The Discursive Economy of Maya Culturales in Guatemala

THE DISCURSIVE ECONOMY OF MAYA CULTURALES IN GUATEMALA by Emilio del Valle Escalante University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill THE Maya movement in Guatemala emerged as a prominent political force in the 1990s within the context of the end of the civil war (1960-1996).1 According to Demetrio Cojtí (1991; 1997), the origins of the movement can be traced back to the 1970s, as a result of a long political struggle that, to the present, has coincided with a period of profound, generalized economic crisis and the failure of the models of development of the Guatemalan nation-state. Cojtí mentions, among other factors, the participation of Mayas in the Guatemalan armed struggle (1960-1996); the progressive awakening of the rural sector, leading to the emergence of the Committee of Peasant Unity (CUC) in 1978; and the decision of a group of educated intellectuals (school teachers, health promoters, doctors, lawyers, notaries, and the like) to reaffirm their cultural identity and history from a Maya perspective. Also, experiences of economic and ethnic inequality generated the need to change indigenous peoples’ material conditions of existence. For Cojtí, these processes challenged the nationstate to assert “the recognition of the Maya as a Nation or a People and propose solutions and means to achieve such recognition” (1991: 45). In its model of nationhood, the Maya movement has introduced an ethnic and civilizing dimension that acquires fundamental importance insofar as it challenges a vision of the nation as culturally and linguistically homogenous (e.g. Spanish as the national language, the Ladino as the national subject)2 in order to propose a re-conceptualization of it as multiethnic, multilingual, and multinational. This discursive articulation has defined the project of the Maya movement and its institutions. For instance, the Academy of Maya Languages of Guatemala (ALMG), in charge of the production of dictionaries and school 25 books in Maya languages, has as its objective “to promote the knowledge and diffusion of the Mayan languages and culture. This recognition is not the gift of the government, but is the result of the efforts of an entire People, the Mayan People, who are seeking the construction of a fully multilingual and multicultural society in Guatemala” (Nelson, 1999: 153). Víctor Montejo echoes this perspective when he writes, “we must keep our eyes on ethnic diversity in our country and recognize our ethnic or cultural differences. We must start from this multiethnic affirmation in order to construct a free, just, and democratic Guatemala. Haven’t we spoken and even bragged about having a pluricultural, multiethnic country in our discussions? Now it is time to construct it and live it as Guatemalans” (2005: 9). The Maya movement has gradually developed two ideological tendencies representing two complementary and, at times, contradictory paths.3 The first of these tendencies has been defined by some as Maya culturales (Maya cultural rights group). This group is composed of Maya intellectuals (the majority of whom are professionals) and indigenous organizations that prioritize an ethnic adscription and the vindication of indigenous cultural specificities. For instance , the group advocates the revitalization of a Maya (not “Indian”) identity , Maya traje (traditional dress), and indigenous languages and religion. The primary objectives are to explore and question racism and to elaborate pedagogical materials that emphasize the affirmation of indigenous cultural identity and history. The group’s organizations include the already mentioned Academy of Maya Languages of Guatemala, and the Association of Maya Writers of Guatemala (AEMG), which has produced didactic materials and educational curricula relevant to Maya culture. The other tendency can be identified with the Maya populares (Maya popular rights group). According to some scholars, this group understands “Guatemalan society in terms of class” and “assume[s] the indigenous identity as secondary” (Bastos and Camus, 1995: 29). Rather than focus political efforts on cultural demands, these intellectuals and organizations denounce the effects of the violence – past and present – against rural and urban communities (Maya and non-Maya). Their members include widows, relatives of the disappeared , people displaced by the civil war, refugees, and communities in resistance that question the nation-state’s violation of human rights (Bastos and Camus, 1995: 27-28). Their organizations include the Committee of Peasant...