Weaving Transnational Cultural Identity through Travel and Diaspora in Sandra Cisneros’s Caramelo

Eleven years before the publication of Caramelo, or, Puro Cuento: A Novel (2002), Sandra Cisneros previewed one of its core concerns. The conclusion of her short story “Mericans” (1991) offers a snapshot of Caramelo’s extended examination of identity formation for Chicana/os who relate to Mexico as their mother country, home, and vacation site. Encountering a Chicano youth named Junior in a Mexico City plaza, a Euro-American tourist asks to take his picture (20). She expresses shock when Junior then calls to his siblings in English, which prompts him to reply, “Yeah, … we’re Mericans” (20). The combination of Junior’s fluent English and Mexican appearance, along with his self-designation as “Merican,” upends the tourist’s expectations of clear distinctions between Mexican and (US) American. In the tourist’s view, Junior shifts from a commodifiable representation of Mexicanidad, or “Mexicanness,” to a boy whose national, cultural, and linguistic identity bridges the US-Mexico border. Junior’s “Merican” identity thereby belies dominant conceptions of the US-Mexico border as a dividing line between two discrete nations and cultures. Moreover, Junior personifies the permeability of the border with his “Mericanness.” This undermines the promise frequently circulated by the contemporary tourism industry—namely, that tourists can escape the familiar by immersing themselves in exotic locales. More broadly, the term “Mericans” designates the subject position of peoples of Mexican descent living in the United States who identify strongly with both nations and speaks to the distinctive relationship many Chicana/os have to both diaspora and travel.¹

Although much scholarship posits a tourist ontologically removed from the destination site, consideration of the Chicana/o diasporic subject who travels cyclically to Mexico from the US allows us to assess how (and if) existing theories of travel account for Chicana/o diasporic experiences and what new theories are required. The factors that make this group’s travel experiences distinctive include the close proximity of the two nations its members call home, and that ever since the US-Mexico border was constructed, people have moved regularly and cyclically across it, albeit with increasing difficulty. These repeated movements have generated borderland cultures that blend US and Mexican customs, languages, and identities. Consequently, the Chicana/o migrant can be understood as working within what Paiute activist Laverne Roberts terms a hub, a socio-spatial entity that allows belonging within and movement between multiple home sites (1). In Native Hubs (2007), Renya Ramirez elaborates on this hub concept to address indigenous American experiences. In turn, my explication of Caramelo demonstrates how the hub can be applied productively in the specific context of Chicana/o diasporic experience.

Viewing cyclical migration between the US and Mexico as a “hub-making activity”—rather than as a series of discrete departures and returns that entail disconnection or loss—allows us to appreciate the regenerative aspects of this form of travel, as well as the ways individuals differentially relate to multiple sites as home (Ramirez 8). Ramirez explains the hub’s role in cultural identity:

[T]he hub emphasizes the importance of Indians’ relationship to both homeland and diaspora, thereby supporting a consciousness that crosses large expanses of geographical terrain, which can bridge not only tribal but also national-state boundaries… . The hub, rather than focusing on displacement, emphasizes urban Indians’ strong rooted connection to tribe and homeland. The hub, furthermore, highlights the importance of the urban area, stressing the potential for political power as Native men and women organize across tribal lines.

(11, 12)

In the context of Chicana/o experiences, we can adapt Ramirez’s notion of the Native hub to incorporate multiple geographical sources of identity, inclusive of locations on both sides of the border. Having a sense of home in both Mexico and the US does not diminish Mexicanidad; rather, whereas both urban cities and reservations are Native spaces within the Native hub, multiple US and Mexican locales can be constitutive points of connection for the diasporic Chicana/o. Acknowledging nationally and culturally diverse sites as formative spaces within this hub undermines what Gerald Vizenor identifies as terminal...