Fernando Carrión Mena.
Quito. Ecuador
The New School of New York Latin American Observatory promoted the international conference “Building Bicentenaries in Latin America in the era of globalization” in order to debate and discuss the challenges of how and why we commemorate two hundred years of independence in Latin America.
The historical context of this commemoration has been marked by the impact of the financial crisis, which has led to three substantial changes: A return to state controlled banking, the motor industry, pension schemes, the closing of certain markets raising the issue of substitution importation; and the redefinition of territories in line with sovereignty and integration.
In this framework the celebrations clearly have a subsidiary meaning. There is no social mobility or emblematic projects because the process is not taking off, meanwhile the names of activities that were already under way have been changed or the role of institutions involved has been changed.
In plural societies such as the ones we live in, it is very difficult to fail to notice the existence of multiple bicentenaries being commemorated at the same time. Mainly because everyone is trying to be the first to complete a time and space based freedom itinerary.
It was Chuquisaca (Sucre) or La Paz, or both, because they both form part of the same freedom movement; the debate is not over who was first, but rather which is henceforth historically justified to claim the status of capital city of Bolivia.
Ecuador is in a similar situation: The freedom cry of 10th August 1809 is questioned because it is said that it was an elitist, monarchic movement in Quito which had little success. This interpretation comes from social groups who are based in certain cities, who are politically confronted by the very meaning of what “national” means in their territory. Ecuador is the only Latin American country that does not have a national day, and yet each different area within the country does have one. Whilst in Latin America emancipation is celebrated on a national level, in Ecuador each region commemorated the foundational acts; i.e. acts of subjugation…
Despite all this, Bicentenaries should be works in progress that should not fall under the inexorable determinism of time. The sense of future is at stake! Mass popular movements trivialize the content and turn it into yet another urban spectacle of commemoration.
We must also be mindful of past events, where, for example, public space, was used to expel autochthonous communities through landscaping policies, the working classes under the banner of urban development and young people in aid of situational prevention. These events took place in three key moments in our history: colonization, 100 years of independence and the bicentenary of emancipation.
martes, 1 de febrero de 2011
Bicentenarians
Fernando Carrión Mena.
Quito. Ecuador
It is hard to understand a freedom process as a watershed that took place on a particular day in a particular place.
Between 2009 and 2011 a series of commemorative celebrations have been and continue to be held to mark the bicentenary of the region at a time when the state has entered in to crisis due to the double interrelated movement of globalization and localization and the urban environment has transformed its industrial revolution born concept of border city, to a network city, also related to globalization.
Today the city is the general driving territory of the state, and the national governments have driven forwards the process of bicentenary commemoration. The bicentenaries themselves manifest at a time in which local governments have become a lot stronger thanks to decentralization policies, and a substantial group of countries with nationalist and integrationist positions has been formed who view this event as a way of rethinking the relationships amongst the countries themselves and other regions. The freedom process itself also follows a path of localization and internationalization: a sequence of multiple dates and places, sometimes clashing, which form part of a continental movement.
In reality this is a time and space itinerary of the freedom process, but also an expression of the dispute between multiple commemorations that today results in the existence of a plurality of bicentenaries. Much of this is related to the way that social groups process things, the way in which they modify attachments to territorial power and the way in which they conceive the cause of the disputes. It is hard to understand a freedom process as a watershed that took place on a particular day in a particular place. It is even harder to define this as the first date because these processes take many years to incubate and manifest.
Today it seems as though every country and city is in a sports competition attempting to discover who was the first to produce the flame of freedom rather than looking at the historical background to the process; in this way the content of history is emptied. However, the impression held up to now is that of a commemorative process which is void of all content, as long as this projection platform is not present; this means that spectacle and contingent elements start to gain precedence over transcendental elements. It seems that the proposal is not taking off, perhaps because the project itself does not exist, because it looks more to the past than to the future, or, to its detriment, more to the present, where spectacle and leisure activities are more important in terms of influencing the masses towards legitimizing the authorities.
We can say that the logic of mass spectacle was of greater importance than the monument, which was part of the centenary commemoration. History built the architectural monuments as oracles through which the state legitimated its discourse, its identity and symbols that came out of nationalism, and yet these now have a policy of conservation that is used for self reinvention. Today we move from monument to an innocuous meta-narrative where the Bicentenary is cast aside, encased in non-transcendental debates located in reduced spaces or in the construction of anniversary projects that carry the Bicentenary slogan.
Quito. Ecuador
It is hard to understand a freedom process as a watershed that took place on a particular day in a particular place.
Between 2009 and 2011 a series of commemorative celebrations have been and continue to be held to mark the bicentenary of the region at a time when the state has entered in to crisis due to the double interrelated movement of globalization and localization and the urban environment has transformed its industrial revolution born concept of border city, to a network city, also related to globalization.
Today the city is the general driving territory of the state, and the national governments have driven forwards the process of bicentenary commemoration. The bicentenaries themselves manifest at a time in which local governments have become a lot stronger thanks to decentralization policies, and a substantial group of countries with nationalist and integrationist positions has been formed who view this event as a way of rethinking the relationships amongst the countries themselves and other regions. The freedom process itself also follows a path of localization and internationalization: a sequence of multiple dates and places, sometimes clashing, which form part of a continental movement.
In reality this is a time and space itinerary of the freedom process, but also an expression of the dispute between multiple commemorations that today results in the existence of a plurality of bicentenaries. Much of this is related to the way that social groups process things, the way in which they modify attachments to territorial power and the way in which they conceive the cause of the disputes. It is hard to understand a freedom process as a watershed that took place on a particular day in a particular place. It is even harder to define this as the first date because these processes take many years to incubate and manifest.
Today it seems as though every country and city is in a sports competition attempting to discover who was the first to produce the flame of freedom rather than looking at the historical background to the process; in this way the content of history is emptied. However, the impression held up to now is that of a commemorative process which is void of all content, as long as this projection platform is not present; this means that spectacle and contingent elements start to gain precedence over transcendental elements. It seems that the proposal is not taking off, perhaps because the project itself does not exist, because it looks more to the past than to the future, or, to its detriment, more to the present, where spectacle and leisure activities are more important in terms of influencing the masses towards legitimizing the authorities.
We can say that the logic of mass spectacle was of greater importance than the monument, which was part of the centenary commemoration. History built the architectural monuments as oracles through which the state legitimated its discourse, its identity and symbols that came out of nationalism, and yet these now have a policy of conservation that is used for self reinvention. Today we move from monument to an innocuous meta-narrative where the Bicentenary is cast aside, encased in non-transcendental debates located in reduced spaces or in the construction of anniversary projects that carry the Bicentenary slogan.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
