Reconsidering Colonial Discourse for Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Spanish America

Author(s): Rolena Adorno

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Latin American Research Review, Vol. 28, No. 3 (1993), pp. 135-145
Published by: The Latin American Studies Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2503614 .
Accessed: 04/01/2013 13:18

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
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.

The Latin American Studies Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Latin American Research Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Fri, 4 Jan 2013 13:18:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 RECONSIDERING COLONIAL
DISCOURSE FOR SIXTEENTH- AND
SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY SPANISH
AMERICA

RolenaAdorno
Princeton
University

Like the othertwo responses to PatriciaSeed's review essay, this

one comes fromthe fieldof literarystudies. I regretthatno historianor
anthropologisthas joined in this debate because it would have been illu-
minatingto have reflectionsfromtheotherfieldson which Seed (herselfa
historian)has commented.My remarksare necessarilylimitedby-and
to-my own disciplinaryperspective.
One of the most salutaryeffectsof Seed's review essay is that it
provides a locus where those of us fromdifferentdisciplines can come
togetherto converse. Courageouslywillingto make statementsabout var-
ious disciplinarypractices,includingthatofhistory(about which she has
nothesitatedto be critical),she has takenthepositionthatwe share signif-
icantcommonthemesand talkingpoints. I agree thatwe have such points
ofcontactand exchange. I was instructedby herviews on thesubject,and
I appreciatetheopportunityto reflecton the issues she has raised.
The majorpointI would liketo discuss hereis thenotionofcolonial
discourse,reconsideringits applicabilityto the studyof Spanish America
in the sixteenthand seventeenthcenturies.Before doing so, however,I
would like to commenton Seed's initial remarkthat in the late 1980s,
historiansand anthropologistsbecame interestedin language-the rhe-
toricaland literarydevices used to write ethnographiesand histories-
and thatliteraryscholarsbegan to take into account anthropologicalthe-
oryand historicalconsiderationsin theirexaminationsofthetextsof"high
culture."'
In literarystudies,interestin anthropologicaland historicaldimen-
sions was alreadymuch in evidence by the late 1980s. Ifone example will
suffice,consider the splendid one of Angel Rama.2 His posthumous La

1. PatriciaSeed, "Colonial and PostcolonialDiscourse," LatinAmnericani

ResearchReview26,
no. 3 (1991):181-200,181.
2. AngelRama, La ciudadletrada(Hanover,N.H.: Edicionesdel Norte,1984); Transculturaci6n
narrativaen la Anmerica
Latina(Mexico City: Siglo Veintiuno,1982); and JoseMaria Arguedas,

135

This content downloaded on Fri, 4 Jan 2013 13:18:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LatinAmericanResearchReview

ciudadletrada(1984),which offereda powerfultheoryand critiqueofLatin

Americanhistory,explored with extraordinaryperspicacitythe relation-
ships among history,anthropology,and literature.His profoundunder-
standing of the ethnographicand literarywork of JoseMaria Arguedas
yielded his 1975 anthologyof Arguedas's essays, Formacion de una cultura
nacionalindoamericana, and anthropologicalways of thinkingilluminated
Rama's 1982 Transculturacion narrativaen la AmericaLatina,which viewed
Latin Americanliteraryproductionin the lightofmore general processes
and principlesofculturaladaptationand innovation.AmongLatinAmeri-
can criticsand intellectuals,this was not a new trendof the 1980s. Seed
mighthave been thinkingof literaryscholars in the United States, but
theiranthropologicaland historicalinterestsalso predate the end of the
decade just past. Here, RobertoGonzalez Echevarria'sMythandArchive:
A TheoryofLatinAmericanNarrativecomes to mind.3His inquiryinto the
shaping ofLatin Americannarrativeover thepast two centuriesis deeply
concernedwiththerelationshipofanthropologyto literaturein thetwen-
tiethcentury.
Perhaps because I am neithera historiannor an anthropologist,I
was somewhatsurprisedby Seed's commentthatthefieldsofhistoryand
anthropologyhave recentlybecome dissatisfiedwith "traditionalcriti-
cisms of colonialism," that is, studies whose themes were eithernative
resistanceor manipulativeaccommodation.Seed states,"In thelate 1980s,
these tales of resistance and accommodationwere being perceived in-
creasinglyas mechanical,homogenizing,and inadequate versionsof the
encountersbetween thecolonizersand the colonized" (p. 182).
For the study of the Andes, at least, this dissatisfactionsurfaced
much earlierand was addressed by the work thatbegan in the 1960s and
continuedthroughthe 1980s. Withthis timeframein mind, Steve Stern
has recentlywritten:

thatthe framework
Finally,dissatisfaction of BlackLegend debateconsigned
Indianstoa marginal statusinthemakingofearlycolonialhistory inspiredefforts
to writea historythatwentbeyondthestoryofEuropeanvillains,heroes,and
microbesactingupondevastatedand pliableIndians.A newhistorysaw in early
colonialIndianssomethingmorethanvictimised andineffectually
protectedobjects
oftraumaand paternalism. It soughtto exploreIndianagency,adaptations, and
responseswithina colonialframework of oppressivepowerand mortality. It
soughtto unearththeimpactofAmerindian initiative
on theearlycolonialsocial
orderas a whole.4

Formaci6nde una culturanacionalindoamericana,edited by Angel Rama (Mexico City: Siglo

Veintiuno,1975).
3. RobertoGonzAlez Echevarria,Mythand Archive:A TheoryofLatinAmericanNarrative
(Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress, 1990).
4. Steve J.Stern, "Paradigms of Conquest: History,Historiography,Politics,"Journalof
LatinAmericanStudies24, QuincentennialSupplement (1992):1-34, esp. 28-29.

136

This content downloaded on Fri, 4 Jan 2013 13:18:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 COMMENTARY AND DEBATE

Frankly, itwould be difficultto proceed withany sortofculturalor literary

studyinvolvingautochthonousAndean societyor consciousness without
takingintoaccountstudieslikethoseofStern,Karen Spalding, and Brooke
Larson, worksthatI would identifywiththe themesSeed mentions.5For
this reason, the assertionthat"narrativesof resistanceand accommoda-
tion were losing credibility"overstatesor overgeneralizesthe case. Re-
flectingagain on Seed's remarks,it appears that'sheis suggestingthatby
thelate 1980s, an awareness was growingthatsocial and economicanaly-
sis had to be augmentedby linguisticand culturalconsiderations.This, I
think,is a pointverywell taken,and I would look forwardto herresponse
to myreadingofit.
One last pointregardingchronologyand causality:I wish thatSeed
had discussed the reasons forher view thatnarrativesof resistance and
accommodationwere losing credibilityin the late 1980s. She identifies
thisperiod as thetimewhen historiansand anthropologistsbecame inter-
ested in language (p. 181), yet she seems not to consider the interestin
language as a cause of new dissatisfactionsbut merely a simultaneous
development.I would look forwardto her clarificationof this part of her
argument.
I would like to move on now to other general issues centralto
literarystudies. On readingSeed's essay,I marveled at the diversecollec-
tion of books she broughttogetherto commenton, and I thinkshe suc-
ceeded in justifyinga collectivediscussion of them. Four of the fivetitles
clearlymake theexaminationoflanguage theirfocus and reflectthegrow-
ingtendencyto tease historical,anthropological,and literaryunderstand-
ings out of the ways in which language was manipulated in particular
sensitivesettingsof the cross-culturalcontactsofcolonialism. A common
threadamong thesebooks is the attemptto articulatetextwithevent and
language with change and to recognize the writtenword as not merely
reflectiveof social practicesbut in factconstitutiveofthem. Furthermore,
these studies examine writtenculturalproductions that lie beyond the
literarycanons ofhighculture.Among thebooks reviewedby Seed, Peter
Hulme's ColonialEncounters exemplifiesthis approach.6 In exploringthe
paradoxes of colonial situationsfrom1492 throughthe eighteenthcen-
tury,he juxtaposed Shakespeare's The Tempest, JohnSmith'saccounts of
Pocahontas, and RobinsonCrusoe,deftlydemonstratingthatthe peculiar-

5. BrookeLarson, Colonialism andAgrarianTransformation in Bolivia:Cochabamnba,

1550-1900
(Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress, 1988); Karen Spalding, De indioa camnpesino:
camnbiosen la estructura
social del Perucoloniial(Lima: Institutode Estudios Peruanos, 1974);
and Huarochiri, an AndeanSocietyunderInca and SpanishRule (Stanford,Calif.:StanfordUni-
versityPress, 1984); and Steve J.Stern,Peru'sIndianPeoplesand theChallengeofSpanishCon-
quest(Madison: UniversityofWisconsinPress, 1982).
6. PeterHulme, ColonialEncouinters: Europeand theNativeCaribbean,1492-1797(New York
and London: Routledge,Chapman, and Hall, 1986).

137

This content downloaded on Fri, 4 Jan 2013 13:18:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LatinAmericanResearchReview

ities of colonial ideologies are best revealed by moving among writings

categorizedas canonized, popular, or mundane.
This leads me to my assessment ofthe single most importantintel-
lectual development of the past decades concerning cross-disciplinary
exchange. It has less to do with the disappearance of the subject or dis-
missingauthorialintentionor originalmeanings (about which I will com-
mentlater) than with a more fundamentalobservationwith which Seed
begins her discussion. I merelyunderscoreand redirectit slightly.This is
the concept of the opacity of language (p. 183), fromwhich follows the
conclusionthatwritingsofall types-whetherpopular or elite,highculture
or low-function as texts.That is, notionsabout communicatinginforma-
tionand descriptionare set aside in favorofexaminingverbalproductions
fortheirassertiveand interpretive values. Fromtheviewpointofscholars
who take this position (myselfamong them), no clear dichotomyexists
between document and textinsofaras both require the same kinds of
analysis and scrutiny;moreover,not all textsare written.WalterMignolo
addresses the second of these claims in his commentary,and I wish to
emphasize thefirst.
To put the matteranotherway,the documentarymay be included
under the rubricof textualityas one ofits manysubtypes. Colonial situa-
tions offerno shortage of examples fromwhich to argue that archival
documentsneed to be scrutinizedwith the same skepticaleye turnedon
worksmorecommonlydesignated as texts.For example,how straightfor-
ward and transparentis thetestimonygiven in a trial,foundin the "Idola-
trias" section of the Archivo Arzobispal de Lima? More subtly,what is
involved in any mundane transactionthatwe read today as part of the
colonialdocumentaryrecord?Taketheexampleofthecomposicion de tierras,
or confirmation of land titles.7Accordingto colonial practice,the judge-
inspectorsends out the corregidor'sdeputy along with surveyorsand a
notary;these are the Spanish officials.Accompanyingthem is a native
interpreterwho translatesback and forthbetween the native claimants
(or occupants) and the officials.The corregidor'sdeputy makes the deci-
sion to give the claimantsless land than had been orderedby the inspec-
torjudge, and the explanationby which the deputy justifieshis decision
citestherichnessofthelands assigned and thecontentmentand commit-
mentof the native claimantsto the disposition. Natives local to the area
oftenact as witnesses to corroboratetheproceedings.
Can such a reportbe takenat facevalue-as a documentaryrecord

7. This example comes frommyanalysis ofthenewlypublished recordofland-titlelitiga-

tions in which Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala, the Peruvian authorof the Nueva cor6nicay
buengobierno(1615), was a plaintiff.See Y no ay remnedio
. . ., edited by Elias and Alfredo
PradoTello(Lima: Centrode Investigaci6ny Promoci6nAmaz6nica,1991);and RolenaAdorno,
"The Genesis of the Nueva cor6nicay buengobierno,"ColonialLatinAmericanReview(New
York)2, nos. 1-2 (1993):53-92.

138

This content downloaded on Fri, 4 Jan 2013 13:18:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 COMMENTARY AND DEBATE

of what transpired,was witnessed, and agreed upon? Perhaps, but only

aftersubmittingthedocumentto the same kindofscrutinythatone would
give to a writtentextjudged a priori to be a gesture of assertion and
interpretation ratherthan as simple descriptionand then assessing it in
lightofcomplexextratextual factors.In thisrespect,"textuality"is a criti-
cal categorythat implies a set of operations to be performedon the ac-
countbeing examinedratherthan a configurationofelementsthatcharac-
terizesthe account itself.Seen as text,however,any stable configuration
of semioticsigns is less a thingthan part of the process of signification-
theprocess by which,to quote Roland Barthes,meanings are produced.8
How widely this emphasis on the opacity of language has been
taken seriouslyis not clear to me, but it does seem to have been consid-
ered widelyenough to have generatedsome debate. In additionto Seed's
reflections,a new articleby historianEric Van Young comes to mind. In
his examinationof the record of an 1812 criminalprosecutionforinsur-
gencyagainst an illiterateIndian named JoseMarcelino Pedro Rodriguez
in Cuernavaca, Mexico, Van Young makes an importantqualificationin
consideringwhat he calls "the textualityof the document": "[I]t is not so
muchthatwe have a set offloatingsignifiers,as thattheyare anchored so
firmlyand narrowlyin singularcircumstancesthattheirmeaning is ob-
scureor unrecoverable."9 Cast in thelanguage ofliterarytheory,thishisto-
rian'sinsightmakes a valuable contribution to cross-disciplinary
exchange.
Ifthe"linguisticturnin thehuman sciences" is to mean anythingto schol-
ars in literarystudies, it is precisely to avoid divorcingtexts fromthe
circumstancesthatproduced them-however irretrievablethese circum-
stances may be. To be not only theoreticallyenlightenedbut also histor-
icallyresponsibleis a twingoal worthpursuing.
I turn now to the firstof the related concepts that guide Seed's
article,thatof "colonial and postcolonial discourse." Mignolo's commen-
tarychallengesthe notionof "discourse,"and I wish to put into question
thenotionsofthe"colonial" and, consequently,"colonial discourse,"test-
ing theirapplicabilityto Spanish America of the sixteenthand seven-
teenthcenturies.While I now question blanketuse of the term"colonial
discourse"forthisperiod,I used to embraceitenthusiastically. 10AlthoughI

8. Roland Barthes,CriticalEssays, translatedby RichardHoward (Evanston, Ill.: North-

westernUniversityPress),263. In myview,one ofthemostinfluentialessays on thequestion
of language as a signifyingsystemnot necessarilyconfinedto the alphabeticwas Barthes's
Mythologies (1957). See Barthes,Mythologies,translatedby AnnetteLavers (New York:Hill
and Wang, 1972).
9. EricVan Young, "The Cuautla Lazarus: Double Subjectivesin Reading Textson Popular
CollectiveAction,"ColonialLatinAmericanReview(New York)2, nos. 1-2 (1993):3-26.
10. I have used the concept in severalofmy publications,including"Discourses on Colo-
nialism:BernalDiaz, Las Casas, and theTwentieth-Century Reader,"ModernlLanguageNotes,
no. 103 (1988):239-58; and "Nuevas perspectivasen los estudios coloniales hispanoameri-
canos," Revistade CriticaLiterariaLatinoamericana,no. 28 (1988):11-27. In addition, Walter
Mignolo and I edited a volume ofDispositioentitled"Colonial Discourse," nos. 36-38 (1989).

139

This content downloaded on Fri, 4 Jan 2013 13:18:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LatinAmericanResearchReview

standby myunderstandingofthediscursiveas representingpolyvocality

and synchronic,interactive,and dialogic practicesthatpermitus to tran-
scend theold certaintiesof an earlierliteraryhistoryand contemplatethe
messiness ofcacaphonic worlds,11I am less sanguine about thefixedcon-
cept of "colonial discourse." RecentlyI have begun to findit wanting. I
will begin withsome generalobservationsand thenproceed to more spe-
cificcommentsregardingitsuse formy own fieldofstudy.
One ofour problemstodayis thatthereare hopelessly manydisci-
plinaryand subdisciplinaryconversationsgoing on. Our academic world
is fragmentedin a trulypostmodernsense. We oftendo not know what
othercolleagues are doing, which is preciselywhat leads us to reach out
forcommonalities,posit comprehensiveapproaches, and attemptto tran-
scend theconfinesofour particularnarrowpurview.We are alwayson the
lookoutforwhat can serve as a lingua franca."Colonial discourse"strikes
me as just such a tool, and I thinkSeed's positionreflectswell theguiding
sentimentsof the Group for the Critical Study of Colonial Discourse
(GCSCD), which grew out ofthe Sociology ofLiteratureConference"Eu-
rope and Its Others," held at the Universityof Essex in July1984. The
objectivesofthenew networkwere statedas follows:
Thisbulletinis an attempt to linkthosewhoseworkcritically examineshistorical
and analyticaldiscoursesofdomination wherethesediscoursesaddresscultural
and racialdifferences.Thenetwork is notrestrictedtoworkin anyone historical
period,noranyone disciplineorfield.Thus,whileformanyofus thefocusofour
workis primarily thecolonialcontext, othersin thenetworkare extendingtheir
inquirytoex-colonial societies,thecoloniallegacyintheWest,and contemporary
systemsofdomination whererace,class,ethnicity, inter-
genderand/orsexuality
sect.12
Given such a statement,the question arises as to whether"colonial dis-
course" is a fieldofstudyor a series ofrelatedapproaches. Mignolo views
it as thelatterand suggests thatSeed mightbe treatingit as both. I agree
thatSeed treatscolonial discourseas botha fieldand an approach because
herdefinition ofitas "an emergentinterdisciplinary
critiqueofcolonialism"
(p. 182) impliesequally an approach ("critique,""interdisciplinary")and
an object of study("colonialism"). The statementof the GCSCD likewise
suggests a culturalpoliticsby focusingon issues of racialor culturaldif-
ferencein writingsthatithas identifiedas discoursesof domination.
The GCSCD statementemphasizes a long timespan and takesinto
accountcolonial and postcolonialperspectives.Ifwe look at thisglobaliz-
ingnotionacrosstime,itrepresentsno less thanhalfa millennium,assum-
ingas a startingpointtheoceanic voyagesofPortugaldown thewest coast
of Africain the fifteenthcenturyand ending with today's postcolonial-

11. Adorno, "Nuevas perspectivas,"13-15.

no. 1 (Dec. 1985):1.
12. Iniscriptionis,

140

This content downloaded on Fri, 4 Jan 2013 13:18:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 COMMENTARY AND DEBATE

isms throughoutthe world. Considering the idea spatially,we discover

thatthe referentialworlds of colonial and postcolonial discourse include
culturesand societiesas diverseas those oftheIndians of South Asia and
the "Indians" of South America. Such sweeping grandeuris exhilarating
in some ways, but I have foundthatforthe studyof sixteenth-and seven-
teenth-century Spanish America,such an expanse risksoffering too much
too easily and at too greata cost.
A recentchallenge to such all-encompassingapproaches to colo-
nialism has been made by the anthropologistJorgeKlor de Alva. In his
provocativeinquiryinto notionsof colonialismand theirapplicabilityto
LatinAmerica,Klor de Alva argues thatthe criticalconcepts and theories
of colonialism,as inventionsof the study of colonial experiences in the
nineteenthand twentiethcenturies,are inappropriateforshaping ideas
about the experienceof Spanish America fromthe sixteenththroughthe
mid-eighteenth centuries:"Evidently,the specificmodernand criticalcon-
notationswe give to these interrelatedterms [colonialism and imperi-
alism] come fromthe experiencesof the non-Spanish European colonial
powers, especiallyBritain,as a consequence oftheirprimarilyOld World
experiencesbeginning in the second half of the eighteenthcentury."13
Klor de Alva goes on to argue that this post-1760s situation,when the
European colonies (includingSpanish Americaunder theBourbons) "be-
gan to be fundamentallymodifiedto servetheinterestsoftheindustrializ-
ing core," has been applied retrospectivelyand anachronisticallyto the
firsttwo and a halfcenturiesof Spanish dominionin America.14
During thatearlyperiod, accordingto Klor de Alva, Spain's mer-
cantile empire was one in which the metropoleswere primarilybuyers
and consumers of theirforeignpossessions' commodities,with the me-
tropolisexploitingareas thatsupplied precious metals, slaves, and trop-
ical products: "Though all of this was extremelydisruptive,most social
groupings not devastated by epidemics or forced labor continued their
everydaylives in much the same way as theyhad priorto contactwiththe
Europeans, especially those largely self-sufficient communitieswhich,
based on subsistenceagricultureand domesticproduction,were poor mar-
ketsformanufacturedgoods."15 At the same time,the mass immigration
of European settlers,combined with the dramaticdecline in the indige-
nous population, produced by the second half of the sixteenthcentury
"widespread intermarriage and cross-culturalmating[that]were generat-
ing new ethnic communities"withoutsignificantmetropolitanconnec-
tions.Immigrantswho were notpartofthemerchantor officialaristocracy

13. J.JorgeKlor de Alva, "Colonialism and Postcolonialismas (Latin) AmericanMirages,"

ColonialLatinAmericanReviezw (New York)1, nos. 1-2 (1992):3-23, citationfromp. 16.
14. Ibid., 17
15. Ibid.

141

This content downloaded on Fri, 4 Jan 2013 13:18:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LatinAmericanResearchReview

were transplantedEuropeans or theirdescendants, who were "relatively

disconnected"fromthemetropolis16
These conditionsdifferedgreatlyfromthose ofthemid-eighteenth
centuryonward, which were geared towardreorganizingthe colonies as
marketsand consumers of the goods manufacturedin the centers,and
implied a shifttoward commerce,industry,and commercialagriculture.
All thesechanges resultedin modificationsin land tenureand ownership
as well as "the implementationofforcedand coerced wage labor forcom-
mercialagricultureand mining,the introductionof monetarypayments,
the reductionof home industry,and the restrictionof productionand ex-
portationby natives."'17
Such fundamentaldifferences,it seems to me, preclude lumping
togetherthe symbolicpracticesof all variationsof European domination
over otherpeoples and places across fivecenturies.Ifthe objects of study
differso much one fromanother,is itpossible to examine themwitha set
ofcommonapproaches and shared assumptions?I thinknot,and I would
like to suggest a critique,parallelingthatof Klor de Alva, thatexamines
the writingsproduced about or fromSpanish America in the sixteenth
and seventeenthcenturies.
On consideringtheapplicabilityof"colonialdiscourse"to sixteenth-
centurySpanish America,Bernal Diaz provides a good example. Froma
social and economicpoint ofview, he exemplifiesthe principlesoutlined
by Klor de Alva. Bernal Diaz was perfectlycontentto remain far away
fromthe metropolis,and he returnedto Spain afterthe conquest ofMex-
ico only twice, once in 1540 and again in 1550. His goal was to achieve
economicprosperityforhimselfand his heirs,and he was fairlysuccess-
ful.Livingoutside themerchantand officialaristocracy, he had no serious
relationshipwith the metropolisand wanted to be leftalone by it. His
world of referenceforprestigewas thatof the reconquest of Spain from
the Muslims, and success meant the comfortableindependence thatan
old soldiercould achieve by settlingin territories grantedto him by royal
decree. Bernal Diaz could not have imagined the strugglesofhis descen-
dants who in theeighteenthcentury,as Americansofseveralgenerations,
constitutedthebackbone of the criollistasocietythatlearned to loathe the
power of the distantancestralhomeland over theirlives. Bernal Diaz was
neithera colonial nor a creole but a Castilian. If we cannot identifyhim
as a representativeof a colonial society,can we studyhis writingsusing
the criticalassumptions of postmodernism?In my view, we cannot not
studyhim throughthe eyes of postmoderism,but we must do so by tak-
ing into considerationthe conceptual mediationsand historicaltransfor-

16. Ibid., 18.

17 Ibid., 17.

142

This content downloaded on Fri, 4 Jan 2013 13:18:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 COMMENTARY AND DEBATE

mationsthatseparateus fromthe sixteenthcentury.Let me tryto explain

whatI mean.
As described by PatriciaSeed, the new poststructuralsensibility
implies the disappearance of the subject and the dismissal of authorial
intentionsor meanings (p. 194). Nevertheless, the characteristic"colo-
nial" voices and perspectives of Spanish America in the sixteenthand
seventeenthcenturiesstand out insofaras they'seek to oppose-for the
purposes of replacing, not dismissing-the "subject of authority,legit-
imacy,and power" (p. 184). Bernal Diaz was among the writerswho de-
finedwhatwas unique about Spain's earlyexperiencein America,and he
soughtpreciselyto impose himselfas a writingsubjectimbued withlegit-
imacy,authority, and power. Thus althoughpoststructuralism may ques-
tion the traditionalhumanism and expose its heroes (which may well be
our approach to twentieth-century intellectuallife),we cannot attribute
the same sensibilitiesto these early modern voices. I am thereforesus-
picious of the dangers of calling every act of writingby sixteenth-and
seventeenth-century authorslikeEl Inca Garcilaso de la Vega or Sor Juana
Ines de la Cruz "subversive."It maybe our currentimpulse to undermine
and subvertthe traditionalheroes of humanism and imperialism,but to
attribute thesame to theliteraryminds oftheseventeenthcenturyignores
or underestimatesthe social and artisticcriticismthatintellectualsin any
period tend to practice.
Furthermore, we stillneed theconcepts ofauthorialintentionsand
"originalmeaning" but in a decidedlycontemporaryfashion. That is, we
need themnotforthe purpose of takingthemat facevalue and assimilat-
ing thembut ratherto juxtapose themwithwhat the writingsubject actu-
allyset out to do, which always differsfromhow we assess whathe or she
actuallyaccomplished.Here we profitfrompoststructuralism's critiqueof
"the sovereign subject as author" and do not dismiss but ratherwork
throughthe author'sdeclared intentionsto determinehis or her hidden
agendas. BernalDiaz exemplifiestheamateurwriterwhose achievements
fartranscendedhis efforts:he created an eternallyvivid picture of six-
teenth-century New Spain where he had intended only to set the record
straightand lobby for rewards concerninghis role in a certain war of
conquest, which he hoped to portrayas more glorious than any in Cas-
tilianhistory.
My point is thatonly fromthe eighteenthcenturyonward can we
speak of "colonial discourses" emergingfromSpanish America.18The

18. One ofthebest examples fromSpanish Americanintellectualand literaryhistoryof a

transitionalfigure,who Janus-likelooks both backward and forward,is the Mexican creole
writerCarlos Siguenza y G6ngora (1645-1700),a distantrelativeoftheSpanish Baroque poet
Luis de G6ngora. An obvious example ofa creoleintellectualwho can be identifiedwiththe
world of colonial discourse would be the Mexican friarand patriotFrayServando Teresa de
Mier (1763-1827).

143

This content downloaded on Fri, 4 Jan 2013 13:18:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LatinAmericanResearchReview

world of royalist,courtly,and chivalricvalues inhabitedby Bernal Diaz,

Cabeza de Vaca, Hernan Cortes, Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz, and even
culturallymestizo writerslike Fernando de Alva Ixtlilxochitl is foreignto
the "discourses of domination" in which the battlegroundis the site of
racialand culturaldifferences.In this regard,I would cite Seed's discus-
sion ofBeatrizPastor'sbook. 19
Seed's characterizationof Pastor's work is illuminatinginasmuch
as Seed's judgmentof it reveals thatthe expectationsof the "colonial dis-
course" purview are inappropriateto the field in question. Thus when
Seed characterizesPastor'sstudyas a "less theoreticallysophisticatedcri-
tique ofthe politicaldimensions of conquest stories"than PeterHulme's,
she faultsPastorforwhatare preciselyhervirtues.Seed is correctthat"all
of the formsof critiqueidentifiedby Pastor . . . clearlyreside withinthe
limitsestablishedby sixteenth-century Spanish politicalorthodoxy"and
that"these critiquesare thus imbued with a nostalgic,even reactionary
desire for the returnof traditionalmedieval Hispanic values" (p. 188).
Pastorhas been historically responsibleand used excellenttheoreticaljudg-
mentin two ways: in confiningher studyto a recognizableand coherent
phase of Spanish political,cultural,and literaryhistory;and in working
froma theoreticalgroundingthatdoes not requirethe writingsshe stud-
ies to respond to perspectivesthattheycould not possibly reflect.In his
commentary, Hernan Vidal makes thisimportantpoint in a different way.
If the "perspectiveremains whollyEuropean" and "the natives in these
narrativesremain a blank slate" (Seed, p. 188), it is because Pastorcould
notresponsiblyhave teased out-from eitherAlonso de Ercillaor Cabeza
de Vaca-debates on racialand culturaldifferenceof the type requiredby
a "colonial discourse"critiquerelevantto latertimes.
Overall, PatriciaSeed's remarksabout Pastor's book have helped
me realize thata historicallysituatedconcept of colonial discourse corre-
sponds mainlyto those in literarystudies and allied areas ofculturalcriti-
que who are concerned with the Anglo-European worlds of colonialism
and postcolonialism.Spain and its possessions in the sixteenthand sev-
enteenthcenturiesare irrelevantto thatparadigm,temporally,geograph-
ically,and culturally.
Thatveryirrelevanceis neverthelessa source offascination.Schol-
ars who habituallystudythe Hispanic world and even those who do not
have been smittenwithit. Consider workslikeTzvetan Todorov'sLa Con-
qu^tede l'Ame'rique(1982) or Stephan Greenblatt'sMarvelousPossessions
(1991).2o Such works testifyto the unique characterof cross-culturalen-

19. Beatriz Pastor, Discursosnarrativosde la conquista:mitificaci6n

y emergencia,2d ed.
(Hanover,N.H.: Ediciones del Norte, 1988).
20. Tzvetan Todorov,The ConquestofAmerica,translatedby RichardHoward (New York:
Harper and Row, 1984); and Stephen Greenblatt,MarvelousPossessions:The Wonderofthe
New World(Chicago, Ill.: UniversityofChicago Press, 1991).

144

This content downloaded on Fri, 4 Jan 2013 13:18:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 COMMENTARY AND DEBATE

counterthattheexperienceof Spain represents,even as theyappropriate

it in orderto explore the authors' own ethical concerns about the twen-
tiethcentury.These worksreaffirm myconvictionthatearlymodernSpain
stands outside the quintessentialcolonial experience:it is not typicalbut
ratherprototypicalor atypical,and distinctlydifferent in character.
On balance, I thinkthatPatriciaSeed has performeda useful ser-
vice by callingattentionto the notionof "colonial discourse" and using it
to takea positionon intellectualtrendsofan interdisciplinary sort.Yetthe
interdisciplinary dimensionof "colonial discourse"is open to debate. The
firstbulletinofthe GCSCD counted among itsmemberssome eighty-five
scholarsin literarystudies (plus eightmore in filmand art),about twenty
anthropologists,and sixteenhistorians.It is to Seed's creditas a historian
thatshe has joined in the discussion and taken strongpositions in it. Yet
therubricof "discourse"reflectsits originsin literarytheoryand philoso-
phy and in effectexcludes many scholars of colonialismwho do not find
theirown disciplinarypracticesreflectedby the concept. Whereas the
termdiscourse can be off-putting,colonialhas been generalized to a broad
spectrumof situationsand used in a varietyof disciplines. Nevertheless,
once historicityand geographyreenterthe arena (Klor de Alva's argu-
ment),we can be more criticalof its applicability.For the case of Spanish
Americain the sixteenthand seventeenthcenturies,I thinkthatcolonial
discoursehas spent itself.It served a legitimizing,ecumenizingpurpose
in our academic culturalpolitics,but it has also led to an erroneous sense
of sameness that,like so many labels, has come to conceal more than it
reveals. Hence I share Hernan Vidal's concerns about a literarycriticism
thatruns theriskofbecomingtechnocratic.

145

This content downloaded on Fri, 4 Jan 2013 13:18:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions