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

204 CHAPTER SEVEN Culture Shock Goytisolo’s, Dorfman’s, and Peri Rossi’s dialectical descriptions of nation, time, language , and space lead them to create complex theories of cultural identity. Their intricate relationship to many of the terms commonly applied to questions of cultural identity allows for insight into some of the most pressing issues concerning cultural politics. Much cultural theory rests on a series of binary oppositions—assimilation versus dissimilation, identity politics versus multiculturalism, essentialism versus free will, etc. Exile literature tests the limits of these binaries and reveals that they operate in society according to dialectic tensions rather than mutually exclusive categories of cultural existence. For instance, the work of the writers studied here presents contrasting positions on the issues of assimilation and dissimilation: if the exile’s cultural identity is caught between two cultures and two, if not more, nations, to which aspects of dominant cultural paradigms does the exile assimilate and to which does he or she dissimilate? The concept of cultural dissimilation implies the ability to rebel against pre-conceived versions of identity. Yet, exiled writers are also trapped between contrasting visions of cultural essentialism. Cultural essentialism describes the notion of a pre-determined cultural inheritance. Such a concept contrasts with that of cultural free will, whereby cultural identity is a consequence of choice and experience. The case of these writers, then, allows for a test of theories of assimilation, dissimilation, and essentialism . The exiled writer also represents a dialectical relationship to identity politics versus multiculturalism. Identity politics has been a cultural strategy used by minority cultural groups politically interested in challenging the dominant cultural system that has marginalized them. The cultural identity implied by identity politics is that the group it represents, for instance Chicanos or Native Americans, has a common cultural bond that is undeniable and unchangeable. Therefore the group must attempt to reverse the way in which society has used this cultural difference to marginalize and disempower them. Such a practice might be considered a “strategic territorialization ” insofar as the strategy implies claiming a legitimate territory, i.e., space, for such cultural existence to survive apart from the control of the dominant cultural paradigm, which has historically displaced the group and denied it access to discourses of power. On the other hand, multiculturalism, based on a notion of cultural difference and incongruity , is a position that argues that group identity, by necessity, implies conformity to a systematic way of defining cultural identity. Multiculturalism argues for di- Culture Shock 205 versity with no privilege accorded to a specific group and with no recourse to a clear political agenda aimed at helping a group that has been marginalized. Multicultural politics revolves around fighting for acceptance of difference, as opposed to identity politics’ valorization of uniqueness. Identity politics requires that cultural groups form common and coherent political projects based on shared cultural traits. Multiculturalism, then, questions such practices and names them as oppressive in much the same way that dominant culture defines and controls identity. Multiculturalism, as it is centered on rejecting a “basis for identity,” may be seen as a “strategic deterritorialization,” because it argues that identity should not be fixed or localizeable. So, technically, identity politics and multiculturalism present two distinct strategies for challenging dominant discourse. The condition of exile tests the relationship between these two positions because the exile often fights for identity politics but subscribes to the arguments of difference and multiculturalism as well. Interestingly, exiles tend to organize their identity politics along national lines, as in the case of Cuban-Americans, and do not consider fellow exiles from other nations to be part of their “group.” In the cases of Goytisolo, Dorfman, and Peri Rossi, though, their work takes up both identity politics and multiculturalism . Moreover, their arguments in favor of identity politics are based on broader terms and include a group identity that is not merely made up by Spanish, Chilean, or Uruguayan exiles but refers to the group with which the author identifies, i.e., social pariahs , outcasts, the politically powerless, etc. This is quite significant, because, unlike proponents of identity politics, these authors suggest that the common cultural bond that must be defended is not simply defined by gender, race, class, nationality, or ethnicity, but rather by the way in which all of these factors play a role in cultural marginalization. These texts do not solve dilemmas about cultural identity: they exemplify the most pressing crises of community linked with recent historical events resulting in mass emigration...

Share