In one of tomorrow’s readings, Pablo Vila provides an in-depth discussion of the vicissitudes of identity at the border. The question for tonight revolves around one issue we would like to stress this summer: that of agency and the power each individual has to answer the challenges of life under difficult circumstances.
What is your perspective on the types of identity constructions Vila documents in his article? Did you find some of the positions taken by his interviewees shocking? Is there a way we can consider some of the positions people take on identity—even those we might find unsavory—as choices that people make to respond to conditions they face? If so, explore this avenue and take this question to a deeper level. How do these responses involve the construction, employment and meeting of narratives? If not, please defend why you believe the question of choice is not pertinent, and provide a critique of Vila’s argument.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Vila is right in calling out the ‘polysemy’ nature of the ‘Mexican’ label on the border. This article does a great job of plunging the uninformed reader into the complexities of the many perspectives and identities. As for my perspective on the types of identities, I did find some shocking, but perhaps what I found shocking was really my own ignorance on what it means to be Mexican-American, or Mexican, or American, or Anglo, or white. I would not go so far as to credit/discredit the identities, because I think that is missing the point.
Vila’s idea that personal identities are constructed via narratives and relationships provides a good framework for presenting the complexities of border identities. We know that identities are in part composed of what we are not, hence the us vs them explanation. But to contextualize border identities even more, it is important to consider the physical border line that reinforces an us vs them as well as a here vs there identification. Vila is interested in how identities are based on the construction of narratives. According to the interview, it appears that the border itself provides a unique context to complicate the narrative.
I like the idea that one should choose a certain narrative as a response to life’s challenges. For example, when various people refused to accept that the unattractive picture was El Paso and not Juarez, perhaps that choice is a way to reinforce and justify their own identity. Choosing to assume that El Paso symbolizes certain ideals, these border residents can construct and perpetuate their personal narrative. In addition, these narratives often seem to be shared among a group of people. This is seen in the example of the family whose identities were comparable along gender boundaries. Sharing a narrative with others—creating a group identity—may be an important step in creating a personal identity.
I believe that Vila’s assessment of what creates an identity is simple, accurate, and quite obvious after stepping back to think about it for a moment. Relationships with members of our ethnic communities and with “others”, narratives (what I took to mean personal histories), and classification systems all make up how we view our cultural identity. I have always heard the use of the terms “other” in an extremely negative context (For example, in order to legitimize genocide, first the aggressors must convince the populace of the “otherness” of the victimized group through hatful propaganda, constantly using dehumanizing language, blaming the group for troubles, and creating an “us” versus “them” way of thinking.) One thing this article has done for me is to show me to view the idea of an ethnic “other” in a different context; that everyone, not just the mass murderers, has this idea of who we are in terms of who we are not. For good or for bad, it exists everywhere and in everyone.
I was not shocked by anything, but found this very interesting: After showing pictures of dilapidated buildings in El Paso and subjects wrongly assuming that the pictures were taken in Juarez, he accused people of having the stereotype that “all poverty is in Mexico,” and that this stereotype is used to create a sense of “otherness” and separation from poverty, and that it ultimately hurts the Mexican community (rich Mexicans must account for their success or be accused of stealing or corruption for example). While this does not necessarily rub me the wrong way, it does seem to conflict with yesterday’s class, during which we described the EJ Movement as actually an Environmental Racism Movement. That the EJ Movement was created by people of color in order to help people of color, who were and are the worst sufferers of environmental injustice. When President Bush declared that environmental justice is for everyone, not just people of color (therefore removing the “otherness”), the EJ Movement saw an uproar and lost many fighters in protest to this declaration. If someone were to show me a picture of a makeshift house on a landfill, would I be presumptuous to assume that it was in a black or Latino community rather than a white one? According to the facts presented on Monday about how statistically people of color are targeted the worst for dumping grounds and other hazards, I would not be. I would be interested in furthering this line of thought, as it seems to me that there is a conflict in reasoning between the class and the reading.
I was interested in the many terms one could chose to identify himself. More than that, I was surprised at how loaded in meaning that decision is. For example, for a person of Mexican decent living in the U.S. to call himself Hispanic, he brings upon himself the label of a traitor to his race (“malinchista” – referring, if I recall correctly, to Cortez’s indigenous mistress who spied and translated for him and aided in the catastrophic genocide of her people!). By calling oneself a Chicano, many view him as living in the past and unwilling to grow up and enter the “real world.” The label one chooses is loaded with assumptions about one’s behavior and history. As a white girl with no emotional ties to her genetic roots in Germany, Poland, and maybe a few other places (does it matter?), this concept certainly made me think. The only issues I have ever had to deal with were whether to call myself “white” or the ultra-politically correct term “Caucasian” (which I rarely use. I must admit I have no idea what the term actually means). I also struggle to find an existing word with which to identify my nationality. “Soy Americana” never seemed to get a positive reaction from Chileans, but what else is there? I eventually settled on “Soy de los Estados Unidos.” However, these two issues are hardly comparable to the issues those of Mexican decent struggle with on the border. My issues deal mostly with how PC I am and a lack of appropriate vocabulary to not be offensive to the Americans living north and south of the U.S.
The article shows that people can choose (or at least try to choose) their identity. Although one family of Mexican decent was terribly ashamed of Mexico and its people today, they still proudly wear their heritage on their sleeves, glorifying the Mexico of old, stressing the values, morals, and rich culture and history that was thriving so long ago. Facing the condition of being of Mexican decent on the border (Mexico visible possibly from the kitchen window), this family cannot or refuses to become assimilated into white culture, but feels alienated from the Mexico of today as well. In order to establish a dignified identity and sense of belonging, they call today’s Mexico and Mexicans not the “real” Mexico or Mexicans. They cling to the good ‘ol days.
Vila does a very good job of presenting identity constructions. Personally I found myself reading certain paragraphs, sentences, and even phrases, multiple times before I could actually process the information. When I read something I usually try to apply it to a situation in my own life so that I can better understand the material. In this case however, I found myself connecting directly to the text. I did not have to synthesize a situation. Why? Because I struggle with my own identity. While reading, it was hard to understand the differences between the various labels; Hispanic, Mexican American, Chicano/a, Mexicano/a, Latino/a. Since it was difficult to decipher differences this added to my frustration with my own identity. I was not seeking to find myself in the text, but I was left with clouded vision in that respect.
I believe that the method for data collection that Vila used was most perceptive and logic. After all, how else can one analyze the way in which people construct their identities if one does not have their narrative? I very much agree with Vila that we construct identities within culturally specific systems. We perceive ourselves a certain way and therefore we see the similarities and difference that we share with others. I think this may be why I struggle with my own identity. I grew up with an alternative culture. Many think that culture is heritage; is nationality; is ethnicity; is skin and physical characteristics. But, I grew up with a culture that was just categorized by city, social status, and interest. I have never been in tune with my roots nor surrounded by them. But this does not make my identity construction any different from what Vila was explaining. In fact, it is a prime example; I used what surrounded me to develop my character and essentially, my identity.
I loved what Vila was saying about how we are not limited to who we imagine we are. I think that this is actually the reason why we find new things about ourselves each day. There were also questions that formed in my head while reading what Vila had to say; Human categories are formed by constant layering of narratives, but if we do this then don’t we inherently produce something with roots of truth? Don’t stereotypes come from pieces of puzzles that are often true for most? Mere pieces only but still. It seems to me that the way in which society structures themselves, includes this built in racism because a narrative always has a first person, and since we always try to find similarities and differences in people, we notice differences the most. Differences between us, the narrator of our story, and them, the people who we don’t realize share just as many similarities as differences.
This article shows a lot...showing the reader insights into concepts and experiences that are real and don't deserve to remain hidden anymore.
The author Pablo Villa in, “The Polysemy of the Label ‘Mexican’” explains that social identity is neither an “essential inner state”, nor the product of the power of external discourses, but the complex interplay of narratives about oneself and others over time. He talks of the different ways of identifying and being labeled such as Mexican Nationals, Juarenses, people of El Paso, Mexican Americans, Americans, Chicanos, and Anglos as well as people who are classified by what generation American (or United Statesian) they are. I agree with the author’s concept in describing yourself and forming your identity in how you describe others. In order to form an identity people differentiate themselves from others, by labeling and creating the “others” in their minds and reality.
The identity constructions Vila documents in his article are all very complex. I found the narrative about the middle class family of Mexican descent who had lived in the USA for multiple generations and ‘imported’ their Mexican nephew as an exchange student to learn about Mexican culture and to go back to their roots to be a little funny. He turned out to be very macho and sexist and the family, especially the daughters did not get along with him. For some reason their Mexico of the past was a Mexico without machismo. I guess this was kind of shocking to me. How can you forget the machismo present in Mexico and in many Central and Latin American countries, as well as Spain? But obviously if you are going to create an identity it is going to be one based on good characteristics. To be extreme, I would say not a lot of people of any ethnicity are going to base their current identity on a rapist racist ancestor, even though this type of ancestor is a part of almost everybody’s history. Nobody is going to tell stories and try to remember a person like that. The bad is usually forgotten, because it is better to forget that particular relationship.
In the article many people did not want to relate with Juarez because it was seemingly so poor, even though it does have at least some nice houses and a nice cemetery. The many social stereotypes present of always seeing Mexico and anything Spanish as poverty seemed sad an illogical.
The discussion about labeling and how it is power tool Anglos use was interesting especially because the author labels by using the term Anglo and American which excludes people from Canada (North America) and Central and South America. It is very hard to get away from labeling. By choosing an identity you are labeling yourself. I think César the self-proclaimed Chicano had one of the clearest identities of himself.
It is only logical that people form identities that are based on them being the better person: more hardworking, smarter, kinder, etc. and, which give them the chance to get ahead in life, or help them maintain whatever is most important to them. This article really showed me how hard it is for Mexican Americans living on the border between two countries which they have ties to, to form an identity, especially with all the social consequences and expectations that go along with their decision or that sometimes make their decision for them.
Vila's argument about identity construction is straightforward and proper in terms of Mexican Americans' identity as well as identity in general. I want to believe that identity is something you should have a choice to define who you are, but I realize it is hardly the case due to others definition of what you are. Vila is right about the identity is a perpetural dialogue within oneself as well as with others around you, and identity is changing over time due to the continuous process of dialogue.
What I read was not shocking for me because blaming for others happens not only in identity or social issues but other categories as well. What I found very interesting was that the comparison of cemetries in two cties because I wanted to know what Mexicans' answer will be. Besides that, I was frastrated to find out that the language on the sign assumes that poverty exist only in Mexican American communities. However, I felt that the causes of "all poverty is in Mexico" type of behaviors and conceptions might not be linked to identity, but it exists so that one is included to the "good" community. I thought Vila is discussing more about conceptions of human nature and taking one aspect, identity construction, to a deeper level to understand the process of Mexican American identity construction.
Pablo Vila's discussion of identity at the border brought up a lot of things that I had not seriously considered before. How does one identify themselves when living so close to the border? An 'Anglo' living in Mexico would most likely not identify themselves as Mexican, however a Mexican living in El Paso has several identities to 'choose' from: Mexican, American, Chicano, etc. I did find the many terms for identities rather confusing, but when I thought about it further I realized it must be even more confusing for a Mexican-American living on the border to understand who they are and to what 'group' they belong.
Though I did not find the positions taken by his interviewees shocking, I do think that some of the positions people take in regards to identity are choices they make to respond to the conditions in which they live. I believe people choose these labels and identities only to simplify their lives. One cannot feel included in a group unless there are 'others' that are excluded.
I did find it interesting that everyone labeled poverty as a Mexican characteristic. Certainly the poverty in Mexico is extreme, but it is not something that should be strictly associated with being Mexican or being lazy. Again, I believe people form these stereotypes only to simplify life in their minds. Many people don't want to take the time and effort to fully understand the complexity of issues so they simply lump things together, such as poverty and Juarez, for convenience.
Pablo Vila reached an asserted amount of identities at the border, although the amount seems endless. He says that everyone is a mirror image of what they see in the the eyes of others, which can create many degrees of an identity, since people see through so many diferent lenses. The diferent identities he creates are them and us, which he refers to Mexican Nationals, Mexican Americans, Chcanos, and Anglos. He looks at Mexicans in a few respects. In all regards Mexico = lazy = poor, although Mexico can refer to its citizens, its heritage, or it being a national state.
Circumstances create the lense that people look out of, but the theme was cemented that "people develop a sense o themselves as subjects in part by imagining themselves as protagonist in stories". People create their and others role in a narritive, despite evidence to the contrary to fit their own self fullfilling prophecy. People present these ideals of ourselves and them as facts, because it is human fact that "we", whoever we may be, are better than "them". This creates sad discrimination at the border.
The border identities is as follows, Mexicans are devided by state and region. Northern Mexicans distinguish themselves from southerners and Chilangos from Mexico City. People on the border, Fronterizos, distiguish themselves from Juarenses people. And Juareses establish themselves from other Mexicans. U.S. citizens who are not of Spanish or native descent to the region distiguish themselves from Mexican, and Mexicans distinguish themselves from money driven U.S. citizens.
Positions from interviewees was not shocking, as I see it everyday in other forms of racism and self determination, but it is evident that what they are saying is not inteligent. People defended what they learned to be false, by justifying that most people of a certain group usually act in the way they presumed, which always ment Mexico=Poor.
It is very appropiate to say that people react to their own situation in assessing the importance of others. An example is that Laura is upset that people from Juarez take all the shampoo at Wal-Mart, but that is becuase she can only afford one bottle. Finally, resonses reacted and employed their own narratives, because people put "them" in roles opposite to themselves, and when that was not possible, because they were the them, such as the rich couple from El Paso, "they" have changed from who "we" are now, or what "we" represent. In which case Mexicans are not what one attains to be, but rather traditional Mexican heritage.
Post a Comment