52, voLXXV147-158

Dispositio/n
ofMichigan
andLiteratures,
ofRomance
2005Department
University
Languages

THESES
AND

THE

ON

HYBRIDITY,
ANTAGONISM,
AMERICA*
IN LATIN
SUBALTERN

Bruno Bosteels
Cornell University

1
atin American subalternstudies emerge out of two related but
apparentlyheterogeneoussources. The firstsource,which is primarilyof a historico-politicalnature,comes in response to the
last successful revolutionaryexperience on the continent,with the rise to
power and the subsequentelectoral defeatof the Sandinistasin Nicaragua.
More generally,the strandof subalternthinkingthat correspondsto this
of most,if not all,
firstsource is forcedto registerthe loss of referentiality
to
the rationalcore
related
political projectsthatwere directlyor indirectly
of Marxism.

* Thispaperwasfirst
LanoftheModern
atthe2001Annual
Meeting
presented
I hadhopedtoexpand
whichwasheldinNewOrleans.
guagesAssociation,
that
tothetexts
a muchmorepainstaking
eachthesisso as toincorporate
reply
forthisdebate:John
interlocutors
serveas theconstant
Subalternity
Beverley,
DukeUniversity
inCultural
andRepresentation:
(Durham:
Theory
Arguments
of
ThePolitics
ofDifference:
TheExhaustion
Moreiras,
Press,1999),Alberto
Studies(Durham:Duke University
Cultural
LatinAmerican
Press,2001),
andSubalterNeoliberalism
TheOtherSideofthePopular:
Gareth
Williams,
andthetwo
Duke
in
America
Latin
Press,
2002),
University
(Durham:
nity
TheLatinAmerican
andintroduced
editions
byIleanaRodrguez,
prepared
DukeUniversity
Reader(Durham:
Studies
Subaltern
Press,2001)andConverlatinoamericanos
subalternos/contextos
Estudios
de
estado,
gencia tiempos:
andonly
subalternidad
cultura,
Rodopi,2001).Maythisfirst
(Amsterdam:
to
indebtedness
ofmytremendous
however
be a token,
footnote
insufficient,
forfuture
as wellas anearnest
thiscollective
work,
repayment.

This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Tue, 24 Sep 2013 22:14:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

148

BRUNO BOSTEELS

As an interveningdoctrine,which remainsirreducibleto its endlessly

rewrittenversion as an academic body of knowledge, Marxism indeed
gatheredits historicalforce froman indissociable tie to threebasic referents: first,theworkers'movementstartingin thelatterhalfof thenineteenth
centuryin Western Europe; second, the creation of communist and/or
socialist nation-states,fromthe Soviet Union all the way to Cuba; and,
finally, the anticolonial liberationiststruggles, with their concomitant
censearch fornational-popularsovereignty,startingin the mid-twentieth
defeat
of
the
electoral
turyin the so-called ThirdWorld. In Latin America,
the Sandinistarulingpartyin 1990 mightwell signal an eventsimilarto the
one thatSolidarityin Poland representedfortheEuropean Left,namely,the
joint collapse of all threeof these referentswhich,while followinga gradual and relativelyautonomouspath in Europe, had oftenbeen fused intoa
in the case of various revolutionarymovenonsynchronoussynchronicity
mentsthroughoutLatin America.
doctrine
If thisglobal and immanentcrisis of theMarxistintervening
embodies the first,historicaland political, source of subalternstudies,then
its second source, which is more of a theoreticaland philosophical nature,
comes in response to the so-called closure of metaphysicsand the deconstructionof modernfoundationalthinking.This strandof subalternstudies
attemptsto thinkthroughthelimitsof cultureand politicsby expandingthe
radical critiquenot just of essentialismbut also, or even more so, of the
and social constructivverykindsof particularism,liberalmulticulturalism,
ism that oftentake up the place vacated by essentialistthinkingwithout
logic of the social, thepolitical,or thecultural.
reallyofferinga different
For this second source of subalternstudies, the deconstructionof
metaphysics-theactive unworkingand degroundingnot only of the metaphysics of presence but also of the new metaphysicsof differenceas yet
anotherpresence, as the presence of "the other"-isprecisely the strongest
intellectual weapon against the persistent"othering" of the subaltern,
includingby intellectualswho otherwisewould want to be loyal to the latter'sveryown cause.

2
These two sources are of unequal weightforthe various groups and
subgroups that give shape to the field of subalternstudies in and about
Latin America. Thus, JohnBeverley and Ileana Rodriguez can easily be

This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Tue, 24 Sep 2013 22:14:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THESES ON ANTAGONISM,HYBRIDITY,... 149

seen as having led the way forthe firstorientation,while AlbertoMoreiras
and GarethWilliams shouldermuch of theburdenof the second one. Aside
issue of generafromthe circumstantialbut perhaps not wholly indifferent
to me is the
crucial
seems
tional distinctions,however, what
absolutely
question of how we ought to understandthe encounterbetween these two
strandsof thoughtand, thus,how we should understandthepeculiar articulation of the theoretico-philosophicaland the historico-politicalin Latin
American subalternstudies. That is something,of course, that in earlier
days- who knows if they can still be called the "good old" days might
have been compared to the fusionof theoryand practice.From both sides,
however,the possibilityof such a fusionnowadays appears to be compromised, not in the least because the typical formsof political organization
but
thatwere thoughtto bringabout this fusion-aboveall, the party-form,
also the vanguardminorityor the guerrillagroup-seemto have completely
exhaustedtheirhistoricalpotential.
Latin American subalternstudiesthusbringtogethera deep sense of
crisis,if not of outrightdefeat,in the wake of past revolutionaryuprisings
and an acute sense of failure,or at theveryleast theclosure of a longstanding traditionof metaphysicalthinking,stilloperativein the dialectic and in
the accompanyingphilosophy of consciousness in general. Both of these
developmentsmergeat theprecise pointwheretheproblematicof subaltern
studies comes to coincide with the impasses of modernformsof political
theoryand practice.Indeed, as thename fora relativelynew fieldof experience and thought,the subalternemergeswhen the deconstructionof metaphysical thinkingand the critique of the philosophy of the subject as
consciousness clash with persistenthabits of dialectical thinking,while at
the same time having to come to termswithall the traditionalpresuppositions regardinghistoryand subjectivitythat still underpineven, or espe-

cially,the interveningdoctrineof Marxism.

In sum, even while continuingto be distinguishableboth individually
and generationally,the two strandsthat togetherprovide the ground for
Latin American subalternstudies are, on the one hand, Marxist and historico-political,and on the other,deconstructiveand philosophico-theoretical. Thus, when Florencia Mallon, in a now famous reference,compared
the major theoristswho influencedthe emergence of subalternstudies in
Latin America to thefourknightsof theApocalypse, she could have addedas was already implicitin her critique-thatthese imposing figurescame
ridingin by pairs on two high horses,withGramsci and Foucault sittingon

This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Tue, 24 Sep 2013 22:14:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

150

BRUNO BOSTEELS

one, and Derrida and Spivak on the other.However, I do not thinkthatit is

a matterof choosing, say, in favor of "good" historical work over and
against too much "evil" deconstruction.Rather,the whole point of subalternstudies lies in the combination,no matterhow uneven in its development, of both strands. In other words, and to returnto the knightly
metaphor:insteadof checkingwitha hammerwhich horse'sarmoris better
the
equipped against the onslaughtof criticisms,includingself-criticisms,
task is to putbothunderone and the same yoke.
The proper articulationof these two sources of subalternthought,
allows
the criticin new and unheard-ofways not only to theorizethe
then,
demise of revolutionarypolitics,but also to politicize the theoryof difference and the deconstructionof metaphysics.The most thorough-going
passage throughthis double movement is in my eyes not only useful but
absolutely indispensable for anyone who is criticallyengaged today with
questions of literature,culture,and politics-inLatin America as much as
elsewhere.
3
What I would call the subalternpredicamentderives fromthe paradoxical tensions and incompatibilitiesthat,despite theirattemptedfusion
into a unique historicaland theoreticalconjuncture,beset the two sources
of subalternstudiesin Latin America.
These two strandsof subalternthinkingtime and again split offand
become discernibleprecisely at the point where one eitherputs forththe
wager of a decision or remainsfaithfulto the aporias of a deconstructionof
all such wagers and decisions,by pushingthemto thelimitof theirinherent
impossibilityin thename of whattheynecessarilyhave to exclude, or leave
behind,as a stubbornremainder.Subjectivelyor affectivelyspeaking,this
forcedchoice makes itselfheardin different
ways, whetherby a pessimistic
or nostalgic judgment regarding the possibility and durabilityof new
counter-hegemonicsocial agents, or by a more radical, even messianic
expectation,outside of all establishedhorizons,foran end to all traditional
formsof agency and hegemonyin general,includingabove all thepromise
of reconstituting
a populistcounter-hegemony.

This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Tue, 24 Sep 2013 22:14:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THESES ON ANTAGONISM, HYBRIDITY,... 151

4
Despite this predicament,in the realm of cultural practices with
which they are most commonly associated, the two strandsof subaltern
thinkingshare a common opponentin therecentproposals for,and hopeful
descriptionsof,phenomenaof culturalhybridity.
Instead of interpreting
the exchanges betweenhighand low, between
elite and mass culture,between the modernand the native or indigenous,
wherebythe latteralways tend to be considered more primitivebut also
more genuine,proponentsof "hybridcultures"such as Nstor Garca Canclini privilegethe inventivenegotiationsthattake place, in both directions,
betweenthesebinaries.From thestandpointof thesubaltern,however,such
precarious exchanges, no matterhow flexible and creativetheymay well
appear to be, neverthelessremaininscribedand containedin a longstanding
and dominantreconciliatorytraditionof dealing with social, economical,
political,and culturalcontradictionsin Latin America.
Hybridity,in otherwords, not only when seen as normativeor programmaticbutperhapseven froma purely,if disingenuously,descriptiveor
phenomenologicalpoint of view, remains suspiciously close to the much
older modernizingideological projects thatwere aimed at forgingan allinclusivenational or even continentalidentity,
based on the overcomingof
differences.In sharpcontrast,thenotionof the subaltern,followingits historico-politicalinflection,is inseparablefromthebasic factof antagonistic
social relationsand theunequal division of labor and power,while, following its more strictlydeconstructiveorientation,the subalternis in factprecisely that which always already resists sublation in any process of
hybridism,whetherculturalor otherwise.
5
The polemic over hybridityand the subaltern is perhaps nothing
morethanan updatedrevision,in thecontextof rampantneoliberalism,of a
and
major earlierdebate, the one regardingthe notionsof transculturation
heterogeneity.
Here, too, the formercategorypretendedto account forthe renewal
of mostlydominantculturesby theincorporationof elementsfromthemargins or frompopular social strata.A canonical example, oftendiscussed by
ngel Rama and confirmedby JosefinaLudmerin herown analysis,would

This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Tue, 24 Sep 2013 22:14:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

152

BRUNO BOSTEELS

be the integrationand, ultimately,the complete absorptionof various oral

traditionsof gaucho songwritinginto high so-called gauchesque literature
forthe purposes of nation-buildingand its culturalor ideological legitimation of a moderncentralizedstateapparatus.Such processes of transculturation,as theexample can barelybegin to illustrate,were of course neverfar
removedfromstate-sponsoredprojectsto produce a similarunity,thistime
in termsof ethnicand racial identity-projects
which in realitymeanta systematicwhiteningof thepopulationand the spreadingof nation-widepoliin
cies of assimilation and miscegenation.The categoryof heterogeneity,
contrastto thatof transculturation,
is presentedby way of acknowledging
the insuperablepluralityand diversityof social, cultural,ethnic,and racial
componentsin the contradictory
totalityof all societies of Latin Americaeven if the principalsite of emergenceforsuch attemptsat recognizingthe
fact of heterogeneityis found in the Andes, as in the work of Antonio
Cornejo Polar, ratherthan,say,in Argentinaor Mexico.
6
If we compare both debates, we can state thatheterogeneitywas to
transculturation
what the subalternis to hybridity,
thatis to say, a radical
to
the
of
resist
erasure
and/or
proposal
reinscription antagonisms-whether
on behalfof thestateor (even) throughthe ideological supportof civil society.In fact,in yet anotherturnof the screw,unlikelyto be the last, Alberto
Moreiras has poignantlyredirectedthe notion of the subalternagainst the
verycategoryof heterogeneitydevised by older criticaltraditions.
All hithertoexistingformsor models of culturalpolitics,whetherin
termsof transculturation,
hybridism,or heterogeneity,would thus in the
final instance give up on the radical desire of somehow coming to terms
withthe recalcitranceof the subalternin Latin America. Today, all proposals forthenegotiation,or even thebare affirmation,
of difference,
in princimost
often
also
in
of
remain
close
to, if
uncannily
ple yet
spite themselves,
not complicitouswith,the otherwiseuniformtrendtowardsthe globalization of capital. Difference,to be more precise, risks always already being
or necessaryunderside,of the
nothingmore thanthe intrinsiccounterpart,
toward
the
ravaging identityof the world market
homogeneous tendency
and its attendantideology of wall-to-wallconsumerism.Differenceis today
perhapsonly the barelydisguised formof apparitionof the law of generalized equivalence.

This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Tue, 24 Sep 2013 22:14:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THESES ON ANTAGONISM,HYBRIDITY,... 153

Latin Americanculturalstudieswould stillhave to learnto foregothe
humanistand profoundlyliberalheritage- a heritageat workeven in therevolutionarymovements in Cuba and Nicaragua which puts a conciliatory
understandingof cultureat the service of the modernstateor civil society,
- lliterate,
all the while ignoring or continuingto exclude the subaltern
indigenous,peasant, and urban poor-whetherin the name of progressand
development,or by way of pastiche and nomadic play. Thus, whereas transculturation,hybridism,and even the proposal of heterogeneityall risk to
have become ideologies of failed modernnation-building,followed by the
reignof postmoderntransnationalcapital, only the sustainedrecognitionof
of any given social instance
thesubalternand of theantagonisticstructuring
holds thepromiseof a radical-democraticsociety.
7
Behind the interplayof differenceand identity,
then,what is actually
or
theorized
turns
out
to
revolve
around
an
at stake
unspoken, insufficiently
logic of contradiction includingthe logic of how a given contradictionhistoricallybecomes antagonisticto begin with. Even more broadlyspeaking,
the possible renewal of such a theoryof antagonisticcontradictionsas an
unfinishedtask is bound up withthe stillrelativelyobscure fateof dialectical reason afterthe crisis and historicaldemise of Marxism.
Dialectical thinking,according to a firstcritical reformulation,no
longerproceeds by way of theobjective alienationand subsequentreappropriationof histoiyby a unitarysubject but by way of the internalscission,
as well
or division,of any subjective forceby its structuraldeterminations,
as by the possible torsionof the formerback upon the latter a torsionor
forcedtwistingthatis symptomaticat theoutsetand destructivein theend.
all thinkIn a second and more openly deconstructivereformulation,
in
a
to
be
or
continues
to
be
dialectical
ceases
dialectical,
only
negative
ing
sense, when it no longerproceeds by the finalsublationof differenceintoa
higherspiritualunitythatis ultimatelyembodied in thefigureof thenationstate or the sovereign,but by the interminableacknowledgementof what
thisveryprocess of overcomingalways necessarilyleaves behindas a stub- namely,thatwhichby definitionhas no proper
bornremnantor supplement
name but only a genericone, and which mightas well be called the indivisible subalternremainder.

This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Tue, 24 Sep 2013 22:14:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

154

BRUNO BOSTEELS
8

If thetwo strandsof subalternthinkingmentionedearlierfinda comand hybridmon targetin thecontemporarypropositionsof transculturation

the
doctrineof
in
a
common
ally
ity,thenI should add thattheyalso share
or structuralcausality,which in one of the latestavatars
overdetermination,
- at the very point of its imminentcollapse- was
of dialectical materialism
borrowed fromthe theoryof the subject in psychoanalysis.According to
this doctrine,any given social formationis overdeterminedby a cause
whose effectsvanish completelyinto the very structureof which it is the
absent cause. What gives coherence to a social orderis thus a paradoxical
termor class, in a fairlystricttechnicalsense of theword as used in set theory,which has no propertieswhatsoeverotherthan those thatcan be read
off symptomaticallyout of the structurefrom which it is inherently
excluded.

Following the doctrineof absent or structuralcausality,which in my

eyes still marks one of the most productivepoints of transitionnot only
but also, and more imporbetween structuralismand poststructuralism
tantly,between thedeconstructionof metaphysicsand thepsychoanalytical
critiqueof the humanistsubject, the subalterncan thenbe definedas that
which standsin a relationof internalexclusion to thehegemonic.
In thissense, thefundamentaloutcome of thevarious projectsof subalternstudies comes down to the recognitionof precisely such inevitable
antagonismsand relationsof internalexclusion thatdefinethe social field
fromwithin.Even the Maoist line, so oftenquoted by JohnBeverley,about
"contradictionsin the midstof the people" is aimed historicallyat the persistenceof antagonismwithinthenational-popularbloc- including,or especially,under socialist rule. Finally,the logic of internalexclusion can also
be phrased in termsof a constitutiveoutside. The subalternis then that
which paradoxically lies both inside and outside the sphere of the hegemonic social regime- being the wild embodiment of all that has to be
included out in orderforthereto be a social orderand the possibilityof a
political decision to begin with.
9
Any attemptto articulatethe subalternas the constitutiveoutside of
the hegemonic into a viable political or artisticprojectruns in my eyes the

This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Tue, 24 Sep 2013 22:14:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THESES ON ANTAGONISM,HYBRIDITY,... 155

risk of fallingback into the melodrama of consciousness and the predicamentsof thebeautifulsoul.
Of course, in principle,therecan be no such thingas subalternconsciousness,let alone a subalternclass consciousness,insofaras thedialectic
of consciousness has since its very inceptionbeen wound up in its own
inherentlimit,and in the relationof internalexclusion between the cogito
and the unconscious. In this sense, the subalternis thatwhich should radically break with all melodramatictemptations.However, thereremains a
about the inevitableprestangible risk thatthe increasingself-reflexivity
ence of a subalternremainderwould become in turnthe irrefutable
guarantee of radicalism in the purest sense. This would explain the trend to
continueupping the ante in the debate regardingall hithertoexistingforms
of culturalpolitics in Latin America.
Every social order is ultimatelyoverdeterminedby that which it
simultaneouslyexcludes and includes as its constitutiveoutside. Any
projectto bringthisremainderintothepolitical arena,though,runstherisk
of always alreadybeing nothingmorethana reactionformationthatas such
remainsinscribedwithinthebounds of the existingstateof affairs.What is
more, insofaras all hegemonic regimes are inherentlybuilt upon the controlled production and reproduction of marginal counter-hegemonic
projects,insofaras power and the moral law too are inherentlybuilt and
fortifiedby theirinfractionand transgression,any straightforward
affirmative projectmustaccept thepossibilityof alreadybeing partof the cycle of
what a social order needs for the sake of its sustained existence. What
remainsproblematicabout this otherwiseacute insightis thatany specific
change will inevitablybecome liable to the criticismthatit misrecognizes
its own conditionsof possibility,insofaras these are also at the same time
conditionsof impossibility.In many quarters,in fact,a radical philosophy
has indeed already come into existence thatderives its irrefutablestrength
frompreciselysuch arguments.A heightenedmetacriticalawareness of this
liability,nevertheless,should neitherserve as an alibi forradical quietism
nor allow the criticalthinkerto hide behindthe mask of the beautifulsoul,
freeof all worldlyguilt.
10
Faced withtherelationof internalexclusion,withheterogeneity
from
or
with
the
constitutive
outside
inherent
in
what
within,
any given identity,

This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Tue, 24 Sep 2013 22:14:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

156

BRUNO BOSTEELS

ifanythingcan be thetask of radical criticalthinkingand acting,aside from

the so-called politics of recognition?Recognition,thatis, of the structural
impossibilityof closure and thereforeof the necessaryfailureof all articulatorypractices, precisely because of the resistance of the subaltern?In
theirsearch forproductiveanswers to these questions, the various strands
of subalternstudies can also be seen as leading the way in the directionof
two distinctalternatives.
A firstanswerultimatelystillinvolves thesearch fora viable populist
Faced with the unlikely durationof any contestatory
counter-hegemony.
social movement today, however, this response often involves a turn
move back upon the limits of academic disciinward,in a self-reflective
reason.
Subaltern
studies,fromthispoint of view, signals the need
plinary
to registerthe structuralinadequacy of the discourses and practicesof universityknowledge, precisely by teaching and .learning,as much as by
unlearning,fromthe absence, or vanishing presence, of the subalternin
theirmidst.
A second answerinvolves an even moreradical problematization,not
of
just the viabilityof futurecounter-hegemonicprojects,but of the whole
horizonof hegemonicthinkingas such. Subalternstudies,fromthispointof
view, no longer projects the nostalgia forpast dreams onto the futurebut
ratherraises thequestionwhetheran as yetundreamt-of
politicsof thepostcan be conceived at all. Is there,in other
hegemonic,or infra-hegemonic,
- a
words, a retreatfromthe double bind of hegemony and the subaltern
withdrawalthatwould not be an escape but ratheran exodus, and thusthe
promiseof a new beginning?

11
Latin American cultural studies, in theirvarious subalternorientations,stillhave to come to gripswithan even deeper problem,namely,with
the veryrelationbetween artand politics,and by extension,between literary criticismand political theory,which seems to underlie an ill-defined
notionof cultureas such.
For much of thetwentiethcentury,the most importanttrendsof critical and dialectical reason have tendedto sutureartonto politics,and to delegate the capacities for thought to the twin operations of either
aestheticizingpolitics or politicizingartand literature.Subalternstudiesare
perhaps no exception in this regard. In fact,the critical insistenceon the

This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Tue, 24 Sep 2013 22:14:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THESES ON ANTAGONISM, HYBRIDITY,... 157

in theunmaskingof theideologsubalternremainderhas been instrumental
ical complicitybetween the formationof a vibrantnational cultureand the
reproductionof the entire state apparatus in its properlymodern guise.
However, the factthatthereare past sequences when art and politics were
indeed suturedby statistformsof thinkingshould not make us forgetthat,
in principleand withoutwantingto ringthe formalistbell, art and politics
work with differentmaterials and according to a differentsequencing of
theirthoughtprocedures.Politics, forexample, deals withthe collective or
multipleas its materialand withthe subtractionof inegalitarianstatements
as itsprocess; but artand literaturedeal ratherwiththelimitsof representation as theirend and with formalizationas theirmeans, and in this sense
theytendto carryout a figurativeundoingof thesocial bond.
Thus, forsubalternstudiesto continuewithoutan exclusivelypresentisi agenda, the specificityand relativeautonomyof the proceduresof art
and politics must be established historicallyor genealogically,ratherthan
Otherwise,in the search if not exactly foran
formallyor transcendentally.
illustrationthanat least fora properenactmentor exposureof thesubaltern,
artand literatureriskto become the site fora purelyaestheticor even archaestheticact, while political thinkingas a process, if it does not fall forthe
temptationof an equally radical or arch-politicalact, becomes objectified
into mere political philosophy,as the quest continuesfora regimecapable
of assumingthe fundamentalnegativityof the subalternas the constitutive
outside of each and everysociety.
More generally,because of thepredicamentmentionedearlier,a tension has yetto be solved in subalternthinkingbetween,on the one hand,a
logic thatremains structuraland transcendentalto the point of its extreme
limitand imminentexhaustion,and, on the otherhand, formsof thought
such as artand politics thatare sequential and eventmental,and thus are to
be thoroughlyhistoricizedwithoutgiving in an inch on the rigorof deconstructivenegativity.Thus far,subalternstudiesoftenseem to have avoided
thetrapsof historicismand aestheticismonlyby havingrecourseto radical,
arch-politicalor arch-aesthetic,acts. Artand politics,however,can and perhaps mustbe capturedhistoricallyforwhat theyhave been, what theyare,
and what theystillcould be in the future:formsof thoughtwiththeirown
kernelof truthand of the repressed.Otherwise,the factthatall tends to be
political forcertainformsof subalternthinkingmightlead one to conclude
that,paradoxically,the thoughtthat claims to criticize both aestheticism

This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Tue, 24 Sep 2013 22:14:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

158

BRUNO BOSTEELS

and historicism,ends up aestheticizingthepolitical by failingto historicize

politics.
Concretely,then,let me suggestwhat I see as some of thetasks ahead
of a largertraditionin the practice of criticaltheorythatwould have to be
capable of traversingtheproblematicof the subalternin Latin America:
1) unsutureart and politics, withoutsimply fallingback on theirinstitutional autonomy which is itself of course a historical and not a
structuralcondition;
2) reconfigureartand politics,as well as theirpossible suturingas singular thoughtprocedures,according to theirspecific sequences, concepts,and theories;
3) revisitthe problemof thepresentationand transmissionof these forms
of thought,ifnotby remainingoutside,which is of course impossible, then at the very least by adamantly going against the constraintsof purelyacademic power.
In the future,though,I cannot imagine the continuationof such a
projectwithoutthepossibilityof its collective reappropriation.

This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Tue, 24 Sep 2013 22:14:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions