Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Construction in Mexico
Todd A. Eisenstadt*
American University
Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos Vol. 22, Issue 1, Winter 2006, pages 107129. ISSN 0742-9797
electronic ISSN 1533-8320. 2006 by The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Presss Rights and Permissions website, at www.ucpress.edu/journals/rights.htm.
107
108
The rise of ethnic mobilization in Latin America is being attributed increasingly by social scientists to changes in the constructed identities of
rural indigenous groups. In contrast to previous generations of scholars
the primordialistswho argued that ethnic identity was ascribed at
birth, Latin Americanists are joining a broader movement which considers ethnic identities as flexible and changing rather than given and
static. Proponents of the malleability of ethnic identities range from
constructivists like Fredrik Barth (1969) and Walker Connor (1994),
who believe that ethnic identity is malleable albeit rooted in strong social, political, and even psychological facts, along with instrumentalists like Michael Hechter (1986) and Paul Brass (1985, 1997) who argue that a substantial portion of the content of ethnicity is based in
appeals to mobilize groups as much as in objective cultural traits or
markers. Brass ascribes agency to ethnic elites who provoke and foster identity, in a claim consistent with other scholars who also underscore the subjectiveness of boundaries and the generation of identities by discrimination from outsiders (as well as from within). He argues
that once it is recognized that the processes of ethnicand class
identity formation and of intergroup relations always have a duel dimension of interaction/competition with external groups and of an internal struggle for control of the group, then the direction for research
on ethnicity and on the relationship between ethnic groups and the
state are clear (1985: 33).
In Mexico-based scholarship, revisionist anthropologists like Rus
(2002) and political scientists like Trejo (2004) claim thatconsistent
with claims by Pallares (2002) and Yashar (1999) about other parts of
109
110
Incln 2004 and Trejo 2004) does follow more instrumental theories
about the construction of ethnicity. However, rather than focusing on
individuals and their choices, much Zapatista-related research, and the
policy debate led by the Zapatistas, seeks to reassert the collectivity as
unit of analysis. These scholars study mobilizations, rather than individual attitudes and their propensities for mobilization. They and other
innovative scholars of Chiapas recent social movements (such as Harvey 1998 and Prez Ruiz 2000) do consider relations between movements, leaders, and followers, consistent with Brassassumption that ethnic appeals by elites drive indigenous social movements such as the
Zapatistas. They are pushing to better document the causes of political,
social, economic, and now ethnic movements, and to more rigorously
differentiate roles of ethnic elites and followers in the shaping of social
movements.
While the Zapatista rebellion offers a famous demonstration of the
power of appeals to indigeneity and ethnic autonomy, the success and
worldwide publicity of the Zapatistas seems to have prompted a selection bias in much of the scholarship on Mexicos indigenous movements. In the far more numerous cases when indigenous groups do
not mobilize to air longstanding grievances and publicize what often
has been systematic discrimination by the state, why do they not mobilize? And in contrast to all the consideration about how political elites
frame issues to catalyze movements, how might one study whether and
when potential movement followers decide to cast their lot with
would-be leaders?4 That is, instead of always documenting instrumentalism from above, can evidence be amassed of instrumentalism
from below?
By most accounts, individuals may consciously decide to be Indians
rather than peasants in given circumstances, but the process and mechanisms of this decision are not drawn out. In other words, the all-important changes in individual attitudes which lead them to choose ethnic identity or not, take place in a black box. Most of the literature
does not even consciously draw out the strategic individual choices contributing to peoples decisions to adopt indigenous rather thanor in
addition topeasant identities. In fact, in most existing literature, es4. The late Mancur Olson and his followers pioneered some clever studies to elaborate The Logic of Collective Action (1971) and how movement participants seek side
payments and obey selective incentives. However, if one assumes that ethnic collective
actions have any basis at all in objective cultural markers, or even interior identity and
psychic structure, or blood-ties, or chemistry, or soul (Connor 1994: 204), and seek to
engage those who do believe that at least some of the movement-propelling passions are
real, then there must be more causing the movement than just generic collective-action
incentives.
111
pecially the social movements literature which dominates the field, emphasis is on consciousness-raising by movements after they have established indigenous collective identities. The preceding step, movement
formation and crystallization, is underspecified.
This article tests the instrumentalist argument within the Mexican
context, using a survey research approach which seeks to differentiate,
through the construction of latent variable clusters, individually-oriented
from collectively-oriented respondents and pro-state, corporatist respondents from those whose views are more traditional and communallyoriented; in other words, as a first step towards understanding the
propensity for mobilization of prospective ethnic movement members,
but in environments where they have been mobilized and in environments where they have not been mobilized. The article argues, upon
demonstrating remarkable similarities between the 2,186 indigenous and
3,194 non-indigenous respondents in the representative sample from
three Mexican states, that respondents attitudes are quite similar. However, when askedin terms of concrete cases rather than more abstract
attitudeswhich authorities they would seek out to resolve particular
practical problems, indigenous respondents inclined more often and decisively towards indigenous authorities and institutions, while nonindigenous respondents more tentatively selected state authorities and
institutions.
Based on an unprecedented survey of 5,280 respondents in the
highly indigenous states of Chiapas and Oaxaca, and non-indigenous Zacatecas, this article refutes the primordialist position, demonstrating that
indigenous respondentslike their non-indigenous comparison group
freely interact with the state to fulfill basic universal human needs, and
assume individual (as well as communal) responsibility for their conduct
in society. The article suggests, through initial descriptive analysis of the
survey results, that factors other than ethnic identities may have a greater
effect on indigenous (and non-indigenous) respondent views of citizenship ( peoplesperceptions of their roles in political society), and concludes with suggestions for further research to identify how indigenous
identities are formed and shaped.
Case Selection and Methods
This article assesses public opinion in Chiapas (28.5 percent indigenous
by linguistic criterion) and Oaxaca, another of Mexicos most rural southern states (47.9 percent indigenous by this criterion), as compared with
Zacatecas (0.3 percent indigenous), another poor rural state, in central
Mexico used here as a control. As elaborated below, I construct three
latent variable cluster sets to compile attitude variables from survey ques-
112
tions.5 Indigenous respondents were oversampled (by the linguistic criterion, for which census data guided sample selection by indicating
where indigenous citizens were concentrated), but the municipalities
were otherwise selected randomly, as were the statistical tracts, localities, households, and respondents (but with a replacement rate of at least
20 percent each at the level of localities, households, and respondents).
The overall margin of error is less than + 2 percent,6 although it can be
higher within particular question categories.
The search for two indigenous states to sample led to Chiapas and
Oaxaca because they are among Mexicos most indigenous populations, but also because of contrasting histories of state permeation of
traditional communities. Chiapas has been characterized as an area of
strong indigenous communal identity, social polarization, and enduring
state-society conflict, settled by large landowner outsiders who have marginalized indigenous communities since colonial times (Collier and
Quaratiello 1994; Harvey 1998). The Zapatista Rebellion made conditions
in Chiapas the subject of national debate, culminating in the historic passage in 2002 of a constitutional amendment granting Mexicos indigenous peoples partial autonomy. The amendment was ratified by nineteen states, but has remained largely unimplemented.7
Oaxaca is known for a development pattern respectful of indigenous
autonomy (Daz Montes 1992: 101103, Lpez Brcenas 2000, 267308),
but also for fierce inter-village conflict, especially in indigenous areas
(Dennis 1987; Greenberg 1989). As if to reinforce the reputed harmony
5. The survey was designed by the author, Araceli Burguete of CIESAS-Sureste, and
Mara Cristina Velsquez, affiliated with the CIESAS-Isthmo anthropology institute, and administered in Spanish and six indigenous languages, between June 2002 and Feburary 2003.
The author devised the sampling technique, which sought to identify a representative sample of respondents over eighteen years old in at least three urban census tracts (AGEBs
in Mexico) and/or rural communities (localidades) per municipality in between twentytwo and thirty municipalities each in Chiapas and Oaxaca, and Zacatecas. Burguete,
Velsquez, and Francisco Muro of the Universidad Autnoma de Zacatecas supervised conduct of the surveys by trained interviewers, most of whom were bilingual (Spanish and
indigenous languages) university students. The survey over-represented indigenous respondents by sampling 50 percent from indigenous majority-communities and 50 percent
from non-indigenous majority communities in Chiapas and Oaxaca, but randomly generated the other strata (statistical tracts, blocks, and households for municipalities with more
than 4,000 residents, and localities and resident lists for localities with fewer than 4,000
residents, for which statistical tracts are not kept) for the three states, based on 2000 population data (see the three bibliographic entries for the Instituto Nacional de Estadstica
e Informtica 2002). While several substitutions of municipalities and sub-municipal localities were required, these were not widespread.
6. This margin of error holds with a 95 percent confidence interval.
7. According to Gonzlez Oropeza (2004: 1), only San Lus Potos has enacted implementing legislation since the constitutional amendment.
113
there between state government and indigenous localities, state authorities in 1995 codified acceptance of indigenous customary law, called
usos y costumbres, in the selection of local leaders.8 Although local,
municipal-level variance merits consideration and will also be introduced
in future presentations of the data, in general terms, Oaxacas less mobilized, less polarized relations between indigenous and non-indigenous
citizens contrasts with conditions of high mobilization and polarization
in Chiapas.
Defining the ethnic boundary of the population boundary of those
considered to be indigenous is a complex task. Indigeneity may be
defined by linguistic categories (which is how Mexicos census has defined the category since 1895), or by self-identification (acknowledged
by demographers such as Serrano Carreto, et. al. 2002: 1720, as an important but problematic complement to the linguistic criterion). After
observing less robust response patterns from self-identity9 and finding
linguistic identity to be more consistent with environmental conditions
that scholars have tended to correlate with indigeneity (such as shared
histories and cultures, rural economies and remote locations which reinforce cultural, social, and sometimes biological markers), this study settled on that form of identification.
Dependent Variable Construction
Two sets of attitudes are tested through the construction of latent variable clusters measuring the degree of a respondents association with
an individual view of identity (defined mostly in relation to oneself ) versus a collective view of identity (heavily influenced by group percep8. The Oaxaca state government recognized the longstanding practice in traditional
communities of selecting leaders through routes other than partisan local elections. For
example, supporters of given candidates were asked to line up behind their candidate,
local mayors were selected via municipal plebiscites where at least some citizens were
empowered to vote, or decisions were made behind closed doors by a tribal Council of
Elders. As of 1995, these practices assumed a legal status for local mayoral selection in indigenous majority municipalities (418 out of Oaxacas 570 municipalities as of 1998), and
political parties have been banned from participation. Eisenstadt and Ros Contreras (2005)
argue, based on systematic evidence from 1995, 1998, and 2001, that the new system has
actually increased election conflictiveness.
9. Respondents were asked whether they considered themselves primarily to be:
Mexican, Chiapanecan/Oaxacan/Zacatecan, or part of an indigenous group. There was
a 50percent overlap between the linguistic and self-identified samples, but the linguistic
definition was ultimately used as: 1) it yielded more robust statistical patterns, implying
that was a better standard by which to measure indigenousness, 2) it yielded about 20
percent more respondents and thus greater potential variation in the statistical analysis,
and 3) as the Mexican Census standard, this measure allowed for better independent confirmation of results.
114
115
116
Pct in Individualist
Cluster
Pct in Collectivist
Cluster
1206
92.6
7.4
979
96.7
3.3
2186
94.5
5.5
808
94.1
5.9
852
95.3
4.7
1534
95.5
4.5
3194
95.1
4.9
better than three- or four-cluster models (Standard R2= 0.948 with classification log-likelihood -19686.88). Indigenous respondents were also
much more likely than their non-indigenous counterparts to be sorted
into the statist category in the statist-communalist cluster. As reported in
Table 2, the average difference between indigenous and non-indigenous
respondent percentages in each cluster varied much more than in the
individualist/collectivist scale.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, indigenous respondents were
more statist than inclined to their traditional communities, at least with
regard to the survey questions, which sought to address social issues for
which indigenous and non-indigenous respondents would have formulated attitudes upon which to draw. More abstract spiritual and religious
13. The sole linguistically indigenous respondent in Zacatecas has been excluded
from state-by-state analysis, but included in the pooled overall average data.
117
Pct in Statist
Cluster
Pct in Communalist
Cluster
1206
80.8
19.2
979
95.3
4.7
2186
87.3
12.7
808
65.5
34.5
852
88.1
11.9
1534
40.4
59.6
3194
59.5
40.5
Note: Sample includes 2186 indigenous and 3194 non-indigenous respondents. For Latent Gold 3.0 latent variable cluster, standard R-squared was 0.948
and classification log-likelihood was -19686.88 The non-response rate was usually
below 5 percent, but went as high in one question as 24 percent. While a fivecategory Likkert scale response was elicited by each question, the agree and
strongly agree categories, and the disagree and strongly disagree categories
were conflated in the data analysis, as the distinctions were found to be too subtle for some respondents. Hence, the three response categories for each variable
were agree, disagree, and the residual (neither agree nor disagree/do not know/no
response). The more statist response was in each case coded as 1, and the more
communal response was coded as 2, while the residual category was coded as 0.
118
Pct in
Statist-Individualist
Pct in
Collectivist-Communalist
1206
79.6
20.4
979
95.1
4.9
2186
86.6
13.4
808
65.0
35.0
852
87.8
12.2
1534
40.1
59.9
3194
59.1
40.9
Note: For Latent Gold 3.0 latent variable cluster, standard R-squared was 0.945 with a classification log-likelihood of -39747.34. The non-response rate was usually below 5 percent, but
went as high in one question as 24 percent.
statist of the survey states, Zacatecas (some 40 percent statist), was compared with the most statist, Oaxaca (over 90 percent statist). These remarkable differences convey a strong pattern with several possible explanations, which may not be readily answered here but raise important
questions for future research. Perhaps Mexicos corporatist state (deemphasizing traditional indigenous communities and seeking to link indigenous citizens to formal state structures) played a more prominent
role in Mexicos indigenous zones, and particularly Oaxaca. The state
is indeed known to have commanded a much bigger and more constant
presence in rural Chiapas and Oaxaca than in Zacatecas, through its indigenismo project launched in the 1930s to de-emphasize traditional
cultures and assimilate indigenous citizens into the state (see for example Gutirrez 1999; Daz-Polanco et al. 1979; Warman 2003). However, recent prominent tensions between the state and civil society in
Chiapas which produced extensive outbreaks of violence decades prior
to the Zapatista rebellion, may explain Chiapas respondents disenchantment with pro-statist attitudes and turn more to a pro-communal
perspective.
The process was repeated a final time to test both the individual-
119
5.7
8.3
10.3
10.5
19.2
18.0
18.8
13.4
7.3
12.4
7.0
12.2
13.7
20.2
27.8
29.8
33.3
16.7
8.8
18.8
Go to Government First
NonIndigenous
Indigenous
38.7
34.9
33.8
32.4
24.3
25.6
20.1
31.1
34.1
30.6
91.9
85.2
84.7
74.3
66.6
67.1
57.8
81.4
86.3
77.3
Go to Traditional
Authorities First
NonIndigenous
Indigenous
55.6
56.8
55.8
57.1
56.5
56.4
61.1
55.5
57.5
56.9
1.1
2.5
1.6
5.5
5.6
3.1
8.9
1.9
5.0
3.9
Other (uncertain or
no response)
NonIndigenous
Indigenous
Note: Since little variance was expected in Zacatecas where respondents did not have the context to have formulated opinions about traditional authorities, these questions were not asked there.
Issue
121
122
123
Conclusions
The timing of the permeation of traditional communities by state corporatism in Mexico differed greatly in Oaxaca and in Chiapas, as the Oaxacan indigenous population was devastated by the Spanish conquest, but
was then allowed to reorganize into the small, closed communities they
populate today. According to the historian Chance (1986, 180), the
Spaniards were most concerned with replacing Indian structures above
the community level, and in Oaxaca, where these were either tenuous
or nonexistent, a substantial portion of the indigenous sociopolitical organization survived the conquest years. In Chiapas, weak communities
of indigenous citizens were co-opted as peasant groups in response to
state permeation in the mid-twentieth century (Rus 1994; Pineda 2002),
whereas in Oaxaca, this cooptation into the broader state occurred much
earlier. While further research is needed to confirm the cause of difference in the two states, often ignored by the Chiapas-centric social movements studies, it may be that Oaxaca respondents were actually more
individualist, statist, and statist-individualist (remember three separate
cluster classifications were deployed) because state corporatism (the
cooptation of rural citizens by compulsory membership in peasant
unions and organizations which dispensed state patronage) imparted
these values in Oaxaca much sooner than in Chiapas. Another plausible
explanation is that the collective actions against state repression and the
struggle for land in Chiapas fostered communal and collective identities
there (indigenous and otherwise) which were not generated by conditions in Oaxaca.
These differences in the Chiapas and Oaxaca survey responses also
convey a broader point. Over time, these rural Mexicans conceptions
of their ethnic and non-ethnic identities seem to have been manipulated
by state authorities. Accounting for regional differences, it is evident that
other factorsbesides ethnic identitycause attitudes which may be
classified as statist as opposed to communalist and statist/individualist
as opposed to communalist/collectivist. Survey results confirm that indigenous is less a defining trait of respondent attitudes towards individualism, collectivism, the state, and their traditional societies, than
other concomitant circumstances, such as community size, rural poverty,
isolation, and societal conflictiveness, as conveyed by preliminary reporting of demographic information from the survey reported in Table 5.
As may have been expected, indigenous respondents are notably
poorer and more isolated (measured both as a scale of awareness of world
affairs and also as whether the respondent is from an urban or rural area).
Future iterations of this research will assess whether demographic factors
+ 8.9
- 8.8
- 19.4
+ 19.5
+ 13.2
- 13.2
+ 5.2
- 5.2
+ 15.7
-15.7
+ 4.5
-4.5
+ 5.3
- 5.3
85.6
14.6
13.9
86.2
83.6
16.5
58.5
41.6
61.3
38.8
58.2
41.8
53.7
46.4
67.8
32.2
52.8
47.2
57.2
42.9
48.1
52.0
29.9
70.1
49.2
50.9
43.1
56.9
Source: Preliminary descriptive statistics as summarized in Eisenstadt 2004. Items with an average variation between indigenous and
non-indigenous respondents of greater than ten percent have been bolded. Loweducation means respondent did not reach secondary
school. Low poverty means possession of more than two of five material indicators of modernization (whether respondents used cooking fuel other than wood, and whether they possessed running water, electricity, and had permanent roof and a non-dirt floor). Rural is
defined as communities of fewer than 2,500 people by the 2000 census. Conflictive means that respondent had experienced at least one
of the following: religious, municipal governance, political party, and/or resource/environmental conflicts. Low awareness of outside world
is defined as a score of less than 2 on a 6point scale. Low retrospective optimism is defined as a score of less than 4 on an 8point scale.
Low confidence in institutions is defined as a score of less than 3 on a 5point scale. For questions used in constructing the last three
scales, see Eisenstadt 2004.
Education Low
Education High
Poverty Low
Poverty High
Rural
Urban
Conflictive
Non-Conflictive
Outside Awareness Low
Outside Awareness High
Retrospective Optimism Low
Retrospective Optimism High
Confidence in Institutions Low
Confidence in Institutions High
Environmental or Attitude
Scale Variable
125
and other attitude scales, such as those summarized in Table 5, have any
bearing on whether respondentsoutlooks are more statist or communalist.
While research on ethnic politics has been piling up for at least a
half-century (Chandra 2001: 7), few empirical tests exist of the instrumentalism hypothesis as direct as this one, and fewer still which query
ethnic subjects themselves, and in their own languages where necessary,17
in order to generate evidence about bottom up assumption of ethnic
identities, which is usually analyzed through top down models of ethnic political entrepreneurs. In the Mexican case, this may be the first largesample non-governmental survey ever administered person-to-person in
a half-dozen languages, and its findings imply that the ethnic component
of peoples environments is less fixed and plays a less permanent role in
shaping their attitudes than the socio-economic and geographic conditions they face. Furthermore, the propensity for linguistically indigenous
and non-indigenous respondents to favor statist/individualist articulations
of citizenship, as opposed to the traditional collective and communal expressions of citizenship usually associated with primordial claims, raises
several questions. How and why did indigenous communities choose to
adopt these attitudes? How did statism-individualism come to trump
more traditional and ethnicity-reinforcing expressions of citizenship?
What conditions and signals allowed leaders, appealing to communalist
and collectivist claims, to succeed in convincing their followers to mobilize? The answer given by historians and anthropologists to these questions is that state corporatist efforts by Mexicos ruling elites to penetrate rural areas and nation-build in even the countrys most remote (and
often indigenous) areas, reconditioned expressions of citizenship in the
post-World War II era. The salience of indigenous autonomy movements
has been controversial even among those they claim to represent, in good
measure because such communalist/collectivist ideals defy the predominant statist/individualist notions, perpetrated by state corporatist
permeation of the countryside, of how citizens should perceive and articulate their interests.
Efforts to decentralize governance in indigenous areas, through inconclusive experiments such as the creation of indigenous governments
in Chiapas or the legalization of usos y costumbres in Oaxaca, may appeal to ethnic identities but be of little practical utility in fostering economic development and political enfranchisement with the state, where
indigenous (and non-indigenous) respondents still seek to fulfill basic
17. Over half the indigenous respondents were surveyed in languages other than
Spanish. Some 660 were interviewed in Oaxacan dialects of Mazateco, Mixe, Mixteco, Zapoteco, and Zapoteco del Valle, while 597 were interviewed in Chol, Tzeltal, Tzotzil, and
Zoque from Chiapas.
126
127
Brysk, Alison. 2000. From Tribal Village to Global Village: Indian Rights and
International Relations in Latin America. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Burguete Cal y Mayor, Araceli and Jos Antonio Montero Solano. 1989. Morir
en la impunidad. Violencia poltica en regions indgenas de Chiapas.
Cronologa 19741988. Typescript.
Chance, John K. 1986. Colonial Ethnohistory of Oaxaca, in Ronald Spores,
ed. Supplement to the Handbook of Middle American IndiansVol. 4.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
Chandra, Kanchan. 2001. Symposium: Cumulative Findings in the Study of
Ethnic Politics. APSA-CP, winter 2001: 711.
Collier, George A. and Elizabeth L. Quaratiello. 1994. Basta! Land and the
Zapatista Rebellion in Chiapas. Oakland: Food First Books, Institute for
Food and Development Policy.
Connor, Walker. 1994. Ethno-nationalism: The Quest for Understanding.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Dennis, Philip A. 1987. Intervillage Conflict in Oaxaca. New Brunswick:
Rutgers University Press.
Daz Montes, Fausto. 1992. Los Municipios: La Disputa por el Poder Local en
Oaxaca. Oaxaca: Instituto de Investigaciones Sociolgicas de la Universidad Autnoma Benito Jurez de Oaxaca.
Daz-Polanco, Hctor, et. al. eds. 1979. Indigenismo, Modernizacin y
MarginalidadUna Revisin Crtica. Mexico City: Juan Pablos Editor.
Eisenstadt, Todd A. 2004. Indigenous Communities, but of Individuals First:
Descriptive Evidence of Ethnic Identity Construction in Mexico,
presented at American University, November 14, 2003.
Eisenstadt Todd A. and Viridiana Ros Contreras. 2005. Discriminacin y
conflictividad en los usos y costumbres electorales en Oaxaca. Este Pas
166 (enero 2005): 3337.
Geertz, Clifford. 1963. The Integrative Revolution: Primordial Sentiments and
Civil Politics in the New States, in Geertz, Clifford, ed. Old Societies and
New States: The Quest for Modernity in Asia and Africa. London:
Collier-MacMillan.
Gonzlez Oropeza, Manuel. 2004. Ten Years After the Highlands Revolved:
Justice for the Indigenous People in Mexico. Paper presented at the
University of Texas-Austins Mexico Center conference Indigenous
Rights and Indigenous Law in Mexico: Chiapas Plus 10, August 27.
Typescript.
Greenberg, James B. 1989. Blood Ties: Life and Violence in Rural Mexico.
Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Gutirrez, Natividad. 1999. Nationalist Myths and Ethnic Identities: Indigenous Intellectuals and the Mexican State. Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press.
Harvey, Neil. 1998. The Chiapas Rebellion: The Struggle for Land and
Democracy. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Hayden, Tom. 2004. Bolivias Indian Revolt. The Nation ( June 21: 1824).
Hechter, Michael. 1986. A Rational Choice Approach to Race and Ethnic
128
Relations, in David Mason and John Rex, eds. Theories of Race and
Ethnic Relations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Incln, Mara. 2004. Mobilizing Zapatistas! The Role of Political Conditions,
Pre-existing Organizations, and Mobilizing Frames on the Zapatista
Movement 19942001. Paper presented at the 2004 meeting of the
American Political Science Association, Chicago.
Indigenous People in South America. A Political Awakening. The Economist,
February 19, 2004.
Inglehart, Ronald, and Wayne E. Baker. 2000. Modernization, Cultural
Change, and the Persistence of Traditional Values. American Sociological Review 65: 1 (February 2000), 1951.
Instituto Nacional de Estadistica. [National Institute of Statistics, Geography,
and Information Processing]. 2001. XII Censo General de Poblacin y
Vivienda 2000Principales Resultados por Localidad. Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Estadstica, Geografa e Informtica (INEGI). CD-ROM.
. 2002. XII Censo General de Poblacin y Vivienda 2000Sistema
para la Consulta de Informacin Censal/Chiapas. Mexico: Instituto
Nacional de Estadstica, Geografa e Informtica (INEGI). CD-ROM.
. 2002. XII Censo General de Poblacin y Vivienda 2000Sistema
para la Consulta de Informacin Censal/Oaxaca. Mexico: Instituto
Nacional de Estadstica, Geografa e Informtica (INEGI). CD-ROM.
. 2002. XII Censo General de Poblacin y Vivienda 2000Sistema
para la Consulta de Informacin Censal/Zacatecas. Mexico: Instituto
Nacional de Estadstica, Geografa e Informtica (INEGI). CD-ROM.
Lpez y Rivas, Gilberto. 1995. Nacin y Pueblos Indios en el Neoliberalismo.
Mexico: Plaza y Valdes Editores.
Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights and Heartland Alliance for Human
Needs and Human Rights. 1996. The Rule of Lawlessness in Mexico.
Human Rights Violations in the State of Oaxaca. Typescript.
Nagengast, Carol and Michael Kearney. 1990. Mixtec Ethnicity: Social Identity,
Political Consciousness, and Political Activism.Latin American Research
Review 25 (2): 6191.
Olson, Mancur. 1971. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the
Theory of Groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Pallares, Amalia. 2002. From Peasant Struggles to Indian Resistance: The
Ecuadorian Andes in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman: University
of Oklahoma Press.
Prez Ruiz, Maya Lorena. 2002. Todos Somos Zapatistas! Alianzas y Rupturas
entre el EZLN y las organizaciones indigenas, PhD dissertation, Universidad Autnoma Metropolitana-Iztapalapa.
Pineda, Luz Olivia. 2002. Maestros Bilingues, Burocracia y Poder Poltico en
los Altos de Chiapas, in Viqueira, Juan Pedro and Mario Humberto Ruz,
eds. Chiapas: Los Rumbos de Otra Historia. Mexico City: Universidad
Nacional Autnoma de Mxico. 279300.
Popkin, Samuel. 1979. The Rational Peasant. Berkeley: University of California Press.
129
Reyna, Jos Luis and Richard S. Weinert, ed. 1977. Authoritarianism in Mexico.
Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues.
Rus, Jan, Rosalva Ada Hernndez Castillo, and Shannan L. Mattiace, eds. 2003.
Mayan Lives, Mayan Utopias. Lanham, M.D.: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers.
Rus, Jan. 1994. The Comunidad Revolucionaria Institutional: The Subversion of Native Government in Highland Chiapas, 1936168, in Gilbert
M. Joseph and Daniel Nugent, eds. Everyday Forms of State Formation:
Revolution and the Negotiation of Rule in Modern Mexico. Durham,
N.C.: Duke University Press. 265300.
. 2002. La Comunidad Revolucionaria Institucional: La subversion del
gobierno indgena, en Los Altos de Chiapas, 19361968, in Jan Pedro
Viqueria and Mario Humberto Ruz, eds. Chiapas: los Rumbos de Otra
Historia. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico. 25178.
Serrano Carreto, Enrique, Arnulfo Embriz Osorio, and Patricia Fernndez
Ham, eds. 2002. Indicadores socioeconmicas de los pueblos indgenas
de Mxico, 2002. Mexico: Instituto Nacional Indigenista.
Trejo, Guillermo. 2004. Indigenous Insurgency: Protest, Rebellion, and the
Politicization of Ethnicity in 20th Century Mexico, PhD dissertation,
University of Chicago.
Van Cott, Donna Lee. 2000. The Friendly Liquidation of the Past: The Politics
of Diversity in Latin America. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Yashar, Deborah. 1999. Indigenous Movements and Democracy in Latin
America. Comparative Politics 31, 1 (October): 2342.
Warman, Arturo. 2003. Los indios mexicanos en el umbral del milenio.
Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Econmica.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.