By Raúl Antelo
In that statement, Latin America is an ambivalent position. It is therefore subject to an action-all disciplines and knowledge we call Americanism "as the subject (partial) of the same action, ie, Latin America is involved in defining the purpose that justifies their own practice teórica.Sobre such inclusion, active and active, also lies an acute historical overdetermination which, unless a sudden pretend not less hard suspension of belief, it is impossible to ignore. I mean the fact that the same Latin American cultural history teaches us that the emergence of this concept was not an act timely discovery, but a gradual process of colonization From this evidence, one might define modernity, here embodied in the New World, not the discovery of the new but as the operational integration of what is available. Modernity is always pragmatic inclusions.
Therefore, if we analyze the state of Latin Americanist field, its formation and dynamics in light of the new world order, we can not be stressed that so far this century, the American variant has become increasingly decisive. It is indeed a function of hegemonic interests continental U.S. universities are the first flexible, if not overthrow, the lines of force that fractured language study objects under peninsular origins. So forth, peremptorily, the existence of an object, but at least reunited homogeneous, which now houses the Departments of English and Portuguese. His version is finished, as we know, the historiography of Henriquez Urena. However, as you also know anyone who has gone through one of these university departments, alliances tend to be pragmatic in its interior, including specialists Luso-Brazilian literatures and literatures of other Spaniards who are Hispanic-Americans as real enemies in the distributive policies of each departmental unit.
During the postwar capitalist modernization, the internal dynamics of this block Hispanic Americans (to which the label is merely innocuous Ibero) is fed either a political version, the dependency theory as a technology, the new Latin American criticism less historicist and more self-reflective than its predecessor in the great universities of Este.El most complete example is that of Emir Rodriguez Monegal that, although often disregarded the trench of Tordesillas however failed to develop a comprehensive theory of Latin American literature (which the modernizing model of narrative transculturation implanted with greater success) for the simple reason that the category was regulating these buildings, despite their fantasmagorización - formalist where appropriate, polyphonic in Rama-the concept of copyright.
In late capitalism, however, are more severas.Jameson reconfigurations, as noted, argues that at this stage, peripheral cultures like Latin America can no longer be thought in opposition to the First World as the Other of the Same. Moreover, the collapse of the dichotomy between center and periphery also drawn in Ultimately, the purpose of the concept of periphery so that the former Third World is now a region becomes more integrated as other prevailing globalization, even if this integration is uneven or asymmetric. We also know that from this premise, subalternists conclude that speak from the Third World is to speak from a place inexistente.Uno of the most common arguments against certain claims are released, say, Adorno, Aesthetic density, whose rigor Analytical is usually eclipasado in American cultural readings, is that certain categories (rules or aesthetic, political uses of modern traditions or national) collapsed with the fall of the dichotomy between center and periphery (1). No one speaks in such cases of substitution of the revolutionary dilemma (release or dependence) for a trilemma: disciplinary release, dependence on the international agenda that is (and here the third set) conjugate release and dependence. This release is impotent or holding power is not always involved in the new scenario and gives us a subtle abduction often the subject of enunciation of the same understanding, so transcends, as a subject officer, and no longer, ambivalently, as rather than an immanent break. Effect could then argue that since the dichotomy has disappeared center / periphery, is precisely now that a debate on the uses of the theoretical traditions may casually succeed, once the only argument that can not be applied against these readings is to Eurocentrism, because, remember, the dichotomy has disappeared from the scene. There is therefore the West (not just Europe but, essentially, the United States, hyperbole quintessential neo-European) which has become global but is globalization, as Ulrich Beck argues, presents a scenario increasingly similar to the peripheral. Or to be more precise and pick your metaphor, otherwise it will use years ago that Terry Gillian, this is increasingly globalized face Brazil: excluding development. But in that case, it is precisely the paradox that Latin American nationalism, that the national is that which can not be represented in a wider range in which, despite everything, no longer included? In that sense, we should define more than sabalternistas glocal, that is, marked in our local uniqueness, Latin America, but no less integrated into the global order.
domestic issues, far from being anachronistic recurrence of evils and overcome, we constantly return the issue of subjectivity not integrated to any single entity (the subaltern, for example) and therefore less willing to accept monstrosity of the new rules.
not easy, from my point of view, accepting the arguments of either the subalternists, and Latin American cultural critics. Early postoperative was told but the same concept hegemonic (Gramsci) of hegemony presupposes subordination, which reversed its position to the Marxian tradition of thinking about modernity. Held also a culture imposes precisely Jubilee distance between each point where a regional strength was visible in the past.
In addition, cultural critics tend to find its specific aesthetics, understood as an active engagement with the artificial one, forgetting that the characteristic or euphemized the work of art in the age of mechanical reproducibility is not aesthetic but the anesthetic. I think, without major ambitions, which introduces man culture in the field of transgression but the art, however, indicates its fall in the realm of the impossible, since any work of art, as a notice of nowhere with no rest attenuates the positive ontological and also creates headless rules.
My position is peculiar, not to relapse into a compulsive timing existentialism (which for cultural critics is set to breaks for subalternists modernists and the irreversible globalization) is necessary to put to nothing (not dichotomous but néant rien wear the trilemático) as the very condition of possibility of Peter Sloterdijk argues crítica.Como (2), conventional forms of modernism, pragmatism and populism decidedly closed their eyes to the monstrous is theirs because they do not exceed fanaticism of normal.
Notes (1) See the debate between Beatriz Sarlo, Roberto Schwarz, J. Kraniauskas, J.Beasley-Murray, H. Achugar et al. on "Literature and courage" in ANDRADE, Ana L. et al. Leituras do ciclo.Florianópolis, ABRALIC / Faucets, 1999, p.287-306.La Sarlo position is explicit in "Cultural Studies and Literary Criticism at the Crossroads of Values" in Journal of Latin American Cultural Studies vol.8, n 1, 1999, p.115-124. In the same issue (p.125-145) reads the replica of Alberto Moreiras, "The Order of Order: On the Culturalism Reluctant Critiques of Anti-Subalternism."
(2) SLOTERDIJK, Peter - Nicht gerettet. Versuche nach Heidegger. Frankfurt, Suhrkamp Verlag, 2000.
0 comments:
Post a Comment