PROSPECTS OF M E S T I Z A J E AND PLURICULTURAL DEMOCRACY: THE VENEZUELAN CASE OF AN IMAGINED AND A REAL VENEZUELAN SOCIETYBERTA E. PÉREZ e ABEL A. PEROZO Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas (IVIC) Introduction This essay is a historic-political analysis of mestizaje from which a new interpretation is proposed. Such new perspective is aimed at examining the biological and/or cultural mixing among different cultural segments or individuals for “what it is,” rather than to continue viewing it from “what it has become.” From this latter aspect, mestizaje is “(...) an elite-generated myth of national identity (...) [that] tends to obscure the conditions of its own creation, to cover its own tracks” (Hale 1996: 2). But once unmasked, it is an ideological instrument of power fabricated by and utilized among the elite for the preservation of its own socio-economic and political interests. As contrary as it may seem from the above statement, the large and growing body of literature on mestizaje has correctly evinced its polysemic and complex character through history and between regions of Latin America and the Caribbean. The dynamic and changing nature of m estizaje , for instance, has been revealed in contexts such as: politics of identity formation in a given time and space (Gould, 1996; Hale, 1996b), subaltern identity (Klor de Alva, 1995), historical process (Pérez forthcoming a; Perozo and Pérez ms.; Segato, 1998; Quijano, 2000), and alternative or contested meanings aimed at the official discourse (Briones, 1998; Fuente, 1998; Ra mos, 2001; Sheriff, 2000). Yet, all these distinct scholarly findings are to be expected in that these are a warrant product or response to an only available and insoluble equation of mestizaje for being made intrinsic and sui generis Anuário Antropológico/2000-2001 Rio de Janeiro: Tempo Brasileiro, 2003:119-146 119 I’K( )SI*IÍC T S OF M E S T IZ A J E AND PLURICULTURAL DEMOCRACY lo mosi Latin American and Caribbean countries. That is, mestizaje became csscntialized as solely an “elite-generated myth of national identity,” and yet contested even before it became unmasked. But it is precisely this continuous counterhegemonic discourse directed at the official myth where the problem lies. Other more realistic interpretations of mestizaje that could perhaps aid towards the restructuring of a better society, cannot surface while this exclusive vision of mestizaje continues to be contested by the academia and inclusively by the people affected by it. The aim of this essay is thus to offer a new vision of mestizaje that has been otherwise artfully twisted by the Venezuelan elite1 in order to express a homogenous mestizo culture in Venezuela. In accord to this imposed view, the Venezuelan elite was faced with a considerable number of mestizo people in the process of the state and nation building that began in the middle of the 19th century. As a result, the Venezuelan elite had to consider mestizaje as an allinclusive process in order to portray a Venezuelan society free of racism. And yet, to delicately envelop it with the ideology of blanqueamiento (or whitening) in order to give an image of a society that promised progress, development, and modernization. Such new connotation of mestizaje was artfully elaborated as a result of very creative interpretations made by the Venezuelan elite from the ideological currents of Spencerian positivism and Darwinian evolutionism. In this sense, the social base that has supported Venezuela as a nation-state is the criollo ,2 and as a concept analogous to that of a “cosmic race” (Vasconcelos, 1948 [1925]), it has been equated with national identity. 1 For the purpose o f this essay, the Venezuelan elite corresponds to V enezuela as a nation-state. In the colonial period, for instance, the Venezuelan elite w as formed by a powerful group o f white Spaniards, w ho were responsible for the co llectin g o f tributes for the Spanish Crown, and by w hite criollos (European descendants, born in Venezuela - also refer to note 2). With the initial formation o f the republic (1 8 3 0 ’s), the Venezuelan colonial elite was substituted for a Venezuelan republican elite with the white criollos on top and in the next social stratum, the inclusión o f political and military contingents that em erged from the independence feat. T his re-com posing process w as historically maintained throughout the formation o f V enezuela as a nation-state and by the effects o f a series o f events that involved socio-political change, such as the Guerra Federal (or Federal War - 1859), the R evolución Restauradora (or R estorative R evolution 1898), and the advent o f dem ocracy and o f political parties (1945). 2. T he term “c riollo” is an ideological construct by the V enezuelan elite to define those individuals or groups that are biologically and culturally m ixed. And as such, it conceals the existing cultural diversity, even w ithin the criollo. Originally, criollo corresponded to the descendants o f the 120 g. to the invisibility o f the black populations in Venezuela. there w as also a large m ass o f pardos or m estizos. others definitely reject it as a continuous form of resistance. PÉREZ e ABEL A..3 mestizaje has been an essential and yet a common biological and/or cultural process of survival for all existing cultures ever since the human species began its diaspora across the planet. w ho were counterpoised with indigenous and black populations in V enezuela. while some of these subordinate groups or individuals either become assimilated into or trickily play within the vertical or hierarchical political paradigm of domination. as once thought. Sim ón B olívar was one o f the first to propose such integration) allotted the pardos with the term criollo (refer to note 8). Such juxtaposition led. But what does this adversary response to the dominant paradigm mean? Or to phrase it differently: What have these excluded groups or individuals done to guarantee their own cultural reproduction. But in asymmetrical political contexts through time and space. T he need for their integration and participation in these events by the white criollos (e. Hence. that the sam e g en es are not necessarily shared or found am ong the distinct cultural groups that have the sam e color o f skin. and production across time and space? Or what has been the mechanism utilized for cultural resistance and survival among other available strategies? In order to answer these questions. W ithin the Venezuelan colonial caste system . That is. m estizaje can also occur am ong those distinct cultural groups that have the sam e skin color. Therefore.g . which became progressively ingrained in the socio-political and economic paradigm generated and fed by the Venezuelan elite. The pardos. this mestizaje can also take the form of resistance when groups are encountered by or are being subjected to the domination of a common enemy. we begin with the premise that regardless of the skin color. 3. Without mestizaje there is not survival because cultures are not as once thought isolated islands. w hich becam e thus juxtaposed to the indigenous social caste. representation. 121 .. cultures are not. the interpretation of mestizaje from the inside view of subordinate groups is of an excluding process as it obviates cultural diversity. the official discourse of mestizaje. Spanish colonizers. in bio lo g ica l terms. Here. excludes those groups or individuals who do not abide to its incorporated ideology of blanqueamiento. form ed part o f the leadership in the War o f Independence and in the form ation o f the republic. in turn. It is important to state. however. ahistorical and passive recipients. again. they w ere classified w ithin the Venezuelan colonial caste system as white criollos and formed part o f the V enezuelan colonial elite through land ow nership and the control o f produce (e. cacao) derived from their land. PEROZO In contrast.BERTA E. At the level of autonomous political decisions. the Venezuelan elite often ch ooses other white groups (e. these groups or individuals share enough similar interests from which to establish nonhierarchically social. for its obvious or too familiar intrinsic quality. representation. Or perhaps. these networks and alliances are not fixed. 4. this m estizaje does not exclude the Venezuelan elite. cam pesinos or peasants. 122 . we have arrived at interpreting mestiz. And its practice is.. this mestizaje becomes more visible in rural areas inhabited by those cultural segments (e. because it has been precisely obscured and down played by this elite ideology that has become so naturalized in our society. this is not an imposed process by a particular group onto others with the intention to dominate or to defend and protect its own particular interests. subjugated.I’k o s m 'I S OI*' M E S T IZ A J E AND PLURICULTURAL DEMOCRACY This kind of mestizaje is present. Yet. and production. and religious networks and alliances on behalf of their own cultural reproduction. Italians.. Indigenous Peoples. we find it necessary to reveal this other vision of mestizaje because it has not yet been addressed. perhaps. But contrary to mestizaje as an elite ideology. and we have thus labeled it “resistant mestizaje". While the elite ideology is not undermined by its importance of being an imposed view that has been made real.4 Although culturally different. and production in situations of external threat or in times of need.g. and Portuguese) in order lo survive and resist as w ell. But for being both the creator and practitioner o f (he official m estizaje. Based on these observations. representation. and/or real or fictitious kinship relations.g. sui generis to the real rather than to the “im agined” (A nderson. it is these interactions that permit and make viable their cultural reproduction. and llaneros or plainsmen) that have been subordinated. 1997 [1983]) Venezuelan society elaborated by the elite. religiosity. economic. rather. for instance. thus. A fro-V enezuelans. in the lowland region of Venezuela. We have defined it more concretely as: a cultural process of resistance and survival that is based on horizontal political networks and alliances made among subordinated groups in historical contexts of trade. Yet. bellicosity.aje as a symbol o f and fo r a process of cultural resistance and survival. As we shall see later in the essay. political. Nor is it used to evaluate or judge the purity or the gamma of skin tones for allowing or preventing upward social mobility of others. or made subaltern by the Venezuelan elite. G ermans. they fluctuate according to each group’s needs and interests. Or to be more precise. In the colonial period.g . 1984. and rights of all the distinct groups that constitute a society. these truly formed pluricultural and multiethnic societies are often referred to as “utopias” for being volatile.5 The elaboration of an allegedly utopian society. However. Ramos. 1996. rather that to anchor on foreign models as it has become customary in many Latin American and Caribbean countries. V enezuelan) are restrained by those in power... supra-ethnic) with som e elem ents o f verticality. would be required if resistant mestizaje were to function at the national level. PÉREZ e ABEL A. distortion of its meaning has been made in accord to the ideological currents that were used towards the formation of Venezuela as a nation-state in order to preserve the status quo. W hile the necessary m echanism s for the proper functioning o f pluralism in som e societies (e.or for the functioning of pluralism within societies (Arvelo-Jiménez. But both cases present a sim ilar situation o f dom ination that g o es beyond the capitalist/socialist nature o f V enezuela and Yugoslavia (or even the S oviet U nion). radical changes in the structural bases of the nation-state would be needed for Venezuelans to build a truly pluricultural and m ultiethnic democracy that as a political system in that society. As a matter of fact. 123 . while still been sustained by elements of verticality within an alternative political system. and it is this dom ination that generates volatility. respectively. would recognize cultu ral duties. there w as a caste system o f racial categories and boundaries. Y ugoslavian) the proper integration and functioning o f a horizontal system (i. there exists the essence of a true democracy that.. One particular local model that comes to mind for the case of Venezuela and which will be amply discussed later in this essay. Maybury-Lewis. PEROZO Resistant mestizaje has been camouflaged or repressed by an official discourse of mestizaje because it goes against the socio-political and economic interests of the Venezuelan elite as well as against the nature of the nation state that protects that elite. other current scholarly studies have presented prospects for the proper functioning of plural societies . 1995. privileges. Thus. 6.BERTA E. Among these prospects. it would allow resistant mestizaje to function properly without discriminatory barriers.6 Yet. however. 2001). is the System 5. which also diluted resistant m estizaje.g. Bonfil Batalla. becom e problem atic or difticult to maintain. in others (e. I posit that the functioning of pluralism within these societies can be propitiated if their respective socio-cultural segments seriously acknowledge and positively value their own past or former local models.e. Arvelo-Jiménez and Castillo. meet. Méndez and Castillo. or hear of most of their fellow-members (1997 [1983]: 23). The Venezuelan Scenario The Imagined Venezuelan Society As rightly suggested by Benedict Anderson (1997 [1983]: 23). The Venezuelan society is thus imagined because it brings Venezuelan people together and in communion as members of the nation-state. The first one promotes domination and the second proposes resistance and survival. can be visualized as two discourses and two practices of mestizaje : One manipulated by the Venezuelan elite and the other by those cultural segments that have been racially and culturally discriminated. And as far as mestizaje is concerned. This section is important not only in that any aspect about Venezuela is very little known abroad. which is inherently limited and sovereign. 1989). The second part thus offers the new interpretation or prospects of mestizaje. But the main point is that these past or former local models definitely enclose significant information that would aid in the (re)construction of better political mechanisms through which ethnic differences and cultural diversity can be resolved. and which I leave as a focus of reflection to the readers. This essay is thus divided as follows: the first part presents a brief review of mestizaje in the Venezuelan scenario.I’ROSIMXTS OF M E S T I Z A J E AND PLURICULTURAL DEMOCRACY of the Orinoco Regional Interdependence [SORI] pioneered by Nelly ArveloJiménez (1981. But do the distinct cultural segments that constitute the Venezuelan 124 . Both parts. 1994. which provides the relevance of our interpretations on mestizaje for the current Venezuelan socio-political scenario. Arvelo-Jiménez. which highlights the creation of an imagined society by the Venezuelan elite and the true consequences of it as depicted in the real Venezuelan society. 2001. even when they will never know. the ima gine community is an ideological construction seeking to forge a link between heterogeneity and a homogenous political entity or nation-state. in a sense. but also because it would provide an adequate historic-political context from which to understand the new interpretation proposed on mestizaje. The last section entails the concluding remarks. it has been utilized as a symbol o /and fo r cultural homogeneity and national identity. Others picked and chose according to what seemed to fit reality as they knew it” (1990: 3). In both of these socio-cultural contextualized stages of historical processes. Skurski. progress. socio-econom ic. It had to 7. PEROZO society enjoy equal duties. 1994. These were: (1) a colonial caste system of racial categories and boundaries. which influenced som e countries (e. 1990. the Venezuelan people were characterized by the Venezuelan elite as biologically and/or culturally mixed and varied . and Argentina) to whiten their population . Amerindian. Brazil. PÉREZ e ABEL A. Graham. and political reasons. these countries still obviated and denied the cultural diversity o f their population. 1990).although the process o f blanqueamiento was quicker in Argentina for historical. by North Americans. Wright.g.. Resistant mestizaje becam e distorted with the penetration o f the dominant racial theories. United States) to segregate their nonwhite populations. This dilemma centered between the process of constituting a nation-state under a communion of a national identity based on mestizaje and of achieving the kind of development.. and African. and privileges? Or why and how was this imagined Venezuelan society ideologically constructed? By the m iddle of the 19th century. 125 . mestizaje took on distinct characteristics and meanings in accord to the dominant racial theories of the time. mestizaje became an ideological construct for interpreting and justifying the outcomes of political intercultural relations that occurred since colonialism and that were a product of imposed political systems. The latter groups based these advancements on the belief of the superiority and civilized nature of the white race.a mixed of Spanish. Although blanqueamiento did not involved official segregation. and (2) a homogenous mestizo or criollo culture and a hidden agenda of blanqueamiento. and modernization as those attained by Europeans and subsequently. This mestizaje is the result of historical processes that originated with the conquest and colonization of this region by Iberian colonizers (or the Spaniards). 1976.g. “Some [Latin American countries] accepted European racist theory without question. rights. According to Richard Graham.BERTA E. and others (e. and persisted and continued throughout the formation of Venezuela as a nation-state. Venezuela. The latter aspect suggests that mestizaje presented a dilemma to Venezuelan intellectuals and elite for its ambiguous character with the prevailing ideological currents of Spencerian positivism and Darwinian evolutionism (Boulton.7 As the Venezuela's emblem of a nation-state and of a national identity. For Venezuela. mestizaje had to be incorporated and used to the country’s own advantage. Rojas.. the Venezuelan intellectuals utilized it in a symbolic way to differentiate Venezuela from the United States. for instance.g. explains: Our new race results to be anthropologically m ixed. the pardos 8 were to be integrated with the white criollos in order 8.. the influence of Venezuelan positivist evolutionism thinkers of the late 19th (e. Gil Fortoul.. The pardos passed on to be criollos or m estizos in the 19th century (refer to notes 1 and 2). The achievement of the latter goal was to be realized through the mixing of Venezuelans with whiter cultural groups.). Thus. Amerindian. Pedro Manuel Arcaya. indigenous peoples. and African into one image and yel.. made the latter reject the notion that mestizaje would lead to the weakened of the offspring.). While the indigenous and black peoples were hoped to disappear either through a process of mestizaje or by their simple withdrawal onto remote enclaves. on the one hand. development. a belief that was often preached by North American racist thinkers.) w e belong to a new race: the Venezuelan.. but psychologically stabled and unified (. 1983: 194-195). 1990: 73-76)..) manifested through predominant characters o f Spanish elem ent and very deep sediments left by the other two elem ents [Indian and African] (. The Venezuelan intellectuals and the elite feared the North Americans’ expansionism into Venezuela as this could possibly bring racial attitudes with it. it is a great error to attach backwardness to Latin Am erica. According to Arcaya.. In Latin Am erica. when it m eans an enormous progress that can be perceived in the com parison o f any o f our men o f mixed blood with the Indian or African past (..I'l« >SI'I< I S <> 1 M E S T IZ A J E AND PLUR1CULTURAL DEMOCRACY embrace and represent the Spaniard. Villavicencio. 126 . the Venezuelan race had inherited the best human qualities from each racial group. and modernization. to generate a “better” population that would promise progress. (Arcaya. and Arcaya) on the Venezuelan elite. the Venezuelan elite believed that the pardos. the fusion o f all races w as the rule Therefore. which is worthy o f being called a historical race (. And on the other hand. such as racial segregation and violence that the Venezuelans abhorred (Wright. and Marcano) and of the early 20"' century (e.. and blacks could not govern themselves. used it as a mechanism to deter the filtering of hegemony from the United States into the region as it had already become evident in the Caribbean during the early 20th century. Vallenilla Lanz.g. However contradictory as it may seem. In addition to sustaining m estizaje analogously to a cosmic race.. and (3) the strengthening of the Venezuelan mestizo population on behalf of the betterment of its socio-political and economic conditions. they were still concerned about the further progress.. PÉREZ e ABEL A. In this context. 1948). “notions o f mestizaje were (. Faye Harrison states that: (. 1950.) permeated with a ‘whitening superiority’” (Pérez Sarcluy and Stubbs. In reality.h a s r ep re sen te d a m easu re o f “im provem ent” (through admixture and/or the lightening o f class m obility) for people w hose A frican [and indigenous] origins were historically defined in terms o f cultural d eficien cy and racial inferiority (1995: 55). the Venezuelan dominant culture. 127 . thus.) a m ultiplicity o f graded socioracial categories does not necessarily signify an a b s e n c e o f r a cism ( . affirm that racial differences were absorbed in the process of the nation’s formation (Liscano. 1995: 4). Pollak-Eltz. Morón.. ) th e c o lo r c o n tin u u m . (2) the assimilation and acculturation of indigenous and black peoples who desired to become part of the mainstream Venezuelan society. An opinion shared among them is that mestizaje is an all-inclusive selection...) Venezuelan elite often saw the actual state o f racial m ixing as a m anifestation o f retrogression and a cause o f national stagnation and disorder that could be cured only 9. .. and modernization of their country. As a result. the Venezuelan elite needed to safeguard its socio-econ om ic and political interests through the developm ent o f econ om ic m odels that were in harmony with capitalist accumulation and with the subordination and marginality o f the m asses. correctly states: (. for instance. Therefore.BERTA E. mestizaje for the Venezuelan intellectuals and elite meant: (1) the blending of human races that solved potential racial tensions and conflicts. 1988. even more so biologically and/or culturally.. for instance.. its already existing mestizo population. 1979. Many Venezuelan scholars. which brings about homogeneity and harmony that best describes the Venezuelan people. Yet. development. 1971. supported the immigration of white Europeans in order to whiten. PEROZO to form a wider social base from which to build a homogenous mestizo culture. Uslar Pietri. In essence.. and 1993. nor were the cause of the socio economic marginality lived by indigenous peoples and blacks. Winthrop Wright.. these scholars maintain that differences in the color of the skin neither propitiated racism in Venezuela.9 Although the Venezuelan intellectuals and elite perceived mestizaje as the uniting national thread. the need to bring in white Europeans for the infusion of more white blood into the Venezuelan population was proclaimed by the Venezuelan elite ever since 1823 (Izard. “Venezuelans wanted to dilute the café (or coffee) as much as possible with leche (or milk)” (1990: 2).I’l« >SI>HCTS OF M E S T IZ A J E AND PLURICULTURAL DEMOCRACY by the infusion o f more white blood. a founding father of the AD party. for instance. Thus. It was not until 1914 and much more after the Second World War that Venezuela began to receive white European immigrants. economic. expresses: Our im m igration policy fo llo w ed a definite so cio lo g ical concept. it still advocated the whitening of the Venezuelan population. that is. We wanted the immigrant to increase our production and to fill the country. both to the nation’s long-standing labor and econom ic problems and to its political stability (1990: 96). For them whitening the population offered the only sen sib le solution. W hile the year o f 1936 m arked for Venezuelans the birth and growth of democracy. 1976:18). while prohibiting it to nonwhite immigrants. In agreement with Wright. the year of 1958 (to the present) meant the consolidation of that democracy as a political system and of its respective theoretic-political bases. We did not consider the 128 . Both national and international affairs heightened the sensitivity of many Venezuelans toward democracy as a healthy political regime as well as toward the appreciation of cultural diversity. Thus. since 1891. but also challenged whitening social policies. This preference of more milk in the Venezuelan’s coffee was seen in the attitudes of the elite as it ostensibly fomented. the Venezuelan society did not remain the same. Yet. political. the entry of white Europeans. and ideological platform it offered. AD opened its membership doors to individuals of all colors and social classes in order for them to become advocates of its party platform. its influence continued to prevail in the mind of Venezuelan elite. many political and econom ic changes. between 1936 and 1958. Venezuela experienced. Although the Venezuelan current of positivist evolutionism declined by 1935. perhaps. Rómulo Betancourt. and thus the spin off of political parties.AD (or Democratic Action) became. But the poor economic and political conditions were a factor for the failure of many of the national programs developed for bringing in white Europeans into the country. Acción Democrática . Among the competing political parties. it did not only encompass a multi-racial and m ulti-class political movement. the most successful for the social. In fact. Chávez has divided the Venezuelan society between those groups that have been subordinated. (1969: 527). received and continues to operate under this imagined Venezuelan society. AD made a little twist to the political discourse of mestizaje and blanqueamiento as a way to include and advocate the myth of racial democracy as part of its party rhetoric. in acrwllar” the immigrant by incorporating him in our national soil and in our world still in formation. That is. on the contrary.” the end result was the same. He assu mes. The natural way to reach this objective w as to put the immigrant to live in mixed com m unities in order to mix his blood with that o f the native people (.). campesinos. The V enezuelan m id dle-class progressively em erged in the 1960's.. Círculos Bolivarianos or Bolivarian Circles).g.BERTA E. 129 . however.. A lth o u g h this p o litic a l p arty c o n tin u e s at the fo re fro n t in the institutionalization of democracy in Venezuela.. It grew and becam e strongly consolidated as a result o f the oil boom generated by the G u lf War. and Cuban revolutionary mechanisms (e. the Venezuelan elite to these groups. intentionally or not. and that has served to set the bases for the creation of an imagined Venezuelan society. As a result. AD has abided to the elite ideology of mestizaje that its political counterparts have always supported and shared. PÉREZ e ABEL A. AfroVenezuelans. We were w orried.. But if the original intention of AD were to progressively implement a true racial democracy in Venezuela. PEROZO white man as such or the European as superior to the V enezuelan m ixed blood. Chavez has juxtaposed. or made subaltern (e. This new positioning of actors has opened the Pandora box of delicate 10. filled with our m ango and tamarind trees. subjugated. populism. it unfortunately failed for not been able or not been allowed to materialize it. We were not interested in a transfer o f civilization as one might bring som e S w iss pine saplings to g iv e style to a tropical garden.1 0Through his strong and fervent support on those groups that are both socio-economically most needed and placed on the periphery. Indigenous Peoples. and llaneros) by the Venezuelan elite and the Venezuelan elite that he defines as oligarchs.g. President of the República Bolivariana de Venezuela (or the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela) since 1999. while leaving out and ignoring the middle class. the 1945 political banner of the AD party that was anchored on an old fashioned Marxist thought. but radicalizes this discourse by adding to it echoes of Fascism. But whether the aim was to “acriollar ” or to “ blanquear . Hugo Rafael Chávez Frias. the presence of a powerful elite. differences in perception and treatm ent o f people across the socio-economic strata are a reality. however. of class consciousness in their society. it is too early to say what would the transformations be in the imagined Venezuelan society and how these would affect the real Venezuelan society under Chavez’ administration. The Real Venezuelan Society Although Venezuelans are characterized as mestizos by the elite. racism and class antagonism) that have been dormant until now. the vision and practice of political democracy still remains within a vertical and exclusive paradigm. and the prevalence of a belief in a nation-state as culturally homogenous. their socio-economic marginality and exclusion from society have been sustained by the nation-state’s disregard of their socio-cultural profile and histories . That is. In other words. But while most Venezuelan scholars (Bermudez and Suárez. they claim that the well-being and socio-economic success (or upward social mobility) of a person is not attributed to the color of the skin or ethnic origin. status. This disregard is further supported by an official history that minimizes ethnic differences and cultural diversity in order to reinforce.or what has been classified and known today as indio genérico or generic indian (Pérez 2000a). have been left in a disadvantageous position as a result of the political relations and conditions between them and the nation state. Som e exam ples are the Eastern V enezuela fishing com m unities and the Venezuelan A ndean agricultural com m unities. they admit the presence. represent differentiated cultural aggregates that in som e cases allude to historical and cultural roots . 1993) deny the existence of racism. even though do not necessarily express a specific cultural or ethnic con sciou sn ess. nuclei of indigenous peoples and blacks are still prevalent in the country today. the protection of that elite’s socio-economic and political interests. however. such as the degree of education (that is." These groups.or more strongly stated. 1979. 1988. the “knowing how to act”). For now. identity. ideologically. but to other variables. and native rights (or derechos originarios). 11. Yel. 1995.g. There are other socio-cultural segm ents that.I'l« )S!>I ( "I S OH M E S T IZ A J E AND PLURICULTURAL DEMOCRACY issues (e. Hence. of their cultural or ethnic ancestry. Pollak-Eltz. 130 .. 1981. Ecuador.. Angelina PollakEltz. condemns their own cultural or ethnic identity to neglect. such as education. as well as communication and road systems among others? Nevertheless. education. for example. lack of educational opportunities for the rural sector. 1990. medical services.. the interpretation of lack of racism and the existence of class difference have only constituted a justification of the status quo. respectively). occupation. and little spatial mobility until recently” (1979: 31). the answer is that “both factors [social and racial] are so intertwined that it is difficult to separate them (.BERTA E. While mestizaje. have shown w hat otherw ise is not openly and loudly proclaimed: that class discourse encodes racism. Stutzman. But what opportunities can Indigenous Peoples. This is due to class differences. Pollak-Eltz admits in another article that the problems of socio-economic marginality have not been analyzed in racial terms (1993: 4). In this sense. 1995. PEROZO wealth. more or less. Wright. we argue that the colonial thread of racial prejudice and discrimination has been maintained. Wright additionally highlights that many Venezuelans said that. This is to say that the Venezuelan society may appear to reflect racial democracy. however. in order to keep and maintain the subordinate groups in the condition of powerless. PÉREZ e ABEL A. But studies conducted in Colombia. “hey disliked blacks only because they were poor” (1990: 5). and influence among other aspects. and Venezuela (Streicker.) poverty and skin color tend to integrate themselves into one and indissoluble equation” (1993: 18). has served as a mechanism to portray a Venezuelan society free of racial conflicts and tensions. employment. their inclusion to society. it is also to the interest of the Venezuelan elite not to invest in areas. Afro-Venezuelans. among the Venezuelan elite for it continues to hinder on the socio-economic and political prosperity of the distinct cultural segments that make-up the lower economic strata of the Venezuelan society. states that “the majority of Afrovenezuelans belong to the lower strata of society. and other cultural segments have when their socio economic experience is characterized by the lack of or poor conditions in housing. It is thus im portant to ask: Should studies on socio-econom ic marginality be analyzed in racial terms or vice-versa? Can one of these two factors not influence or affect the other? Can one obscure or mask the other'/ As Alfredo Toro Hardy points out. That is. But in retrospect. And in his study of racism in Venezuela. on the one hand. especially in cases where there have been socio-political and economic rise and mobility by a few subordinate groups or individuals. those who 131 . And in turn. Ronald Stutzman expresses it well both in the title of his essay. as well as cultural or ethnic recognition are reduced to a minimum. the society. as a goal o f sociopolitical action. thanks for the exclusion . Blanqueamiento is a racist mechanism. Although this decree was counteracted by many members of the colonial Venezuelan elite. or who reach respected socio-political or economic ranking positions. for instance.or dispensations from color). genetically and culturally. the immigration of white Europeans for the purpose of increasing the whitening of the national mestizo population. social. de Friedemann. is discriminatory in the light o f the existing diversity o f socio-racial groups that demand their rights for identity. El Mestizaje: an all-inclusive ideology o f exclusion and in the following statement that he makes in reference to his work in Ecuador: ( . Yet. have had to undergo through a process of mestizaje that exclusively leans on the ideology of blanqueamiento and at the expense of ethnic difference and cultural diversity. . Indians and blacks w ho are absorbed in a mixed blood population w hose goals are to whiten. as already stated earlier in this essay. Nina S. ) this “selectiv e process” is referred to as blanqueamiento .a putative lightening or “w hitening” o f the population in both the biogenetic and cultural-behavioral senses o f the term bianco. and biological m ovem ent and change (1981: 49). and even the physical characteristics o f the dom inant class are taken by members o f that class to be the objective o f all cultural. The praxis of blanqueamiento became more evident in Venezuela.. in 1891 when the dominant population lawfully prohibited the entry of black immigrants and sought. it allowed both blacks and pardos to participate and thus. The latter. The cultural goals. w ill disappear from specific scenarios o f identity as w ell as from the scenarios o f national identity (1992: 28). On the other hand. explains: ( .. a colonial decree granted nonwhites the right to purchase certificates called gracias al sacar (or literally. those who have not abided to blanqueamiento are excluded from society and sentenced to a state of socio-economic stagnation where the flow of benefits and services.PROSPECTS OF M E S T I Z A J E AND PLURICULTURAL DEMOCRACY become successful based on their artistic or athletic talents. But even in 1795. 132 . . ) the ideology o f genetic and cultural blanqueamiento im plicitly brings within it the process o í mestizaje. to be included in the Venezuelan colonial society for a price. as a result of mestizaje. one of the goals is to purify the race. instead. . 1993) and the First C ongress o f A fro-Venezuelan C om m unities (or Primer C ongreso de Pueblos A fro-V enezolanos) in Choroní.. 47 [3-4]). As such. Their conclusion was similar to that of Ugueto as well as that of Ligia Montañés (1993). we witnessed an Afro-Venezuelan de clare that to defy this invisibility of ethnic difference and cultural diversity.1 2 Yrene Ugueto. feelings o f unworthiness toward their origin as w ell as distrust o f their potentialities and future p ossibilities at the individual and c o llectiv e arena. Miranda State (June 5th-12th. mestizaje is an all-inclusive selection and blending. The same issue raised by Ugueto. they must demand. how do we explain their presence and prevalence in this society today? (Refer to the special issue on Venezuela in Ethnohistory. in which a group of black women were interviewed. but which through its ideology of blanqueamiento comes to exclude and socio-economically marginalize the existing cultural diversity and ethnic difference from the mainstream society. PÉREZ e ABEL A. this reality has not minimized or annulled the continuous resistance of subordinate groups against the different forms of domination on behalf of their cultural autonomy and survival. it is for this reason that the indigenous or black person is frequently m inim ized in the face o f assum ed ex cellen cy o f the A nglo-Saxon world (1993: 25). was discussed in a Venezuelan television talk show. Otherwise. in a similar vein. Yet. ) thus con stitu tin g a trap to hide social and racial discrim ination against the indigenous and Afro-Venezuelan person ( . 12. PEROZO The two Venezuelan cases stated above represent the implementation and praxis of blanqueamiento through the mestizaje of the Venezuelan population. On two occasions. 1994).. . for example. V enezuelan people have internalized throughout the colonial and post-colonial processes.) . 133 . the recognition of their participation within the national cultural matrix. Aragua State (June 9th-12th. the history. expresses: The V enezuelan society is characterized for being b iologically mestizo and multicultural ( . and the rights of groups and individuals. T hese tw o ocassions were: the First N ational Festival o f Popular Culture (or Primer Festival N acional de la Cultura Popular) in Paparo. at the very least. “Mestizaje is a powerful force of exclusion of both black and indigenous communities” (1992: 21).BERTA E. both situations evince a concerted effort of a (colonial or republican) Venezuelan elite to make invisible and thus ignore the present. and Arlene Torres suggest. That is. Or as Norman Whitten Jr. And now. or passive recipients. to incorporate them into the mainstream culture through the implementation of distinct projects and programs. have demonstrated the importance of intercultural relations in the management of cultural resistance and survival in periods of conflict or harmony. 1994b). 1985. But it is also evident that this society is the effect of an imagined Venezuelan society that excludes and makes marginal those groups and individuals that do not abide to the ideology of blanqueamiento through mestizaje. 1992. Méndez and Castillo. Morales Méndez and Arvelo-Jiménez. Arvelo-Jiménez. it remains to be seen what Chavez has planned for them.PROSPECTS OF M E S T I Z A J E AND PLURICULTURAL DEMOCRACY What remains clear is that this is the real Venezuelan society: culturally heterogeneous and enclosed in an imagined community. 1981. Prospects of Mestizaje Despite of the socio-economic and political injustices provoked by the imagined Venezuelan society. Among these studies. 1986. there is the home-ridden example known as the System of Orinoco Regional Interdependence (or SORI). Arvelo-Jiménez and Castillo. To understand resistant mestizaje . 1989. pioneered by 134 . These distinct Peoples have had an active participation in the making of their own history. González. or in terms of fission or fusion. 1994. 1994a. and in forming and constituting their own social reality. Morales Méndez. it failed in providing to most of them a breakaway from their socio-econom ic stagnation. Although the AD party tried. the prevalence of subordinate groups in the Venezuelan real society can partly be explained by their engagement and participation in the process of resistant mestizaje. Our specific theoretical premise to interpret resistant mestizaje is that the indigenous cultures have not been isolated islands as once thought. 1979. Studies especially focused on the lowlands of South America and in particularly on the Carib indigenous groups (Arvelo-Jiménez. Biord. there is a need to take on a larger spectrum and reflect upon the contributions made by scholars in their theorizing of cultural diversity and power. and Whitehead. with or without truthful intentions. 2001. nor are these ahistorical entities. 1981. The capacity o f an autonom ous response (against aggression. did not disappeared.1 6 The Aripaeño. These inter-ethnic relations were ample and non-hierarchical that perm itted. But more research in needed either to verify or to refute it.g. it continued to persevere. The election conducted by the indigenous ethnic groups for the selection o f three o f their members to participate and represent them in the Venezuelan National C onstituent A ssem bly is an exam ple o f inter-ethnic relations in the political praxis. or maroons. however.Bonfil Batalla. the Aripaeño forebears likely took advantage of the SORI for it offered an advantageous scenario in which to seek refuge and simultaneously. that we have been able to observe the functioning of the SORI. 14. and the later incorporation of black maroons and their descendants.1 3 Her scholarly works reveal the presence of a macro political system in the Orinoco Basin during colonial tim e. Cultura propia is the ambit o f initiative. PÉREZ e ABEL A. for example. Ye’kuana. the Aripaeño). Bolivar State. 16. in use in pre-colonial tim es. in which to form socio-political.. 1997) of each of the distinct ethnic groups involved (e. 135 . 1994). K ari’ña. perhaps. first by the Spaniards in their conquest and colonization and subsequently. 2001). by the Venezuelan elite in their formation of a nation-state. and/or religious networks and alliances as mechanisms for survival and resistance. are descendants of runaway black slaves. A rvelo-Jim énez has w rilten several articles on SORI as an only author (1981. and a co-author (M orales M éndez and A rvelo-Jim cnez. 2000b) that during this journey. PEROZO Arvelo-Jim énez. we have argued (Pérez. dom ination and inclu sively o f hope) resides on the presence o f a culture proper (B onfil Batalla. a first author (1989. On the contrary. the permanency of political-economic autonomy and “culture proper” 1 5 (or cul tura propia . economic. 2000a. who currently live in the community of Aripao located on the east bank of the Caura River. Their ancestors. 1991: 54). even though retrieved in the periphery and much more reduced or modified. But as the encroachment of external cultural forces became a reality. And just like in the 13. 1981).BERTA E. in turn. for example. the SORI. A rvelo-Jim énez hypothesizes that the SORI becam e. carried out in the middle of the 18th century a grand marronnage (or their permanent flight from their Dutch oppressors) from the colonial plantations of the Dutch Guiana to the Upper Caura River.1 4 This system transcended the purely ethnic level of socio-cultural integration through the creation of a complex web of inter-ethnic relations. 15. o f creativity in all the aspects o f a culture. And it has been through our field research among the Aripaeño. These inter-ethnic relationships have. a. refer to Pérez and Perozo. to insert themselves and participate in th is red u ced or m o d ified h o rizo n tal p o litica l system of regional interdependence. Based on these findings . This is especially important in times of socio-political. resistant mestizaje permits the interpretation of the socio-cultural reality as much as the actual condition of any community through an examination of its mythic history and its socio-cultural profile. The emphasis of the SORI on its ample and horizontal interactions allows the process of resistant mestizaje : (1) to transcend the colonial. economic. or religious strains and needs caused by ecological disasters. and/or sublimate among their own and others’ cultural elements.). economic. and (2) to evince the autonomy in decision-making of the distinct groups that form part o f a pluricultural and multiethnic setting. The latter is based on the capacity of its people in deciding what to integrate. ms. refer to Pérez. 136 . eliminate. in turn. ms. or llaneros. forthcoming b. today. Such system has allowed them to develop and maintain social. or the penetration and influence of actors from the metropolis (for more details. In essence. and (3) the religious prestations and counterprestations between the Aripaeño and other groups of adjacent areas. ms. post-. b). b). And also that the SORI provides a proper scenario for this resistant mestizaje to occur.PROSPECTS OF M E S T IZ A J E AND PLURICULTURAL DEMOCRACY past. cul tural circumstances. served them to bring about regional solidarity. Some examples are: (1) the intercultural marriages that have occurred between the Aripaeño and the Kari’ña.in combination with a careful bibliographic analysis of the lowland region of South America and established interviews with expert ethnologists of the Orinoco . or made subaltern by the Venezuelan elite (for more details. political. the Aripaeño continue.we were able to discern a different interpretation of what mestizaje signifies to the groups that have been subordinated. Seen in this manner. refer to Pérez. such as compadrazgo (or god-parenthood relationship). ms. which do not only expand the horizons of affinal and consanguineous relationships beyond locality. and religious networks and alliances with other groups in the surrounding periphery without jeopardizing both their own cultural autonomy and their control over natural and cultural resources (for more details. and neocolonial contexts. (2) the practice of a system of restricted exchange and reinforced with a deferred exchange that take place among the Aripaeño and between the Aripaeño and other cultural groups. but also can induce other kinds of existing social relationships. transform. Ye’kuana. subjugated. 137 . and/or cultural ethos. The confrontation betw een theory and praxis makes me perceive 17. the reason for referring as utopia the proper functioning of pluralism in any society. Guillermo Bonfil Batalla (1995: 13-15). which is based on horizontal political negotiations and alliances made among the subordinated groups in historical contexts of trade. bellicosity. autonomy. albeit in micro-scales and underlying the dominant imagined Venezuelan society. But as long as this imagined society continues to exist and function within a vertical built political system copied from foreign models. Hence. According to Arvelo-Jiménez: A plural society is revealed to us as another theoretical and imagined creation as it does not inherently contain real m echanism s o f joint partnership. In order to assure their full representation and participation. many subordinate groups will continue to be excluded from the Venezuelan socio-political and economic system. PÉREZ e ABEL A. for instance. PEROZO resistant mestizaje is utilized: (1) as a strategic articulation with other groups on behalf of each group’s own cultural survival. and o f equitable relations am ong ethnocultural or sociocultural segm ents o f the modern state. and/or real or fictitious kinship relations. A fifth (or more) could be added: to provide access in the expression of their symbolic universe that defines their cultural ethos or spirit. and (4) to sustain equal access to resources. representation. religiosity. (3) to embrace reciprocal and symmetrical inter-cultural relations. and (2) as a mechanism of cultural resistance before any foreign or alien cultural force that would threaten a group’s survival. and production. it is these interactions that permit and make viable their own cultural reproduction. which are its culturally diverse groups. (2) to respect their political autonomy. the Venezuelan leaders must radically reorganize the nation-state. He continues to specify that the fundamental requirements for this reorganization would be: (1) to guarantee their territoriality or their rights to communal land. o f joint efforts or m anagem ent.BERTA E.1 7At the level of autonomous political decisions. resistant mestizaje is at work. posits that the reorganization of a nation-state must begin with the real political units. Thanks to N elly A rvelo-Jim énez and A bel Perozo for offering suggestions that turned out to be fruitful in the elaboration o f this new interpretation o f m estizaje. The difficulty in meeting these requirements is. perhaps. It is within this context that we have thus defined resistant mestizaje as a cultural process of resistance and survival. claims that “Political decolonization has not meant the decolonization of minds” (1996: 12). 138 . In a similar vein and in agreement with Fernando Coronil. for instance. This is to say that the knowledge system of hegemony imported by the first colonizers continues to be alive. “the ‘post’ of postcolonialism is not a sign of the overcoming but the reproduction of colonialism” (1996: 68). and (3) pluriculturalism. 1996. this utopia still fulfills the powerful (unction o f inciting reflection and research towards the creation oí new political lorms that w o u ld inherently in v o lv e the unity oí ethn ic d itleren ces and cultural diversity (1996: 2 1). filtered. and reproduced by the Venezuelan elite in its asymmetrical relationships with the distinct cultural segments (or its subordinate groups). In the reinterpretation of the all-inclusive context inherent in the SORI. Unfortunately. (2) decentralization. actors have strategic potentials to design socio-political systems with substantive elements of: (1) autonomy. through which they hope to illegitimate traditional knowledge. The Venezuelan elite continues to impose foreign models onto indigenous and other subordinate social segments. the dialectics betw een those who are in power and those who are oppressed in the Venezuelan society has not ended. while resistant mestizaje. this relationship between dominion and resistance also continues to operate between First and Third World countries. analyzed and practiced outside the ideological context of colonialism as well as post. 1996. Coronil.Fanon. Or by the same token.and neocolonialism. moves these different socio-cultural segm ents closer to that Utopia. This is confirmed by what some scholars (Apffel-Marglin. Frédérique Apffel-Marglin. The cultural reality of distinct ethno-cultural or socio-cultural segments within the same society must be evinced and incorporated into the new political forms. That is. 1970 [1952] and 1982 [1961]) have stated about the formerly colonized nation-states and their peoples. the Venezuelan elite has managed to suppress and obscure with distortions resistant mestizaje in their continuous elaboration of an imagined Venezuelan society.PROSPECTS OF M E S T IZ A J E AND PLURICULTURAL DEMOCRACY plural society as an ulopiir. nevertheless. each according to their respective discourse. or arises from those distinct cultural segments that for obvious reasons of exclusion question the legitimacy of those in power and refute the racial and ethnic categories imposed on them precisely by those in power. socio-political equality by focusing on the superficial and tangible aspects rather than on the deeper roots of the Venezuelan society. But in despite of this dialectical interplay between the two discourses in which neither one outwits the other. he explicitly or implicitly includes and connotes precisely that block of the Venezuelan population that has been subordinated. 1996). Chávez is also making the Venezuelan people homogenous through his usage of el soberano. And by el soberano. But until Chávez’ personalized discourse becomes solidified and depending on how it would be implemented in the Venezuelan society. AD and Chávez. The social dilemma arises from a Venezuelan elite that pretends to agglomerate the Venezuelan people as citizens in a homogenous mestizo culture for reasons of social control. This myth is anchored on a social system in 139 . subjugated. When he speaks about the Venezuelan people. have not properly understood. and given a solution to the ethno-cultural discrimination. Chávez refers to them as "el soberano" (or the sovereign).BERTA E. he does not clearly acknowledge and carefully distinguish the cultural and ethnic diversity found precisely among those groups or individuals that have not been incorporated accordingly to the mandates of the Venezuelan elite ideology. Hugo Chávez may be slowly erasing the essentialized nature of mestizaje characterized as an elite-generated myth of national identity. they have wanted to foment. I argue that a homogenous mestizo culture continues to prevail in Venezuela for being made so intrinsic and sui generis by the elite during the formation of the nation-state. or made subalterns. That is. elements of both can coexist accordingly to specific historical contexts in which an individual or a collective assumes a particu lar identity (Mallon. PEROZO Concluding Remarks The dynamic interplay between the official and the counterhegemonic discourse continues to be a reality in Venezuela. Instead. both revolutionary processes ol the 20th century. In this sense. while excluding that sector of the population which he defines as oligarcas (or oligarchs). It is important to mention that these two discourses are not being analytically dichotomized in that. handled. However. the creed of racial democracy would continue to be a myth. PÉREZ e ABEL A. in practice. Yet. and for not being such. ms. which culturally harms the subordinate groups that have been horizontally interacting at the inter-ethnic level while respecting their own political autonomy and cultura propia (or culture proper). is not a counterhegemonic discourse directly aimed to offset the elite ideology. however. ms. they fluctuate according to each group’s needs and interests. and reproduction in situations of external threat or in times of need. representation. 1992). a. On the contrary. While the phenomenon of 140 . it naturally emerges from the interactions that occur among the distinct cultural segments that happened to share an area or a region. 1998. the real Venezuelan society expresses itself through resistant mestizaje. racial.PROSPECTS OF M E S T IZ A J E AND PLURICULTURAL DEMOCRACY which the central principles are geared towards individual rights at the exclusion of those collective rights of the Indigenous Peoples. and other socio-cultural segments. and social class barriers. forthcoming b. such tension envelops an interlocking flow of power relations that are dynamically intertwined and historically contextualized through time and space (Hill. An understanding of this dialectic interplay will allow the analysis not only of socio-cultural change. economic and/or religious networks and alliances in order to secure their own cultural production. This mestizaje. which cuts across any cultural. nor passive recipients. rather. the outcomes of these interactions. b). political. These groups. And yet. The Venezuelan political system has been a product of historical pro cesses which have entailed an interplay between domination and resistance. these groups are neither ahistorical. ethnic. Resistant mestizaje is based on shared common interests from which the distinct cultural segments establish horizontal social. And this exclusion is often based on the premises copied from outside models that favor a vertical socio political and economic system. are not fixed. Whitehead. such as the networks and alliances made among them. It is in this context where resistant mestizaje can be seen as counterhegemonic at large in that these subordinate groups can and do come together as blocks to defy any policies or development projects and programs that they consider detrimental to their well-being (Pérez 2000a. but also of cultural continuity that can still be perceived today among contemporary Indigenous and Afro-Venezuelan populations. are not isolated islands because they are not immune to the external forces of a vertical or hierarchical political paradigm of domination belonging to either the Venezuelan nation-state or the globalized world. AfroVenezuelans. But while there is an imagined Venezuelan society at work under an imposed ideology of blanqueamiento through mestizaje. however. can serve as tools of inspiration toward the (re)construction of better political mechanisms through which ethnic differences and cultural diversity can be resolved. Yet. So. there are other cultural segments. this focus has produced a divided society. the real Venezuelan society. I do argue that local models. that continue to be ignored or invisible by society at writ. Venezuela needs to make radical changes in the structural bases in order to build a truly pluricultural and multiethnic democracy that as a political system in that society. the understanding of resistant mestizaje can bring about radical changes within the structural bases of the dominant society. PEROZO socio-cultural change involves processes of ethnogenesis. such as the System of the Orinoco Regional Interdependence (SORI). there is a new Constitution (1999) that has characterized. such as the Afro-Venezuelans. And in agreement with Bonfil Batalla (1995). it would allow resistant mestizaje to function properly without discriminatory barriers. and ethos. identity. has become the funda mental priority of the government. it remains to be seen how the proper functioning of pluralism would be implemented in the Venezuelan society. Second. would recognize cultural duties. Moreover. privileges. even though the fate of this sector remains to be seen. Although the Indigenous Peoples are for the first time acknowledged and incorporated in this Constitution. Yet. PÉREZ e ABEL A. In this sense. the continuity of socio-cultural elements encompasses issues of territoriality. That is. the Venezuelan elite has been placed in juxtaposition to el soberano as the latter 141 . and rights of all the Venezuelans who constitute the imaginary community? I do not pretend to have the answers to these questions. However. what has the Chavez’ government done differently in the last three years (1999 to the present) while in Office in regards to the issues raised in this essay? First. without precedent. which are the culturally diverse groups. changes that would induce a pluricultural and m uti-ethnic political system or democracy in the Venezuelan society.BERTA E. But as I mentioned earlier in this essay and which I now turn it in the form o f questions: How can resistant mestizaje properly function in the Venezuelan nation-state? Would its proper functioning eliminate the imagined Venezuelan society? Can there be a true democracy that. the Venezuelan society as pluricultural and multiethnic. the reorganization of a nation-state must begin with the real political units. while still been sustained by elements of verticality within an alternative political system. which is mainly constituted by el soberano . and much less to develop an alternative political system at large. the Plan Bolivar 2000 and the insertion of Cuban medical doctors in the Venezuelan health system) to attend the real Venezuelan society. which has been the most needed or excluded. Is the middle-class strata ignored by the government with the intention to lower its socio-economic status in order to be later incorporated within the real Venezuelan society? Or is it being ignored in order for the middle-class to retrieve itself with the Venezuelan elite into a state of exclusion or possible exile? Third. Yet. if Chávez were to be conscious of the deeper meanings contained in a pluricultural and multiethnic society. Yet. And fourth. there have been social and economic projects and programs at the national and international level. Nevertheless.. The Afro-Venezuelans. which has for the first time. democratically elected members who represent the real Venezuelan society. however. it remains to be seen how the needs and interests of the culturally diverse groups would be addressed and delivered by the members who represent them. (e. has long-lived two hundred years.PROSPECTS OF M E S T IZ A J E AND PLURICULTURAL DEMOCRACY is apparently obtaining and gaining socio-political power through the Circulos Bolivarianos (or the Bolivarian Circles) which are an example of the participative democracy that defines the new Constitution. the fruits of these projects and programs remain to be palpable. And the destiny of the middle-class is still unknown.g. Would Chávez government be the one to answer the questions and/or provide the solutions to the problems that we have raised in this essay? We cannot yet judge a political project that has only been in gear for three years and especially more so when the former political establishment with all its transformations and modifications. more or less. One example is the participation of Indigenous Peoples as deputy members of the Assembly (refer to footnote 16). his government agenda would have put forward programs for those who have always been included and for those who have always been excluded and made invisible. 142 . there is the Asamblea Nacional Constituyente or the National Constituent Assembly. continue to be invisible. O xford: O x fo rd U n iv ersity P ress. B arabas. p. (1 -2 ): 1 5 5 -1 7 4 . p. A R V E L O -J IM É N E Z . From development to dialogue. M in ority R ig h ts G roup. S U Á R E Z . (E d s. Série Antropología. 1 9 9 7 [ 19 8 3 ]. Tercera Reunión de Barbados. C . 1 9 9 6 . V E L A S Q U E Z . C aracas: C o n g r e so de la R e p ú b lica .). _______ . Reflexiones sobre el origen y la difusión del nacionalismo. PÉREZ e ABEL A. In: Amazonian Indians from Prehistory to the present: anthropological perspectives.V . 1 9 8 1 . (E d . U n ited K in gdom : M in o rity R ig h ts P u b lication s. 1989. 19 9 4 . B o g o tá . N e lly .A . R ecu rso s h u m a n o s o el ju e g o de fu erzas en la región A m a z ó n ic a . B rasil: D epartam ento de A n tr o p o lo g ía . B E R M Ú D E Z . A R C A Y A . Venezuela. In: Los pensadores positivistas v el Gomecismo. B a rto lo m é. M aría M a tild e. 19 8 3 . 1 9 5 -2 0 4 . R ó m u lo . C aracas: F u n d a ció n B ic en te n á r io de S im ó n B o lív a r and Im p reso s U rbina. 1995. In: Articulación de la diversidad. 5 5 -7 8 . C o lo m b ia : F o n d o de C u ltu ra E c o n ó m ic a Ltda. (E d s. V en ezu ela. 1 0 3 -1 1 5 . 1-39. C A S T IL L O . 1995. 1985. El c o n te x to m u ltilin g iie del s istem a de in terd ep en d en cia region al del O rin o co . Antropológica. A n n a. A R V E L O -J IM É N E Z . D . G u illerm o . PEROZO R EFE R E N C E S A N D E R S O N .A . and S.. A R V E L O -J IM É N E Z . p. Pedro M an u el. M . 1996. (E d . p. L eó n O liv é . F ila d elfo M orales. N ahm ad . Revista de Antropología. 9 -1 8 .). A P F E L L -M A R G L IN . F lo ra d o B iord . Caracas: E ditorial S en d eros. B en ed ict. _______ . T h e im p act o f c o n q u est on co n tem p o ra ry in d ig e n o u s p e o p le s o f the G uiana S h ield . de C . M É N D E Z . política y petróleo. 2 4 3 -2 6 9 . 2 0 0 1 . Etica y diversidad cultu ral. M o v im ie n to s e tn o p o litic o s co n tem p o rá n eo s y sus raices o r g a n iz a c io n a le s en el s istem a de in terd ep en d en cia region al del O rin oco.. B IO R D C A S T IL L O . _______ . Etnia e Nación na América Latina 1:17-23. p. J. p. (E d .).). Eduardo. 1 8 7 -2 0 1 . H oracio B iord. 143 . D iv ersid a d y D em ocracia: un futuro n ecesa rio . p. R am ón.). A P F F E L -M A R G L I N . T u cso n . H o ra cio . El Universo Amazónico y la Integración Latinoamericana. In: Decolonizing knowledge. M éx ico : Fon do de C ultura E co n ó m ic a . _______ . C A S T IL L O . U n iv e r sid a d e de B rasilia. R e p en sa n d o la historia del O rin o co . Frédérique.BERTA E. Step hen A . B O N F IL B A T A L L A . S . N e lly . C ayam b e. Comunidades imaginadas. T h e sy ste m o f O r in o c o region al in terd ep en d en ce. B E T A N C O U R T . A vila A rte. S . A Z: T h e U n iv e r sity o f A r izo n a Press. El pod er de las utopías: la s o cie d a d plural en A m é r ica L atina. R O O S E V E L T . 1969.). N e lly . (E d . U n iversid ad S im ón B o lív a r (E d . E cuador: A b y a -y a la E d itin g .). Pensar Nuestra Cultura. I n tr o d u c tio n : R a tio n a lity and th e W o rld . Im p lic a c io n e s e tic a s del sistem a de control cultural. 1991. U n tratado de s o c io lo g ía . 6 3 -6 4 :8 3 -1 0 1 . M éx ico : E ditorial Patria. M A R G L 1 N . bajo el s e llo de A lia n z a E ditorial. A . In: no longer invisible. F r é d é r iq u e . 1997. 19 5 0 . The wretched of the earth. B R IO N E S . 144 . H A R R IS O N . C u sick . M ig u el. 1996a. L IS C A N O . In: Imperial Histories and Postcolonial Displacements. blanco! B arcelona: E ditorial N o v a Terra. S. 1995. G O U L D . C O R O N IL . 2 4 1 -2 7 5 . Im preso por Italgráfica. _______ . M A L L O N . (E d . m a r g in a lity and g e n d e r in th e c la im in g o f e th n ic id e n titie s. Folklore y cultura. 1976. p o litic s and the trium ph o f m estizaje in early 20th century N icaragu a. M estiza je. “P o s tc o lo n ia lism ” . 1992. 1 8 1 0 -1 8 3 0 . ed. 1 9 9 6 . B e y o n d O c c id e n ta lism : T ow ard N o n im p e ria l G e o h isto r ic a l C a te g o r ies. C aracas: Fundación John B o u lto n . N e g ro s en C olom b ia: identidad e in visib ilid a d . J. B rasil: D epartam ento de A n tr o p o lo g ía . H IL L .l. 2 4 :4 7 -7 4 . Journal o f Latin American Anthropology. G yan Prakash. _______ . 2 (1 ):3 4 -6 1 . F R IE D E M A N N . de. 2(1 ): 1 7 0 -1 8 1 . M aría d e la G uia. Jonathan D . Amé rica Negra. 1990. 19 9 6 . G ender. A lfred o . R ichard. Caracas: A v ila G ráfica. and “M estiz a je ” A fter C o lo n ia lism . 1995. Série Antropología. J. M aster T h e sis. A leja n d ro de la. 1 9 8 2 (1 9 6 1 ].PROSPECTS OF M E S T IZ A J E AND PLURICULTURAL DEMOCRACY B O U L T O N . Juan. p. R aza. C h a rles R. F U E N T E .3 . F ern a n d o . 19 9 8 . F lo r e n c ia E. América Negra. culture change and archaeology. In: Políti ca y economía en Venezuela 1810-1976. A lfredo (E d. M estiza je. Journal o f Latin American Anthropology. 1 9 9 6 . Caracas: IV IC -C en tro de E studios A v a n z a d o s. N in a S . 3 :2 5 -3 5 . p. P eríodo de la Independencia y la Gran C o lo m b ia. Im preso por Italgráfica. 1996b. Política y economía en Venezuela. S. 19 9 8 . T. d esig u a ld a d y prejuicio en Cuba: Introducción. 3 -3 1 . 1 9 7 0 [1 9 5 2 |. B O U L T O N . Illin o is: Southern Illin o is U niversity.r.l. N e w York: G rove Press Inc. Princeton: Princeton U n iv e r sity Press. Jorge. T h e p ersistent p ow er o f '‘R ace” in the cultural and political eco n o m y o f racism .). G. Journal o f Latin American Anthropology. 2 (l) : 4 .). U n iv ersid ad e de B rasilia. A ustin: U n iversity o f T ex a s P ress. hybridity and the cultural p o litics o f differen ce in Post-revolutionary C entral A m erica . 1 9 9 8 . Franz. 19 7 6 . ¡870-1940. Cultural Anthropology. G R A F IA M . p. 1 5 :2 1 -3 9 . Annual Review o f Anthropology. 1986. In: Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction. C arb on d ale. T h e P o stc o lo n iza tio n o f the (L atin ) A m erican E xperience: a R eco n sid era tio n o f “C o lo n ia lism ” . (M eta ) Cultura del E sta d o -N a c ió n y E stado d e la (M eta) Cultura. Ocupación y uso de ¡a tierra y relaciones interetnicas: L o s G u ajib o de lo s L la n o s del M eta (S ig lo s X V I-X V III). Jeffrey. FIALE. K L O R D E A L V A . V io le n t encounters: e th n o g en esis and e th n o cid e in lon g-term contact situ a tio n s. C o n s tr u c tin g M e s tiz a je in L atin A m e r ica : a u th e n tic ity . 1810-1976. Faye V. 2 ( l) : 2 . ¡Escucha. 11:51-87. F A N O N .r. Caracas: F undación John B ou lton . Journal o f Latin American Anthropology. Introduction.3 3 . C laud ia. The idea o f race in Latin America. G O N Z A L E Z . IZ A R D . 1 4 6 -1 7 1 . _______ . La cara oculta de la pluriculturiilad: el caso de los Afro-Venezolanos. 1988. N o v e m b e r 4 -9 .. R e th in k in g V e n e z u e la n A n th r o p o lo g y . El racismo oculto de una sociedad no racista. C aracas: E diva. _______ . p.4 ): 5 1 3 -5 3 3 . W ash in gton . M O R A L E S M É N D E Z . 2 0 0 1 . _______ . N eil L. 1984. D . Identity. 19 9 3 . 2 0 0 0 a . A b el A . Historia de Venezuela. F ila d elfo . b). A n g e lin a . _______ . Introduction.C . and B erta E. 2 0 :2 4 7 -2 5 1 . Aripao y el Ethos Cimarron: La H erm en éu tica C ultural del M estizaje en V en ezu ela (m s. M aster T h esis. M igration from B a rlo v en to to C aracas. B erta E. ed. in the s e s sio n titled. H acia un m o d elo de estructura so cia l C aribe. A R V E L O -J IM É N E Z . N ACIA : Report on the Americas (fo rth co m in g a). 1971. ¿ H a y o no h ay racism o en V en ezu ela ? Encuentros. PEROZO M A Y B U R Y -L E W IS . 145 .S /C A S C A /S C A M ee tin g . P E R O Z O . in M ontreal. Minority rights group. L ig ia . P érez. W H IT E H E A D . a). 1981. N o v e m b e r 28"’ D ecem b er 2nd. Santa A n a de C oro.). M ay 3 -6 . _______ . 1995. 17:3-11. Pap er presen ted at the II E ncuentro para la P ro m o ció n y D ifu sió n del P atrim on io F o lcló r ic o de lo s P a íses A n d in o s. titled C ulture. X L I:6 0 3 -6 2 6 . C aracas: Ita lg rá fica/Im p resores/E d itores/ SR L . Is the tim e right to sp eak up? T h e C a se o f A fr o -V e n e zu ela n s.4 ) : 6 1 1-634. 19 7 9 . p. The hidden histories o f power. V en ezu ela . D iffer e n c e. M O R Ó N .S . América Indígena. P ow er E n co u n ters. T h e jo u r n e y to fr e e d o m : M a ro o n F o r e b e a r s in S o u th e r n V e n e z u e la . C. 2 9 -4 0 . L. N ebraska: T h e U n iv ersity o f N ebraska Press (fo rth c o m in g b). _______ . N o lo n g er in v isib le. Pedro. Ethnohistory. Montalban. 2 ()0 0 b . M a rg o lies. P É R E Z . 19 9 3 . (E d . A . D . 2 0 0 1 (ras. N e lly . M O N T A Ñ E Z . Jean. _______ . ________. C anada.). Inequality. U . In: Histories and Historicities in Amazonia.). C aracas: lV IC -C en tro d e E stu d ios A v a n za d o s. in W ashington.BERTA E. 2 0 0 1 . P resent and Future R esearch D ir ec tio n s am on g In d igen ou s G roups in the G uianas (and the C aribbean): A n E v a lu a tio n (m s. S T U B B S . PÉREZ e ABEL A. in the s e s sio n titled. 1979.: A m erican E th n o lo g ic a l S o c ie ty . 1 -1 7 . L in co ln . The prospects fo r plural societies. M O R A L E S M É N D E Z . Paper presented at the 2001 A F . G u illerm o . P O L L A K -E L T Z . U n ited K in gdom : M inority R ig h ts P u b lication s. 4 7 (3 .. P É R E Z S A R D U Y . Reconstrucción etnohistórica de los Kariñas de tos siglos X V Iy XVII. Caracas: F on do E ditorial T ro p y k o s. ed. F ila d e lfo . Paper p resented at the 100th A nnu al M eetin g o f the A m erican A n th rop ological A sso cia tio n . Aripaeño's Landscape: local control within global reality. P E R O Z O . P resen cia e in v isib ilid a d del negro en V en ezu ela . D a v id . In: The Venezuelan Peasant in country and city. 4 7 ( 3 .A . Resources and Globalization (m s. Ethnohistory. 1994. R. C aracas: U N E S C O /F A C E S /U C V . W h iteh ea d . In: Amazonian Indians from Prehistory to the Present: Anthropological Perspectives. 19 9 2 . Julie. T ribes m ake states and states m ake tribes. B la ck n ess in the A m erica s. In: Cultural transformations and ethnicity in modern Ecuador. L.). 2 8 1 -3 4 8 . 2 0 0 1 . A nna R o o se v e lt. T O R R E S . SH E R IF F . N . S K U R S K 1 . T he O rin oco. J o sé. T u c so n . 6 0 -7 9 . p. S E G A T O . S T U T Z M A N . 1993. 1990. S . Encuentros. V A S C O N C E L O S . T h e C o lo r -B lin d S u b ject o f M yth. p. 16 de M a y o . N ew M ex ico : S A R Press. 102( 1): 1 1 4 -132. P o licin g boundaries: race. A lfred o . T h e a m b ig u ities o f a u th en ticity in Latin A m erica: D o ñ a Bárbara and the con stru ctio n o f national identity. ed .A . W H IT T E N JR . ed. El M estizaje: an a ll-in c lu siv e id e o lo g y o f e x c lu sio n . La raza cósmica: Misión de la raza iberoamericana. p.PROSPECTS OF M E S T I Z A J E AND PLURICULTURAL DEMOCRACY Q U IJ A N O . _______ ■ 199 4 a . Café con Leche. A Z : T h e U n iv e r sity o f A rizo n a Press. American Ethnologist.. p.. A ustin: U n iv e r sity o f T ex a s Press. 2 0 0 0 . S T R E 1C K E R . U G U E T O . N e w York: H arper & R ow . In: La colonialidad del saber: Eurocentrismo y Ciencias Sociales. p. T h e an cien t am erindian p o litie s o f the am a zo n . C olom b ia. W hiteh ead . U n iv ersid a d e de Brasília. 2 7 :1 2 9 -1 5 1 . NACLA: Report on the Americas. p. Arturo. Or. 1 5 :6 0 5 -6 4 2 . B u e n o s A ires: E sp a sa -C a lp e A rg en tin a . C o lo n ia lid a d del poder. N . F erguson and N . cla ss. El Nacional. El Globo. R A M O S . 1 7 :2 5 -2 6 . c la ss. Santa Fé. L o s n eg ro s m andando. A rlen e. N orm an E. U S L A R PIE T R I. 2 0 de octub re. 2 0 0 0 . Wolves from the Sea: Readings in the Anthropology of the Native Caribbean. Annual Review of Anthropology. W arfare and the creation o f co lo n ia l tribes and state in N ortheastern South A m erica. 1 2 7 -1 5 0 . W here to Find A frica in the N ation . 1993. R ita Laura. L eiden: K ITL V P ress. 1995. W R IG H T . Série Antropología. N e il. E E U U : el p o lvorín racial. E. 1 9 4 8 [1 9 2 5 ]. Y ren e. Poetics Today. T O R O H A R D Y . B ra sil: D epartam ento de A n tr o p o lo g ia . and the A tlan tic C oast. 1948. 19 9 8 . (E d . 3 3 -5 3 . A n íb a l. 2 2 ( l) : 5 4 . ed s. 146 . A lc id a Rita. 2 5 (4 ): 16-22. 1981. _______ ■ 19 9 4 b . E thnic Plurality in the N a tiv e C aribbean: R em arks and U n certain ties as to D ata and T heory. R ace. 18. W H IT E H E A D . and g en d er in C artagena. 5. eu ro cen trism o y A m é r ica Latina. ed. E dgardo Lander. R obin E. W H IT T E N JR. 1 9 9 2 . and national im age in V enezu ela. W inthrop R. A p relim in ary a n a ly sis o f their p a ssa g e from antiquity to e x tin c tio n . American Anthropologist. La posguerra fria IX.. 4 5 -9 4 . p. T he p redicam ent o f B ra zil's pluralism . B.7 4 . L. Joel. In: War in the Tribal Zone: E xpanding States and In d ig en o u s W arfare. R onald . La identidad cultural de la m ujer a fro v en ezo la n a en la V en ezu ela n eolib eral. E x p o sin g sile n c e as cultural cen sorship: A B razilian case.
Report "Pérez, Berta; Perozo, Abel - Prospects of mestizaje and pluricultural democracy.. the venezuelan case of an imagined and a real venezuelan society.pdf"