Culture and Politics
ean Franco’s article [Septem-
ber/October 1994] on how tele-
vision and popular music have
displaced the printed word as cul-
tural guide seems a bit out of con-
text. First, the notion that Celia
Cruz has replaced Sim6n Bolivar
or Jos6 Marti as the apostle of
Latinity overlooks the fact that
Celia Cruz’ popularity-like that
of another Cuban artist, Gloria
Estefan-is a commercial phe-
nomenon. It also implies a non-
existent Latin American homo-
geneity. The claim of Cuban
immigrants that they are the repre-
sentatives of Latin American
views has a lot to do with their
political interests and position
within the United States.
Second, to consider the adoption
of the “American” look and rock
music as a display of “inventive
cultural bricolage” without locat-
ing this in a political context
shows the shallowness of Franco’s
exploration. For Latinos, looking
“American” is a cathartic exer-
cise-a way of leaving behind
their material poverty to enter a
“better” world. Beyond that, the
mass media in Latin America
decided to promote “new and for-
eign” artists at the very point
when countries were engulfed in
internal social and political prob-
lems, and state terror was rife. The
lack of a clear sense of national
identity is a major reason why we
Latin Americans have not been
able to control our destiny.
The Latin American Left has
tried to link its political cause to
the rediscovery of local art and
music because it understands that
popular culture is a very effective
tool for the dissemination of ideas.
For the Right, the eradication of
opposition meant wiping out these
cultural attachments. This helps
explain why Argentine “rock
nacional” and the ban on Mer-
cedes Sosa occurred at the same
historical moment. Latin America
remains the dumping site of Dis-
neyesque culture and social analy-
sis. Unlinking cultural changes
from politics and history is not
worthy of serious scholars.
Juan Alonso Crosby
SUNY – Stony Brook
Stony Brook, NY
Jean Franco responds:
Juan Alonso confuses description
and endorsement, and com-
pounds it by not recognizing irony.
My article was certainly not
intended as a celebration, but
rather as a description of the issues
at stake in contemporary culture
wars as a consequence of neoliber-
al policies. Recent books by Nelly
Richard (The Insubordination of
Signs) and Beatriz Sarlo (Scenes of
Postmodern Life) reflect the
increasing hostility of literary and
art critics to what they see as their
displacement from the public
sphere of discussion and the
media’s monopoly of this sphere.
To say, however, that “Latin
America remains the dumping site
of Disneyesque culture and social
analysis” is a dangerous simplifi-
cation, because it ignores the role
of Latin American media giants–
Mexico’s Televisa, Brazil’s TV
Globo, the Glusberg empire in
Argentina-in disseminating
neoliberal principles, and thereby
ignores the questions of agency
and access that arise in conse-
quence.
Following French theorist Pierre
Bourdieu, critics based in the
social sciences have tended to
emphasize consumption and use as
productive activities, rejecting
older manipulation theories. Tak-
ing rather different approaches,
Richard and Sarlo, in the books I
mention above, see the social sci-
ences as complicitous with the sta-
tus quo and therefore look to some
revitalization of the aesthetic. It
was not my intention to pass judg-
ment on these concerns and
debates, but rather to bring them to
the attention of readers of the
NACLA Report.
The charge that “I am unlinking
cultural changes from politics and
history” betrays the writer’s igno-
rance of the fact that in 40 years
of teaching and writing, those
links have been my main concern.
At the same time, I do not believe
that an emphasis on culture (par-
ticularly in today’s environment)
necessarily means a retreat from
politics. Rather, it means that poli-
tics now has to be remapped to
include these crucial cultural
questions.
