Page 92 - Cultural Studies Volume 11

86 CULTURAL STUDIES

problematized as interconnected and interdependent rather than as isolated
phenomena, which is how they are treated by most disciplines. All of us are
interested in the relationships between folklore, the rural and the indigenous, and
the urban and the mass media, the intersections of social structures and traditions.
As you can see, to mix so many focuses implies the combination of anthropology
and sociology, communication studies, literary criticism, and so forth. This is
similar to what has occurred in the formation of cultural studies in the metropolis
(Europe and the United States) and is therefore one of the reasons that I believe
it is pertinent to call these studies in Latin America—which refuse to be closed
off into one discipline—cultural studies.
But I believe that there are some differences. One of these differences is the
roots from which the majority of scholars working in cultural studies come. For
example, in England and the United States most scholars are linked to literary
criticism and communication studies; also, in the United States, historical studies
and revisionism have become important as in the case of Jameson, Yúdice, Jean
Franco and others. In Latin America there are scholars representative of
communication studies, others with literary backgrounds, but most scholars
involved in cultural studies work come from, or at least have emerged out of,
sociology and anthropology. This is an important point that helps distinguish
Latin American cultural studies from other regional forms of cultural studies.
You may be aware that we formed a network of Latin American cultural
studies, and that last year for the first time we held a conference (Primer
Encuentro Inter-Americano sobre los estudios culturales, Universidad Autonoma
Metropolitana, Mexico City, 3–5 May 1993). The network was formed through
the initiative of George Yúdice, Juan Flores and Stanley Aronowitz. We in
Mexico collaborated as well by organizing the facilities for the conference,
offering financial support and also by suggesting some additions to the list of
presenters. While this was the first collective effort by writers working in what
can be considered cultural studies, the nucleus of the network was really from
New York.
Recently (May 1994) we had another conference (in Bellegio, Italy), but this
one had a more international scope, not just Latin American. Only seven Latin
American scholars attended, but there were also writers from the United States,
Europe, Asia and Africa. It was a conference of twentyfive specialists in cultural
studies. I think that there was a very broad scope of ideas presented, but
unfortunately this contributed to difficulties in dialogue and articulation. Points of
interest, it would seem, are very different, as well as experiences with empirical
work.
PDM: Would you characterize the Latin American work as being more
empirically oriented?
NGC: Well, I wouldn’t define it precisely as empiricism. Rather, I would have
to say that Latin American work is more preoccupied with the social base of
cultural processes, and of course this has a lot to do with its emergence out of
anthropology and sociology; whereas, in the United States and in other places