnic groups or even nations (c.f. Barrón-Pastor, 2006) but this dissertation prefers to explain culture in terms of a process of self-identification (Friedman, 1994). Identity is a historical, political and cultural phenomenon (Weeks, 2000), and hence to affirm that identities are not natural. Identity is inserted in historical complex systems and “the configuration [of this kind of systems] is organized through the inter-definition and interaction of relations and conjuncts of relations (Gonzalez-Casanova, 2004:99, my translation).

For some authors, identity is a set of characteristics for adaptation (Gollnick and Chinn 2002, in Jones, 2005) via socializing agents (Campbell, 2004, in Jones, 2005). From this conception, cultural identity is developed from experiences that have cultural attributes: ethnicity/nationality, social class, sex/gender, health, age, geographic region, sexuality, religion, social status, language, ability/disability, and race (Cushner, McClelland, and Safford, 2000; in Jones, 2005). Also conceiving ‘identity’ as a set of characteristics, but emphasising on what is common to a group, authors such as Valdés (2004) explain identity as based on stories. Díaz-Loving states ‘identity’ in a symbolical dimension “that allow the members of a social group with common historical, territorial and socio-cultural elements to identify themselves as interrelated and co-dependent”

17

18 (Díaz-Loving, 1999:484, my translation). One problem for this ‘set of characteristics’ is related to the multiple, fractured and contradictory condition that can crosscut or dislocate identities. The apparent ‘unity’ of identity seems to be better described as the articulation of different and distinct elements that, under alternative historical and cultural circumstances, could be articulated in disparate ways (Galsinski, et al, 2001).

Other authors such as Weeks (2000) and Castells (1997) understand ‘identity’ mainly as political positions that change over time due to economic, social and cultural movements showing simultaneously needs and possibilities, impositions and choices. Castells proposes three forms for the origin of identities: for legitimacy, of resistance, and about a project. Weeks argues that identity can be understood as fate, resistance, choice and politics. The first element argued by Weeks alludes to the essentialist tradition that posits human body on certain truth; the second refers to the fight against social conventions and narratives given growing social diversity; the third, proposes that identities are decisions more or less freely adopted; and the last element, according to Weeks, refers that identities are necessary to combat power relations that inhibit autonomy, self expression and human solidarity. Identity takes place in a world of social meanings and power relations (frequently expressing social positions and political sympathies), and it is related also to subjectivity (giving a sense of personal unity) (Weeks, 2000).

Cultural identity for this dissertation is a process of self-identification based on historical complex systems and articulated by person or groups for a self-differentiation of others through interaction and inter-definition of relations and conjuncts of relations. Identities are multiple, fractured and contradictory. Despite cultural identity is based on the common characteristics, it’s determined mainly by difference, that is possible only with the contact between cultures.

The problem of the other: stereotypes

Cultural identity is constructed in opposition to the different. Its definition and preservation can be expressed by defensive and defective attitudes (Friedman, 1994).

18

19 As identity is a process of self-differentiation, it implies distinctiveness. The sense of belonging to certain group is the basis for excluding those who are seen as different. In the concept of identity is implicit the notion of individualisation and differentiation of the other (Giddens, 1991). Identity can only be understood in the context of the other as “the ‘other’ is always incorporated in some degree in the self and vice versa, creating both similarities and differences” (Gjerde, 2004: 150).

As can be inferred, otherness is a question of power, and different authors coincide that difference is attributed usually from those who have the authority and set the rules to the ‘other’ (Valdés, 2004; Van Dijk, Teun, 2005). Dominant groups represent to the others in negative terms by means of ideologies, prejudices and stereotypes that are the origin of discrimination and violence (Van Dijk, Teun, 2005).

Stereotypes are socio-cognitive beliefs expressed in discourses (Van Dijk, Teun, 2005). These beliefs usually generate social pressure and hostile attitudes (Marina, 2000), and are based on the “generation of expectations or suppositions about an individual, based on his belonging to a group or category” (Zárate & Smith, 1990:162). As the ‘ours’ usually have positive attributes, the ‘others’ are often associated with negative values (for example, “criminality, violence, laziness, backwardness, primitiveness, stupidity, amorality, impertinence”), to remark the difference between ‘them’ and ‘us’ (Van Dijk, Teun, 2005: 161).

Identity and power aspire to legitimacy (Castells, 1997; Marina, 2002). For some authors, legitimating is a process that can be based on prejudices and stereotypes that might take the form of “legitimating power myths” (Marina, 2002:180), such as, ‘black people have strongest bodies’, ‘women are weaker than men’ or ‘indigenous are victims’. For others, legitimacy is “a complex, ongoing discursive practice involving a set of interrelated discourses” (Van Dijk, Teun, 1998:255). As illegitimate use of power is punished by some moral and ethic systems, “ideologies form the basic principles of group-internal legitimation” (Van Dijk, Teun, 1998: 258). Following the legitimacy for violence or ‘simply’ to exert the power, the “bestialization and criminalization of the ‘other’ through discourse and interaction is recurrent in history (Castellanos, 2003, in

19

20 Van Dijk, Teun, 2005: 99). Stereotypes contribute to perceive certain persons and groups as different, inferior, faulty, deviant and harmful, looking away the human being; the characteristics associated to them denote a kind of punishment that intrinsically justifies the way in which they are treated by society (Barrios Martínez, 2006).

The exclusion, marginalization and problematization of the ‘others’, in their various forms and expressions, are practiced by the elites at the top through opinion, discourse and legislation (Van Dijk, Teun 2004), which means to deal with struggle, with opposition and tension from the ‘others’ as forms of resistance to hegemony (Van Dijk, Teun 1998). Discourse shows and reproduces “the perceptual and evaluative categories of the ideologies of white domination” (Van Dijk, Teun 2005: 161). For instance, in México, the prevailing prejudices and stereotypes about being indigenous include features like savages, uncivilized, backward, inferior, superstitious and lazy (Bonfil, 1987; Coronado & Hodges, 2004). This misconception, exerted by dominant cultures, contributes, not only to their oppression, discrimination, exclusion and segregation, but also to the ‘problematisation’ of indigenous existence (Van Dijk, Teun, 2005).

At the beginning of the chapter was explained that a common way to ‘read’ the problem of inequality is under the scope of a ‘set of characteristics’. This kind of conceptualisations, are risky related to construct a ‘problem’ from ‘our’ point of view, (that is the right one). This would be the ‘superior stage of stereotypes’ in very elaborated ways. From the racist assumptions about indigenous peoples, dominant cultures (through ‘experts’) construct the problem, the diagnostic and, but of course, the solutions to ‘their’ problems.

One source for inequality: cultural violence

Power is implicated in any human interaction, because the communication and exchange that occurs in social interaction bring the opportunity of influence or modify others and, at the same time, being influenced or modified by others (Díaz-Loving, 1999). According to Marsella (2005: 651) “differences in the construction of reality that

20

21 are codified and embedded in “unassailable” belief systems, such as those associated with fundamentalist political, economic, and religious systems, can elicit and sustain serious forms of violence (...) because they introduce unacceptable levels of uncertainty and doubt”. Some power is not exerted and experienced as directly coercive, as it “frames, moulds and structures” the life settings, and determines what can be done and what cannot without being subject of violence (legitimacy).

Power becomes structural violence when it does not allow a person to develop their potentials (Galtung, 1995). When structural violence can be explained by the violence exerted through cultural identities, it can be said that there is cultural violence. Here is where the notion of Galtung’s “cultural violence” arises, referring aspects of culture that can legitimate direct and structural violence, making violence even acceptable (Gjerde, 2004: 145).

Cultural violence refers to violence provoked by the beliefs and traditions of certain culture and exerted by and on its own members, and not only to the violent acts between persons of different cultures (Hoegberg, 1999). In Latin America racism against indigenous people is manifested in public discourses and in many forms of discrimination, and exacerbated by poverty and class domination (Van Dijk, 2005). Sometimes dominant discourses seem like cultural violence is not as important as ‘fighting against poverty’ but “the most extensive historical systems of inequality have depended on control of one or more of value-producing resources [including] coercive means (…) and organized specialist in violence” (Tilly, 2005:23). The stripping of valueproducing resources is not only related to natural resources but to cultural resources also. This point could be an argument to agree with Gjerde (2004) when he emphasizes that cultural violence has to be attended seeking development.

In Mexico, Indigenous communities have pointed out that it is necessary to listen to them (Montemayor, 1997; La Jornada, 29-03-2001). They do not want to be objects of policy; they want to be subjects of it (Regino, 2001). The controversy arises from racist positions that deny the possibility of indigenous groups’ deciding on their cultural determination, Racism “is based on constructed differences of ethnicity, appearance,

21

22 origin, culture and/or language” (Van Dijk, 2005: 2) and is exercised by social beliefs and practices of discrimination through everyday interactions and institutions (political organizations, mass media, education and research). But racism and cultural violence are not always explicit and completely self-evident. They have to be unmasked, and a manner could be through the analysis of discourses.

Discourses make explicit what is situated in public domains where power is exercised and resisted, as a public domain; only through discourse cultures can be public so cultures could be seen as “discursive device” (Gjerde, 2004:146). Discourse analysis could show the unique contexts, experiences and forms of inequality and cultural violence expressions; as Van Dijk (2004: 163) argues, discourse analysts should study the ways that distinct forms of domination and discrimination are “expressed, enacted, legitimated and reproduced by the many forms and meanings of text and talk”.

Conclusion

Cultural identity is a process of self-identification based on historical complex systems and articulated by person or groups for a self-differentiation of others through interaction and inter-definition of relations and conjuncts of relations. As the differentiation can be based in stereotypes and exert cultural violence, coexistence of cultures can be approach as a problem for development and politics.

Modern politics revolve around identities (Weeks, 2000: 217, 218).

Any political

discourse found goals and projects for the organization of the social coexistence based on certain values (Giménez, 1989).

The discourse of diversity and equity has its

foundations in the human rights arguments (Peña Sánchez, 2003). Policy and educative strategies must recognize the differences between persons and promote equity in their social relationships in all human arenas (Barrios Martínez, 2006)

Despite States watch over the observance of human and civil rights of their citizens, in order to eradicate social inequalities and discrimination, it is well known that political practices and discourses, are reproducing the patterns of exclusion, inequality and

22

23 cultural violence; even in ‘democratic’ governments, discriminative practices can be exerted. As Teun Van Dijk (2005) argues, social inequality is maintained clearly and openly in everyday conversations, and at the same time subtly and indirect by dominant public discourses, like politics, education and media. If social discourse contributes to sustain and reproduce the established cultural order, political discourse will tend to reflect the historical and ongoing of domination, inequality and discrimination against certain persons and groups (Peña Sánchez, 2003). It seems necessary to recognize social discourses in representative social actors. In the next chapters the dissertation will analyse some reproductions of cultural violence through the recognition of dominant identities reflected in political discourses in Mexico.

23

24 2. WHO IS TALKING: AN APPROACH TO IDENTITY IN SOCIAL DISCOURSES OF MEXICAN POLITICAL ACTORS Introduction The dissertation is an analysis of a discourse, but a first step is to understand ‘who’ is speaking, to trace the identity of the subject-author of the discourse (Van Dijk, 1998; González-Casanova, 2004). Taking up again the review of literature previously presented (Barron-Pastor, 2006), identity is attached to common territorial, historical, and socio-cultural elements (Díaz-Loving, 1999) and its origin can be inferred from three forms: for legitimacy, of resistance, and about a project (Castells, 1997). Even the terms presented are commonly attached to races, it is important to remark that for this dissertation identity is not attached to race, but as a process of self-identification (Barrón-Pastor, 2006). Also, it is important to state that reality is a dialectic complex construction and terms such as nationalism “is constructed by action and reaction of the elite and of the masses” (Castells, 1997:54, my translation). Identity is inserted in historical complex systems and “the configuration [of this kind of systems] is organized through the inter-definition and interaction of relations and conjuncts of relations (Gonzalez-Casanova, 2004:99, my translation).

This section is about patterns of social identity associated to a political discourse. It does not generalize that sympathizers of these political positions would have the identity expressed by parties’ discourse, and recognizes the infinite and complex possibilities for cultural diversity and identity. Culture is product of competing and changing representations, and hence, “cultural discourse reflects struggles over meaning rather than revelations of consensual truths” (Gjerde, 2004: 147). On this line, the dissertation does not pretend to simplify Mexican cultural diversity to mere problem of origin, and does not ignore other historical cultural influences such as the Africans and the Asiatics; not even pretends to combine 62 Mexican indigenous languages, as they were one identity. Finally, it has to be stated that this exercise does not ignore the huge discussions and interpretations about ‘Mexican Identity’.

24

25 The terms chosen, to sub-divide people living in Mexico, -criollo, mestizo and indígena-, are originally related to the Spanish system of castes, and were based on racial assumptions. But, “even formally the castes were defined by the percents of different bloods (american, african and european), in reality [since the colonial period], social criteria, not a biological one, delimitates the diverse groups” (Bonfil, 1987: 125, my translation). Criollo was a person born in the Spanish colonies with the conviction of descending from a pure European blood. Mestizo is a person descendent of mixed European and indigenous non-European ancestry. Indigena is, presumably, a person who “descends from populations that inhabited in the actual territory of the country when colonization started and which conserve their own social, economic, cultural, and political institutions, or part of them.” (Mexican Constitution, 2nd article, my translation).

Common territory The first element of identity is a common territory. For this reflection, criollos, mestizos and indígenas share a territory, which is maybe the main cohesive notion for a common belonging to one Mexican Nation. However, this territorial notion of ‘being Mexican’ faces not only cultural diversity but specific territories where identities take place. Nationalist discourses can be perceived in all political discourses: as an explicit mention in the name of the party (Partido Acción Nacional), the indigenous organization (Congreso Nacional Indígena or Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional), or as the title of a platform (“50 compromisos para recuperar el orgullo Nacional”). Nationalism and a continuous allusion to Mexico or Mexicans are a main axis of political discourses in Mexico.

Criollos and mestizos under the flag of unity, paraphrasing a Van Dijk analysis about a Mexican parliamentary discourse, “celebrate the highest ideals of humanity, human rights and equality (…) but adding the disclaimer that such only can be the case when [the others] are within the jurisdiction of the State” (Van Dijk, 2005: 106). This maybe is because, identity as a complex system of relations not only “obeys systems of beliefs and paradigms, but orders (…) or reasoning about shared objectives” (GonzalezCasanova, 2004: 102). So, both criollos and mestizos, are…

25

26 “The social groups that hold the power (political, economical, ideological) since the European invasion until nowadays, affiliated by inheritance or by circumstance to the western civilization, have sustained always historical projects in which there is no place for Mesoamerican civilization. The dominant position of these groups, originated in the estate order of the colonial society, is being expressed in one ideology that only conceives the future (development, progress, advance, revolution itself) in the flowing of western civilization.” (Bonfil, 1987: 102, my translation) Even all groups consider themselves as Mexicans, it is necessary to alert about the notorious the repetition of a lie5: After 2006 election, mass media is continuously making reference to “two Mexicos” in (c.f. Vazquez Martínez, 2006) (note that the indigenous one, remains invisible in this discourse). ‘North’ is criollo, ‘South’ is mestizo (see image 2.1). This polarization strengthens the discourse based in the (false) assumption that indigenous peoples were in the south and therefore, mixing only happened in southern states, while in the northern states mixing did not happened. As the north of the country is presented as a PAN vote bank it would be criollo, while the south, where mixing happened, tends to be shown as mestizo. As an example, the Electoral Institute alleged ‘cultural reasons’ to explain that northern citizens’ have ‘better abilities’ or ‘are more capable’ in election counting “as it is always faster in the North [of Mexico]” (La Jornada, 10-07-06). Image 2.1. “Two Mexicos”

Source: 2006 Mexican election per state. IFE, Mexico

26

27 Interpolated with the ‘two Mexicos’ there is an ‘other’ Mexico, the indigenous one. For this categorisation, Mexicans are divided into those who speak Spanish and those who do not. As Indigenous peoples speak 62 languages, there is in indigenous peoples where ‘Mexican cultural diversity’ resides (see image 2.2). Even if it is accepted the controversial statement of cultural diversity simplified as a problem of language diversity, there are around 12.7 million Mexicans who does not speak Spanish and are older than 5 years old living in Mexico’s territory (Serrano, Ambríz y Fernández, 2002). As 90% of the registered speakers of indigenous languages live in 12 States, it is common to circumscribe their presence to these States, but as a disclaimer, it is important to remark that registered speakers of Indigenous languages live in 2,330 of 2,348 Mexican counties (CNDI, 2005).

Image 2.2 “Indigenous cultural diversity”

Source: Dirección General de Culturas Populares e Indígenas, CONACULTA - Instituto Nacional Indigenista, Mexico.

27

28 PAN: a Criollo discourse Image 2.3. President Fox kisses Pope’s ring

Photo: Reuters/ Author illegible Source: La Jornada front page, July 31st, 2002.

Common socio-cultural elements

PAN is commonly inserted in the tradition of criollismo and it is continuously linked to the Catholic Church in historical terms and their supporters are generally open and proud Catholics (see image 2.3). The richest men of the country are commonly related to this ‘caste’ and despite of their racial origin it could be said that they still have criollo identity (Paz, 1950; Villoro, 1950; Bonfil, 1987, Montemayor, 2001a; Coronado & Hodge, 2004; Van Dijk, 2005).

Even it is not easy to find explicit discourses, to prove what is a common perception, however some traces can be seen in the clear criollo origin of Vicente Fox (landlord of private lands in dispute with communal lands, son of foreign parents). He makes

28

29 constant allusion to religious expressions as “God bless you”, -unusual phrase in the secular tradition of the XX century Mexican governments-, and broke the laws of sovereignty of the Mexican State by kissing Pope’s ring in 2002. Felipe Calderón, PAN canditate to President, is openly supported by catholic cardinals such as Onésimo Cepeda, also associated to extreme-right organisations as ‘El Yunque’ (Martínez, 2006). The President of the Party, Manuel Espino, the General Secretary Jose Espina Von Roehrich, and the former interior secretary, Carlos Abascal, have been constantly pointed as members of catholic organisations in general (Opus Dei, Legionarios de Cristo), and particularly to ‘El Yunque’ (Delgado, 2006).

Criollismo has the socio-cultural elements related to keep “the hegemonic control of the dominant class over the institutions of civil society (education, work, family, leisure, etc.)” (Fairclough, 1995: 93; c.f. Gramsci, 1971). They show fear to indigenous peoples and when they organize a rebellion and look down them in times of ‘peace’, mutilating representations of indigenous cultures and distorting their discourses (c.f Calderón, 2001; Pineda, 2001; Monasterios, 2004).

Common history

Criollos since the wars of conquest are associated with the conquerors, to the owners of the resources in Mexico, and to conservative social movements to legitimate the ‘established order’. (Bonfil, 1987; Montemayor, 2000; Coronado & Hodges, 2004). Even the ex-social development minister Esteban Moctezuma, now Executive president of the charity division of one of the two main TV Mexican corporations (TV Azteca), recently alerted the deepness of Mexican actual crisis attaching criollo identity to PAN, and

mestizo identity to AMLO (Moctezuma-Barragán, 2006). PAN is also on the one hand, the actual ruling-party; but at the same time, they like to present themselves as an opposition party, as they are a legal party since 1939. In between 1925 and 1929, the arising of a ruling party following the secular tradition faced the Catholic Church that lead civil and armed resistance. This period, known as the ‘Cristera war’, marked the last phase of Mexican Revolution. With this war, mestizos

29

30 defeated criollos, and imposed a secular form of government. From this period emerged a group of citizens that gave to PAN, the party that proudly leaded the conservative opposition to the pos-revolutionary governments in the rest of XX century and that returned to power in 2000.

As the ruling-party they affirm that “without doubt, Mexico is a better country than the one we had in 2000” and invited to “consolidate the process of change started six years ago and not to reinvent the country every six years as it used to happen in the last seventy years” (during the one-ruling-party system) (PAN, 2006: 1). On the other hand, as some of their rivals (mestizos) are linked to the historical PRI (for example, AMLO renounced to PRI in 1987) they present themselves as ‘modern’, ‘responsible’, and ‘respectful of law’; and they accuse the others of being, ‘rooted in past’, ‘irresponsible’, and ‘violent’. It was common to hear from Calderón supporters’ racist jokes about the accent and the aspect of López Obrador (c.f. Antipeje, 2006). This perception is not only historical, as it was one of the axes for the 2006 campaign discourse. Criollos seem to be worried about the possibility of return to power of mestizos. One of the elected senators of a small party typically allied to power, expressed a good example of criollo racism explicitly, saying, “fucking Indians (…) fucking nacos (…) [because of them] the city centre [of Oaxaca] smells to shit and dirt” (La Jornada, 26-08-06)6.

30

31 AMLO: his mestizo discourse Image 2.4. “Benito Juárez behind AMLO”

Author: Carlos Ramos Mamahua Source: La Jornada front-page July 13rd, 2006. Common history AMLO said in a recent interview referring to the manner some people refers to him and his supporters “for blue-blood persons [criollos], we are ‘nacos’” (La Jornada, 26-08-06, my translation). ‘Naco’ is a common pejorative nowadays used by ‘antipeje’ groups to refer AMLO and his supporters (Antipeje, 2006). ‘Naco’ is a manner criollos refer to mestizos. The word ‘naco’ has its origin in the indigenous Totonaco nation, subdued to the Mexica (Aztec) dominance. Totonacos contributed with 13,000 men to Spanish forces (400 soldiers in 1521) to defeat and conquer Tenochtitlan (today Mexico City). After Tenochtitlan fall, the first slaves of the new empire were Totonacos. Maybe this is the remotest antecedent for a mestizo history. The revolutions for independence (1810), the Reform war (1857) and the Mexican Revolution (1910) are commonly seen as revolts of mestizos against criollos’ power.

AMLO frequently makes reference and quotes Juárez in his speeches and texts (c.f. AMLO, youtube). After what he calls ‘the electoral fraud’ of 2006, AMLO gave his first pos-electoral interview to the Mexican newspaper ‘La Jornada’ with a huge bust of 31

32 Juárez as backdrop (see image 2.3). Benito Juárez was the Mexican liberal President, of Zapoteca origin, that during the XIX century faced the power of Catholic Church, transferring lands and legal procedures to civil powers, and laid the foundations of Mexican secular State. President Juárez led the resistance to conservative parallel governments (1858-60), the invasion of France (1861-64), and the intent of criollos of transfer the power to a European aristocrat, Maximilian of Habsburg (1864-67). On the other hand, Juárez liberal politics have been pointed as particularly destructive for indigenous cultures (c.f. Montemayor, 2001a, 2001b).

AMLO is the candidate of a coalition of parties leaded by the PRD. The PRD is a conglomerate of politicians that came from left oppositions and the PRI party. When Carlos Salinas de Gortari, of the PRI, took the presidency after a fraud in 1988, he decided to remove laws such as the article 27 of the Mexican Constitution (main triumph of the indigenous Zapatistas from the revolution of 1910), and the article 130 (main triumph of the secular mestizos in the ‘Cristera war’). Less than two years after the removal of the article 27, indigenous peoples revolt against the government. Now AMLO is leading a civil resistance against the continuity of PAN and advocates for a better wealth distribution.

Common socio-cultural elements In the review of literature previously presented, we wrote: “The basic perception then [in the middle of the XX century] was that the Mexican nation was on the one hand an indigenous woman, represented as a glorious past and an aspiration for the lost purity, raped by a Spanish man (Paz, 1950; Villoro, 1950). As there were no races anymore, just a common past and a common future, the Mexican “does not want to be Indian or Spanish. He denies both.” (Paz, 1950:177, my translation) (Barron-Pastor, 2006: 8) This is a mestizo image. As for criollos there is only conqueror and conquered (Bonfil, 1987), mestizo identity is continuously in resistance against the dominant power, but at the same time, attached the future to western ideologies for development and progress. In the case of AMLO, this ambiguity in identity is also reflected in their ideological contradictions as he moves in two arenas: the legal and the legitimacy claims. During 32

33 the actual electoral process, for example, AMLO discourse is about legality, which accepts the rules and recognizes institutions despite he distrust the persons working in the institutions. The discourse is about legitimacy when AMLO summons to his supporters, under a strong argument, to recount the votes. Their political adversaries use this ambiguity: In the legal arena, they try to apply the law fussily, while impunity is the common rule for the Mexican political class. On the other hand, when AMLO organizes the civil pacific resistance, adversaries accuse of affecting the rights of thirds (La Jornada, 01-08-06). In the same direction, AMLO candidates to other levels of government, as the new former city major, accepted and received appointments for the new elected charges, but they claim to continue supporting the civil resistance (c.f. Loaeza, 2006).

One of the pioneer works about Mexican identity, made by Samuel Ramos (1934), attached what he called ‘Mexican self-denigration’ (mestizo in this dissertation), to a kind of ‘victim of circumstances’ that sometimes shows himself as pedantic to hide his insecurities. The continuous attacks of his adversaries are perceived by AMLO as a ‘conspiracy’ (complot) against him (victim), but he conceives himself as ‘invincible’ (pedantic). However, this characteristic seems to be necessary for the mestizo to survive under the actual circumstances. From his point of view, millions of Mexicans share this feeling, ‘understand’ the leader, and will resist with him.

This condition of victims lets mestizos to have a common identity. And they ‘understand’ that if there is another victim in Mexican history it is indigenous people, as “they have been object of forms of subordination, inequality and discrimination that have determined a situation of structural poverty, exploitation and political exclusion” (AMLO, 2006:6, my translation). But they do not understand why the Zapatistas, that supposedly represent indigenous peoples, do not openly support AMLO, who is supported by some indigenous representatives also. This incomprehension has historical references such as the expressed by Pedro de Alba, in the Mexican parliament in 1921, “Why if Zapata was friend of Madero he did not come to submit himself (sic, ‘someterse’ in the original), to accompany him to protest in the parliament?”7 (c.f. Carbó, 1995; quoted by Van Dijk, 2005).

During the election process of 2006, once and again

33

34 writers, analysts and AMLO supporters question the distance between the Zapatistas and AMLO. Maybe it is because indigenous Zapatistas do not share this victimisation concept. As it will be shown in the indigenous identity section, indigenous Zapatistas do not see themselves as victims.

34

35 The Zapatista Indigenous discourse Image 2.5. “Commandant Esther speaks to Mexican Parliament”

Photo: Heriberto Rodríguez Source: La Jornada, front-page March 29th of 2001.

The Zapatista are rebel indigenous. They break the traditional scheme which, first from Europe and after from all those who wear the money colour, imposed to see and to be seen. They do not agree and do not fix with the “diabolic” image of the human sacrificers to miss-content the gods, neither the needy indigenous with the hand open waiting for alms or charity of whom have it all, neither the good savage perverted by modernity, neither the infant who amuse the adults with stammers, neither the submissive labourer-carrier of all the haciendas that hurt Mexican History, neither the skilful artisan whose product will adorn the walls of those who scorn her/him, neither the ignorant who should not opine about more than the reduced horizon of his geography, neither the fearful of heavenly or mundane gods.” Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos The 13rd trail, first part: a snail shell. (My translation)

35

36 Common history Zapatistas think there is war against indigenous peoples. This war has more than 500 years, and the objective of this war is the denial of their existence, the extermination of their cultures, the erasing of their knowledge, the disappearance of their memories, the appropriation of their territories, the stealing of their resources and systematic genocide. They are the ‘proud heirs of a 500 hundred year’s history of resistance’. (EZLN, 6 declarations of the Lacandona jungle)

Zapatistas are the persons in charge of ‘honour’ and ‘keep the spirit’ of Emiliano Zapata ‘riding’ through Mexican lands. Emiliano Zapata is the revolutionary leader who ‘receives the power from indigenous peoples’ to command the armies of campesinos to eradicate private property from communal and working lands. In 1992, Mexican government changed the ‘spirit’ of the article 27 of Mexican Constitution, letting communal properties to be potentially private. As it was done without asking peoples’ opinion, it had to face the rebellion of Zapatistas. Not all indigenous peoples openly support EZLN proposals8, but it is possible that most of them would sympathize to a Zapatista ‘philosophy’ (c.f. Montemayor, 2000).

As domination is based on ‘the bigger capacity to kill’, after their original uprising, Zapatistas transformed the movement to a pacific rebellion. Zapatista movement is a referent for social and political movements worldwide after the end of the Cold War. They give cohesion to groups that struggle for cultural diversity; gay and lesbian movements; women, children, and elder people rights; human rights; indigenous movements; prostitutes, anarchists, punks, greens, and anti-capitalist organizations.

Common socio-cultural elements Inequalities can be perceived from the unequal exigency for identification. Actual Mexican Constitution refers to all Mexicans tacitly as persons, but an indigenous ‘person’ is not mentioned, only as group. While for being Mexican a person just need to born in the territory or acquire the nationality, Indigenous ‘peoples’ should have racial characteristics; their ‘own’ social, cultural, economic and political institutions; and to be conscious of being indigenous (Mexican Constitution, 2nd article, reformed August

36

37 2001). This definition can carry some problems, for example, to ask for a translator in a trial, an indigenous person has to prove his/her identity.

Dignity is a key word to approach Zapatista identity, according to them. They do not feel as victims and reject alms, charities and development projects not approved by the communities. When they rose in arms and declare war against Mexican government in 1994, they said that it was a ‘movement of dignity’. Tenths of persons disguised sticks as rifles to join their rebellion ‘as a symbol of their solidarity’. When surprised journalists asked them about this absurd cloak they answered (not a quote), “if we are going to die, instead of doing it anonymously let’s die in front of them, stand, not on our knees cursing our misery” (La Jornada, 1994:122).

One of the Indigenous cultures that ‘mould’ the Zapatista movement is the Tojolabal culture. Tojolabal means ‘true-human’ and their vision of the world is very different to the European one, and it can be analysed in the constructions of their language. Don Carlos Lenkersdorf (1996) widely explained how the expression of ideas in Tojolabal demonstrated that, for them, objects are not possible; the concept of object does not exist as symbol, structure, word or idea in Tojolabal. Additionally, it is interesting to say that Tojolabal culture is not bounded to race, as they consider that every human can choose his/her culture.

Tojolabal culture is Intersubjectivist. All spirits and things, human and not human are considered subjects, and every expression reflects the mutual action of subjects in interrelation (Lenkersdorf, 1996). This ontological position gives agency to all the possibilities of the universe. The only way to know things is asking for permission to know them and they will decide to allow the curious human to know or not. Humans can develop abilities to know better, but always the subjects of knowledge will decide and will show what they want.

Zapatista movement is actually in construction (Almeyra & Thibaut, 2006). They are discussing and constructing autonomies instead of worrying about the political class confrontation. Anyway, political class consider Zapatistas and indigenous peoples as a

37

38 problem that needs solutions. A brief analysis of the political platforms can show an interpretation about how this problems and solutions are constructed.

38

39 3. THE DISCOURSE OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY: APPLYING AN ADAPTATION OF FAIRCLOUGH’S MODEL TO MEXICAN REPRESENTATIVE POLITICAL DISCOURSES.

A. Text Analysis

Cultural identities can be more or less stated now, but now is seems necessary to see if this cultural identities can be inferred in a text analysis. To do it, an adaptation of Fairclough’s model (2003) is chosen because it seems useful to interpret moments of social practice, which are in a dialectical relationship with each other, but recognizing at the same time a specific logic that can be analysed in its own terms using appropriate analytical tools, in this case, text analysis tools.

One of the aspects to consider in self-identification is the position in the world that can be inferred from the text recognizing some semantic and grammatical references. As was stated from the beginning, the dissertation will keep focus in allusions to indigenous peoples. In order to give ‘objectivity’ to the selection of examples, the extracts for the discourse analysis were selected under the category criteria, transversally crossed by Fairclough’s model to identify the different perspectives and hence, differentiate the discourses. As an advice, all the platforms texts are in Spanish, in all cases the translation is ours.

A.1 Genre

Genre is “a way of acting and interacting linguistically (…) Genre structures texts in specific ways.” (Fairclough, 2003:17). To identify the activity of the text, the question is related to what are they doing or expecting to do with the text. This analysis is based on two texts: the main political platform document for the electoral campaign submitted by the two main political proposals to their respective Internet websites9. To identify the action

ways,

Fairclough

suggests

identifying

the

activity,

the

communicative

technologies and the social relations implied in the structure.

39

40 The action of the candidate’s texts selected is to legitimate social relations through promoting votes for a political campaign using communicative tools. The texts are in Internet, but they have potential different forms of communication and distribution.

The platform documents are one-way mediated used by the parties as propaganda and their potential forms of distribution might allow further multi-modal analysis. They are one-way as there is no possibility of dialogue or feedback; and they are multi-modal as they can be consulted in the Web page of the candidates and of their respective parties, but can be potentially printed, and even they could be potentially professionally pressprinted for publicity distribution.

About the social relations implied in the structure, both political organizations wrote the platform documents. They have all in common that they are organisations communicating to ‘electors’ that read the platforms, informed electors. They all show a high social hierarchy as the parties are deciding what to do about certain problems and are informing to the individuals about the actions that will be followed if this organisation is elected.

Social distance between the organisation and the individuals can be inferred in a different manner for every party. Social relations will be analysed deeper in the discourse section, but in order to understand how the parties are managing the social distance, it can be said that “Partido Acción Nacional” (National Action Party, PAN) presents the document as a tacit first plural person were writing (We) and while the party logo is present in every page, the name of the candidate is not mentioned in the whole document. The coalition of parties “Por el bien de todos” (For everybody’s wellness) shows a ’commitment’ between one individual that presents and represents the document to society. As there is no allusion to a party or organisation, it can be inferred that is the candidate, Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) making the commitment as an individual using rhetorically a tacit first plural person. This recourse might be used to reduce the social distance between the author of the commitment and the potential reader.

40

41 A.2 Discourse

“Discourse is a particular way of representing some part of the (physical, social, psychological) world” (Fairclough, 2003:17). As “different discourses are different perspectives on the world” (Fairclough, 2003, 124), they can be associated to three main aspects: their “position in the world, (…) their social and personal identities, (…) and their social relations” (Idem). These representations can be inferred from semantic and grammatical relations within discourse.

PAN

PAN platform presents 412 “proposals” “sustained” in “Doctrine principles” and an “Action Program” with the advice that “they are not exhaustive” (PAN, 2006:12). The proposals are divided in four levels: “For you, for your family, for your community, and for Mexico”. Indigenous peoples are mentioned in the proposals 234 to 245, as a section named “Full development and participation to indigenous peoples”, adscript to the “for your community” chapter. Proposals 234 to 238 are under a subsection named “A State that recognizes their millenary culture and their rights”; and proposals 239 to 245 are presented under the title “better conditions for life”. The full transcript of the proposals is presented as annexe 1, here the analysis will present four elements identified directly from the text:

1. The hyponymy and adscription of the proposals 2. The indigenous ‘question’ as a problem of poverty 3. The components embedded as the diagnostic to ‘overcome’ poverty 4. The attachment of ‘indigenous’ identity to ‘be poor’

The clear hierarchy of ideas is represented in Figure A.3.1, which presents a very clear subordination (hyponymy) of indigenous ‘uses and customs’ to ‘Human Rights’. In this subordination is contained the dominance of a Universalist position assuming that other juridical systems are subordinated. Also, there is a State that should proctor human rights from indigenous peoples that implicitly, have some uses and customs that affect

41

42 human rights. Another racist implications could be the implied ideas surrounding the text such as: ‘they’ break human rights, ‘we’ do not; ‘we’ watch over; ‘we’ are not part of the problem of human rights violation, ‘they’ are. Another point that leaps to mind about the subordination of ideas is that the ‘indigenous question’ is related to a box of proposals focus in communities. Indigenous ‘question’ is not included as a problem of persons or families, not even as a problem of the country.

Figure A.3.1. Hierarchy of ideas in PAN Platform

The exclusion/poverty/discriminative/unequal conditions indigenous peoples live is referred ambiguously as “the indigenous question”, and the ‘question’ is they are poor. Other problems such as political representation, social discrimination or juridical demands for rights recognition are ignored. Indigenous ‘question’ is about poverty and poverty has to be eradicated. What happens if an indigenous person jumps out of poverty? It seems like she/he would not be indigenous anymore as it is the only characteristic of the ‘question’.

The reasons for poverty, hence, are not related to political, social or juridical factors; poverty is a problem of lack of infrastructure and access, and will be overcome with “improvement of access to health, education and employment” (PAN, 2006:39). By this path, indigenous persons need to be ‘employed’ by the owner of the resources and the production media (presumably a non-indigenous person); need to be ‘educated’ 42

43 (presumably to be capable to work in what employers understand as recommendable), and need ‘access’ to health [services], as PAN understands it. They cannot do it by their own (as they need to ‘cooperate’), their role has to be subordinated (as they need to be ‘employed’), they need ‘education’ (not to develop their own knowledge systems), and they need ‘access to health’ (as if the problem of health would be only a problem of ‘access’ to health [services]).

AMLO

AMLO platform is presented in terms of ‘commitments’. The first commitment (of 50) refers to indigenous peoples:

Empezaremos a pagar la deuda histórica que tenemos con las comunidades indígenas. Se combatirá la discriminación y la pobreza. Reconoceremos los derechos de los pueblos indígenas y se cumplirán los acuerdos de San Andrés Larráinzar. We will start paying the historical debt we have to indigenous communities. Discrimination and poverty will be fought. We will recognize the rights of indigenous peoples and the San Andrés Larráinzar Accords will be accomplished. (AMLO, 2006:1)

In this paragraph, López Obrador let see at least three discursive elements:

1. The use of the word ‘start’ 2. The definition of two battles: against discrimination and against poverty 3. The promise of recognition that ‘we’ are going to do about rights of indigenous peoples

The use of ‘start’ is interesting as his party and specifically his campaign coordinator, Jesus Ortega Martínez was one of the senators that signed the actual law and Constitution changes which the EZLN, the National Indigenous Congress (CNI) and more than 100 NGO’s pointed out as different to the spirit of the San Andrés Accords (La Jornada, 11-08-01). With the use of the word ‘start’, AMLO maybe is admitting that

43

44 before this document they did not recognize the indigenous rights and that he is ready to start this recognition.

The fight against discrimination and poverty does not have a subject executing the action. It contrasts with the rest of the text where is clear that there is a subject (‘we’) even it is diffuse. Also, ‘fighting’ identifies two ‘enemies’: discrimination and poverty. An interpretation is too risky here, but some questions can be sketched: Why is found a war allusion here? Is it related to the Zapatista army? EZLN rose in arms leading this flags. Is this diffuse subject the very veiled mention to them, or it is just rhetoric as there is no subject to develop actions?

The commitment constructs the ‘problem’ of indigenous peoples not only as poverty, but also as historical, political, legal and social discrimination. This construction implies legal reforms, deliberative policies and anti-discrimination campaigns (AMLO, 2006: 9). This promise of recognition is treated as a concession (‘we’ are going to ‘recognize’ ‘you’).

A.3 Style

Both platforms use ‘we’ as a tacit subject. As was widely explained in he previous chapter, in the case of PAN identity can be attached to criollos and AMLO identity can be seen as mestizo. ‘We’ also could mean that both texts are assuming the reader is not indigenous. Indigenous peoples for both platforms live in forests and jungles, far from civilization. There is no proposal for indigenous person in cities or migrating. The text style allows inferring cultural identities managed in this dissertation.

The tacit subject of PAN insists in indigenous problem as a problem of poverty of communities, and focus on poverty eradication. Criollo discourse can be inferred in the misconception of not perceiving indigenous peoples as person but as communities, neither a non-poor Indigenous person. Also, PAN discourse simplifies and mutilates representations of indigenous cultures as a problem of poverty. A distortion also is perceived in the solutions: programs, presumably of affirmative action (AA). As was

44

45 exerted in the previous review: “AA is that it is uprooted. It is not juridical or theoretically based. By definition, AA is in a conceptual limbo (…) AA is a tool that can help to improve access but it cannot solve the gaps of stereotypes. It cannot be a substitute for policies or laws” (Barrón-Pastor, 2006:24).

AMLO’s tacit subject constructs the problem of Indigenous peoples as victims.

The

recognition of Indigenous peoples is perceived as a doubt, and war analogies are used to express the action against poverty and discrimination. The text of diagnostic praises the work of indigenist policies of the XX century, and the style lets interpret a continuation of those policies but corrected and increased.

B. Context Analysis

Fairclough (2003) suggests analysing the explicit expressions and silences to imply contexts form texts. This could be sustained on legitimating processes based on remembering/forgetting decisions (c.f. Middleton & Edwards, 1990). Both platforms do not mention Zapatistas, a conflict in Chiapas or peace negotiations. Silence seems a forgetting process. An unfortunate inference could be understood as an allusion to Zapatistas when PAN platform uses the expression “indigenous question is going to be a State politic” (PAN, 2006:39). If this interpretation were valid, the allusion would be a menace to legitimate the forgetting process.

PAN keeps silence about ‘San Andrés Accords’ and the lack of mention about a possible promotion of laws or reforms can imply that, to PAN, this topic is shelved. This idea can be reinforced by the continuous mention to ‘programs’ and ‘projects’ as the manner to solve the indigenous ‘question’, and to ignore social conflicts in the whole text of the platform.

The manner AMLO expresses the commitment for recognition seems a concession. Also the allusion to “San Andrés Larráinzar” reinforces the identity of the ‘we’, as indigenous peoples name the town “San Andrés Sakamch’én”. Larráinzar is the official name of the

45

46 county given in 1934 to pay homage to an eminent conservative politician of Chiapas during the XIX century, Manuel Larráinzar Piñero. Sakamch’én means hope in Tzotzil.

PAN platform shows a contrastive discourse about what is ‘better’. One of the main aspects about cultural dominance is the certainty that things are ‘better’ in the dominant culture than in the marginals. For example, a semantic contrastive discourse can be inferred in the sentence “... cooperation to take better advantage of communal lands…” (PAN, 2006:39). An interpretation could be: if they cooperate, lands will be better; if they offer resistance to ‘cooperation’ lands will be worst? The same structure is used to refer the term ‘mixed justice’ that is going to be ‘integrated’ through ‘mechanisms’ to warrant the ‘respect’ to human rights and freedoms.

The ‘historical debt’ is one of the assumptions that AMLO uses to construct the indigenous problem (the other two are discrimination and poverty). This historical debt is widely described as related to colonisation and exclusion aspects, in the diagnostic presented as argumentation to this first commitment. Historical debt is presented in terms of the “denying of everything”, as “they neither have rights, welfare, nor respect for their cultures” (AMLO, 2006: 6). It is interesting that the historical genocide, conquest and colonisation of indigenous peoples could be perceived as a ‘debt’ that ‘we’ have to ‘them’. Another interpretation could be in terms of recognizing the indigenous supporting role in Mexican revolutions, as indigenous participation in historical revolts is well documented. In any case, it seems that the manner to ‘pay’ the debt is through the recognition of indigenous rights.

Conclusions of the analysis

PAN electoral platform allows inferring criollo discourse. There is an oversimplification of indigenous identities, and a problem construction attaching identity to poverty that dangerously could imply poverty eradication as indigenous eradication. Lack of mention about the conflict stated by the Zapatistas, can be seen as a new edition of social discourses pushing indigenous claims to forgetting processes. Continuous allusion to programs and projects and silence on legal reforms show there is no political intention

46

47 to consider the accomplishment of San Andrés Accords, and a sentence could be seen as a menace to apply State power against the Zapatistas.

AMLO electoral platform permits attaching mestizo identities to discourse. It can be seen a misconception of indigenous peoples as victims, a pedantic concession of recognition and silence about peace negotiations. Also can be seen war metaphors and allusions to debts. It is not clear who and how are going to be ‘fought’ or ‘paid’, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS OF THE DISSERTATION

Cultural identity can be explained as a process of self-identification based on complex historical systems and articulated by persons or groups for a self-differentiation of others through interaction and inter-definition of relations and conjuncts of relations (c.f. González-Casanova, 2004). Cultural identity is not a racial statement (BarrónPastor, 2006) and can be inferred by identifying common territory, common history and common socio-cultural elements (Díaz-Loving, 1999), and recognising social relations for legitimacy, resistance and about a project (Castells, 1997).

Cultural violence can be a source of social inequalities (Galtung, 1995) and can be perceived through social discourses. When social discourses represent the ‘others’ in negative terms by means of ideologies, prejudices and stereotypes can be seen as a cause for discrimination and violence (Van Dijk, Teun, 2005). ‘Problematisation’ of the ‘others’ could be a ‘superior stage of stereotypes’ in very elaborate ways. Dominant cultures (through ‘experts’) construct the problem, the diagnostic and the solutions to ‘others’ problems. Political discourses can reflect social discourses and contribute to sustaining and reproducing the established cultural order, the historical and ongoing domination, inequality and discrimination against certain persons and groups (PeñaSánchez, 2003).

47

48 Cultural violence has to be attended when seeking and studying development. Inequalities in countries such as Mexico can be attached to processes of identity and legitimacy of cultural dominance. The dissertation confirms the possibility of ideological dimensions to explain power relations in coexistence of cultural diversity.

Analogies to the colonial caste system in Mexico can explain some aspects of cultural identities related to political discourses in this country. Social discourses related to

criollo identity satisfactorily explained political discourses of the National Action Party (PAN); social discourses related to mestizo identity could be found in Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s (AMLO) political discourse; and indigenous peoples’ social discourses could be linked to the Zapatista political discourse.

PAN and AMLO political platforms were analysed using Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), with an adaptation of Fairclough’s model (2003). In this exercise, CDA proves to be a good tool to explore links between language use and social practice (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002). On the other hand, the analysis made corroborates the affirmation of these authors about the limitations of CDA: an isolated application of CDA to political platforms would be insufficient for the analysis of the wider social practice if there were insufficient previous explanations on actors and social context. Applying CDA to political platforms showed some aspects related to the construction of problems and their respective proposed solutions about indigenous peoples.

PAN constructs the problem as a ‘question’ that is clearly positioned in a very low level on a hierarchical scale. The actions that PAN proposes are ‘programmes’ and ‘projects’, implicitly refusing aspects such as political representation and claims for a different recognition in Mexican laws. As PAN suggests programmes focussed on ‘improving access to services’, it can be inferred that the indigenous ‘question’ is a problem of access to services. The tacit subject of the analysed sentences can be linked to criollo cultural identity.

AMLO constructs the problem as a ‘historical debt’ and promises ‘to start’ ‘recognising’ indigenous peoples’ rights. AMLO states a battle to ‘fight against’ ‘discrimination’ and

48

49 ‘poverty’. From the ‘diagnostic’ can be inferred the perception of indigenous peoples as victims. AMLO affirms his commitment to accomplish the San Andrés Accords, which implies a deep legal reform of the Mexican legal system. The tacit subject of the analysed sentences can be inferred as a mestizo discourse.

In both platforms (PAN and AMLO), the construction of ‘problems’ and ‘solutions’ of indigenous peoples expresses explicit commitment to ‘cooperation’ and ‘working together’ but retains the social relations that the Zapatistas have clearly questioned. Indigenous peoples have openly stressed that they do not want to be seen as victims. They want to be listened to and respected; beyond rhetoric, this essential claim still falls on deaf ears.

The dissertation provides a background of representative social and political discourses in Mexico about cultural identities and cultural violence, and provides a strong argument for viewing cultural violence as a source of inequalities, in order to anticipate the reproduction of social discourses in other ambits.

49

50 REFERENCES
Adorno, T. & Horkheimer, M. (1972), The culture industry: Enlightment as mass deception (Photocopy at UEA, PHO 0 ADO).
Almeyra, G. & Thibaut, E. (2006), Zapatistas: un Nuevo mundo en construcción, Ed. Maipue, Buenos Aires.
Antipeje, http://www.antipeje.com.mx/ (accessed on August 22nd, 2006)
AMLO, http://www.amlo.org.mx (accessed on August 20th, 2006)
AMLO (2006), 50 compromisos para recuperar el orgullo nacional (50 commitments to recover the National pride), available in Spanish at: http://www.amlo.org.mx/50compromisos/index.php (accessed on august 20th, 2006)
AMLO (youtube), Las frases del señor López, author: Rodolfo Coronado, available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxKR8niIzcQ (accessed on August 23, 2006)
Barrios Martínez, D. (2005) En las alas del placer. Ed. Pax, México.
Barrón-Pastor (2006), Intercultural promotion in education programmes: A review of literature for a critical perspective, Review of literature submitted to the School of Development Studies of the University of East Anglia in Part-fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Research in Development Studies.
Bayley, P. (ed.) (2004), Cross-Cultural perspectives on Parliamentary Discourse. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
Becerril,A. (2006), Lexicografía verde: los manifestantes, "pinches indios", front page of Mexican Newspaper La Jornada, August 26th, 2006. Available at: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2006/08/26/index.php
Blayer, I. M. & Anderson M. C. (2004) Introduction. In Latin American Narratives and Cultural Identity. Blayer, I. M. & Anderson M. C. (eds.) (2004) Peterlang, Alemania.
Blayer, I. M. & Anderson M. C. (eds.) (2004) Latin American Narratives and Cultural Identity. Peterlang, Alemania.
Bonfil, G. (1987) México Profundo. Una civilización negada. Ed. Grijalbo, CIESAS. Mexico
Buendía, Jorge (1996), La polarización, In La revista, political suplement of the Mexican Newspaper El Universal, Week 24-30 July, 2006. No. 126. p 5.
CADAAD, (2006), Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines, on-line collaborative resource, http://discourse.uea.ac.uk/ (accessed on August 20th, 2006)
Calderón, F. (2001), De cocopas y caravanas, in Mexican newspaper Reforma, March 15th, 2001.
Carbó, T. (1995), El discurso parlamentario mexicano entre 1920 y 1950. Un estudio de caso en metodología de análisis del discurso, 2 volumes. CIESASColegio de México, Mexico City
Castells, M. (1997) La era de la información: Economía, sociedad y cultura, Vol. II El poder de la identidad, Ed. Siglo XXI, México. Original in English: The information age: economy, society, culture, Vol II The power of identity, Blackwell, Cambridge, Mass.

50

51
Chambers, R. (1995) Poverty and livelihoods: whose reality counts? In Environment and urbanization, Vol 7, No 1, April 1995 UK, pp 173-204
Clifford, J. (1988) The predicament of culture. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
CNDI (2005) Una nueva relación: compromiso con los pueblos indígenas. Colección Editorial del Gobierno del Cambio, CNDI-FCE, Mexico.
Coronado, G. & Hodges, B. (2004) El hipertexto multicultural en México posmoderno. Paradojas e incertidumbres. Ed. Porrúa. CIESAS. Mexico.
Delgado, A. (2006), El Yunque, su pensamiento, Instituto Nacional de Estudios Politicos available at: http://www.inep.org/content/view/3835/55/ (accessed on August 3rd, 2006; blocked on August 21st, 2006)
Díaz-Loving, R. (1999) Social psychology in a Latin American Context. In Kimble, C. et al. (1999) Social Psychology of the Americas, Pearson, Needham Heights, Massachussets.
Douglas, M. (1966) Purity and Danger, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
EZLN, 2003, Chiapas, la treceava estela, primera parte: un caracol, http://palabra.ezln.org.mx/ (click: comunicados, 2003, julio) (Accessed in august 8th, 2006).
EZLN, 6 declarations of the lacandona jungle, http://palabra.ezln.org.mx/ (Accesed on August 3rd, 2006).
Fairclough, N. (1992) Discourse and Social Change. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Fairclough, N. (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis. The critical study of language. Pearson Education, Harlow.
Fairclough, N. (2003) Analysis Discourse. Textual analysis for social research. Routledge, London.
FC, http://www.felipe.org.mx/fc/html/index.htm (accessed on august 20th, 2006)
Flores Olea, 2004, http://www.rebelion.org/internacional/040116olea.htm
Flores-Crespo, P. y Barrón-Pastor, J. C. (2006) El programa de apoyo a

estudiantes indígenas en instituciones de educación superior. ¿Nivelador académico o promotor de la interculturalidad? External Evaluation to Indigenous










Supporting Programmes in higher education, ANUIES-FF, México. Forester, J. (1985) Critical Theory and Public Life. MIT Press, Massachusets. Friedman, J. (1994) Identidad cultural y proceso global. Amorrortu, Buenos Aires. Original in English: Cultural identity and global process. Sage Publishers, London. Galsinski, Dariusz and Barker, Chris (2001), Cultural studies and discourse analysis, Sage publications, London Galtung, J. (1995) Choose peace /a dialogue between Johan Galtung and Daisaku Ikeda, translated and edited by Richard L. Gage, Pluto Press, London. Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and self-identity: Self and identity in the late modern age. Polity Press, Cambridge. Giménez, G. (1989) Poder, Estado y Discurso. IIJ-UNAM, México. Gjerde, P. F. (2004) Culture, Power, and Experience: Toward a Person-Centered Cultural Psychology. Human Development. No. 47, 138-57. Gonzalez-Casanova, P. (2004) Las nuevas ciencias y las humanidades. De la academia a la política. Anthropos UNAM-IIS. Mexico City Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks, Lawrence and Wishart, London.

51

52
Halliday, M. (1978), The sociosemantic nature of discourse, in “Language as social semiotic, Edward, Arnold, London.
Hammersley, M. (1989), The Dilemma of Qualitative Method, Routledge, London
Hoegberg, D. (1999) Principle and practice: The logic of cultural violence in Achebe's Things Fall Apart. College Literature. Winter. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3709/is_199901/ai_n8846381 (Accesed on August 1st, 2006).
Horkheimer, M., Adorno, Th.W. (1994), Dialéctica de la Ilustración. Fragmentos Filosóficos, Editorial Trotta, Madrid
ILO (1989) C 169 Indigenous and tribal peoples Convention. Available at: http://www.oit.org/ilolex/english/convdisp1.htm (Accessed on April 3rd, 2006).
Jaworski & Coupland, (1999), (Eds), The Discourse Reader, Routledge, London
Jones, L. A. (2005), The Cultural Identity of Students: What Teachers Should Know. “Kappa Delta Pi Record”. Summer.
Jørgensen, M. W. & Phillips, L. J. (2002). Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method, Sage, London.
La Jornada, 11-08-01, Rechazo de 100 ONG y particulares a la reforma, available at: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2001/08/11/010n1pol.html (accessed on August 20th, 2006)
La Jornada, 23-03-01, front page, El EZLN a la tribuna de la cámara, available at: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2001/03/23/ (accessed on August 20th, 2006)
La Jornada, 29-03-01, front page, Clamor indígena: que nos escuchen y nos respeten, available at http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2001/03/29/ (accessed on August 20th, 2006)
La Jornada, 01-08-06, front page, Empresarios cifran pérdidas en $435 millones por el primer día de plantón, available at http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2006/08/01/009n1pol.php (accessed on August 20th, 2006)
La Jornada, 26-08-06, Tenemos el propósito de estar en el zócalo el día 15: AMLO, available at: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2006/08/26/006n1pol.php (accessed on August 26th, 2006)
La Jornada, (1994), 1994: El alzamiento, La Jornada Ediciones, Mexico, p.
La Jornada, 10-07-06, Se viene abajo la versión del IFE, available at: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2006/07/10/ (Accesed on August 20th, 2006)
Lenkersdorf, C. (1996), Los hombres verdaderos. Voces y testimonios tojolabales. Ed. Siglo XXI, México.
Loaeza, G. (2006), Paralelos, In Mexican newspaper La Jornada August 24th, 2006, available at: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2006/08/24/025a2pol.php
López Morales, G. (2005) Cultura, Turismo y Desarrollo. Archipiélago. Abr-Jun. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0RUD/is_48/ai_n15893429 (Accessed on August 4th, 2006).
López-Bárcenas, F. (2002) Legislación y derechos indígenas en México. Edited by: Red-es, Ce-Acatl, Casa vieja/la guillotina and Centro de orientación y asesoría a pueblos indígenas, Mexico.
Martínez García, C. (2006), Onésimo el político, in mexican newspaper La Jornada, available at: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2006/02/01/027a2pol.php. (Accesed on August 20th, 2006).

52

53


Marsella, A. J. (2005) Conflict, negotiation, and mediation across cultures:

highlights from the fourth biennial conference of the International Academy for Intercultural Research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. Vol. 29,






























Issue 6, 651-73. Mexican Constitution, http://info4.juridicas.unam.mx/ijure/fed/9/. (Accessed on August 3rd, 2006). Middleton, D. & Edwards, D. (Eds.) (1990). Collective Remembering, Sage, London. Moctezuma-Barragán, (2006), El verdadero fondo, In the mexican newspaper “El Universal”, July 31st, 2006. Monasterios, E. (2004) Rethinking Transculturation and Hybridity: An Andean Perspective. In Latin American Narratives and Cultural Identity. Blayer, I. M. & Anderson M. C. (eds.) Peterlang, Germany. Montemayor, C. (1996) Chiapas, la rebelión indígena de México. Ed. Joaquín Mortíz, Mexico. Montemayor, C. (1999) La guerrilla recurrente, Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez, Mexico. Montemayor, C. (2001a), Los pueblos indios de México hoy. Ed. Planeta. Mexico. Montemayor, C. (2001b), Legisladores de ayer y hoy, In Mexican newspaper La Jornada, March 27th, 2001, available at: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2001/03/27/010a1pol.html (accessed on August 22nd, 2006) Morin, E. (1995), Introducción al pensamiento complejo. Gedisa, Barcelona, Trad. Marcelo Pakman O’Gorman, E. (1958) La invención de América. FCE, Mexico. O’Halloran, K. (2003) Critical Discourse Analysis and Language Cognition. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. O’Neil, M. & Austin, D. (eds.) (2000) Democracy and Cultural Diversity. Oxford University Press, London. Orwell, G. (1946) Politics and the English language, In “Shooting and elephant and other essays”, 156-70. Reprinted by Toolan, M. (Ed) (2002), Critical Discourse Analysis: Critical concepts in linguistics, Routledge, London. PAN (2006), Plataforma electoral del Partido Acción Nacional, available at: http://www.pan.org.mx/docs/Plataformaelectoral2006.pdf (accessed on August 20th, 2006) Paz, O. (1950). El laberinto de la soledad. FCE, Mexico. Also available in English: The labyrinth of solitude. Quote is in chapter “The sons of Malinche”. Peña-Sánchez, E. Y., (2003). Los entornos y las sexualidades de las personas con discapacidad, Conaculta, Edufam, Mexico. Pineda, F. (2001), Miedo, soberbia y racismo, in Mexican newspaper La Jornada, March 25th, 2001, available at: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2001/03/25/006a1pol.html (accessed on August 20th, 2006) Ramos, S. (1934), El perfil del hombre y la cultura en México, Imprenta mundial, Mexico. Regino, A. (2001), Argumentos de un dirigente indio: Las razones para la iniciativa. In newspaper La Jornada, Sunday Suplement ‘Masiosare’, March 18th,

53

54





























2001. Available in: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2001/03/18/mas-razon.html (Accessed on August 7th, 2006). Salcedo, A. (2001) Multiculturalismo. Orientaciones filosóficas para una argumentación pluralista. UNAM, México. SEDESOL, (2001), Plan Nacional de Desarrollo, Available at: http://www.sedesol.gob.mx/publicaciones/libros/pnd.htm (Accessed May 3rd, 2006) Sen, A. (1999), Development as freedom. Oxford University Press, UK Serrano, Ambríz y Fernández (coords.) (2002) Indicadores socioeconómicos de los pueblos indígenas, INI, CONAPO, PNUD, México. SSA (1996), San Andrés Accords, available in Spanish and English at: http://www.ezln.org/san_andres/acuerdos.htm (accessed August 20th, 2006). Another option to read the accords in English is: http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/ezln/san_andres.html (accessed August 20th, 2006). Street, B. (1999) Meanings of culture in development. In Leach, F. & Little, A. (1999) “Education, Cultures and Economics: Dilemmas for development”, Chapter 3, 49-67. Farmer Press, London Thornborrow, J. (2002) Power Talk. Language and Interactions in Institutional Discourse. Pearson Education, Harlow. Toolan, M. (ed.) (2002) Critical discourse analysis. Critical Concepts in Linguistics. Routledge, London. Valdés, M. J. (2004), Story-Telling and Cultural Identity in Latin America. In Blayer, I.M & Anderson M.C. (eds.) (2004) “Latin American Narratives and Cultural Identity”, Alemania: Peterlang. Van Dijk, Jan. A. G. M. (2005) The Deepening Divide. Inequality in the Information Society. Sage Publications, California. Van Dijk, Teun, A. (1998) Ideology. A multidisciplinary approach. Sage Publications, London. Van Dijk, Teun, A. (2005) Racism and discourse in Spain and Latin America. John Benjamin Publishing Company. Vazquez Martinez, A. (2006), Los dos Mexicos, Newspaper “Ocho Columnas”. http://www.ochocolumnas.com.mx/INFO/Revistas/politica/notas/nota10.html. (Accessed August 6th, 2006) also c.f. http://www.eluniverso.com/2006/07/09/0001/14/6ECCEE0B109840C8AEEAB815 AB4A90E1.aspx Villoro, L. (1950). Los grandes momentos del indigenismo en México, FCE, Mexico. Wikipedia, http://www.wikipedia.org/ Wordreference, http://www.wordreference.com/

Images source: Image 2.1. “President Fox kisses Pope’s ring”, source: Mexican newspaper La Jornada, 31-07-02, http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2002/07/31. Photo is from Reuters author is illegible. (Accessed on August 7, 2006).

54

55 Image 2.2. “Indigenous cultural diversity”, source: Dirección General de Culturas Populares e Indígenas, CONACULTA - Instituto Nacional Indigenista, Mexico. http://cdi.gob.mx/ini/mapadiversidad.html. (Accessed on August 7, 2006). Image 2.3. “Two Mexicos”, source: “2006 Mexican election per state” available at http://www.ife.org.mx and http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagen:2006_Mexican_election_per_state.svg. (Accessed on August 7, 2006). Image 2.4. “Benito Juárez behind AMLO”, author:Carlos Ramos Mamahua; source: Mexican newspaper La Jornada, July 13rd, 2006. http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2006/07/13/. (Accessed on August 7, 2006). Image 2.5. “Comandante Esther speaks to mexican Parliament, photo: Heriberto Rodríguez; Source Mexican Newspaper La Jornada, March 29th, 2006. http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2001/03/29/ (Accessed on August 7, 2006) ENDNOTES: 1

The ‘invention’ of America is a theory that contrasts the common expression of ‘discovering’ to a construction process of ‘problematisation’ and ‘explanation’ of ‘reality’. This construction legitimates ‘civilizating’ peoples of conquered territories. This invention would continue nowadays with more elaborated manners of ‘solution and help to solve problems’. 2 Faux-Pas would be a very polite way to refer the betrayal and attack to Zapatista communities through open and low-intensity war. 3 For a full comparison of the ‘COCOPA initiative’ and the law approved, c.f. López Bárcenas (2002). For a brief examination in English click: http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/americas/mexico/SanAndres.html 4 We are using the term ‘Parliament’ as an analogy of legislative power in mexico. The correct term is ‘Cámaras de Diputados y Senadores’. 5 The idea of ‘two Mexicos’ can be considered a “lie” because the momentary preference for a candidate cannot be inferred as a clear political position neither as an identity indicator. 6 A newspaper note about an interesting anecdote can reinforce the argument about racist criollo expressions. The note is translated complete: “Furious because of a demonstration of the Popular Assembly of Oaxaca’s people outside of the Republic Senate and she had to walk one street, Maria Irma Ortega Fajardo, elected senator of the Green Ecologist Party of Mexico, exclaimed: “How is it possible that because of some fucking indians I cannot enter [into the building]”. Inside of the place, which she is visiting for the first time to take the photo of her senator accreditation, she was rude with the security personnel and with graphic journalists. She said upset to her assistant: “How is it possible that these fucking ‘nacos’ have kidnapped the [city] centre [of Oaxaca], that smells to shit and dirt!” ” (my translation). Note of Andrea Becerril, Lexicografía verde: los manifestantes, "pinches indios", appeared in the front page of the Mexican Newspaper La Jornada, August 26th, 2006. Available at: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2006/08/26/index.php 7 Francisco I. Madero was a Mexican leader that faced the 30 year dictatorship of Porfirio Díaz in 1910 with the claim “effective suffrage, no re-election”. His movement is key in the Mexican revolution.

55

56

8

EZLN has faced traditional indigenous institutions and powers defending religious liberty, women rights and homosexual persons. The movement started as a response of excluded indigenous peoples of their own communities.

56