ART, REPRESENTATION, AND THE POLITICS OF CULTURE

November 8, 1999 Race Formation By Jeremy Hockett Over the last century the concept of culture and how it is approached has undergone a striking transformation. Questioning the positionality and authority of an individual when describing, defining and representing "other" cultures, anthropologists, ethnographers, and cultural studies critics, have vied to assert the ascendancy of one cultural theory over another and thereby justify their respective claims to knowledge. Thus, the debate has turned on an epistemological axis. Representation, identity, and, ultimately, epistemology are thoroughly considered in two books with strikingly similar appraisals. Alicia Gaspar de Alba confronts these issues in the context of the "Chicano Art: Resistance and Affirmation" (CARA) exhibition in her book Chicano Art: Inside Outside the Master's House. She traces the history of the CARA project from its inception at UCLA to its final showing in San Antonio through which is revealed a multifaceted positionality, vis-à-vis identity politics and the politics of identity (which she clearly distinguishes.) CARA constructs an "oppositional gaze," a "native ethnographic" gaze that creates "a new way for alter-Native cultures to see and be seen," (p. 220) as the logo of CARA indicates. Likewise, in The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth Century Ethnography, Literature, and Art, James Clifford considers identity as seen through the lens of representation. The identity (and the politics therein involved) of Western ethnography as a whole, and of individual ethnographers in particular, emerge as Clifford describes the means and strategies employed in the process of representing their "objectified" subject matter. Both authors are in the end addressing an epistemological question: how to validate or justify the voracity of cultural interpretation/representation as knowledge. Most notably, Clifford and Gaspar de Alba are synthetic thinkers who combine theories and methods, reshape and re-calibrate them, and who reject what David Couzens Hoy calls the Whiggish assumption of the necessary superiority of later theories over earlier ones, [which] shuns the scientific-realist view that this superiority results from the deliberate

anthropologists and ethnographers asserted their authority as representatives. or Edward Said. true one in a cumulative progression toward a clearer picture of things as they really are. Clifford thus severs the assumed ties between individual interpreter of culture and the perceived cultural whole. Clifford places himself most at odds with social critics like bell hooks. in the process. primitive cultures. of what they perceived as dying. It also brings up some interesting paradoxes. while. while simultaneously affirming. It explicates discursive elements that have combined to interrogate the authority one has to represent another.2 replacement of the earlier false theory by a later. of legitimizing one's claim to truth. A similar difficulty emerges as contemporary cultural studies scholars take on a position of authority to represent their own fictitious cultural wholes. The twentieth century's Western epistemological crisis is masterfully exemplified by the historiography of anthropology/ethnography in James Clifford’s Predicament of Culture. How can we come to trust anything that is presented as knowledge? Does knowledge have any secure footing from which to assert itself as such? And. criticizing traditional assertions of authority. “a hybrid activity. at the same time. 13) Clifford’s text brings into question. Bell hooks for example manufactures cultural wholes for which she becomes judge/advocate. The "predicament" of culture distills down to a simple problem of epistemological justification. . as subversive critique. casting critical doubt on the authority of bell hooks to at one and the same time represent the insider’s or initiate’s role of revealing secrets of a fictionalized cultural whole and the revolutionary outsider “Occidentalizing” another fictive holistic other. thus appears as writing. even saviors and redeemers. and other like-practicing essentialists and self-appointed representatives. the project of seeking truth through a complex system of ever-evolving and creative potential on the part of individuals undertaking such a task as describing and interpreting cultures (their own or another’s). as collecting. and thereby questions the whole concept of knowledge. how do we go about assessing the transmitters of knowledge? He writes that ethnography. Cynthia Enloe. if these fundamental questions can indeed be answered. as a modernist collage. other than as fiction. which serves as a type of foundationalist account (or as a Foucauldian genealogy or archeology) of present cultural studies discourse.” (Clifford 1988. as imperial power. As Western humanism sanctioned the universalizing of humanity.

by a melding of theory and method concerning the representation of self and other. and 2) that it consists of experiencing and interpreting “otherness. transcended during the “scientific” undertaking. the dependence of a unified self on the multiplicity of others engaged and experienced. and for “discourse to become text it must become “autonomous. In a sense Clifford is writing into being a modern ethnographic style (multiculturalism?) that integrates and acknowledges the often-contentious claims to authority. Sarris writes that anthropology “stipulated that the social scientist could and should be objective.3 This epistemological crisis in the “human sciences” (e. Interpretation is not interlocution. and notions of the relationship between them. definitions of wholes and parts. including culture-specific biases.” In other words the unified self is never unified as it is never a finished construction.g. separated from a specific utterance and authorial intention. 108) Discourse becomes text. but is nonetheless worthy of being selfconsciously sought. The unified whole of the individual reconciled with the “other parts” is the condition that made it possible to be constituted or conceived of as a unified self in the first place. His is also a project of reconciliation between the self and the other.” in Ricoeur’s terms. conceiving it as a unified diffusion of cultural commonality. Thus the ideal of a unified self is patently unachievable. Clifford presents a theory based on the variety of methodological approaches to the study of the “other” and likewise constructs his methodology upon diverse and discursive theoretical models and schools. anthropology and ethnography) is reconciled.” (Clifford 1989. What is clearly made evident is the interdependence of humanconstructed reality. 39) Clifford devotes a fair amount of attention to analyzing the various modes of interpretation that emerged in anthropology/ethnography. What is often missed in the humanistic conception of a unified self is 1) that the self is a process developing until the death of the corporeal body. could and should be put aside. and there is no self without another to give it shape and texture. in Clifford's and Gaspar de Alba's view. which . It does not depend on being in the presence of a speaker. and between experience and text. In this process the objective social scientist is supposed to become detached from the native culture to experience another’s. He achieves this through an explication of the process by which the other is represented in the writing of one’s own fiction. that the social sciences presence. (Sarris 1993. of the whole and its parts. Much of that conflict arose from competing synecdochic discourse. Western humanism has projected this ideal of a unified self onto humanity as a whole.

he used large specialized teams in the field to produce a compendium of Dogon cultural truth over a period of decades. a disjointed man who salvaged his unified self through the act of writing another culture into being. the living present which they inhabit. Trinh’s lambasted “Great Master. 103) As a result he resisted the ethnographers role caught in what Clifford calls the “double ethnographic movement. Relying on an overstated documentary style. The various ethnographic/anthropological strategies of Malinowski. for Malinowski.” (Clifford 1988.” Unlike Malinowski. or perhaps psychological warfare. was to be fashioned from a short but intensive “communion” with the other. one of provocation and antagonism. He took an approach similar to Foucault’s.” distilling the Dogon culture to create an African Metaphysic. He saw his ethnographic investigation as somewhat like a military campaign. Mauss. Clifford says his “ethnographic liberalism may be seen both dramatic performance and a mode of irony. linguistic conventions. participating in the daily “parts” of life and rituals of a given culture.. He constructed of the Dogon an “absolute subject. 58-60) Griaule’s style is topographical fundamentalism. using the pan-optic power of the ethnographer to see those things that cannot be seen simply by immersing oneself in the day-to-day activities of the Dogon. Malinowski’s diary “displayed his ambivalence and frustration. etc. The whole. (Clifford 1989. Bronislaw Malinowski. 107) Malinowski was torn by the “twinges of conscience” resulting “from lack of integrated feelings and truth in relation to individuals” as his “ethics were based on a fundamental instinct of unified personality. Leiris. unlike . and “initiatory knowledge” as key to a unifying representation.4 rely heavily on a highly developed conception of what culture is. 96) Clifford ties Malinowski’s “rescue of self […] to the process of writing. consolidation of fragments into a synthetic narrative… simultaneous artifice and necessity of cultural. Griaule. His studies of the Trobriand broke new ground in anthropological respectability and authority. Clifford compares him to Joseph Conrad in Africa (and his character Marlow in Heart of Darkness) as a man of many worlds.” Griaule playing the part of ethnographic authority while surreptitiously ridiculing it.” (Clifford 1988. Clifford’s exposé reveals a rift between experience and text. a tear in the scientific fabric. as existing in a borderland between two (actually three) cultures. Marcel Griaule relished the drama of the ethnographer’s theater. serve as theoretical justification for their positions of authority and their claims to knowledge. of beating history up a little.” was the classic participant/observer.” (Clifford 1988.

Mauss. and “warned against definitions of authenticity that évolués and the impurities of cultural syncretism. His limiting notion of ‘total social facts’ led him rather to recommend the deployment of multiple documentary methods by a variety of specialized observers.” (Clifford 1988. He “gave no special status to the idea that a synthetic portrait of a culture (something for him massively overdetermined) could be produced through the research experience of an individual subject or built around the analysis of a typical or central institution. 67) .” Equally as cautious as Leiris in his approach to. an early collaborator of Griaule “was the first ethnographer to confront squarely the political and epistemological constraints of colonialism on fieldwork” which make his views “more congenial” today. 89) His early critiques as an interpretive anthropologist viewed “cultures as assemblages of texts.” Seeing culture and ethnography as “endless autobiography and heterodox” (Clifford 1988. Leiris “never stopped questioning the subjective conflicts and political constraints of cross-cultural study as such” (Clifford 1988. Michel Leiris. 65) Griaule’s faith in a common essence of the black races which allowed him to establish his African Metaphysic. 90). loosely and sometimes contradictorally united. However. (Clifford 1988. 63) Mauss writes: Because of the need that has always driven men to imprint the traces of their activity on matter. quick and dirty endeavor of participant observation. autonomous objects that cannot have been fabricated for the needs of the case and that thus characterizes types of civilizations better than anything else. since these are authentic. 89) “Henceforth neither the experience not the interpretive activity of the scientific researcher can be considered innocent.” collected and interpreted by ethnographers in the field. Mauss believed in the distinction between fieldwork and interpretation. but as bold as Griaule in his faith in ethnography was Marcel Mauss. and contrasts with Leiris’s concept of a fictive unity. nearly all phenomena of collective life are capable of expression in given objects. an extraordinary figure. and thus did almost no fieldwork himself. A collection of objects systematically acquired is thus a rich gathering of admissible evidence. (Clifford 1988. that were again collected and interpreted by him. He relied on “series not panoplies.” (Clifford 1988.5 Malinowski’s individual. 65). was arguably the most influential ethnographer of this century. Their collection creates archives more revealing and sure than written archives. (Clifford 1988.

If every “fact” is susceptible to multiple encoding. of early 19th century industrial England exalted the virtue and purity of rural life in their works. However static and rigid this distinction between "high" and "low" culture might seem. the artist over the artisan. then this assumption can serve as encouragement to grasp the ensemble by focusing on one of its parts (Clifford 1988. Art has been elevated above craft. what is considered worthy of the title "art" has continuously evolved as cultural elites have been forced to re-evaluate the artistic merit of cultural productions not borne of this dichotomous formula. however. 63) This admonition applies well to the CARA exhibit. have considered the folk a resource to be mined. form over content.and refashioned into "authentic" works of art. ethnographic . then. The Western conception of "art for art's sake" has artificially severed the work of art from mere creative utilitarian productions. 67). Consequently. Western composers over many centuries. has long existed within a given homogenous group. which was quickly being erased both from the land and the memory by the march of progress. a la Primitivism. of functional folk objects being re-inscribed into the terms of elite or 'high' cultural forms. elite culture over folk. This type of cultural co-optation. making sense in diverse contexts and implicating in its comprehension the “total” ensemble of relations that constitutes the society under study. This leads Clifford to a statement of caution.6 “Dead. were removed from the context in which they functioned.” (Clifford 1988. for example. Content. ostensibly protected as it were from the epistemological crisis inundating other arms of cultural study by the presumed neutrality and objective criteria in establishing the "Quality" threshold of artistic value and achievement. artistic specialists like Picasso and Gauguin. Art and aesthetics have perhaps remained the most entrenched of the Western institutions. a raw cultural ore to be refined into the highest expressions of their collective cultural achievement. was for the most part diminished in the museum setting and by default emphasized form. The pastoral painters. In a sense he appropriated scenes of . as Gaspar de Alba makes clear in Chicano Art.were deemed the proper place to display cultural artifacts created by "other" peoples. museums primarily devoted to natural history .anthropological. decontextualized objects … can be restored to ‘life’ by surrounding ‘documentation’” and the truth of the whole elicited from any one of its parts. like John Constable. archeological. These newly "discovered" forms were then appropriated .typical of the Western tradition . These objects.

a little bit of Fiske. explores "multiculturalism" through ethnographic representations of Chicano/as in the mainstream art world.7 common folk-life. and Nachbar." rather than trying to use them to destroy it. Gaspar de Alba crosses the disciplinary boundaries of academia. Gaspar de Alba is using the master's tools to remodel the "master's house. she accepts the theoretical language games used to model and explicate "culture. she does this in order to undermine the power it wields in determining and controling the construction of Chicano/a identity. In her metaphor. but she reinscribes them as they begin to inform and expose the dynamics of the CARA exhibition. a touch of Stuart Hall. Raymond Williams. Basically. objectified it through the artistic gaze." but she is going to employ them in novel ways. on the other hand it is an assertion of autonomy. She barrows heavily from Popular Culture studies. In true American Studies form. Chicano Art. your house is not mine because (in the language of semiotics) symbolically. She states in the introduction that her's is an "analysis of how the [CARA] artwork manifests the politics. to tweak them a bit so that they yield an understanding of Chicano . On the one hand it reads as a sign on the dominant culture's "house" stating No "Others" Welcome. the myth-image-symbol school exemplified by Henry Nash Smith. Chicano/a artists appropriate folk and popular culture symbols and myths and rework it into artistic representations and expressions of cultural unity. Gaspar de Alba begins the theoretical alterations necessary to apply the "house" of popular culture to the "casa" of Chicano culture. The sub-title to the chapter. Solomon. borrowing from many theoretical perspectives and arguing from a variety of positions to complicate and interrogate the major aspects of the CARA exhibit. Ultimately. and elevated its representation as a worthy subject of elite culture. In the first chapter of her book. mi casa [no] es su casa. what she calls the "Diversity/Discovery" paradigm. is a kind of dialectical double entendre. ideologies. In a move that seems to run counter to the American Studies displacement and rejection of its obsolete Ur-theory. 'my house is not open to you'. 'our houses are not alike'. which renders mine invisible. the house of mainstream popular culture has been redesigned into the solar of "barrio popular culture" emphasizing their contrasting values and beliefs. In the same way. 18) Furthermore. some Gramsci. yours is not culturally meaningful. a theme that would have been mundane fifty years earlier. Gaspar de Alba revives and adapts it to the patriarchal meta-narrative of Chicano history and identity as implicitly represented in the CARA exhibit."(p. from organization to installation to reception. In this latter sense. however. and historical specificities of Chicano/a culture.

deciding what would be used to represent the 'essence' of the Movement. and is what Gaspar de Alba lucidly examines. And as with Clifford's narrative. as Rosaldo points out. the Pachuco/Cholo. outsider Chicano/a artists. exists on many levels of cultural politics. The fundamental insider/outsider dichotomy is between mainstream American art (the master's of the house/museum) and the unrepresented. the museum. From a cultural representation point of view. the UFW Thunderbird. or mistaken … [but] the do know their own cultures. And." (p. and the colonial powers .8 culture as an "alter-Native" culture within the context of dominant cultural hegemony. 26) By the same token. between art/artist and viewer. Aztlán. bur chooses from it the images to be used for representation. CARA was meant to break new curatorial ground by an unprecedented collaboration between both the various Chicano/a cultural perspectives and the mainstream art world in the creation of the exhibit. 'not unlike other ethnographers.and intra-cultural clashes. inter. just as the curators did when making changes to the CARA logo and design of the exhibition. however. …the curator of a mainstream exhibition about ethnic "Others" can fill the role of the traditional ethnographer…the curator is in the position of interpretive authority without accounting for the sociopolitical differences that comprise the ethnographer's subjectivity . normally associated with a museum's curator. thus reducing the ethnographic mediation.' (p. Nachbar's abstracted model of the "master's house" is projected onto its physical manifestation in the art world. so-called natives can be insightful. this realm of representation is fraught with hazards and inconsistencies. But this simple dialectic model is quickly complicated by Gaspar de Alba's analysis of the CARA exhibit. it is the Chicano/a artists who are the insiders.the very subjectivity that not only interprets the data."(p. Gaspar de Alba writes. sociologically-correct. the CARA organizers sought to represent the Chicano Art Movement primarily through el Movimiento political iconography. and therefore invisible. self-interested. ace-grinding. the organizing committee occupied the position of native ethnographer. enables Gaspar de Alba to "analyze power relations and deconstruct experience from the inside out. which sets up an insider/outsider polemic. This polemic. 201) With the genesis of the CARA exhibition came a whole host of unforeseen difficulties and political/philosophical. the initiates and voices of Chicano culture. 27) Following an alter-Native myth-image-symbol theory of Nachbar's popular culture bungalow. Using the "master's" tools then.

reconcile the fundamental issue of who has the authority the represent a cultural whole? Chicano insiders of el Movimiento. Chicana . altered or erased from memory. Gaspar de Alba asserts. lesbian. Each constructs a fictive whole based on one's unique perspective and experience. 131) Gaspar de Alba furthermore points out the masculine appropriation of the altar. between academics and administrators. Intra-culturally." (p. is represented? On each level of cultural politics. 'mainstream' Chicano culture relegates any unorthodox Chicana identity to the WC. an insider ethnographer. There is clearly a great difference between ethnography done from the outside and ethnography done from the inside. anathema to the regional and professional insiders. the women's closet. to make visible their cultural heritage in much the same way as ethnographers were attempting to capture the essence of the cultures they studied before it was lost. however. the outsiders are Jessie Helms and Ted Stevens as well as CARA organizers. the tres Marias. between artists and artist's groups. and likewise renders it invisible. The fact that the CARA exhibit was dominated by Chicano perspectives does not. "with the power of self-naming. museum curators. that does not. and by extension Chicano culture. The CARA organizers were attempting somehow to save or redeem. In another model. CARA perpetuated the traditional role of women in Chicano culture by primarily representing women through the trinity of icons. individuals are themselves acting as ethnographers. She states that "the [feminist] artwork ends up being grouped together and used by the curatorial agenda to serve and reproduce the sexist ideology of el Movimiento. the various generations. Just as the hegemony of mainstream/dominant culture makes invisible Chicano culture. between the genders. however. Her examination of the exhibition revealed that it was heavily skewed by representations created by Chicano artists (men). Presenting relatively few works by feminist Chicanas and grouping them together in one room. traditionally a symbol of feminine autonomy and devotion. Chicana artists have done some subversive appropriation of their own. insofar as their art was a representation of Chicano identity. feminist voice or interpretation. preclude a Third World. The artists themselves were in the position of a participant/observer.9 of the art institution (curators and NEH funding agents) who are outsiders. in some of the individual installations. were ultimately chosen as cultural representatives for the CARA exhibit. virgin/mother/whore. Through this network of oppositions courses the question of who gets to define how Chicano art. this polemic is likewise present.

My only point here is to say that one can open up spaces for oneself without closing spaces for others.10 lesbians can take 'Malinchista' away from the oppressive and degrading signification of patriarchy. one should not close them on the other end. The final chapter and conclusion of Gaspar de Alba's book deal with the irony facing all alter-Native communities and sub-cultures." (p. but she appears unable to leave open a space for Chicanas who do not wish to partake in the revolution. Indeed Chicana historians. the politics of her cultural positioning ought not to force a re-positioning or erasing of another's. and writers have begun to transform the story of Malinche into an example of militant female resistance on the homefront of Chicanismo. however I believe in the process expanding cultural spaces one end of the spectrum. El Rebozo's audience. many of them young Chicanas. Although she seems very conscious and sensitive to the many spaces within which one can position oneself." (144) Gaspar de Alba continues. The many ways in which Gaspar de Alba positions herself in relation to the CARA exhibit is clearly stated in the "pre-face" (another double-entendre) of her book. my only pause came with her incantation of bell hooks and her presumption that "in order to resist hegemony from every front women of color must commit [themselves] to 'militant' resistance . (144) From these cultural myths-images-symbols comes a source of resistance. "despite a quarter-century of struggle for liberation. still believe and espouse the ideology of their own subjugation. and enemy to the self-defeating practice of nihilism. She states in her critique of a conservative Chicana magazine. an unwitting Malinche. of incorporation and resistance. I certainly feel a great affinity with the major premises of this book. It is the paradox of assimilation and autonomy. 127) It would seem that any Chicana who identifies with the cultural "norms" is somehow complicit perpetuating in her own unconscious (and her sisters') oppression. These cultural icons can be subverted to give voice to those locked in a closet of cultural invisibility. not afraid of sacrifice. 144) So Gaspar de Alba can position herself in many ways.a resistance rooted in the margins and on the homefront. theorists. Her position and politics as a young-educated-academic-middle-class-lesbian-Chicana may not resonate with an older-uneducated-upper-or-lower-class-heterosexual-Hispanas. precisely because they are so deeply imbedded in the cultural consciousness. She questions whether "multicultralism" has "altered power ." (p. who want simply to construct an identity that falls within that traditional role.

if Gaspar de Alba's analysis of the "tsunami" CARA created is any indication. representation.” (145) I believe that Gaspar de Alba is (as was the CARA exhibition as a whole) engaged in a dynamic "ethnographic surrealism" in Chicano Art: Inside Outside the Master's House. can artists of an art movement that is defined by its very resistance to the dominant cultural values and beliefs take advantage of the access granted to them through an exhibition of their work in "mainstream" museums? How can they be "authentic" members of the Chicano Art Movement.” (Clifford. as a native ethnographer. The "Discovery/Diversity" paradigm (associated with the Quincentennial and multiculturalism in general) can be seen as a means towards incorporation without equality. but also as an outsider. . She uses a multiplicity of perspectives to interrogate authority.11 dynamics in the mainstream art world. if they have entered the "master's house?" Is this simply an assimilationist tactic to be redeemed by the hegemonic codes of respectability? (See discussion of Armando Rendón. in light of Clifford's analysis. in DuBois's "double-consciousness. 146) It is a process of collage in which the “cuts and sutures” remain visible. “repeatedly produced and smoothed over in the process of ethnographic comprehension. and identity." How does one become an American and remain Black? How does a Chicano/a artist enter the dominant culture's mainstream art world against which one has defined oneself and retain the Chicano/a identity that nurtured their art to begin with? I leave these questions for discussion. it may be that it was an ethnographic method that mutated into multiculturalism and then mutated back into an ethnographic method. 1988. we see the theoretical source of the paradox." (220) On the first account. it “attacks the familiar. p. 126-7) This is the same paradox faced by Black Americans. Gaspar de Alba is writing a place for herself. How. provoking the irruption of otherness—the unexpected." or simply "mutated into an ethnographic method or a primary instrument of incorporation by the producers of cultural and social hegemony. it clearly had an extreme effect on the main-stream art world. of el Movimiento. As to the second account. complicating while clarifying. it is “that moment in which the possibility of comparison exists in unmediated tension with sheer incongruity. juxtaposing these vantage points to gain a wider angle of vision. As an art of juxtaposition. Clifford's concept of "ethnographic surrealism. is a particularly important mode of interpretation that marks the intersection between art and science." an admixture of the various strategies he describes. then. In the end.” a moment. In the last account. a way to safely assimilate alter-Native cultures while stripping them of their "indigenous" identity. aesthetics and the scientific method.

and Art. 83) We need to acknowledge the fact that there is no unified self. to cultural studies is an attempt to instill a permanent awareness of this process by practicing-what-we-preach. while always striving for absolute unity. an interdisciplinary technique of juxtaposition. in order to construct a unified self caught between two cultural worlds that deny. She writes. which is Gaspar de Alba's. 7) Thus. Greg. what appears to run counter to our nature. Austin: University of Texas Press Sarris. Chicano Art: Inside Outside the Master's House. qualitative deepening” of cultural understanding. “to see these methods and modes not as dichotomous and oppositional. no absolute self. Los Angeles: University of California Press. and constraints of studying “culture. the writing of those truths we have ourselves discovered. and presenting it as an open-ended text. Clifford believes. it seems to be the lot of human consciousness to construct such fictional unity. 1988. by recognizing and expressing the limits.12 within the Chicano/a culture as represented by the CARA exhibit and within mainstream culture as represented by multiculturalism. James. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 1993. Literature. Indeed. Works Cited Clifford.” (Sarris 1993.” That is. The history of ethnography. Alicia. Keeping Slug Woman Alive: A Holistic Approach to American Indian Texts. The American Studies approach. American Studies (and multiculturalism?) is a project of collage. Cambridge. an extension of our perpetual process of becoming. (Clifford 1988. ignore and erase integral parts of her "whole" being. Gaspar de Alba. 1998. The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-Century Ethnography. . by learning from the mistakes and the successes of those who have come before. is the critical self-consciousness of the process by which wholes and unity are constructed. as different voices capable of communicating with and informing one another. but what must be maintained. like Anzaldúa. but as interrelated and relational. Cultural Politics and the CARA Exhibition. doubts. has “resulted in a progressive.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful