This article was downloaded by: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ]On: 12 March 2013, At: 07:54Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Latin American Cultural Studies: TravesiaPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjla20

Magical, Mystical: ‘The Royal Tour’ of Alejandro ToledoVíctor VichVersion of record first published: 13 Mar 2007.

To cite this article: Víctor Vich (2007): Magical, Mystical: ‘The Royal Tour’ of Alejandro Toledo, Journal of Latin AmericanCultural Studies: Travesia, 16:1, 1-10

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13569320601156712

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Vıctor Vich

MAGICAL, MYSTICAL: ‘THE ROYAL TOUR’

OF ALEJANDRO TOLEDO

An elegant limousine enters the Government Palace in Lima. The marching honourguard, the Husares of Junın, receives the guest while a crowd of curious people in thePlaza Mayor look on, trying to get as close as possible. As soon as President Toledoappears at the main door, everyone imagines that an important dignitary has arrivedat the end of a long red carpet. The atmosphere is festive, though with a touch ofsolemnity. Who could it be? It is not a head of state, nor is it the United NationsSecretary-General. It is also clearly not Pope Benedict XVI. It is only Peter Greenberg(who is that?), a modest American journalist who is in charge of filming a traveldocumentary on Peru: ‘The Royal Tour’.

This image is a useful starting point to begin theorizing what the nations of thecontemporary world are becoming and to visualize more clearly the desperateperformative acts through which Peru, as nation-state, seeks to present itself as anattractive commodity for the world market (Vich, 2003). In this essay, I maintain thatToledo decided to receive Greenberg with such disproportionate attention because aset of power relations that go beyond his government – and himself – have placed himin this position. Beyond the fact that tourism may be considered today an importantagent of development, this initial scene also reveals a clear relation of subordination.

Indeed, in late capitalism, national states have ceased to be ‘sovereign’ constructsand have become simply functional parts of a world economic system that engulfs themin part through capital flows over which they have very little control. We know that themain political and economic decisions exceed the grasp of national states and that thegreat world powers are constituted on the basis of transnational corporations thatsubordinate all they find in their path.

Nevertheless, this does not mean that the nation-states are disappearing or thatthey lack any political function. Rather, they take part in very complex processesthrough which national states redefine their functions and assume new roles accordingto certain imperatives of the world system.

It is worth pausing and reflecting for a moment on the fact that the President of theRepublic decided to play the role of amateur tour guide for a few days. In my opinion,this provides the most conclusive evidence that a peripheral region like Peru has clearlyand explicitly been affected by the ‘coloniality of power’. This is the work of a newapparatus, with a global reach, that has as its goal the calculated ‘invention’ of subalternidentities in order to continue to extract limitless gain from them. In this sense, onecould say that ‘Alejandro Toledo’ is not Alejandro Toledo and ‘Peter Greenberg’ is notPeter Greenberg. Rather, they are figures with their specific roles to play, embodyingtwo differentiated entities: Peru and the global market, the new order before which theInca Toledo, the old-but-new Pachacutec, surrenders everything in his Empire.

Journal of Latin American Cultural Studies, Vol. 16, No. 1 March 2007, pp. 1-10

ISSN 1356-9325/print 1469-9575 online q 2007 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/13569320601156712

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

07:

54 1

2 M

arch

201

3

‘The Royal Tour’ is a television programme co-produced by the Discovery Channel,the Travel Channel, and Seck Six Productions. Each programme is meant to promotetourism in a particular country, though the programmes are distinguished by the fact thatin them the president, prime minister, or king of the particular country is charged withthe task of revealing the marvels of the country, through interaction with the journalist-tourist.1 In the case of Peru, the production of ‘The Royal Tour’ was initiatedby the Peruvian government through its agency, Prom Peru.2 In reality, we find a veryconventional product in which we see the standard images, precisely those that thetourist gaze wishes to see over and over again. However, these images are very importantas they allow us to theorize the different ways in which the country discursivelyconstructs highly de-politicized artefacts like the ‘exotic’ and ‘magical’. I maintain thatthis model of representation is simply a response to a ‘demand for exoticism’ articulatedby hegemonic centres and which Peru has decided to satisfy at any cost.

We already know that before it homogenizes cultures, the contemporary marketencourages and promotes ‘cultural difference’ as part of a strategy over whose controlpowerful actors compete. Gradually, the political power of ‘cultural difference’(in relativizing ‘our own’, as a sign of new alternatives and as a critique of monologicaland ethnocentric discourses) no longer scares the hegemonic centres and instead isbeing systematically used as a way to create greater flexibility in supplying products in ahighly competitive market. In other words: the world is no longer presented as a placeof political struggle or of identities that seek more social rights and greater access toresources, but simply as a place where diversity is celebrated as a kind of postcardaesthetics and emptied of all political content. Gisela Canepa y Rossana Reguillo havesummarized it in the following manner:

We only seem comfortable when those ‘others’ and their cultural manifestationscan be appreciated as objects of consumption and aesthetic pleasure. But once theyreveal themselves as political actors with their own interests and dictates, culturaldifference and diversity are no longer tolerated. (Canepa, 2004: 31)

If the concept of diversity does not take into account the dimension of power anddoes not work through its formulation towards making visible the conflictsgenerated by the interaction of diverse cultures, it will not have a great impact oranalytical viability, and condemns itself to becoming a mechanism useful only forselling world music, indigenous objects or culinary repertoires. (Reguillo, 2005: 99)

As one might assume, ‘The Royal Tour’ is inscribed within precisely such a dynamicand it is no exaggeration to suggest that the ways in which tourism in Peru is organizedare disclosed here. This does not, of course, undermine the importance of tourism butonly suggests a change in the way we see and understand it. Thus, in this essay I opt todefine tourism as a discursive machinery that produces representations of the nationthat have important consequences on the ways in which history and cultural identity areconceptualized. In other words, in producing a narrative of nation, tourism has a greatimpact on social imaginaries – and on the educational system – and on relations withthe outside world. We would be mistaken if we considered it as an innocent processthat had no direct effects on the geopolitical division of the world and on developmentprogrammes.

L A T I N A M E R I C A N C U L T U R A L S T U D I E S2

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

07:

54 1

2 M

arch

201

3

But let us turn to the video. Its first images reveal some of Peru’s geography andshow a number of scenes of running feet. Little by little we realize that these belong toAlejandro Toledo who is dressed as a peasant (or as a festival Inca) and who finally stopsat the summit of an Andean peak, with an expression on his face that is nothing short ofmystical. The image suggests perhaps a scene of a hacendado or landlord looking over histerritory, his gaze serving as a sign of his power over his land. Yet, the image seemsalmost comical until we understand it from a more political perspective: throughoutthe video, President Toledo is represented as a good leader entrusted with the conductof a nation that needs guiding patriarchs ( padres tutelares) and that continues toanxiously search for Incas. Toledo is looking at the country and seems to proclaim thatwe all must exit from underdevelopment.

However, even if we conclude that Toledo looks little like a hacendado (Toledoresembles more closely the Andean figure known as brichero, or pub-dwelling ‘gringa-hunter’), we find something political beyond mere promotion of tourism. Indeed, adeeper analysis demonstrates that the video has the goal not only of constructing animage that will ‘sell’ Peru to the outside world but also of articulating a message thatwill legitimize the government and the president, and offset the many political errorsand political malaises that have plagued Toledo’s term in office. ‘Promote Peru,promote oneself’ might serve to suggest the interchangeable aims of this kind oftextuality.

Given Toledo’s particular personal history, Peruvians know all too well that henever managed to integrate himself into Peruvian society and that he is ill-versed in theprevailing codes of social groups. Looked down on by the upper classes and neverembraced by the poor, Toledo tried to create his own discourse, although his attemptsoften seemed trivial and could not create a broad sense of solidarity and citizeninclusion. He and his government were incapable of constructing a new culturalpolitics that would combat the existing racism and found new political imaginaries.While it is true that the work of his wife, Eliane Karp, sought to put indigenous rightson the agenda, it is equally true that beyond the scandals over misused funds this workwas not an organic part of the government but simply the isolated acts of a verycontroversial first lady.

Nevertheless, the video maintains that Alejandro Toledo is the ‘first president in500 years of modern history who is a descendant of the Incas’. In this way, ‘nation’ and‘subject’ become interchangeable and, thus, before the video shows the country, itbegins with a brief introduction to the political leader. The facts are familiar, but herethey are part of a chain that link by link leads to the construction of a character that issomewhat messianic and certainly liberal (invoking ‘freedom and democracy’): fromshoe-shine boy to challenger of a dictator, from poor rural boy to a Stanford Ph.D.,from migrant to president of Peru.

After the scene with the limousine, Toledo gives Greenberg a tour of the palace andoffers to show him around the entire country. The entire relationship between the twohas a colonial air about it and it is reminiscent of certain moments in Peruvian history.It is something like an updated story of the ransom of the Inca Atahualpa: ‘I will giveyou two rooms of gold, three of silver and you must promise to deliver me fromunderdevelopment.’ Thus, the entire performance of Toledo aims at ‘inventing’ acountry that does not exist, a Peru that is ‘magical’ and ‘mystical’, the basic characteristicsthat the new international tourism dictates.

T H E ‘ R O Y A L T O U R ’ O F A L E J A N D R O T O L E D O 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

07:

54 1

2 M

arch

201

3

Zizek says that we have reached a new stage of capitalism in which production isgreatly ‘de-materialized’ and in which we are obliged to consume not merely culturalproducts but ‘lifestyles’. In this sense, the emergence of a ‘New Age’ trend must beunderstood as a ideological process that appeals to a supposed ‘return’ to a natural statesince human ties have been systematically commodified.

In cultural capitalism, the relation between an object and its symbol has beeninverted: the images no longer represent the product, but rather the productrepresents an image. We buy a product – say an organic apple – because itrepresents the image of a healthy lifestyle . . . . What we are seeing today, thedefinitive trait of postmodern capitalism, is the direct commodification ofexperience itself: in the market, products (material objects which are possessed)are being purchased less while life experiences like sex, food, communication,cultural consumption, and participation in a particular lifestyle are being purchasedmore. Material objects serve only to support this experience, which is increasinglyoffered for free in order to seduce us into buying the actual experientialcommodities. (Zizek, 2003:120–2, translated from the Spanish)

If capitalism has destroyed many of the links between subjects and the links betweenthe subject and his or her historical tradition (which is converted into a simplephotograph that invisibilizes the constitutive antagonisms), then we should understandNew Age discourse as a mechanism that is capable of ‘returning’ to the subject the hopeof a new, firm place to stand. This does not involve, of course, a link with his or herpeers or (much less) with the antagonistic past. What is being promoted today is therelationship with a ‘natural’ space, always depoliticized, in which the subject believeshere or she will find some guarantees. Of course, none of this is natural and much of itis expensive, but the ‘New Age’ is always ready to pay for it.

In ‘The Royal Tour’, we see the constant staging of nature and of those subjectsimmersed in it (Peruvians) as examples of a harmonic interaction in which traditionshave not been lost and are in contact with ‘pure’ elements that make the country a trulytranscendental experience. The illusion of purity and the static characteristics ofPeruvian life are present throughout the narrative that ‘The Royal Tour’ constructs,and there are innumerable examples that we could discuss. Perhaps the clearestexample, however, takes place in Ollantaytambo when Toledo and Eliane try toexplain an Inca aqueduct to Greenberg: ‘The Spanish could not destroy these stones,they are a great symbol of Peruvian society’, explains (or fantasizes) Eliane.

Apparently, far from marking fractures, loss and plunder, Peru is here representedas a stable nation, solid and sure of itself. This is an almost metaphysical idea of culturalresistance that, by distancing itself from the subject of the present, opts to invent a newcultural interpretation based on a decontextualized image. However, these stereotypesare not just spoken by the wife of the president but also by the narrative voice, thevoice of the world market. In the middle of the Yagua indigenous community, we hearthe narrator say unproblematically: ‘This is the first time that a helicopter has landed inthis place.’ Of course, one could make precisely the same declaration about any highschool in Boston or any French lycee but this is of little importance since, as we haveargued, the main objective here is the construction of an exotic image of the country,anchored in tradition yet outside history, and converted into a kind of ‘living museum’.

L A T I N A M E R I C A N C U L T U R A L S T U D I E S4

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

07:

54 1

2 M

arch

201

3

The encounter with the Yagua indigenous people is important, moreover, becausehere we can observe the relationship that the Peruvian state maintains with subalternculture, and thus it appears even more deserving of the approving external gaze of theglobal market. One can see idyllic images of children running through the jungle andsplashing in rivers that are free from the dangers of industrial polluters or loggingmafias. The president and his wife present themselves as the agents who bring‘civilization’ (education and vaccines), even though in reality the Yaguas are laughingand know that this is not the main reason that these illustrious guests have arrived intheir community. Greenberg is more interested in the indigenous blowguns and largeboas that at one point wrap around his body, allowing us to appreciate the ominouspresence of nature. ‘People keep boas in their homes as pets’, Toledo tells Greenbergin an impressive leap of imaginative interpretation.

In the city of Trujillo a similar scene takes place. A helicopter flies over the citadelof Chan–Chan and then over the sea of Huanchaco where several caballitos de totora(small boats used to ride the surf) await the president and his important guest. Thescene is staged as a ‘surprise visit’ by the Peruvian president to a fishing village. Thecaballitos de totora capture the camera’s attention and Toledo does not miss the chanceto inform us that the ancient Peruvians rode the waves and surfed long before, andmuch better, than the Hawaiians that the world knows today. Later, in the same place,Toledo prepares a (very) natural plate of cebiche (made from raw fish) to showGreenberg just how easy and good life is in that area. However, the camera does notfocus on those eating the delicacy but rather follows Toledo who walks up to agathering crowd and passes out small pieces of fish to outstretched hands.

This image of a leader at one with his people is also presented in Cuzco when alandslide has swept away some of the property of inhabitants of the area and damagedthe railroad tracks close Machu Picchu. Here the video shows Toledo as someone whoknows how to make decisions, acts quickly and feels the suffering of the people.Anyone who lived in Peru during the past few years might be surprised at such arepresentation. Yet, even in the video the image is short-lived once we see Toledo’ssolution: he brings in the helicopters of the armed forces with one clear objective, toget the trapped tourists out as quickly as possible.

It is also in Cuzco where, for our purposes, the most important scene takes place. Itinvolves Intihuatana, a large stone sundial located at the centre of the citadel of MachuPicchu. As is well known, a few years ago this Inca artefact suffered a severe fractureduring an accident that took place during the filming of a Peruvian beer commercial. Thisincident provoked a public scandal, though, so far, there has been no punishment ofthose responsible. In any case, due to this accident the Cuzco authorities decided to placea rope around the stone to prevent and prohibit people from touching it.

Nevertheless, in this video we observe something very different. President Toledodisregards the regulation and invites Greenberg to ignore the rope boundary and bothmen, with their eyes closed, kiss Intihuatana. In the fantasies of the new internationaltourism, we might say that both are fulfilling the desire of globalization. They seal amagnetic link between nature and a fetishized past. Now, after this pact, both cancalmly return to their daily routines.

But we should say more about this ‘crossing’ of the rope-line and this transgressionof the law. We should say something regarding the historical consequences (for thegovernability of the country) of the fact that throughout history it has been the Peruvian

T H E ‘ R O Y A L T O U R ’ O F A L E J A N D R O T O L E D O 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

07:

54 1

2 M

arch

201

3

state that has been the primary violator of the very laws it hands down. This old custom(that goes back to the colonial period) is the main reason why the principle of authorityhas been lost so completely and why the law has ceased to be a common bond thatarticulates community life. If in Peru politics and that state are in total disrepute it isbecause Peruvians constantly observe images like this one: authorities who believe thatholding public office exonerates them from following the law.

This transgression is even more serious when we consider that this video is one thatpromotes international tourism. A geopolitical commentary is urgently required asit the very president of the republic who ‘invites’ a tourist to break the law, thusproviding one more sign of the relationship of subordination constructed betweenthe two characters. As mentioned at the outset, Peter Greenberg is a symbol of theglobal market and before him/it there is no other option but to surrender everything,including those things we thought we had put safely beyond reach. In this video, thetourist becomes a special kind of subject, given a super-citizenship that places himabove law and community. It is clear that we observe a shameful manner of promotingPeru as this involves assuming the position of a country truly colonized and whoseagency is reduced to satisfying the desire of the colonizer.

In any case, this is not the last image of the video. Subsequently, we see all themain characters (Toledo, Eliane, Greenberg) mounted on elegant caballos de paso(Peruvian horses), then driving dune-buggies through the Pisco desert, and bathinghappily with sea lions in the Paracas ecological reserve, another place put off-limitsby the authorities. Nature, spiritual magnetism, physical adventure and historicalpatrimony are the elements on display and Toledo intends desperately to promotethem. On display is a ‘stable’ nation with a political authority that is seemingly cloakedby consensus and approval, yet finds it necessary to promote itself.

The video concludes perhaps inevitably in Cabana, the small Andean town in themountains of Huaraz where Toledo was born and spent his childhood. Descendingfrom the helicopter, almost as homage to (or transubstantiation of) Pope John Paul II,Toledo kneels respectfully and kisses the ground before the international cameras. Thisis the image of the poor boy who has returned, triumphant, with an importantinternational guest under his arm. For this reason, the local authorities welcome themwith musical groups and a festive celebration. Here it is neither culture nor historythat we are witnessing: it is a joyful people welcoming its victorious son. Toledo,predictably, finds no better phrase to offer than the following: ‘I will do all that ispossible so that this land gives rise to a new president of Peru.’

Conclusions

It is estimated that the Peruvian state spent close to US$ 300,000 in the production of‘The Royal Tour’, and such expenditure is justified by the projected income generatedby increased tourism. Indeed, in the contract it was agreed that the video wouldbe shown, during a two-year period, over one hundred times on international cabletelevision channels including Discovery, Travel Channel, NBC, CNBC, NISNBS andon famous programmes like ‘Oprah’ and ‘The View’, among others.

It is important to add that this video was filmed during Holy Week of 2004,between 7 and 12 April. It is interesting to note that during this period, the popularity

L A T I N A M E R I C A N C U L T U R A L S T U D I E S6

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

07:

54 1

2 M

arch

201

3

of President Toledo had fallen to 6%, the lowest approval rating of his term, and socialunease was widespread. No other president of the republican period has reached such alow point. The notion of a ‘vacant presidency’ was bandied about often, and streetprotests and social movements led to some very visible deaths.3 This is not the place fora detailed discussion of the troubled government of Toledo but I would like tounderline the enormous frustration that his administration provoked among manyPeruvians who hoped that the democratic transition would prove more solid, lessimprovised, less fearful and less inefficient.

Carlos Monsivais says that in the contemporary world tradition returns to thepublic sphere only as ‘theatre’ for the tourists.4 This is more than a clever phrase whenwe understand it from a postcolonial perspective. The exotification of Peru isundoubtedly a new form of colonialism, by which I mean the construction of a systemof cultural and political domination that, in the context of capitalist globalization,places peripheral countries in the position of responding passively to the dictatesarticulated by hegemonic centres.

We find ourselves, then, before a project that is by no means innocent and thattransforms the antagonisms of history into folkloric symbols. Social identities aresystematically de-historicized and the country is converted into a great theatre, orworse, a fetish. Media representation replaces the past and the only thing that mattersis spectacle, as even politics has been ‘spectacularized’. In this video, spectacles areproduced by the constant emphasis place on stereotyped Andean rituals that are whatthe ‘external gaze’, the gaze of power, has come to take in.

Mignolo (1999) argues that ‘coloniality’ is a discursive machinery that producessubalternities and that reproduces social exclusion through representations and politicalapparatuses. In this case, subalterns are invented as mystical and exotic objects butnever as political subject. The demands of the world market, the violent dictates of thehegemonic Other, impose this desire and construct representations that oblige specifickinds of subordinations and performances. What is interesting and terrifying about‘The Royal Tour’ is that the state, the market and private enterprise find themselvesfused together not only because they share the same discourse but because theyfunction as a single entity.

Thus, we are not that far from the ideas of Marx when he declared that individualshave become slaves to a ‘power alien’ to them. Today, that power is none other thanthe global market and, in this case, a globalized discourse that empties history and turnsit into a simple and deceptive simulacrum. It is incredible to witness Toledo and hisguest Greenberg fly over the dramatic Nazca lines and hear the president respond to thereporter’s question about what function these lines may have played in ancient Peru.Toledo responds easily that these lines may well have functioned as ‘a landing strip forextraterrestrials’. As one can see by now, history no longer matters and the presenteven less. What matters is business and, overall, moving the country towards adifferent and more viable position in the world economy. The imperative of the worldmarket is simple: empty history, sell the country.

Be that as it may, from an academic perspective, viewing ‘The Royal Tour’ is noless terrifying as it implies confronting the limits of various categories of culturalcriticism that we have been using with excessive optimism. That is, the celebration of‘cultural diversity’, the political construction of the ‘impenetrability of the other’ andthe idea of the nation as a ‘performative device’ appear as weapons that are also well

T H E ‘ R O Y A L T O U R ’ O F A L E J A N D R O T O L E D O 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

07:

54 1

2 M

arch

201

3

suited for a neocolonial discourse. We could almost say that we share the sametheoretical tools, another sign of how dangerous is the territory on which we tread.

It is interesting to see at the end of the video how Toledo, who was an example ofthe ‘other’ about which we have spoken so much in contemporary cultural studies, hasbecome so invested, upon his return to Cabana, with the signs of cultural assimilation.These signs refer not only to individual options or private characteristics but, asrepresentative of a nation and head of the Peruvian state, they illustrate that absolutelypassive manner in which the country responds to the command of the internationalsystem. Indeed, no subaltern speaks in the video, no one represents him or herself, andall are systematically spoken for by Eliane, Toledo, Greenberg, or that voice off-camera that represents them mercilessly. Speaking more theoretically (followingSpivak), we can say that Toledo does not speak either in this video: he is spoken for bythe Other, the discourse that has imposed itself and is reproduced passively through hisperformance.

We should emphasize that ‘The Royal Tour’ is not very different from thepromotional materials that the previous governments of Peru have produced throughthe agency PromPeru; the continuity is clear. What we always see is an ‘aestheticizedspatiality’ (Harvey, 1998: 337) in which, generally, all historical depth has been lostand it is impossible to find a narrative that would interpellate the visitors in any othermanner.

This is not the place to analyse the subaltern strategy of appropriating this touristdiscourse, nor the place to describe the sets of local experiences with otherassumptions. What matters for the moment is to make clear that, like any otherdiscursive machinery, tourism could produce a narrative of history that is moredignified and better conceived. In other words: tourism is not just the business of theMinistry of International Commerce but also a problem of cultural politics that shouldinvolve the participation of diverse social actors. To consider tourism as a purelyeconomic agent is to overlook all the consequences that its discursive production has inthe contemporary world.

Little or nothing is said about this today. Far from showing how the antagonisms ofthe Peruvian past contribute to shaping a present that is so un-exportable, the discourseof tourism ignores the problem and opts for the path of least resistance. The imageserves to set identity in the market (Harvey, 1998: 319). Today, all identities dependon images that can maintain them and thus, far from representing subject or objects,such images produce them. Reality has become pure ideology: the ideology no longer‘covers’ or mediates anything, it is the foundation itself of reality and its constitutiveagent. It is reality itself, reality that has become ideological (Zizek, 1992).

I think that the best way to explain this situation can be found in characterizingthe state of contemporary culture based on its strongly ‘cynical’ component(Sloterdijk, Zizek, Ubilluz). This does not mean only that we find ourselves before asystem of global organization that has commodified everything and, by divorcing itselffrom history, has opted for a postcard image. Rather, this means showing thatcynicism – understood as institutionalized rationality – is the cultural nucleus ofcapitalist globalization. And thus it is the main producer of discourses that force thesubject to ‘believe’ and ‘enjoy’ a fantasy that is emptied of all historical antagonismsand that sells all to the highest bidder. The past is useful only when it is profitable andpliable.

L A T I N A M E R I C A N C U L T U R A L S T U D I E S8

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

07:

54 1

2 M

arch

201

3

Understood as ‘that knowledge that is hidden’ or ‘that which is known but denied’,cynicism is a central component of the contemporary neoliberal culture. Cynicism isthe discourse of denial through which Peru has become subject to the ‘demand for theexotic’ imposed by the global market. Life is held hostage by the image, reality byideology, and history by the market. Peruvians know that what ‘The Royal Tour’ showsis false, that the indigenous people do not live in that way, that Peru is not like that, butthis does not matter as business justifies all. Today, what matters is responding passivelyto the commands of the outside (Be exotic so that we can come and see you!) and in this waywe continue to be trapped in a clearly colonial relationship. Under the singularimperative of doing business, we end up counterfeiting ourselves, and convinced of thecynical conclusion that we have no other hand left to play.

Addendum

During the military dictatorship of Odria, one phrase characterized his regime: ‘onecannot eat democracy’. With this phrase, the military chief tried to justify a politicalsystem that also failed to give Peruvians something to eat and that became one of thedarkest and most despicable regimes in Peruvian history. In the same way, one couldfinish reading this article and reach a claim formulated with similar terms: ‘one cannoteat theory and if tourism brings some income then it is fine that it continues operatingin this fashion’.

Indeed, we find ourselves before a difficult dilemma. When do we use our historyto ‘attract’ resources without betraying ourselves? In other words, how do we use theintercultural potential of diverse Peruvian identities without falling into the trap oferoticizing ourselves to satisfy the desire of the more powerful? Is it possible thattourism could articulate a better and more interesting narrative based on the reality ofthe country? Is it imaginable that tourism could become a space of reflection in whichvisitors could be more conscious of the antagonisms and possibilities of the present?

One thing seems certain: the extreme pragmatism that is being imposed uponus (which could well be summarized by the phrase ‘act without thinking, just do it’) isunacceptable. We should imagine and propose other more creative mechanisms withwhich to narrate our history (and our identities) in order to introduce them politicallyon the global stage. Spivak (1996) speaks of ‘strategic essentialism’, that is, a way inwhich supposedly fixed and stable identities can be manipulated to gain greater rights.What I would like to suggest is that performance can be as much a weapon of liberationas an iron cage. Tourism should be a space that articulates state promotion and privateinitiatives with the participation of local populations. Tourism can no longer be theventriloquist’s story of a demand for exoticism that serves to silence and makeinvisible. This is a question of options, of cultural politics, of cultural agents and actorswho are committed to not resigning themselves to a cynicism that is all too widespread.

Notes

1 So far, four programmes of this type have been completed: Jordan (2002), New Zealand(2002), Peru (2005) and Jamaica (2005).

T H E ‘ R O Y A L T O U R ’ O F A L E J A N D R O T O L E D O 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

07:

54 1

2 M

arch

201

3

2 As one might suspect, the script was written in Lima by Peruvian officials but alwaystaking into account the official instructions of the producers. Direct testimoniesconfirm that the negotiations between the various actors were constant but that at themoment of recording the programme, it was clear that President Toledo wished toplease the North American producers, going against the advice of many of his own pressadvisers. This is hardly of marginal importance as many of the images analysed here willdemonstrate.

3 For example, the assassination of the former mayor of Ilave in Puno took place aroundthis time. A chronology of the government can be found in Grompone (2005).

4 I noted this phrase during a good conversation that we had in the Instituto de EstudiosPeruanos on the morning of 22 July 2005.

References

Canepa, Gisella. 2004. Los antropologos y los sucesos de Ilave. Quehacer 148 (Mayo–junio):26–31.

Grompone, Romeo. 2005. La escision inevitable. Partidos y movimientos en el Peru actual. Lima:IEP.

Harvey, David. 1998. La condicion posmoderna. Investigaciones sobre los orıgenes del cambiocultural. Buenos Aires: Amorrortu.

Mignolo, Walter. 1999. Diferencia colonial y razon post-occidental. In La reconstruccion delas ciencias sociales, edited by Santiago Castro-Gomez. Bogota: Instituto Pensar.

Reguillo, Rossana. 2005. Horizontes fragmentados. Comunicacion, cultura, pospolıtica. El desordenglobal y sus figuras. Guadalajara: ITESO.

Spivak, Gaytri. 1996. Subaltern talk. In The Spivak Reader, edited by Donna Landry, andGerald Maclean. New York: Routledge.

Vich, Cynthia. 2003. 29 de julio de 2001: Toledo en el Cusco o Pachacutec en el mercadoglobal. In Batallas por la memoria: antagonismos de la promesa peruana, edited by MaritaHamman, Santiago Lopez Maguina, Gonzalo Portocarrero, and Vıctor Vich. Lima:Red para el desarrollo de las Ciencias Sociales en el Peru.

Zizek, Slavoj. 1992. El sublime objeto de la ideologıa. Mexico DF: Siglo XXI.Zizek, Slavoj. 2003. A proposito de Lenin: polıtica y subjetividad en el capitalismo tardıo. Buenos

Aires: Atuel.

Victor Vich has a PhD in Latin American Literature from Georgetown University, USA.

He is currently Associate Professor at Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru and

researcher at Instituto de Estudios Peruanos (IEP). He has published several articles in

different journals and three books: El discurso de la calle: los comicos ambulantes y las

tensiones de la modernidad en el Peru (Lima, 2001), El Canibal es el otro: violencia y cultura

en el Peru contemporaneo (Lima, 2002) y Oralidad y poder (Bogota, 2004).

L A T I N A M E R I C A N C U L T U R A L S T U D I E S1 0

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

07:

54 1

2 M

arch

201

3