I dont see, I-den-ti-ty: Latino as a Philosophical Misnomer

Bryan McNamara
Dr. Peter Costello
Philosophy & Globalization
15 December 2014

McNamara 2
I. Introduction
The idea of injustice has become a major factor in the context of globalization. By
diminishing intercultural and international boundaries, globalization allows for countries, as well
as individuals, to become more vulnerable and open to being attacked morally and politically.
The overwhelming dominance of the Western world has allowed the power gap to reach a new
level. With the political and economic factors that increasingly divide countries, how are we able
to exist in the world together? How have values such as freedom and democracy created such a
divided world?
Jean-Luc Nancys The Creation of the World or Globalization and Jacque Derridas
Rogues provide a context of the world and the role of individuals in it. Furthermore, Walter D.
Mignolos Globalization and the Borders of Latinity and Felix M. Padillas On the Nature of
Latino Ethnicity discuss the difficulties associated with Latinos and living as a marginalized
group in the United States. The focus of the world is oftentimes individualistic. Individual people
are focused on bringing themselves success and individual countries pay attention solely to their
own citizens. By shifting the individual focus to one of collectivity, globalization can become
more than a process but rather an impermanent being, which allows individual actions to reflect a
community focus. In other words, individual actions must reflect the needs of others, especially
Latinos in the United States, in order to foster a world of greater coexistence.
II. Jean-Luc Nancy, The Creation of the World or Globalization
A. Urbi et orbi and the Western world
In order to further understand the role of the Western world, Jean-Luc Nancy discusses
the papal idea of urbi et orbi, or for the city and for the world. It is clear that the Nancy is
drawing a parallel between the central focus of the Popes work, the city of Rome, and the

McNamara 3
surrounding world. Similar to the way Rome has always been the epicenter of the work of the
Catholic Church, the Western world has always been a superior power in relation to other
countries. Nancy agrees, The West has come to encompass the world, and in this movement it
disappears as what was supposed to orient the course of this world (Nancy 34). From its
conception, the West was supposed to exemplify a model for developments to follow. Therefore,
the West has been placed on a pedestal from the beginning and has created this imbalance of
power. It is clear what the West has done for itself, but what is it doing for the world?
Oftentimes, the Western world is used as a representation for the world as a whole. The
actions of the West are directly reflected in and reflective of those of other countries, particularly
the United States. Nancy believes that the world is destroying itself; however, this is not a
hypothesis: it is in a sense the fact from which any thinking of the world follows, to the point,
however, that we do not exactly know what to destroy means, nor which world is destroying
itself (Nancy 35). The definition of the word destroy has become befuddled by the nature of
its existence. In other words, the world as destroying itself has become a part of individual and
collective actions that it are simply commonplace. Such destruction is unable to be recognized
amidst a world in which nations, as well as human beings, are defined by power.
B. Humanity and the human being
Although it is clear how each individual country plays a role in the world, Nancy further
brings this explanation to the level of human beings. He begins this discussion by asking, But
what is humanity? What is the world as the product of human beings, and what is the human
being insofar as it is in the world and as it works this world? (Nancy 39). He questions his
readers: are human beings a product of the world or do their actions create the world as a
product? At this point in the reading, it is difficult to determine an answer. According to the

McNamara 4
Bible, it is clear that human beings exist as products of Gods creation; yet, according to Nancys
discussion on the Western world, it is also clear how influential individual and nation power can
be in shaping the world.
Furthermore, it is interesting to note that Nancy believes a human being works this
world rather than works in this world. Therefore, an individual must act as a direct reflection
of the world in which he is living. He must be able to determine the work required of him rather
than that which he chooses. It is not the individuals choice but some other power that forces him
into action; the person has no control. In other words, humanity is producing itself by producing
objects (Nancy 39). They are objects rather than subjects because they are inept of producing
any individual emotions or feelings but rather must strictly adhere to the greater power. The
decision to be and act in the world is at the movement and fault of this power. Man is simply an
object placed in this world in order to become a being for, rather than a being of, the world.
Jean-Luc Nancy continues this discussion with an analysis of Marxs beliefs on humanity
in the context of communism. Marx believed,
Communism is nothing other than the actual movement of world history insofar as it
becomes global and thus renders possible, and perhaps necessary, the passage to
consciousness and enjoyment of human creation in its entirety by all human beings.
Human beings would henceforth be freed from what limited the relation in which they
mutually produce themselves as spirit and as body. In other words, it was his conviction
that humanity is defined by the fact that it produces itself as a whole. (Nancy 36)
As a global movement, communism allowed for the possibility of moving toward a society of
collective action, yet produced a false label on humanity. Humanity should be simply defined as
the umbrella term encompassing every single human being, or individual. Yet, with the emphasis

McNamara 5
on humanity as a whole, the role of each human being is lessened. Humanity may create a whole
among all individuals, but is this whole equal?
Inherent in this issue of humanity is the problem of sovereignty. As previously stated,
such supreme power can corrupt the societal balance in which it works. Nancy believes, If
sovereignty is not a substance that is given, it is because it is the reality that the people must give
themselvesbut it can also invent itself by giving itself a sovereign and by giving itself to a
sovereign or even by giving the sovereignty to itself (Nancy 104). Therefore, individual
sovereignty produces a similar outcome to that of a powerful nation. It is a substance given to
itself because it cannot be given by anyone else. Only the sovereign can produce sovereignty or
rather, power cannot be given because it is the peak of human achievement. Therefore,
sovereignty cannot, and should not, exist in a world that tries to promote equality and
coexistence because it denies equal access to the benefits of the world.
C. What is the world?
One must be able to understand Nancys explanation of the world in order to better
realize the individual roles within it. In general, the world is defined as a totality of meaning in
which one finds oneself in it and one is familiar with it; one can be in it with everyone
(Nancy 41). This statement supports his idea on sovereignty in that it shifts the focus of a
hierarchal nature of society to an individual-collective focus. In the preexisting social class
system, individuals have been fixated on the needs and struggles of those within their own social
strata. By instilling a consciousness of individual-collective focus, individuals will become
aware of their own actions and the impact these outcomes can have on the lives of others. In this
world, one is able to recognize and appreciate his or her role and its relation to the world as a
whole. Once an individual is able to do so, he can establish further relationships beyond his

McNamara 6
immediate borders, both on personal and physical level. In order to fully understand this totality
of meaning, one must become accustomed to the differences produced by their innate
similarities.
The only way one is able to recognize these differences is by broadening the intellectual
capacities to discover new ideas and knowledge outside of ones country. He or she must explore
beyond the intellectual and cultural boundaries because the stance of a world is the experience it
makes of itself. Experience consists in traversing to the end: a world is traversed from one edge
to the other, and nothing else (Nancy 43). Therefore, the world lives beyond oneself. The inner
being can only remind one of his thoughts, values, and beliefs. The totality of meaning lies
within the experience, or rather experiences, that extend to the outer limits of ones own being, or
country. Nancy further believes willing the world, but not willing a subject of the world, is the
only way to escape the un-world (Nancy 49). The un-world, or Nancys term for the
uninhabitable world of injustice, brings to question the validity of the world in which the
individual exists. The object of the will does not rely on individual but rather collective efforts,
which will seek to promote a greater balance of equality between groups within a society, as well
as across international boundaries.
D. Diversity and unity
Finding meaning in the world is explained by the relationship between diversity and
unity. At the end of her book, Nancy states, The unity of a world is not one: it is made of a
diversity, including disparity and oppositionThe unity of a world is nothing other than its
diversity, and its diversity is, in turn, a diversity of worlds (Nancy 109). By including disparity
and opposition in the discussion of diversity, Nancy is allowing the aforementioned power of
sovereignty to play a role in the unity of the world. Rather than castigating the sovereign

McNamara 7
individuals for taking such power, they must work with all levels of society in order to come
together. Through such diversities, individuals can live in coexistence, or at an equal distance
between juxtaposition and integration (Nancy 110). Nancy does not expect all individuals to
become the same; yet, they should be able to delineate between justice and inequality and further
put this distinction into action.
Living in the world becomes synonymous with promoting a life of justice and equality.
Unlike the un-world, the world values the giving off of such values in order to live through a
union despite diversities. In this sense, coexistence simply becomes synonymous with existence.
An ideal globalized world relies on the ability to coexist in a way that allows all individuals,
regardless of race, class, or other possible marginalizing factor, to feel that he or she is simply
living, or existing.
The world creates a system in which individuals are faced with differences but ultimately
live in coexistence, which creates the perfect balance between coming together and remaining
separate. Through this balance, individuals remain at a constant state as it denies the existence of
a completely sovereign master. Coexistence remains a constant in that it does not happen to
existence from without, it does not add itself to it and one cannot subtract it from it: it is
existence (Nancy 110). In other words, existence simply exists; therefore, human beings should
simply exist without any need for explanation or further consideration. Therefore, coexistence
and existence continue to remain at a divide, allowing identification through innate similarities to
be overshadowed by differences. Nancy seeks to promote a world in which people can live
together through their differences because existence should not enable inequality.
III. Jacques Derrida, Rogues
A. Freedom and equality

McNamara 8
In Jacques Derridas Rogues, he discusses two important values, freedom and equality,
when addressing the possibility for coexistence in the world. According to Derrida, freedom is
essentially the faculty or power to do as one pleases, to decide, to choose, to determine oneself,
to have self-determination, to be master and first of all master of oneself (Derrida 22-23). The
emphasis on the self, or oneself, plays a vital role in the foundation of his argument; the focus
of ones actions should be on the self. At first glance, it may seem that he is looking for his
readers to look at freedom from an individualistic perspective. However, he firmly believes that
individuals are responsible for determining their own freedom. First one must become a master
of himself in order to further relinquish his faculty to promote such authority and values among
others.
Although this may allow the capacity for individuals to promote influence over others, it
does not allow them to receive an uneven amount of power. On the contrary, these individuals
are subjected to a similar scrutiny. In order to promote freedom, one must be willing to govern
and be governed in turn (Derrida 23). Therefore, an equal share in responsibility becomes a
valuable factor in possessing freedom. Freedom must be received and given because it is an
individual value that impacts a larger audience rather than a single person. People must be able to
govern the individuals around them but also themselves by limiting the amount and extent of
ones self enlisted power.
Freedom is oblivious to the idea of individualism as a simply selfish motive. Derrida
says, There is no freedom without ipseity and, vice versa, no ipseity without freedom-and, thus,
without a certain sovereignty (Derrida 23). The term ipseity can be defined as ones individual
identity or individualism. In this sense, freedom and individualism play an irreversible role in
helping to mutually promote and distribute the consequences and benefits of each. Therefore,

McNamara 9
having the power to be the producer of certain outcomes promotes a feeling of individuality. As a
result, certain individually focused means can also become a tool used by others. However,
because this freedom is without a certain sovereignty, its power is limited and henceforth
produces a balance of power, further promoting equality.
The difficulty with freedom is the inability to coexist with equality. Derrida affirms that
freedom and equality cannot exist within the same realm. In order to demand equality, people
must be willing to take away freedom. The two are reconcilable, so to speak, only in a turning
or alternating fashion, only in alternation. The absolute freedom of a finite being can be equitably
shared only in the space-time of a by turns and thus only in a double circulation (Derrida 24).
It is not to say that freedom and equality are not working together but rather together as separate
ideas. The two values are circulating by constantly turning and transferring the power of one to
the other. Not only does freedom allow for equality to be expressed but also democracy.
B. Democracy
In the third section of his essay, Derrida uses his arguments as a means of searching for
the origin of, or rather lack thereof, democracy. Where did democracy develop? Is there an origin
of the idea that has persisted over time? The term democracy is simply introduced as a to come
but that does not simply mean the right to defer (Derrida 29). If it is something that is to
come, it cannot be defined because it is has yet to have existed in the world. However, his
expansion of the topic makes one believe this is not his intention. Derrida thinks of democracy in
a rotation of thoughts in which it is constantly being transformed. Democracy is to come in
that it is shaped by the past with a vision of the future. How can individuals coexist under
democratic ideals of a single definition if the term does not exist?

McNamara 10
The transfer of power hence plays an important role in determining the outcome of such
democracy in a globalized world. Derrida recognizes the following:
In any case the hypothesis here is that of a taking of power or, rather, of a transferring of
power (kratos) to a people (demos) who, in its electoral majority and following
democratic procedures, would not have been able to avoid the destruction of democracy
itself. Hence a certain suicide of democracy. Democracy has always been suicidal, and if
there is a to-come for it, it is only on the condition of thinking life otherwise, life and the
force of life. (Derrida 33)
Therefore, not only has democracy caused harm because of a lack of proper definition but also
the unawareness of its own potential for creating problems for others; it is not only self harm but
also collective harm. As a constant of the system, democracy works in a circular motion similar
to freedom and equality. Although circles work in a continuous motion, there is undoubtedly a
potential for malfunction, causing the circle to move off course. In a similar sense, democracy
can be considered a suicidal matter because it has the potential for failure. Despite its many
constituents, democracy also has many enemies, even within the system itself. A balance within
democracy as well as the entire system must be addressed. Democracy is constantly at the risk of
failure not only due to the lack of stability within its own entity but also at the fault, or
disobedience, of other parts of the system.
In this sense, democracy has turned itself into a form of auto-immunization. In order to
protect itself against the aggressor, democracy thus secreted its enemiesso that its only
apparent options remained murder and suicide; but the murder was already turning into suicide,
and the suicide, as always, let itself be translated into murder (Derrida 35). Henceforth, autoimmunization becomes valuable in allowing democracy to exist without feeling threatened by

McNamara 11
external threats. Democracy as a power allows itself to exist from within and outside of its
acceptance, or the individuals who support it. This process was carried out around the
community as auto-co-immunity (the common of community having in common the same duty or
charge) (Derrida 35). If democracy truly seeks a commonality of ideals among its individuals,
the considerable high level of divide needs to be eliminated in order for democratic values to
flourish.
C. The Rou
The maltreatment of the rou in a democratic system lies at the root of the problem.
Derrida defines the rou as a man without principle or morals. A rou respects nothing
(Derrida 19). From the onset, he places animalistic characteristics on this type of human being.
These individuals are thus targets of hatred and marginalization by the self-proclaimed
sovereign individuals, or those who believe that such deviant behavior by others should result
in punishment. He further adds that the debauchery of the rous thus drives away all the decent,
respectable people who themselves then drive away the rous (Derrida 19). In other words, two
or more opposing parties are always in constant opposition. Yet, it is not clear where the fault in
such altercations persist. What is it that causes these individuals to not act in a respectable
manner? Is it possible that their disrespect stems from the way they are treated within the
system?
IV. Walter D. Mignolo, Globalization and the Borders of Latinity
A. Modernity and coloniality: the Western influence
Latin America can only be defined by the influences that marked its beginning: the
colonization of Spain, Portugal, and France. Similar to the United States, the colonization of the
Latin America relies on Western ideological influence. According to Mignolo, this is better

McNamara 12
understood by understanding the relationship of two terms: modernity and coloniality. He says,
Modernity cannot be understood without colonialityin reality, modernity cannot supersede
coloniality because coloniality is constitutive of modernity (79). In other words, the boundary
between the past and the present needs to be erased in order to discover the meaning of his idea
of Latinoamericanism. From the colonization of the Latin American nations, the Western world
has positioned itself as a sovereign power through its cultural and ideological influence in a new
part of the world.
A mixture of two cultures between the European and indigenous Latin Americans, also
known as mestizaje, created a new society with original values and traditions. Mignolo further
explores this idea by addressing the topic of culture. He believes that people and communities
have always been mixed or hybrid. Not only in terms of biological reproduction, but different
communities exchanged forms of life, which is to say, culture (95). Although culture is a
difficult term to define, it includes a set of factors or values commonly shared among a group of
individuals. Culture can be a valuable asset in developing a common ground of identification for
a group of individuals but it also can, in turn, create detrimental effects for certain groups. The
imperialistic nature of the Western countries has a direct impact on the marginalization of others.
B. United States relationship with Latin America
As the nearest neighboring country, the United States has continued the trend of
marginalizing many of their Latin American neighbors; yet, some of them are now even closer, at
least in terms of location. Not only has Latin America been placed at a disadvantage due to its
initial control by Western powers it is also one of the places in which imperial conflicts and the
imperial difference are being reenacted at the beginning of the twenty-first century (Sanz 84).
The United States has always been rather uninterested in recognizing the needs of the Latin

McNamara 13
American countries. The focus has been heavily centralized on the conflicts and relationships
with the Western world, ultimately denying any true existence of other countries. However, with
the rapid increase of immigration to the United States, Latinidad is something that cannot and
must not be ignored any longer.
C. Becoming Latinos in a New World
Culture hybridization is a reality that the United States is in the process of determining its
place. Recently, issues of immigration have received an ever-growing amount of attention by the
press as well as President Barack Obama. Although Latin America is no longer, from the
demographic perspective of the United States, a reality down thereit is also up here,
transforming the socioeconomic configuration of the United States (Sanz 77). In other words,
Latin Americans are no longer simply being ignored by the United States. On the contrary, they
are playing a fundamental role in the development of its infrastructure. Although from this quote
it may seem that they are transformative figures in this country, they are constantly faced with
more difficulties than may appear on the surface, particularly their own identity.
First of all, the term Latino is strictly a social construction brought upon the individuals
from Latin America who have chosen to come to the United States for an extended period of
time. However, they do not assign themselves this title; rather, Latino is a label formed as a
indeterminate identifier. Identity is clearly not as influential in the lives of Latinos as it is for
Americans. It is not that their identity is not important to them but rather,
There is not time in Latin America to think about identities, national, or subcontinental.
There are instead other pressing issues such as memorythe future and destiny of the
university, and how to survive globalization economically and democraticallythere

McNamara 14
may be a Latin culture that has spread all over the Americas, but no longer coincides with
South and Central America and portions of the Caribbean. (Sanz 83)
It is difficult to establish an identity without the recognition of it by the individuals who it
includes. How can someone identify as a Latino if it is not a label they try to live out in their
lives? Latino is nothing more than the double consciousness of being Latinos/as and in the
United States at the same time (Sanz 97). Through this view, Latinos tend to look at
themselves through the eyes of an American. Although they have relocated their lives, regardless
of the reason, to come to the United States, they are not apt to forget their previous lives in their
home countries. The issues of their country are oftentimes the very reason they have chosen to
come to the United States.
The difference between being an insider and an outsider plays an important role in
understanding the Latino identity. As an insider, it is easy to empathize with another individual;
yet, as an outsider, people often feel emotionally distant from the personal matters of others. The
author raises an important point about integration, in which Latinos must learn to assimilate
themselves into the society in the society, or country, which they are living. Mignolo states, If
race, gender, and sexuality continue to be important markers of identity, the fundamental device
now is inclusion or exclusion according to the capacities of the persons to integrate themselves
into the new order of labor (94). His discussion of this new order of labor fits perfectly into
the context of his understanding of identity. Latinos are simply becoming laborers of the United
States, regardless of receiving legal citizenship or not. Therefore, the inherent problem in this is
that it diminishes the borders of the Latino identity by forcing them to simply become a part of
another identity: United States resident or citizen.
V. Felix M. Padilla, On the Nature of Latino Ethnicity

McNamara 15
A. Introduction of the study
Through scheduled interviews and fieldwork, Felix M. Padilla studied the phenomenon
of Latino ethnic identity. By collecting data from more than 34 community organization leaders,
he was able to produce more than a study of Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, and Cubans as
individual groups. Rather, he focused on Latinos as a whole group, including but not limited to
the three aforementioned groups. The articles states that ethnic groups boundaries are highly
permeable. When boundaries weaken, the survival or at least the vitality of an ethnic group
would seem to depend increasingly on what is happening at the foci of group activity: within the
leadership. Ethnic groups, to some degree, are the creation of their leadership (Padilla 652). By
positioning themselves in the American life, Latin Americans are influenced by the community
organizations that they work with. By using these community organizations as the unit of
analysis, Padilla discovers two facets of defining the Latino identity: situational behavior and
political phenomenon.
B. Latino as a situational type of ethnic behavior
In this study, Latino is loosely defined as an interethnic, or pan-ethnic, group of
individuals who are defined by once having lived in a Latin American country but are now
located in the United States. An awareness, or consciousness, of ones place as a Latino is
important in understanding the greater role of Latinos as collective group. This can easily be
conceptualized as a group generating process, dependent upon the influence or effect of
structural factors and conditions on the groups cultural similarities (Padilla 653). With the
development of this consciousness, Latino identity is formed as a reflection of the situation in
which they are placed. However, ethnic identity is made part of the individual even before he
attains consciousness: it is an inheritance (Padilla 654). This allows for an individual to have no

McNamara 16
influence over whether he or she is labeled as a Latino; it is inherited the moment they step
foot into the United States.
When a Latin American individual moves to the United States, he or she is instantly
separated from the rest. In the article, Padilla refers to Latino ethnic-conscious behavior as a
collective generated behavior which transcends the individual national and cultural identities of
the various Spanish-speaking units and emerges as a distinct and separate group identification
and consciousness (Padilla 654). Therefore, the Latino identity is not only distinct in its origin
but also a complete separation from any other form of identification. Padilla is recognizing the
possibility for multiple identities. For example, it is possible from Cuba who lives in the United
States to identify as Cuban but not as a Latino. Similarly, a Puerto Rican can see himself as a
Puerto Rican in some situations, and as a Latino in other situations. The term Latino is
contingent upon the acceptance of the individual.
C. Latino as a political phenomenon
Padilla continues to discuss Latinism as a form of political consciousness in which the
individuals involved use their identity as a means of attempting to address the issues surrounding
their role in society. In order to understand his argument, it is first important to see how political
ethnicity is defined as a manipulative device used to gain advantages or overcome
disadvantages in the society (Padilla 656). This has become a key tool for many Latinos who
seek to eliminate the barriers placed on them by society. In a country of majority Caucasian
Americans, these Latin Americans face difficulty in having their opinions heard by political
leaders. One Mexican American in the study said, Latino is the only way for us to crack the
political barrier; to elect our own candidates; to get better schooling for our children; and more
and better jobs (Padilla 656). Therefore, for many Latin Americans, it seems that the only way

McNamara 17
to advance in the United States is by accepting Latino as part of their identity. Clearly, they are
placed at an automatic political and economic disadvantage upon entering the United States.
Seemingly, the term is often discussed in a collective manner, such as in the Latino
consciousness. Nonetheless, it is important to recognize that not always are the ideological
formulations of Latino political consciousness homogeneous (Padilla 658). Not all Latinos are
the same similar to how not all white Americans are the same. The problem of ethnic
classification begins to categorize individuals too narrowly. One of the key elements discussed
for being labeled as a Latino is based on the ability to speak the Spanish language. Although
cultural elements such as language represent a way to classify a population, and without these
primordial dimensions we cannot begin to locate ethnic categories, Padilla believes no one
would be able to differentiate a particular ethnic group from among others (Padilla 659).
Therefore, a further division between different Spanish-speaking individuals shall be required.
As obvious as it may be, there are many different countries where the primary language is
Spanish; but there is only one country where some of these individuals are called Latino.
VI. Conclusion
The label Latino carries a certain amount of weight with it by creating a puzzling
question: what exactly is an identity? How is it possible to define a person through identity?
Jean-Luc Nancy discusses the ideological influence of the Western world during the times of
colonization. Everything that has developed on this part of the globe has become a reflection of
these powers, with slight alterations. Without these early recounts of history, it is difficult to
understand the development of new countries, such as United States and those within Latin
America; however, history does not create an accurate depiction of identity. According to Nancy,
A world viewed, a represented world, is a world dependent on the gaze of a subject of the

McNamara 18
world. A subject of the world (that is to say as well a subject of history) cannot itself be within
the world (Nancy 40). If a subject cannot be within the world, where can he be? Nancy places
the subject outside of the world because the world is an unjust place in which just individuals are
forced to be living. The gaze of the subject allows him to become the eyes through which the
world is depicted; yet, this does not seem to be accurate today.
As previously mentioned, Latin American countries are placed at an inferior level in the
hierarchy of world powers. Because they do not offer many economic benefits or political
contributions to the international stage, they cannot be considered to be key contributors to the
global market. Notice how Latin America was referred to as they. It is difficult to individualize
this term when most Americans do not know a lot about Latin America and their way of life.
Although Mignolo discussed how the formation of an identity has never been an important factor
in the lives of Latin Americans, a large number of the population is left to find its identity in its
repressed culture (Sanz 9). When ones only option is to flee his home country and move to the
United States, he instantaneously becomes a part of this new community; yet, this community is
far from being considered a home. Therefore, ones identity becomes reflected in his
surroundings. Before Latin Americans decide to move to the United States they were considered
Argentinian, Chilean, Mexican, or some other Latin American origin. Yet, at the same time, they
are Latinos. How can they be considered Latinos if it is a socially constructed identity within the
United States?
Padilla calls attention to the many disadvantages of being a Latino in the United States. In
order to further establish Mignolos point, Padilla believes that ethnic identity is made part of
the individual even before he attains consciousness: it is an inheritance (Padilla 654). By
coming to the United States, many Latin Americans inherit the various cultural aspects of the

McNamara 19
United States: watching reality television shows, listening to techno music, or becoming more
interested in MTV than the news channel. Although these common threads may produce a
greater understanding of the American culture, it only diminishes the importance of their own
culture. Culture is who they are; however, who they are should not be defined by where they are
located.
A necessary change in the way identity is perceived of, and formulated by, Americans
must come to the forefront of discussion. Furthermore, it is important to recognize the combative
atmosphere created by such labels. It is not possible to assert ethnic identities in interpersonal
encounters without establishing a relationship of competitive opposition between ethnic
groups (Padilla 657). Therefore, Latino is not an ethnic identity but rather one of intercultural
falsity. There is no substance to the term Latino; rather, substance is found in the cultural and
historical background produced in the direction of this label. An identity must be created and
accepted by the group to which it applies. Hence, Latino is not an identity.
It is time to rethink the importance of such identities and labels in the world. Nancy
begins this discussion by announcing the future as precisely what exceeds expectation and that
it must grasp the world once more outside of representation (Nancy 50). Every individual in
the world must grasp identity from an outsider perspective but with an insider consciousness.
Every individual must become cognizant of the attitudes and beliefs of the other while
continuing to stay true to his innate moral humanness. To be aware is the greatest advantage one
can bring in hopes of eliminating marginalization. For many Latinos in the United States, their
identity becomes formed as a part of such marginalization. There is more to these individuals
than being Latino that others simply do not recognize.

McNamara 20
The reality of the situation is that coexistence cannot remain intact without the
elimination of such identities. In order to do so, the world must be re-created, or more simply
restructured. According to Nancy, to create the world means, immediately, without delay,
reopening each possible struggle for a world, that is, for what must form the contrary of global
injustice against the background of general equivalence (Nancy 54). The marginalization of
Latinos in the United States has become a striking contrast to the ideals of freedom and equality.
The reality of the situation is that total coexistence does not exist in the United States, or in any
part of the world. Sovereignty is an inevitable factor that contradicts the promotion of equality.
Sovereignty allows for an abuse of power that disables any promotion of identity for the
marginalized sections of society, such as Latinos. Therefore, coexistence must be achieved by
completely eliminating any traces of not only sovereign individuals but also such behaviors and
values reflected in the system.
Identity is supposed to promote a form of representation, in which individuals can
express themselves in whatever manner they choose. Unfortunately, for many Latin Americans,
their Latino identity is nothing more than a form of oppression. It enables them to live inferior
to the white Americans who control the system in which they live. In order to remove the
oppression of individuals, it must be recognized that this identity is not their identity. In turn,
recognition that the future is precisely what exceeds expectation must be understood in order
to grasp the world once more outside of representation (Nancy 50). Thus, identity must
become something more than representation. Hybridization is important in valuing the coming
together of two distinct cultures yet it produces identity in a homogeneous manner, diminishing
any value given to the inferior culture. In order to remain in coexistence, identity as a means of

McNamara 21
deterioration must be eliminated and replaced by the recognition and acceptance of Latinos as
human beings.

McNamara 22
Works Cited
Derrida, Jacques. Rogues: Two Essays on Reason. Stanford, CA.: Stanford University Press,
2005.
Nancy,JeanLuc.TheCreationoftheWorldorGlobalization.Albany,NY:StateUniversityof
NewYork,2007.
Padilla,FelixM.OntheNatureofLatinoEthnicity.NorthernIllinoisUniversity:SocialScience
Quarterly,June1984.http://www.popline.org/node/417122.
Senz,Mario.LatinAmericanPerspectivesonGlobalization:Ethics,Politics,andAlternative
Visions.Lanham:Rowman&Littlefield,2002.