In my opinion, yes.

To summarize my understanding of Deharts article, I found that it draws on ethnographic research with the K'iche' community development organization in the rural setting of Tontonicapan to examine how neoliberal development policy in post-war Guatemala both enabled and problematized grassroots ethnic development strategies. Specifically, this study analyses efforts by the CDRO to employ Maya culture as a tool for development through the pop (woven mat) methodology. The particular development model was successful in its ability to appeal to both the international development industry and local community. Furthermore, this article also examines, however, how the pop also became an important site of critique of neoliberal state reforms and class inequality within the community.

To tie both of the articles together and also confer with Grace and Rachel's posts on the present and future of Guatemala, I wonder how Guatemala is and will develop? For instance, how will young Mayan men from highland Guatemal adapt to the changing economic conditions in their country while attempting to maintain strong connections to the religious and cultural traditions of their rural homelands? This is just one specific population but can also be generalized. So far we have seen a broad spectrum from those who are embarrased about their culture/want nothing more than to assimilate to the status quo to those who struggle with trying to maintain their culture in mint condition. From here there is the question about what exactly is a culture? Becasuse times change and is there such a thing as pure culture? I am leaning toward yes, transculuturation is the only way...for the vast majority of Guatemalans. There will be, of course those outliers who somehow sequester themselves and their families off in the highland brush away from outsiders who I suppost could "maintain their culture" exactly as it is now...but it is impossible for that to last forever.