We Are Not the World Author(S): George Yúdice Source: Social Text, No
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
We Are Not the World Author(s): George Yúdice Source: Social Text, No. 31/32, Third World and Post-Colonial Issues (1992), pp. 202-216 Published by: Duke University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/466226 . Accessed: 25/08/2013 02:06 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Duke University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Text. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 130.70.132.61 on Sun, 25 Aug 2013 02:06:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions We AreNot theWorld GEORGE YUDICE "We are the world" is a slogan withmany possible interpretations.It may be interpretedas an updated version of the "white man's burden," the globalization of late capitalism or the "Americanization"of the world. From a different,multicultural perspective the United States is seen as a microcosmof the world. Of course, these differentinterpretations have theircommon denominatorin the dual process of global driftof capital and global riftof populations. In a special supplementto The New York Times, "A World of Difference,"the connectionbetween commerceand diversityforms part of a celebrationof multiculturalismthat is really an advertisementfor New York: This metropolitanarea encompassesworld-renowned neighborhoods like Harlem,Chinatown, Little Italy... and places thetourists don't knowabout - thePortuguese shops and restaurants of Newark'sIron- boundsection, the Cuban enclave of UnionCity, the Arabian settle- mentsof Brooklyn....Somewhere in the tri-statearea you'll find representativesofvirtually every race, religion, nationality and ethnic background.That's a resourcefor learning few othercities in the world can offer.1 Is being the world- claiming to representthe numerousperspectives of peoples around the world- , however, a legitimateclaim for New York (and by extensionthe United States) to make? Even if "we" could see thingsfrom the vantagepoint of all national formations,there would still be the insurmountablechallenge of takinginto account the particu- larisms of region, race, class, gender,religion, and so on withinthose formations.What I would like to argue here is thatthe "we are the-world" complex is not exclusive to the global reach of MTV - as pointed up in a JonPareles piece entitled"As MTV Turns 10, Pop Goes the World"2- or of the new internationaladvertising which now targets segmented publics not only withinbut also across countries.3Multiculturalists have jumped on the global bandwagon too and unwittinglyseem to legitimize some unfavorablerepercussions on representationsof foreigncultures. As a culturalcritic of U.S. and Latin Americancultures and the rela- tions between themI have developed a persistentbifocality that induces in me an unease whenever the impulse to recognize the diversitythat constitutesthe United States overshootsits markand self-servedlycele- brates"American" multiculturalismas isomorphicwith the world. On the 202 This content downloaded from 130.70.132.61 on Sun, 25 Aug 2013 02:06:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions GeorgeYa dice 203 one hand, I am an enthusiasticadvocate of greaterrecognition of our (U.S.) cultural diversityin educational and artistic institutions,in the media and otherpublic spheres.My advocacy, of course, is not simplyfor recognitionbut more importantlyfor access to all the rightsand services thatgo along withcitizenship. On theother hand, I question theauthority of U.S. intellectualsand activistswithin the above-mentioned institutions to representother peoples, especially when the injunctionto do so stems fromour own internalidentity politics (withrepercussions, of course, for internationalcultural politics, which is the problem I am addressing). I mustemphasize thatthis questioning did not develop in me early on as an actor in the U.S. multiculturalmovement; it was instead lavished on me when as a "representative"of progressive U.S. cultural politics I at- temptedto translateU.S. multiculturalismfor my counterparts(progres- sive intellectualsand activists) in some Latin Americancountries. I hasten to point out that Latin Americans' challenge to U.S. multi- culturalismis by no means unproblematic.On the contrary,their suspi- cion of it - beyond a justified repugnanceto U.S. imperialism- often stemsfrom their own unease in valuing thecultural diversity of theirown societies, especially when that diversityis defined in terms of race, ethnicityand sexual preference.Latin Americanintellectuals, who enjoy an entrenchedclass privilege,have not questioned enough the criteriaby which their national cultures (articulated in public spheres to which access is limited) override their own under- or unrecognized cultural diversity.Indeed, untilrecently nationalism in Latin Americatranscended other more particulariststruggles as the "most effective"resistance to imperialism.My critique of U.S. multiculturalism'sglobal thrust,then, should not be understoodto draw its legitimacyfrom Latin Americans' challenge to it. I bringup the issue, rather,as a factorwhich must be taken into consideration in assessing the reception of U.S. multiculturalism abroad. My argumentrevolves around the problems raised by cross-cultural networksof disseminationand reception.One cannot speak of what U.S. culturemeans to Latin Americanswithout examining its means of dissem- ination: film and TV programs,the popular press, mainstreamaesthetic culture,and mainstreamintellectual journalism (The New YorkReview of Books, The New YorkTimes Book Review,Atlantic Monthly, etc.) fromthe U.S. and theircounterparts in Latin America.Academic culture,for better or worse, has relatively little influence in the representationof U.S. culture in Latin America, so that to this day what is conveyed by the mainstreammedia is almost exclusively what gets to Latin American reading and viewing publics. In the other direction,cultural flow from Latin America to the U.S., with few exceptions, is not mediated by equivalent Latin American institutionsof dissemination.The fact is that decisions about what Latin Americanfilms should be shown,what books This content downloaded from 130.70.132.61 on Sun, 25 Aug 2013 02:06:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 204 WeAre Not the World are to be translated,what social and political movementsto be repre- sented,etc. are made by U.S. enterprisesand theuniversity system, which in thisregard does wield considerablepower, especially in its linkages to state policy making apparatuses but also in alternativespheres, such as those in which solidaritypolitics and multiculturalisminteract. This discussion of uneven networksof disseminationraises the impor- tant point that cultural representation- which is at the heart of U.S. multiculturalpolitics - is always already mediatedin ways thatcompli- cate well-intentionedattempts to give recognitionto othercultures, espe- cially those fromLatin America,Africa, the Middle East and Asia. If we focus, forexample, on the selection of foreigntexts to representforeign cultures,say those of the Mexican writerCarlos Fuentes, it is necessary to take into considerationcertain circumstancesthat are likely to go unexamined: thatas one of the canonized writersof the Latin American literary"Boom" of the 1960s and early 1970s his work was promoted within a particularlyfelicitous conjuncturein the newly consolidated transnationalpublishing industry; that his concernswith the definitionof a continentalLatin Americanculture reflected the aspirationsand anxie- ties of elites and by no means those of Mexico's own non-hegemonic groups; thatFuentes' equivalent in theU.S. would likelybe someone like Styron,not an Ishmael Reed nor even a Doctorow, and much less Latino writerslike Rolando Hinojosa or Oscar Hijuelos; and thathis workis grist foran academic mini-industry,initially in mainstreamSpanish and Latin American literaturedepartments in the U.S. and increasinglyin those English departmentsthat have begun to capitalize on and absorb - often with little expertise- so-called Third World literaturesas part of their cultural or multiculturalstudies programs.That Fuentes opposes U.S. interventionsin Latin America, criticizes late capitalism,and has estab- lished some multiculturalconnections - e.g., he is on theeditorial board of Transition(co-directed by AnthonyAppiah and Henry Louis Gates, Jr.),along with the likes of bell hooks, Jamaica Kincaid, Toni Morrison and Cornel West- certainlykeys the mainstreamregisters sounded in the portrayalabove. But this only points up a politics of reception of so-called ThirdWorld figuresthat gives priorityto highprofile positions and gesturesand neglectsthe contradictionsof those figuresin theirown national settings;it really is odd thata mandarinlike Fuentes could be recycled as a multiculturalist. The multiculturalcall forrepresentation of othercultures, for which a writerlike Carlos Fuentes- or any otherforeign writer, artist or political figure for that matter- may be chosen, requires attendingto various, even incompatibleagendas (correspondingto differentnetworks of dis- semination), not all of