FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2063655710> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2063655710 endingPage "222" @default.
• W2063655710 startingPage "203" @default.
• W2063655710 abstract "Orality and Politics in Latin AmericaThresholds of Illiteracy Abraham Acosta (bio) Of the many longstanding debates taking place in contemporary Latin American thought, the question of cultural difference (from the West), as well as the semiological nature of that difference, remains one of the most pivotal and politically entrenched. Indeed, the last 20 years has seen the publication of a wealth of material dedicated to studying the emergence, form, and representation of indigenous speech and language within various cultural practices and emplotments, from the colonial era to the present.1 Generally, these debates have turned on the category of orality as the name for, and the means by which to conceptualize, the formal, political, and aesthetic properties of indigenous language and its relationship to Western, lettered writing. Indeed, the question of orality has come to feature prominently in discussions that aim to reconfigure the narrative of the clash between Amerindian [End Page 203] and European cultural spheres through the presumption of an originary and persistent source of incommensurability at work in the former. Not surprisingly, one can find the discourse of orality underlying many of Latin America’s best-known cultural narratives such as Indigenismo, Magical Realism, Testimonio, and even Zapatismo in Mexico. As it stands in these debates, however, orality/literacy has more often been assumed than critically interrogated. For what exactly is the relation between them? How, exactly, do we understand their relation as exclusive, irreducible, foundational semiological forms? Is it that one is inconceivable without the other, or that one must rely on the ontological guarantee provided by the other? At bottom, does this economy provide us with the insight needed to unconceal the sheer contingency of a social order in Latin America—that these categories are ultimately nothing other than empty, formal markers of difference/subordination to otherwise equal speaking beings—or does it smooth these power relations over? In other words, if orality is ultimately advanced here as an authentic, non-Western language form (i.e., orality as a logocentric reversal/substitute for Western literacy and written culture), what exactly is revolutionary or emancipatory about that? In more formal terms, is this binary conceived and deployed as a hegemonic-subaltern, or hegemonic-counterhegemonic relation? There is a difference; and though often confused, this distinction is significant and strikes at the core of the notion of the political and contemporary political thought in Latin America. Of course, it goes without saying that the category of orality has never been simply a descriptive category, but rather a constitutive one burdened with the considerable weight of anthropological discourse whose implicit ethnocentricity cannot be easily dismissed. In a recent article, Galen Brokaw takes up the question of orality in Latin America and addresses this particular disciplinary problem in the study of alternative “writing” systems in the colonial era. Brokaw’s essay foregrounds the way in which the concept of orality within dominant historical and anthropological discourse not only assumes, of course, the existence of subjects and communities that persist (or have persisted) without any recognizable or legitimate (read: alphabetic) writing system whatsoever, but also how this concept perfectly accommodates itself to the underlying Western assumption of (its own form of) writing as the necessary [End Page 204] condition for civilization: “Anthropological thought (whether it be expressed by historians, anthropologists, sociologists, or literary critics) has a tendency to draw a distinction between oral and literate societies based on the presence or absence of writing, which is usually defined in phonographic terms” (2010, 130). The problem with this premise, what Martín Lienhard has called the “fetishism of the written word” (1991, 5–11), is the series of other interconnected disciplinary conclusions that ultimately places Western writing and Western writing cultures at the apex of a long evolutionary curve. According to Brokaw, because “dominant historical and anthropological theories have often identified writing as a precondition for the development of complex socioeconomic and political systems,” orality and literacy have come to articulate, and correspond to, different and unequal modes of thought inextricable from the hierarchical structures they simultaneously imply (2010, 120). Under this anthropologico-historicist model, Brokaw reminds us, orality, because it posits a primitive evolutionary state of existence before writing..." @default.
• W2063655710 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2063655710 creator A5046657745 @default.
• W2063655710 date "2013-01-01" @default.
• W2063655710 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2063655710 title "Orality and Politics in Latin America: Thresholds of Illiteracy" @default.
• W2063655710 cites W1992373299 @default.
• W2063655710 cites W1994710380 @default.
• W2063655710 cites W2005078568 @default.
• W2063655710 cites W2011737047 @default.
• W2063655710 cites W2031562375 @default.
• W2063655710 cites W2081736955 @default.
• W2063655710 cites W2318118279 @default.
• W2063655710 cites W2799291050 @default.
• W2063655710 cites W2802528345 @default.
• W2063655710 cites W3045025511 @default.
• W2063655710 cites W375581010 @default.
• W2063655710 cites W426659111 @default.
• W2063655710 cites W584212864 @default.
• W2063655710 cites W618440925 @default.
• W2063655710 cites W634346443 @default.
• W2063655710 cites W653722199 @default.
• W2063655710 cites W2022689646 @default.
• W2063655710 cites W2037671014 @default.
• W2063655710 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/ncr.2013.0014" @default.
• W2063655710 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W2063655710 type Work @default.
• W2063655710 sameAs 2063655710 @default.
• W2063655710 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W2063655710 countsByYear W20636557102015 @default.
• W2063655710 countsByYear W20636557102018 @default.
• W2063655710 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2063655710 hasAuthorship W2063655710A5046657745 @default.
• W2063655710 hasConcept C107038049 @default.
• W2063655710 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W2063655710 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2063655710 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2063655710 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2063655710 hasConcept C158886217 @default.
• W2063655710 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W2063655710 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2063655710 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W2063655710 hasConcept C199033989 @default.
• W2063655710 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2063655710 hasConcept C2778962823 @default.
• W2063655710 hasConcept C531593650 @default.
• W2063655710 hasConcept C547764534 @default.
• W2063655710 hasConcept C55958113 @default.
• W2063655710 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2063655710 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W2063655710 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2063655710 hasConceptScore W2063655710C107038049 @default.
• W2063655710 hasConceptScore W2063655710C124952713 @default.
• W2063655710 hasConceptScore W2063655710C138885662 @default.
• W2063655710 hasConceptScore W2063655710C142362112 @default.
• W2063655710 hasConceptScore W2063655710C144024400 @default.
• W2063655710 hasConceptScore W2063655710C158886217 @default.
• W2063655710 hasConceptScore W2063655710C166957645 @default.
• W2063655710 hasConceptScore W2063655710C17744445 @default.
• W2063655710 hasConceptScore W2063655710C18903297 @default.
• W2063655710 hasConceptScore W2063655710C199033989 @default.
• W2063655710 hasConceptScore W2063655710C199539241 @default.
• W2063655710 hasConceptScore W2063655710C2778962823 @default.
• W2063655710 hasConceptScore W2063655710C531593650 @default.
• W2063655710 hasConceptScore W2063655710C547764534 @default.
• W2063655710 hasConceptScore W2063655710C55958113 @default.
• W2063655710 hasConceptScore W2063655710C86803240 @default.
• W2063655710 hasConceptScore W2063655710C94625758 @default.
• W2063655710 hasConceptScore W2063655710C95457728 @default.
• W2063655710 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2063655710 hasLocation W20636557101 @default.
• W2063655710 hasOpenAccess W2063655710 @default.
• W2063655710 hasPrimaryLocation W20636557101 @default.
• W2063655710 hasRelatedWork W2038431514 @default.
• W2063655710 hasRelatedWork W2046179889 @default.
• W2063655710 hasRelatedWork W2253536102 @default.
• W2063655710 hasRelatedWork W2562747214 @default.
• W2063655710 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2063655710 hasRelatedWork W2781039360 @default.
• W2063655710 hasRelatedWork W2933608806 @default.
• W2063655710 hasRelatedWork W4248099151 @default.
• W2063655710 hasRelatedWork W4248151926 @default.
• W2063655710 hasRelatedWork W4367840034 @default.
• W2063655710 hasVolume "13" @default.
• W2063655710 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2063655710 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2063655710 magId "2063655710" @default.
• W2063655710 workType "article" @default.