Understanding the Chiapas Rebellion : Modernist Visions and the Invisible Indian

This book has been a long time coming, and as a result, I owe much gratitude to many people. In geography alone, I have found myself living in Canterbury, London, Mexico, and Glasgow at various times during its development. I have also been fortunate to have presented my work to diverse academic audiences in Paris, London, Vienna, Los Angeles, and Hull. Through all these twists and turns, it has always been people rather than books who have made my research worth doing. As is customary, and as a token of my appreciation, I shall now attempt to put some names to the kindness and companionship that I have received along the way. I must thank my lecturers at the University of St. Andrews, John Skorupski and Vivienne Jabri, for their encouragement and exemplary tuition before I even arrived in Canterbury. As chance would have it, Vivienne also moved south, and she has been a good mate ever since. In the Department of International Relations at Kent, the singular Stephen Chan fi rst provided supervision for my doctoral thesis. His humor, insight, and support, then and now, are much valued. After this initial period, Stefan Rossbach took over supervision. It is diffi cult to summarize the nature of Stefan's contribution, for like several others in my academic trajectory, he has become a good friend. As a consequence, recalling Stefan's enthusiasm, rigor, and imagination falls far short of describing the fellowship from which both I and my work have benefi ted. The Department of Politics and International Relations at Kent and the London Centre of International Relations have also at various times Acknowledgments ## Language and Society Although he agrees with Chris Weedon that "one should not view language as a transparent tool for expressing facts but as the material in which particular often confl icting views of facts are constructed," Rorty nevertheless wishes to claim that such confl icts occur in a positive dialectical manner. 33 This is because it has been Rorty's contention that moral and intellectual progress will only be achieved if "the linguistic and other practices of the common culture . . . come to incorporate some of the practices characteristic of imaginative and courageous outcasts." 34 According to this belief, such outcasts have to break away from mainstream linguistic practices because, as we have learned from other progressive movements in the past, "had there been no stage of separation there would have been no subsequent stage of assimilation." 35 Rorty cannot, however, provide reasons why a new language, such as a feminist language, might come to be assimilated into wider American culture, and this is because he has foregone the once "comforting belief that competing groups will always be able to reason together on the basis of plausible and neutral premises." 36 Therefore, "prophecy . . . is all that non-violent movements can fall back on when argument fails." 37 Yet for such prophecy to be confi rmed, our approach to the history of the future must also conform to Rorty's whiggishly dialectical account of how historical change, via the role of language, has come to take place. As a consequence, Rorty admits that he cannot provide any analysis of how "the new language spoken by the separatist group may gradually get woven into the language taught in the schools," at least not one that does not start to look increasingly circular. In fact, all he can offer on the back of his antifoundationalist pragmatism is hope. Could it be possible that Rorty has overplayed the extent of cultural agency available within the "fashioning of new names"? For in holding that "all awareness is a linguistic affair," does not Rorty suggest the presence of a cultural and linguistic idealism at work within his analysis, that is, an individualist idealism that exaggerates the moral and social possibilities of freedom within his project of redescription? Even without adopting her Gramscian analysis of the political, we might have FIGURE 1.2 Illustration from the Nuremberg Chronicle, 1493. To many observers in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Mexico appeared to be a modern nation-state at last assuming an international role through its participation in NAFTA and the OECD (Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development). Then came the Zapatista revolt on New Year’s Day 1994. Wearing ski masks and demanding not power but a new understanding of the indigenous peoples of Mexico, Subcomandante Marcos and his followers launched what may be the first “post” or “counter” modern revolution, one that challenges the very concept of the modern nation-state and its vision of a fully assimilated citizenry.
This book offers a new way of understanding the Zapatista conflict as a counteraction to the forces of modernity and globalization that have rendered indigenous peoples virtually invisible throughout the world. Placing the conflict within a broad sociopolitical and historical context, Nicholas Higgins traces the relations between Maya Indians and the Mexican state from the conquest to the present—which reveals a centuries-long contest over the Maya people’s identity and place within Mexico. His incisive analysis of this contest clearly explains how the notions of “modernity” and even of “the state” require the assimilation of indigenous peoples. With this understanding, Higgins argues, the Zapatista uprising becomes neither surprising nor unpredictable, but rather the inevitable outcome of a modernizing program that suppressed the identity and aspirations of the Maya peoples.
To many observers in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Mexico appeared to be a modern nation-state at last assuming an international role through its participation in NAFTA and the OECD (Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development). Then came the Zapatista revolt on New Year's Day 1994. Wearing ski masks and demanding not power but a new understanding of the indigenous peoples of Mexico, Subcomandante Marcos and his followers launched what may be the first "post" or "counter" modern revolution, one that challenges the very concept of the modern nation-state and its vision of a fully assimilated citizenry.This book offers a new way of understanding the Zapatista conflict as a counter-action to the forces of modernity and globalization that have rendered indigenous peoples virtually invisible throughout the world. Placing the conflict within a broad sociopolitical and historical context, Nicholas Higgins traces the relations between Maya Indians and the Mexican state from the conquest to the present - which reveals a centuries-long contest over the Maya people's identity and place within Mexico. His incisive analysis of this contest clearly explains how the notions of "modernity" and even of "the state" require the assimilation of indigenous peoples. With this understanding, Higgins argues, the Zapatista uprising becomes neither surprising nor unpredictable, but rather the inevitable outcome of a modernizing program that suppressed the identity and aspirations of the Maya peoples. Introduction : Approaching The Indian In World Politics -- Maps Of The Mind : Spanish Conquest And The Indian Soul -- Enlightenment Legacies : Colonial Reform, Independence, And The Invisible Indian Of The Liberal State -- The Governmental State : Indian Labor, Liberal-authoritarianism, And Revolt -- Institutionalizing The Indian : Corporatismo, Indigenismo, And The Creation Of An Authoritarian Regime -- Neoliberal Governmentality : Social Change, Contested Identities, And Rebellion -- Visible Indians : Subcomandante Marcos And The Indianization Of The Zapatista Army Of National Liberation -- Conclusion : Modernist Visions And The Invisible Indian. Nicholas P. Higgins. Includes Bibliographical References And Index. Nicholas Higgins offers a new way of understanding the Zapatista conflict as a counteraction to the forces of modernity and globalisation that have rendered indigenous peoples virtually invisible throughout the world