Category Archives: Borderlands

Some links and things for Santa Gloria

1. Entrevistas.

2. Pérez-Torre’s book that I know already I would find self-satisfied and strange — or maybe not, it’s not terribly informed, even though I would rather read Mónica Díaz’ edited collection on being indio in the colonial period. I should ILL it.

3. There’s an article Cholo Angels in Guadalajara that I would quite like to see. (I will request it though ILL.)

4. This not excellent dissertation from Kentucky.

5. Benjamin Alire Sánchez 1997 – – perhaps I can find this, too.



Leave a comment

Filed under Borderlands

The coloniality of power

Here we have a copy of that Mignolo journal issue/book our library does not have. There’s an article by Sanjinés on the nation and it explains why the B. Anderson model does not work. And an article by J.D. Saldívar on Anzaldúa that thinks, as I have claimed to do, that what she does with language is one of the most effective aspects of her project in Borderlands/La Frontera. And there is more. I’d like to be reading the paper book, but this is nice to have.

Decoloniality is thinking from the other side. But not from a romanticized other side. This book thinks about some of the things I do.

The mestizo is a colonial formation and that is why the mixture with the colonizer is the one that counts–and why you get the mestizo-criollo class. Does this mean that the mestizo, ultimately, cannot be subaltern? That the povo, even if also mixed, is not mestizo? Somebody must have worked this out. Who?


1 Comment

Filed under Borderlands, Race book, Uncategorized

Mestizaje and deculturation

Lomnitz-Adler talks about mestizaje and, or as deculturation. It’s not a place of exuberance but of loss. Is why the mestizaje fans spend so much time on healing?


Original: Decentered discourse? Problematizing the “Borderlands”

Next: Rereading Borderlands: Las márgenes de Gloria Anzaldúa

Then: Transnational Borderlands? Las márgenes de Gloria Anzaldúa

Then: Border trouble? Intersectionality in Gloria Anzaldúa

AND there were various other possibilities in between. “The problem with borders and borderlands: intersectionality in GA;” “Dancing at the threshold: interesectionality in GA;” more.



Filed under Borderlands, Uncategorized

Más y más mestizos

From March 2017:

“…mestizo and mestizaje…are doubly hybrid. On the one hand they house an empirical hybridity, built upon eighteenth and nineteenth century racial taxonomies and according to which ‘mestizos’ are non-indigenous individuals, the result of biological or cultural mixtures. Yet, mestizos’ genealogy starts earlier, when ‘mixture’ denoted transgression of the rule of faith, and its statutes of purity. Within this taxonomic regime mestizos could be, at the same time, indigenous. Apparently dominant, racial theories sustained by scientific knowledge mixed with, (rather than cancel) previous faith based racial taxonomies. ‘Mestizo’ thus houses a conceptual hybridity – the mixture of two classificatory regimes – which reveals subordinate alternatives for mestizo subject positions, including forms of indigeneity.”
—de la Cadena 2005

Y sí, and that is what the talk the other day did not address, and it is key for my piece on Isaacs: there is racial and religious mestizaje that stand in for each other. THIS is a good insight, I do think. (About mestizaje itself, the other way in which the word or concept “means in two accents” is that it is deployed in both oppressive and utopian or liberating ways.)

Also: Kraniauskas, hybridity and traces of capital, and that article on comparative hybridities.


Leave a comment

Filed under Borderlands, Race book, Uncategorized

My outline

“Liminality” – p. 6

“Subaltern Representation” – p. 12

“Difference and Wholeness” – p. 19 [here check the Beverley reference]

“Mestizaje” – p. 24

“Beyond Hybridity” – p. 36


Leave a comment

Filed under Borderlands

Weak first draft of conclusion (it looks fine here but I don’t think I can include all of this)

That point has been raised before (Castillo/Tabuenca) and responded to by Mariana Ortega. The problem is twofold. One issue, as scholars like Irwin (2001), Castillo and Tabuenca (2002), Saldaña-Portillo (2003), Castillo (2006) and Medina (2008) have noted, is that the borderlands in Anzaldúa’s model are very specifically the United States side of the Mexican border. This can be seen by the references in the text, all on this side including the Mexican ones, insofar as they correspond to those chosen for the imagined territory of Aztlán, also generated from the United States. This, Irwin points out, replicates problems in the U. S. historiography of the area. I would add that the choice of references from south of the border doesn’t make Anzaldúa’s case: they are the references elites use to oppose US, yet whiten. (Castillo: it’s a nation-building concept, not a resistant one; I would add that it replicates effort to be native yet modern, assert self yet negotiate with center, that is the hallmark of so many nation building texts.) Second problem: The borderlands as fuzzy category or vague concept, abstract enough to be applicable to everything. When it’s that, AND it’s also the US, then it’s just universalizing the US – pace Ortega.

Postcolonial criticism privileged the idea of the hybrid because of the hybridity of the colonial subject, and borderlands seemed like a laboratory for this in the postmodern / poststructuralist environment where we also wanted a decentered subject. Now that decentered subject must also be transnational. I think the Anzaldua text is more interesting as an example of a text on borders; when we try to make it into a global model it falls apart.

So: what does it do? 1. Revise who the Chicana can be, getting out of sexism, fighting racism. 2. Women’s liberation in a transnational sense. 3. Revise what the U.S. is. 4. Revise what Spanish is. 5. Speak as colonial subject. Very well: these things are powerful. But the borderlands-as-solution to everything doesn’t actually work—it is what people have liked, but again, it is where the argument falls apart. And the problem isn’t with the text itself as much as it is with what many have wanted it to do, in proposing a global model (global transnational revolutionary subject). The things it does well, it does—as is the case with all the best and most classic literature—because it speaks not from the globe but from a place.

(Things to add in above: on mestizaje as a result of gender oppression – it is key in a feminist text; mestizaje does not have happy feminist origins.) And I should get this Yemoja book, for the chapter on Anzaldúa and in particular, its references. (It’s at LSU as an e-book, and it’s at Tulane.)


Leave a comment

Filed under Borderlands

(María) Socorro Tabuenca (Córdoba)

Tabuenca has written a great deal more, but all of it would have to come by interlibrary loan, so I am saving that reading for the next time I write on Anzaldúa. In another key, this is her interesting syllabus.


Then there is the Robert Irwin article (see 518-519 on Anzaldúa, and the discussion of Murrieta scholarship as an case study for his argument). Border studies in the U.S. model erases the Mexican borderlands but also scholarship in Spanish. (It’s the problem of English vs. Comparative Literature — to be a comparativist, you must know what you are comparing, but people from the English department only do scholarship on things in English, otherwise they just appropriate the texts.)

If Anzaldúa is the perfect subaltern, the perfect transnational decolonizing subject, and her borderlands are a universalization of the U.S. borderlands, how does “transnational” mean anything except a U.S. takeover?

Then there is this piece that explains Aztlán but doesn’t think mestizaje or transculturation or the appropriation of gods are problematic at all. And this is that 1991 book, Third World Women and the Politics of Feminism.


(Also: Cornejo Polar. Irwin cites him as well. Everyone likes that piece. It burns me that he wrote that piece for our LASA panel, after talking to me about what was needed, and nobody knows it. Perhaps I will start saying it. I can prove it and I even have the post-it note in his handwriting that came with the original manuscript.)


Quoi d’autre? Ah yes — documentation of work and home tasks. If I included art and activism as categories, I would look much more flourishing, but it is with work and home tasks I struggle, so I will document there.


8:30A-6P professional meeting.


10A-5P followup on professional meeting, very slow because I was so tired.
10P-2A research/writing, slow because I was tired.


10A-2P combination of research/writing and followup on professional meeting, slow but steady.
2P is when my break started and I am coming back at 3:15.
3:15-4P research
4-5:15P lecture
6:15-12:15A research/writing but also reading other things … I would only count 3 of these hours, and probably shouldn’t count as much but I like to relax when I work. This means I spent 12 hours working, but 15 at work, and I’d discount 3-5 of those.

So: what did I do on this Monday, a weekday? Research and writing, I have a full draft of the paper now although it still needs some fixing. And a little professional service.


Leave a comment

Filed under Borderlands, Working