In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

187 Making History transcription of the recorded interview. Assuming an accurate transcription and minimal editing, it could be said that an interview is largely an act of self-representation rather than a representation of the other. However, the interviewer in his or her phrasing and ordering of questions plays an active role in shaping the dialogue and consequently in shaping the interviewee’s performance. The relative sympathy or hostility of the interviewer, for example, will necessarily influence the interviewee’s construction of himself or herself in the immediate context, just as the interviewee’s replies influence the ongoing dynamic of the dialogue. In considering the published text as a representation of Marcos, it is important therefore to keep in mind the mutual interaction of voices.12 Monsiváis’s introductory notes, again offering a summary of key events, return to the theatrical nature of the convention of 1994 in the negative sense of an empty, illusory, or false spectacle. While praising Marcos’s speech, he criticizes much about the CND, and poses a skeptical question. In a society that embraces symbolic figures of salvation, will Marcos be able to distinguish between messianism and democratic leadership? Rereading “Crónica de una convención (que no lo fue tanto)” in light of this question suggests that the representation of the CND as a skillfully performed spectacle may well have reflected the chronicler’s dread of a messianic role for the Zapatista leader. Six and a half years later, however, on the eve of the March 2001 arrival of EZLN members in Mexico City to speak before Congress, Monsiváis gives a positive answer to his own question. Marcos’s capacity for dialogue and his persistence in the search for a dignified peace and democratic processes have proven over time to be authentic and worthy of respect. He has worn the mask not as a disguise, but to reveal his genuine identification with the rebellious indigenous communities of Chiapas and their struggle. The rather lengthy interview touches on a broad range of topics concerning the evolution of the EZLN and its relationship with civil society. In the exchange of questions and answers, a genuine dialogue between two engaged Mexican intellectuals takes place. The questions, many of which are framed by lead-in commentary, give Marcos ample opportunity to elaborate on the positive contributions of the EZLN to the Mexican nation. Monsiváis identifies these contributions to include the dialogue between a revolutionary group and civil society, the increased visibility of and interest in indigenous peoples, the participation of women in a movement for social change, a heightened consciousness about racism in Mexico, and, most important of all, the oft-repeated 188 Documents in Crisis vision of an inclusive society that accepts what Marcos calls “the right to difference.” The interview strategy, while not stripped of elements of skepticism and criticism, expresses a remarkable degree of respect for a movement that began as a violent confrontation with the government, a course of action that Monsiváis, with his Quaker upbringing would not condone, but that knew how to transform itself with great agility and intelligence. Marcos, in turn, responds to the questions directly and in some detail, conveying the image of someone who, although forced to live in hiding, has nothing to hide ideologically. Like the ski mask that effaces his individuality, one characteristic of Marcos’s speech is the use of the first-person plural form. Marcos’s “we” refers to the marginalized people that he represents, and also to the ideal of a truly pluralistic and democratic society of the future. Overall, as a document that constructs yet another version of Marcos, the interview with Monsiváis and Bellinghausen is clearly the most positive and optimistic of the texts studied. At one point, Marcos declares that a crucial lesson taught to him by his indigenous allies was how to listen, and that capacity is very much on display in the article “Marcos, ‘gran interlocutor.’ ” If Monsiváis’s fears that Marcos might become another in a long line of charismatic, messianic, and ultimately despotic leaders in Latin America seem to have been allayed over the course of almost seven years, Alma Guillermoprieto expresses a continuing disquiet over the role of Marcos in the EZLN. Shortly after Monsiváis’s interview appeared and as the Zapatistas approached Mexico City on their long march to meet with Congress, she published the article “Historia de un rostro” [Story of...

Share