This weeks reading was very interesting and informative, yet at the same time may have left me more confused than when I began. I understand Smith’s claim that Guatemalan Indians are united based on political oppression that has pushed them to this state, yet it is hard for me to see her argument concerning class. She states that it is a “mistaken impression” to say that the Indians “constitute a class in objective terms” (207). Later she continues by emphasizing the lack of any dominant traditions or practices other than language. The question I have for this argument is who is defining class? If class is meant to distinguish a common group of people who share certain practices, then I do believe that the Indians in Guatemala make up their own class. If I have learned anything from previous readings in this class, it is that Indians in Guatemala have survived because of their individuality and reliance on small communities rather than larger resistance. Therefore maybe it is this disunity that should be considered the tradition held among Indians. When looking at it from this perspective, it seems as though the Mayan tradition is holding strong.
I think this argument relates to our development discussion from our first few days of class. In the West economic standing and social formations usually distinguish class. However, in Guatemala class could mean something different to the Indians. As it appears, class is more related to their common belief in individual preservation of their own communities. In this sense all Guatemalan Indians have something in common. I would love to know others opinions on this matter however, seeing as I may have taken Smith’s arguments way too far in this analysis.
On a different note, I found the discussion of profit maximization and the refusal to use outside cheap labor to be very intriguing. Nikhila touched on this with her testament to the way in which Totonicapán’s do not wish to separate workers from their kin – but in general the lack of lack of consciousness concerning personal losses associated with not allowing outside cheap labor is astounding. In America the question always seems to be what is the best for me? Or how can I maximize my own output? Rarely do large-scale corporations or successful companies consider the effects that maximizing profits can have on their workers or potential workers. In this way I find the community pride and seclusion in Guatemala to be very admirable.
I also found it interesting to see the path Indians have taken away from agriculture. I know this is merely one example from one town, however the emphasis placed on work diversity was very surprising to me. After many readings pointing specifically to the connection Indians feel with their land, it was surprising to learn that some owned less than one tenth of an acre. Since this is most likely the result of economic hardships, it makes sense that certain family members must find other means of income. However, it is upsetting to know the powerful connection these people have with the land, and then see how they are being stripped away from it and forced to work in other arenas. To me this is an example of how modernization is destroying parts of Indian culture.
Grace,
ReplyDeleteI was right there with you while reading this article. I too had a lot of difficulty understanding what Smith meant in the beginning of her article. She talks about how her study found that a peasantry didn’t exist but that Guatemalan Indians still believe they are oppressed. I didn’t understand what she meant when she said a peasantry did not exist. I can see that Smith was trying to look at class positions in a purely objective light, but I was not sure that gives any real or useful revelations.
However as I read further into the article Smith talks about the meaning of community and this is what really made sense to me. Smith discusses classes within communities vs. communities within a region. When put like that I can better understand Smith’s ideas behind the nonexistence of a peasantry class and the ideas she talked about in relation to enterprises. The cultural ties where strong enough to “suppress economic circumstances.”(pg.11) In previous classes we have talked about the tight knit communities in Guatemala, how people feel free to leave their doors open to the community. This sense of camaraderie gives an equality to everyone that prevents classes from developing. The impression I got was that Smith did not believe something like tradition could be an appropriate explanation for the situation, but I disagree. I think that in every community, whether it be a family or something larger, tradition is very important. Couple that importance to the fact that the Guatemalan Indians were fairly isolated and held their customs to an even higher degree and I think that could explain, at least in part, the economic situation in Totonicapán.