Mato, D. Latin American Intellectuaal Practices in Culture and Power. Experiences and Debates

This article was downloaded by: [New York University]
On: 05 October 2014, At: 06:03

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Cultural Studies
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcus20
Latin American intellectual practices in culture and

power: experiences and debates
Daniel Mato
a
Universidad Central de Venezuela
Published online: 04 Jun 2010.
To cite this article: Daniel Mato (2003) Latin American intellectual practices in culture and power: experiences and
debates, Cultural Studies, 17:6, 783-804, DOI: 10.1080/0950238032000150020
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0950238032000150020
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall
not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
RCUS100208.fm Page 783 Tuesday, December 2, 2003 1:33 PM
CUL T UR A L S T UDIE S 1 7 ( 6 ) 2 0 0 3 , 7 8 3 – 8 0 4
Daniel Mato
LATIN AMERICAN INTELLECTUAL

PRACTICES IN CULTURE AND
POWER: EXPERIENCES
Downloaded by [New York University] at 06:03 05 October 2014
AND DEBATES
Abstract
One of the two main lines of argumentation of this text turns around the
idea of ‘intellectual practices’. This idea is used here to criticize the
hegemony that both academic institutions and publishing industries have
been exerting on representations of the idea of ‘the intellectual’. In
addition, the idea of ‘intellectual practices’ is useful to make more visible
the diversity of forms in which intellectual work informs current social
practices, as well as to show that this work assumes forms not limited to
writing practices. The other line of argumentation turns around the
conceptual pair ‘culture and power’. This pair, explicitly or implicitly used
by many intellectuals, allows the formerly mentioned reflection to be
grounded in a relatively more limited universe of practices. Moreover, the
reference to this pair highlights the importance of the particular set of
practices that explicitly or implicitly relate to it. These practices may be
characterized as simultaneously involving a cultural approach (focusing on
socio-symbolic dimensions) of issues of power, and a political approach
(focusing on relations of power) of the cultural (socio-symbolic) dimen-
sions of social processes. Finally, this article also presents a critic of the
idea of ‘Latin American cultural studies’, which fundamentally criticizes a
de-contextualized and de-contextualizing application of certain represen-
tations of the idea of cultural studies in Latin America, as well as studies
about Latin America from abroad. Such de-contextualization impoverishes
the critical impulse of such an intellectual perspective, and at the same time
diminishes the visibility of other significant practices in culture and power
developed in Latin America.
Cultural Studies ISSN 0950-2386 print/ISSN 1466-4348 online © 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/0950238032000150020
784 CUL T UR A L S T UDIES
Keywords
cultural studies; culture and power; intellectuals; intellectual practices;
Latin America
O NE OF THE TWO main lines of argumentation of this text turns around

the idea of ‘intellectual practices’. I use this idea to criticize the
hegemony that both academic institutions and publishing industries have been
exerting on representations of the idea of ‘the intellectual’. In addition, the idea
of ‘intellectual practices’ is useful to make more visible the diversity of forms in
which intellectual work inform current social practices, as well as to show that
this work assumes forms not limited to writing practices. The other line of
argumentation turns around the conceptual pair ‘culture and power’. This pair,
explicitly or implicitly used by many intellectuals, allows me to ground the
formerly mentioned reflection in relatively more limited universe of practices.
Moreover, the reference to this pair enables me to highlight the importance of
the particular set of practices that explicitly or implicitly relates to it. These
practices may be characterized as simultaneously involving a cultural approach
(focusing on socio symbolic dimensions) of issues of power, and a political
approach (focusing on relations of power) of the cultural (socio symbolic)
dimensions of social processes. Finally, in this article, I also present a critic of
the idea of ‘Latin American cultural studies’, which fundamentally criticizes a
de-contextualized and de-contextualizing application of certain representations
of the idea of cultural studies in Latin America, as well as studies about Latin
America made abroad. This criticism does not rely on any sort of xenophobic
feeling or on any kind of essentialism, but to problems derived from the de-
contextualized appropriation of the idea. Such de-contextualization impover-
ishes the critical impulse of such an intellectual perspective, and at the same
time diminishes the visibility of other significant practices in culture and power
developed in Latin America.
Recent tendencies to the exclusion of certain intellectual

practices in Latin America
In the humanities and social sciences practiced in Latin American universities
(and also in other latitudes, but I will limit my argument to Latin America),
representations of the idea of ‘the intellectual’ strongly associated with the idea
of research and/or writing have become more and more hegemonic. In
addition, these representations in many cases also involve imagining research as
something exclusively carried out in the academy. It is necessary to question
this hegemonic representation that associates, and many times makes almost
LA T IN AMER IC AN INT ELLE C T UAL PR A C T IC ES 785
interchangeable, the idea of the intellectual with either the image of the
scholar, or the image of those ‘public intellectuals’ who write columns in
newspapers.
For the case of the automatic association with the image of ‘the scholar’,
which is my main concern here, it can be useful to highlight at least one of the
factors that fortify it. In the last two decades, certain discourses calling for the
modernization of science and technology, as well as of the university, gained
ground in Latin America. These discourses, produced by governments, inter-
national agencies, and certain ‘scientificist’ sectors within the academy, try to
regulate, delimit and control (in other words to discipline) intellectual practices,
in terms of their productivity. This productivity is measured by indicators such
as the number of publications in peer-reviewed journals (preferably those of

international circulation); the number of citations of each scholar’s works by
colleagues, etc. The actors who promote these discourses have instituted certain
policies and programmes, usually named as national systems for the promotion
of research (as far as I know, in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and
Venezuela), through which money is distributed in relation to such indicators.
This system of recognition strengthens not every, but only certain kinds of
research, those that are represented as objective and value free. Those who
criticize that form of research still have to compete for these monies in order to
supplement the insufficient wages paid to university professors. Furthermore,
in not only a few cases, this money is the only income available to do research.
For these reasons many of us who do not share that idea of research have actively
or passively participated in the establishment and/or legitimizing of these
systems of promotion of research.
The problem with these systems of promotion is that they tend to fortify
certain types of knowledge production; this has serious consequences for those
intellectual practices that do not produce the kind of knowledge that these
systems consider legitimate, but seek to produce other kinds of knowledge. By
‘other’, I mean knowledge not intended for academic articles, those, for
example, conceived to become part of certain social processes outside the
academy, in which the involved intellectuals are interested in directly communi-
cating with the involved social actors. One of the consequences of these modern-
izing discourses, as well as of these systems of promotion based on them, has
been that they stimulate the dissociation between research and those other kinds
of social practices not oriented to produce peer-reviewed articles. In this way,
these systems delegitimize those intellectual practices not oriented to the
reviewed publication of papers; this is to say practices that are not structured by
a certain logic of a supposed academic excellence. This logic has been
constructed to fit the image of and to resemble certain representations of the so-
called natural sciences, as objective, value free, etc. In this way, these discourses
of modernizing science tend to delegitimize relationships with extra-academic
social actors, and to de-link intellectual work from ethical and political reflection
and challenges. In addition, these policies also leave aside some intellectual
practices originated in the academy but extending beyond it, like those of certain
applied research orientations in diverse disciplines (anthropology, sociology,
social psychology, education, social work, etc.), or those conceived as Participa-
tory Action Research (Fals Borda, 1986), or those that are openly interven-
tionist. These policies not only intellectually de-legitimize those intellectual
practices deployed beyond the academy, but also socially de-legitimize academic
practices. In this way, universities become more and more distanced from the
societies that they are supposed to serve.
These ‘academicist’ representations of research practices do not understand
that ethical and political positions are constitutive of the epistemological ground,
the theoretical perspective, the research questions and the methodological

design of our investigations. In this way, they are also constitutive of research
results, both in respect to its content and its form (i.e. publications). Research
questions are not the same; neither is the methodological approach, if what is
being pursued is to write ‘studies’ or to produce some type of knowledge useful
to the interests of certain social agents. The answers to questions about ‘what
for’ and ‘for whom’ one investigates grounds one’s choices about what to
investigate, how, with whom, within the framework of which relationships, with
which purposes. The answers to these first questions have a strong impact on the
ways in which the information is disseminated (whether, for example, one
produces an article, an audio educative programme, an action programme, a
strategy, a video cassette, etc.). These answers also determine how we choose to
evaluate these experiences: by means of which processes; with the participation
of which types of social actors; with which indicators.
Concurrently, we should also take into account some particular aspects of
current processes of globalization that can be especially significant. In particular,
I am concerned about two aspects, although the second is a particular case of the
first:
• The increasing importance of transnational networks of social agents in the

social production of politically significant representations of ideas and
associated agendas. These networks are usually comprised of social actors
scattered around the world (I do not refer to their mere existence on the
Internet, that it is only the means!) but are frequently organized and
supported by actors located in the USA or a few Western European countries.
This organizing position gives them certain advantages in the promotion of
the ideas around which networks are articulated, as well as in the proposal
of their agendas.
• The increasing importance of transnational networks that relate individual
intellectuals, working groups, academic institutions, professional associa-
tions, professional and academic publications, governmental and inter-
governmental foundations, agencies, etc. This is a particular case of the first.
The existence of these transnational networks is not historically unique, but in

the current age of globalization, the number and importance of these networks
have been accentuated. This is not the result only of the communicational and
digital technologies available, but also of other factors of the post WWII period.
Striking among these factors are, for example, the expansion of inter-govern-
mental and non-governmental organizations dedicated to constructing networks
of diverse types at a worldwide level, the almost-end of colonialism, the almost-
end of the cold war and the extraordinary development of forms of conscious-
ness of globalization. (For the purpose of this argument, it does not matter
whether such forms of consciousness are ‘false’ or ‘truth’, insofar as they orient
certain agents´ practices.) The development of these networks of transnational
relations is not ‘good’ or ‘bad’ in itself as there are networks of this type
organized around racist ideas as much as there are networks organized in defence
of human rights (see Mato, 1999, 2000a, 2001).
In any case, what I want to highlight here is the importance of these
transnational networks in the promotion and establishment of certain key ideas
and theoretical currents. In this sense, I want to emphasize the role played by
these networks in the increasing importance of discourses and agendas of the
modernization of science in Latin American, of some fashionable theoretical
currents (for example, postmodernism and cultural studies); and of the devel-
opment of neoliberal ideas and the social, political and economic reforms
associated with them.
With regard to the policies associated with reforms of neoliberal inspiration,
there seem to be two kinds particularly significant. On the one hand, there are
those involving the reduction of public expenditures (especially, but not only, in
areas like university education). On the other, there are those deepening the
established forms of the social division of labour, which involve the ‘profession-
alization’ (differentiation, regulation) of some practices formerly conceived as
‘intellectual’ (in the historically established sense of noticeably political), today
codified more and more as ‘professional’ (represented as more technical and
instrumental, apparently a-political). With the latter, I refer to those carried out
by an increasing number of colleagues (this is to say university graduates from
diverse disciplines in the humanities and social sciences) in national, provincial
and municipal governmental organizations, as well as in non-governmental organ-
izations. The case is that the combination of all these tendencies seems to result,
among other things, in a lesser incorporation of young professors to universities
and in the increasing tendency among recently graduated colleagues to seek jobs
as ‘professionals’ in governmental and non-governmental organizations.
Many of the practices developed by intellectuals who work in governmental
agencies and non-governmental organizations, as well as those developed by
intellectual-activists in social movements and artists in diverse spaces, have
analytical-interpretative dimensions, although they do not assume the form of
‘studies’. In addition, many of them involve diverse forms of the production of
knowledge that the academy does not manage to see. Even most novel trans-
disciplinary orientations, including cultural studies, often do not see them. These
intellectual practices are not necessarily novel. On the contrary, in Latin America
as in the so-called Western world, they have a long history, one that relates to
moments in which the division of the labour was less established not only
between disciplines but also between the academy and its outside (some even
have longer histories, as those of indigenous people intellectuals who relate their
current practices to old traditions). The deepening and institutionalization of
those forms of the division of the labour and the professionalization of intellec-
tual practices have been key elements of the advance of modernity. However, the
historical time and forms in which this happens is specific to each social context.
The challenge is to question how these forms of division of labour exclude and
subsequently erase marginalized intellectual practices.
On the idea of intellectual practices

I believe the idea of ‘intellectual practices’ is useful to question the established
‘common sense’ about the idea of ‘intellectual’ that results from the hegemony
of both academic institutions and publishing industries. It is also useful to highlight
the ample diversity of forms of intellectual work in social life.We need to criticize
the compulsive (unconscious, not critically reflected, automatic) association of
the idea of the ‘intellectual’ with those of research and writing, in order to be able
to reflect about the importance of a larger variety of intellectual practices. This
allows us to appreciate the intellectual character of other social practices that also
include analytical-interpretative components, but are not necessarily oriented to
produce writings, but seek other forms of action as their outcome.
Among these other intellectual practices, perhaps the most obvious are
those like teaching, which although they take place within the educational
system, are not always associated with research. Perhaps other obvious forms
are those related to creative work codified in diverse arts and/or in the
‘cultural industries’. But there also others, less obvious, but at least equally
significant, like those developed in the context of social movements, as well as
in non-governmental organizations and governmental agencies (particularly in
policy making). Different types of intellectual practices respond to particular
interests and specific contextual conditions. Many intellectual practices trans-
gress the borders of the academy and the written text, or openly take place out
of those borders, both inside and outside those borders. There are many
examples, not only in Latin America; nevertheless, my references mainly come
from within that area of the world: for example, the cases of numerous
feminist intellectuals and their colleagues in social movements like those of
indigenous peoples, Afro-Latin Americans, human rights and others, which
have been documented in several publications (Mato, 2002).
The debate regarding the diversity of intellectual practices is crucial in

contemporary academic and political contexts currently marked by the re-
construction and resignification of certain fields of practices, and the deepening
in others of the schemes of division of intellectual work previously established.
In the case of the field of ‘culture and power’, opposed forces are currently at
work. On the one hand, some intellectual orientations are currently transgressing
academic disciplinary borders (cultural studies and postmodernist among
others), but often end up by naturalizing the borders between the university and
the outside. On the other hand, this division is increasingly reinforced in Latin
America through certain discourses of modernization and related public policies
for education, science and technology. The aforementioned reductions of public
expenditures, including university budgets, diminish opportunities for academic

employment. Meanwhile, for many of the same reasons, there is a relative
increase of opportunities for professional work in non-governmental organiza-
tions, as well as in projects in governmental agencies operating under inter-
national budgets. Simultaneously, within this framework of the increasing
pauperization of Latin American societies, popular organizations and movements
also grow as spaces for intellectual practice. The lack of adjustment between the
forces that tend to deepen and/or strengthen the division within intellectual
work, and the political and market forces that call for a revision of that division,
affects the social contexts in which Latin American public universities develop
their activities. It also helps to explain some of the conflicts that these universities
experience, both inside and in their relations with those social contexts.
It is in the context of these processes that the idea of cultural studies is
introduced in Latin America. Although this issue is not the focus of this article,
it constitutes an additional way of excluding certain intellectual practices, partic-
ularly from the institutionalized field of certain academic disciplines in Latin
America. I make a brief digression to discuss it, and then get back to the more
general discussion about intellectual practices in culture and power in Latin
America.
‘Latin American cultural studies?’

It is in the context of the previously mentioned processes that I would like to
discuss the recent emergence and institutionalization in some academic contexts
in Latin America of what some colleagues have named, in Spanish, ‘estudios
culturales Latinoamericanos’, in Portuguese, ‘estudos culturais Latinoameri-
canos’. These two expressions come from the direct translation of the English
expression ‘Latin American cultural studies’ that some colleagues have also
recently begun to use, particularly in the USA and the UK.
My main argument in this regard is that the usage of these expressions in
Latin America derives from the decontextualized and decontextualizing direct
translation and a-critical adoption of the label ‘cultural studies’. In Latin

America, this label has been used in at least two ways. It has been superficially
used by some as a way of engaging in fashionably current transnational academic
dynamics. Meanwhile others have used it as a way of establishing promising
transnational dialogues with colleagues in English speaking countries. I am
interested in this discussion particularly because of the existence of this second
group, with which I share some interests and perspectives, even while I am
critical of their use of this label.
Currently, there is taking place a significant transnational process of institu-
tionalization of what a number of English speaking intellectuals have come to
name as ‘cultural studies’. I call this process ‘transnational’ because it began in
England and, little by little, has incorporated intellectuals from other English
speaking countries; in the last two decades, it has also integrated scholars and
other intellectuals from countries where the official languages are other than
English, remarkably from Latin America.
In my view, the intellectual current named ‘cultural studies’ might also be
seen as a field of intellectual practices. Nevertheless, if we rely on most common
representations, this field would be less comprehensive than that of culture and
power. It is less comprehensive because the word ‘studies’ is neither arbitrary
nor accidental. It tells us about the centrality of ‘studying’ rather than developing
other kind of practices. In addition, most narratives about this field tell us about
its origin in the experiences of the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies
at the University of Birmingham (founded in 1964). This was an intellectual
experiment that flourished from inside the university, even though it was
strongly marked by extra-mural interests and activities. Perhaps more significant
than its name and origin it is the fact that most current practices explicitly
developed under this label are basically ‘studies’, meaning ‘writing’, although
some of them may also include other forms of presentation.
As any other social field, ‘Cultural Studies’ is in permanent construction.
This means that it is a social space of disputes and negotiations over meaning
between different projects. One of the main arenas of dispute within this field is
the construction of the canon, and its political dimensions. If we accept the idea
that cultural studies is a transnational field, then the construction of the canon
involves several concomitant problems. A significant group of these problems are
associated with the existence of very diverse social contexts, and different kinds
of academic, artistic, and other kind of institutions within which these practices
are developed. The practices converging in this field from those different
contexts, institutions and traditions relate among themselves in transnational
spaces that are marked by relations of power.
These relations of power are associated, not solely, nor simply, but also with
the existence of different languages, and to associated hierarchies and powers of
dissemination. Among other significant agents in this global arena, we have to
mention the practices of certain ‘cultural industries’. Remarkable here are the
cases of publishing houses marketing their publications, and universities

marketing their programmes. The universities that teach in English and
publishing houses that publish in English that have the most significant shares of
the respective international markets.
The institutionalization of ‘cultural studies’ in the English speaking world
has also given rise to the social construction of certain representations of the idea
of ‘Latin American cultural studies’ among intellectuals who work in English.
And, since naming institutes existence, it now seems that ‘Latin American
cultural studies’ actually exists. In addition, representations of the idea of Latin
American cultural studies are increasingly being institutionalized. Where?
Mainly in the English speaking world. By whom? By English-speaking intellec-
tuals and some students from Latin America that have been educated in English-
speaking institutions, within the English-speaking canon. Some of these students
have also in their turn ‘discovered’ the existence of ‘Latin American cultural
studies’ in Latin America, as well as the influence of the Birmingham founding
pioneers. But have they actually ‘discovered’ Latin American cultural studies in
Latin America or are they constructing them?
There has been an ‘alarm indicator’ that has blinked several times in this
regard. Those from Latin America who have been chosen as the paradigm of
‘Latin American cultural studies’ by both English speaking intellectuals and their
students educated in English have spoken in the following terms. Beatriz Sarlo,
for instance, has emphatically stated that ‘In Argentina, we do not name them
“cultural studies” ’, which is a term that, in her view, has been put in massive
circulation by the US academy. Instead, she prefers to talk in terms of cultural
analysis (1997: 90). Jesús Martín Barbero has said: ‘We had done cultural studies
well before this label appeared’ (1997: 52). In a similar vein, Néstor García
Canclini has stated: ‘I became involved in cultural studies before I realized this
is what it was called’ (1996: 84). Although Beatriz Sarlo does not use the label
‘estudios culturales Latinoamericanos’, Martín Barbero and García Canclini do
use it. In their usage, these studies have initially been a Latin American project,
which later met with its counterparts in English. On the other hand, there are
some representations of the field in Latin America that assume the narrative of
its origin in Birmingham.
This passionate search for the English influence reminds me of a commen-
tary Néstor García Canclini made to me a few years ago. We had just met
immediately after a panel about his book Hybrid Cultures held during an Inter-
national Congress of the Latin American Studies Association, in which I had not
been present, but he had. In that moment, he told me about his surprise with
regard to a question posed to him at that panel. The question was about the
influence of Hommi Bhabha’s idea of ‘hybridity’ on his own work. His answer
was that he had not read Bhabha at that time. I wondered whether Bhabha has
ever been asked about the influence of García Canclini on his work. I believe it
is plausible to assume that the answer is negative. The issue is, regardless of
Bhabha’s country of origin, he writes in English, and García Canclini writes in

Spanish. This points to the language hierarchies in this global world, which are
of course associated with colonial and postcolonial histories, economic hegem-
onies, etc. (see Mignolo, 1997).
Relations of power do exist, and Latin American intellectual contexts have
been marked by the co-presence of intellectual production from various origins
in several languages. English, French, German and Italian thinking traditions
have circulated, and have been re-appropriated in Latin America. This is perhaps
a very special characteristic of Latin American intellectual contexts. Because of
our colonial and postcolonial history, we have been both exposed and open to
intellectual production in all those colonial languages, as well as in Spanish and
Portuguese, which were the first colonial languages in the region, and thus the
official languages of Latin American nation-states. Through these two later
languages, we are not only acquainted with ideas from Spain and Portugal, but
particularly from other countries in Latin America. Sometimes, also ‘thanks’ to
these colonial languages, we have also taken advantage of intellectual contribu-
tions from Africa and the Arab world, and thanks to translations of the ideas of
some Asian and African intellectuals. In such a complex context and long history,
the ideas of the Birmingham Centre and its reappropriation in the USA have also
been significant for many Latin American intellectuals.
The institutionalization of the idea of Latin American cultural studies in the
English speaking world has been reinforced through conferences, publications and
graduate studies, and has meant the institutionalization of ‘estudios culturales
Latinoamericanos’ in some contexts in Latin America too. I am concerned about
these developments in Latin America, as well as for the reinforcing capacity of what
our English-speaking colleagues are doing.This is why it becomes necessary to state
the following: if what our English speaking colleagues are seeking in Latin America
are ‘their peers’ not ‘their followers’, then the focus has to be made on a diversity
of intellectual practices that are not necessarily related to the English-speaking
tradition of cultural studies, not even to its canonical research interests, significant
authors and published works. If our English-speaking colleagues, or their Latin
American students educated in English, only seek to identify the influence of
certain English written cultural studies in the practices of Latin American intellec-
tuals, they will not be able to see the specificity and diversity of related fields in
Latin America. Worse, in such a way, they would only contribute to building
mirroring images of themselves and they will lose the opportunity of learning from
differences rooted in specific social contexts, with an emphasis on the plural.
This plural is necessary because Latin America is a name that encompasses
too many diverse contexts. This diversity is vast even if we were only concerned
with what is done in those academic institutions that work in official state
languages: Spanish and Portuguese. However, to consider only those kinds of
institutions implies ignoring one of the dimensions of the system of exclusions
built upon the social construction of ethnic/racial differences and associated
language hierarchies within Latin America. To do this would mean to leave aside
what is said, practiced, and sometimes written, for example, by Quechua, Maya
and Aymara intellectuals, to name just some of the indigenous languages that have
several million speakers. Leaving aside a consideration of the practices of those
intellectuals is particularly wrong. Because intellectual practices in these languages
are often very relevant precisely in terms of culture and power, as well as in terms
of non-disciplinarity, in terms of a critique of hegemony and established relations
of power, in terms of the social building of subjectivities and the self construction
of agency. To speak about ‘Latin American cultural studies’ without taking into
account such kinds of social productions is both taking a partial image for the
whole and, at the same time, legitimizing ethnic or racial discrimination.
However, the problem does not end there. Because thinking of Latin
America only in terms of Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking intellectuals also
means leaving aside what is said and written in English. Would there be any doubt
that Puerto Rico is part of Latin America? I guess not. However, a significant
number of Puerto Rican intellectuals live in the USA and write in English, and
move back and forth between the island and the continent. Therefore, what do
we say of Puerto Rican cultural studies? Are they made in Spanish or in English
or in both languages? In similar ways, we have to think of an increasing number
of Dominican, and Cuban intellectuals. What do we say of Chicano intellectuals
who almost exclusively write in English? Are they ‘Anglo’, just because they
speak and produce in English? Have their ancestors become ‘Anglo’, because of
the annexation of their lands by the USA since 1848? In other words, the issue
would also involve a discussion about the idea of Latin America, which I cannot
present here (I have to invite readers to consult other publications, such as Ardao,
1980 and Mato, 1998).
Let me now address another side of this discussion. The idea of ‘Latin
American cultural studies’, as practiced in the institutional context of US and
Western European universities, does not only relate to that of cultural studies,
but also prominently to that other of ‘Latin American studies’. This latter idea,
beyond the individual position or will of each ‘Latinamericanist’, is epistemolog-
ically, ethically, and politically loaded with the history of the application of the
US and Western European hegemonic concept of area studies to Latin America.
It is not incidental, but the result of a geo-institutionally defined theoretical
movement originating in universities in the USA and UK, and is devoted to
studying cases in a particular ‘region’ or ‘area’ of the world outside the USA:
‘Latin America’ (see Berger, 1995). Current debates about new approaches to
area studies, which began to occur in the USA ten years ago, have helped to
understand that area studies (both in the USA and in Western Europe) has been
historically marked by the interests of imperial and other forms of transnational
and international dominance. As we know, this predicament did not originate
during the Cold War, but existed before and was intensified because of it.
Further, the Cold War’s end has factored prominently in current revisions of area
studies’ established conceptions, and much of the debate – as well as most of the
current proposals to reshape area studies – emerges from this historical situation
(see Ford Foundation, 1979; Heginbotham, 1994).
Although, some of these revisions accomplish more than merely dismantling
certain effects of Cold War politics, most of them do not effectively challenge
more enduring globally established power relations. For instance, current criti-
cisms of area studies question traditionally conceived geographical and cultural
borders, as well as research questions and interrelations between areas and
disciplines, but they rarely contest fundamental epistemological assumptions
that pre-existed the Cold War. An example of such an assumption is the very idea
of studying ‘others’ in order to write and teach about them, in languages foreign
to them. The intentions and presuppositions that inform studies of this nature
simply cannot remain unexamined and unchallenged.
Thus, efforts to revise area studies, which would have to include the idea of
‘Latin American cultural studies’, must be contextualized by acknowledging
which interests shape our research agendas. It is ethically, politically and episte-
mologically imperative that social groups targeted as subjects of study have a
word in those efforts. Experience has taught me that incorporating them into
our research, from its inception, challenges the established practice of
constructing ‘local communities’ as objects of study, thereby shifting our inves-
tigative focus and our research questions. It may change from studying the Other
to studying with that Other. If such an ambitious project is not possible for some
of us, it may at least shift from ‘studying the Other’ to studying the practices of
global agents, such as the World Bank or the United States Agency for Develop-
ment, and the articulations of power that connect them to hegemonic domestic/
local agents. This important change of focus may produce knowledge that could
be useful for concerned social groups to learn about global-local articulations of
power, hegemonic global and domestic agents’ practices, and how these prac-
tices may affect their lives. However, it may not be appropriate to argue further
about this matter here (I have discussed in former publications: see Mato,
2000b).
For all these reasons we need to be rather careful with the usage of the label
Latin American cultural studies – be this in English, Spanish and Portuguese –
although as I argued above, the reasons may vary between the first and last cases.
I will now get back to my main argument to illustrate briefly the diversity of the
field of intellectual practices in culture and power, which includes, but is not
limited to, ‘studies’.
Latin American intellectual practices in culture and power

The introduction of representations of the idea of ‘cultural studies’ in Latin
America has not happened in a ‘virgin’ territory; neither has happened in one
conceivable as unpopulated, barbarian or underdeveloped. To avoid the com-

pulsive reiteration of the imaginary of the ‘discovery’, the colonization, or the
modernization of America, it is necessary to visualize and make more visible the
diversity of the field of intellectual practices in culture and power in Latin
America.
This field does not only include the scholarly practices of writing ‘studies’
for circulation within academic circles (as usually represented by ‘Latin American
cultural studies’), but also other types of practices that also have a reflective and
an analytical interpretative character: for example, those deployed by intellec-
tuals in diverse social movements, ‘the arts’, labour unions, popular organiz-
ations, initiatives of diverse sectors of the population and even in some
governmental organizations. In some cases, these other practices involve the

production of studies, whereas in others they are expressed through other forms
of reflection and production of knowledge. Some of them are related to the work
with diverse groups of the population in self-knowledge experiences, empow-
erment and organization, or related to popular education, or to the tasks of
creators in diverse arts. It is too large a diversity to be named exhaustively, but
only conceptually. This happens because each of these practices responds to
specific historical processes in diverse contexts. Some of these processes are
openly related to the long history of these human populations: colonization, the
import of African slaves, de-colonization, internal colonialism, etc. Others are
more directly related to more recent processes: modernization, the rise and fall
of the Left, military dictatorships, Cold War politics in diverse local contexts,
the advances of certain social movements (indigenous peoples, feminist, Afro-
Latino American, human rights, etc.) For these reasons, the examples mentioned
in these pages are only that – examples – and they are not representative, if
anything, only suggestive of the amplitude of the field.
The practices of a good part of Latin American intellectuals take place
outside of, or beyond, the academy as conventionally regarded in the USA. This
diversity is significant from a political point of view and because of its fruitfulness
in stimulating innovating theoretical developments. It affects not only the
election of matters for research, but also the ethical and epistemologic reflection
that conditions the questions and ways of investigation, and the production of
other types of practices and discourses. It has been relatively common among
Latin American intellectuals to make explicit our interests in intervening into
the production of policies of diverse social actors. These interests have been
directed not only toward national governments and their agencies, but also
toward an ample diversity of social actors, including international agencies,
human rights organizations, indigenous peoples groups, Afro-Latin American
groups, feminist groups, popular institutions of education, etc. It must be
highlighted that this type of interest and involvement is not new in Latin
America. On the contrary, it has constituted a sort of historical constant that
goes back to the time of the emancipatory movements and the foundation of the
new republics (see Ríos, 2002; Yúdice, 2002), and of which there have been
several renewed examples since then (see Baptista, 2002; Ferreira, 2002;
Pajuelo, 2002). Consequently, there has also been a necessary reflection on the
role of writing and the intellectuals of the written culture, of the ‘Lettered city’
(Rama, 1985; Poblete, 2002).
In metropolitan societies, a good part of those dedicated to the so-called
humanities and social sciences develop their practices almost exclusively in an
academic milieu; thus, it is possible to call them scholars. In Latin America,
however, it happens that it is less frequent that we limit our practices to the
academy. This is one of the reasons why it is more common for us to self-
identify as intellectuals rather than scholars. As a result of this, as well as of the
repressive regimes that in one or other period have governed most Latin
American countries, many Latin American intellectuals have been killed, gone
to prison or have been exiled. These types of circumstances mark the different
forms of production of most of the Latin American intellectuals. Nevertheless,
not to fall into idealizations, it is necessary to emphasize that these extra-
academic practices not only, or not always, follow from a commitment to social
justice, but also to the relative shortage of jobs in universities, as well as to the
low level of wages, which have forced intellectuals to look for economically
complementary activities.
The field of practices we are discussing includes ‘studies’. The most visible
examples of these studies are those made by authors like Néstor García Canclini,
Jesús Martín Barbero, Nelly Richard, Beatríz Sarlo and Silviano Santiago, whose
works have become paradigmatic among English speaking specialists in so called
‘Latin American cultural studies’. For this very reason, I am not going to mention
them here. But there are also other authors, whose publications, although less
known among English-speaking specialists in cultural studies, show significant
continuities with these already mentioned paradigmatic authors. These are too
many authors and works to attempt to list them. Instead, it seems better to
mention the existence of recently published accounts of significant sets of works
within the field, which although necessarily incomplete are illustrative (for
example: Antonelli, 2002; Bermúdez, 2002; del Sarto, 2002; Grimson and
Varela, 2002; Hernández, 2002; Maccioni, 2002; Rosas Mantecón, 2002; Sovik,
2002; Sunkel, 2002; Wortman, 2002). What I want to stress here is that those
paradigmatic authors, as well as those less known, not only write books and
articles, but also, through diverse means, get actively involved in public debates
about cultural policies and take on the responsibilities of decision making (for
accounts, see, for example: Antonelli, 2002; Ochoa Gautier, 2002). Perhaps one
the most visible examples in this regard is the case of Lourdes Arizpe, who apart
from writing ‘studies’ about culture and trade (Arizpe and Alonso, 2001), has
been the Secretary for Culture of UNESCO, from which position she has not
only written, but also done.
These ‘studies’ are also done by other colleagues who do not necessarily
show many continuities with those authors more frequently known by English-
speaking Latin American cultural studies specialists. Nevertheless, they are well
known in Latin America and elsewhere by readerships of certain disciplines.
Some of them are crucially significant for the field of culture and power. A
striking example in this regard would be those intellectuals who have had a
lifelong commitment to indigenous peoples, who apart from having written
numerous articles and books, have actively worked on behalf of these peoples
rights in several instances. These struggles involved some highly influential
intellectuals, such as Mexican authors Guillermo Bonfil Batalla (1996), and
Rodolfo Stavenhagen (1988), among others. One may also mention the case of
intellectuals who have not only published about the situation of Afro-Latin
American, but also developed active practices defending the rights of these
peoples, for example Manuel Moreno Fraginals (1977).
Nevertheless, as already stated, the field is not limited to the production of
writing, or to what is made within the limits of ‘the Lettered City’. It includes
more and, particularly with regard to the cases of indigenous peoples and Afro-
Latin American social movements, we have to take into account the practices of
many intellectuals and organizations outside the academy. Although some of
them do not use writing as a means, others do, but in any case there are good
accounts of the practices of both indigenous peoples (Dávalos, 2002; Jackson
and Warren, 2002; Maybury-Lewis, 2002; Monasterios, 2003; Pajuelo, 2003;
Rappaport 2003) and Afro Latin American intellectuals (Illia García, 2002; Jesús
García, 2002; Walsh and García, 2002; Mijares, 2003). It is necessary to stress
that, contrary to preconceptions, intellectuals in social movements not only have
produced politically significant discourses, but also theoretical elaboration of
some significant ideas. This has been, for example, the case of the idea of
‘interculturality’ (see Dávalos, 2002; Rappaport, 2003).
The significance of intellectual practices in social movements in Latin
America has not been limited to those organized alongside ideas of race or
ethnicity. In other movements, these practices have also been remarkably impor-
tant. The case of the feminist movement has not only been discussed by other
authors (Richard, 2001; Vargas, 2002), but it could also be continuously
followed through some well-established journals, which also show the signifi-
cance of theoretical contributions made from within the movement (for
example, Estudos Feministas, published by the Brazilian University Federal of Santa
Catarina or Debate Feminista, published by a Mexican feminist collective).
Another social space that has been the site of significant intellectual practices
in Latin America has been the Human Rights movement (see Basile, 2002; El
Achkar, 2002). Certain movements associated with specific ‘artistic’ genres have
also been important in this regard, including certain movements comprised of
composers, musicians, and singers, as well as diverse critical currents of ‘rock’.
Similarly there have been movements of visual artists, ( ‘la Nueva Escena’ in Chile)
or the work of numerous graphic humour creators (Quino, Rius, Zapata and
others), cinema directors (Novo Cinema Brasilero and others), as well as the
practices of numerous theatre directors and performers (for example, Augusto
Boal (1980), Eduardo Pavlovsky (1994) and Grupo Olodum (Sant´Anna, 2002).
Special mention has to be made of a large diversity of practices in the fields of
popular and adult education.This has been a very active and innovative movement
in Latin America, whose best-known representative and pioneer has been Paulo
Freire (1970, 1973 – see also Basile, 2002; El Achkar, 2002). Interestingly, the
pioneering practices of Freire have spanned beyond his well known work in adult
education; that of Orlando Fals Borda (1986) in the field of Participatory Action
Research, have been repeatedly acknowledged as striking sources of learning and
inspiration by intellectuals in this field (see Mato, 2000b).
Finally, in view of the comprehensive representation of ‘Latin America’

informing this article, as explained above, we also have to include within this
field the practices responding to social experiences that are difficult to define
with a few words, that in any case are reminiscent of colonialism, as those
confronted in terms of culture and power by Puerto Rican and Chicano intellec-
tuals (for brief accounts see Juhász-Mininberg, 2002; Tinker and Valle, 2002).
Conclusion
To summarize my arguments:
• The field of intellectual practices in culture and power not only includes
academic practices, but also other kinds of intellectual practices developed
in the context of social movements, adult education, state agencies, ‘the
arts’, ‘cultural industries’, museums and other institutional contexts. This
diversity of intellectual practices has something in common. They all share
both a cultural approach to relations of power, and a political perspective on
the socio-symbolic dimensions of social practices.
• Acknowledging the relevance of this shared animating drive behind the
diversity of these practices – as well as behind the specific forms of viewing
the relations between culture and power proper to each of them – would be
a first necessary step to open valuable political, epistemological and theoret-
ical possibilities of exchange among those involved.
• If we want to build upon these possibilities, a second step would be to learn
from the significant differences among that diversity of practices and their
specific forms of addressing issues of culture and power.
• Recent history in Latin America shows us the increasing quantitative and
qualitative importance of contexts for developing intellectual practices
outside of the academy. I believe that this significant change has not only
been taking place in Latin America, but also in other areas of the world. I
believe that the current moment of human history, with its associated
technological developments, could help us in discovering the need for

deconstructing and challenging the hegemony of writing in most represen-
tations of the idea of ‘the intellectual’. This is not only an invitation to think
of the importance of the new media, but also of some already existing
media: orality, performance, bodies in action and, of course, in the integra-
tion of all these means.
• It is in view of the former that I emphasize the significance of both criticizing
the hegemony of the idea of ‘the intellectual’, and exploring and interpreting
our social experience using the idea of ‘intellectual practices’. It is from using
this category, or way of viewing, that I highlight the significance of the field
of ‘intellectual practices in culture and power’.
• A salient aspect of the field conceived in this way is its transdisciplinarity.

But, this transdisciplinarity is not one that simply cuts across academic
disciplines; instead, it challenges the prevalent division of labour and favours
developing articulations between intellectuals in diverse institutional
contexts.
• In my experience, this way of representing the field and participating in
relationships with intellectuals from other institutional contexts calls our
attention about the ‘what for’, and ‘for whom’, of our research and teaching.
In this way, it opens room for new research questions and methods, as well
as for specific new theoretical elaborations. It involves epistemological and
political challenges.
• In my experience, this way of representing the field also opens the room for
rethinking the role of universities and their relationships with other institu-
tions and organizations. It opens space to rethink the curricula, our research
agendas and so-called ‘extension education’.
• The idea is to get well beyond the point of inviting someone from outside to
speak in a class or conference or, conversely, going outside the academy to
give a talk. The idea is working together, developing joint projects, building
sustained relationships of collaboration. The idea is not to study ‘about’, but
to study ‘with’ other social subjects.
• I am not saying that this is something already achieved in Latin America. On
the contrary, I believe this is something which some of us in Latin America,
as well as in other areas of the world, are working on, experiencing success
and frustration. This is why discussing it in a transnational context may be
useful for all of us.
Acknowledgements
This article builds upon the plenary lecture I gave at the 3rd International Cross-
roads in Cultural Studies Conference, Birmingham, June, 2000. My article in
Spanish,‘Estudios y otras Prácticas Intelectuales en Cultura y Poder’, was included
as the introductory essay in the book (Mato, 2002). Generous comments and
suggestions were made by numerous colleagues in reaction to those two former
texts. The book containing my article, as well as some other 30 articles referred
in this text, is available for free downloading from www.globcult.org.ve
References
Antonelli, Mirta (2002) ‘La intervención del intelectual como axiomática’. In Daniel
Mato (coord.) Estudios y Otras Prácticas Intelectuales Latinoamericanas en Cultura
y Poder. Caracas: Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales and
Universidad Central de Venezuela, 49–58.

Ardao, Arturo (1980) Génesis de la idea y el nombre de América Latina. Caracas: Centro
de Estudios Latinoamericanos Rómulo Gallegos.
Arizpe, Lourdes and Alonso, Guiomar (1991) Cultura, Comercio y Globalización.
In Daniel Mato (comp.) Estudios Latinoamericanos sobre Cultura y Transformaciones
Sociales en Tiempos de Globalización-2. Caracas y Buenos Aires: UNESCO and
Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales, 25–43.
Baptista, Selma (2002) ‘A construção cultural e política da etnicidade no Peru: José
Carlos Mariátegui, José Maria Arguedas e Rodrigo Montoya’. In Daniel Mato
(coord.) Estudios y Otras Prácticas Intelectuales Latinoamericanas en Cultura y Poder.
Caracas: Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales and Universidad
Central de Venezuela, 59–66.
Basile, Teresa (2002) ‘La Universidad Popular de las Madres de Plaza de Mayo:
emergencia de nuevas prácticas en cultura y poder en la Argentina de la
posdictadura’. In Daniel Mato (coord.) Estudios y Otras Prácticas Intelectuales
Latinoamericanas en Cultura y Poder. Caracas: Consejo Latinoamericano de
Ciencias Sociales and Universidad Central de Venezuela, 67–78.
Berger, Mark (1995) Under Northern Eyes. Latin American Studies and US Hegemony in
the Americas 1898–1990. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Bermúdez, Emilia (2002) ‘Procesos de Globalización e Identidades. Entre espantos,
demonios y espejismos. Rupturas y conjuros para lo “propio” y lo “ajeno” ’. In
Daniel Mato (coord.) Estudios y Otras Prácticas Intelectuales Latinoamericanas en
Cultura y Poder. Caracas: Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales and
Boal, Augusto (1980) Teatro del oprimido. México: Ed. Nueva Imagen.
Bonfil Batalla, Guillermo (1996) Mexico Profundo: Reclaiming a Civilization. Austin,
TX: University of Texas Press (original 1987, trans. Philip A. Dennis).
Dávalos, Pablo (2002) ‘Movimiento indígena ecuatoriano: Construcción política y
epistémica’. In Daniel Mato (coord.) Estudios y Otras Prácticas Intelectuales
Del Sarto, Ana (2002) ‘La sociología y la crítica cultural en Santiago de Chile.
Intermezzo dialógico: de límites e interinfluencias’. In Daniel Mato (coord.)
Estudios y Otras Prácticas Intelectuales Latinoamericanas en Cultura y Poder. Caracas:

Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales and Universidad Central de
Venezuela, 99–110.
El Achkar, Soraya (2002) ‘Una mirada a la educación en derechos humanos desde el
pensamiento de Paulo Freire: Prácticas de intervención político cultural’. In
Fals Borda, Orlando (1986) Conocimiento y Poder Popular. Bogotá: Siglo XXI.
Ferreira, Maria Candida (2002) ‘“Só a antropofagia nos une”’. In Daniel Mato
(coord.) Estudios y Otras Prácticas Intelectuales Latinoamericanas en Cultura y Poder.
Caracas: Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales and Universidad

Ford Foundation (1999) Crossing Borders. Revitalizing Area Studies. New York. Ford
Foundation.
Freire, Paulo (1970) Pedagogía del Oprimido. México: Siglo XXI.
—— (1993) Pedagogía de la Esperanza. México: Siglo XXI.
García Canclini, Néstor (1996) ‘Cultural studies questionnaire’. Journal of Latin
American Cultural Studies, 5(1): 83–7.
García, Illia (2002) ‘Representaciones de identidad y organizaciones sociales
afrovenezolanas’. In Daniel Mato (coord.) Estudios y Otras Prácticas Intelectuales
García, Jesús ‘Chucho’ (2002) ‘Encuentro y desencuentros de los “Saberes”. En
torno a la africanía ´latinoamericana’. In Daniel Mato (coord.) Estudios y Otras
Prácticas Intelectuales Latinoamericanas en Cultura y Poder. Caracas: Consejo
Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales (CLACSO) and Universidad Central de
Grimson, Alejandro and Varela, Mirta (2002) ‘Culturas populares, recepción y
política. Genealogías de los estudios de comunicación y cultura en la Argen-
tina’. In Daniel Mato (coord.) Estudios y Otras Prácticas Intelectuales Latino-
americanas en Cultura y Poder. Caracas: Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias
Sociales and Universidad Central de Venezuela, 153–66.
Heginbotham, Stanley (1994) ‘Rethinking international scholarship. The challenge
of transition from the Cold War era’. Items, 48(2–3), 33–41.
Hernández, Carmen (2002) ‘Más allá de la exotización y la sociologización del arte
latinoamericano’. In Daniel Mato (coord.): Estudios y Otras Prácticas Intelectuales
Jackson, Jean and Warren, Kay (eds) (2002) Indigenous Movements, Self-Representation
and the State in Latin America. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Juhász-Mininberg, Emeshe (2002) ‘ “Ninguna de las anteriores”: (dis)continuidades
conceptuales sobre identidad nacional en el caso de Puerto Rico’. In Daniel
y Poder. Caracas: Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales and Universidad

Maccioni, Laura (2002) ‘Valoración de la democracia y resignificacion de ‘política’y
‘cultura’: sobre las políticas culturales como metapolíticas’. In Daniel Mato (coord.)
Mato, Daniel (1998) ‘On the making of transnational identities in the age of
globalization: the US Latina/o–“Latin” American case’. Cultural Studies, 12(4):
598–620.
—— (1999) ‘Globalización, Representaciones Sociales y Transformaciones
Sociopolíticas’. Nueva Sociedad, 163: 152–63.

—— (2000a) ‘Transnational networking and the social production of representa-
tions of identities by indigenous peoples’ organizations of Latin America’.
International Sociology, 15(2): 343–60.
—— (2000b) ‘Not “studying the subaltern”, but studying with “subaltern” social
groups the global-local articulations of power’. Nepantla, 1(3): 479–502.
—— (2001) ‘Des-fetichizar la ´globalización´: basta de reduccionismos, apologías
y demonizaciones, mostrar la complejidad y las prácticas de los actores’. In
Daniel Mato (comp.) Estudios Latinoamericanos sobre Cultura y Transformaciones
Sociales en Tiempos de Globalización-2. Caracas y Buenos Aires: UNESCO and
Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales, 147–78.
—— (coord.) (2002) Estudios y Otras Prácticas Intelectuales Latinoamericanas en Cultura
y Poder. Caracas: Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales and Univer-
sidad Central de Venezuela.
Martín Barbero, Jesús (1997) ‘Nosotros habíamos hecho estudios culturales mucho
antes que esta etiqueta apareciera’. Entrevista a Jesús Martín-Barbero. Dissens,
3: 47–53.
Maybury-Lewis, David (ed.) (2002) The Politics of Ethnicity: Indigenous Peoples in Latin
American States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mignolo, Walter (1997) ‘Espacios geográficos y localizaciones epistemológicas: la
ratio entre la localización geográfica y la subalternización de conocimientos’.
Dissens Nro3: 1–18.
—— (2002) ‘El Potencial Epistemológico de la Historia Oral: Algunas Contribu-
ciones de Silvia Rivera Cusicanqui’. In Daniel Mato (coord.) Estudios y Otras
Prácticas Intelectuales Latinoamericanas en Cultura y Poder. Caracas: Consejo Latino-
americano de Ciencias Sociales and Universidad Central de Venezuela, 201–12.
Mijares, María Martha (2003) Propuestas para superar el racismo. In Daniel Mato
(coord.) Políticas de identidades y diferencias sociales en tiempos de globalización.
Caracas: Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Universidad Central de
Venezuela.
Monasterios, Gloria (2003) Abya Yala en Internet: Políticas comunicativas y repre-
sentaciones de identidad de organizaciones indígenas en el ciberespacio. In
Daniel Mato (coord.) Políticas de identidades y diferencias sociales en tiempos de
globalización. Caracas: Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales,

Universidad Central de Venezuela.
Moreno Fraginals, Manuel (1977) Africa en América Latina. México: Siglo XXI.
Ochoa Gautier, Ana Maria (2002) ‘Políticas culturales, academia y sociedad’. In
Pajuelo, Ramón (2002) ‘El lugar de la utopía. Aportes de Aníbal Quijano sobre
cultura y poder’. In Daniel Mato (coord.) Estudios y Otras Prácticas Intelectuales
Ciencias Sociales (CLACSO) and Universidad Central de Venezuela, 225–34.
Pajuelo, Ramón (2003) Fronteras, representaciones y movimientos étnicos en los

países centroandinos en tiempos de globalización. In Daniel Mato (coord.)
Políticas de identidades y diferencias sociales en tiempos de globalización. Caracas:
Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Universidad Central de Vene-
zuela.
Pavlovsky, Eduardo (1994) La ética del cuerpo, conversaciones con Jorge Dubatti. Buenos
Aires: Los Ediciones Babilonia.
Poblete, Juan (2002) ‘Trayectoria crítica de Angel Rama: la dialéctica de la produc-
ción cultural entre autores y públicos’. In Daniel Mato (coord.) Estudios y Otras
Prácticas Intelectuales Latinoamericanas en Cultura y Poder. Caracas: Consejo Lati-
noamericano de Ciencias Sociales and Universidad Central de Venezuela,
235–46.
Rama, Angel (1985) La Ciudad Letrada. Montevideo: Fundación Angel Rama.
Rappaport, Joanne (2003) ‘El espacio del diálogo pluralista: Historia del Programa
de Educación Bilingüe del Consejo Regional Indígena del Cauca’. In Daniel
Mato (coord.) Políticas de identidades y diferencias sociales en tiempos de globaliza-
ción. Caracas: Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Universidad
Central de Venezuela.
Richard, Nelly (2001) ‘La problemática del feminismo en los años de la transición
en Chile’. In Daniel Mato (comp.) Estudios Latinoamericanos sobre Cultura y
Transformaciones Sociales en Tiempos de Globalización-2. Caracas y Buenos Aires:
UNESCO and Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales, 227–40.
Ríos, Alicia (2002) ‘Los Estudios Culturales y el estudio de la cultura en América
Latina’. In Daniel Mato (coord.) Estudios y Otras Prácticas Intelectuales Latino-
americanas en Cultura y Poder. Caracas: Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias
Rosas Mantecón, Ana (2002) ‘Los estudios sobre consumo cultural en México’. In
Sant´Anna, Catarina (2002) ‘Poder e Cultura: as lutas de resistência crítica a través
de duas experiências tetarais’. In Daniel Mato (coord.) Estudios y Otras
Prácticas Intelectuales Latinoamericanas en Cultura y Poder. Caracas: Consejo
Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales and Universidad Central de Venezuela,

265–76.
Sarlo, Beatriz (1997) ‘Cultural studies questionnaire’. Journal of Latin American
Cultural Studies, 6(1): 85–92.
Sovik, Liv (2002) ‘“O Haiti é aqui / O Haiti não é aquí”: Música Popular, Depend-
ência Cultural e Identidade Brasileira na Polêmica Schwarz-Silviano’. In Daniel
y Poder. Caracas: Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales (CLACSO) y
CEAP, FACES, Universidad Central de Venezuela, 277–86.
Stavenhagen, Rodolfo (1988) Derecho indígena y derechos humanos en América Latina.
México: Colegio de México.
Sunkel, Guillermo (2002) ‘Una mirada otra. La cultura desde el Consumo’. In

Tinker Salas, Miguel and Valle, Maria Eva (2002) ‘Cultura, poder e identidad: la
dinámica y trayectoria de los intelectuales chicanos en los Estados Unidos’. In
Vargas Valente, Virginia (2002) ‘Los feminismos latinoamericanos en su tránsito al
nuevo Milenio. (Una lectura político personal)’. In Daniel Mato (coord.)
Walsh, Catherine and Garcia, Juan (2002) ‘El pensar del emergente movimiento
afroecuatoriano. Reflexiones (des)de un proceso’. In Daniel Mato (coord.)
Wortman, Ana (2002) ‘Vaivenes del campo intelectual político cultural en la Argen-
tina’. In Daniel Mato (coord.) Estudios y Otras Prácticas Intelectuales Latinoamer-
icanas en Cultura y Poder. Caracas: Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias
Yúdice, George (2002) ‘Los Estudios Culturales y la nueva división internacional del
Trabajo Cultural, o cómo se colabora y se contiende en la construcción de una
transdisciplina transnacional’. In Daniel Mato (coord.) Estudios y Otras Prácticas
Intelectuales Latinoamericanas en Cultura y Poder. Caracas: Consejo Latino-
americano de Ciencias Sociales and Universidad Central de Venezuela,
339–52.

Mato, D. Latin American Intellectuaal Practices in Culture and Power. Experiences and Debates

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mato, D. Latin American Intellectuaal Practices in Culture and Power. Experiences and Debates

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [New York University]

On: 05 October 2014, At: 06:03

Latin American intellectual practices in culture and

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0950238032000150020

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

LATIN AMERICAN INTELLECTUAL

784 CUL T UR A L S T UDIES

O NE OF THE TWO main lines of argumentation of this text turns around

Recent tendencies to the exclusion of certain intellectual

LA T IN AMER IC AN INT ELLE C T UAL PR A C T IC ES 785

as the number of publications in peer-reviewed journals (preferably those of

786 CUL T UR A L S T UDIES

the theoretical perspective, the research questions and the methodological

• The increasing importance of transnational networks of social agents in the

LA T IN AMER IC AN INT ELLE C T UAL PR A C T IC ES 787

The existence of these transnational networks is not historically unique, but in

788 CUL T UR A L S T UDIES

On the idea of intellectual practices

LA T IN AMER IC AN INT ELLE C T UAL PR A C T IC ES 789

The debate regarding the diversity of intellectual practices is crucial in

expenditures, including university budgets, diminish opportunities for academic

‘Latin American cultural studies?’

790 CUL T UR A L S T UDIES

translation and a-critical adoption of the label ‘cultural studies’. In Latin

LA T IN AMER IC AN INT ELLE C T UAL PR A C T IC ES 791

cases of publishing houses marketing their publications, and universities

792 CUL T UR A L S T UDIES

Bhabha’s country of origin, he writes in English, and García Canclini writes in

LA T IN AMER IC AN INT ELLE C T UAL PR A C T IC ES 793

794 CUL T UR A L S T UDIES

Latin American intellectual practices in culture and power

LA T IN AMER IC AN INT ELLE C T UAL PR A C T IC ES 795

conceivable as unpopulated, barbarian or underdeveloped. To avoid the com-

governmental organizations. In some cases, these other practices involve the

796 CUL T UR A L S T UDIES

LA T IN AMER IC AN INT ELLE C T UAL PR A C T IC ES 797

798 CUL T UR A L S T UDIES

Finally, in view of the comprehensive representation of ‘Latin America’

LA T IN AMER IC AN INT ELLE C T UAL PR A C T IC ES 799

technological developments, could help us in discovering the need for

• A salient aspect of the field conceived in this way is its transdisciplinarity.

800 CUL T UR A L S T UDIES

Universidad Central de Venezuela, 49–58.

LA T IN AMER IC AN INT ELLE C T UAL PR A C T IC ES 801

Estudios y Otras Prácticas Intelectuales Latinoamericanas en Cultura y Poder. Caracas:

Caracas: Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales and Universidad

802 CUL T UR A L S T UDIES

y Poder. Caracas: Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales and Universidad

Sociopolíticas’. Nueva Sociedad, 163: 152–63.

LA T IN AMER IC AN INT ELLE C T UAL PR A C T IC ES 803

globalización. Caracas: Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales,

Pajuelo, Ramón (2003) Fronteras, representaciones y movimientos étnicos en los

804 CUL T UR A L S T UDIES

Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales and Universidad Central de Venezuela,

Sunkel, Guillermo (2002) ‘Una mirada otra. La cultura desde el Consumo’. In

You might also like