Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/anq.2008.0000
Access provided by Latin American Studies Association (4 Aug 2017 14:08 GMT)
MEANING-MAKING IN SOCIAL MOVEMENTS
Abstract
This article explores how the knowledge practices of some academic-intel-
lectuals are shifting in such a way as to signal a radical departure from the
“traditional” role that academic-intellectuals have had in Latin America.
This re-direction is part of a much larger process, namely, the gradual rejec-
tion of the modern project by increasingly larger sectors of the Latin
American population, and their ongoing efforts to bring about “worlds and
knowledges otherwise.” In effect, some of the social movements and pat-
terns of mobilization that have become highly visible in Latin America at
the turn of the 21st century are probing the modern project—including
established knowledge practices of academic-intellectuals—according to
expectations, logics and standards other than the ones that have dominat-
ed for the last two centuries or more. In particular, the article suggests how
these avenues, once opened by social movements, local intellectuals and
other sites of knowledge production regarding the intellectual-political proj-
ect in Latin America, have productively contaminated the dominant regime
59
The “Lettered City” and the Insurrection of Subjugated Knowledges in Latin America
of power/knowledge (the “lettered city”) that has been in place since colo-
nial times. A focus on three cases where this contamination is currently tak-
ing place points to possible directions in which a reconfiguration of the
dominant regime of power/knowledge might proceed. These developments
include the relative equalization of diverse knowledge practices through the
proliferation of sites of encounter between them, but also a disposition to
allow for the contamination of academic-intellectuals’ knowledge practices
by the insurrectional movements’ non-modern knowledge practices.
[Keywords: Social movements, Latin America, intellectuals, modernity,
coloniality, subjugated knowledges, the Lettered City]
Introduction
In a recent interview, the Bolivian vice-president and intellectual from
the Left, Álvaro García Linera, accused sectors of the Indigenous move-
ment of being romantic because they claim a role for Indigenous world-
views in shaping the Bolivian state. Pointing to the five hundred years of
interaction and mingling between them, he denied that such worldviews
could be radically different from the dominant modern one: “ En el fondo
todos quieren ser modernos” (Deep inside, everyone wants to be modern)
(García Linera 2007:156–157). The transmutation of “ cultural hybridity”
into veiled denials of radical differences is common and contributes to
the strong tendency, even among sympathetic scholars, commentators
and policy makers, to dismiss an important pattern in contemporary
Latin American social mobilization, the ongoing challenge to the domi-
nant regime of modern power/knowledge. This dominant regime of
power/knowledge establishes the epistemological and social conditions
necessary for any action (discursive or otherwise) to be taken seriously as
making “truth claims” or as being reasonable, and thus traces the limits
of what is possible or even thinkable in politics and beyond. Yet, what lies
outside of these limits does not disappear just because it is not “within
the true” (Foucault 1972:224). On the contrary, sometimes it pushes back
and contests the very regime that shapes the limits of what counts as pos-
sible. In this article, we present a work in progress, a possible reading of
certain developments in the Latin American epistemic/political field that
we understand as symptoms of such pushing back. We speak of an “insur-
rection of subjugated knowledges,” that is, an insurrection of “knowl-
60
JUAN RICARDO APARICIO & MARIO BLASER
61
The “Lettered City” and the Insurrection of Subjugated Knowledges in Latin America
62
JUAN RICARDO APARICIO & MARIO BLASER
63
The “Lettered City” and the Insurrection of Subjugated Knowledges in Latin America
society, what is sign from what is thing, what comes from Nature as
it is from what their cultures require (Latour 1993:99).
64
JUAN RICARDO APARICIO & MARIO BLASER
(Foucault 1991:103). We will return later to this point in the context of dis-
cussing the role of neoliberal governmentality in the insurrection of sub-
jugated knowledges, but we want to stress that we are not saying that
those subjectivities are not affected by, or somehow in contact with, the
modern regime of power/knowledge. However, we also maintain that this
does not qualify them as being “within” this regime either.
The dynamic relation generated between a modern/colonial govern-
mental apparatus and its non-modern target is precisely one of the issues
that the “decolonial thought” part of the MCD research program address-
es. Our work here is intended as a contribution to this aspect of the pro-
gram by building on the idea that there has always been an exteriority to
modernity/coloniality and that, in connection to this, there has always
been knowledge otherwise, often linked with struggles for social transfor-
mation and social justice (Mignolo 2000; Dussel 2000; Escobar 2004b).
Thus, in parallel to the critical traditions that have attacked inequalities
and injustice from within the epistemic bounds of modernity, there have
always existed contestations emerging from other regimes of
power/knowledge exterior to the modern ratio. Felipe Guaman Poma de
Ayala ([1615] 2001) and Quintin Lame’s (Castillo-Cardenas 1987) mani-
festos are early examples in the written record of critiques of domination
from epistemologies based on different ontological assumptions than the
modern one. Moreover, following Price, Fox Tree and Nonini (this issue),
we can think in similar ways of the wrongly labeled messianic movements
among Indigenous peoples; these were political movements contesting
the status quo but articulated according to another logic. Of course, as
these authors have pointed out, from the perspective of modernity these
critiques and these movements lacked proper rationality and goals and,
thus, they could not count as real and valid politics, hence their lack of
visibility as properly political. As we will see, and not surprisingly, the
insurrectional patterns of mobilization we want to focus on here contest
this forced invisibility, among other things.
65
The “Lettered City” and the Insurrection of Subjugated Knowledges in Latin America
66
JUAN RICARDO APARICIO & MARIO BLASER
67
The “Lettered City” and the Insurrection of Subjugated Knowledges in Latin America
68
JUAN RICARDO APARICIO & MARIO BLASER
Neuhaus and Calello 2006); many of the rural and urban grassroots organ-
izations that supported the coming to power of Evo Morales in Bolivia
(Mamani Ramírez 2005; Zibechi 2006); and Black communities in the
Colombian pacific region (Escobar In Press), to mention a few. In a way, we
can say that what the insurrectional patterns of mobilization are doing in
these settings is to produce and strengthen communities by performing the
principles of the communal system as best as they can.
Paradoxically, as the cited works show, neoliberal policies played an
important, albeit unwitting, role in making this possible and more visible.
On the one hand, big agro-business and natural resource extractive
economies associated with free trade expanded into relatively marginal
rural areas, thus assaulting the subsistence base of many relatively
autonomous communities. On the other hand, the state surrendered its
role as the central vector of modernization in favor of a capitalist market
that pushed people to fend for themselves. In conjunction with this shift-
ing role of the state, neoliberalism promoted the following: political
decentralization; the transfer of whatever was left of social welfare func-
tions to organizations of civil society; and a series of new citizenship
rights, including cultural rights enshrined through the notion of multicul-
turalism. These processes and policies prompted a number of responses,
including the self-organization of rural communities (Indigenous, Black
and Mestizo) in defense of their territories, and the emergence of strong
communitarian bonds in urban spaces abandoned by the state, where
people displaced from the rural areas met the “industrial displaced,” that
is, the masses of unemployed created by structural adjustment.
While the structural reforms of the state attacked many of the leverage
points previously used by popular movements to struggle for social justice,
the reforms also opened new avenues to pursue social justice, such as mul-
ticulturalism. As one analyst put it, within the wider frame of neoliberal
governmentality, the granting of cultural rights by the elites was intended
to “cede carefully chosen ground in order to more effectively fend off more
far reaching demands” (Hale 202:488). However, as is clear in the Bolivian
and Ecuadorian cases, social movements upholding the banner of cultural
difference also used the ceded ground as a spring-board to launch demands
that, emerging from subjectivities that exceed the mould provided by the
modern regime of power/knowledge, are more far-reaching than what even
the Left could conceive of. The vice-president of Bolivia makes this clear
when he refuses to take seriously the demands for a truly pluricultural state
69
The “Lettered City” and the Insurrection of Subjugated Knowledges in Latin America
70
JUAN RICARDO APARICIO & MARIO BLASER
71
The “Lettered City” and the Insurrection of Subjugated Knowledges in Latin America
gins, some inhabitants of the “ lettered city,” that is, some modern intel-
lectuals, begin to see the previously invisible prose of “ intellectual oth-
ers.” In effect, with its own specificity, some intellectuals in the lettered
city have been affected by a similar process as the new margins. In other
words, increasing disaffection with modernity from within has been cou-
pled with increasing visibility and viability of alternatives from without.
Before discussing how this process has come about we want to clarify
that we use the term “modern intellectuals” to stress the specific regime
of power/knowledge that grants authority to these knowledge-producers.
In the configuration of this regime, the academy/university plays a central
role as the privileged site of reproduction of the tenets of modernity and
is therefore invested with great authorizing power. This means that, in
this regime of power/knowledge, the authority to speak truth and pre-
scribe appropriate actions is more often than not sanctioned by the acad-
emy. Moreover, in this regime, the category of intellectual implicitly con-
notes some degree of familiarity with the language of the academy,
although it doesn’t necessarily imply insertion in the academy. In this
sense an individual might never have attended university, yet to the
extent that his/her practices and visions of the world are informed most-
ly by the knowledge historically produced in this site, he/she can be cate-
gorized as a “modern intellectual.” Qualifying in this way the category of
intellectual, we seek, firstly, to stress the specific role of the academy-site
within the configuration of the modern regime of power/knowledge, and,
secondly, to signal the existence of different, albeit subaltern, configura-
tions of power/knowledge which produce their own “intellectual Others.”
Overall, since the 19th century, modern intellectuals and universities in
most of Latin America have been enrolled in a project of nation-building.
Nation-building basically meant the modernization of society and, thus, the
evacuation of diversity from the emerging nation-states, rhetorically
through assimilation, integration and development; in practice through
violent physical and symbolic suppression of the non-modern which, as we
pointed out before, was embodied by the Indigenous populations and more
generally the countryside, and the lower classes. The knowledge guiding
the transformation of society could not be other than modern, which as we
pointed out had its privileged locus in the “lettered city.” Thus, conceptu-
ally and spatially, the project of modernity has consistently unfolded from
the “lettered city” outwards (Rama 1996). While this has been the basic con-
figuration of power-knowledge, some successive small changes within the
72
JUAN RICARDO APARICIO & MARIO BLASER
73
The “Lettered City” and the Insurrection of Subjugated Knowledges in Latin America
1979a, 1979b; 1984; Freire 1970). And it is here where the “committed
intellectual,” with his/her methods, is necessary as a catalyst for subaltern
knowledge to become realized. The limitations as well as the potential of
each, the dominated groups and the “committed intellectual,”can be over-
come in their dialogical collaboration, for as Fals Borda argues “the sum
of knowledge from both types of agents…makes it possible to acquire a
much more accurate and correct picture of the reality that is being trans-
formed” (1991:4; see also Freire 1970; Colombres 1996).
The “committed intellectuals” tradition, while still committed to mod-
ern notions of truth, constituted an important attempt to reconsider how
knowledge was intertwined with power in the Latin American context. 9
However, from the mid 1970s onwards, this reconsideration began to be
truncated by the establishment of right-wing military dictatorships which,
besides forcing “committed intellectuals” into exile and silence, brought
along with them a new wave of modernization, now in the garments of
neoliberalism. With the violent suppression of the Left and, later, with the
demise of the communist bloc, the neoliberal agenda could now be
applied with relative impunity throughout the last quarter of the 20th
century. Neoliberal modernization reconfigured in many ways the shape
of Latin American societies, most importantly for our argument, by con-
tributing to further changes in the “lettered city” and, as we have already
argued, by inciting the spread of insurrectional patterns of mobilization.
Changes in the “lettered city” had two complexly interconnected sources
(albeit in no way linked by direct causality): the general reshaping of the
university system under structural adjustment and the spread of “post-
modern” theories in the social sciences and the humanities.
Under structural adjustment, public universities (in general, the most
prestigious and politically involved) became increasingly concerned with
issues of efficiency and productivity, and, along with the general trends in
the economy, lost ground to private schemes while making job insecurity
(euphemized as flexible labor) the norm. Many professors, researchers
and alumni were forced to seek jobs as consultants and/or NGOs staff,
both of which tend to have very specific and focused scope of action and
a predominantly technocratic approach to social problems (Fals Borda
1991; Gill 2000). The rigors of job insecurity, plus the disarticulation of
the networks of social and political support, contributed to a general cli-
mate of cynicism which seemed to be (and to some extent was) exacerbat-
ed by postmodern trends. It is no surprise, then, that from the perspec-
74
JUAN RICARDO APARICIO & MARIO BLASER
tive of an intellectual and political Left tradition that had sought to fulfill
the promises of modernity, the postmodern attack on its central tenets of
truth, progress, freedom and the like, seemed a little suspect. This was the
case because these ideas reached Latin America as more governments
heeded neoliberalism’s claims of being the ineluctable path to moderni-
ty, all the while generating more inequalities and exclusions.
While many Leftist “ modern intellectuals” rejected postmodernism,
others carefully distinguished different intellectual productions with
that general label, rescuing in particular the poststructuralist critique of
metanarratives, and their regimes of truth. However, a vexing question
was left lingering: how to confront the injustices and exclusions pro-
duced by a particular metanarrative and regime of truth without ground-
ing oneself in another metanarrative and regime of truth that will of
necessity generate new exclusions and inequalities? The poststructural-
ist’s somewhat unsatisfactory proposal was to entrust this task to the
“ ascetic” intellectual. In effect, for the poststructuralists there is no log-
ical connection between critique and prescription since critique does not
(cannot) reveal “ the Truth.” Thus, the (postructuralist) intellectual needs
to be “ ascetic” in order to safeguard his/her critical activity directed to a
given regime of truth from the temptation to prescribe another truth
that, of necessity, will be exclusionary. In this way, critique becomes a
permanent task through which intellectuals keep open the process of
articulating truths by contesting established and emerging regimes of
truth and their exclusionary powers (see Bernauer 1990). It is in this con-
text that Deleuze’s definition of being on the Left as a problem of never
ceasing to be minoritarian makes sense (see Deleuze and Parnet 1997).
In practice, though, Leftist intellectuals tended to hold on to a very
orthodox modern conception of truth and knowledge, outfitting them-
selves with the tools of critique and deconstruction to attack “ neoliber-
al truths” but without considering the exclusions generated by their own
emergent truths. Again, García Linera’s position with regard to insurrec-
tional patterns of mobilization is symptomatic of this.
More by default than by design, insurrectional patterns of mobilization
provided a different response to the challenge posed by post-structuralism.
Recognizing that epistemology is a central dimension of the operations by
which difference is turned into inequality, step by step many social move-
ments have brought their own “traditional” or “local” knowledge-practices
to bear on the debates about social projects (Rappaport 2005; Fernández
75
The “Lettered City” and the Insurrection of Subjugated Knowledges in Latin America
Osco In Press; MTD 2002; Casas-Cortés, Osterweil and Powell this issue). In
particular, knowledge-practices connected in some way to relational cos-
mologies seem particularly suited to accomplish the task that the post-
structuralists trusted to the ascetic intellectual. In effect, as in post-struc-
turalism, there is in these knowledge-practices a heightened suspicion of
the exclusionary powers of metanarratives and regimes of truth and, thus,
a concern with keeping open the processes of articulating and enacting
temporary and partial truths. However, in contrast to the post-structural-
ists, the insurrectional knowledge-practices signal that the task of keeping
open the processes of articulating and enacting truths must be carried out
by the collective, not by the ascetic intellectual. In effect, by furthering the
mutual encounter of multiple situated truths, these knowledge-practices
help (not always successfully, though) to produce “working” truths while
keeping the diversity that grounds them from being glossed over by emerg-
ing and temporary consensus.
Insurrectional knowledge-practices enact what Foucault (1980:33)
could only envision as a program of action, a “new politics of truth” in
which specific prescriptions for actions can be produced while the wider
project aptly described by the Zapatistas as “building a world in which
many worlds fit” gets to be performed. Given that the central point in
these knowledge-practices is “doing them” rather than in producing
knowledge as accurate representations, their success is not measured in
instrumental terms (i.e. “we have achieved a certain goal because we pro-
duced an accurate representation of reality”) but in terms of the extent
that they contaminate with their logic more sites and practices (i.e., “we
have formed a community because we acted as such”). Insofar as these
patterns of mobilization enact a relational way of understanding and
relating to others, we argue that their intellectual production can be
understood as an anthropology, in the widest sense of the term, that is,
as an active and creative exploration of commonalities between different
worlds. Through these knowledge-practices, the problem these patterns
of mobilization address is that, to use Latour words, “no one has the
answers—this is why they have to be collectively staged, stabilized and
revised” (Latour 2005:138).
Not surprisingly, the insurrection of subjugated knowledges has found
an audience prone to be enrolled as interlocutors: some “modern intel-
lectuals” who took poststructuralist critiques seriously, beyond their util-
ity as tools for deconstructing neoliberal discourses. This has translated
76
JUAN RICARDO APARICIO & MARIO BLASER
77
The “Lettered City” and the Insurrection of Subjugated Knowledges in Latin America
78
JUAN RICARDO APARICIO & MARIO BLASER
Thus, “the idea is not to create a knowledge space reserved only for
Indigenous peoples, but to build fundamental [curriculum] contents con-
ducive for the experience of interculturality,” a notion that allows “for
the acceptance of diversity and the construction of a more equitable and
tolerant world” (Universidad Intercultural Amawtay-Wasi 2004:164–165).
Currently, the university offers three undergraduate programs in the
Munay Ruray center (agroecology program), the Ushay Yachay center
(intercultural multilingual teaching program) and the Ruray Rushay cen-
ter (architecture and territorial planning program). All three programs
confer professional and specialist degrees through coursework that lasts
from six to ten semesters each.
For the university, the conceptualization of interculturality, as an ide-
ological principle of the Indigenous movement’s political project, is dif-
ferent from the idea of liberal multiculturalism. Within this conception,
interculturality implies a dialogue between equals, a mutual accommoda-
tion of diverse life-worlds, and not the subordinating accommodation of
diverse life-worlds within the overarching framework imposed by a dom-
inant modern life-world (see Walsh In Press, Rappaport 2005). In this
sense, interculturality is key in the construction of a new “anticolonialist,
anticapitalist, anti-imperialist, and antisegregationist” democracy that
guarantees, according to the Confederation of Ecuadorian Indigenous
Nationalities (CONAIE), “the full and permanent participation of the
[Indigenous] peoples and nationalities in decision making” and fosters
“the exercise of political power in the Plurinational State” (CONAIE
1997:11, quoted in Walsh In Press).
Universidad de la Resistencia
The history that lies behind the University of Resistance is the violent dis-
pute over the extraction and monopoly of legal and illegal resources in the
Apartadó region of northwestern Colombia by different actors since the
1980s (Uribe 2004). Today, the industrial production of bananas, along
with the introduction of illegal coca crops and the military dispute over
key corridors, has turned what was a frontier region four decades ago into
a strategic area for actors ranging from international and national
investors of capital, guerrilla groups (FARC and EPL), paramilitaries and the
Colombian State. The violent struggle led in the 1990s to one of the most
tragic episodes in the recent history of Colombia. In certain rural areas,
military clashes between the armed forces, guerrillas and paramilitary
79
The “Lettered City” and the Insurrection of Subjugated Knowledges in Latin America
groups forced more than 4,000 peasants to flee for their lives to nearby
urban settlements. Assassinations of community leaders and crude viola-
tions of human rights were common, as was the negligence and incapaci-
ty of the authorities to investigate and prosecute anyone.
It was precisely in this violent environment that several communities of
Afro-Colombians, Indigenous people and mestizo peasants, accompanied
by religious organizations and NGOs, declared themselves Peace
Communities (Uribe 2004). In these collective pacts, they not only declared
neutrality in the middle of the conflict, but also proclaimed horizontal and
participatory models of society for the recuperation of their autonomy and
sovereignty over their actions and decisions (Memorias del Seminario
Taller con Comunidades de Riesgo 2003). In February 2004, as a reaction
to the general spread of violence in the region and to the passive reaction
of authorities (which the communities blame for much of the suffering),
twenty of these Peace Communities created RECORRE, an acronym for the
Spanish words, Redes de Comunidades en Ruptura y Resistencia (Network of
Communities in Rupture and Resistance). One of the central components
emerging from these meetings was to launch the University of Resistance.
The University of Resistance was to be the platform for sharing expe-
riences of resistance and survival among the different collectives, rang-
ing from alternative agricultural practices to traditional medicine. The
guiding principle of the university is to work collectively and advance
through four axes of research and action: food sovereignty, traditional
medicine, alternative education and traditional or customary law. As one
of the leaders of the Peace Community of San Jose de Apartadó told one
of us, the aim of these encounters was to share and benefit from the dif-
ferent experiences and strategies that each collective had been using to
survive amidst violence. He mentioned, for example, that the Indigenous
communities brought their knowledge on traditional medicine, the Black
communities shared their experience in negotiating territorial rights,
and the villagers from San José talked about their strategies for surviving
during military blockades. They also exchanged seeds and information
about the importance of preserving them during armed blockades or
intense armed conflict. This university has no fixed classroom or space,
no permanent professors, and does not confer degrees or diplomas to its
participants. It is organized through sessions taking place in areas of con-
flict. In fact, the organizers do not want to have their sessions in areas
lacking internal strife.
80
JUAN RICARDO APARICIO & MARIO BLASER
Colectivo Situaciones
The Argentinian Colectivo Situaciones emerged in the late 1990s along
with the increasing visibility of the patterns of mobilization that we have
been characterizing as insurrectional. Only one of the collective’s mem-
bers is currently employed in a university, although the original space
from which the group came was the academy (Pers. Comm. January 2005).
81
The “Lettered City” and the Insurrection of Subjugated Knowledges in Latin America
According to their own account, the group’s practices took shape out of a
perception of inadequacy between, on the one hand, the figures of the
militant and the university researcher and, on the other hand, the emer-
gence of new elements of sociability immanent in insurrectional patterns
of mobilization. In both figures they see an approach from the outside
which does not respond well to these patterns’ demands for “a new dis-
position to feel and think” (Colectivo Situaciones 2005b:606). These
“demands” are in turn characterized as an “extended elaboration whose
fundamental point of origin was the failure of revolution in the decade of
the 1970s” (2005b:606).
The Colectivo’s modality of engagement, militant research, has involved
using workshops to articulate with collective experiences/experiments
such as H.I.J.O.S. (acronym of an organization formed by children of the
disappeared during the Argentinean dictatorship of 1976–1983), the
Movement of Unemployed Workers of Solano (MTD), Movement of Peasants
from Santiago del Estero province (MOCASE), among others (see the
Colectivo’s webpage: www.situaciones.org). Militant research’s organizing
concept is that of “composition (processes of interaction, collective val-
orization, systems of productive compatibilities)” concerned with the “pro-
duction of (an) encounter(s) that produces subject(s)” (Colectivo Situaciones
2005b:604). Here the concern is with producing consistency between expe-
riences that neither emerge as already unified nor accept “an external,
imposed, state-like union” (2005b:607). The Colectivo envisions the labor
of research militancy as “tuning up,” and thereby strengthening, elements
of an emerging sociability. Hence, their concern with the question of how
to carry out this “tuning up” without enacting knowledge-practices which
are at odds with this emerging sociability,
82
JUAN RICARDO APARICIO & MARIO BLASER
As one can see from these brief characterizations, these are very dif-
ferent sites and experiences, from rural to urban and in between; from
positions that expressly and decidedly reject the state to positions asso-
ciated with the idea of interculturality, an idea that implies a thorough
transformation of the modern-state into a pluricultural state. There are,
however, two fundamental similarities between these sites/experiences.
First, they all express an attempt to foster a form of producing knowl-
edge that mimics, with an uncertain degree of success, the knowledge-
practices that characterize insurrectional patterns of mobilization. That
is, a permanent work of co-adjustment between different subjectivities
and formations, an effort to avoid the imposition of truths, and an
emphasis on keeping the production of knowledge embedded in the
community. In short, besides addressing pressing problems, the goal in
these sites is to perform communities. Second, they constitute complex
sites of encounter between insurrectional and modern knowledge-prac-
tices, where collaboration, contamination and contestation seem to be at
play simultaneously. Let us look at this in more detail.
In many of these sites, intellectuals trained in the “lettered city” partici-
pate as active members and collaborators, yet there is an expectation that
their contributions should adapt to the specific forms of producing knowl-
edge that characterize the insurrectional patterns of mobilization. Thus,
within their specific conditions, these sites tend to generate intellectuals
engaged in social struggles through, among other means, the mutual equal-
ization and contamination of diverse knowledge practices. We do not claim
that this puts an end to the violent imposition of a single epistemology; but
that, at least, some “intellectuals” steeped in the “lettered city” are learning
in these sites that, to paraphrase Boaventura de Sousa Santos (2004), the
struggle for social justice cannot be disentangled from the struggle for cog-
nitive justice. This means that the problem is not who has knowledge and for
what, but rather how knowledge is produced and with what consequences.
In this sense, it is important to highlight that these sites are not “discovered”
by the “lettered city” as interlocutors that could help to complete an accu-
rate picture of reality, as the “committed intellectual” tradition expected.
Rather, these subjugated knowledges are actively contesting the privileges of
the “lettered city.” Thus, the label of “university” is used by some of these
experiences strategically to indicate the relative equalization of which we
speak. As we have argued in our discussion of the insurrectional patterns of
mobilization, there is a contestation of modern institutions’ claim to have a
83
The “Lettered City” and the Insurrection of Subjugated Knowledges in Latin America
84
JUAN RICARDO APARICIO & MARIO BLASER
85
The “Lettered City” and the Insurrection of Subjugated Knowledges in Latin America
86
JUAN RICARDO APARICIO & MARIO BLASER
here several things get confused: expertise does not always imply inequal-
ity, and authority does not always connote imposition.
Perhaps a good way to think about this issue is through the example of
the konsaho (shaman) of the Yshiro people of Paraguay, with which one of
us is familiar. The konsaho is an expert and as such he/she manages a lan-
guage that is not accessible to just anyone, but only to those who are them-
selves konsaho or in the process of becoming one. No Yshiro would have
the idea that everyone should be a konsaho—this is something deter-
mined by particular vital trajectories—yet konsaho are indeed vested with
authority to the extent that they prove themselves to be beneficial to the
community of humans and non-humans that co-form the yrmo (cosmos).
Interestingly, being beneficial depends largely on the konsaho’s capacity to
co-adjust the multiple “threads” (social bonds) that come to meet in
his/her persona. It is precisely because a person is recognized to have a tal-
ent to do this co-adjusting consistently well that he or she becomes and is
recognized by the community as an expert konsaho. But this is not some-
one who looks at the world from above and from a distance, rather it is
through his/her disposition to entangle his/her self in open-ended rela-
tions with unforeseeable consequences (both in identitarian and bodily
terms) that the konsaho gains authority and respect. In other words, the
konsaho is an institution in a permanent state of becoming. Perhaps the
“lettered city” can be construed in this way, where our expertise becomes
such to the extent that we open this (personal and institutional) site to
become one of the nodes where multiplicities meet and co-adjust in co-
existence, always keeping in mind that we cannot be everywhere (and
nowhere), that we all operate in the specificity of our sites. Hence, for us
it is not so much in the simplicity and accessibility of language (which
assumes un-difference) that the possibility of eroding inequalities lies, but
in the kind of articulations/translations that the “lettered city” can allow
within itself, and in partnership with other sites of practices.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank Artura Escobar for his inspiration, encouragement and support.
The Social Movements Working Group collective at the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill has been an incredibly supportive and friendly environment to develop our
ideas. Marisol de la Cadena, Catalina Cortes Severino and Elena Yehia have also been key
interlocutors for us to develop the ideas presented here. We are thankful to them all.
87
The “Lettered City” and the Insurrection of Subjugated Knowledges in Latin America
ENDNOTES
1
If we accept the proposition that the diversity of cultures has always been produced
through the mutual interaction of diverse cultures, the question then becomes why we
should call the present state of diversity of cultures “modern”? The “modernness” of
all this diversity needs to be proven rather than axiomatically asserted. This is where
the imprecise quality of pluralized modernity becomes apparent for in order to show
how a given place is modern one would need some criteria of what it means to be so.
It is evident that there is no agreement among analysts about what these criteria would
be, except perhaps for the unstated assumption that being modern is related to having
somehow experienced the consequences of European expansion and colonialism. If
this is the case, then the problem is to prove that in the ceaseless history of encoun-
ters of a given culture with others, and the ensuing transformations generated by such
interactions, the encounter with the Europeans is the most relevant for the culture in
question, so as to warrant our defining it as being modern. Thus, our point is not deny-
ing that modernity might be multiple, but that the claim that there is nothing but
modernity (pluralized as it might be) needs to be proven, and in order to do so we need
clear criteria of what it is to be modern.
2
This does not mean that modernity is homogenous. The ways in which the modern
constitution can be conceived of may vary greatly as the diverse schools of modern phi-
losophy attest. Nevertheless, this diversity is not limitless.
3
On the notion of multiple worlds or multiple ontologies see Mol (2001); Latour (1993,
1999, 2004); Haraway (1991, 1997).
4
At the same time, it must be pointed out that many of these marginalized places can
turn, or are actively turned into “borderlands,” spaces overridden by the logic of war,
criminal networks, and all kinds of violence, which in turn “call for” and justify state
interventions backed up by further violence (Duffield 2002).
5
We wish to stress that we are not arguing that all communities (Indigenous or other-
wise) operate according to the communal system. In effect, there are important differ-
ences between, say, the Indigenous communities of hunter-gatherers in the
Paraguayan Chaco, where communal institutions have so far effectively truncated the
emergence of permanent hierarchies (see Bartolome 2000; Renhaw 2003), and the
communities of handicraft producers of the Otavalo people in Ecuador, where “rein-
vented” communal institutions (see Korovkin 2001) might actually operate as vehicles
to reify economic differences (see Colloredo-Mansfeld 2002), thus making it question-
able whether we can properly speak of a communal system at all. In short, when we
speak of the communal system we are not describing specific communities but a form
of organizing social life and action that specific communities might manifest, or not,
in varying degrees and in different forms.
6
“[W]orlds that are more just and sustainable and, at the same time, worlds that are
defined through principles other than those of Eurocentric modernity” (Escobar
2004:220).
7
It is important to notice that while these developments had a specific character in
Latin America, they were part of larger trends spanning beyond the region. Debates of
this kind existed before but were not of the magnitude of the 1960s and 1970s.
8
This “discovery” had parallels in other intellectual spaces. For instance, we can think
of the pioneering work of E. P. Thomson (1971), and more generally the Centre for
Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS), James Scott (1976, 1985, 1990), and in anthro-
pology, Michael Taussig (1980), June Nash ( 1993) and Commaroff (1985) as different
examples of an emphasis on understanding the agency of subalterns as so many
expressions of different historical consciousnesses and moral economies. Among many
Latin American modern intellectuals, this concern took the shape of a veritable “tradi-
88
JUAN RICARDO APARICIO & MARIO BLASER
tion,” that of the “committed intellectuals.” Prominent among these committed intel-
lectuals were Orlando Fals-Borda (Colombia), Adolfo Colombres (Argentina), Paulo
Freire (Brazil), Darcy Ribeiro (Brazil), Guillermo Bonfil Batalla (Mexico), Stefano Varese
(Peru), and others. It is important to highlight the strikingly different understanding
between this and a previous “discovery” of the Other as knowledge producer that was
popular among intellectual elites through the early part of the 20th century and is
known as indigenismo. Indigenismo was concerned with an idealized Indigenous past
that could be reclaimed by mestizo intellectuals as a heritage with the same standing
as the European heritage. In contrast to the committed intellectuals’ concern with con-
temporary subaltern groups and their knowledges, indigenismo dismissed contempo-
rary agrarian Indigenous people’s cultural productions and knowledges as devoid of
any real value (see de la Cadena 2000; Rama 1982).
9
As Mato (2000:493) argues, Freire, a central proponent of the “committed intellectual
tradition,” recognized the implicit danger of sustaining a notion of Truth “by being
particularly critical of [the] notion of consientizaçao (critical consciousness) which he
found contradictory to his ideas [of dialogue] because it suggested that there is one
individual [the modern intellectual] who already has a critical consciousness and
another who does not.”
10
Decolonial thinking makes reference to the idea of thinking from a “double con-
sciousness” or from two different traditions, the dominant modern and the subalt-
ernized Others (see Mignolo 2000).
REFERENCES
Alvarez, Sonia E., Evelina Dagnino and Arturo Escobar, eds. 1998. Cultures of Politics,
Politics of Cultures: Re-visioning Latin American Social Movements. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Archila, Mauricio. 2003. Idas, Venidas, Vueltas y Revueltas: Protesas Sociales en
Colombia, 1958–1990. Bogotá, Colombia: Instituto Colombiano de Antropología e
Historia; Centro de Investigación y Educación Popular.
Arquette, Mary, Maxine Cole and the Akwesasne Task Force on the Environment. 2004.
“Restoring Our Relationships for the Future.” In Mario Blaser, Harvey A. Feit, and
Glenn McRae, eds., In The Way of Development: Indigenous Peoples, Life Projects,
and Globalization. London and Ottawa: Zed Books and IDRC.
Assies, Willem, Gemma van der Haar and Andre Hoekema. 2000. The Challenge of
Diversity: Indigenous Peoples and Reform of the State in Latin America. Amsterdam:
Thela Thesis.
Banerjee, Subhabrata Bobby and Stephen Linstead. 2004. “Masking Subversion:
Neocolonial Embeddedness in Anthropological Accounts of Indigenous
Management.” Human Relations 57(2):221–247.
Bartolomé, Miguel. 2000. El Encuentro de la Gente con los Insensatos: La
Sedentarización de los Cazadores Ayoreo en el Paraguay. Asunción, Paraguay, and
Mexico City, Mexico: Universidad Católica “N. S. de la Asunción”; Centro de
Estudios Antropológicos (CEADUC); Instituto Indigenista Interamericano.
Bernauer, James. 1990. Michel Foucault’s Force of Flight: Towards an Ethics for Thought.
Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
Briggs, John and Joanne Sharp. 2004. “Indigenous Knowledges and Development: A
Postcolonial Caution.” Third World Quarterly 25(4):661–676.
89
The “Lettered City” and the Insurrection of Subjugated Knowledges in Latin America
Cajete, Gregory. 2000. Native Science: Natural Laws of Interdependence. Santa Fe, NM:
Clear Light Publishers.
Castillo-Cárdenas, Gonzalo. 1987. Liberation Theology from Below: The Life and Thought
of Manuel Quintín Lame. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Castro-Gómez, Santiago. 2000. “Ciencias Sociales, Violencia Epistémica y el Problema
de la ‘Invención de lo Otro.’” In Edgardo Lander, ed., La Colonialidad del Saber:
Eurocentrismo y Ciencias Sociales, pp. 201-225. Caracas, Venezuela: Facultad de
Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Instituto Internacional de la UNESCO para la
Educación Superior en América Latin y el Caribe.
Chatterton, Paul. 2005. “Making Autonomous Geographies: Argentina’s popular upris-
ing and the ‘Movimiento de Trabajadores Desocupados’ (Unemployed Workers
Movement).” Geoforum 36:545–561.
Colectivo Situaciones. 2005a. Bienvenidos a la Selva: Diálogos a Partir de la Sexta.
Declaración del EZLN. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Tinta Limón Ediciones, Universidad
Internacional de Andalucía.
____________. 2005b. “ Something More on Research Militancy: Footnotes on
Procedures and (In)Decisions.” Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization
5(4):602–614.
Colombres, Adolfo. 1996. La Hora del Bárbaro: Bases para una Antropología Social de
Apoyo. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Ediciones del Sol.
Colloredo-Mansfeld, Rudi. 2002. “Don’t be Lazy, Don’t Lie, Don’t Steal: Community
Justice in the Neoliberal Andes.” American Ethnologist 29(3):637–662.
Comaroff, Jean. 1985. Body of Power, Spirit of Resistance: The Culture and History of a
South African People. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
De la Cadena, Marisol. 2000. Indigenous Mestizos: The Politics of Race and Culture in
Cuzco, Peru, 1919–1991. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Deleuze, Gilles and Claire Parnet. 1997. L’Abécédaire de Gilles Deleuze avec Claire
Parnet. Paris: Editions Montparnasse.
Duffield, Mark. 2002. “Social Reconstruction and the Radicalization of Development:
Aid as a Relation of Global Liberal Governance.” Development and Change
33(5):1049–1071.
Dussel, Enrique. 2000. “Europe, Modernity, and Eurocentrism.” Nepantla 1(3): 465–478.
Earle, Duncan and Jeanne Simonelli. 2005. Uprising of Hope: Sharing the Zapatista
Journey to Alternative Development. Lanham, MD: Alta Mira Press.
Edelman, Marc. 1999. “Social Movements: Changing Paradigms and Forms of Politics.”
Annual Review of Anthropology 30:285–317.
Ellen, Roy et al. 2000. Indigenous Environmental Knowledge and its Transformations:
Critical Anthropological Perspectives. New York: Routledge.
Escobar, Arturo and Sonia Alvarez, eds. 1992. The Making of Social Movements in Latin
America: Identity, Strategy, and Democracy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Escobar, Arturo. 2001. “Culture Sits in Places: Reflections on Globalism and Subaltern
Strategies of Localization.” Political Geography 20(2):139–174.
Escobar, Arturo. 2004. “‘Worlds and Knowledges Otherwise’: The Latin American
Modernity/Coloniality Research Program.” Cuadernos del CEDLA 16:31–67.
Escobar, Arturo. In Press. Territories of Difference: Place, Movements, Life. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press
90
JUAN RICARDO APARICIO & MARIO BLASER
Esteva, Gustavo. 2001. “The Meaning and Scope of the Struggle for Autonomy.” Latin
American Perspectives 28(2):120–148.
Fabian, Johannes. 1983. Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes Its Object. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Fals Borda, Orlando. 1979a. El Problema de Como Investigar la Realidad para
Transformarla por la Praxis. Bogotá, Colombia: Ediciones Tercer Mundo.
Fals Borda, Orlando. 1979b. Historia Doble de la Costa, Vol. 1, Mompox y Loba. Bogotá,
Colombia: Universidad Nacional de Colombia.
Fals Borda, Orlando. 1984. Historia Doble de la Costa, Vol. 3, Resistencia en el San Jorge.
Bogotá, Colombia: Universidad Nacional de Colombia.
Fals Borda, Orlando and Muhammad Anisur Rahman, eds. 1991. Action and Knowledge:
Breaking the Monopoly with Participatory Action Research. New York: The Apex
Press.
Fernández, Ana María. 2006. Política y Subjetividad: Asambleas Barriales y Fábricas
Recuperadas. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Tinta Limón Ediciones.
Fernández Osco, Marcelo. In Press. “Ayllu: Decolonial Critical Thinking and Other
Autonomy.” In Mario Blaser, Ravi de Costa, Deborah McGregor and William D.
Coleman, eds., Indigenous Peoples, Globalization and Autonomy. Vancouver:
University of British Columbia Press.
Foucault, Michel. 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge. A. M. Sheridan Smith, trans.
London: Tavistock.
Foucault, Michel. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings,
1972–1977. Colin Gordon, ed. New York: Pantheon Books.
Foucault, Michel. 1991. “Govermentality.” In Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon and Peter
Miller, eds., The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. London: Harvester
Wheatsheaf.
Freire, Paulo. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, London: Continuum.
Gaonkar, Dilip Parameshwar, ed. 2001. Alternative Modernities. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
García Linera, Álvaro. 2007. “Evo Simboliza el Quiebre de un Imaginario Restringido a
la Subalternidad de los Indígenas.” In Karin Monasterios, Pablo Stefanoni and
Hervé Do Alto, eds., Reinventando la Nacion en Bolivia: Movimientos Sociales, Estado
y Poscolonialidad, pp. 11–21. La Paz, Bolivia: CLACSO/Plural Editores.
Ghosh, Kausik. 2006. “Between Global Flows and Local Dams: Indigenousness, Locality,
and the Transnational Sphere in Jharkhand, India.” Cultural Anthropology
21(4):501–534.
Gill, Lesley. 2000. Teetering on the Rim. New York: Columbia University Press.
Gómez, Juan. 2004. El Alto de Pie: Una Insurrección Aymara en Bolivia. La Paz, Bolivia:
Comuna.
Guaman Poma de Ayala, Felipe. [1615] 2001. Primer Nueva Cronica i Buen Gobierno
(Perú, 1615). Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, University of Copenhagen.
Guerra, María y Ezequiel Maldonado, eds. 1979. El Compromiso del Intelectual. Editorial
Mexico City, Mexico: Nuestro Tiempo.
Hale, Charles. 2002. “Does Multiculturalism Menace? Governance, Cultural Rights and
the Politics of Identity in Guatemala.” Journal of Latin American Studies
34(3):485–524.
91
The “Lettered City” and the Insurrection of Subjugated Knowledges in Latin America
Hale, Charles. 2006. “Activist Research v. Cultural Critique: Indigenous Land Rights and
the Contradictions of Politically Engaged Anthropology.” Cultural Anthropology
21(1):96-120.
Haraway, Donna. 1991. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature.
London: Routledge.
Haraway, Donna. 1997. Modest-Witness@Second-Millenium.FemaleMan-Meets-
OncoMouse: Feminism and Technoscience. New York: Routledge.
Hayek, F. A. 1973. “The Principles of a Liberal Social Order.” In Jeffrie G. Murphy, ed.,
An Introduction to Moral and Social Philosophy: Basic Readings in Theory and
Practice, pp. 248–263. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
Higgins, Nicholas P. 2004. Understanding the Chiapas Rebellion: Modernist Visions and
the Invisible Indian. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Korovin, Tanya. 2002. “Reinventing the Communal Tradition: Civil Society and Local
Government in Andean Ecuador.” Latin American Research Review 36(3):36-68.
Latour, Bruno. 1993. We Have Never Been Moderns. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Latour, Bruno. 1999. Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, Bruno. 2004. The Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Leyva Solano, Xochitl and Shannon Speed. n.d. “Hacia la Investigación Descolonizada:
Nuestra Experiencia de Co-labor.” Unpublished manuscript.
Manami Ramírez, Pablo. 2005. Geopolíticas Indígenas. El Alto, Bolivia: CADES.
Mato, Daniel. 2000. “Not ‘Studying the Subaltern,’ But Studying with ‘Subaltern’ Social
Groups, or, at Least, Studying the Hegemonic Articulations of Power.” Nepantla,
Views from the South 1(3):479–502.
McGregor, Deborah. 2004. “ Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Sustainable
Development: Toward Co-Existence.” In Mario Blaser, Harvey A. Feit and Glenn
McRae, eds., In The Way of Development: Indigenous Peoples, Life Projects, and
Globalization. London and Ottawa: Zed Books and IDRC.
Memorias del Seminario Taller con Comunidades en Riesgo. 2003. Vida, Dignidad y
Territorio: Comunidades de Paz y Zonas Humanitarias en Urabá y Atrato. Bogotá,
Colombia: Fundación Cultura Democrática, Ministerio del Interior, PNUD.
Mignolo, Walter. 2000. Local Histories/Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges
and Border Thinking. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Mignolo, Walter. 2007. “Delinking: The Rhetoric of Modernity, the Logic of Coloniality
and the Grammar of De-Coloniality.” Cultural Studies 21(2–3):449-514.
Mol, Annemarie. 2002. The Body Multiple: Ontology In Medical Practice. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
Moreton-Robinson, Aileen. 2000. Talkin’ Up to the White Woman: Indigenous Women
and Feminism. St. Lucia, Australia: University of Queensland Press.
Movimiento de Trabajadores Desocupados (MTD). 2002. De la Culpa a la Autogestión.
Buenos Aires, Argentina: MTD Editora.
Nadasdy, Paul. 2003. Hunters and Bureaucrats: Power, Knowledge, and Aboriginal-State
Relations in the Southwest Yukon. Vancouver, Canada: UBC Press.
92
JUAN RICARDO APARICIO & MARIO BLASER
Nash, June. 1993. We Eat the Mines and the Mines Eat Us. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Neuhaus, Susana, Hugo Calello et al. 2006. Hegemonía y Emancipación. Buenos Aires,
Argentina: Herramienta.
Noble, Brian. 2007. “Justice, Transaction, Translation: Blackfoot Tipi Transfers and
WIPO’s Search for the Facts of Traditional Knowledge Exchange.” American
Anthropologist 109(2):338–349.
Patzi, Félix. 2004. Sistema Comunal: Una Propuesta Alternativa al Sistema Liberal. Una
Discusión Teórica para Salir de la Colonialidad y del Liberalismo. La Paz, Bolivia:
CEA.
Postero, Nancy and Leon Zamosc, eds. 2004. The Struggle for Indigenous Rights in Latin
America. Brighton, UK: Sussex Academic Press.
Rama, Angel. 1982. Transculturación Narrativa en América Latina. Hanover, NH:
Ediciones del Norte.
Rama, Angel. 1996. The Lettered City. John Charles Chasteen, ed. and trans. Durham,
NC: Duke University Press.
Rappaport, Joanne. 2005. Intercultural Utopias: Public Intellectuals, Cultural
Experimentation and Ethnic Pluralism in Colombia. Durham, NC: Duke University
Press.
Ribeiro, Darcy. 1969. La Universidad Necesaria. Merida, Venezuela: Ediciones del
Rectorado.
Santos, Boaventura de Sousa. 2004. “Toward a Counter-Hegemonic Globalisation (Part
I).” In Jai Sen, Anita Anand, Arturo Escobar and Peter Waterman, eds., The World
Social Forum: Challenging Empires, pp. 235–245. New Delhi: The Viveka Foundation.
Scott, James C. 1976. The Moral Economy of the Peasant. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Scott, James C. 1985. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Scott, James C. 1990. Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Stahler-Sholk, Richard. 2007. “Resisting Neoliberal Homogenization: The Zapatista
Autonomy Movement.” Latin American Perspectives 34(3):48–63.
Taussig, Michael T. 1980. The Devil and Commodity Fetishism in South America. Chapel
Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Universidad Intercultural Amawtay Wasi. 2004. Sumak Yachaypi: Alli Kawsaypipash
Yachakuna. Aprender en la Sabiduría y el Buen Vivir: Learning Wisdom and the Good
Way of Life. Quito, Ecuador: Banco Central de Ecuador.
Uribe, María Teresa. 2004. “ Emancipación Social en un Contexto de Guerra
Prolongada: El Caso de la Comunidad de Paz de San José de Apartadó.” In
Boaventura de Sousa Santos and Maurico García Villegas, eds., Emancipación Social
y Violencia en Colombia. Bogotá, Colombia: Grupo Editorial Norma.
Viveiros de Castro, Eduardo. 2004. “Exchanging Perspectives: The Transformation of
Objects into Subjects in Amerindian Ontologies.” Common Knowledge
10(3):463–484.
Walsh, Catherine. In Press. “Interculturality and the Coloniality of Power: An ‘Other’
Thinking and Positioning from the Colonial Difference.” In Ramón Grosfoguel, José
David Saldívar and Nelson Maldonado-Torres, eds., Coloniality of Power,
Transmodernity, and Border Thinking.
93
The ‘Lettered City’ and the Insurrection Of Subjugated Knowledges in Latin America
Warren, Kay. 1998. Indigenous Movements and their Critics: Pan-Maya Activism in
Guatemala. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Warren, Kay and Jean Jackson, eds. 2002. Indigenous Movements, Self-Representation,
and the State in Latin America. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Wolf, Eric. 1987. Europa y la Gente sin Historia. Mexico City, Mexico: Fondo de Cultura
Económica.
Zibechi, Raúl. 2003. Genealogía de la Revuelta: Argentina, Una Sociedad en Movimiento.
La Plata, Argentina: Letra Libre.
Zibechi, Raúl. 2005. “Subterranean Echos: Resistance and Politics ‘Desde el Sótano.’”
Socialism and Democracy 19(3):13–39.
Zibechi, Raul. 2006. Dispersar el Poder: Los Movimientos como Poderes Antiestatales.
Buenos Aires, Argentina: Tinta Limón.
94