|
Genders 28 1998
Las Comadres
A Feminist
Collective Negotiates a New Paradigm for Women at
the U.S./Mexico Border
By JO-ANNE
BERELOWITZ
|
Click on each image to see an enlargement of it. |
[1] In the
Spring of 1988 a group of women in the contiguous
border cities of San Diego and Tijuana established
a collective to which they later gave the name Las
Comadres.1 For three years they met
at venues on both sides of the border, exploring
its complexity from the perspectives of race,
class, ethnicity, and gender. In September, 1990,
at the Centro Cultural de la Raza2 in San Diego their
efforts culminated in a performance and
installation that embodied their ideas and
attracted national attention - including
invitations to perform at art spaces both in and
beyond San Diego.3 However, their moment of
public success coincided with the intensification
of dissension among members. Feeling unable to work
together productively, these invitations were, for
the most part, declined. One year later, after a
series of meetings at which bitter feelings were
expressed, they agreed to disband.
[2] These are
the bare bones of a history that the following
pages will unfold. In recounting that history, I
have several agendas. First, to bring to wider
awareness and to honor the efforts of a
little-known group of women artists and activists
whose field of operation (the San Diego/Tijuana
border region) lies outside the mainstream of
hegemonic art discourse. Secondly, to foreground
the region as the locus for the production of a
powerful, socially-committed art that has received
scant attention beyond the arena of its immediate
visual impact.4 But my paper is not only
about Las Comadres and their operations within an
ethnically diverse and politically charged
population. It is also about the difficulties
encountered by all groups that attempt to translate
utopian theory into practice and the near
impossibility of sustaining a collective made up of
highly individualized, articulate, and creative
people. In other words, it is about the problems,
challenges, and theoretical dilemmas that
confronted a heterogeneous group of talented women
in their efforts to constitute community. These
challenges included: avoiding the pitfalls of
essentialist thinking; negotiating the tension
between collectivism and individualism; anxiety and
conflict about lesbian desire; the growing
awareness that struggles against gender inequity
also involve struggles against race, class, and
cultural hierarchies between and among women. In
short, the experience imploded each woman's sense
of her identity so that she found herself
negotiating and renegotiating her subject position
in a process that, while liberatory, was also
profoundly painful.
[3] My final
objective is to examine the most significant
cultural production of Las Comadres - an
installation and performance which they staged at
the Centro Cultural de la Raza in San Diego in
1990, titled Border Boda, or Border
Wedding.
This production - and indeed, the entire enterprise
of Las Comadres - was highly significant in that it
posed a number of difficult questions: How does
Woman write herself into history? How does she find
a place within, or alongside, a master narrative in
which the protagonists are always male? How can
women tell their story? How, to borrow Jean
Franco's wonderful phrase, can they become
"plotting women,"5 strategically positioned
within the historical narrative? The production at
the Centro addressed these questions with differing
degrees of success which I attempt to articulate,
all the while, however, sustaining awareness that
success or failure is perhaps of lesser
significance than the fact that the women had the
courage to ask the questions and to
stage them.
[4] In
recounting their enterprise, I am profoundly
indebted to all the members of the collective who
so generously gave me their time and shared their
experiences with me. As an academic scholar
researching this little-known chapter of feminist
art and activism in San Diego - to which I am a
recent arrival - I am acutely aware that I stand
outside the moment, passions, and energies that
were the driving force of Comadres (although I,
too, am an immigrant to the United States and a
border crosser). But I am also aware that this
history and my engagement with it has affected me
as, indeed, does all work pursued with heartfelt
intensity. As I worked on this project, I wondered
how I, who have never participated in a collective,
would have fared in such a group. What would have
been my reactions, contributions, and disruptions?
What would I - an educated, white, liberal,
heterosexual, agnostic, Jewish woman from South
Africa have discovered about my privilege and my
guilt? What would the other women have thought of
me? How might the experience have changed me? How
willing am I to engage in local political
struggles? What are my investments in the current
status quo, and what sacrifices would I be prepared
to make so that other women might share my
privileges?
[5] To my
surprise and consternation these questions quickly
became practical rather than academic when,
immediately after completing a first draft of this
paper, I sent copies to all the women I had
interviewed. Their responses spanned a range from
enthusiasm to fury. In addition, I knew that they
were critiquing, discussing, and dissecting my
writing which was now the vehicle for their
reconnection as well as a reminder of the joys and
sorrows, the ideals and disillusionments of their
disbanded collective project. I became defensive,
anxious, self-doubtful, ill, caught in an
uncomfortable impasse between my desire for
acceptance and my sense of academic rigor. Indeed,
like the Comadres during their brief but intense
tenure together, I found myself negotiating and
renegotiating my own subject position in a process
that was acutely stressful as, wishing to learn
from the experience, I opened myself to hearing
from Comadres who were particularly angry with me.
I was told, "You are a woman, writing as a
feminist. You must connect your work with
us!"6 Additionally, I was
chastised for "writing like a man" - positioning
myself outside the passions, engagements, and
difficulties of feminist self-empowerment, and for
exercising a "cold, analytical judgment." The
comments stung. And so I set out to rewrite the
tale as a woman still struggling with her own
border crossings.
[6] My guide in
this endeavor was Trinh T. Minh-ha whose beautiful
essay "Cotton and Iron"7 remained open on my desk
throughout this writing, serving both as model and
caveat. Trinh begins this essay with a Nigerian
poem: Tale, told, to be told..../Are you
truthful? The poem, with its question about
truthfulness, serves as a prelude to her discussion
of storytelling. The tale teller, she writes, must
speak to the tale, rather than
about it, for
'speaking about'
only partakes in the conservation of systems of
binary opposition (subject/object; I/It;
We/They) on which territorialized knowledge
depends....plac[ing] a semantic distance between
oneself and the work....secur[ing] for the
speaker a position of mastery.8
It was precisely
this "position of mastery" that I would now seek to
avoid by acknowledging that a story is always a
"form of mediation" whose telling is "adaptive,"
that "[t] ruth is both a construct and beyond it"
and therefore always lies somewhere else, but that
a "balance is played out as the narrator
interrogates the truthfulness of the tale and
provides multiple answers." I would strive to
become Trinh's idea of a "mediator-storyteller . .
. through whom truth is summoned to unwind itself
to the audience [and who] is at once a creator, a
delighter and a teacher." I would not seek closure
for my tale but would rather offer it as an
"ongoing passage to an elsewhere," a
work-in-progress whose destination I do not
know.
[7] Again and
again, as I struggled with this tale, I reflected
that its subject was as much truth and its
elsewheres as it was Las Comadres, for all of
us - the protagonists as well as I (their
confessor/mediator/storyteller) - were engaged in a
struggle for truth. Their representations to me
were based on memories - which can only be partial,
always subject to distortion and revision, and in
no wise the terra firma of hard data. My task was
to sift through these, honoring the passions of
each speaker, while realizing that personal filters
always create their own sediments and that I was as
subject to this problematic as everyone else.
However, apart from a few slides, a video tape,
some artwork, and a couple of reviews, the personal
remembrances of the protagonists and my own
interest in them are the only resources from which
to construct a history of Las Comadres. Making a
personal mantra of Trinh's question:
Tale,
told, to be told . . . /Are you
truthful? and wanting very much both to be
truthful and to tell "a fine
story,"
I
embarked on what follows.
[8] In
reconstructing the beginnings of Las Comadres it is
necessary to look at an antecedent collective to
which many of its members had belonged and which
had a profound impact on them - the Border Arts
Workshop/Taller de Arte
Fronterizo (otherwise known as "BAW/TAF").
The Border Arts Workshop was founded in San Diego
in 1984 as a multicultural, interdisciplinary group
of artists, scholars, and cultural activists. Their
goal was to deconstruct and redefine the border as
a zone of transformation, an interstitial space of
negotiation and fluid interchange rather than a
rigid line signifying separateness. Accordingly,
they set out to complicate monolithic, unitary
notions of identity and statehood. For example, in
place of the more traditional approach that
maintained Anglo, Chicano, and Tijuanese as
distinct and separate categories, they proposed a
polymorphous, polyglot, hybrid, and binational
"border subject" - a new type of subject, postmodern and
postnational - a result of the confluence of the
many different realities peculiar to this porous
border zone. Additionally, their agenda was to
bring the border - the margin - into
representation, to bring it from an invisible
peripheralism into the spotlit center by
demonstrating that the issues that conventionally
inflect the border - racism, nationalism,
anti-immigrant fervor - are central to this
society. Indeed, they argued that in a deep
ontological sense the border lies within us all as
the limiting barrier to the attainment of an
unbounded humanity.9
[9] BAW/TAF was
a utopian project. But like all utopian projects,
it failed to live up to its high ideals. One of the
most problematical issues that beset it was gender
inequity, for BAW/TAF was, fundamentally, a male
group. Of its seven founding members (Guillermo
Gómez-Peña, Michael Schnorr, David
Avalos, Isaac Artenstein, Victor Ochoa, Jude
Eberhardt, and Sara Jo Berman) only the last two
were women. Although those two were gifted artists,
it is arguable that their marriages to key male
members (Artenstein and Gómez-Peña)
were primary factors in their admittance.
Throughout BAW/TAF's history, women entered the
collective primarily via relationships with
dominant males. By 1988 the women in BAW/TAF had
become angry:10 at their
marginalization, at their perceived exploitation by
male members, and at BAW/TAF's failure to address
gender and sexuality as borders requiring
renegotiation. That spring, they mobilized to form
a new group, a collective constituted by and for
women. They would later give themselves the name
Las Comadres, a word whose meanings include
"friend," "midwife," "godmother," and
"gossip."
[10] The women
who became Comadres were all, in one way or
another, affiliated with the artworld: as artists,
curators, writers, performers, video artists,
teachers, and students. Membership was informal,
with a core of about eighteen and a dozen or so
additional women drifting in and out during the
collective's life span. Hungry for community, they
held together in love and sisterhood for a brief
golden moment,11
a
moment of imagined community when members defined
their goals against the outside, the Other. The
Other was patriarchy, class, race, and masculinist
careerism in the artworld. However, soon it
appeared to some that the enemy lay as much within
as without, and members even accused one another of
racism.12 Additionally, there were
other differences that proved hugely divisive:
class differences, different levels of education,
different attitudes toward nationalism, ethnic
identity, and universalism. Later, as the group
attained some measure of success in the artworld,
individual members were perceived to be careerist,
self-serving, and exploitative of their colleagues.
For example, the group had adopted a position that
was ideologically opposed to the ego-and-star-track
nature of the artworld. They agreed that their
identity was to be collective and that no single
individuals were to emerge as star performers.
However, when Mancillas and Susholtz represented
the group at multicultural conferences their names
received prominent billing while the other members
who were not present remained anonymous. The
anonymous remainder greatly resented this, arguing
that their colleagues had enhanced their careers
from having so foregrounded themselves while they
remained in the obscurity that comes from
anonymity. Like the Border Arts Workshop, Las
Comadres foundered on the shoals of its utopian
ideals, brought - by the harsh reality of internal
conflict - to acknowledge its imbrication in the
structures of the larger society; brought, sadly,
to knowledge that efforts to bridge difference had
resulted in demarcating it more sharply.
[11] Their
initial agenda, established at their founding in
1988 was to constitute a study group, focusing on
feminism, multiculturalism, and border issues. They
read Gloria Anzaldúa, bell hooks, Donna
Harraway, Trinh Minh-ha, and papers written by
fellow members. Additionally, they looked at one
another's work, offering feedback and support, for
all, in one way or another, felt professionally
isolated. The intent of the group was to overcome
isolation and constitute community - and to do so
in a way that would both honor and represent the
complexity and diversity of this border region. As
with the Border Arts Workshop, they wanted to
promote a multinational, multicultural border
"subject." To this they added the goal of
foregrounding issues peculiar to women living in
the border zone.
[12] In many
ways, the group embodied the ethnic diversity of
the region, for it included Anglos, Chicanas,
Mexicanas, and other Latinas. Within these
categories, members' backgrounds were mixed,
tracing ancestry that was, variously, Sicilian,
German, Irish, Indian, Danish, Hungarian, Catholic,
Protestant, and Jewish. In addition to ethnic
differences, there were class differences, with
members ranging from British aristocratic to
Chicano working class. In terms of education, the
range was equally great, spanning (at one extreme)
a tenured professor at Amherst College to (at the
other) a woman whose education had ended with high
school.
[13] In spite
(or perhaps because) of these differences, there
was, initially, a powerful connection among the
women, several of whom have characterized the first
year of their affiliation as "idyllic." Meetings,
held monthly, were both in San Diego and Tijuana,
in private homes and in art galleries. As a former
member Emily Hicks commented:
Initially we had
a wonderful time, especially when we met in
Tijuana. We'd sit out on the grass and have
picnics and talk, and it was heaven. It was what
everyone wanted the group to be. We didn't care
about shows and careers. It was just women
together, talking and sharing.
At this point,
as former member Marguerite Waller has noted, they
constituted an "affinity group," drawn together by
their sense of exclusion from the hegemonic
(malestream) culture, still in the "'nice nice'
phase of multicultural feminist
interaction."13 All experienced the
excitement of encountering the ethnic "other" and
of learning about new worlds. As a former member
commented:
Women in the
group wanted to find out what is Spanish, what
is Mexican, what is Chicana, what is Anglo.
There was a curiosity about how the other side
lives.14
There was, in
addition, a genuine desire to know and connect with "the other side"
and to construct a utopian community based on the
theoretical readings that they had adopted as their
ideology and blueprint. They wanted to achieve what
Anzaldúa (in many ways the collective's
muse) described as a "New Consciousness," a new
race of cosmic inclusivity made up of
mestizas - mutable hybrid progenies with "a
rich gene pool," the result of "racial,
ideological, cultural and biological
cross-pollinization." This was to constitute the
new "consciousness of the Borderlands," and
feminists would be its vanguard. But
Anzaldúa warned that this ideal would be
hugely difficult to attain, confronting the
mestiza with "an inner war," "a struggle
of borders," "a cultural collision," for
. . . commonly
held beliefs of the white culture attack
commonly held beliefs of the Mexican culture,
and both attack commonly held beliefs of the
indigenous culture. Subconsciously, we see an
attack on ourselves and our beliefs as a threat
and we attempt to block with a
counterstance.15
The difficulties
Anzaldúa predicted soon became manifest and,
over time, insurmountable. While the Comadres
absorbed the theory and felt richer for it,
inevitably idealism encountered the harsh reality
of practical living and could not be
sustained.
[14] The issue
that first pulled them out of the realm of the
theoretical and into the practical was a right-wing
populist campaign called "Light Up the Border,"
organized by a coalition of citizens in the San
Diego region who were concerned about the influx of
undocumented Mexican workers from south of the
border. Its leader, Roger Hedgecock, was a former
mayor of San Diego who had left electoral politics
after being convicted of a felony for illegal
campaign practices and subsequently became the host
of a local radio talk show.16 His campaign, begun in
the fall of 1989 and continuing through the summer
of 1990, mobilized anti-immigrant border citizens
to meet on the third Thursday of each month at a
predetermined point on the border to line up their
cars at dusk and illuminate the no-man's land
between Mexico and the U.S. Their intent was to
discourage undocumented workers from traversing
this terrain under cover of night and thereby
entering the U.S. undetected. Additionally, they
wished to alert the U.S. federal government that
the border needs more lights and more efficient
patrolling. Their goals, in other words, were to
make the border less porous and to harden its
impregnability. These ran directly counter to the
Comadres' own agenda of creating a new trans-border
culture of cross-pollinization and
non-dualism.
[15] Until this
point, the group's activities had been purely in
the private domain. Now, for the first time in the
spring of 1990 the decision was taken to enter the
public domain. The shift was dramatic - from the
security of privately-owned spaces to the
agonistic, highly charged arena of border politics
where they would be aligned with other left wing
forces such as the Border Arts Workshop, the Union
del Barrio, and hundreds of other sympathetic
artists and activists against militant right wing
groups like the WarBoys, The Holy Church of the
White Fighting Machine of the Cross, the Ku Klux
Klan and their sympathizers. It was at this point
that a decision was taken to give the group a name.
Their entry into the public arena was, in a sense,
their baptism.
[16] While
several of the Comadres - especially those whose
histories included political activism - were eager
to join with pro-immigrant forces, there were also
Comadres who resisted this call to activism,
feeling that it exceeded the original agenda that
had brought the group together, and they remained
apart from the protest. Those who participated
hired a plane to fly above the parked cars, pulling
a banner that read "1000 Points of Fear - Another
Berlin Wall?" The reference, clearly, was to
current events in Eastern Europe, with an analogy
drawn between the border fence and the Berlin Wall.
The banner drew the attention of the media who
wrote of it and of the courage of a women's
collective in entering the tension-fraught arena of
border politics. The Comadres were talked about on
local radio stations, appeared on the local TV
news, and one of their members, Aida Mancillas, was
interviewed on National Public Radio. The attention
was exhilarating, giving the women a sense that
their point of view was being heard, that they were
making a difference, and that they were intervening
in history. At the same time, however, they felt
frustrated at being unable to control the media's
representation of them, at the way that the media
edited and cut their viewpoints, trimming them into
digestible soundbites to the point of
misrepresentation. Nonetheless, the experience gave
them a sense of empowerment, a sense that working
collectively was much more effective than working
alone, and they felt inspired to do more.
[17] Comadre
Margueritte Waller has written about the
collective's participation in the demonstrations as
a watershed that "catalyzed significant internal
changes." On the positive side, the group realized
its potential power; on the negative, "historical
and political divisions"17 began to be more openly
articulated.
[18] I was made
acutely aware of these divisions when I interviewed
the Comadres, all of whom spoke with great
frankness into my microphone about their often
troubling experiences within the collective over
its three year life span. It became clear that the
Anglo and Latina women held divergent ideas about
difference and group identity. For example, as
Hicks commented:
The Anglo women
needed to find a deep inner core that united
them with Chicanas and wanted acceptance by and
of them. Chicanas wanted to find a deep inner
difference to explain their lack of power and
thereby gain the strength to go on and prove to
themselves that they could do what Anglos
did.
In other words,
the Anglo women (who came out of liberal
rationalist backgrounds, oriented toward a politics
of consensus) longed for a unity that transcends
difference. This approach, while well-intentioned,
leads to trouble, for the desire for a community
predicated on unity and wholeness engages in a
logic of identity that denies and represses
difference. Furthermore, it assumes that a "core"
essence connects women, that each subject possesses
an inherent identity and can understand and be
"present" for another as she (assumes) that she can
be for herself.18 Such an approach,
depending as it does on idealism (conceiving
"being" and "truth" as beyond time and change)
denies the political. As Chantal Mouffe has pointed
out, such a denial can lead only to impotence -
"the impotence which characterizes liberal thought
when it finds itself confronted with a
multiplication of different forms of demands for
identity."19 And indeed, ultimately
the pressure felt by some members to establish a
unifying identity proved unbearable - as different
women intimated to me when they acknowledged that
interaction within the group became extraordinarily
difficult, but that outside the group they enjoyed
intense, satisfying relationships with one another.
As one woman said: "Individually, we really liked
each other; but as a group we became a
monster."
[19] Longing for
unity was by no means peculiar to the Anglo
members, for, as the history of the women's
movement reveals, feminist groups have been marked,
generally, by a desire for closeness and mutual
identification. However, while an ideal of
inter-ethnic unity may have been more
characteristic of the Anglos than of the Latinas
(many of whom were veterans of political struggle,
bearing the burden of histories marked by daily
encounters with issues of ethnicity, identity, and
difference),20 it is equally true that
some of the Latinas longed for unity between and
among themselves, a unity predicated on an imagined
Latina essence, as the following account, told to
me by one of the Chicanas, reveals:
I became
uncomfortable with some of the white women. . .
I felt really burdened by my experience and
wanted to share my feelings with other Latinas
and so I asked for a meeting with just the
Latinas. But that also turned out to be very
difficult for me. One Mexican woman said: "What
makes you think that I am going to have more of
an affinity with you than with another white
woman in the group?" And I realized that she had
a point. I guess that if you are a dominant
within the dominant sector of your society, then
you are not going to understand what racism is.
I realized that it was necessary to throw out
essentialism, and that we all had completely
different takes on things.
I heard many
stories like this, stories that spoke of frustrated
longing for unity and closeness, followed by the
ineluctable recognition that identity is not fixed
but, rather, subject to constant negotiation and
renegotiation within changing sets of historically
diverse experiences.
[20] In
theory all were familiar with this
concept of fluid identity, for Anzaldúa had
described it as the mestiza's condition: marked by "psychic
restlessness," being "in a state of perpetual
transition" analogous to "floundering in uncharted
seas," a "swamping of . . . psychological borders,"
and the ability to "shift out of habitual
formations" by developing "a tolerance for
contradictions, a tolerance for
ambiguity."21 But theory is so much
easier to read than to implement, its poetry
intoxicating and difficult to effect in the harsh
light of sober reality, and the women found
themselves caught in a space of frustration marked,
on the one hand, by longing for unity and, on the
other, by desire to negotiate difference.
[21] Together
with the issue of race, class and privilege became
matters for heated discussion. In the words of a
former member:
There was a
great deal of talk about privilege: who had it
and who didn't. It was difficult for some people
to acknowledge that they had it when they
certainly didn't feel that they did. Didn't, in
some cases, even have jobs, and so what was all
this talk of privilege about?
Privilege is, of
course, a relational term, as is the analogical
concept, power. As stated earlier, there were wide
disparities among the women in terms of class
backgrounds, levels of education, and careers. But,
in fact, no one woman occupied a consistent
position of privilege across all of these axes. As
Waller put it:
There was not
one woman in the group who felt adequate in her
career, that she was fully accomplished,
respected, and recognized for what she was.
Everybody felt hungry.
Inter-ethnic
differences were only exacerbated by the revelation
that white, educated Comadres in seemingly secure,
high-level jobs, felt powerless and unhappy in
their careers. It was difficult for women who felt
far removed from that kind of prominence and
privilege to empathize with women who
seemed to have it all and yet wouldn't
concede that they did. It was equally difficult for
the women who "seemed to have it all" to experience
such resentment and to feel that their expressions
of pain and struggle were unheard.
[22] The longing
for and frustration about community was made more
complicated by the fact that some of the women were
going through crises in their personal lives. Eager
for support from their Comadres, they articulated
personal issues in group meetings, which other
members resented, preferring to keep the collective
as a reading, work-sharing group, not one that
focused on psychological process. Here, too,
differences emerged between Latinas and Anglos. As
Ovejero commented:
White women tend
to be more outspoken about personal issues,
whereas Latinas tend to be more private. For
Latinas there are strong memories of keeping
things to yourself. It seemed to me that
[bringing up] personal problems and personal
trauma in the context of the group ended up
destroying us.
Ruth Wallen
agreed that the articulation of personal issues was
fractious:
Our collapse was
caused by conflict over personal issues. We
never had a clear idea of process. We never had
a clear sense of how much personal material it
was appropriate to deal with in the
group.
Indeed,
willingness (or unwillingness) to speak of personal
issues only accentuated more sharply the different
approaches that Latinas and Anglos had already
manifested toward speaking in a mixed cultural
group. As arts activist Charleen Touchette points
out:
Latina women,
while usually highly expressive verbally in
Spanish with one another, will often remain
silent when English is spoken in a group, even
if they are proficient in the language. Many
Spanish-speaking people, whose language is
highly formal, are accustomed to elaborate
verbal conventions that carefully define the
parameters of interpersonal communication to
show respect to the person addressed. Thus, they
are sometimes offended by the informal, direct
way that people talk to each other in
English.22
This observation
was corroborated by one of the Comadres:
The Anglo women
talked all the time. They really dominated and
the Latinas didn't. They sat back and were
polite.
Later,
interpersonal conflict became so acute that some
members wanted to bring in a therapist to mediate
among them. A group of women located a Chicana
psychotherapist willing to work with the
collective, but the intervention never occurred -
for several reasons: the Latinas, already inclined
to reticence in personal matters, were either
ambivalent or negative about the proposal; and
there was no agreement as to what mediation should
be about, nor between whom.
[23] And so the
problems simmered and, over time, even intensified.
But for a brief moment they were set aside in the
interests of a project that the women agreed,
collectively, to undertake. In the spring of 1990,
shortly after their experience with "Light Up the
Border," Mancillas was invited by the Centro
Cultural de la Raza to curate an exhibition. She
asked her Comadres if they would like to take this
opportunity to make a collective visual statement
that would fully embody and communicate their goals
in a context where they would not be distorted by
the editorializing of the media. They seized the
opportunity. The result was an installation titled
La
Vecindad/The Neighborhood, and a seventy minute performance
piece called Border Boda/Border
Wedding,
staged at the Centro in September, 1990.
[24] The
endeavor was, in many ways, the group's highpoint.
Hugely successful in terms of its public reception,
it poised the collective on the brink of
name-recognition-stardom in the artworld. But the
pressure of production only hastened the group's
collapse, further sensitizing participants to the
myriad problems that had already become manifest.
Although their project at the Centro entailed a
number of different aspects - artworks as well as a
performance - I will focus here primarily on the
performance, for its goals were hugely ambitious,
embracing a number of complex theoretical positions
which I shall unpack in the course of describing
it.
[25] The
performance was divided into two parts,
corresponding to two different cultural spheres:
public and private.
This opposition and contrast
conforms to what Gayatri Spivak has recognized as
"a certain program. . . implicit in all, and
explicit in some, feminist
activity"23 in which the assumed
diametrical opposition between private and public
is deconstructed and displaced. Here the private
sphere was represented by that quintessential heart
of the domestic: a kitchen, rendered exquisitely
inviting. Its walls were painted a deep
turquoise, and on them were hung paintings whose
subject matter and style reflected the region. The
room's centerpiece was a kitchen table (fig. 1) in the form
of a huge bilingual cookbook on table legs - a
metaphor of nourishment from mixture. On its pages
were inscribed family recipes - a chronicle of
women's nurturance. Behind it against the blue wall
was a kitchen cupboard (fig. 2) that also functioned as an
altar . The doors of its uppermost register
were opened to reveal a blood-red space on which
were xeroxed images of faces of women from Oaxaca.
Its open lower register, scumble-painted blue and
white, contained bits of shattered mirror and
barbed wire - visual metaphors for fragmented
identities and the border. The central register
held candles, a cross, and various offerings. From
each side was suspended a huge pendulous
breast-like sack, which gave it an anthropomorphic
quality. It was intended to function as a metaphor
for a border woman and for a border home and to
evoke the pain and human cost of border living. On
an adjacent wall was a kitchen shelf with images of
historical border types painted on plates. Thus,
traditional kitchen props and decor became resonant
with issues of the border.
[26] The
principal drama of the performance occurred in this
space of domesticity, nurturance, and beauty. Here
a young Chicana, on the eve of her wedding to a
Gringo, spoke and reminisced with her grandmother
and aunt, both of whom were deeply conflicted about
her impending marriage. The grandmother told
stories about their family, while the aunt
(referred to in the play as tía) prepared fruit, sugar
cane, and cinnamon for a hot drink to be served to
the audience at the close of the performance. The
aunt, having elected not to speak on the U.S. side,
was mute, her vocalism restricted to four
traditional border songs sung in Spanish. At one
point the bride-to-be asked plaintively, "What
happened to Mama?" During the course of the
performance it was revealed that her mother was
raped and murdered by an Anglo landgrabber -
personal family tragedy that, by synecdoche, stood
for a version of U.S.-Mexico history.
[27] This kind
of slippage between the personal and the grand
sweep of history subtended the performance. In this
private, matriarchal, domestic space of oral
history and folk narrative, women recounted their
marginality with the paradoxical goal of pointing
to what Spivak has called "the irreducibility of
the margin." In other words, the protagonists told
personal stories about women's lives impacted by
national and international political conflict. The
effect and purpose was to displace the
public-private hierarchy and opposition for, as
Spivak has noted:
if the fabric of
the so-called public sector is woven of the
so-called private, the definition of the private
is marked by a public potential, since it is the
weave, or texture, of public activity. The
opposition is thus not merely reversed; it is
displaced.24
The desire to
displace, or at least confuse, the traditional
opposition between public and private was one of
the central purposes of the performance.
[28] Contrasting
with the domestic, private, color-bright space of
the kitchen was a black and white "media" or
"conflict" room which prominently featured a
television set and a podium behind which two
apparently Anglo journalists interrogated U.S.
representations of Mexico, the border, and Chicano
culture . Where the kitchen represented the
space of women, the media/conflict room (fig. 3) was the
space of men, of public discourse, of the
dissemination of public information; and its
ambiance was rendered as hostile. To balance the
recipe book-table in the kitchen, the
media/conflict room featured an outsize "book of
conflict." On its cover were the words:
Todo es
verdad, todo es mentira, /All is truth, all is
lies - a comment on the journalistic
enterprise.25
While
the Comadres may have wanted to blur the
distinction between public and private,
scenographically they accentuated it, and for the
bulk of the performance these two spaces manifested
a kind of apartheid in terms of the ethnic groups
that occupied them: the hostile media room as the
space of Anglos and cruel oppression; the nurturant
kitchen as the space of Mexicanas/Chicanas, love,
and suffering. This Manichean bifurcation was very
difficult for some of the Anglo women who resented
their relegation to the register of the
hateful.
[29]
Structurally, the performance consisted largely of
a series of narratives told by the grandmother. The
idea of unfolding the plot via grandmother stories
had two sources. The first was Trinh Minh-ha's
"Grandma's Story," an essay on women and
storytelling which all the Comadres read. Here
Trinh presents the oral narratives of senior tribal
women as an integral element of social formation
and cohesion, for tale-telling is always in the
present, necessitating an immediate, vital,
interactive communal bond between teller and
listener. Unlike written history, storytelling is
an art of the body, transmitted from mouth to ear
and from heart to heart, establishing a chain and
continuum between the generations who pass it on,
thereby providing a link between past, present, and
future. In many cultures the storyteller is a
healer and protectress, for her power in telling
stories brings people together and gives them
strength. Furthermore, the storyteller is never the
authoress of the tale but merely the transmitter of
a preexistent structure of meaning which she is
morally bound to transfer.
[30] Trinh's
essay had a profound impact on the Comadres, and
one evening, soon after all had read it, they
convened at the home of one of their members to sit
around a campfire in her garden and tell stories of
their own families, of their ancestors' journeys to
the United States and their struggles to establish
themselves. In this way they wove personal sagas
into the larger fabric of history, interweaving
private and public. The evening around the campfire
catalyzed their ideas for the forthcoming
performance. The concept of structuring it as a
series of grandmother tales was born that
night.
[31] The telling
of personal stories by women falls within the
rubric of what Deleuze and Guattari have called
"the minor," a form of literature usually from the
margins which uses an intense, vernacular form and
allows the writer/speaker "the possibility to
express another possible community and to forge the
means for another consciousness and another
sensibility."26
One
of the characteristics of a "minor literature" is
that it "deterritorializes language," and indeed,
the territorialization and deterritorialization of
language was one of the sub-themes of the
grandmother's discourse. For example, as a Mexican
immigrant she spoke a master language (English) in
an alien place (San Diego). Additionally, she
explained that the tía was unable to speak
English, the language of her husband, and that he,
in turn, was unable to speak Spanish. They were,
however, both able to speak "the language of love,"
a deterritorialized language that transcends all
boundaries. Although she lived in the U.S., the
tía never learned to speak
English, and she abandoned her husband and children
to return to Mexico so that she might speak again.
Additionally, we were told that while the
tía never spoke north of the
border, in Tijuana, by contrast, "she doesn't stop
talking." The granddaughter/niece, a Chicana, spoke
English but no Spanish and expressed frustration at
her inability to speak with her tía. We were also told of a
Mexican aunt living in the U.S. who was killed by
her Anglo husband for speaking to a laborer in
Spanish.
[32] Other
characteristics of a "minor literature" pertinent
to this performance were that each individual
story
connects
immediately to politics. The individual concern
thus becomes all the more necessary,
indispensable, magnified, because a whole other
story is vibrating within it. In this way, the
family triangle connects to other triangles -
commercial, economic, bureaucratic, juridical -
that determine its values.27
All of the
grandmother stories connected in this way to the
grand narratives of national and international
history. Additionally, the "minor" is the situation
of immigrants, who
live in a
language that is not their own . . . and no
longer, or not yet, even know their own and know
poorly the major language that they are forced
to serve . . . .
The "minor" is
thus nomadic, moving between margin and center,
operating always in a kind of border zone - a
situation that pertained for all the women in the
kitchen.
[33]
Scenographically, there was a border zone in this drama.
Between the kitchen and the media/conflict room was
a sculpture featuring the mandala-shaped aura of
the Virgin of Guadalupe, its upper region sliced
through by a chain saw, the entire construction
positioned behind a chain-link fence .
Intermittently, the young bride-to-be placed
herself behind the fence within the mandala's empty
frame, uncertain as to whether - or how - she might
occupy it. At one point in the drama she seemed to
be trapped in this space, and, with frustrated
longing reached alternately first toward the
Mexican and then to the U.S. side. The implication
was that she was caught between two worlds,
uncertain even of her relationship to the Virgin of
Guadalupe, quintessential icon of Mexican identity.
Indeed, at one point the bride stated: "I don't
know what it means to be Mexican." But Guadalupe
has a wider resonance than Mexicanness, for she is,
of course, one of the paradigms of womanhood in
Mexican culture. It was not merely her relationship
to Guadalupe that the young bride needed to
clarify, but her own identity as a Chicana caught
between two cultures. Indeed, it was
their
relationship to paradigms of
womanhood that the Comadres were exploring
in Border
Boda as
well as their desire to put forward and articulate
a new paradigm - Anzaldúa's
concept of the mestiza.
[34] Mexican
culture holds out three "cultural root paradigms"
for/of women, although some scholars include a
fourth and fifth. I borrow this concept of
"cultural root paradigm" from Victor Turner who has
defined it as a model that is continually
reinvested with energy within the social drama,
going beyond the cognitive and the moral to the
existential domain where it becomes "clothed with
allusiveness, implications and
metaphor."28 By social drama Turner
means a period in which conflicting groups and
people attempt to establish their own paradigms or
to reconfigure extant paradigms. An example of such
an enterprise is Anzaldúa's foregrounding of
the mestiza as a type of new consciousness/new
paradigm for the social drama of the struggle for a
new Borderlands.
[35] The three
best known paradigms for woman in Mexican culture
are: (1) the Virgin of Guadalupe; (2) Malinche, the
noble Aztec woman, Malintzin Tenepal, who served
the Spanish conqueror Cortez as mistress,
translator, advisor, and the bearer of his child -
becoming thereby the mother of a mestizo race; and (3) la
Llorona, the weeping mother who seeks her lost
children. A fourth is Sor Juana Inés de la
Cruz, the seventeenth century Spanish-born Mexican
nun who became renowned for her intellect and
exquisite poetry. A fifth is Frida Kahlo, model of
the
suffering-sexual-woman-as-powerful-creator.
[36] The
performance referenced all of these paradigms,
either implicitly or explicitly (and, in doing so,
reached both backward and forward across the
historical record, from the Aztec empire of
Malinche's provenance to the future paradise of
Anzaldúa's mestiza.) I have already mentioned the
empty mandala of the Virgin of Guadalupe, its
emptiness signifying uncertainty as to how that
space should be filled, its prominent centrality
between the kitchen and the media/conflict room
indicating its significance - and the significance
of this issue - within the performance. Guadalupe
is, of course, a symbol of sexual purity, sublime
transcendence, forgiveness, and redemption. But she
is also a prototype of the new mestiza, a border type, the
product of two cultures: the Aztec which featured
her as the good creator-mother, Tonantzin, and the
Spanish/Christian, which desexed her and made her
into a version of the Virgin Mary. She is thus, as
Anzaldúa points out
a synthesis of
the old world and the new, of the religion and
culture of the two races in our psyche, the
conquerors and the conquered . . . She mediates
between the Spanish and the Indian cultures and
between Chicanos and the white world. She . . .
is the symbol of ethnic identity and of the
tolerance for ambiguity that . . . people who
cross cultures . . . possess.29
Her symbol is
thus pregnant with ambiguity, for, like the
mestiza, she "continually walk[s] out of
one culture and into another."30
[37] The
installation also referenced Guadalupe's
significance to Mexico's indigenous Indian
population. Against a white wall in a vestibule
through which visitors entered to access the
performance were several representations of
Guadalupe holding a machine gun. In this guise she
represented the rebellion and hope of an oppressed
people and the capacity of women to come forward as
warriors. In short, Guadalupe's resonances have
been and remain mutable, but always charged with
positivity.
[38] The
Malinche paradigm has been far more problematic. In
Mexican mythology, Malinche/Malintzin has become an
archetype of betrayal, an historical Eve in whom
sexuality and treason are mutual inflections. In
addition to her Aztec name, she has, over the
course of history, acquired others that connote the
contempt with which Mexican/Chicano culture regards
her. Thus she is known also as La Chingada, the one who is
fucked;31 La
Vendida,
slang for "sell-out" because she "sold" her people
to the white race; and La Lengua, a word that includes the
meanings "tongue," "language," and "translator" or
mediator.32 Mostly, however, she is
known as La Malinche, a term that converts
her proper name into a generic signifier of
betrayal.
[39] Guadalupe
and Malintzin: virgin and whore. They are functions
of one another, and their opposing yet
complementary paradigms polarize the lives of
Mexicanas and Chicanas. Together they constitute
what anthropologist Pierre Maranda has called
"semantic charters: . . . culture specific networks
that we internalize as we undergo the process of
socialization." He adds that certain charters or
signifying systems "have an inertia and momentum of
their own" and includes within this category "the
conception of sex roles."33 From the evidence and
observations of Chicano and Mexican scholars,
Malintzin and Guadalupe belong within this
class.34 For example, as Norma
Alarcón notes:
. . . the myth
of Malintzin . . . seeps into our . . .
consciousness in the cradle through . . . [male]
eyes as well as our mothers', who are entrusted
with the transmission of culture. . . . All we
see is hatred of women. We must hate her too
since love seems only possible through extreme
virtue whose definition is at best slippery. . .
. The pervasiveness of the myth is unfathomable,
often permeating and suffusing our very being
without conscious awareness.35
[40]
Contemporary Chicanas bristle at this cultural
legacy and at their inscription within the limited
fields of puta or virgen. The social drama of feminist
struggle has led women to seek alternative
paradigms and to inscribe La Malinche differently,
for example, as a woman of courage who sought to
save her people from a cruel and bloodthirsty Aztec
ruler.36 One of the most
ingenious re-readings is by Cherrie Moraga in her
article: "From a Long Line of Vendidas: Chicanas
and Feminism."37 Here Moraga, in a
brilliant move, recuperates the terms of aspersion,
reinscribing them with positive value. Thus she
names the defiant woman who takes control of her
own sexual destiny "una Malinchista"38 and herself a
"Vendida:" one who deliberately refuses to
buy into the dominant heterosexist paternalism of
her culture, arguing that "To be critical of one's
culture is not to betray that
culture;"39 indeed, that to refuse
to examine one's own cultural weaknesses "is, in
the most profound sense, an act of
betrayal."40 She thereby transforms a
term of derogation into a badge of honor and opens
up an avenue whereby the feminist Chicana/Mexicana
might derive positive value from identification
with Malinche.
[41] This
approach was taken further by Anzaldúa, who,
again and again in her manifesto for the new
mestiza repeats the refrain: "Not me sold
out my people but they me," and who reconfigures
Malinche as the betrayed - "the raped mother whom
we have abandoned"41 - rather then the
betrayer. Anzaldúa, like a number of other
writers,42 views Malinche as a
"mediator," a border crosser between cultures, a
woman possessed of a rare aptitude to live in two
worlds, a woman who operated from the edge of the
cultures she inhabited but whose place in the
cultural consciousness of Mexico became
central.
[42] La Llorona,
the woman who weeps for and seeks her lost
children, is often viewed as a conflation of the
first two paradigms, but tends to be less sharply
delineated. In Border Boda she was referenced with
each mention of a woman weeping; for example, the
tía's and grandmother's mother
who wept when the tía's Anglo husband, John,
took her away to "Gringolandia." In contrast to her
own mother's behavior, the grandmother did not weep
at her granddaughter's impending departure for
Chicago. Instead, she invoked, as a kind of
farewell blessing, Anzaldúa's poem, "Don't
Give In, Chicanita. reminding her that
Strong women
reared you:
my sister,
your mom, my mother and I.
Thus, instead of
loss and tears, she stressed the Mexican woman's
capacity for strength, endurance, and intra-gender
support.
[43] Sor Juana,
an immensely complex character in Mexican culture,
was suggested in the persona of the tía. Sor Juana's many
attributes included poetry, celibacy, and, in the
last years of her life, silence - all
characteristics which defined the tía.43 For example, the
tía's only vocalizations were
in song, or poetry. Additionally, while she was
once married and "had a lot of boyfriends," her
status in the performance was that of "old maid" -
which is one of the several meanings of
"tía." The association of Sor
Juana with tía is strengthened by the
fact that the Comadre who played tía (Rocio Weiss) identified
strongly with Sor Juana and had previously assumed
her persona in a performance.
[44] Tía's silence invites
interpretation. My reading is that it functioned as
an abjuration of the La Lengua aspect of Malinche - her capacity
to function as a "tongue" or "translator" within
different language systems. It was this "gift" that
enabled Malinche to translate for Cortez, a service
which traditional Mexican culture regards as her
first act of betrayal. Of course choosing silence
as a way of avoiding the risk of being inscribed as
La
Lengua
is hardly a viable strategy to liberate women from
codes that diminish and undermine, for while it
certainly precludes the possibility of the
accusation of betrayal, it equally precludes the
possibility of producing oneself through discourse,
of becoming a "speaking subject" (to borrow
Kristeva's term),44 capable of recasting the
relationship of the subject to tradition and of
inflecting language with her own desire. A more
fruitful strategy is that adopted by Moraga and
Anzaldúa who do not repress their desire but
channel it productively, expropriating and forcing
it to submit to their own liberatory
agendas.
[45] Fourthly,
tía's silence lends itself to
interpretation within the framework of Deleuze and
Guattari's theories of deterritorialization. These
authors note that language
always implies a
deterritorialization of the mouth, the tongue,
and the teeth. The mouth, tongue, and teeth find
their primitive territoriality in food. In
giving themselves over to the articulation of
sounds, the mouth, tongue and teeth
deterritorialize. Thus, there is a certain
disjunction between eating and speaking. . .
.45
The
tía's removal from her native
country - her deterritorialization - left her
bereft of speech. She regrounded herself by
preparing food, thereby connecting herself more
closely to the body, to primary processes, and to
the primitive territoriality of the mouth.
[46]
Unquestionably the most complex and allusive
character in the performance, the tía can be construed as a
type of mestiza, for she traversed
several worlds: Mexican, Anglo, and ancestral
Indian. According to Grandmother, she possessed
"Indian woman skills," which she used to help
Grandmother conceive a child when the latter
despaired of doing so, leading Grandmother into the
generatively-charged, serpent-filled center of the
earth that is part of Indian lore. Additionally,
according to Grandmother, "Tía has all kinds of powers.
She can see auras and futures, and she has a gift -
the capacity to talk to people on the other side -
people who are dead." She also, according to
Grandmother, "loves to go to Las Vegas."
Alternately capable of entering the space of
ancestral spirits and the simulacral hyperspaces of
Las Vegas, she belongs both to the vieja raza that modern
industrialization has destroyed and to the
postmodern, thus manifesting that "tolerance for
ambiguity" that Anzaldúa highlighted as the
mestiza's.
[47] Her
vocalizations in song point to a central
problematic at the core of Border Boda:, for the songs she sang
were all highly traditional and therefore
reflective of normative values in the culture. For
example, one of the songs was the well-known
La
Adelita,
a border ballad or corrido. The corrido is a male-dominated
genre developed to extol the exploits of male
heroes and in which women, if they are present at
all, are relegated to secondary
roles.46 While La
Adelita
does represent a Mexican woman in an unusual role -
that of soldadara or fighter in the Revolution of
1910 - her power as a protagonist is neutralized by
presenting her as the love-sick object of a
soldier's affections. This stratagem - turning the
soldadera into a love object - was commonly
used by corridistas who, following the
conventions of their genre to base lyrics on
historical reality, had to acknowledge women
fighters, but sought to render them less
threatening by positioning them in traditional
heterosexual relationships. There was a certain
contradiction in having the celibate and
independent tía sing a love song which
glorifies a male protagonist, albeit
indirectly.
[48] Reference
to male protagonists is, however, almost
unavoidable in Mexican culture. The problem for
Mexican and Mexican-descended women, as Jean Franco
has so eloquently noted is "whether a 'heroine' is
possible at all within the terms of the epic or
master narratives of the nation."47 Franco points out that
in Mexican literature, even when it is produced by
women writers, "Women do not enter history - only
romance"48 and that "even their
oral culture is penetrated by myths of
submission."49 Thus even the
matriarchal folk art form of storytelling is unable
(if it aims at verisimilitude rather than fable) to
avoid inscribing women in the social relationships
of the hegemonic culture. As Franco points out:
"Women's attempts to plot themselves as
protagonists in the national [drama] becomes a
recognition of the fact that they are not in the
plot at all but definitely somewhere
else."50
[49] This has
been the primary problematic for the establishment
of a feminist Chicana theater, for traditional
Chicano theater, like traditional Latino culture,
is inherently sexist, positioning women as
submissive, subordinate, and marginal to historical
events. As Yvonne Yarbro-Bejarano points
out:
until the
exploration of other alternatives in the
eighties . . . [m] ost texts constructed a male
subject through notions of class, 'racial,' and
cultural identity that reinscribed tacit
cultural definitions of masculinity and
femininity within the heterosexual structure of
the family.51
In surveying
Chicano theater over a twenty year period, from its
beginnings in 1965 to the moment of her writing in
1986, Yarbro-Bejarano maps an art form that has
been profoundly marked by patriarchy. The impact of
patriarchy has been so pervasive that even the
establishment (in 1978) of a women's caucus within
the Chicano theater movement proved unable to
re-align the traditional asymmetry of male/female
roles. Because male/female roles in the larger
culture are asymmetrical, Border
Boda could not but inscribe them so.
Its significant contribution within the field of
Chicana theater is that it focused on reformulating
Mexican/Chicano female paradigms as strong,
resourceful, enduring, active, and exemplary of the
new utopic paradigm - the mestiza. Additionally, the final scenes of
the drama opened up women's range of sexual choices
to include lesbianism and bisexuality.
[50] For
example, in the penultimate scene one of the
journalists became a new hybrid character - a
wrestler-bride - and in this guise crossed from the
media room into the loving ambiance of the kitchen.
There she read a love poem to one of her Comadres,
expressing deep longing for a bridging of cultural
difference, for primal connection, and for a woman.
Additionally, at one point she and the other
journalist (now dressed as a man) enacted a mock
wedding as a send-up of the sanctified marriage
ceremony. In other words, the performance, while
ostensibly about a heterosexual marriage, also
questioned this institution and opened up other
sexual possibilities for women.
[51] The fifth
female paradigm adduced by the performance was
Frida Kahlo. The bright, colorful kitchen was a
reference to Kahlo's home. But not merely her home,
but Frida herself was represented in this drama. In
the final scene, the young bride dressed in her
wedding finery once again placed herself within the
frame of the mandala and there removed her gown to
reveal a shift and bodice, painted to resemble the
corset in which Kahlo had represented her
pain-wrought body (fig. 4). The message was clear:
marriage - inscription within the patriarchal
system - both celebrates and wounds women. Thus, to
reiterate, while the framework of the social
contract which the plot enacted was heterosexual,
its undercurrent or, in this case, undergarment, drew attention to the
constriction and pain that society's heterosexual
contract also imposes. The bride's revelation of
underlying pain was an important qualifier to a
plot which, on the surface, seemed merely to
restage the ancient narrative of betrayal and
colonial subordination: a young Chicana couples
with a white man against the wishes of her family,
who regard her impending union as a betrayal
analogous to Malinche's with her colonizer. The
reference to Kahlo, who had women lovers, broadened
the limited hetero plot to include lesbianism and
bisexuality, while the Kahlo-like painted
undergarment signified another path for women - Art
- the capacity to create new myths and new
paradigms and thereby transcend demeaning
subalternity.
[52] Kahlo, too,
can be viewed as a type of the new mestiza, for she also traversed
many borders. Indeed, her life was an exemplary
instance of the characteristics that
Anzaldúa identified as belonging to the new
mestiza:
Cradled in one
culture, sandwiched between two cultures,
straddling all three cultures and their value
systems . . . undergo[ing] a struggle of flesh,
a struggle of borders, an inner
war.52
These
characteristics apply equally, of course, to the
young bride, and it was in her that the final hopes
of the performance were vested. Addressing herself
to the young woman who stood within the frame of
the empty mandala in the interzone between the U.S.
and Mexico, Grandmother intoned lines from
Anzaldúa's poem, "Don't Give In,
Chicanita," the poem with which
Anzaldúa closed her manifesto for the new
mestiza. The final note of the performance
was, therefore, one of hope and promise for the new
paradigm of the new mestiza in the new Borderlands.
[53] Deservedly,
the production met with an enthusiastic
reception,53 and soon thereafter the
Comadres were invited to transport it (in December
1990) to the Bridge Center for Contemporary Art in
El Paso, Texas, and thence to additional Texas
towns. This opportunity elicited profoundly mixed
reactions from the participants: pleasure at their
newfound success coupled with mounting anxiety at
having to continue to work in a situation that had
become heavily inflected with internal dissension.
By all external appearances, the restaging in El
Paso was a success, but the internal conflict had
by then become untenable. The most painful issues
included resentments about leadership, lesbian
desire for women in the group, and professional
rivalry, for some of the women, strengthened by
their success within the group, had begun to strike
out on their own and attain individual success -
which other members regarded as opportunistic and
contrary to the group's original ethic of
collective artmaking.
[54] By 1991,
members had become radically polarized and
alliances and enmities consolidated. They continued
to receive invitations to do shows but were unable
to act on them. That September, after several
acrimonious meetings, a meeting was called to
decide the group's fate: they agreed that the
collective had run its course, and they declared
Las Comadres officially over.
[55] They had
one brief resurgence. In 1993 San Diego's Museum of
Contemporary Art and the Centro Cultural de la Raza
invited Las Comadres to participate in a major
exhibition on the border, to be called
La
Frontera. For this they reinstalled a small
section of La Vecindad - the reading room or
library which, in the original production, had
offered viewers a sampling of the texts that the
Comadres had read when they had first constituted
themselves as a study group. For La
Frontera
they amplified the props that had appeared in the
original reading room. Thus, in addition to a
reading table, books and chairs, they included the
sculpture of the mandala with its empty central
space usually occupied by the Virgin of Guadalupe.
On either side of the empty mandala they made a
symmetrical arrangement of a road sign familiar to
southern Californians: in stark black silhouette
against an orange ground, a family flees, haunted
by the specter of death . They are
undocumented workers, hazarding their lives as they
pursue the American Dream and flee their native
poverty. From the logic of the installation, they
appear to run toward the empty mandala. In Spanish
and in English, the caption above each image reads:
Cuidado/Caution. The image was powerful
and poignant, but it said nothing of the
mestiza, nor of the Comadres'
struggle to claim and honor paradigmatic women in
Mexican/Chicano culture. It struck me as a sad swan
song to a valiant (but perhaps always doomed)
effort. While the Comadres had successfully
performed their beliefs, they were unable to
live them. I thought about the lines inscribed on
the "book of conflict" in the conflict/media room:
Todo es
verdad, todo es mentira/All is truth, all is
lies. And then I turned again to Trinh Minh-ha's
reflections on story- and truth-telling and again
read her poetic words:
Tale, told,
to be told. The to-and-fro movement between
advancement and regression necessarily leads to
a situation where every step taken is at once
the first (a step back) and the last step (a
step forward) - the only step, in a precise
circumstance, at a precise moment of (one's)
history. In this context, a work-in-progress . .
. is not a work whose step precedes other steps
in a trajectory that leads to the final work. It
is not a work awaiting a better, more perfect
stage of realization. Inevitably, a work is
always a form of tangible closure. But closures
need not close off; they can be doors opening
onto other closures and functioning as ongoing
passages to an elsewhere . . . The closure here,
however, is a way of letting the work go rather
than of sealing it off. Thus, every work
materialized can be said to be a
work-in-progress.54
Although they
have officially disbanded and their members are now
dispersed, Las Comadres is, in many ways, still a
work-in-progress. Their experience together had a
profound impact on all the women, and while many
had spoken to me of their bitterness and anger
toward the group, they were disturbed when, in my
first draft of this paper I wrote (and they read)
of that bitterness. One woman, seeking to revise my
impression, said:
You caught us in
a bad moment when we still had anger. Comadres
was really a positive experience. There were
moments when people really learned something and
things really worked. We were really able to
achieve things.
And so they
were. And so they do, for they have all gone on -
as artists, activists, and educators - to produce
work inflected by their experience in Las Comadres,
and each woman, in her own way, carries within her
the utopic project of the new mestiza.
[56] Tale, told, to be told . . . Are
you truthful? Was I? I am acutely aware that
what I wrote here is an interpretation and that mine may differ
from those of the women who lived this drama, for
there is always a slippage between events and the
act of describing them. What I attempted was to
make this narrative "the site of interrelations
between giver and receiver"55 in which the Comadres
and I are both givers and receivers. I received the
gift of their experiences and, in turn, offer them
my interpretation. Like theirs, my tale has no
closure; indeed, cannot have closure. I do, however, offer
it to the women of Las Comadres as an "ongoing
passage to an elsewhere." It functioned thus for
me.
NOTES
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Janet Brody Esser for her
thoughtful reading, constructive criticism, and
recommendations of bibliographical material. I am
also grateful to those Comadres who read my first
draft and gave me feedback. Illustrations were graciously provided by Lynn Susholtz. Copyright ©1998
1. The Comadres
included the following women:
Kirsten Aaboe,
Yarelli Arizmendi, Carmela Castrejón,
Frances Charteris, Magali Damas, Eloise De Leon,
Maria Ereña, Laura Esparza, Madeleine
Grynsztejn, Emily Hicks, Berta Jottar, Maria
Kristina, Aida Mancillas, Anna O'Cain, Graciela
Ovejero, Lynn Susholtz, Ruth Wallen, Margie Waller,
Rocio Weiss, Cindy Zimmerman. back
2. The Centro
Cultural de la Raza is a cultural center,
established in 1971, founded to support the
expressions of those peoples who are indigenous to
the San Diego/Tijuana region. It is predicated on
the principle of cultural self-determination.
back
3. They were
invited to perform at Installation Gallery in San
Diego and at exhibition spaces in Texas cities.
back
4. This paper is
part of a larger project in which I examine
representations of the border by artists, art
collectives, and art institutions in the San
Diego/Tijuana border region. back
5. Jean Franco,
Plotting
Women: Gender and Representation in
Mexico (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1989).
back
6. Attitudes among
the women varied as to willingness/unwillingness to
have quotes attributed to them. I have honored
these attitudes with the result that some quotes
have attributions, while others remain anonymous.
This statement was made by Graciela Ovejero.
back
7. Reproduced in
Out There:
Marginalization and Contemporary
Cultures,
edited by Russell Ferguson, Martha Gever, Trinh T.
Minh-ha, and Cornel West (New York: MIT Press,
1990). back
8. Ibid., 327.
back
9. The most
prominent and public spokesperson for these ideas
was/is Guillermo Gómez-Peña whose
writings have been anthologized in two volumes:
Warrior
for
Gringroistroika: Essays, Performance
texts, and Poetry (St. Paul, Minnesota: Graywolf Press,
1993) and The New World Border: Prophecies,
Poems, and Loqueras for the End of the
Century
(San Francisco: City Lights, 1996). Since the
mid-1980s "the border" has become a significant
trope in postmodern theory and cultural production.
back
10. Eberhardt
resigned in 1985, Berman in 1987. Two women joined
BAW/TAF in 1987: Emily Hicks, a critic, theorist,
and professor of literature at San Diego State
University, and Berta Jottar, a Mexican video
artist. Hicks's connection to the group was
Gómez-Peña, Jottar's was to Schnorr.
In the fall of 1988 Chicano activist and educator
Rocio Weiss joined. back
11. In terms of
chronology, this period lasted approximately one
year after their formation. back
12. It was even
suggested by one member who wished to draw a
distinction between Latina and non-Latina members,
that the group be called Gringas y Comadres.
back
13. "Border
Boda or Divorce Fronterizo," pp. 69, 70, Negotiating
Performance: Gender, Sexuality, and Theatricality
in Latin/o America, Diana Taylor and Juan Villegas,
eds. (Durham: Duke University Press, 1994). In
addition to interviews with former Comadres, I have
drawn from Waller's thoughtful insights in this
article. Waller's reference to an "affinity" group
comes from her reading of Donna Harraway on "cyborg
subjectivity." Her reference to the "'nice nice'
phase of multicultural feminist interaction" is
from bell hooks, "Third World Diva Girls." While
Waller and I both write about Las Comadres our
approaches are very different. She writes as a
former member of the collective, very much a
participant in its activities and dramas; in
contrast, I have come after these events, an
outsider, attempting to understand and situate them
within a particular cultural framework.
back
14. The
designation "Anglo" is problematic and several of
the white women would reject it, for their
backgrounds are Eastern European rather than
British. back
15. These
citations are from Gloria Anzaldúa,
Borderland/La Frontera: The
New
Mestiza (San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books,
1987), 77, 78. back
16. Hedgecock,
after an extended series of appeals, was eventually
successful in getting the sentence repealed.
back
17. These phrases
are from Waller, "Border Boda or Divorce Fronterizo?" 73. back
18. The terms of
this argument are from Iris Marion Young, "The
Ideal of Community and the Politics of Difference,"
Feminism/Postmodernism, ed. Linda J. Nicholson
(New York: Routledge, 1990). back
19. Chantal
Mouffe, "For a Politics of Nomadic Identity," in
Travellers
Tales:
Narratives
of Home and Displacement (London: Routledge, 1994), 107.
back
20. See Maria
Lugones with Pat Alake Rosezelle, "Sisterhood and
Friendship," in Feminism and Community, eds. Penny Weiss and
Marilyn Friedman (Philadelphia: Temple University
Press, 1995). The authors argue that "women of
color have an epistemic advantage, they have access
to knowledge that white/Anglo women lack" in that
they "understand the subtleties of racism in ways
that many white/Anglo women may not." 143.
back
21. See
Anzaldúa, 78, 79. back
22.
"Multicultural Strategies for Aesthetic
Revolution," New Feminist Criticism;
Art,
Identity,
Action, ed.
Joanna Frueh, Cassandra L. Langer, and Arlene Raven
(New York: Icon, 1991), 187. back
23. See Spivak,
"Explanation and Culture: Marginalia," in
Out
There, 377.
back
24. Ibid.
back
25. The Comadre
who made the book identified the line as Ruben
Dario's. She also told me that she chose the
quotation to express her own feelings of
unhappiness with the conflict that was by then
rampant in the group. back
26. Deleuze and
Guattari develop the idea of a "minor literature"
in Kafka:
Toward a Minor Literature, trans. Dana Polan (Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1984). The chapter,
"What is a Minor Literature?" is reproduced in
Out
There. The
quotation is from Out There, 60. back
27. Ibid., 59.
back
28.
Turner,
Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors: symbolic action in
human society (Ithaca: Cornell University Press,
1974), 154. I encountered this discussion in Sandra
Messinger Cypess' fascinating book, La Malinche in Mexican
Literature: From History to Myth (Austin: University of
Texas Press, 1991), 7. back
29.
Anzaldúa, 30. back
30. Ibid., 77.
back
31. For the best
known exposition of the root of this word and its
valence in Mexican culture, see Octavio Paz,
The
Labyrinth of Solitude: Life and Thought in
Mexico,
trans. Lysander Kemp (New York: Grove Press, 1961),
Chapter IV, "The Sons of La Malinche," 65-88.
back
32. Her persona
as La Lengua has been expounded on and developed by
Carlos Fuentes in his Todos los gatos son
pardos
(Mexico City: Siglo XXI, 1984), cited by Norma
Alarcón, "Traddutora, Traditora: A
Paradigmatic Figure of Chicana Feminism," in
Scattered
Hegemonies; Postmodernity and Transnational
Feminist Practices, ed. Inderpal Grewal and Caren Kaplan
(Minneapolis: Minnesota Press, 1994). See also the
article by Alarcón for a discussion of
Fuentes's treatment. back
33. Pierre
Maranda, "The Dialectic of Metaphor: An
Anthropological Essay on Hermeneutics," in
The Reader
in the Text: Essays on Audience and
Interpretation, ed. Susan R. Suleiman and Inge
Crosman (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1980), 184-5. I take this reference from Norma
Alarcón, "Traddutoria, Traditora: A
Paradigmatic Figure of Chicana Feminism," 130 n. 4.
back
34. Additionally,
Alarcón cites the findings of theologician
Rene Girard, who notes that the "religiously rooted
community is both attracted and repelled by its own
origins. It feels the constant need to reexperience
them, albeit in veiled and transfigured form."
Alarcón, 112. The quote is taken from
Girard, Violence and the
Sacred,
translated by Patrick Gregory (Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University, 1977), 99. back
35. Norma
Alarcón, "Chicana's Feminist Literature; A
Re-Vision Through Malintzin/or Malintzin: Putting
Flesh Back on the Object," 183, 184 in
This Bridge
Called by Back: Writings by Radical Women of
Color, ed.
Cherrie Moraga, Gloria Anzaldúa (Watertown:
Persephone Press, 1981). back
36. See, for
example, Adelaida R. Del Castillo, "Malintzin
Tenepal: A Preliminary Look into a New
Perspective," Essays on La Mujer, Part I, ed. Rosaura
Sanchex, Anthology No. 1, Chicano Studies Center
Publications (Los Angeles, Unviersity of
California, 1977), 124-49. back
37. Reproduced in
Feminist
Studies/Critical Studies, ed. Teresa de Lauretis (Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, 1986). back
38. Ibid., 184.
back
39. Ibid., 180.
back
40. Ibid., 182.
back
41.
Anzaldúa, 30. back
42. For example,
Frances Karttunen, Between Worlds: Interpreters, Guides,
and Survivors (New Jersey: Rutgers, 1994).
back
43. The
association of tia with Sor Juana was particularly
strong for those who knew the Comadre, Rocio Weiss,
who played tia, for Rocio identified with Sor Juana
and had previously played the part of Sor Juana in
a performance. back
44. See Julia
Kristeva, Desire in Language; A Semiotic
Approach to Literature and Art, ed. by Leon S. Roudiez,
trans, by Thomas Gora, Alice Jardine, and Leon S.
Roudiez (New York: Columbia, 1980). back
45. "What is a
Minor Literature," 62. back
46. See Maria
Herrera-Sobek, The Mexican Corrido: A Feminist
Analysis
(Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1990), and
Ramon Saldivar, Chicano Narrative: The Dialectics of
Difference
(Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1990)
where the author includes a chapter on the corridos
as the basis of Chicano literature. back
47. Franco,
Plotting
Women, 132.
back
48. Ibid., 138.
back
49. Ibid., 144.
back
50. Ibid., 145.
Franco uses the word "novel" where I have taken the
liberty of inserting "drama," but the principle
remains intact. back
51. "The Female
Subject in Chicano Theater: Sexuality, 'Race,' and
Class," in Performing Feminisms: Feminist
Critical Theory and Theatre, ed. Sue-Ellen Case
(Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1990), 133. back
52.
Anzaldúa, 78. back
53. It was
reviewed in the San Diego Tribune by Ann Jarmusch on November
14, 1990, in the Los Angeles Times by Leah Ollman, November 7,
1990, and in High Performance by Judith Christensen, Number 53,
Spring 1991. back
54. Trinh,
"Cotton and Iron," 329. back
55. Ibid., 335.
back
JO-ANNE BERELOWITZ teaches art history at
San Diego State University and has published on
museums and on border art collectives.
Copyright ©1998
Ann Kibbey. All Rights Reserved Worldwide.
|
Click here for a text only version of the article
Copyright ©1998
Ann Kibbey.
Back
to:







|