Society for Latin American Studies

Urban Literary Production and Latin American Criticism

Author(s): Patricia D'Allemand
Source: Bulletin of Latin American Research, Vol. 15, No. 3 (1996), pp. 359-369
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of Society for Latin American Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3339374
Accessed: 12/01/2010 20:08

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for Latin American Studies and Blackwell Publishing are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Bulletin of Latin American Research.

http://www.jstor.org
 Bull. Latin Am. Res.,Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 359-369, 1996
Copyright ? 1996 Society for Latin American Studies
Pergamon Published by Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0261-3050/96 $15.00 + 0.00

0261-3050(95)000194
Urban Literary Production and Latin
American Criticism
PATRICIAD'ALLEMAND
Queen Mary and Westfield College, University of London, UK

Duringthe last twentyyearsthe LatinAmericanintellectualspherehas been

engagedin reinterpretations of the region'shistoryand culture,distancing
itselffromuniversalistperspectiveswhichhad becomehegemonicwithinthe
field of Latin Americansocial sciences.1This reaction against the Euro-
centrismof such perspectivesis exemplifiedby literarycriticismwhich has
questioned its long-standingsubmissivenessto aesthetic theories built
around the developmentof Europeanmetropolitanliteratures.The sup-
poseduniversalvalidityof thesetheoriesand theirmechanicalapplicationto
the literaryprocessin Latin Americahave also been called into question.
Moreover,emphasishas beenplacedon the fact that criticism,inevitablya
social discourse,has fulfilledconcretesocial functionsin Europeand that
these are clearlynot transferable.Neither,indeed,are the categorieswhich
constitutethe conceptualsystemsof literarytheory;criticalcategoriesare
derivedfrom concreteliterarypraxisand the most importantLatin Amer-
ican critics of recent years have made a collective commitmentto their
formulation.
The verynotion of a distinctLatinAmericancriticismis groundedin the
conviction that the processes of aesthetic and cultural production and
receptionare historicalin nature.This approachdistancesLatinAmerican
criticismfrom any immanentistcriticalframeworkand renouncesunivers-
alist interpretivemodelswhich obstructthe perceptionof difference.Latin
Americancriticismis concernedwith highlightingthe peculiaritiesof the
region's literaturesand societies, and their differencesfrom those of the
metropolis. At the same time it calls into question the legitimacy of
homogenisingdiscourseswhich supportuniversalistmodels.
The objectionraisedagainstuniversalisthypothesesis that they lead to a
denial of the particularitiesof Latin Americanculturaland literarydevel-
opment,the specificfeaturesof whichultimatelybecome,at best, dilutedby
contactwith the supposedlyuniversalistmodel.At worst, such featuresare
silenced,especiallywhen they have little or nothing to do with Western
traditionsand havestrongerlinkswith the othermainculturalformations-
primarilyof indigenousor Africanorigin-which have helpedto form the
presentculturalprofileof the regionmisleadinglycalledLatinAmerica.
Furthermore,it may be arguedthat the establishmentof the European
historico-culturalproject as universal paradigm necessarily entails its
360 BULLETINOF LATINAMERICANRESEARCH
institutionas an exclusivemodeland as a yardstickagainstwhichall other
proposals will be measured.This sets up a hierarchicalvision which
condemnsLatin Americanculture to be read as repetition,as a copy
whichis on the whole imperfect:all in all as a merefollowerof European
trends.LatinAmericais assignedthe passiveroleof receiverand duplicator
of discoursesproduced in the centres of power, as if the process of
appropriationand re-articulationof these discourseshad occurredwithin
a historicaland culturalvacuum.The act of readingis in this way de-
historicised;moreover,this ignoresthe importantfact that such an inter-
textualdynamicconstitutesa newproduct,withcharacteristics distinctfrom
the supposedoriginal,with a new functionand new meaningsconferred
upon it by its own socio-culturalenvironment.
Various proposals within Latin Americancriticism have sought to
respondto this problematicquestionduringthe last few decades.These
are concerned,above all, with providingways to approachthe cultural
output of the continentin its specificity,retrievingthe contributionsof
popular and autochthonouscultures,their creativityand their counter-
hegemonicpotential-in short,theircapacityto offeralternativesto domi-
nant formulas.
This questfor self-definitionin LatinAmericancultureand literaturehas
its backgroundin the waveof revolutionaryactivityunleashedby eventsin
Cuba, which would shake the continentthroughoutthe 1960s and early
1970sand influencethe intensificationof the cold warin the Americas.The
Cubanphenomenonwas a point aroundwhich the nationalistand Latin
Americanistmovementsof the era were articulatedby intellectualson the
political left. A similar effect resultedfrom North Americanaggression
againstCuba and the clearintentionof the United Statesto preventthis
political experimentfrom spreadingto other countriesin the region by
means of open support to counter-revolutionary forces throughoutthe
continent.These factors were an incentiveto anti-imperialistdiscourses
which gained momentumduring those years and which warnedagainst
UnitedStateseconomicand culturalpenetrationin LatinAmerica.
This siege-likeatmospheremeantthat developmentssuch as the defence
of the region's cultural identity and the autonomy of its intellectual
productionbecamea common cause. Latin Americanintegrationis per-
ceivedas a strategyof resistanceto imperialism.Whileeffortsweremadeto
establishintercommunication throughjournals,conferencesetc., American-
ist utopias of Bolivar and Marti were revived.Effectively,the 'second
independence'postulatedby the Cubanpoet and essayistwas to becomea
symbolof resistancefor the LatinAmericanleft. Paradoxically,the military
dictatorshipswhichbrutallyendedthisperiodof revolutionary mobilisation
and LatinAmericanisation of the continentwouldalso maketheircontribu-
tion to the sameprocessthroughthe massiveexoduswhichthey provoked
and the consequentcontactmade by SouthernCone intellectualswith the
realitiesof the countriesin whichthey soughtrefuge.
In additionto these nationalist,Latin Americanistand anti-imperialist
positions,thereareothercharacteristic featuresof LatinAmericancriticism.
These may be summedup as follows: a questioningof the traditional
URBAN LITERARY PRODUCTION 361

concept of the intellectual and his/her relationship to society; a revival of the

idea of committed art; a re-examination of the problem of distance between
political and artistic avant-gardes, which in most cases leads to the sub-
ordination of the aesthetic sphere to those of ideology and politics. To
complete this schematic outline of some of the principal cultural issues under
debate at that time, the importance of Dependency Theory should be
emphasised. The analytical perspectives which this theory brought into
vogue within the social sciences to account for the relationship between
the central and peripheral zones of the international capitalist system, were
uncritically transposed into the debate over the circulation of discourses
between Latin America and the metropolis. Such an association between
social and cultural-aesthetic processes not only had the effect of diluting
their differences, but also imposed the principles of the former onto those of
the latter.
The purpose of this article is to look into two of the most useful
contributions towards the autonomy of Latin American Criticism since
the seventies, examine the main theoretical and methodological problems
derived from the cultural nationalism inherent in such contributions and
explore possible alternatives; I am referringto the works of Angel Rama and
Alejandro Losada.2
Angel Rama is regarded as having pioneered the construction of an
autonomous critical discourse, independent of the metropolitan discourses
hegemonic in Latin America until the seventies. This article focuses on his
work on narrative transculturation which highlights the vitality, creativity
and capacity for resistance of the rural popular cultures which are the source
of such narrative. Angel Rama's writing on transculturation has given
criticism a new perspective on-and a re-evaluation of-rural popular
cultures, wresting them from the fossilized precincts of the folkloric to
which they had been relegated until then, in order to articulate them to
modernity, uncovering their creativity and proven capacity for resistance to
the dictates of hegemonic discourses.
With the incorporation of an anthropological conception of culture in his
critical discourse, Rama becomes aware of the survival of cosmovisions,
rituals, in short, the significant practices of the traditional social conglom-
erates of the various regions of the continent and the interaction of literature
with those local cultures. On the one hand the focus is shifted away from the
notion of a universal culture towards local culture. On the other hand, the
critic's interest now extends to all kinds of symbolic creation within those
communities, as elements which are drawn upon by literary production and
also as sources of the specificity of the symbolic creation. Through this
treatment, Rama frees Latin American literature from a perspective which
denies what he calls its 'otherness' and subjects it to the paradigms of
metropolitan literatures.3
Furthermore, although Rama always discusses the concept of transcul-
turation in the context of the modernisation of Latin American societies, it is
possible to project that notion onto all literature produced at a point of
conflictive intersection between two cultures. The transcultural perspective
opens the way both for a re-reading of Latin American history and
362 BULLETINOF LATINAMERICANRESEARCH

literature,fromthe earliestworksof colonialwritingonwards,and for the

understandingof the counter-hegemonic processeswhich may have been
generatedby that literature.4
Losada'swork constitutesone of the most importantattemptswithin
LatinAmericancriticismto confera scientificstatuson to the disciplineand
to provideit with a conceptualsystemable to act as a foundationfor his
projectof constructionof a social history of the literatureof the region.
From a (sub)-regionalratherthan nationalapproach,and from a perspec-
tive both sociologicaland anthropological,Losadasystematisesthe 'modes
of production'(his term) put forwardby Latin Americanurban,erudite
literaturebetweenwhathe calls 'thepre-industrial periodof expansion'and
'the metropolitanand internationalist period'(Losada,1977a,b).
From Losada'shighly complexsystematisationof the literaryprocessI
will mentionhere only two of his paradigmsand deal with them in terms
of their respectiveprocessesof interationalisation;these paradigmsare
derivedfrom this comparativestudy of the sub-regionsof the RiverPlate
(1880-1960) and of the Caribbean(1890-1980):firstly, that of what he
refersto as 'marginal'literatures,producedin metropolitanareasof dense
immigrationand with a stabilisednew socio-economicstructurewhichhas
madepossiblean institutionaltransformationand an incorporationof the
sub-regionto the internationalmarket;these areas favour an attemptto
reproduceEuropeanculturalpatternsand ways of life. Secondly,that of
what he calls the 'social-revolutionary' literatures,articulatedduringthe
period of crisis and of
re-structuring traditionalsociety underimperialist
domination;theseliteraturesare producedin societiesengaged-unlike the
metropolitanones-in a permanentstruggle to eradicate the colonial
legacy and to stabilise a new socio-economicstructure;such a process
would have taken place between1840 and 1880 in the River Plate area.
Thesetwo social spacesconditionboth the work of the intellectualand the
function they assign to it (Losada, 1983a: 29-30; 1983b, 1984). This
comparativeapproachcould usefullybe appliedto other Latin American
socio-culturalregionswherethe situationis even more complexin that the
two formationsactuallyco-existwithinthem and consequentlyso should
the two types of literature.Losada'saim (whichis prematuredeathwas to
prevent him from fully realising)was to design a periodisationsystem
capableof accountingfor the specificityand densityof the LatinAmerican
literaryprocess.
Losada'sreadingdoes not claim to be ideologicallyneutral;he openly
opts for the 'social-revolutionary' literaturesthus retrievingfor Latin
AmericanCriticismboth the alternativeformulaof modernitythat these
literaturesofferand the elementsof popularculturewhichthey contain.In
this way he challengesa criticismwhich proposesmodernityas a central
aestheticparameterand questionsits extremelynarrowunderstandingof
modernity(i.e. internationalisedlanguages,producedin the metropolitan
centres,disconnectedboth from any other social space with which they
might co-exist and from the concernsof the majorityof the population).
Losada rejectsthe notion of two essentiallyopposed literarytendencies,
rejectingat the same time both the undervaluingof a literaryproduction
URBAN LITERARYPRODUCTION 363

linkedto social formationsstill strugglingto overcomethe colonial legacy,

and its stigmatisationas 'traditional',or ultimately'anachronistic'.
Equallyimportantfor LatinAmericanCriticismis Losada'sdiscourseon
the processes of interationalisation of Latin American literature,his
analysis of the 'espacio [social] concreto' ('concrete [social] space') in
whichthey take place and the social functionof each one of the mentioned
modes of literaryproduction.Losada calls into questiona numberof the
principleson whichcriticismhas constructedthe notion of 'newliterature'.
First,he rejectsthe homogenisationof'. .. all the artisticproductionof the
professional,learned,sophisticated,eliteintellectuals... in the entireregion'
underone singleliterarysystem.The worksof Carpentieror Asturiasin no
way formpart of the samemode of productionas those of Borgesor Onetti,
for example, despite the fact that they all constitute internationalised,
metropolitanand professionalisedphenomena.On the contrary,they are
articulatedwithindifferentsocial spacesand fulfildifferentsocialfunctions.
The work of Carpentierand Asturias,in contrastto the writersof the River
Plate region,is understoodby Losadaas going throughits internationalisa-
tion stage, belongingto the 'social-revolutionary' literaturesof the Carib-
bean/CentralAmericanregion(Losada, 1987:74-75).
Second, Losada rejectsthe divisionmade by criticismbetween'the new
literature'and all that productiontagged'socialrealism'.Losada'sreading,
however,demonstrateshow the work of authorsclassifieduntil then under
that heading-and what is more,undervaluedfor theirsupposedanachron-
ism-share the same 'horizonte de expectativas' ['horizon of expectations']
with the 'internationalised'intellectualsof the Caribbean/Central American
region and togetherthey form 'a singlecultural system[but] at a stageprior
to its interationalisation'-that of 'social-revolutionary' literatures.For
Losadasuch a systemin fact '... is constitutedfirstin a local spacein order
later, without changingits nature,to spreaduntil it becomesinternational
and is able to take on the notable functionsit performstoday in this new
phase of the world both in Latin America and the internationalsphere'
(Losada, 1986:75).
Losada'sapproachthrowslightupon the specifictraitsof LatinAmerican
literaturesand upon the pluralityof projectsthat they articulate;it also
opens up a new perspectivefor the reinterpretation of theirevolutionsince
theirorigins(Losada, 1983b,1984).
An acknowledgementof the contribution of these proposals to the
developmentof Latin Americancriticismdoes not preventthe recognition
of the theoreticaland methodologicalproblemsthat in one way or another
underlie them. Most of these problems are connected to some of the
dominantperspectiveswithinthe intellectualproductionof the left at that
timeand in particularwithinhistorical/cultural criticismwhereit toucheson
the relationshipsbetweennationalismand culture,and betweenart, politics
and ideology which led to a bi-polar readingof Latin Americanliterary
production. Such a reading sets up 'cosmopolitan'or 'internationalised'
literaturesin opposition to the literaturesarticulatedwithin regionalcul-
tures.
In his book on narrativetransculturation, Ramastressesthe persistenceof
364 BULLETINOF LATINAMERICANRESEARCH
the characterparticularto the regionalcultures,despitethe homogenising
pressuresintroducedby the advanceof modernisation.In fact, through
transculturaloperationsthese local culturesresistthat advance,preserving
theirparticularity.
His discourseon transculturation,one of his greatestcriticalcontributions
to Westerntheoriesof culture,constitutesa modelformulticultural counter-
hegemonicinterpretation; it recomposesthe LatinAmericanmap, display-
ing the diversityof regional cultural formationswhich transcendstate
borders;with it he revealsthe failureof the Liberalproject,both in its
initialattemptsto drawup proposalsfor nationalcultures,and in its efforts
towardsintegrationthroughthemodernisingprocess.Thisnewculturalmap
revealsthe transculturation processby whichLatinAmericahas not only
tenaciouslyopposed domination and the impositionof homogenisingcul-
tural models, but has also proposedalternativeroutes to modernisation
whichare underpinnedby formulasof regionalidentity:
. . . the regions expressand assert themselves,despite the unifying
advance [of modernisation] . . . there is a strengthening of the . . .
interiorculturesof the continent,not throughentrenchingthemselves
rigidlywithin their traditionsbut throughengagingin processesof
transculturation withoutgivingup theirsouls,as Arguedaswouldhave
said. In doing this they strengthenthe nationalcultures(and conse-
quentlythe projectof a LatinAmericanculture),endowingthemwith
materialsand energyso that they will not ... simplysurrenderto the
impactof modernizationcomingfromoutside.Modernityis not to be
renouncedand to deny it is suicidal;it is also suicidalto renounce
oneselfin orderto acceptit (Rama, 1982:71).
For Rama,transcultural narrativeembodiesthatsought-afterformulafor
autonomousliteraturethat groundshis discourseon a nationalidentity
which is itself based upon traditionalpopularcultures,a formulawhich
neverthelessincorporatesa modernisingperspective.Transculturation is an
alternativemodernising model inasmuch as it does not evadethe challenge
of the Liberalhegemonicproject;on the contrary,it proposesthe national
formula,resistingthe aggressiveuniversalistformulaof Westernculture.As
Ramastates,in referenceto Arguedas,transcultural narrativeseeksto '...
penetratethedominantculture[inorderto] imposeon alienterritoryits view
of the world and its protest'(Rama, 1982:207). By basingautonomyon
regional identity, Rama rejects the idea of national models based on
metropolitanliberal projects and emphasisesthe plurality of cultural
projectsin LatinAmerica.
However, Rama's concept of 'national culture', illustrated in the passage
quoted above, introducescertain problems.As has been suggested,the
transculturalproject points towards the redefinitionof Latin American
cultureon the basisof regions,whichrepresentthe realityof the continent
withmoreaccuracythanpoliticalbordersandwhichtestifyto the resistance
to thehomogenisingpressuresof the hegemonicmodel.Whentheconceptof
the nation is thus identifiedwith the region, this in fact invalidatesas a
culturalentitythe idea of the nationput forwardby the dominantelites of
URBAN LITERARYPRODUCTION 365

the LatinAmericanLiberalstates. Ramaparadoxicallystates,nevertheless,

that the strengtheningof the region has as a logical consequencethe
strengtheningof the 'national'culture.But here which nationalcultureis
he referringto? To the state'sown view of what the nationconsistsof? The
supposedchain of causalitywhich he proposesis equallyparadoxical:the
regionis held up as the key to makingthe integrationof Latin American
culturefinally possible. This line of reasoningis curious to say the least,
when in effectit involvesmutuallyexclusiveculturalprojects;the idea of a
nationalculture,and of a Latin Americanculture,involvesan intentionto
integrate,but integrationoccurs at the expenseof plurality,even if carried
out with the regionas startingpoint. In fact Rama nevermanagesto break
withthe ideaof unityitself;thushis idealis that of an alternativeformulafor
unificationto that of the Liberalmodel, restingin:
... the superiorpotentialfor integrationwhich characterisesregional
culture,incomparablymore powerfulthan that which may unite the
variousclasses of an urban culture,for the very reason that it has a
historicaldevelopmentthat goes back centuriesand involvescommu-
nitiesof very little social mobility,in whichpatternsof behaviourhave
been internalised,legitimisedand accepted,from parentsto children,
throughgenerations(Rama, 1982:66-67).
Ramadoes not tacklethis problemhowever.The use of this 'integratory
potential'wouldimplythe reductionof the diversecoexistingcultures,firstly
within each national space and secondly within the continent. If the
legitimacyof the reclaimingof regionalpopular culturesis indisputable,
theirimpositionas a new hegemonicmodel is less so. Nor is it clearwhich
regionalunit would serve as the basis for this integration;this integration
questionscertain hierarchicalviews, but ultimatelyit does not challenge
them; the multi-culturalmap on the other hand offers the possibilityof
erasingthem altogether.
The problemsidentifiedin Rama'snationalprojectare in part explained
throughthe confluenceof differentdiscoursesand the difficultyof reconcil-
ing them.On the one handhis transculturation formulafor the construction
of nationalitytakes on echoes of an integratoryutopia on a culturaland
politicallevel, which is an heir to the Americanistdiscoursesof the nine-
teenthcentury;that utopia would in effectbe appropriatedand re-articu-
lated froman anti-imperialist perspective,and would be associatedwith the
LatinAmericanismof the CubanRevolution,whichhad so muchinfluence
on the intellectualleft of the continentduringthe 1960sand 1970s.Rama's
projectof a LatinAmericancultureis a responseto imperialism;thatculture
would have more chanceof successin confrontingthe unifyingadvanceof
modernisingforcesthanwouldthe vulnerable,fragmentedregionalcultures.
One problematicaspect of the formulationof this integratoryutopia as a
reactionto imperialistaggressionhas to do with a lack of clarityregarding
the relationsandmediationsbetweenthe politicalfieldand the culturalfield,
whichcouldleadto the impositionof a politicalprojecton the interpretation
of cultural processes;the imposition of the logic that dictates political
thought over the logic which holds sway over cultural processeswould
366 BULLETIN OF LATIN AMERICAN RESEARCH

distort the nature of their dynamic. Occasionally Rama loses sight of that
which he himself has already shown us: that the persistence of Latin
American cultural fragmentation is the strongest expression of the regional
cultures' capacity for resistance and creativity;it is in the sphere of'... the
internal cultures of the continent . . . [that] resistance and neoculturation
take place . . .' (Rama, 1982: 73). Nevertheless, by this I do not mean to
disregard the areas of intersection which do exist between culture and
politics, or to deny legitimacy to any conception or action resulting from
the recognition of that intersection. My aim is rather to reconsider-
following Beatriz Sarlo's re-evaluation of this issue in the context of
Argentine culture-the relationship between the two spheres, without
losing sight of the mediations between them and restoring each one with
their specific identities.5
Another problematic aspect of Rama's national discourse arises in con-
nection with his recognising a national character only in that literature
which is articulated within regional culture and his exclusion from this
paradigm of all literary cultural production articulated within the 'inter-
nationalist' or 'cosmopolitan' axis, which can ultimately be assimilated to
the modernised, internationalised and in fact denationalised urban areas.
The literatures produced in these areas would be exclusively receptive to
'European influences' (Rama, 1982: 39).
It is interesting that when speaking of cosmopolitan literaturesRama uses
the term 'influences',which suggests a passive attitude, while when speaking
of transculturalliteraturehe refersto its 'recuperative'role, which implies an
active conception of the writing process. Following his discovery of trans-
cultural narrativeand his re-evaluation of tradition, Rama also reformulates
his vision of the modernisation and the internationalisationof the literature
of the continent; in contrast to the first period of his critical work, which
celebrates Latin American literature being brought up to date with the
European avant-garde, his interest now turns to '. . . examining the
production of the last decades to see if there were not any other sources
of artistic innovation apart from those which simply came off European
ships . . .'. The only path towards 'descolonizacion espirituar ['spiritual
decolonization'] lies in the '. . . recognition of the capacity of a continent
which already has a very long and fertile inventive tradition, which has been
tenacious in its struggle to turn itself into one of the richest cultural sources
in the universe' (Rama, 1982: 20).
Rama's book La ciudad letrada, published posthumously, sheds light on
the historical vision which laid the foundations for his re-evaluation of the
two axes of his bi-polar system. This book gathers together the results of his
researchon Latin Americanurban cultures, from their genesis in the colonial
period up to the processes of modernisation initiated in the last decades of
the nineteenth century. For Rama, ever since its origins the Latin American
city has been the classic expression of a project of Conquest; the city is the
ideological, cultural and material implantation of the project of exterior
domination-domination by the metropolis. It is the physical space of the
invader-the invader's social and cultural model. It is transplanted, the
alien, imposed on the autochthonous, the internal, the rural and intended to
URBAN LITERARYPRODUCTION 367

act as theircontroller.This is in contrastto the evolutionof the European

city born of agriculturaldevelopmentand mercantilenecessity.With Con-
quest,he writes,'. .. the triumphof the city over an immenseand unknown
territorywas confirmed,reiteratingthe Greek concept which set up the
civilizedcity in oppositionto the barbarismof non-citydwellers. ..' (Rama,
1984b: 14). And that same concept of 'the city as a civilizingcentre',as
opposed to 'the countrysidewhere barbarismwas engendered'(Rama,
1984b:16) was to be prolongedin Sarmiento'smodel, with the city as the
cuttingedge of the nineteenthcenturymodernisationproject.Sucha model
constituteda deepeningof the Conquestand a continuationof the destruc-
tion of the native American cultures. It is not difficult to establish a
relationshipbetweenthis interpretationand that found in Transculturacion
narrativaen AmericaLatinain which cities functionas modernisingpoles,
radiating contemporaryforms of colonisation-one more phase in the
impositionof externalculturalmodels on the internal,the bearersof Latin
Americanidentity.
Clearly,Rama'swork constitutesan importantcontributionto a literary
historywhich seeks to clarifythe specificdevelopmentof a literatureborn
out of the violenceof the Conquest,particularlyas it enhancesthe under-
standingof the conflictiverelationshipbetweencountrysideand city, orality
and literacy,popularcultureand eruditeculture.Althoughit clarifiesthe
reasonfor the differencein Rama'sperspectiveregardingthe literaturesof
the avant-gardewhich he conceives of as simple reproductionsof the
dominantmodel in the face of transculturalliteraturesas counter-hegemo-
nic, it does not resolve the problemof a homogenisingreadingof urban
culturalproduction.His criticalgaze neverstops to take in the intertextual
processeswhichcan occurbetweenpopularculturesand eruditeliteratures,
as in Borges'work for example.
Rama'sinterestin reclaimingthe placeoccupiedby popularculturein the
developmentof LatinAmericanliteratureis exclusivelycentredaroundthe
ruralsphere.As has been stated already,the discourseon transculturation
revealsLatin Americanruralpopularcultures'resistanceto homogenising
pressures from the modernisingmodel and the capacity to articulate
counter-hegemonicdiscoursesand to set themselvesup as alternativesto
modernisation.Nevertheless,the a priori denationalisationof the city
prevents Rama from exploringthe possibilityof finding discoursesthat
are critical of-or resistant to-domination, and which may be in the
process of being articulatedwithin the spaces where modernisationhas
penetratedwith greatestforce. This position ultimatelypreventshim from
detectingtheirown transculturaloperations.The idea of a singlemodel for
national identity underminesthe possibilityof articulatinga critical dis-
course which, without succumbingto reductionism,might be capable of
accountingfor the totality of literaryprojectsproducedin the different
socio-culturalformationsof the continent.In fact this bi-polarinterpreta-
tion of Latin Americanliteraturedoes not favour a perceptionof the
multiplicityof discoursesand formulasof identityproposedin the various
culturalspaceswhichstill coexistin everyLatinAmericancity and which,to
a greatextent, are a consequenceof the unevenadvanceof modernisation.
368 BULLETINOF LATINAMERICANRESEARCH
Theseproblemsin Rama'sdiscourseare partlyexplainedin termsof his
homologisingof social modernisationwith literarymodernisation,which
leads on to the suppositionthat the adoption of the imposedmodel of
materialdevelopmentimpliesthe passiveand unmediatedadoptionof an
aestheticmodel.This approachignoresthe complexoperationsinvolvedin
any processof appropriationandre-articulation of discourses,a complexity
which is instead recognisedby Rama in his treatmentof transcultural
literatures.
A similarproblemcan be detectedin Losada'sanalysisof urbanerudite
literaryproduction.Losadain effectdisqualifies'cosmopolitan'literatures
from a predominantlyideologicalpoint of view, consideringthem to be
condemnedto being rootless and confinedto subjectivityand alienation,
lackingany link whatsoeverwith realitiesbeyond those which make up
metropolitanspace and being incapableof putting forwardcounter-dis-
courses.Despitehis viewson the activeroleof theperipheralculturesin their
processesof appropriation andreworkingof discourses,thissamepossibility
is denied on principle to the urban modernisedareas, which Losada
conceivesof as being subjectedto an unavoidablydependentrelationship
with regardto the hegemonicculture,in effect becomingdenationalised
areas;all resistanceto dominationcan only springfromintellectualspaces
with a 'national'character(eventhoughLosadadoes not actuallyuse this
term), ones which are committedto the traditionalpopularculturesnot
integratedwiththe modernisedcities.Losadamighthavebeenable to avoid
this conclusionby displacinghis emphasisfrom the examiningof choices
and sourcesto that of the new languagesformulated;it is not enough to
specify the discoursesand culturalpracticeswith which Latin American
writersidentify;it is also necessaryto examine,in the texts themselves,the
transformationswhich the supposed models undergo and the different
functionswhichtheirnew contextassignsthem.
In any case, both Losada and Rama leave us with a bi-polar conception of
LatinAmericanliteraryproductionwhichunderminestheirveryprojectof
approachingit in its plurality.The root of this reductionistview will most
certainlybe found in the transpositionto the culturalsphereof notions
derivedfrom DependencyTheory and in the overlookingof mediations
betweenideologicaland artisticprocesses.An alternativeto this Manichean
perspectiveis offeredby BeatrizSarloin herworkson literarymodernisation
in the Argentinaof the earlytwentiethcentury,in whichshe showshow all
literaryproductionof the time-including that consideredto be purely
internationalised and non-referentialsuch as Borges'-is immersedin the
debateon nationalidentity(Sarlo, 1988, 1993).
Although Losada'shandlingof erudite literaryproductionin the big
modernisedcitiesof the continentis finallyproblematic,as has beenshown,
his interpretationof the literaturesof the Andeanand Caribbean/Central
Americanregionsprovidesa fundamentalcontributionto LatinAmerican
historical/culturalcriticism.As in Angel Rama'sdiscourse,so in Losada's,
the literaturesarticulatedwithintraditionalculturesrightlybenefitfrom a
timelyvindicationand re-evaluationwithinthe spectrumof contemporary
literature.Losada's proposal, like Rama's simultaneouslybreaks with
URBAN LITERARY PRODUCTION 369

homogenising readings and contributes to the advance of the discipline in

terms of the possibility of accounting both for the plurality of projects which
make up the corpus of Latin American literature and for the specificity of
those projects with respect to metropolitan literatures.
NOTES
1. See for examplePedroMorande(1987),in whichas partof his analysisof the limitationsof
Latin Americansociologyin recentdecades,Morandesinglesout its relianceon universal
modelsandcategoriesandits lack of attentionto culture.He believesthesefactorshadbeen
in fact preventingsociologyfromdevelopingan autonomousintellectualspace.
2. For a more detailedanalysisof the works of thesetwo criticssee my articles:'Haciauna
Angel Rama:el discursode la transculturacion'
criticaliterarialatinoamericana. (1996)and
'AlejandroLosaday la criticahist6rico-culturalen Latinoamerica: algunasobservaciones'
(1994-1995).
3. For a discussionof the contributionsof anthropologyto the project towardscritical
autonomy,see Rama (1984a).
4. Martin Lienhard's excellent book La voz y su huella. Escritura y conflicto etnico-social en
AmericaLatina1492-1988(1991)-which to a largeextentis indebtedto Rama'swork on
transculturation-isa good exampleof the productivityof the path openedup by Rama.
5. Beatriz Sarlo devotes many of her works to the analysisof the modernisationof the
Argentinianculturalfield and to the questioningof the culturalnationalismand the
subordinationof aestheticsto the spheres of politics and ideology within Argentinian
criticism. See especially: Una modernidadperiferica: Buenos Aires 1920 y 1930 (1988) and
her articlespublishedin Puntode Vistabetween1983and 1990.

REFERENCES
D'ALLEMAND,P. (1996),'AngelRama:el discursode la transculturaci6n',
Vozy Escritura.
Revista de Estudios Literarios 6-7: 141-159.
D'ALLEMAND,P. (1994-1995),'AlejandroLosaday la criticahist6rico-cultural
en Latinoa-
merica: algunas observaciones', Journal of Hispanic Research 3: 353-366.
LIENHARD, M. (1991), La voz y su huella. Escrituray conflicto itnico-social en America Latina
1492-1988,Edicionesdel Norte (Hanover).
LOSADA,A. (1977a),'La literaturaurbanacomo praxissocialen AmericaLatina',Ideologies
and Literature 4 (September-October).
LOSADA, A. (1977b), 'Rasgos especificosde la producci6nliterariailustradaen America
Latina', Revista de Critica Literaria Latinoamericana6: 7-36.
de los procesosliterariosen
LOSADA,A. (1983a),'Articulaci6n,periodizaciony diferenciacion
America Latina', Revista de Critica Literaria Latinoamericana17: 7-37.
de la literaturadel Caribeen las metr6polis
LOSADA,A. (1983b),'La internacionalizaci6n
complejas.El caso Caribe-AmericaCentral entre 1920-1980', La literaturalatino-
americana en el Caribe, Lateinamerika-Institut (Berlin).
LOSADA,A. (1984),'La internacionalizaci6n de la literaturalatinoamericana',
Caravelle42:
15-40.
LOSADA,A. (1986), 'La historiasocial de la literaturalatinoamericana',
Revistade Critica
Literaria Latinoamericana24: 21-29.
LOSADA, A. (1987), La literatura en la sociedad de Amdrica Latina, Wilhelm Fink Verlag
(Munich).
MORANDE, P. (1987), Cultura y modernizacion en America Latina, Encuentro Ediciones
(Madrid).
RAMA, A. (1982), Transculturaci6nnarrativa en America Latina, Siglo XXI (Mexico).
RAMA, A. (1984a),'La literaturaen su marcoantropol6gico',Cuadernos
Hispanoamericanos
407 (May):95-101.
RAMA, A. (1984b),La ciudadletrada,Edicionesdel Norte (Hanover).
SARLO, B. (1988), Una modernidadperiferica: BuenosAires 1920 y 1930, Nueva Visi6n (Buenos
Aires).
SARLO, B. (1993), Jorge Luis Borges. A Writer on the Edge, Verso (London).