Ethnicity and Economy in Rural Mexico. A Critique of Indigenista Approach

8/13/2019 Ethnicity and Economy in Rural Mexico. A Critique of Indigenista Approach

1/28

Ethnicity and Economy in Rural Mexico: A Critique of the Indigenista ApproachAuthor(s): Scott Cook and Jong-Taick JooSource: Latin American Research Review, Vol. 30, No. 2 (1995), pp. 33-59Published by: The Latin American Studies AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2503833

Accessed: 20/09/2010 16:11

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lamer.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Latin American Studies Associationis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Latin American Research Review.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lamerhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2503833?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lamerhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lamerhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2503833?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lamer


2/28

ETHNICITY AND ECONOMYIN RURAL MEXICO:A Critique f the ndigenista pproach*Scott ook, niversityfConnecticutJong-Taickoo, niversityfConnecticut

The ethnic uestionhas been central o thehistorical rocess fnation-stateuilding r nationalizationn Mexico Adams1967).To asignificantegree, hisprocesshas been a criollo nd a mestizo roject(Aguirre eltran 976; ompareAnderson 983,1988). ccordingly,ndi-gena dentityas been mposed nthenon-criollondnon-mestizoopu-lationbytheMexican tate,withthe dentificationrocesshistoricallydisplaying rbitrarinessnd inconsistencycross rangeof biologicalidentifiersespecially henotype)rculturaldentifiersespeciallyan-guage)or both MarinoFlores 967).1 ollowing olonial recedentsndinstepwith he volvingtructurefpolitical conomyndsociety,heprocess fethnic dentificationnpostcolonialMexico ssociatedHispa-nicityviawhite kin olor rSpanish escent rSpanishanguage)withthemorevalued ocations igherntheethno-class ierarchynd indi-gena dentity ith he ower,ess-valued ocations.npostrevolutionaryMexico, hanks o thecontributionfanthropologistanuelGamio, heconcept fmestizajewas stripped fbiological ontent nd culturized.Yet hemestizo roject oMexicanize ndigenas hrough e-Indianizationcontinued,s proclaimed yMoisesSaenz, leading ndigenistantellec-tual of theearly wentiethentury:The ogical xitfor he ndian s tobecomeMexican see HernandezDiaz 1991, -11;Aguirre eltran970,131-32, 36). n both ts discourse nd in terms fpractical olicy,hemestizo ndigenista roject reated onditions hat ed one scholar oconclude hatbeing ndigenan twentieth-centuryexico, ollectivelyand individually,s a negative dentityhatdenotesmembershipn a

*This articlehas undergone several revisions, thanks to a batteryof anonymous re-viewers. We are especially gratefulforthe many thoughtful nd constructive eviewercomments nd suggestionsthat ed to the presentversion and hope that we have donejusticeto them1. In orderto conform o standard usage in Mexican anthropologicaldiscourse and toavoid the nevitably ejorativeterms ndiannd indio, e have decided to use theSpanishterm ndfgenahroughouthisarticle o refer opeople identified ythemselves r others sAmerindian.33


3/28

LatinAmericanesearcheviewsubalternlass of ruraldirect roducers ho are subjected o economicexploitation,thnic iscrimination,ndpolitical-culturalominationseeFriedlander975, sp.71; ompare night 990,100; ernandez iaz 1991,chap.1; 1992, hap.1).In twentieth-centuryexico, nder ourgeoismestizo egemonyand the ingeringftereffectsf theSpanish olonialdoctrine f razaand limpiezaesangre and its odious castesystem),heofficialndi-genista deologyhas been contradictoryStolcke 991).t has celebratedpre-Hispanicndigenous ivilization s an essential ourceof nationalculture, hile imultaneouslyromotingolicies hat ink ntitlementofull ivil, olitical,ndeconomic ightsfnational itizenship ith earn-ing Spanishand acquiringmestizo dentityFriedlander 975;Riding1984, hap.10;andKnight 990).More pecifically,ince heMexicanRevolution1910-1920),exi-canstate olicy is-a-vishe ndigena opulation as eithermphasizedforging strong omogeneousationalmestizo ulture hroughssimila-tionof indigenas de-Indianization)r envisioned ational ulture npluralisticnd pluri-ethnicerms,nwhich ationalizationf ndigenassperceiveds compatible ith espectingheirulture,lbeitwith panishas thenationalanguage. hispluralistic olicy, hichs noless ntegra-tionistn itsgoalsthan ssimilationistolicy, as developed n counter-point oan insurgentthnicistndneopopulistbutnotnecessarilynti-Marxist)movementncivil ociety hat ejectsheconcept f a unifiednational ulture.t seeks instead utonomy orthe national ndigenaminorityr empowermentf the ndigenousminoritiesnd redress ftheir ocialand economic rievancesBonfil atalla1981;Diaz-Polanco1987, 1-60;Varese 988).Ethnopopulistiscoursen Mexican tudies uperimposeshe th-nicdichotomyfmestizo egionalndnationalociety ersusndigenousetnia an ethnicallyistinctiveioculturalopulation ccupying par-ticularerritory,s definednAguirre eltran970,131)n the conomicdichotomyf apitalist arketconomyersus easant ubsistencecon-omy Nolasco 1972, 2-13;Bartolomend Barabas1986).Thissuperim-positionn effectgnores he presence fpetty ommodity roductionandsmall-scaleapitalistccumulationnpeasant ommunitiesnd alsoobfuscates he extent o whichthese economic rocesses rosscut heethnic ivide betweenmestizo nd indigena comparewithCook andBinford990, specially -7).

Scholarlykepticismbout heblanketpplicabilityndanalyticalrelevancefdesignatingexican easants s indigenasreinforcedytheweightf thnographicxperiencehroughoutost fruralMexico, hereethnicdentityas notbeenregularlynvoked n populardiscourse yrural eoplewith eferenceo collective r self-identificationNagengastandKearney 990, 2).This kepticisms alsogroundedntherecognition34


4/28

ETHNICITY IN RURAL MEXICOthat o embracendigenadentityn Mexico s toseekto be discriminatedagainst r dominatedrexploitedHernandez iaz 1991, 86).

Yet he urn wayfrom ollective r self-identifications indigenashouldnotbe construed s an embrace fmestizodentityHernandezDiaz 1991).Neither hould he ssertion f claim o ndigena dentityeassumed o mply rejectionfmestizo dentity.-Fromn outsideretic)perspectivehat s nformedbout nsiders' iews emics),t s possible odesignatemany uralMexican ndividuals ccuratelys having yphen-ated dentities-indigenand mestizo r Mexicano. nly areful mpiri-calresearcht the ocal ndregionalevels an determinehe ircumstan-tial and relational onditionsurroundinghese dentities. or heuristicpurposes,t east,t eemspointlessopersistnviewing hese dentitiesas mutuallyxclusive rnegating.This keptical osture egardinghedegree fapplicabilityfthedesignatorindigena nMexico oday,speciallys anexclusivedentity,is also reinforcedytheweight f ethnohistoricalvidencepointingoreconstitutionf ndigenousnstitutionsnkey reasofprecolonial ex-ico, ike heOaxacaValley uring he olonial eriod.Accordingly,ost-colonial nstitutionsnd culturalife n suchareasare most ccuratelycharacterizeds syncreticCookand Diskin1975, hap. 1; Whitecotton1977; ook1982,16-18; hance 986).Asprominentistorian lanKnightrecentlytated, Empiricalvidence oints othegreat ulf-ofhistoricalexperiencend cultural ransformation-whicheparateswentieth-cen-turyMexican ndians from heir upposedsixteenth-centuryorbear-ers, nd which onsigns nynotion f a collectivesychologicalnheri-tanceto the realmofmetaphysics Knight 990, 5). The great ulfposited y Knight alls ntoquestion, romn anthropologicalerspec-tive, nygeneral laim ocollectiveulturalontinuityetweenixteenth-centuryMexican ndians and ruralMexicanstoday compareKnight1990, 6).Finally,dditionalmpirical upport or his kepticismspro-videdbythepaucity f ultural ractices r socially eproductivenstitu-tionsoperating xclusivelymongone ethnic roup n pluri-ethnice-gionalpopulationsSChryer990; ompare ook 1993, 26-27).Given his thnohistoricalndethnographicecord hat einforcesskepticismboutthe priori esignation youtsiders f ruralMexicanpopulations oday s exclusivelyndigena as distinctromural roups'claims osuch dentity),hat ustains heongoing nthropologicale-bateabout ndigena dentitynMexico?The answer s clear:thisem-pirical ecord oesnothelp nunderstandinghy he laims o ndigenaidentity ersistnmuchof ruralMexicotoday.n thisregard, guirreBeltran'sdmission ings ven truer ow than tdid a quarter f a cen-tury go: the ndio ersistsnfeelingndian nd inconservingn iden-tity ifferentrom henational ne (Aguirre eltran970, 36).In postmodern iscourse, he terms fthe debate have shifted

35


5/28

LatinAmericanesearch eviewfrom rovenancend content fthe ndigena ultural epertory,ith tsimplicit oncern or eparating uthentic rom nauthenticlements rascertainingheobjectiveculturalontentsfethnic ichotomiesBarth1969,14), o a concernwithhuman ubjectivityr social consciousnessand withhumanmaneuver r socialpraxisnshiftingolitical-economicconjunctures. ccording o thisperspective,thnicity,nlikenationalorigin nd anguage,s subjectivendmay xist ndependentf ulturaltraits de la Garza et al. 1991, ; compare aso 1948).Thusthe taskofanalysis hifts romweighing ubjectivensider laims gainst nthro-pologically etermined ultural ontent o making structural,unc-tional, ituational,rmaterialistnalysis f theclaimants' iscourse.ETHNICITY IN THE OAXACA VALLEY: AN OVERVIEW

In theOaxaca Valley oday,nsider otions f ndividual r collec-tive dentityre byno meansfound nly ncommunitieshat re desig-nated s indigena nd mayalso be found n mestizo ommunities.hesame is trueofdiscourse elated o community-levelnstitutionsitheconomic elevancercontent,uch s kinship, ictive-kinship,eciproc-ity,wedding r other ife ycle elebrations,mayordoma sponsorships,andcivil-religiousargos,nstitutionshat ynn tephen alls kin-basedinstitutionsf olidaritynd socialreproduction1991, 9-34). n otherwords, hese nstitutionsrenotdefinitiverunambiguousndicatorsfcommunitythnicdentityr economic ctivitiespecificoindigenousgroups see Campbell 990).In theOaxaca Valley yand arge,he nformedutside bservershard-pressedo distinguishetweenmestizo nd Zapotecnonlanguageformsf thnoculturalxpression. any ultural racticesre shared ySpanish-speakersnd Zapotec-speakerss well as byindividualswhoclaim rdo notclaimZapotec dentity.orthemostpart,mestizos avejust s much or s little) enseofhistoricaldentityrcommunityoyaltyas Zapotec-speakers. oreover,nneitherroup sa specificthnicden-tity ystematicallysserted t the ntervillagerregionalevel. dentitiesbuilt round lass, esidence,ccupation,rcitizenshipatherhan roundlanguage-markedthnicityavemore mportanceutside hevillage.Valley apotecs ndmestizos endnot o referoeach otherortothemselves)ndirect thnic ermsikemestizo,ndio,ndigena,rZapoteco,althought s notuncommon ormestizo rbanites o use thetermndioas a categorical ejorativeor llpeasants rmembersftheruralwork-ingclass.Zapotec-speakersho alsospeakSpanish sually efer o theirown anguage s idioma language) r dialectodialect) atherhan sZapoteco although hey lso have a Zapotecwordfor hat anguage).Moreover, alleyZapotec-speakers,t leastuntil ecently,ave nottyp-icallyused thegeneric erm apotecoo refer o theirndigenousnces-36


6/28

ETHNICITY IN RURAL MEXICOtors. hey efer o themnSpanish imply s nuestrosntepasados ourancestors ) r as losgentiles thegentiles ). apotec peakers end ohave general enseof iesbetween hemselvesnd their re-Columbianancestors,utthey o notoften xpress heir onsciousnessnterms fconcernwithbeingZapotec, venthough heymayhave a particularZapotecword o refer o their ncestors.Oneexceptionan be foundnTeotitlan elValle,where he ele-bration fbeing apotecnowgoeshand n handwith xceptionaluccessintourist-orientednd capitalist-organizedeaving n the readle oom(Stephen 991; ook1993, 10-15).Our own field xperiencendreadingof the iteraturenZapotec dentityntheOaxacaValleynclines s toagreegenerally ithJosephWhitecotton'shesis hat [t]he esignationZapotec ... has been more of an artifact f external observers than ameaningfulnit or hepeopleto whom thas been pplied 1977, 71).2OPERATIONALIZING ETHNIC IDENTITY: ANALYZING THE OVSIP SURVEY DATA

Languagescertainlyhe inglemostmportantdentifyingarkerthat perates o reinforceeparate dentitynMexico, nside nd outsideethnic roups r comunidadesndigenas.nthe tate fOaxaca n1990,39percentf hepopulation ive ears f geand oldermore han millionpersons) pokesomeindigenous anguage.Of these, 3 percentwerebilingual they lso spoke Spanish),whileonly19percentweremono-lingual n an indigenous anguage.Of the speakers f ndigenous an-guages,Zapotecwas the anguage pokenby34 percent,ollowed yMixtec24 percent), azatec 14percent),hinantec9 percent),nd Mixe(9 percent).3Scott ookandLeighBinford's1990) tudy feconomyndsoci-ety nthevalleyusedtheOaxacaValley mall ndustry rojectOVSIP)data setand consideredhepossibilityfethnoculturalxplanations orspecificconomic atternsrbehaviors,uch s thedivision f aborbygendern thepalm-plaitingndustrynd gender rossovern treadle-loomweaving Cookand Binford990, 0, 96). Nevertheless,iven hatstudy's ocuson thedebateover peasantdifferentiationnd the dy-

2. One anonymous reviewermade thepointthat ethnicity s mostcommonlyused torefero self-identityhat merges rom pposition nd conflict: The fact hatmostorganizedsocial conflictnthe Oaxaca Valley sbetween neighboring ommunitieswhichpresumablyhave the same culturalresources s no doubt a major reason why ethnicity'has not beenmore salient. This is a good point. Cook can also attest o the fact hat n theMitla-Xaaga-Albarradas corner f the Oaxaca Valley and itsmountainhinterland, onflicts inked to thedevelopment, peration, nd subsequent expropriation nd redistribution f and from heformer acienda of Xaaga have tended to reinforce thnicconsciousnesspittingZapotecsagainstmestizos to a degree greater han average forthevalley (see Cook 1983).3. These iguresome rom I Censo eneralePoblacionVivienda990:Oaxaca esultadosdefinitivos,atospor ocalidadMexico City: InstitutoNacional de Estadistica,GeograffaInformatica, 991).

37


7/28

LatinAmerican esearch eviewnamics fcommodityroduction, ost fthe vailableOVSIP datathatcould shedlight n thepossiblerole of ethnicdentityn shaping heorganizationndperformancefcommodity roductionntheOaxacaValleywas notanalyzed n that ndertaking.4Village thnicdentityndEconomic rganizationntheOaxacaValley:heEmpiricalecord

The Oaxaca Valley mall ndustriesroject as conducted ccord-ing to thepremisewidely haredby studentsf theOaxacaValley hatthe ruralndian peasant culture f centralnd southern axaca wasa conglomerationfthings re-Spanishnd ofthings panish White-cotton977,219).n this rea,Whitecottoneported,rural apotecs den-tifiedmostlywith communitynd very ittlewith Zapotecethnicgroup, nd thereforeZapotec thnicity bove he ocal evelwas foundtobeof little onsequence. ook's field xperiencenseveral apotec-speaking ommunitieshathadbeendesignated ytheMexican overn-ment ndby nthropologistss comunidadesndigenas onvinced imthat fficial nd anthropologicaletic)designations f discreteommu-nities s indigenas id not automaticallyranslate ntoa collectiveethnoculturaldentityranythinglse of ystematicelevance or nder-standingocaleconomy,ociety,nd culture hat id notrequire poste-riori etermination.Manyreasons xisted or heOVSIPprojectoproceedwithdatacollectionndanalysis n the ssumptionhat hevalley's ural conomywas notorganized longethnic ines nd that herural-urbanntinomywas much more mportanthanthe ndigena-mestizone in regionalsociety.t was thereforessumed hat he thnicdentityf ocalpopula-tionswouldnot ause measurable ifferencesn theirconomicrganiza-tion and performance.nother ssumptionmade was thatethnic rother ocial identities erivedfromndigenous anguage, ocality,ndsimilar actors ould havetobe determinedhrough mpirical nalysisof objectivend subjective ehavior nd conditions. or thatpurpose,data were ystematicallyollected rom subsample f thetotalhouse-holdsurvey opulationbout ttitudes oward ndparticipationn thecivil-religiousierarchy,hefiesta ycle fmayordomia,ndreciprocity(guelaguetza).hese nstitutionsr cultural racticesrewidely ccepted

4. TheOaxacaValleymall ndustriesrojectOVSIP),knownnSpanish s theProyectode Estudios ocioecon6micosobre as Pequeniasndustrias e Oaxaca PESPIDEO), per-atedbetween978 nd1983 nder researchrant rom heU.S.National cience ounda-tion. cott ook was theprincipalnvestigator.dditional unding or ata analysis ndwrite-up asprovided ytheUniversityfConnecticutesearchoundation. or moredetailed escriptionftheprojectnd tsdata, ee Cook and Binford1990, 43-49).CookandJoowish oacknowledge eighBinford'sontributionoour reanalysisftheOVSIPdata set.38


8/28

ETHNICITY IN RURAL MEXICOdesignatorsf ndigena tatus r of hereproductionf ndigena dentityat the ocal evel Diskin1986; tephen 991).

The OVSIP project'smethodologicalurn way from ny a prioriassumption hat thnic dentityas mestizo r indigena) eserved on-siderations an independentariablemeant hat ariablesike ocality,occupation,nd class-rather han anguage-wereused to differentiatetheOaxaca Valley opulation or nalytical urposes Cook1990, i-xiii;Cook and Binford990, haps.2 and 3). The analysisdescribed n thisarticle hus xtendsnd insome sensecompletesheearliernalysis ftheOVSIP data. ntheprocess, hepresenttudy rovides hebasisforretrospectivempirical valuation f thewisdomof the project'smeth-odological urn wayfromsing anguage s a validor reliablendicatorof ethnicdentity illagewide.TheOVSIP data set covers ixtypesofcraft ndustries:readle-loomweaving, ackstrap-loom eaving, mbroidery,ardfiberpalmand ixtle) rocessingplaiting nd twining),rickmaking,nd mixedcraftsreed basketry, etatemaking, roommaking,imeprocessing,thread pinning,nd wood carving). xcept or rickmaking whichspredominantlyssociatedwith ocal populations esignateds mestizo),these raft ccupations re mainly ssociatedwith ocalpopulationshatare dentifiedfficiallyndinanthropologicalractices Zapotec.Mostofthese ccupations avepre-Hispanic rigins,hemostnotable xcep-tionsbeingtreadle-loom eaving nd probably rickmaking.None ofthem, owever, ave been mmune o postconquestnfluences,uchasthreadpunfromheep'swool,backstrap eavingswovenfromactory-spun threads,nd metates nd wooden utensilsmade with teel ools.The historicalnd ethnographicecords lso showthatmany raft ccu-pationsnthevalley ivision f aborhavebeen ubjectoethnic, ender,or locational hifts r crossoversn response o changing onjuncturalconditionsCookand Binford990).Results f theOVSIP SurveyData Analysis

Because heoriginal urveynstrument as notdesigned pecifi-cally or tudyinghe ocial onstructionf thnicdentityr thedynam-icsof elf-identificationndbecausewe arefocusingn thevillage atherthan on the household s theunitofanalysis, anguage s the mostaccessible nd reliable bjectivethnicmarker or hisreanalysisf theOVSIP data. Itbearsemphasizinghatourmethodologicaleliance nlanguage s an ethnicmarker f dentityor ocal and regional opula-tions lacesour nalysis quarelynthemainstreamraditionfpreviousanthropologicaltudies ftheethnic actorn ruralMexico ndOaxaca(such sMarino lores 967;NolascoArmas 972;Ayrend Varese 978).The OVSIP survey ata set contains nformationrom random

39


9/28

LatinAmerican esearch eviewTAB L E I Language-IndicatedthnicdentityfTwentyaxacaValley ettlements,1977-1978

Households Languagepokenain OSVIPSurvey Zapotec Spanish BilingualName fCommunity (N) (%) (%) (%)ZapotecTeotitlan el Valleb 79 17 0 83Diaz Ordaz 68 11 2 88San Migueldel Valle 25 10 0 90SantoDomingoAlbarradas 38 28 1 71SantaCeciliaJalieza 34 3 6 91SantoDomingoJalieza 69 0 23 77MagdalenaOcotlan 37 1 27 71San PedroMartir 38 1 5 93SantaAna del Valle 42 8 1 90San Baltazar hichicapan 64 15 2 83SantaLuciaOcotlan 51 3 2 96MestizoSanJuan hilateca 40 0 95 5

San IsidroZegache 24 0 94 6San DionisioOcotlan 27 0 100 0SanJacintohilateca 35 1 75 24Xaaga 55 1 99 0San LorenzoAlbarradas 74 0 99 1SantaLucia del Camino 56 0 90 10TransitionalSantoTomasJalieza 54 0 58 42San PedroGuegorexe 42 0 55 46aThe iguresnthe olumnsrepercentagesfthe otal amplepopulationy village.b Because theOVSIP household survey n Teotitlandid not coverlanguage, thesefigureswere derived from he 1970Mexican census.sample ofhouseholds in twenty illageson the anguages spoken bythehousehold head and thesecondprincipalhousehold member usuallythewife nmale-headedhouseholds).These language data,backedup byourethnographic xperience nd knowledgeof theregion,providedthe em-piricalmeans for lassifying hetwenty urveyvillagesintothreemutu-ally exclusive language-derivedethniccategories: Zapotec, mestizo,ortransitional.A givenvillagewas classified s Zapotec ifthree-quartersor more of thesample population spoke Zapotec eithermonolingually ralongwithSpanish.A villagewas classified s mestizo fthree-quartersor moreofthesample population spoke only Spanish and transitionalifmorethanone-half fthesample population was exclusively panish-speaking,withno Zapotec monolinguals.Table 1 presents heresultsof40


10/28

ETHNICITY IN RURAL MEXICOthe nalysis f anguagedataand theclassificationerived romt andidentifiesachvillage urveyed yname.

It is noteworthyhat lthough his sampleof villageswas de-signedto includeonly ettlementsreidentifieds having high nci-denceof household raft roduction,lmosthalf ofthemwere cate-gorized s eithermestizo rtransitional.his ategorizationbliged stodiscard ny priori otion hat articipationncraft roduction as anunequivocalmarkerf ndigenadentity.hedata presentednthis ablealso show hat urvillage ample sskewed oward apotec-speakersutalso includes substantialumber fmestizo illageswith low inci-denceofZapotec-speakers,husproviding clear-cutivision or om-parativempiricalnalysis. inally,hesedatashow theextentowhichSpanishpredominatesn the Oaxaca Valley nd Zapotectendsto bespokenbybilingual atherhanmonolingualopulations. he fact hatmonolingualisms evidenced nlywith panish-speakersndnotwithZapotec-speakersombinedwith hehighdegree fbilingualismn Za-potecvillages ndthe ow degreen mestizo illages onfirmhe mpactofmestizajenrural ocietynd culturen theOaxacaValley.Table2 presentshe veragemedianvalues themeanofmedianvalues)of eventeenelectedocioeconomicariables or he wentyil-lages groupedby the anguage ndicator.Withregard o income ndexpendituresas measured yvariables , C,E, F, ndG),householdsnmestizo illages arnmore ncome ndspendmore hanhouseholdsnZapotecand transitionalillages.Thedifferenceetweenmestizo ndZapotecvillages n totalweekly ouseholdncomethe um ofvariablesE, F, nd G) cameto almost inety-sixollars ormestizos ersus ighty-twodollars or apotecs. ut his ifferenceisappearswhen ncome erhouseholdmembers calculatedbydividing he um of variables , F,andG bythe valuefor amilyize),yieldinglightlymore hanfifteendollars ormestizos nd Zapotecs like.Thereductionn ncome iffer-ences s a function f the arger verage ize of the householdshownin thetableas FAMSIZE) n mestizovillages.This findingontradictsthe expectationhatZapotecvillageswould have larger amilies ueto a presumably igherncidence f extended amilies, socioculturalhallmark f indigenastatus n Mesoamerican tudies (Nutini1976,9-10).Finally,nalysis ftable discloses hat ransitionalillagehouse-holdshavemoreworkerspaid and unpaid) than ithermestizo rZa-potechouseholds.Wehaveno explanationor hisdifferencenddoubtthat validone can be advancedon the basis of the three-waylass-ification.Regarding ousehold tatusvis-a-vismeans ofproduction,heZapotec illage ouseholds isplay relativelyarge roportionfrentersofkey gricultural eans fproductionsuch s oxteams ndcarts)whospend argermounts n this ental. etZapotechouseholds lso eadthe

41


11/28

Latin American esearch eviewTAB L E 2 Average edianValues or eventeenocioeconomicariablesn TwentyOaxacaValley illages roupedyLanguage-Indicatedthnicdentity

EthnicndentityZapotec Mestizo TransitionalVariableabel (N=11) (N=7) (N=2)

A. BUYCORNa 8.045 6.857 8.000B. FAMEXPWKb 30.136 42.714 29.000C. FAMINCWKc 30.409 43.143 18.000D. FAMSIZEd 5.409 6.286 5.500E. INCWKHEDe 33.045 44.286 29.500F. INCWKL21f 19.909 14.643 10.500G. INCWKLY2g 29.227 36.857 22.250H. LNDWKTOTh 1.355 1.229 1.400I. LNDWRKDli 1.055 1.114 .900J. NETINCWKJ .091 .071 -5.000K. PAIDJOBSk 1.545 1.857 2.000L. RENTMP' 8.818 4.500 3.250M. RENTVALm 26.000 24.643 7.500N. SALEVALln 43.682 312.357 55.2500. TOTVALANo 39.455 22.786 28.250P. TOTVALMPP 25.409 11.500 2.500Q. UNPDJOBSq .545 .357 .500NOTE:Allmonetaryalues reas of1979, hen U.S. dollar qualed22.50pesos.aNumber fmonths ornwasboughtbFamilypendingastweekcFamilyncome orastweekdNumbernhouseholdeWeeklyncome1)ofhousehold eadfWeeklyncome1)of econdhouseholdmembergWeeklyncome2) ofhousehold eadhTotal reaof and workedin hectares)iArea ftype land irrigatedn1/10 ectares)iNetweekly ouseholdncomekNumberfpaidworking ousemembers'Rents rborrowsmeans fproductionmExpensesor ental fmeans fproductionnMarketalueofproductsroducedn1cycleoValue fanimalsPValue fmeans fproductionagricultural)qNumberfunpaidworking ousemembersother illagehousehold ategoriesnthe otal alue of gricultural eansofproductionnd farmnimals wned.The survey nalysis lso shows thatmestizovillagehouseholdsproduce mucharger olume fproductsorhemarketseethe ALEVALvariable).Rather hanconstruinghisfindings supportinghe ethno-populist hesis hat quatesmestizowithmarketconomynd indigenawith ubsistenceconomy, ethinkhatt s simply reflectionfmes-42


12/28

ETHNICITY IN RURAL MEXICOTABLE 3 Pearson orrelationatrix or eventeenocioeconomicariablesVariableabel Ethnicdentity ProbabilitiesA. BUYCORN -0.109 (0.647)B. FAMEXPWK 0.137 (0.565)C. FAMINCWK 0.017 (0.943)D. FAMSIZE 0.228 (0.335)E. INCWKHED 0.081 (0.736)F. INCWKL21 -0.168 (0.479)G. INCWKLY2 0.023 (0.925)H. LNDWKTOT -0.030 (0.901)I. LNDWRKD1 -0.038 (0.873)J. NETINCWK -0.108 (0.652)K. PAIDJOBS 0.375 (0.103)L. RENTMP -0.310 (0.183)M. RENTVAL -0.144 (0.545)N. SALEVALl 0.204 (0.388)0. TOTVALAN -0.188 (0.427)P. TOTVALMP -0.274 (0.243)Q. UNPDJOBS -0.111 (0.640)NOTE:Chi quare s 336.776, egrees ffreedomqual153, nd probabilitys essthan 001.tizo dentityrevailingnhandmade rick roduction, hich ields ub-stantially ighernnual alesrevenues nd income han nyother raftindustryntheOaxaca Valley Cook1984, 5;Cook and Binford990,137).The economic ariablesdentifiedbove aretheonlyonesshownbyour urvey ataanalysis o reflectnydegree fpatterningyvillageethnicdentity,nd thatpatterningppears obe of ittle nalytical ig-nificance. oreover,t s impossible o derive ny pattern f economicimprovementr differentiationn thesevillageswhen moving equen-tially rom apotecto transitionalo mestizo reas, pattern ften s-sumed o occur ccordingo themodernist-developmentalistaradigm'sconcept fmestizaje. he survey ata show transitionalillagehouse-holdsto be muchworseoff han heir apoteccounterpartsnlevelsofsocioeconomicerformance.Table3 presentshePearson orrelationoefficientsor hesameseventeenocioeconomicariables nd anguage-indicatedillage thnicidentity.he Bartletthi-squareestfor hecorrelation atrixs statis-tically ignificantseetable3).As can be inferredrom his able, ll thecorrelationsetween thnicdentitynd the ocioeconomicariables reveryweak.Thehighest orrelationsreonly .375 PAIDJOBS)nd -0.310(RENTMP).Consideringheprobabilitiesssociatedwith ach correla-tion oefficient,e find hatno correlations significant. evertheless,we cannot onclude hat hevariables recompletelynrelated espitetheweakcorrelations.

43


13/28

LatinAmerican esearch eviewWe also subjected heentirematrix ftwentyillages nd seven-teen variables omultidimensionalcaling usingtheMDS module of

SYSTAT) to measure he distance n terms f similar nd dissimilarvaluesfor he ocioeconomicariables rbetween illageswith egard othose alues.Thesedistanceseveal he mportancef thnicdentitys adeterminantfsocioeconomicerformance.imilarities ere xpressedin a two-dimensionalistance lot.5In theMDS plot of all seventeenocioeconomic ariableswithethnicdentityETHNICID), he attersrelativelysolated romhe ocio-economic ariablesstressffinal onfiguration0.178).With he xcep-tion f hevariable or ousehold ize FAMSIZE), hedistances etweenethnicdentitynd the ocioeconomicariables regenerallyong, nd tdoes not end ocluster ith hem. ycontrast,ncome-relatedariables(N, B,E, C, F) tend oclusterogether,s doproperty-relatedariablesI,P, 0, H) and thevariable ornumber f paid employeesnhouseholds(PAIDJOBSrK).6Inthefinal tep f his nalysis, eexamined heMDS plotfor hetwenty illagesto ascertain he similaritiesn clustering etween hevillagesgroupedby ethnicdentity.fethnic dentitys an importantdeterminantfsocioeconomiconditionsnthesevillages, hree istinc-tiveclustershould appearin theplotlinking THNICID and socio-economic ariables. uranalysis isclosed nly nediscerniblelusterntheplot,which s composed fone transitionalillage SanPedroGue-gorexe), our apotecvillages Teotitlanel Valle, anta CeciliaJalieza,SantoDomingoJalieza,nd San PedroMartir),ndfourmestizo illages(San Juan hilateca,anIsidro egache, anJacintohilateca,ndSantaLucia del Camino).Theremaininghreemestizo illages San DionisioOcotlan,Xaaga, ndSan LorenzoAlbarradas)redistantlyituated romthemixed luster. heother apotec illages Diaz Ordaz, anMigueldelValle,SantoDomingoAlbarradas,MagdalenaOcotlan, anta Ana delValle, anBaltazar hichicapan,nd SantaLuciaOcotlan) nd the econdtransitionalillage SantoToma's alieza) rerandomlycatteredhrough-out theplot.Thisconfigurationuggests nly hatZapotecvillages resomewhat esshomogeneoushantheirmestizo ounterpartsn socio-economic similarities.Overall,we conclude rom he abular ndMDS plot nalysis hatthe OVSIP survey atadisclosemore ignificantariationswithin il-

5. Forreasons f ditorialxpediency,twas decidednot opublishhefiguresor heseMDS plots.Anyone ishingo obtain opies f hemmaydo sobycontactinghe uthors.6. To furtherlarifyheroleofethnicdentity,notherMDS plotwas drawn xcludingtheETHNICIDvariable stress .176). xcept ox he hiftn the lusters rom ne side oftheplot o theother,he onfigurationfthevariablesn theplot salmost dentical. hisfinding emonstrateshat thnicdentitys relativelyndependent is-a-vis he socio-economic ariables.44


14/28

ETHNICITY IN RURAL MEXICOlagesof he ameethnicdentityhan etween illages fdifferentthnicidentity. e cannot ssert, owever,hatno associationt all exists e-tween thnic dentitynd the ocioeconomic ariables.Results f heAnalysis fOther VSIP Data RelevantotheRelationshipetweenthnicdentityndEconomy

The OVSIP data files lso nclude ranscribedexts fresponses ofour pen-ended uestions nparticipationn andattitudesoward ivil-religious ierarchynd mayordomia.his nterview as conducted itha subsample f160 raftroducers74 men, 2 women) rom ight iffer-entvillages.The OVSIP files lso includehousehold urvey atafromseveral illages egarding articipationnthe ystemfceremonialeci-procityguelaguetza).Our analysis f these woadditional ources fdata showsno significantifferencesnattitudesr experiencesmonginformantshat an be related o the anguage-markedthnicdentityftheir illages.More specifically,his nalysis howsthatparticipationncargosandmayordomiasaries ccordingosocioeconomictatus ndreligiousaffiliationas mighteexpected,rotestantsonot ponsormayordomias).Middle- nd upper-strataatholicsxhibithehighestates fparticipa-tion.When nformantsere sked why hey articipatenmayordomiasponsorship,heymadesuch statementss 'Villagecustoms the awand One must omply. et broad onsensus olds hat oluntaryer-vice or ceremonialxpenditures preferableoobligatoryervice rex-penditure. greementsalsowidespread hat eremonialr festiveycleparticipations becoming ncreasinglyxpensive nd burdensome nhousehold udgets,eading o much essactivitynd smaller-scalectiv-ities han n thepast. Economicallyuccessful ouseholds ontinue ev-ertheless o participate oluntarilyn the fiesta ycleby staging arge-scalecelebrations.hese nformantsxpressedmore upport or he deathat hese hanges repositive ather hannostalgiabout he goodolddays whenmorevillagesparticipatedmoreactively. nce again,nosignificantifferencesnattitudesn thesematters ould be found c-cordingothe anguage-markedthnicdentityfrespondents.Concludingummaryf heResultsf heAnalysisfOVSIPData

Ourreanalysisf ocioeconomicariables rom heOVSIP datasetseeking ignificantelationshipst thevillageevelwithanguage-markedethnicdentityailed ofind nythat ompelus to redefinetsminimalrole n shaping ontemporaryegional conomic tructurend perfor-mance.A minimal olefor thnic dentity as theunderlyingssump-tion ofCook and Binford'srevious nalysis 1990).Thatassumption45


15/28

Latin American esearch eviewappears o be validated ytheanalysis resentednthis rticle.We arenow on firmermpirical roundnarguinghat lasscrosscutsanguage-marked thnic dentity erticallyn Oaxaca Valley ociety. orexample,Zapotec-speakersanbefound tany evel f he ocalclass ystem. lso,becausemost ocal participationntheartisanal ivision f abor s notrestrictedy ethnic dentity, estizo r ndigena ommunities aypar-ticipaten thesamebranch fartisanal roductionas in treadle-loomweaving, alm plaiting, nd embroidery).ne of the fewexceptionssmetate roduction, hich s carried utonly nZapotec-speakingom-munities,lthoughMagdalenaOcotlandid notparticipatenthiscraftuntil hefirst ecadeof he wentiethenturyCook1982,166). inally,hepatterns f wealthdeploymentnd distributionnthe OVSIPmultivil-lage sample and probably hroughoutherural conomyftheOaxacaValley) rosscut hedivision etweenndigenand mestizo.Althoughwe are satisfied hat hese onclusions re accurate ortheOVSIPdata,broader heoreticalndanalyticalelevances imited ytwo setsofconditions: irst,heshortcomingsftheoryndmethodnthetraditionalnthropologicalpproach ostudyingthnic actorsndeconomyn Mexican tudies ombinedwith he nherentomplexitiesfthe ubject; nd second, heresurgencef thnicitys a claimed asisforsocial dentityndpolitical r economicctivity yruralMexicans ndits mpact n research. he concluding artof this rticle resents heresults f n effortorethinkurapproach nd tosuggest irectionsortheory,method, nd analysis hatmightmake futurenthropologicalwork nthe nterplayetween thnicdentityndeconomymore eliablethan thasbeen to date.TOWARD AN OPERATIONAL APPROACH TO ETHNICITY AND ECONOMY INMEXICAN STUDIES: DEALING OBJECTIVELY WITH SUBJECTIVITYThe Problem

The high ncidence freferenceso being indigena r mestizointhe thnographiciteraturen ruralMexicogoeshand nhandwithplethora f theoreticallaimscasting he ethnic actor ariously s ahistoricalrpolitical rimemover, heuristicndependentariable,r aprimordialultural-psychologicaldentifier.heseclaims re manifesta-tions nMexican tudies f a globalprocess fpostmodernisordernwhich, s anthropologistonathanriedman as observed,thedeclineof homogenizing oderndentityas led to ncreasingthnificationfnational ocial space and increasingthnic onflict 1993, 07).7 The

7. Friedman's hought-provokingssay containsmanypropositionsnd potential y-potheseshatmeritmpiricalonsideration. e do not harehisbelief, owever,hat hepoliticsfculturaldentitynmany hirdWorld ation-statesecessarilymplieswide-46


16/28

ETHNICITY IN RURAL MEXICOprolificnd unquestioningse of themodifier indigena nthe socialscience iteratureo dentifyuralMexicans oday eems ocontradictheethnohistoricalndethnographicecord egardingcculturationnd so-cioculturalmestizaje.Scholarswhostudy he new ethnicity r whatAnthonymithtermedtheethnicevival Smith 981) end oviewtheprocessneitherprimordialistr situationalisterms. he primordialistsiew ethnic on-sciousness s being s elementaryr fundamentals kinship rgender.Thisprimordial riveprovides persistingasis for roup ppositionalidentityas in us versus them ) thatdemandsexpression, r whatGeorgeScotthas referredo as 'ineffable ffectiveignificance hat11mostften urroundsmages f hegroup's istinctiveast Scott 990,147;compareGeertz 973, 59).Most scholarswho reject rimordialismare nclined o viewethnicitys a situationallyhiftingdentityhat simaginable r adoptableby differentlasses,class fractions,r socialgroups ccording o their luctuatingxistentialircumstancesor oppo-sitional elations) f internalnd external rigin.These twoopposingviews f thnicityredifficulto reconcile. he ituational-circumstantialview s more ompatible ith heoperationalnd empiricalpproach oanthropologicalesearch hatwe favor.n short,we agreewithPeterWorsleythat [elthnic and racial identity . . takes on quite differentmeaningsn differentontexts,epending n whouses them orwhatpurposes. hey rerelative,ituationalategories,ot bsolutes Wors-ley1984, 42; compareKnight 990, 4).Predictably,nthropologicalnquiry as been greatly ffected ytheglobalprocess f ethnificationnd has often een n theforefrontfthepostmodernelebrationfwhatDavid Harvey alls the authenticityofother oices ndotherworlds Harvey 989, 9). ronically,owever,inrecent nthropologicalork n Mexico, ewmajor tudies t the xtra-village evelof analysishavecombined ystematicurvey esearch ithanthropologicalieldworkrhavefocused npublic ttitudesndvaluesrelated o major uestions f ethnic nd social dentity. ecent nthro-pologicalcontributionso Mexicanstudieshave beenrelativelyilentspread rosion r dilution f an ideology f national itizenshipr identitys well asweakening fthe mainstreamevelopmentalist-modernistdeology ssertinghat co-nomic rowthnd mprovementn materialivingtandards illresultromndustrializa-tion. n ourview,he uest ormpowermentyvarious opular onstituenciesnMexicowhethern the asisof lass, ender,thnicity,rregionaldentity-is ompatible ith nacceptancefthehegemonic evelopmentalistdeology f thegovernmentunbythePartidoRevolucionarionstitucionalPRI). Thisquestreflectsimply desire ormoreequitable istributionf hematerial enefitsf hedominantconomic evelopmentlanor moredirect nvolvementnpolicy ormulationithin heexisting egemonicrame-work. n this ense, hepopularmovementsssociatedwith henewpolitics f culturalidentityre reformistather hanrevolutionary.s such, they rebest understoodsmerely egotiating ithin hehegemonic rameworkather hanpursuing counter-hegemonic roject.

47


17/28

Latin American esearch eviewabout thnicity,thnic elations,nd social dentityt ocal and regionallevels from he perspective f national ulture r national itizenship,with fewnotable xceptionssuch sMargolies 975; rizpe 989; chryer1990; omnitz-Adler992).Andfew tudies averejected he endencyoviewethnicdentitynmutually xclusive ermsnorder oadvocate hethesis fmultipledentitieshat re situationallylaimed.8 histrend ssomewhaturprising,iven he mergencefpopularmovementseek-ingempowermentn theMexican ederal ystem nd thegrowing oliti-cal literatureddressing his ssue see Fowerakernd Craig1990).Thetendency robably eflectsheextent o which nthropologicalhinkingaboutruralMexicoremains ostage o the ndigenista aradigmnd itsobsessive ocus n theparochial ndigenaOther Cook 1993).9In opposing hepostmodernistnd deconstructionistendencyobelittle henotion f objectivitynsocial science nquiry y replacingtwith mbiguous otions fmultiple iscourses ndknowledgerpower,wemaintainhat cientificbjectivitysboth chievable nd necessarynsuch nquiry. heoreticalrinciplesrconcepts, hether arxist r non-Marxist,anand shouldbesubjectedo whatDanielLittle efined s themultitude f empiricalmethods nd procedures hrough hich ocialscientistsnterrogatehe social worldto test, alsify,nd confirmheirhypothesesnd theories Little 993, 65).This mpiricalpproach s allthemoremportantiven hepenchantor elf-deceptionnd inventionoftenharacterizingndividualsaught pinthefermentfongoingthno-populistmovementsCampbell 990, 2;Hernandez iaz 1991, 81-82).10

8. In their ecentlyublished tudy, rthur urphynd AlexStepickeem oholdthisviewwhen hey tate egardingheOaxacaValley,Migrantsromndigenous illageself-consciously anipulateheirdentityybehavingikeMexicans n the ity nd as indige-nous people when nthevillage Murphynd Stepick 991, 17).Yet n theprecedingparagraph,heymuddle his nsight y assertingInthe ityOaxacadeJuarez],eople'sidentitys Mexican, ot apotec-MexicanrMixtec-Mexican.his tatementpparentlysmeant o applyonly o ong-establishedity esidentsnd not o recentmigrants,r t smeant obe nterpretednoutsiders'atherhan nsiders' erms.nany ase,we think hatMurphynd Stepickreby mplicationightn targetnviewing uralOaxacansfromvillages esignated s indigena s havinghyphenateddentitiess Zapotec-Mexican,Mixtec-Mexican,ndso on (compare ook1993, 21-22).9. Three otableecenttudies hat reak he nthropologicalilence n nationaldentityareArizpe 1989),chryer1990),ndLomnitz-Adler1992).t s worthecalling ere hat ntheir ypologyfLatinAmericanubcultures,harlesWagleyndMarvin arris bservedabout heirategoryf modernndian ypes, The ndians f achcommunityenerallythink fthemselvess ethnic nits eparate rom therndiangroups ndfrom hena-tionals f thecountryn which hey eside . . (Wagley nd Harris 974, 8). They lsodistinguishedndians romeasants: Unlike heModern ndians, easants enerallyon-sider hemselvesobenationals fthe ountryn which hey eside 1974, 9).10. Thisdiscussionoes not mply hatwe reject he hrust fpostmoderniscourse rfailto appreciatehe mportancef ts critique f modernist iscourse, specially ost-modernism'socus nthepoliticsf anguage nd ts nalysis f ubjectivity.utwe shareRobert lbritton'seservationsbout hethree ostmodernistxcesses hathe identifies:collapsing istinctions,ewdualisms,ndone-sidedness1993, 6-28).48


18/28

ETHNICITY IN RURAL MEXICOEthnicity,ocation,nd ncidencefCraft roduction:Objectiveersusubjectiveimensions

The assumptions pervasive hat direct inkage xists etweencraft roductionnd indigena dentityn Mexicoregarding istoricalorigin nd contemporaryarticipationt the village evel. Hence JuneNash's hesis hat he artisan otterrweaver.. may ontinue obetheagentntransmittingheprogramfthe ncestors 1993a, 0) strikesresonant hord mongmany tudents f Mexican raftsfor xample,Stephen 993;Nash1993b; ber nd Rosenbaum 993).Thetypical onsumer fmostOaxaca craft roducts iewsthem(with hehelpofgovernmentnd private-sectorropaganda) s authen-tic rtifactsf ndigenaabor nd artisticxpressionsf ndigenaulture(Novelo 1976;Cook1981;Kaplan 1993). venanthropologists,ho rec-ognizethenon-indigenarovenance fa particularraftndustryiketreadle-loom eaving, till nsist hat tspractices a main element findigena dentitysee Stephen 991,12). ccordingoStephen,heweav-ersofTeotitlan el Valleconstructnd project heirZapotec dentitythrough claim ntextiles.. as the riginatorsf readle-loom eavinginOaxaca. Shenotes urther,It is irrelevantoTeotitecoshat he ech-nology ndmaterials hat hey sed toproduce hefirst eavingswerebrought ytheSpaniards Stephen 991, 0). Only thinine eparatesthis ositionpredicatedn thepremisehat he thnicdentityfweaversis whateverhey ayitis) from heaxiomatic priori dentificationfartisanndustry ithndigenartisans.notherwords,he nthropologi-cal identificationf craft nd indigenas stillmadeevenwhen hetech-nology nd most awmaterials sed to produce articularraft roductsaredemonstrablyon-indigenanoriginnd theproductsredesigned,styled,nd usedmainly ynon-indigenasas inthe mbroideryndustryin theOaxaca Valley nd in treadle-loom eaving f all acrylic,mostcotton,nd somewoolproducts).Theproblem ere s not hat resent-dayrtisansnOaxaca chooseto dentifyhemselvesnd their roductss Zapotecbut hat he nthro-pologistswhostudy hem ften ail o consider heprobabilityhat uchartisans avemultipledentitieseriving rom heir articipationnanarray fnested tructuresf ocialrelations,angingromouseholdndfamilyo nation-statend internationalystem.uch dentitiesefy ri-oritizationn terms fabsolute ignificancen theartisans'daily ives(seeWolf 956; ewis1960, hap. ). Also, heproblemrises f bandon-ingthetaskofempiricallyerifyinglaims oZapotec dentityor anyotherndigenousdentity) adeaccordingo theproducers,heproduc-tionprocess,r theproductsnterms fanyrigorousultural-historicalframeworkhat ncludes definitionfZapotecnesshat mbracesmanycriterianaddition o anguage compare arrasco 951;Whitecotton977,

49


19/28

LatinAmerican esearch eview14-15). Ethnographers ho focus on the problem f ethnic dentity(whether estizo r ndigena)n contemporaryexico hould igorouslyexamine ny claimto it within frameworkhat assumes multiplesources nd dimensions fsocioculturaldentitymongruralMexicanpopulations. he ethnographer'sask s to analyzeand compare heseclaimed dentitiesntermsf ituational,lass, ndhistoricalactorsseeCook 1993, 32).Inshort, nymeaningfuloncept f thnicity ust mbrace bjec-tive nd subjectivendicatorshat re perceivable nd significantoin-siders nd outsiders like. t should lso include hepolitical conomic,socialorganizational,nd cultural imensions f nter-ethnic-relations.Viewing thnicitys a purelyubjectivend instrumentalhenomenonandthusreducingttoan identityused ndifferentaysby people nvarious ituations,sually o stake particularlaim Stephen 991, 2;compare ampbell 990)maybeacceptablenpoliticalnalysis. ut ucha perspectivehould be replacedby a broaderview in analyses hatpurportoprivilegethnicitynthetotal ystemfsocial relations.-If discrete thnic roup dentitys to haveramificationseyondthemicro-levelfa localpopulationndoutside heconfinesfan eso-teric nthropologyf ocal diosyncrasies,tmust e dentifiedoth nter-nally nd externallynd its existencemustbe significanto local-levelpractitionerss wellas to outsidersocated thigherevelsofthewidersystem compare arth 969, 1;Adams1990, 52).Giventhepervasivepoliticizationf ethnicdentitynpluri-ethnication-statesikeMexicoand ts usceptibilityodeception,nvention,pportunism,rmanipula-tionby insiders nd outsiders like, t is crucial hat nthropologistsapproach he tudy fethnicityith s much perationalndanalyticalrigor nd attention o the nterplay etween ubjectivend objectivefactorsnd outsidernd insider actorss possible.Rethinkinghendigenista-Ethnopopulistaradigm:Mestizo ersusndi'genas a Heuristicssumption

The following orkingefinitionfethnicroup as relevance ortheOaxaca Valley ituation: n ethnicgroup s largely biologically11. Undoubtedly, undamental pistemologicaldimensions like objectiveversus subjec-tive and insider emic) versus outsider etic)often eem to get confused ndiscourse aboutethnicity. rom the perspective f economic anthropology, ook has writtenboutthe need

foroperationalmethod nformed y these considerations 1974, 03-8). Harris remains hebest source on emics and etics in broader anthropologicaldiscourse (1980,32-41). Theimportantmethodologicalpoint s thatthe subjective-objective nd emic-etic ectors nter-penetrate nternally s well as externally r intervectorally,hus highlightinghe impor-tance of operational procedures n attempting o disentanglewhat is bynature entangled.Schryer's 1990) study ofethno-classrelations n theHuasteca region etsa high tandardtoemulate regarding perationalcontrol ver subjectiveversus objective nd emic versus eticfactors compare Cook 1993,323-30).50


20/28

ETHNICITY IN RURAL MEXICOself-perpetuatingocial ollectivitydentifiedymyths f common rov-enance ndby dentifyingarkersBarth 969, 0;Adams1990,152).Weemphasize he qualifier largely ecause the ethnographicecord orZapoteccommunitiesn theOaxaca Valley howsthatwhile ndogamy(marrying ithin hecommunity)redominatestatistically,t s by nomeans racticedxclusivelynthese ommunities.hereferenceo mythsof a common rovenance aises mportantuestions boutthemecha-nisms nd results f ntergenerationalultural ransmissions well asabouthowtooperationalizeonceptsikehistorical emoryr conscious-ness for mpirical esearch.nMexico, s inGuatemala, hese uestionsimply onsciousndexistentiallyroundeddentificationith particu-lar ocality,ogether ith ome enseof tshistorys representedn ocaldocumentarynd oral tradition. ccounts f thishistorymayalso linkthefounding f particularocalcommunitieso another recursorom-munity r to a widergrouping f ocalities.Identifyingarkerseferrimarilyoobjective ultural henomenaandespeciallyo whatFredrik arth eferso as overtignals rsigns-thediacriticaleatureshat eople ook for nd exhibit o show dentity,oftenuchfeaturess dress,anguage, ouse-form,rgeneral tyle f ife(1969,14). mong hese,wehighlighthe mportancef anguage ecausetheOaxaca Valley asexperiencedwell-documentedistoricalrocess freductionfcultural ifferencesetween thnic roups nd thedevelop-ment f generalizedyncreticural ulture. s Margarita olascoArmasobserved, InOaxaca,the ndigenous roblem.. is not a problem fculturalmaterial,hats tosay, fdress, abitation,ruse of ctual ndige-nous rtifacts;hese traitsrcustoms]an be substitutedymestizo nesand continueeing ndigenous NolascoArmas 972,11). y mplication,then, he ndigenous roblemn Oaxaca is one of culture iewedpro-cessually.ut nourview, heres a limit eyondwhich ubstitutionfindigena ustomswithmestizo ustomsmplies, bjectivelynd etically(anthropologically)peaking,he eplacementf ndigenadentityymes-tizo dentity,espite ubjectivessertionsr claims othecontrary.Itcannot e denied hat he owprofilefethnicitynstructuringsocialrelationsntheOaxacaValleys notcharacteristicfcertaintherregionsnthe tatewhere thnopolitical ovementsaveemerged,ikethose mongTriquis, hatinos,Mixes, nd ZapotecosJuchitecosde laCruz1986). hese mportantasesmerit he pecial ttentionfcarefullydesigned ndtheoreticallynformedmpiricalesearchs an antidote othe eductivenessfwhatHowardCampbellhas labeled s thepoliticsof cultural evivalism Campbell 990). n thisregard, ecentworkbyHernaindeziaz (1991) nd BinfordndCampbell 1993) s exemplary.Complicatingandsomewould ay compromising)nthropology'srole nthe tudy fethnicitynMexicohasbeenthehistoricoleplayedby anthropologistsnformulatingnd implementingexican tate ol-

51


21/28


22/28

ETHNICITY IN RURAL MEXICOico is that hey ail o place situationalimits n it, ssuming hat hosewho identifyhemselvess indigenan one situationlso do so in allother ituations.n reality, weavingmerchant rom hetownof Mitlamay dentify imselfs Zapotec nhis hometown eavingworkshop,sa MitlefionOaxaca Citywherehe buys yarnfrom distributor,s aOaxacanfromMitlawhenvisitingMexicoCity, nd as a Mexican itizenfrom axacawhen ivingntheUnited tates s anundocumentedorker.The ability o shift etween ndigena nd mestizo rMexican dentitiessituationallyas between omevillage ndregional own rcity) spre-sumably acking odayonly amongmonolingual peakers findigenalanguagesnMexico, eaving largemajorityfbilingualndigenaswhoarelikely o be practitionersf hyphenatedthnicitiesdefined s lan-guageplus cultural nsembles).Onlywhen ndigenous anguage s connectedo a broader nddistinctiveultural epertorynd setofpractices mong local popula-tion should collective elf-identitye interpretednthropologicallysmestizo r indigena.A complete nd empiricallydentifiableackagemust xist-languageplus other ultural lements nd practices iedtospecificetsof hared xpressionsfhistoricalonsciousness-toustifyan anthropologicallaimto specific thnicdentity. majorityfanygiven ocalpopulation esignated s indigenamust ollectivelyelievethat whatwe aresaying nd doingnow is tied to whatour ancestorswere aying nd doing. fsuch a collective elief an be demonstratedempiricallys shared ya majorityfcommunityesidents,longwiththeir articipationnculturallyistinctivectivitiesndpracticesfso-cialreproductiveignificance,hen he nthropologists ustifiednusingthedesignationndi'genanreferenceo that ommunity.nthisway, hedesignation ill be made with muchhigher egree freliabilityhanthat ssociatedwith hemethods elyingnlanguagemarkers rsubjec-tive laims. hances re,however,hatmany ndperhapsmostmembersof uch ommunitiesnMexico oday re also situationalractitionersfMexicanmestizodentity.To avoid misconstruingr overlookingituationaldentities, ecanfollowOscarLewis's ead in looking ormultiple ources f socialidentity,omeofwhichmayhavenospecificthnoculturalontent.ewismeritsecognitions themostprominentnthropologicalioneer fthenational itizen pproachnMexican tudies Cook1993, 31).He wasconvinced f the need to combine ocioculturalnd political conomicinterpretationsfvillage, egion,nd nation nMexican tudies nd tounderstand easant villagesthrough he regional nd national ocio-culturalystemsfwhich hey rea part Lewis 1970, 88).He thereforerejected ideologicalocalismwherebyach ittleommunitys treatedsself-sufficientnd isolated Lewis 1963,xx-xxi).This approach epa-ratedhimmethodologicallyrom he ndigenistas,nabling im o study

53


23/28

LatinAmericanesearch eviewTepoztlan s partof the arger ulture f Mexico 1963, xi) and todocumentwhat he interpreteds an increasingdentificationfTe-poztecanswith heMexicannation nd with he tate fMorelos 1963,38). Lewis remains mong handful fanthropologistshohaveseri-ously xaminedMexicanidad atherhanndigena escents a source fsocial identity mongpeasantvillagersnMexico see also Wolf 956,1958; nd especially artra 987 nd Lomnitz-Adler992).Lewis's ituationalndsocio-spatialociof ocial dentity eedtobe tiedtoprevailing olitical conomic onjuncturess a necessarytepinmaterialistnalysis.Althoughhe iesmaynotbe directndunmedi-ated, hematerialistaradigmssumesneverthelesshat thnic nd otherculturallymediated ocial dentitiesespeciallyhose hat akepoliticalforms fexpression)re ikely o beresponsiveo cyclicalmarket-drivenor statepolicy-drivenhiftsnmacroeconomicerformancend conse-quently eflectivef the distributionf value betweendiscrete ocialclassesand sectors. hus thematerialistaradigmwouldanticipateheproliferationf dentity-consciousocialmovementsrprojectsnvolvingvarious mpacted ectors,lasses, nd regionsnthewakeof he risis etinmotionnMexicoby the1982devaluation fthepesoandinresponseto thesweeping iberalizationoliciesof the Salinas regime. hecom-bined mpact fthesefactors ulminatednMexico's ecoming art faNorthAmerican ommonmarket, ithprofoundmplicationsor henational tructuref relations f distributionBarry 992,132-33; rin-spun and Cameron 993,10,12-13).SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Insum,wepropose hat xternalbserver-analystshould easetodesignate givenMexicanpopulation s indigenaor Zapotec,Mixtec,and so on) unlessthey reprepared o demonstratempiricallyulfill-ment fthefollowingriteria:irst,hepresence f a given nsemble flanguageplusother ultural lements nd practiceshat re representa-tive of a particularndigenous ype; econd,proof hat he people sodesignated onsider hedesignationmeaningful;hird, heeconomic,social, ultural,ndpoliticalonditionsnvolvedndeterminingtsmean-ingfulnesso them; ourth,he ituationalityf ndigenadentityis-a-visother ocial dentities,ncluding estizo ndMexican;ndfinally,he on-juncturalityf he laimeddentitiesnd the ocial rojectsrganizedroundthem.Attributionsf ndigenousdentityerived nlyfrom heobjectivelanguage ndicatorrfrom nsubstantiatedubjective laims, speciallywhen ther ituationalr fundamentaldentitiesre gnored, fferimitedanalyticalignificancetbest ndmay eanalyticallyounterproductive.12

12. The failure o place situational imits n indigena dentity s typically ssociatedwith54


24/28

ETHNICITY IN RURAL MEXICOWhile hepopulation f Mexico oday s predominantlyexicanand mestizon identitynd participatesn a capitalistconomynthe

throes f complete estructurings a NorthAmerican ommonmarket,anthropologicaliscourse s stillevoking he vision of nonmarketn-volvementnpersistingndigena illageutopias.The timehas come torid anthropologicalheory f anachronisticoncepts nd ideas and toconstruct post-indigenistaaradigmn which thnic dentitywhetherindigena r mestizo) s perceived s simply ne amongmanypossiblesocially onstructeddentitiesformedrom he nterfacefmaterial on-ditions, istory,hestructuref thepolitical conomy,nd socialprac-tice Nagengast ndKearney 990, 2).This efforthouldnotbe construed s negatinghepotential fethnicitys a socialforce n behalf f narrowlyconomisticnd class-driven iewofpolitics.n aneraof ntensifyinglassand ethnic ifferen-tiation nd confrontation,ucha projects as anachronistics is itseth-nopopulist emesis.Rather, he effort e are advocatinghould eaveanthropologyetterquipped onceptuallyndmethodologicallyopro-duce validknowledgebout he ver-increasingomplexitiesfdaily ifewithin heMexican ranchf hedeveloping orth mericanandglobal)capitalist ivision f abor.Within hisdeveloping tructure,he unre-

solvedgrievanceshatnourished heZapatistamovementntheRevolu-tion f1910, xacerbated yrecent rofound hangesnstate olicy ndineconomic onditions,ave rupted new ntheguise fneo-Zapatismotochallengehe nd-of-centuryproyectoecnocraticoorntegratingex-ico intoNorthAmericanapitalism.

the assumptionthat t s the primordial nd exclusive dentity f a particularMexican etniaor ethnic group. This tendency s illustrated n an article published recentlyby AnyaPetersonRoyce 1993) on music, dance, and fiestas mong the sthmusZapotec ofJuchitan,long a mecca forethnopopulists nd cultural extremistsn Mexico. In heropening para-graph,Royceacknowledges thatJuchitecos re exposed to alternate dentities nd possessthe knowledgeto choosethebestofMexican and othernationalcultures but choosetobeZapotec. For her,Zapotec seems tobe a single cross-situational dentity or ll Juchitecos,regardless of their sex, age, education, class, occupation, religion,politics, familyback-ground, nd migratory xperience. t s our hope that he positionwe are advocating n thisarticlewill promote kepticism mong readers regarding ny past, present, r future th-nographic claims of this kind about discoveringa homogeneous and pervasive socio-cultural dentity mong a heterogeneous ocal population in Mexico, especially when theclaim is unsupported by systematic mpirical analysis of alternative ituational dentities.

55


25/28

LatinAmericanesearch eviewBIBLIOGRAPHYADAMS, RICHARD N.1967 Nationalization. n M. NASH 1967, 69-89.1990 Ethnic magesand Strategiesn 1944. nGuatemalanndians nd the tate, 540to1988, dited by Carol Smith,141-62.Austin:University f Texas Press.AGUIRRE BELTRAN, GONZALO1970 Los simbolos 6tnicos de la identidad nacional. Anuario ndigenista, o. 30(Dec.):101-40.1976 Obrapolemica.Mexico City:Secretaria e Educaci6n Publica and InstitutoNacio-nal de Antropologia Historia.ALBRITTON, ROBERT1993 Marxian PoliticalEconomyfor n Age ofPostmodernExcess. Rethinkingarx-ism 6, no. 1:24-42.ANDERSON, BENEDICT1983 Imaginedommunities:eflectionsnthe riginndSpread fNationalism.ondon:Verso.1988 'Afterword. nGUIDIERI, PELLIZZI, AND TAMBIAH 1988, 02-6.ARIZPE, LOURDES1989 Cultura desarrollo:na tnograffae ascreenciaseuna omunidad exicana. ex-ico City: Colegio de M6xico.AYRE, LINDA, AND STEFANO VARESE1978 Lapoblacio'napotecanelestadoeOaxaca egiunlcenso e1970: ndlisisreliminar.Estudiosde Antropologia Historiano.10.Oaxaca: CentroRegionaldel InstitutoNacional de Antropologia Historia.BARABAS, ALICIA, AND MIGUEL BARTOLOME1986 Etnicidadpluralismoultural:adindmicanOaxaca.Mexico ity:nstituto acio-nal de Antropologiae Historia.BARRY, TOM, ED.1992 Mexico:A CountryGuide.Albuquerque,N.M.: Inter-Hemispheric ducation Re-sourceCenter.BARTH, FREDRIK, ED.1969 Ethnic roupsndBoundaries:he ocial rganizationfCulturalifference.oston,Mass.: Little,Brown.BARTOLOME, MIGUEL, AND ALICIA BARABAS1986 La pluralidad desigual en Oaxaca. In BARABAS AND BARTOLOME 1986,15-95.BARTRA, ROGER1987 La jaula de la melancolia.Mexico City: Grijalbo.BINFORD, LEIGH, AND HOWARD CAMPBELL1993 Introduction.n Zapotec truggles:istories,olitics,ndRepresentationsromJuchitdn,axaca,editedbyHoward Campbell, Leigh Binford,Miguel Bartolom6,and Alicia Barabas, 1-21.Washington, .C.: Smithsonian nstitution.BONFIL BATALLA, GUILLERMO1981 Utopia y revoluci6n: el pensamientopolitico contemporaneode los indios enAm6ricaLatina. In Utopiay revoluci6n,ditedbyGuillermoBonfilBatalla. Mex-ico City:Nueva Imagen.CAMPBELL, HOWARD1990 Juchitan: he Politics and Cultural Revivalism n an Isthmus Zapotec Commu-nity. atinAmericannthropologyeview,no. 2:47-55.CARRASCO, PEDRO1951 Las culturas ndigenas de Oaxaca, Mexico. Americandfgena1:99-114.CASO, ALFONSO1948 Definici6n del indio y lo indio. Americandigena :239-47CASO, ALFONSO, ET AL.1954 Me'todos resultadose la politicandigenistanMexico. ol. 4 ofMemorias elInstituto acional ndigenista.Mexico City: nstitutoNacional Indigenista.CHANCE, JOHN1986 La dinamica 6tnica nOaxaca colonial. n BARABAS AND BARTOLOME 1986,143-72.56


26/28

ETHNICITY IN RURAL MEXICOCOOK, SCOTT1974 Economic Anthropology: roblems n Theory,Method,and Analysis. n Hand-book f ocial ndCultural nthropology,dited y John .Honigmann,95-860.

Chicago, Ill.: Rand McNally.1981 Crafts,Capitalist Development, and Cultural Property n Oaxaca, Mexico.Inter-Americanconomicffairs5,no. 3:53-68.1982 Zapotectoneworkers:heDynamicsfRural imple ommodityroductionnMod-ern Mexican Capitalism.Washington, .C.: University ress of America.1983 Mestizo Palm Weaversamong the Zapotec: A Critical Re-Examinationof theAlbarradas' Enigma. NotasMesoamericanaso. 9 (Fall):39-46 (published bytheUniversidad de las Am6ricas n Puebla).1984 Peasant Economy,Rural Industry, nd Capitalist Development in the OaxacaValley,Mexico. Journal fPeasantStudies 2,no. 1:3-40.1993 Towarda New ParadigmforAnthropologyn Mexican Studies. Mexican tudieslEstudiosMexicanos , no. 2:303-36.COOK, SCOTTr,AND LEIGH BINFORD1990 Obliging eed:Rural ettyndustrynMexican apitalism.ustin:UniversityfTexas Press.COOK, SCOTT, AND MARTIN DISKIN, EDS.1975 Markets n Oaxaca. Austin:University f Texas Press.DE LA CRUZ, VICTOR1986 Reflexiones cerca de los movimientos tnopoliticos contemporaneosen Oa-xaca.' In BARABAS AND BARTOLOME 1986,423-46.DE LA FUENTE, JULIO1967 Ethnic Relationships. n M. NASH 1967, 32-48.DE LA GARZA, RODOLFO, ET AL.n.d. Willthe Real AmericanPlease Stand Up: A Comparison f PoliticalValuesamong

Mexicans,Cubans, PuertoRicans, nd Anglos n the UnitedStates. Manuscript.DIAZ-POLANCO, HECTOR1987 Etnia,naciony politica.Mexico City: Juan Pablos.DISKIN, MARTIN1986 'La economia de la comunidad etnica en Oaxaca. In BARABAS AND BARTOLOME,257-98.EBER, CHRISTINE, AND BRENDA ROSENBAUM1993 ThatWe May Serve BeneathYour Hands and Feet: Women Weavers nHighlandChiapas, Mexico. In J. NASH, ED., 1992,155-80.FOWERAKER, JOE, AND ANN L. CRAIG, EDS.1990 Popular ovementsndPoliticalhangenMexico. oulder,Colo.: LynneRienner.FRIEDLANDER, JUDITH

1975 BeingndiannHueyapan: Study f orceddentitynContemporaryexico. ewYork:St.Martin's.FRIEDMAN, JONATHAN1993 Order nd Disorder n Global Systems:A Sketch. ocialResearch 0, no. 2:205-34.GEERTZ, CLIFFORD1973 The nterpretationfCultures.New York:Basic Books.GRAHAM, RICHARD, ED.1990 ThedeaofRace n LatinAmerica,870-1940.ustin: University f Texas Press.GRINSPUN, RICARDO, AND MAXWELL A. CAMERON1993 The Political conomy f NorthAmerican ntegration: iversePerspectives, on-vergingriticisms.nThe oliticalconomyfNorth mericanree rade,dited yRicardoGrinspun nd Maxwell A. Cameron,3-26. New York:St.Martin's.GUIDIERI, REMO, FRANCESCO PELLIZZI, AND STANLEY J. TAMBIAH, EDS.1988 EthnicitiesndNations: rocessesfnterethnicelationsn LatinAmerica,outheastAsia,and thePacific.Austin:University f Texas Press (forthe RothkoChapel).HARRIS, MARVIN1980 Cultural aterialism:he truggleor SciencefCulture.ew York:Vintage.HARVEY, DAVID1989 The ConditionfPostmodernity.ondon: Basil Blackwell.

57


27/28

LatinAmerican esearch eviewHERNANDEZ DIAZ, JORGE1991 Ethnic and Class Relations n Oaxaca, Mexico. Ph.D. diss., University f Con-necticut.1992 Los chatinos, tnicidad organizacionocial. Colecci6n Del Nuestro Barro, no. 2.Oaxaca: Instituto e Investigaciones ociol6gicas,UniversidadAut6noma BenitoJuarez de Oaxaca.KAPLAN, FLORA S.1993 Mexican Museums in the Creation of a National Image inWorld Tourism. n

J. NASH, ED., 1993,103-25.KNIGHT, ALAN1990 Racism, Revolution, nd Indigenismo:Mexico, 1910-1940. n GRAHAM 1990,71-113.LEON-PORTILLA, MIGUEL1979 Etnias indigenas y cultura nacional mestiza. America ndigena 9, no. 3:601-21.LEWIS, OSCAR1960 Tepoztldn, illage nMexico.New York:Holt, Rinehart, nd Winston.1963 Life n a Mexican Village:Tepoztldn estudied. rbana: University f Illinois Press.1970 Anthropologicalssays.New York: Random House.LITTLE, DANIEL K.1993 Evidenceand Objectivitynthe Social Sciences. SocialResearch0,no.2:363-96.LOMNITZ-ADLER, CLAUDIO1979 Clase y etnicidad en Morelos: una nueva interpretaci6n. mericandigena39,no. 3:439-75.1992 Exitsromhe abyrinth:ulturenddeologyntheMexican ationalpace. erkeleyand Los Angeles: University fCaliforniaPress.MARGOLIES, BARBARA L.1975 Princesf he arth: ubculturaliversityna MexicanMunicipality.AASpecialPublicationno. 2. Washington,D.C.: American AnthropologicalAssociation.MARINO FLORES, ANSELMO1967 Indian Population and Its Identification. n M. NASH 1967,12-25.MURPHY, ARTHUR D., AND ALEX STEPICK1991 SocialnequalitynOaxaca:A HistoryfResistancendChange. hiladelphia,a.:Temple University ress.NAGENGAST, CAROLE, AND MICHAEL KEARNEY1990 Mixtec Ethnicity: ocial Identity, olitical Consciousness, and Political Activ-ism. LARR 25, no. 2:61-91.NASH, JUNE1993a Introduction:TraditionalArtsand Changing Markets n Middle America. In

J. NASH, ED., 1993,1-22.1993b Maya Household Production n the World Market:The Potters fAmatenangodel Valle, Chiapas, Mexico. In J. NASH, ED., 1993,127-54.NASH, JUNE, ED.1993 Craftsn theWorld arket: hempact fGlobalxchangenMiddle mericanrti-sans.Albany:StateUniversity f New York Press.NASH, MANNING, ED.1967 SocialAnthropology.ol.6 ofHandbookfMiddle mericanndians, eneral ditor,RobertWauchope.Austin:University fTexas Press.NOLASCO ARMAS, MARGARITA1972 Oaxaca indigena. erie Investigacionesno. 1. Oaxaca: Instituto e InvestigacionIntegraci6n ocial del Estado de Oaxaca.NOVELO, VICTORIA1976 Artesanias capitalismon Mexico.Mexico City:Secretarfa e Educaci6n Puiblicaand InstitutoNacional de Antropologia Historia.NUTINI, HUGO G.1976 Introduction. n EssaysonMexicanKinship, dited by Hugo G. Nutini,PedroCarrasco, nd JamesTaggart, -28. Pittsburgh,a.: UniversityfPittsburghress.RIDING, ALAN1984 Distant eighbors:Portraitf heMexicans. ew York:Knopf.58


28/28

ETHNICITY IN RURAL MEXICOROYCE, ANYA PETERSON1993 Music, Dance, and Fiesta: Definitionsof IsthmusZapotec Community. LatinAmericannthropologyeview, no.2:51-60.SCHRYER, FRANZ J.1990 EthnicityndClassConflictn RuralMexico.rinceton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress.SCOTT, GEORGE M., JR.1990 'A Resynthesis f the Primordial nd Circumstantial pproachesto EthnicGroupSolidarity:Towards an ExplanatoryModel. Ethnic nd Racial Studies 13, no.2:147-71.SMITH, ANTHONY D.1981 The EthnicRevival.Cambridge:Cambridge University ress.STEPHEN, LYNN1991 ZapotecWomen. ustin:University fTexas Press.1993 Weaving n the Fast Lane: Class, Ethnicity,nd Gender in Zapotec CraftCom-

mercialization. n J. NASH, ED., 1993,25-58.STOLCKE, VERENA1991 ConqueredWomen. NACLA Report n theAmericas 4, no. 5:23-28.VARESE, STEPHAN1988 Multiethnicitynd Hegemonic Construction:ndian Plans and the Future. nGUIDIERI, PELLIZZI, AND TAMBIAH 1988, 7-77WAGLEY, CHARLES, AND MARVIN HARRIS1974 'A Typologyof Latin AmericanSubcultures. n Contemporaryultures nd Soci-eties fLatinAmerica,d ed., edited byDwight Heath, 35-58. New York:RandomHouse.WHITECOTTON, JOSEPH1977 TheZapotecs: rinces, riests,nd Peasants.Norman: University f Oklahoma Press.WOLF, ERIC1956 'Aspects ofGroup Relations na Complex Society:Mexico. American nthropolo-gist 58:1056-78.1958 The Virgin of Guadalupe: A Mexican National Symbol. Journal fAmericanFolklore 1, no. 279:34-38.WORSLEY, PETER1984 The ThreeWorlds: ulture nd World evelopment. hicago, ll.: University f Chi-cago Press.

59

Documents

Ethnicity and Economy in Rural Mexico. A Critique of Indigenista Approach