Mariátegui and the Development of Indigenista Literature in Peru.

Sandro Mariátegui Chiappe, hijo del Amauta, escucha atentamente a Jorge Aliaga Cacho.

 

By Jorge Aliaga Cacho

My first point when dealing with the topic of Mariátegui’s influence on the development of an indigenista literature in Peru is that during Mariategui’s time there existed a plethora of options to express the literary forms of Andean literature in Peru. The collection of indigenista publications available at the time certainly suggests the existence of an effervescent confrontation among Peruvian intellectuals in relation to their consideration of indigenismo. Evidently, each discourse, each line of thought, each interpretation, represented the traditions and philosophies which they professed. These writers set the scene for an eclectic and diverse ideological debate embraced by distinct sectors of Peruvian society.

Intellectuals like José de la Rivaguero and Victor Andrés Belaúnde, jointly with the Peruvian state, represented the dominant classes in Peru. Luís E.Valcarcel represented the populist feelings embraced by a considerable number of writers at the time, and José Carlos Mariátegui and the group Kuntur of Cusco represented the new Marxist ideas which started to enter the ideological field of Peru in the twenties notably with the publication of Mariátegui’s “Siete ensayos de interpretación de la realidad peruana”, in 1928. Therefore we can assert that Indigenismo represented from its origin the opportunity of a pluralist approach which I consider can be summarised in three stands: Indigenismo of the Peruvian state, populist indigenismo, and socialist indigenismo. I will construct my arguments following the path of Mariátegui: socialist indigenismo. I will try to discover how Mariátegui’s socialism affected the view of Indigenista literature in Peru. I will also consider the other distinct views which have contributed to the development of the debate. Like Mariátegui a partisan convinced and confessed Marxist, I will look at their contradictions and by mirroring them in the realm of society, I will attempt to evaluate the influence of Mariátegui in the development of the Indigenita genre.

I have considered it important to start our study by sketching the oral literary practices of Pre-Columbian Peru. Mariátegui argued that the literature of the Spaniards in colonial Peru is not Peruvian but Spanish. I will, therefore, assess some Inca oral traditions which according to many forms part of the literary tradition of Peru before the Spaniards arrived. I will also look at the work carried out by the Indian chroniclers Garcilaso de la Vega and Guamán Poma de Ayala whom I consider, in different degrees, expressed the beginning of a literary mestizaje.

Mariátegui held the view that literary production in Peru during the colonial period was not Peruvian. This was not, according to Mariátegui because this literature was written in Spanish but because it had been created with Spanish feelings and Spanish soul. I will deal with the literary expressions of Colonial Peru, the influence of Góngora, and in particular with the work of Mariano Melgar to whom Mariátegui refers as the first Peruvian literary expression.

Mariátegui’s views on the problem of the Indian were distinctive. He proposed the abolition of big states, the protection, and promotion of the collective land tenancy. Mariátegui argued distinctively for the elimination of feudal features in agrarian relations. Mariátegui studied the Indian communities and found in the Ayllu Quechua the substance of ‘Inca comunismo’. Mariátegui’s arguments were taken as irreverent by the mos hesitant representatives of Hispanic-American marxism and generated a heated polemic at the time. However, Mariategui’s ideas, as we will see, did not represent a ‘complete utopia’. Mariátegui envisaged the preservation of the best traditions of the Inca past but enriched with the contributions of modern socialism and Marxist praxis. Nevertheless, I recognize some exaggeration in Mariátegui’s idealized view of pre-Columbian Peru.

I will examine the polemic which Mariátegui sustained with Luis Alberto Sánchez. Sánchez, as a member of APRA, brought to the debate the ideological temperament proposed by Antenor Orrego and Haya de la Torre, foremost figures of APRA. I will focus in APRA’s view’s of the Indian, Luis Alberto Sánchez’s view, to create the anti-thesis of Mariátegui’s paper on the problem of the races which Mariátegui sent to be discussed at the First International Conference of Latin American Communists celebrated in Buenos Aires in 1929.

Mariátegui argued that: ‘el dualismo quechua-español del Perú, no resuelto aún, hace de la literatura nacional un caso de excepción que no es posible estudiar con el método valido para las literaturas orgánicamente nacionales, nacidas y crecidas sin la intervención de una conquista. Nuestro caso es diverso del de aquellos pueblos de América, donde la misma dualidad no existe, o existe en términos inocuos. La individualidad de la literatura Argentina, por ejemplo, está en estricto acuerdo con una definición vigorosa de la personalidad nacional (“Siete ensayos de interpretación de la realidad peruana”, p.236). Analogously I will argue that the Indian in Argentina, and particularly in its literature, displays the most bland representation of native Americans in the literary tradition of the American continent.

I will interpret Mariátegui’s view of the futuristas, Clorinda Mattos de Turner, and the Colonidas. These pre-Indigenista literary traditions were also interpreted by Victor Andrés Belaúnde in his book “La realidad nacional” published in November 1930, in Paris, two years after the publication of “Siete ensayos de interpretación de la realidad peruana” and a few months after Mariátegui’s death. Victor Andrés Belaúnde in his book, “La realidad nacional”, an immediate replica of Mariátegui’s “Siete ensayos de interpretación de la realidad peruana”. In fact the work was partially published between 1929 and 1930 in the magazine “Mercurio Peruano”. I will compare both writers discourse of some aspects of the literary development and particularly their assessment of the pre-indigenista tradition in Peruvian literature.

The fine quality of the polemic sustained between Mariátegui and Belaúnde, as much as the shared respect for each other's arguments, stimulates the examination and comparison of some sensitive aspects of their discord.

Victor Andrés Belaúnde wrote:

“La distancia ideológica que me separa del autor –toda la que media entre el cristiaismo integral y el socialismo integral- y con la evidente injusticia con que trata a la generación a la que pertenezco, imponen de mi parte, al estudiar sus Siete ensayos de interpretación de la realidad peruana, un deber de mayor imparcialidad. Deber fácil en este caso. Tengo el espíritu abierto a la admiración, y la despiertan sinceramente el talento y la obra de Mariátegui”. (Belaúnde, Victor Andrés, “La realidad peruana”, p.1).

Mariátegui on his part wrote:

“Declaro sin escrúpulos que traigo a la exégesis literaria todas mis pasiones o ideas políticas aunque dado el descrédito y degeneración de este vocablo en el lenguaje corriente, debo agregar que la política en mi es filosofía y religión’. Explaininig further his position Mariátegui continued: ‘Pero esto no quiere decir que considere el fenómeno literario o artístico desde el punto de vista extra-estético, sino mi concepción estética es unimisma en la intimidad de mi conciencia con mis concepciones morales, políticas y religiosas, y que, sin dejar de ser concepción estrictamente estética, no puede operar independientemente o diversamente’.

José de la Riva Aguero (1885-1944) on his part had a strikingly different view of the Indian. His view assumed a Hispanic stand and his articles in “Mercurio Peruano” and I “Universidad” clearly defended colonialism. His “La Historia del Perú” is filled with statements that denigrate the character of the Indian, who in his view is degenerate being, and accordingly endowed with inferior psychology, used to domination. For Riva Aguero, unlike Mariátegui, the national being was to be found in the aspiration to develop a European civilization inherited from Spain. Riva Aguero thought that the ‘regeneration’ or ‘redemption’ of the Indian implied their assimilation by the Hispanic culture and Hispanic traditions found at the heart of colonialism. Riva Aguero, like Sarmiento in Argentina, proposed as a solution to white immigration. His prescription was also mestizaje and an educative civilizing action on the part of the catholic church in favor of the Indian. Riva Aguero was mainly influenced by Michelet, Taine and positivism, Uruguayan Rodo, and his readings of Plato. The novecentists engaged the roots of history as well as the techniques and conduct of positivism, modified by a return to idealist elements. The novecentists were also familiar with classical literature and classical history. Riva Aguero an admirer of Tito Livio and the 19th century, social critic, Marcelino Menéndez Pelayo. The short story writer Ventura García Calderón (1886-1959) shared with Riva Aguero an interest in awarding to the ruling class the right to ‘civilize’ the country and ‘solve’ the problems of the nation. García Calderón and Riva Aguero were aristocrats and as such both justified a regime of servile exploitation based on the following assumptions: ‘racial inferiority’ and the ‘inferior, ignorant and primitive character’ of the Indian population. García Calderón’s literary characters lacked a distinguishing national character, but the actions and geography depicted our reality. Some opine that García Calderón’s work, at the beginning of the century, is a response to a moment of transition in Peruvian prose whose evolution García Calderón reviewed in his book ‘Del romanticismo al modernismo’.

After drawing an assessment of both approaches, I will try to establish fresh evidence to prove my hypothesis that Mariategui’s influence on the development of indigenismo is of vital importance. I will examine works by the new generation of indigenistas such as José María Arguedas, Ciro Alegría, Eleodoro Vargas Vicuña, and Martin Adán, trying to extract the indigenista features of their work. In particular, I will focus on “Los ríos profundos’, one of the most important novels of the indigenista genre written by Arguedas in 1961.

To conclude, I will provide an overview of other works of an indigenista nature, among them an unedited poem written by Eleodoro Vargas Vicuña, and presented to the author of this dissertation, in the year 1980, ‘una noche de luna’ as the poet would say. Finally, I will try to find some points of convergence between some of the participants in the First Congress of Narrators of 1965 and José Carlos Mariátegui.

(JAC, Edinburgh 1996)

The Nature of the Scottish Political System

Jorge Aliaga Cacho en Escocia.

This essay was written before the referendum held in 1997, in which the Scottish electorate voted for devolution, the powers of the devolved legislature. The Scottish Parliament has at present the power to legislate in all areas that are not explicitly reserved to Westminster.

The Nature of the Scottish Political System

By Jorge Aliaga Cacho 

William the Conqueror realized that geography made a conquest of Scotland impossible. A show of strength, however, would help put the Scottish King in his place. In 1072, William took an army and navy to the firth of tay, and Abenethy Malcolm III became the English King’s ‘man’. To make sure of peace Malcolm’s eldest son was taken off to be brought up in England”.

I thought it would be useful to start this discussion reflecting upon Tom Steel’s assertion quoted above: it shows us Scotland, historically, in a position of political dispute with its English counterpart. The nature of the Scottish political system therefore did not originate in 1707 with the Act of Union, but is based on traditions, structures of power and cultural values which already existed before the time of William the Conqueror.

Professor J.G.Kellas in his book “The Scottish Political System” argues that the Act of Union of 1707 tried to divide the field of action of ‘British’ and Scottish Law and he also recognises the historical influence of the ‘Royal Burghs’ in the present structure of local authorities. The singular position of Scotland in relation to the United Kingdom as a whole and its differences with Wales, Northern Ireland and indeed England, is based on historical grounds which brought into existence political and social institutions which survive to the present day.

During David I’s reign Scotland attempted to achieve a national system of justice and administration. The most powerful instrument the king had by his side was the church. Church and State in feudal Scotland were indivisible. The nature of the Scottish political system is fed by the inheritance received from its past. Kellas asserts that: ‘the legal system of Scotland is one of the strongest clues to the existence of the Scottish political system’, (p.3). If we accept this argument as valid then the historical background with which we introduced this essay is, in my view, also valid, and of vital significance, to the topic under discussion. Furthermore, I would say that politics in Scotland are related to the development of its culture and more particularly its political culture. Scotland does not possess a government or a Parliament of its own. However, it has a significant number of political and social institutions and, more importantly, I think, Scotland possesses a strong feeling for its constitutional, probably, ‘political’ role. 

The ‘fundamental law’ joining Scotland and England is The Act of Union of 1707. Ironically, this takeover did not affect the institutions which we can say made Scotland owner of its own identity. I refer to the Scottish legal system, the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, the Scottish educational system, and the ‘Royal Burghs’ (local authorities). These powerful institutions are the ones which inherited the Scottish past experience and in Kellas’ own words: ‘became transmitters of Scottish national identity from one generation to the next’, (page 2). At the beginning there was a Secretary of State for Scotland in the government. Later, in 1746 this position was dropped leaving the chief Scottish law officer, the Lord Advocate, as the main representative in the executive for Scottish affairs. Later in 1885 the Scottish office was created due to the development of Scottish administrative boards and also because of the rising of national feeling. The Scottish Secretary was to become a permanent member of the Cabinet. The fact that Scotland has a separate legal system required a separate legislation for Scotland. Therefore, the people from Scotland have many laws which are exclusive to Scotland, and the law courts are different from the rest of Britain, with the only exception that in civil cases the final court of appeal is the House of Lords in its judicial capacity. However, Scottish courts decide all other cases whether under Scots law or ‘British’ law. The Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for Scotland are the representatives of the Scottish legal system in government, but the Lord Advocate is not the same as the Lord Chancellor in England and Wales: the difference is that Scotland has its own qualifications and traditions to appoint the Head of the Scottish judiciary which is recruited separately from that of England. The position in Scotland is held by the Lord President of the Court of Session (the supreme Scottish court).

Apart from its own institutions in the executive, legislative, and judicial spheres of government, Scotland also has a number of party organisations, pressure groups, and advisory bodies. It is true that, since the introduction of the Act of Union, political institutions in Scotland were not encouraged. However, it is also true that the Scottish MPs were to be, but not in proportion to population, members of the House of Commons and most of them are primarily interested in issues affecting Scotland. The commitment of the Scottish MPs to the solutions of the problems affecting its constituencies led to the creation of the Scottish Grand Committee (1984) in order to deal with the Scottish Bills. Today there are several Scottish committees of the House and during each year a number of Scottish Bills are passed in Parliament. 

Having mentioned these peculiarities and differences in Scotland now the question rises: are these peculiarities and differences elements of a Scottish political system or a political sub-system? Kellas argues that: ‘it can be said that any territorial local authority was a sub-system of the central authority. Since Scotland is not a local authority in British terms, it would have to be a super-sub-system or territorial type’. For Kellas the concept of system is more appropriate, having in consideration the scale and nature of the phenomena in Scottish politics. However, political scientists like Keating and Midwinter consider that: ‘it is doubtful whether Scotland can be considered a political system when the main Scottish political institutions are UK institutions and authority and power are still retained and concentrated at Westminster and Whitehall’. Kellas believes that only devolution would provide Scotland with a political system in this sense, and even then it would still be the case that ultimate power was retained in London.

I consider that there is a need to look at the Scottish political system in a more direct way. If we imagine all the elements of its structure and then consider their functions in isolation we could generate a better picture. 

Talcott Parsons writes: ‘When the system and its units are looked at ‘statically’, i.e. as objects in abstraction from the processes going on within the system, then these norms define the qualities of the object and the sub-objects or ‘parts’ of which it is composed’. (“Essays in Sociological Theory”, p.397) . My own view is that the sub-system term is not the most appropriate to define the Scottish phenomena. However, it is my point of view that we should not overestimate the role of the Scottish political system or indeed the ‘British’ one in relation to the European Parliament. If we do not accept the existence of a Scottish political system in its own right we could, using the same arguments, state that the ‘British’ political system does not exist in relation to the European Parliament. National parliaments usually possess three main powers: the first one, to dismiss the government; the second one to grant or withhold supply: i.e., vote the budget; and thirdly; to participate in law-making. Despite the fact that there is no Community government, the European Parliament has, in some measure, the three main powers mentioned above. The possibility that small nations may find a new role in a more integrated Europe has created a new confidence in Scotland’s aspiration for self-determination. 

This new energy for self-government is no longer only about 1970s-style devolution, but support for ‘independence’ is increasing across the board including in the ranks of the Conservatives, half, support either devolution or independence and despite the Conservative Party’s opposition to Home Rule. Among the Labour party supporters 36% back ‘independence’; and in the SNP the percentage of support is bigger (55%), and 60% of Alliance supporters back devolution. (1987, MORI). In general the opinion poll support for ‘independence’ runs around 35% and between 18 and 25 year-olds it is closer to 50%. This new reality has found expression in the Scottish Constitutional Convention which represents 80% of the Scottish people through their institutions and organisations. ‘The Constitutional Convention has created the basis for new relationship between political parties, including the Labour Party, The Democrats, the Communist Party, the SNP and a broad movement in society, including the churches’. (Manifesto for New Times 1990 – “Marxism Today”). 

Devolution for Scotland, in my view, would have a deep effect on the Status Quo, changing the nature of the political system of Britain. England itself could aspire its own devolution and questions like how is it that Scots have the right to vote in English Parliament and not the English in the Scottish one?, or how is England going to reconcile the English Parliament –if achieved- with- that of the United Kingdom. Other change under devolution would be the end of ‘imposition policies’ for Scotland like the poll tax, school boards, Health Service, housing, etc. The Scottish Parliament would have the authority to consider these policies. Under devolution a Scottish Parliament would also have to consider an increase in revenue or a reduction in spending to end the subsidy to Scotland on devolved services from the UK which at present stands at 30% per head higher in Scotland than in England. The continuation of this subsidy could create resentment on the part of England. 

For the Scottish Constitutional Convention devolution will deliver a directly elected Scottish Parliament with a UK Parliament covering UK concerns. A Scottish Parliament whose powers would guarantee by law, and could only be altered with the consent of The Scottish Parliament, not by Westminster alone. Devolution would provide for Scotland’s Government the right to be represented in UK ministerial delegations to the Council of Europe; a Parliament which would recognise the unique Character of the Scottish islands and its Councils. The financial aspect of the Scottish Parliament would seek financial powers and flexibility, power to vary income tax rates within clearly defined limits and it would be assigned all Scottish income tax and VAT. In the economic and social aspect Scotland’s Parliament would also seek powers including: National Health Service, Social Security and Welfare, education –including universities-, vocational training, land use and planning, housing, industrial development, tourism, environmental conservation, agriculture, fisheries and forestry, electricity generation, legal system, transport, highways, Police and Fire Service, water, etc. 

‘Independence in Europe’, on the other hand, proposes that Scotland could aspire to ‘independence’ in the European Community and also the possibility of becoming a state. These factors could give Scotland the chance to become better off –or worse off- economically and socially, I would suggest the first option, would be more likely. Independence in Europe’ (SNP) or ‘independence outside Europe’ (Green Party) or indeed other options, its income, spending and welfare would determine its progress and its oil revenues could even made Scotland richer but this could endanger its relations with England when trying to secure such revenue. ‘Independence in Europe’ could, also, bring the reorganisation of political and social institutions according to the new political geography. 

With the federal system Scotland would differ from the devolutionist one by its attack on central sovereignty and its total scope covering the entire state. Despite the fact that there are already federal features in the British Constitution with regard to Scotland, coming from the perpetual guarantees in the 1707 Act of Union, however given the dominant position of England: 84% English population against 9% Scottish, the federal system would not be easily introduced in Scotland. Perhaps a solution to the last problem would be to divide England into regions making each of them a federal unit, but this system in England would be difficult to implement because a suitable infrastructure of institutions, laws, etc. does not exist. 

To conclude I would like to define my option: Kellas thinks that in today’s Scotland there are only ‘a limited number of policy areas where Scots are determined to act independently of England’. He thinks the allocation of ‘British values are acceptable to Scotland in many important respects’. He compares the political culture of Northern Ireland placing it far apart from its Scottish counterpart. He states that politics in Scotland are not dominated by religion, although he recognises that there do exist special correlations between religion and voting in Scotland. Kellas argues that in Scotland there is no fundamental challenge to the constitution despite the SNP. I would like to emphasize that ‘independence’ is an evolutionary process and that the dynamic of the Scottish political arena will determine whether ‘devolution’, ‘independence’ or indeed federalism would best serve the interests of the Scottish nation.

Jorge Aliaga Cacho, Glasgow, January 1991.

This essay was written in 1991. Scotland gained its own Parliament in 1997. 

Bibliography

1 CPGB, “Manifesto for New Times”, Marxism Today, 1990.

2 DOD’S “Parliamentary Companion”, 1987.

3 Gow, David, “The Red Paper on Scotland”, EUSPB, 1975.

4 Hanham, H.J. “Scottish Nationalism” Faber and Faber, 1969.

5 Keating, M., Bleiman D., “Labour and Scottish Nationalism”,

Macmillan Press Ltd, 1979.

6 Kellas, J.G.. Articled in “Parliamentary Affairs”, Oxford

University Press, October 1990.

7 Kellas, J.G. “The Scottish Political System”, Cambridge 1989.

8 Parsons Talcott, “Essays in Sociological Theory”, Free Press 1964.

9 Steel, T. “Scotland’s Story”, 1984.