Reframing Latin America: A Cultural Theory Reading ... - BGSU Blogs

identity construct #5: latin america 151
or how explicitly they might be stated. If policy makers are operating from
an essentialist perspective, they assume Indians to have an ontological identity
and they believe their understanding of that identity is based on scientifi
c fact. Their interpretation of Indian identity legitimizes their political
program.
A semiotic interpretation would view policy-making initiatives as moments
at which identity is given meaning. Certain policies and policy makers
might advocate one identity, others would offer an alternative. Thus,
politics is the arena in which people fi ght over the meanings of identity,
and political contests represent moments when existing identities are either
preserved or changed. The people involved in these political disputes
usually are not consciously aware that their debates are about identity. As
“dead authors” of political programs, they see themselves as fi ghting to
make policy adhere to ontological truth. Bary illustrates the principle of
dead authorship by pointing out that authors whose works advocate equality,
like Mexico’s José Vasconcelos or Brazil’s Oswald de Andrade, often end
up enhancing hierarchical structures.
For further clarifi cation of Bary’s argument, think back to David Parker’s
interpretation of class in Chapter 7. Parker challenged the traditional idea
that class originates in material conditions and that class politics is a term
that simply signifi es people entering the political arena to defend these preexisting
class interests. Parker argues instead that class identities are made
at the moment people enter into the political arena and begin to think of
class as an objective concept. Thus, politics makes class, rather than class
giving rise to a certain kind of politics. Bary makes the same argument
about Latin American identity. It is made and defi ned by the authors who
write about it or the policy makers who create policies based on their perception
of it.
Bary does not address specifi cally the concepts of singularity and duality
as Martin does. But applying Bary’s interpretive approach to Martin certainly
focuses attention on Martin’s apparent failure to apply his critique of
U.S. singularity to Latin American duality. From Bary’s perspective, Martin’s
ability to see through the facade of U.S. singularity could have resulted
in an interrogation of Latin America’s duality. Perhaps Latin America isn’t
so dual, or at least those who argue for this duality should be subjected
to deconstructive criticism so that their discursive positioning could be
laid bare.
Whereas Martin appeals to authors whom he believes possess an accurate
interpretation of Latin America’s true identity, Bary looks to those
who question the place from which truth claims about identity originate.