and yes earth part

8/14/2019 And Yes Earth Part

1/12


2/12

en tus orgasmosen tus partos y

en tu muertei'! en tu palabra?

haz 10 que tus hennaliOS

CHICA NA HERMANA MU JERahara aClua por

TI

[..CHICANA

give yourselfyour own valueit is you womanyOll alone

in your o r J ; : a ~ m ~

in your childbirthsin your death

and in your word?

do what your brolhers did

CH ICAN A S ISTER WOMANnow act for

YOURSELFJMargarita Cota-Cardenas, "Manifestacion Tardia" (Lale Declaralion)

1.ln t h e ~ rc o m p l e t ~r e n d i ~ i o n s ,these four poems foreground the identity of ase - c o n ~ I O U S ,.speakingsubject, appeal to mimetic modes of represent,llion offer~ h e~ t . l csubJcct a c ~ l I e c t ~ v ebase and an ethnic identity, evoke cultural ~ r i d eIliscn e a ~ c wsemantiC U1l1verse, and reaffirm the partnership between idcnt'ty'~ ~ ~ U r a ~ l d ! S C o t ' S e ,an d p o l ~ t i c a l .struggle. 'Thus, the revolutionary impulse! of

!can"fO cu tural p ~ u c l l ~ nIS manifest: content as well as form must be'ffidnsformed, re-created, I ~ C h l c a n a f osubjects are to speak with their own aCCents

.\ 0 populate language With their own vernacular.2~ e~ I e t h o r aof :orms that Chicanas/os have invented to speak themselves in

p o ~ t l C d l s : o u r s ~t e s ~ l f i e s,10 Ihe,ir creative and successful manipulation oflan a e.11us mampulatton IS evtdenl II I the multiple forms of self-representation ~ ~ e

poetic subjects above employ to define themselves and their constituencies. Butthe excerpts also suggest that, aside from being rich in verbal expression, thissdf-descriptive Chicana language is also the site of violent and contradictOl)'positioning.;, which evoke contrary reactions, communicate a strategic struggleand a relationship to power, enlist competing alliances, and discard identities aswell as assuming them.

Thus, all these Chicana poems record the passage of an empowered ethnicsubject from complacency to action, from social dislocation to political groundedness, and from individual oblivion to collective memory. TIley also illustrate that

Chicana identity is something to be discovered rather than passively inherited.Important differences do surf..ce, however, in the mannerin which these Chicanapoets author themselves into the cultural text. In poem I, "Yo soy Chicano," thespeaking subject constructs herself through terms tmditionally used in the Chicano movement, such as color, militancy, ethnic awareness, and cultural pride.In addition, she m a r k . ~the male gender by equating these features of Chicanoidentity with manliness.

In poem 2, written by a thirteen-year-old from California, self-identification isachieved through the link made between 7thnic self-consciousness and the enunciatioll oftlw tcrm (.'l,;CI/fIlJ. Wilhin this cnntexl, "Chieano" illcorporatt;s a rejeclionof external definitions, such as "white" or "Spanish," that would idelilify theChicano as tbe "other." Identity is thus described as a space of self-creation andactive struggle against preconceived ethnic modalities that are more acceptable tothe dominant culture.

Pocm 3 foregrounds cthnicity as a central calegory for Chicana and/or'groupidentity. However, this excerpt offers a more elaborate construction, following thepattern of Chicano identity set for th by artistic narra tives such as HEI PlanEspiritual de Azthin" and "I Am Joaquin," which construct the ethnic subject inrelation to race, origin, language, culture, a historical legacy of conquest, apolitical affiliation with La Causa and the socially dispossessed, and hannony withthe land and one's family.' A'l in these examples, the poetic subject distinguishesherself from other ethnic groups: Spanish and Anglo. Yet she breaks with theseclassical models by identifying herself as both a Chicana and a daughter and by

inscribing not only gender and cthnicity but her own female body onto nationalism's largely male-centered narrative.

It is not until poem 4, however, that a new subjectivity is prefigured within thesemantic universe of "Chicana," a universe which, the poet explains, narrates theChicana's self-directed actions, life stages, and existential concerns and her rejection of all forms of ex.ternal subjection.

Taken as a whole, these excerpts suggest that Chicana identity is not fixed"once and for all." Instead, they propose that its axis, teffils of discourse, andpoints of contention change in accordance with the ways in which Chicanasubjects arc positioned and, in turn, position themselves within the discourses ofhistory, culture, and society.' In addition, these JXletic voices-some identifying


3/12

t h ~ m s e l \ ' c sas Chicanas, others as Chicanos- ' .~ d f - r e p r e S ( : n t a l i o navailable '0 Ch" b" mscnbc Ihe comp t h e rtypes of intervclllion arcunthinkable from the perspec::mj. ere tIl(: ChIcana speaking subject docs theco Sh 0 ConVentions populo ' d b "Uf'Se, e subverts the authon",",' .lOze y natIOnalist dis_

I I " Ive movement d' h'~ ~tura legacy equally representative of all Ch ' I S C O U ~ ,w tch posits a shared

l$placement from Chicano cultural _- , . I ~ a n o s ,Further, she names herPi UUUCtlon{I,e., La Raz a """"'t ) "d "fif " " ~ ~ , I entl les

J\1'1U, 1'1'.::' . 11'11'. I ' . I\KII'I U lU I 'A K!

htrsdf as a gendered subject (the implicit I), and exposes La Raza culturalproduction as a "male" domain ("your walls''), Finally, she reminds us, as theItgcndary poetJose Montoya once did, that "los they are us " - f o r TrujiUo, "losthry," the oppressors, are you, Chicano male. In lhis way, the Chicana speakingmbjeet positions h e ~ l fin a discursive space once reserved for los pliJS tk/~ i m l oand laundlcs her own "war of positions" on mac1UsmtJand male privilege"ilhin "alternative" cultural productions,

TO SPLIT AZTLAN: WRITING CHICANA SUBJECTIVITYAnd thus, nOllong after Tomas Rivera published his now classic .. . r no se fo lrag6ftJlima, h i ~boy protagonist's greatest fear, that the earth would part,O has materialized under the pens of not one but many Chicana poets. and cultural practitionm . Yes, the earth (here understood as the symbolic rendition of Chicano/asubjectivity, Aztlan) has parted, and it has parted not oncebut twice-this secondtime self-consciously along gender lines that deconstruct sexism from within thearena ofChicanajo cultural production itscl( With this parting, singular constructions of idealized, homogeneous subjects. of Chicano political identity have g i ~ nway to a plurality of competing identities, whose dilTerences are being consciouslymarked within cultural d i s c o u ~in the tradition of many early Mujeres de laR a z a , I O

This essay examines the ideological formations that led to the splitting ofChicana,'o subjectivity, focusing primarily on cultural productions of the 1970sand soon thereafter, in which Chicanas consciously disassociated themselves frommale hegemonic constructions of group identity, This splitting of Chicana/osubjectivity has taken place in two stages. In the first stage, Chicana subjects areeither displaced from group characterizations or mediated by systems of differentiation that privileged male forms of identity and subjectivity. II In the secondstage, these fonm are eithersubverted or displaced by alternate definitiora, whichforeground Chicanas as individual speaking subjects and in group characterizations; entrust them with their own self-definitiora and subject positiora; andcombat male-oriented figurations of Chicanas,l!

In the contemporary ~ r i o d ,this second type of self-definition has increasinglygiven ~ to substitutions for the word C'liumo-namely, ChUll1UUand Chuanos,C1Iicatwja, or ChictJJW/o.'The markers 0/12,a/o announce the end of the nongenderedMexican American subject of cultural and political identity; they reinscribe theChicana presence, which had been subsumed under the universal ethnic denomination Chicano, However, there are differences inscribed within these markers,Whereas Chicarw/a consciously reinstates the Chicana subject within the ethnicdiscourse of Chicano, OticaTUJ/oprivileges the female subject within group characterizations Ihat mark distinctions, giving the Chicana her own independent trajectory as well as a collective one. Yet both ChicanaJo and Chicano/a are different fromearlier forms of sclf-dellnition in Chicano discourse, because those who use these


4/12

oq>resslons are deliberately i m p o s i n ~their own selcctiVt; proces.'IC$onto the cultural subject being rt;presented. 11ms, they subvert the silences that have markednationalism's cloaked splitting of Chicanafo subjectivity under the imagt; of theChic;l.Ilo malt;-the essential subject for group identity.

The splitting of Chicanafo subjectivity along t h ~dimensions has an addedsocial function. This configuration purports to emphasize tht; panicular socialdistinctions that have promoted Chicana int:quality in society, following the sametype of logic that Cannen Tafolla enlist5 when asked "Why look at ChicanosSt;parately from Anglos, womenseparately from mOl, and now,to funher complicate it all, at Chicanas as a separate group?" Tafolla's reply: "I t is not we whoseparate people offinto groups-our society has already done ihat for us. . . . Ifit were not for the different treatment of ethnic and sex groups in our country,there would be no need for one book to be written about the Chicana, or aboutthe Anglo, or about the Black.""

For Tafolla as for other contemporary cultural critics, visualizing the distinctions between Chicanas and Chicanos, and Chicanas/os and other groups, allowsreaders to encounter an oppressive differentiallreatment of Chicana women andto equalize cultural discourse by highlighting the panicularities of the exchldcdelement: Chicanas. However, Tafolla's rationale is also important because itresponds to the question: Who split the Chicano subject? This question was

routinely posed by authoritative discourses that faulted Chicanas for dividing andsplitting the Chicano moV(';mentwhen they sought to foment Chicana-eentertddiscourses and practices of resistance. While Tafolla does in fact call for a Chicanarq>rtSt;ntation, thus splitting the Chicana subject away from a purponedly undifferentiated fold, her purpose is not to subvert or divide the movement but rather ,to combat exclusion. Ultimately, her aim is to incorporate Chicanas into culturaldiscounes that mark their distinctions as women as well as their similarities withChicanas/os at large. However, quite another scenario emerges with the predominant male-centered authoritative discourses, which promised to include Chicanasin the cultural record of the practices of ethnic resistance if they acapted theirexclusion as female subjects and dwelled only on their ethnic similarities withChicano males. Along with nationalism's 5elf-deceptiV(';mirror, which promisedChicana women a transparent reflection of thcJllS(':lves through the imago ofothers, t h ~promises rarely materialized.

Round Ont: RnuMn's Maniful Chicano

Th e best example of t h ~types of male-centered discourses of exclusion can be~ o u n din A r m ~ d oRendon's Chicano Manifuto, published in 1971. In his description of the Chlcanafo revolt, Rendon polarizes the forces of contention into themutually exclusive categories of nwlti.rmo (male) and malinehismD (female).W h e ~ a s ,for RendOn, the former is synonymous with revolutionary struggle,commitment, and progress, the latter is synonymous with retrocession, betrayal,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~ ,..._ . ~ ., ~ . ~ , _ , _ , , ~ . ~ . = ' ' '.......... , i l \ " I ' : ' ~ '- - - -and conflUC'lI. Byhis pl.:n, (Chicana) female malindlts arc in errl:ct h;Ulishecl fromthe political movement itself, cast over to the other side with the heinous TioTacos (Chicano Uncle Toms) and Anglo oppressors. But female belrayal is muchworse than the male v e ~ i o n ,since ml1/indld betray not only a political principlebut male dignity and manhood as well .to Ultimately, for Rendon, (Chicanas)maliflf:hts obstnlct social p r o ~ ,collective identity, and reconciliation with oneself, the f:-tmily, and thc nation.

Rendon's objectification of political forces in the categories of rr"unismo andmohllchismo at no point escapes its gOldered focus. As he hiJllS(':lfconfessed afterdescribing the Chicano revolt: "I t may seem that when reference is made toChicano activism, the emphasis is on the masculine alone. That tendency ismainly attributable to m ybeing macho(male) and naturally viewing the Chicanorevolt as a male-dominated phenomenon."" Since madtb is not only ma le b ut aspecific Chicano male (Rendon), it follows that mahncht is also a panicularChicana female, who remains gcneric in his essay. Rendon also associatesChicano male with macho and the purponedly generic Chicano. And he impliesthat if Chicanas (mQlindw) want to be Chicano (the generic term) and lightoppression, they have 10 embrace Chicano manhood as a political and personalobjective. He explains: "The essence of machismo, of being macho, is as mucha symbolic principle for the Chicano revolt as it is a guideline for family life.. . . Macho, in other words, can no longer relate merel}' to manhood but mustrelate to nationhood as well. . . . Th e word Chicano in many ways embodies therevolt itself."'1

Following Foucault's logic. it could Ix: said that Rend6n SC:t5 into motion asystem of gender differentiation designed !O maintain a fonn of (male) pow erpatriarchy, which "subjugates" the Chicana by "imposing a law of lnuh" uponher (machirmo) and by making her subject to $Omeont;else (Chicano males) "bycontrol and/or dependence."11 Thus, Chicana subjectivity, as elaborated in RendOn's Chicano Manifuto, is equivalent to subjection: Chicano. 'I Howevc:r, even withhis devastating ponrait of Chicanas and Malintzin Tencpal (Cones's mistress),Rendon could not alter the onslaught of Chicana activism. As he admitted uponpaying lip servia to the contradictions in his text and to the vinues of some

Chicanas, Chicanas weren't ready to take a back scat to anyone. And many ofthem didn't: they contested their negative figuration in stories of madw liberationand manifest Chicanos by creating theirown productions of cultural and politicalstnlggle.

Round Two: RtdQimingthe Chuana Subjut

Given Ihe ideological constraints that Chicanas faced, reclaiming a subject position meant parting with male-ce.ntered ethnic qualifiers that inscribed Chicanasubjection; relocating Chicanas within Azt1:in,the political struggle, and nationalist discourse; transforming Malinche into Malintzin;" rejecting the unequal and


5/12

divisive practices of st;xism in the struggle against domination; textualizingChicana militancy; visualizing the experiences of Chicana women in mainstreamAnglo-Saxon an d alternative feminist discourses; contesting Chicano male dominance at home an d at work; and providing Chicana perspectives as a means ofevoking cultural pride among all people-particularly Chicanas. In brief, intervening into ChicanaJo subjectivity within the context of the prevailing discoursesof exclusion necessarily meant reconnecting Chicanas to themselves, to eachother, an d to others.

Many Chicanas boldly accepted this challenge,20 changing the word CilKcmO toOKana in order to define themselves, assuming the most progressive elements ofChiul1llJ, an d giving Chicana/o subjectivity a female body an d condition. But theseChicanas not only changed the word; they literally changed the subject, populating culture with Chicanas, often replacing the discourses of tamalismo an d com-padres (brotherhood and brothers) with the discourses of feminismo and ctmlodru(sisterhood an d sisters), an d problematizing the domain offeminism itself. I' Mostimportant, they alterl the subject position of Chicanas in cullural productions,taking them from subjection to subjectivity, from entrapment to liberation, andfrom distortion and/or censurt: to selfawareness an d defrnition. rz

In o rd er to do all this, they enlisted more complex modes of representation,which could better accommodate multiple subjects, competing discourses, and

contrary self-images. While it would be a mistake to attribute this type of oppositional stance to all Chicanas or Chicana cultural productions, these features werecommonly found in the works of many Chicana cultural practit ioners from theearly 19705 o nward. C hi ca na s such as Yol an da L6p cz , Ana Niet o-Go mez ,Dorinda Moreno, and Bernice Zamora-whose work will b e e xa mi ne d in t hefollowing sections-altered Chicano cultural production by interrogating, modifying, an d displacing images of Chicana subjects from within different practicesof resistance and ideological an d cultural fonnations."

IMAGING TH E S P LIT CHI CAN A SUBJECT;LOPEZ'S (FALLEN) GUADALUPE

To date, one of the best an d most controversial Chicana artists is Yolanda Upez.Th e foree of LOpcz's artistic production arises from he r successful and repeatedmodification of traditional ponraits of Chicanas/Mexicanas. Her most renownedwork is contained in the $em Guadalupe (Guadalupe series).lt As could be expected,t he t arge t h ere is the stoic Chris tian Guadalupe , who in LOpez 's pract ice isfrequently displaced by moclern-day Chicanas in motion: militant Chicanas,fun-loving Chicanas dressed in shoru for summer, hard-working Chicana mothers breast-feeding their babes, an d warm Chicana daughters an d grandmothersopenly expressing their aJfeetion for one another in joyful embraces. b Unlike theoriginal Guadalupe, who first images henelftoJuan Diego an d the church, LOpezreimages Guadalupe for contemporary Chicanas/Mexicanas seeking liberation

"NU, n :s . . . TH1=: 1=:ARTH DID PART

from oppressive male-oriented images o f C ~ i c a n awomen an d from the debilitat-

ing influences of social institutions and beliefs. . . . .Perhaps the best example ofUpez's splitting o f C h l . c ~ n a / osubjectiVity can be

found in a work depicting a fallen portrait of the t r a d i ~ o ~ a lG u a d a l u ~ ~ g u r e3.1).1'5 As normally occurs in the work of LOpez, the ~ ~ u cborder (thIS time ~ nindigenous rim that serves as the internal frame) enclfchng ~ ~ a d a l u p eremalOSintact. However, the privileged space reserved for the tradiuonal Guadalupeimage is intentionally subverted, virtually left blank in the c e ~ t e rof ~ h epage,where the eyes of the well-trained Chicano/Latino p ~ b l i c . f i xtheir ~ e m confirmation of the image of the Christian Virgin. Attention IS drawn Instead to theright, to a c on te mp orary C hi ca na who j og s away t oward the :orner of ~ h eexternal frame, and to the left, to a moclern-day Guadalupe . f e e d i n ~h e ~child,located halfway outside of the Guadalupe border. And as a Sign of Its dISplacement the traditional image of Guadalupe appears at the bottom of the external

frame. .

'I1ms, LOpez's artistic text is literally.split between. twO ?hlcana doubles: onesct consisting of the young Chicana and her duplicate ~ m a g e ;~ e other setoonsistingofdisparate Guadalupes-theuniversally recognizable V t r g e ~a ~ dthelifelike modem Guadalupe, dressed partly in the robe of ~ h eBlessed Vugm an dpartly in street dothes. Th e contrasting v e r t i c ~ 1and h o n ~ n t a l~ o v e m e n t sas

sociated with these artistic subjects militate agamst the stauc quahty and closureof the traditional Guadalupe portrait, and they chart new passages away ~ r o ~theimmortal, supernatural past and toward the Chicana'.s.worldly ~ r e s e n t .S I ~ l a r l y ,

the multiplication of Chicana subjects by ~ o ~ b l e sm l h t ~ t e sa g a u ~ tthe e ~ l ~ t e n c eof a singular univenal woman, imaged Wlthin the Chlcano/Launo "?"dl.non ofNorth America as the rrwtka Christian mother. LOpez also contests thIS s ~ n g u l a rwoman by deliberately counterposing the eternal Virgin with twO very differenttypes of ChicanasfMexicanas: a mother and a young Chicana, both of w h o ~areconsciously embodied. That is, their physical attrihutes art: foregrounded ~ n.thetext not hidden as the cloaked Virgin's are. And L6pez draws important d i s b n ~ .t i o n ~between these Chicana subjects, not only in their embodiment but ~ s omtheir divergent activities an d social attitudes. Thus, while one of these C h l ~ a n a

subjects assumes the role of m o t h e r h ~ ,~ d h ~ r~ i a t i o n~ ~ the samtlyGuadalupe is marked by he r posture, limlted IOseruon mto the pnVlleged Guadalupe space, an d sup po rt by t he famil iar roses, t he o th er ru ns a way from ~ h eGuadalupe portrait, divested of traditional imagery, unfettert:d by robe. or .child,physical or emotional stagnation, or artifieial roses, perhaps toward a third Imageof the Chicana, yet to be constructed within another t e ~ t u a lborder: .

By relegating the notably artificial, s t a t u e s q ~ ep o r t r a l ~~ fthe C h l c a ~ a / M e x l -

cana Virgen to the bottom of the page, LOpez d , ~ a ~thiS Image as a ~ a b l eonefor contemporary Chicanas/Mexicanas, an d she I n v l l e s . t h e . r e f o ~ u l a n o nand/ordisplacement of this rt:ified female icon by new images, msplrtd II I everyday , : o ~ kan d play. Liberation from further subjection is inscribed in many forms W1thm

l V ' " ' " ' ' ' ' ' ' " " ' l > >11\1'1 ~ ~ ~ ~


6/12

a l . V ' Co .... n " ' .. " ' ' ' ' ' ' u r " " ; ' l ~r. ...:>r.:>11\1'1

Figure 3.1. Yolanda L O ~ z ,from &rU Guadalupe, 1978.

. . . . , . . . . , , .

. LOpez\ fallen Guadalupe: in the rejection of images that promote submission ofChicanas to existing power relations through the diffusion of universal "female"tmths; in the lifelike images of Chicanas; and, finally, in the empty spaces, whichprovide an opening for future constructions of Chicanas that can assist in their

r self-knowledge.While LOpez successfully redefines one of the most traditional images of the

ChicanafMexicana, thus redefining ChicanasfMexicanas themselves, she does notIMe sight of the tensions that frame Chicana subjectivity in real life. In fact, sheinvites these competing images into her text at the same time that she invites her

Chicana spectators outside, to contemplate their own self-images and the degreelowhich her reformulation of the Guadalupe image approaches theirs. LOpez alsoinvolves her viewing public in a series of intertextual dialogues wilh other traditional variants of Guadalupe in Chicano cullUral productions-variants such as"1..;1 Familia de la Raza" (the Chicano Holy Family), "L"lJefita," "I AmJoaquin,"or RIm Me, Ultima, all of which reify Chicana subjects, extolling the virtuesassociated with motherhood. Z1 With this dialogue, LOpez underscores the limitedanistic images available to Chicana s u b j e c l ~ ,and she extends her cultural critiqueto a wider range of cultural productions, interfacing as well with other Chicanatexts that offer alternative visions ofChieana s u b j e e l ~ .Thus, L6pez's new Chicanasubjects exist tensely on the border between tradition and modernity.

CHANGING TH E SUBJECT(S): TH E COUNTERDISCOURSES OF CHICANA FE MINIST W RIT INGS

The dialogical quality featured in LOpez's work is not unique to her particu larbrand of cultural production. It is commonly found in the works of otherChicanacultural practitioners, whose entrance into textual representation is marked by theappeardnce of a wide range of counter discourses. At their best, these counterdiscourses populate language with the interests and vernacular of Chicanas,subordinated within the cultural conversations of race, class, and gender oppression. The bold-spirited nature of this revisionist movement is best illustrated bythe Chicana feminist writings of the early 1970s, which denounced the contradic

tions of the Chicano political movement an d sang the virtues of La Mujer and theheroines of La ColUsa. Unlike early Chicano movement discourses, which privileged issues of general interest to the group, these Chicana feminist discoursesreinscribed the condjlion of Chicanas onto the political text.'lII Ana Nieto-Gamez's"La Chicana," a political article written at a time when strenuous efforts werebeing made to integrate Chicanas into the curriculum, provides an illustration ofthese early Chicana feminist counter discourses. 2lI

In this essay, Nieto-Gomez proposes that Chicana feminism "is the recognitionthat women are oppressed as a group and are exploited as pari ofla raza people"under the imperatives of a racist capitalist system. While foregrounding herdiscussion of the particular nature of Chicana oppression within the parameters


7/12

of the group, she:usoemphasizes that proponentsorreminism should identify andact upon the needs of Chicana women-needs such as "child care reproduction.economic stability, welfare rights, forced sterilization and prostitution." Nonethe.less, she qualifies this statement by adding that "all interests must be eradicated,"including female interests. Thus, she draws a clear distinction between her brandof Chicana feminism an d mainstream variants, which would be content to substi.tute male oppressors with female ones.

With he r particular construction of Chic,uL1. feminism, Nieto-G6me-L deliberately an d successfully contairn the male-centercd discourse on Chicano oppms ion, formula ted in response to an unwarranted fear of Chicana activism. Aspreviously suggested, these types of discourses onen accuscd Chicanas of dividingthe Chicano movement an d of aligning themselves with mairntream feminists,who allegedly planed to rt:instate even mort: oppressive regimes. In tum, NietoGomez's counter discoune challenb'eS each ofthesc assumptions and provid" amore equitable representation of male and female interests. And she avoids theclosure of Chicano movement discourse, soliciting feedback from a mixed publicand calling for a more integrated approach, which addresses the very colllradictions that haveseparated Chicana women from Chicanomales. Finally, like manyof her contemporaries, she argues that this approach, ifit is to be successful, mustaim toward transforming the entire f.1.bric of social relationships.

Nieto-G6mez's refonnulation of Chicano movement narratives shares man)'affinities with LOpe-L's Guadalupe. Th e fallen Guadalupe images new interpreta.tions of Chicana subjects; "La Mujer" offers Chicanu new subject positionswithin political discourse an d practice. Th e fallen Guadalupe invites more com.plex forms of artistic representation of Chicana subjects; "La Mujer" invites amore complex undemanding of the nature of Chicana,lo oppression. Th e fallenGuadalupe counterscompeting male an d female narralives of Guadalupe; Nieto.Gomez 's lex t counters the narra tives of Chicano nat ionali sm with those ofChicana feminism. I-inally, the Guadalupe portrait invilesits spectators to reflectcritically on the unsuitability of the traditional Christian Guadalupe for represent.ing contemporary Chicana subjects, while the essay "L a Mluer" challenges itsreaders to reflect on the limitations of early Chicano movement discounes for

representing the interests of Chicanas in the polit ical arena. Together, theseChicana texts successfully countered the male-centerecl nationalist text, whichfrequently laced its exclusion of active Chicana subjects with idealized archetypesthat were of little value in the political struggle for self-affirmation.

Yet liberating Chicanas from their subjection entailed much more than refig.u ring their images an d condition within contemporary cultural an d politicaldiscourse. A step had to be taken toward Chicana activism. That is, discourses ofliberation ha d to be formulated-discoufSCs that championed Chicana militancy,consciousness, and sc.lf-empowennent. Clear distinctions had to be made betweenthese discounes of l iberation and the authoritative discourses of Ihe Chicano

" " u . ,. ., ... 'n " r, / ' K l l l l J l L l I " I \ K I

movement, which favored male models of resistance (Che, Villa, an d Zapata, forinstance) and were often contextualized by the exploitation of Chicanas at homeand at work.'" Once again, poetry furnished a useful medium for imagining a newtype of M uj er d e la R az a, a M uj er who c ou ld l ea d h er p eo pl e i nt o l ib erat io n,lextualize the p a s s a ~to militancy through a new artistic sc.nsibility, an d raiseawareness about her unique burden through her own counter discour5Cs ofChicana,lo liberation.

LIBERATING TH E SUBJECT:S HO UT O UT, MUJER DE LA RAZA

The passa ge to C hi ca na mi lit anc y is best cap tured in Dorinda Moreno's"Mujer de 1.1. Raz a. "" H er e M or en o urges t he Mujercs de la Raza to " sh outout" the a n ~ rin t he ir souls as wdl as l he ir newly foun d fre edoms, a nd shepred ict s tha t today the Mujer de 1.1. Raza will "nullify her past subserviency,""activate he r convictions," and "organize he r liberation," "forging the directionfor tomorrow." Yet he r affinnation of collective liberation is bu t the culmination of a poetic reflect ion that documents the many facets of Raza women'spas5.1.ge to militancy: recognition of their oppression; denunciation of the painand wrongs endured ; fa ith in the transformative potential an d leadership of

Raza women; protest against oppression through polit ical discourse and consciousness raising; and, finally, a call to action an d involvement in the businessof transforming the future.

Th e unyielding power of the Chicana's consciousness enables her to pass fromone state of being, where she is "caged" in society's "concretejungles," to anotherstate, whcre she is outside its grip. According to the poetic subject, this consciousness kindles not only militancy (the renunciation of wron gs e nd ured a nd t herejection of unfulfUled promises) but also a contagious appreciation for liberationof all subje


8/12

like lightllillg across the skies~ a c h i l l gminds opclling t:yr:s."

Because this political consciousness can transfonn the consciousness of othcrsMoreno concludes that Raza women and men will prevail in their united s t r u g g l ~against the multiple forms of Chicana subjection. In retrospect, Moreno's formu-las for libera tion may !Ccm extremcly naive, particularly to contemporaryMujeres de la Raza, who have militated in the presence of less than sympatheticChicano cohorts. Nonetheless, Moreno is aware that much groundwork must bt

laid for building the consciousness of ~ Mujer. For MOn':no, this type of dJOodemands not only militancy but the purposeful cn':ation of a liberating discourse;thus, "rdlective change" can come about only ifRaza women "SHOlfr OUT"the deep-seated rcsemment in their souls about the conditions that have subordinated them and depleted theirenergies. Such a political discourse, once framedin the cxperiences of Raza women, will, according to Moreno, then provide thebase necessary for "activating" their conviction and "organizing" their liberationthrough strategic ventures that will enable them to meet the challenge of the dayand forge the din:ction of tomorrow.

Although Moreno's poem ends by appealing to the collective nature of hertnterpnse-that is, the participation of Raza me n - i t is clear that dl t primarystruggle of eonsciousntss building and organization of Chicllllas lies in the handsof the Mujer de la Raza herself; for i t is she who must confront the anger andhostility that have ensued from h ( ~ rexploitation, just as she must savor theh e a r t ~ t h r o b b i n geuphoria evoked by her own self-styled amiD Y 1.,"10 de libmuwn(song and cry of libcrlltion)_"" And it is she who must extend her testimony andmessage of social refonn to Ihose who surround her. Finally, it is the Chicanasubjt who, in Moreno's poem, brtaks OUIof thejail cdls ofcconomic, racial, andgender oppression, a.\Sisted by the "brolherly" SU!)!Xlrt Ihat i., optimistic.'llly en.listed in such an endeavor. It goes without -S..'lyingthat Mureno's all-inclusivcbrand of Raza women's feminism is om attempt to involve Chicano males in theunique struggles of Chicanas-a st"l\eb'Y no doubt enlisted as a deterrent [0 thecontinued suhjugation of Chicanas in the household, the factories, thc fields, and

the. Chicano movement. Yet( h ~

tensions cOluinue to surf.'lce in the poem,which, afler all, foregrounds Chic.'l1lO1 women's strugglc:s and experiences and doesnot mention the Chicano male sulJjC1:t until the final V(:no, where a courst: ofaction for the futun: is oudined.

Re-imaging llil Fnnak Gn'lo (SeTlam) lhrough Art

These tellSions arc also roregrounded from another perspective in an iIIuslrationa c c ~ m p a l l y i n gMoreno's poem. In this anonymous black-and-white sketch, the~ u J t rde la Raza's passage to Iiberalion is depicted in three scenes that progresSIvely document her n':lease from a jail cell containing the multiple a ~ n t sand

facets of oppression (Figure 3.2).M Unlike the poetic version of this narrative ofChicana liberation, th t flf'St scene of the triptych captures the subordination of the~ ' I u j e rde la Rn a in society by focusing on her entrapment in lhe concn:tcjunglesofurban life, where she is accompanied by husband and daughter." In this scene,she is a victim of her eircumstance, a spectator who caresses the bars of her celland assumes the posture and appearance of a passive woman. As a sign of hercomplacency, her lips arc sealed, and she hides behind her man and her daughter,who are also subjected to society's concrete jungles.

Scene two, which marks a dramatic change in the composure and the physical

appearance of the Mujtr d e la Rna, i U u . ~ t r a t e sthe crucial passage to Chicanaconsciousncu. It is significant that in this scene the Mujer de la Raz.a is presentedalone, her figure magnified to fill the enlin': artistic space of t h ~center of thetrip tych , from where she shouts the anger in her soul, the resentment a t hercondition. Here she has shcd the bra ids and t h ~maidenly bun of the Spanishscnorila, and her mouth is open wide, her hair free. This Mujer is dcarly r e m i n i s ~cent of the "Militant Chicana," who was widely featured in movement publications that dther captured her alone or placed her in front of ~ d yLiberty. "Ibtnow fragmented urban structure, which fonnerly had caged her and her familyin dilapidated housing projects, is cast offinto the background: it no longtr towersover the family's portrait but is l o d g ~ din her wild tresses, confined to her memory.In marked contrast stands the artistic rendition of a spectacular Chicana militancy, guaranteed (as M o r ~ n ohad predicted) "t o reach minds and open eyes."Thc power of its rage is channeled through the fil,"I.lre of a Chicana who assumesthe features of an enraged animal and will not be deterred in her quest forfreedom.

In scelle Ihree, Ihe Mujerde la Raza begins her escapt: from the prison ccllihatcontinues to ~ I l g u l fher husband, now reinstated in the background, behind the

F i g u ~3.2. I ~ n edel Rosario, M'!i" de ItJ ibl..{a, c. 1975.


9/12


10/12

. ~ " ~ ~ " ~


11/12

8. Marcelina Trujillo, hMachismo Is Part ofOurCultun:," in TM Tltull 1V0IMIl:Milll'Jril]W _ IVI'itm '.!IN lhtiurJ St4rn, ed. Dexter F"tsher (Bos.ton:Houghton Mifflin, 1980),pp.iOl-402_

9 . . . . And tIu &rt!I Did NfJi Pa,t (Berkeley, Calir.: (hiinto Sol, 1971).10. "'Vomen of t he Race," a tenn commonly used ill alternative productiolls to refer

to Chicanas.II . I am n:ferring to lhe systems of signifICation within nationalist discourse: which

dfe


12/12

56ANGlE CHABRAM DERNERSESIAN FOUR

~ . db hcrrdationship 10 Antonio. "LaJeftta" wa 5imporUl11 female character, who 15 dc:finc 1Ye - ' (D_ "_1"'" Calif.: Quinto Sol, 1972), p.. _ _I.....,cnutkd =fHJtl uo;TMO_,. _ ~ . . lpublished in a scmffi a n u ~ , . hi [J'K)(hcr who works all day ........233. "LaJdita" is intended 10 be a l n h ~ t eto a C ~ n a

'h nd "ooly

and yes earth part

Documents