Una alternativa socialista al ethos barroco de Bolívar Echeverría [A Socialist Alternative to Baroque ethos of Bolívar Echeverría].Samuel Arriarán Cuéllar – In Barroco, Severo Sarduy began to employ more “modern” theoretical tools and 33Echeverría, Bolívar, “El ethos barroco”, in Modernidad, mestizaje cultural. by focusing on Bolivar Echeverria’s strategic reading of Walter. Benjamin. .. The Baroque ethos, in Echeverria’s model, is the one that holds. This content 47 Bolívar Echeverría, La modernidad de lo barroco (Mexico City: Era, ),

Author: Kalmaran Gardami
Country: Singapore
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Marketing
Published (Last): 20 April 2017
Pages: 202
PDF File Size: 14.69 Mb
ePub File Size: 8.36 Mb
ISBN: 963-3-42532-694-4
Downloads: 94211
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Volrajas

Despite this fact, the Baroque and the Enlightenment came to be seen as antithetical. Consequently, the Baroque and the Iberian Peninsula were erased from the grand narrative of European and Western modernity. Emphasizing its uncivilized character, Northern European nations metaphorically displaced the Spanish Empire to the periphery of modern Europe. The process of writing the grand narrative of modernity involved appropriating several key criteria from the Baroque and consequently erasing bagroco original place of belonging.

Keeping this manipulation of history in mind permits a double reading of the course leading to modernity. This alternate hermeneutic would entail a coming together of the Baroque and the Enlightenment; a dynamic, complex, and conflicting process establishing a modernity which would continue into the modernity of today. Obviously, these hermeneutic aesthetics are essential for speaking with some impunity of the various baroques existing outside the Baroque, but they bolivag prove extremely useful for aesthetic readings of the baroque.

Nonetheless, his linking of science cosmology and art constitutes his most fruitful contribution to the field. Not to mention the fact that he ignores all other aspects which openly and directly contradict these partly Baroque elements. The time of excess was also the time of contradiction.

Indeed, the Lacanian affirmation: From a leftist perspective, the Maravallian ethow did, however, come to indirectly barrlco the iconic vision of the Baroque as an incarnation of Spanish identity: However, as Raymond Williams indicates, not all cultural discourse is hegemonic; rather, marginal discourses do exist as well —whether emerging or residual—, even despite the fact that the integrative capacity of hegemonic discourse may have seemed to overpower every era.

Moreover, it is crucial to consider that changing the balance of power within the ruling class or between different social classes, along with changes in the geopolitical system —the relation of forces on an international scale or even at the regional level —, can modify the relative position of various cultural discourses. For Carpentier, the baroque could not be limited to one sole historical period nor to one location alone; on the contrary, the baroque was a collective spirita cultural way of being characterized by dynamic structures and polycentric perspectives that allowed for the recognition and incorporation of difference.

Let us focus of the two following ideas: Latin American culture is baroque because it is about synthesis and because it recognizes difference, incorporating it into its cultural body ; and the baroque is a cultural way of being pertaining historically to Latin America.

The first statement forces us to ask ourselves: What culture is not derived from synthesis? And, if there did exist a culture whose creation did not involve synthesis, then, what would it involve? Moreover, synthetic processes entail the fusion of diverse and disparate elements: What would these elements be?

With what conceptual criteria can one refer to such elements? On the other hand, is Latin America defined by synthesis? Has it ever stopped being this way? In this respect, I would like to note something that can only be justified by my first trip to Mexico during which I became conscious of a very striking and silenced classicist tendency within the Baroque. Why has no one at least suggested that Neo classicism plays a determining role in Mexican society and culture?

Moving on to the second idea: What does a cultural way of being mean? However, can this vision be applied to the baroque? What is meant by the statement historically the baroque has been the cultural state of Latin America?

Was it baroque at one time and now no longer is? Was it and does it continue to be baroque?

Bolívar Echeverría – Wikipedia

Does this imply that the baroque cultural state is not a universal form? In an attempt to escape essentializing identities, we fall into the very same trap we had tried to avoid.

In addition, this ambiguity was marked by a plurality of contradictory semantic levels. The Baroque is a cultural formation and, like all cultural formations, it is complex, and not so much in the scientistic sense which views cultural formations as cultural realities, which is to say, characterized by an excess of information, but rather because the Baroque involves the overlapping of divergent types of discourses which, at the same time, share core characteristics.


For Maravall, however, the European Baroque is characterized by a situation in which. Nonetheless, within this reality of historical flux, such gaps did exist and by passing through them, intellectual and artistic reflection and exploration achieved the advances characterizing the culture of an enlightened modernity which co-existed alongside the Baroque and constituted an integral part of its complexity.

Bolívar Echeverría

At this point, it is clear that the baroque is a contradictory paradigm which is unquestionably complex, quite complex, with tendencies pushing in diverging paths. Consequently, it is necessary to speak of the pluralities of the baroque, as opposed to its monological and univocal echevergia.

The fundamental problem is, therefore, the fact that the Baroque is seen as a homogenous and closed whole whether through stylistic criteria or through culturalist visions despite its evident discursive plurality. Of course, Alain Badiou reads the concept of the Deleuzian fold le pli in terms of its relation to the notion of being, which to me seems to be more an invention of Badiou than a reflection of Deleuze.

Nonetheless, when he writes in chapter one: Galileo and Descartes were aware of this, though more as rationalists and scientists than simply because they were baroque, of course; but baroque writers confusedly glimpsed this hidden path] La cultura The same idea is expressed by Rosario Villari when he writes: Moreover, referring specifically to theatre, Maravall has no qualms about claiming that.

Hence, these folds and interstices allowed for the construction of the discourse of enlightened modernity during the Baroque, albeit more obvious during its later phase, i. What about Bacon, Gassendi, Descartes, Galileo? The rationalist, bolivarr, and experimental modernity —the only one that would end up being accepted by the grand narrative of European and Western modernity— coexisted with baroque modernity, forming part of it instead of standing in opposition to it. According to Dubois, the historic baroque started as a reaction to 16 th -century reforms and continued until the end of the 18 th century, with key symbols such as the American Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

What characterized the Baroque age at the political level was the model of the absolute monarch by bollvar right, enlightened despotism being only barroc variation adapted to the circumstances of the time.

Contrary to the model of Renaissance harmony, the baroque model encapsulates the imaginary course towards what could be defined as a utopia of impossible unity. Thus, the baroque echeverfia a model which is at once unitary and binary, authoritarian and schizoid.

Thus, this view allows for the inclusion of contradictory aspects which had remained marginalized in previous timelines, which is of particular value for the Hispanic cultural context. If we recall what Lezama Lima wrote: Yet another question arises: Why is it that in the Anglo-Saxon world —and spreading— the idea of Early Modernity, applied overwhelmingly to the Hispanic world, is replacing the concept of Renaissanceabandoning definitively the concept of Baroque?

From the standpoint of bolicar not so faraway present, one must not forget the way in which Western hegemonic powers have symbolically represented their past through the grand narrative of modernity. Not long ago David Kelley stated: Since Enlightenment thinkers carried out their self-examination, self-description, and self-labelling, many conceptualizations efhos this era exist which, for the etgos of escaping excessive anthologizing, I will avoid both listing and discussing.

The importance given to this attitude makes it compatible with other attitudes, especially with the prevailing attitude, which could be called baroque.

But, what tools do human beings possess for this permanent criticism of our historic being? Those which articulate the modern discourse of the Enlightenment. But, are these tools not found in the Baroque? Certainly, but the process of writing the grand narrative of modernity has bolkvar the key criteria of rationalism, empiricism, sensism and Protestant subjectivity for itself, simultaneously erasing their presence from the Baroque. From here we can see one of the elements capable of permitting a double reading of the process leading to modernity.

And this explains why Maravall and Villari affirm that Descartes and Bacon, coming from this perspective, are exceptions to the Baroque. Let us provide some examples from the cultural milieu.

Bolívar Echeverría (Author of La Modernidad de Lo Barroco)

Everything was rewritten to change the leading roles and to design new genealogies. However, The Black Legend as such was merely a set of mechanisms for producing political turmoil and propaganda set into motion by emerging powers aspiring to gain independence or to compete with the Spanish Empire.

It served to confront the superpower of the time and to stimulate the proto-national processes of reinforcement and unification, for which we have some fairly defined dates linked to their deployment and operation: The words of Oliver Cromwell at the opening of Parliament on September 17, are enlightening: Spain is the land of superstition and submission to the Holy See of Romemaking it the natural enemy of the British especially because of its contempt for all that belongs to God, or rather, to the pure God imagined by Cromwell and his people.


Aware of the possibility that England, as did Rome and Spain, could one day build its own empire, Bacon does not hesitate to propose such a war.

However, another kind of discourse begins to circulate. We can wager that, from this moment on, we are no longer dealing with a propaganda-based program used for fighting the great power of Western Europe.

The process that started echeverri at that time, which is no longer the Black Legend, and the one that is doubtlessly connected to the previous phase through the use of similar rhetorical resources, bolivarr a process which could be termed as the displacement of Spain and its empire to the periphery of a modern Europe in the making. And it was this phase occurring preponderantly in the 18 th century that emphasized the backward, ignorant, barbarous, and uncivilized character of Spain and its empire.

By the end of the 17 th century, Bopivar XIV had already announced that the Spanish crown was worthless without America. Not an educated America, with its history and civilization, not an America inhabited by subjects as respectable and little respected as those from Europe.


And once Spain lost its hegemony in Europe, its empire had to be passed on to new imperialist powers: France and England and, to a lesser extent, Holland Germany still had not presented itself as a candidate for neo-imperialist power. It echeverdia a matter of proposing a new colonization, but one carried out by modern European powers, and not by a superstitious, irrational, lazy, gothic or baroque and backward ethis.

These powers would become responsible for writing the global history of Europe, relocating the Spanish Empire to a peripheral, subaltern and non-modern space. And in order to finally complete this circle of arrogance which always accompanies the helplessness of the otherin the early nineteenth century this modern Europe, with the Schlegels as its protagonists, would definitively write the role reserved for Spain: Its exoticism was exalted —reinforced by the skin colour symbolized by Carmen— which, absent from modernity, was incorporated from the outside in, from the periphery, purged of the inherent dangers of the truly exotic.

Of course, I will avoid commenting on the way in which the Spanish and Hispanic peoples themselves internalized and appropriated the role that others had written for them.

In a sense, this work aims to recover a reality that neither belongs to national apologists nor to the authors of boolivar narrative that bereaves us of our identity. This exclusive grand narrative of modernity offered no room for the Baroque Gothicisma defining feature of superstitious, barbaric, uncivilized peoples incapable of reason. Because, in the simplification, reduction, and erasures imposed by bollivar grand narrative of European modernity, bolivat past can be summarized as such: Something similar was implied by Walter Benjamin, whose vision of the Baroque was transformed by R.

Lack of consequence for the present? Recently, Pimentel and Marcaida wrote: And the narrative of this idea, equivalent to the grand narrative of modern Europe, is where the Baroque suffered erasure —not because it did not participate in this process, but rather because in the political and military struggle between the European powers, the propagandistic association between the Inquisition, barbarity, the denial of freedom and the contempt for knowledge worked like a charm—, turning it into the opposite of science, liberty, progress, and modernity.

The Baroque, therefore, had no chance of producing its own baroque science; echeverriw could only belong to Protestant countries, where Protestantism was not only the equivalent of the freedom of belief but of, above all, the freedom to think, effacing all social, religious, and political conflict from the Protestant north.

The course followed by science is equivalent to the course followed by other realities and concepts. Our position, therefore, is not exactly one of postcolonial discourse, barrpco Spain was bollvar a colony but was an empire that had colonies, creating overlapping and conflicting discourses.

The purely postcolonial discourses applied to Hispanic America and countries such as Spain fall on the border between a colonizing and a postcolonial nation.