This article was downloaded by: [University of Chicago Library]On: 28 October 2014, At: 11:20Publisher: 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

On Chavismo: Interview with Yolanda Salas (Caracas, 7September 2004)Raquel Rivas RojasPublished online: 20 Aug 2006.

To cite this article: Raquel Rivas Rojas (2005) On Chavismo: Interview with Yolanda Salas (Caracas, 7 September 2004),Journal of Latin American Cultural Studies: Travesia, 14:3, 325-333, DOI: 10.1080/13569320500382641

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13569320500382641

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

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 anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Raquel Rivas Rojas

ON CHAVISMO: INTERVIEW WITH

YOLANDA SALAS (CARACAS,

7 SEPTEMBER 2004)

Raquel Rivas Rojas: What political model does Chavismo follow? How would you map itideologically?Yolanda Salas: As far as its political discourse with other countries is concerned, itdefines itself as anti-neoliberal and anti-imperialist. Its rhetoric is fuelled by the ghostsof the Cold War and by an insurgent memory which is rising up once more against thesigns of imperialism. With regard to Venezuela, its leader and spokesman defineshimself as a nationalist. However, these discourses often prove ambiguous when youtake his actions into account. It’s been more than a five-year term since he took powerand throughout that time he has had to struggle fiercely against an opposition whichthese days appears totally weak and incoherent, while Chavismo has grown stronger inpower and has deeply entrenched its institutional control. However, certain notionsare held which are often repeated. And one of those is the ‘tree with three roots’ as thebackbone or idea which should drive Bolivarian revolutionary thought. Now, what weneed to ask ourselves is the meaning of this metaphor whose political model is based onheroes from nineteenth-century Venezuelan history. And apparently contradictoryheroes at that. If, on one hand, we have the figures of Simon Bolıvar, together with histutor Simon Rodrıguez, who represent a return to the struggle for liberation thatfounded the nation, on the other hand, we have the figure of a frustrated popularleader, Ezequiel Zamora, a later participant in Venezuelan history who played the roleof loser in the Federal war, as a popular leader. A reading of these representationsbrings us to a political imaginary, rather than a political model, which sees itself ashaving the mission of re-founding the nation. In this re-founding of the nation andrewriting of history the warlike and the military predominate. Which is why, for theso-called Bolivarian Revolution led by Hugo Chavez, the consolidation of the civilianwith the military is of vital importance. The people/military fusion, as a strategy aimedat creating a new social organization, is becoming more evident every day and thecountry’s map of political power appears to be dominated by members or formermembers of the military. Another notion that has remained constant in Bolivarianrevolutionary discourse is that of ‘participatory democracy’ as a substitute for‘representative democracy’. But there is still a lot of ambiguity and uncertainty as towhat participatory democracy means politically. Thus we find ourselves in a situationwhere, for one section of the population, it can be legitimate for groups of civilians tosuddenly take up arms to defend their democracy and their legitimate right to power,and even that they should be able to shoot to kill during a march of civilians heading forthe Miraflores presidential palace to demand the president’s resignation. This is when

Journal of Latin American Cultural Studies, Vol. 14, No. 3 December 2005, pp. 325-333

ISSN 1356-9325/print 1469-9575 online q 2005 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/13569320500382641

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:20

28

Oct

ober

201

4

the language of confrontation becomes misleading and inadequate; what someconsidered to be an insurrectionary march was considered by others, those who wereon the march, to be a protest march, even though its objective was the removal of thepresident by forcing his resignation. . .. If you put yourself in the shoes of those whowere shooting to defend the president, you can see that the conflict is not posed interms of a dispute between different sections of civil society but in terms of war: a warof symbols and spaces of power. In other words, what we have here is a low-intensityconflict, which is defined in terms of revolution and counter-revolution. Lamentably,things have become defined in terms of dichotomy and confrontation.RRR: . . . meaning that what we have is a regime that has polarized society. . ..YS: It has polarized spaces and society. So, you’re either there or you’re not. And it’sterrible, because self-reflexive thinking, under these conditions, if it manages tosurface, has no space for dialogue since it encounters censure from both sides.RRR: Do you think this model could be exported to the rest of Latin America? Can oneimagine a kind of ‘new left’, which would produce an alliance between Brazil, with thetriumph of President Lula, Argentina with Kirchner, Panama with the recent electionof Torrijos’s son and Venezuela?YS: I don’t think you can talk about a new Latin American left, I think at the momentit’s very premature to say that. I think they are new proposals. And they’re notnecessarily all similar. What is certain – and this is one of the different ways in whichthings are moving in Latin America – is that the popular social movements that havebeen developing have gained a great deal of power. For example, the indigenousmovements, the popular anti-globalization movements, have gained power and areconquering a large space of visibility and agency in these new modes of politicalleadership. I am referring to what some prefer to call the Third Sector. Whilst inVenezuela in particular conservative society or rather those who traditionally heldpower have become a little left behind, now is the moment that its social movements,grouped together under the heading ‘civil society’, are coming to the fore.

We might say that what is under discussion is the concept of citizenship, which isalso polarized because – in Venezuela – you’re either a revolutionary or you belong toso-called civil society. But, undoubtedly, we are involved in a search for newsubjectivities. And I for one think that it’s important to fight for subjectivities ofcitizenship and of the spaces of civil power. Obviously I am thinking of a citizenshipwithout discrimination, an inclusive citizenship, which is for everyone.RRR: . . . and does this come about through the creation of mediating institutions?Because I think that the problem of the Chavista movement is that it annihilated theinstitutions that mediate between state and the citizen.YS: Well, the thing is that in reality those institutions were not entirely independent inVenezuela before Chavez either. The independence of public bodies is undoubtedlyunder pressure at the current time, particularly with regard to the electoral bodies.I think that during this phase of total polarization it is necessary to encourage mediatingauthorities which enable dialogue and agreement, and this will be a task for this idealcitizenship. What we have now is so-called civil society and a group of revolutionaries,but there is no mediating opportunity for dialogue. It is important to encourage thismediating body that could create bridges between the two groups. This is a long-termprocess. Those who want shot of Chavez have a short-term vision; they want to get ridof him now, in any way possible. But this is a lengthy process. Chavez did not acquire

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 S3 2 6

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:20

28

Oct

ober

201

4

power by accident; it was a movement that was some time in the making. And thosewho were in power, or who in some way profited from the status quo or who were notinvolved in politics had not realized that the political signs had become meaningless.Those people believed that they could vote for a beauty queen and that this beautyqueen could occupy the political space. Those people didn’t realize that there was adissatisfaction that was getting organized. What we are experiencing is part of a processof transformation, for better or for worse, I don’t know as yet. But at this moment,what we call civil society must get stronger and overcome its autism, just as theBolivarian revolution needs to overcome its own autism.RRR: . . . leading on from this idea, how can we convince the international community,including analysts from Latin America itself but above all academics of the First World,that perhaps Chavez is not the ideal leader for the Third World?YS: I always wonder if it’s the case that this Eurocentric and First World vision stilllooks at Latin America as a Third Wworld full of noble savages, that is to say, as theplace for potential utopias. According to this view of things, it would appear that onour continent democracy can only come about through messianisms led by caudillos.I would like them to measure us with the same yardstick that they use to measurethemselves. I reject this dual vision: one for Europe and another for Latin America.I don’t think that the way out for our countries is through messianic caudillos, much lessthose who have emerged from the military tradition. It is important to push for socialreforms and the ideologies that back them, but without doubt when politics becomes abusiness of salvation, providentialism and redemption, then faith has supplantedideology. Messianisms can cause pathological states when they stigmatize and exclude asector of society, which is what is happening now in Venezuela. In the name ofempowering and redeeming those who were previously excluded, those who opposethe current government are stigmatized. We are witnessing a method of politics whichoperates on the basis of created stereotypes.RRR: I asked you this question because it is very difficult to explain, in the Europeanacademic world, for example, what we were talking about with respect to the absenceof institutions. When you explain, for example, what happened with the revocationreferendum, they usually respond by saying that the electoral body, the NationalElectoral Council (CNE), stated that the elections had been transparent. And if you tryto explain how the officials of this institution were appointed, the lack of credibilitythat this institution has, it’s as if you were discoursing in the wind. Because in countrieswhere there is a long institutional tradition, such institutional hijackings areinconceivable.YS: The thing is that they are not even mediating institutions, I mean, there are noinstitutions. What there is, is an authoritarianism. That’s why I’m saying to you thatwhat they think abroad is that problems can only be resolved with messianism andcaudillismo – which is nothing more than authoritarianism, because caudillismo in LatinAmerica has never taken any other form. There are no institutions which areindependent of central government. Now that you mentioned mediating institutionsmy overwhelming feeling is that we need to encourage mediating mechanisms whichare dedicated to creating bridges. Because we don’t have an institutional tradition thatfulfils the criteria of credibility. The political authority of our current government isconfused with the power of the state. Neither the independence of the Supreme Courtof Justice nor that of the National Electoral Council is transparent.

I N T E R V I E W W I T H Y O L A N D A S A L A S 3 2 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:20

28

Oct

ober

201

4

RRR: I’d like to go back to analysing the national situation with a naıve question, butone which I think many of us are asking ourselves – why is Chavez still in power?YS: Because the others are in the majority.RRR: So, why does the majority support him?YS: Look . . . the others are in the majority. In terms of numbers, the majority are thosemasses who are in some way unable to be included in the whole economic, educationaland social system. Undoubtedly Chavez’s most potent weapon is his use of language.He is someone who is skilled at wielding discourse and at fascinating the masses. I callhim the storyteller of Venezuelan politics. He’s always got a great narrative, a greatstory, something great to say, something that seduces. He is a seducer. He also seduceswith a view to violence, war, conflict. And if anyone knows the popular imaginary, it’sChavez. I have sometimes wondered: does Chavez have an excellent adviser on thepopular imaginary? And the answer is no, it’s that Chavez has stolen the popularimaginary from us, because he uses it, he controls it, he manipulates it. And also, onthe other hand, this makes you wonder about a country which believed itself to bemodern, cosmopolitan, and which turns out to be a country which, in its collectiveconscience, is totally traditional, with certain profound, traditional images. Just whenwe thought we were no longer a rural country, Chavez comes along and capitalizes on apopular symbology which is rural in origin. Furthermore, all this popular imaginaryand all this revolutionary mythology is reinforced, of course, with the help of animmense fortune obtained from the world oil crisis, which is favouring hisgovernment. He uses this source of income to bolster his populist programmes.He addresses the deprived masses with his discourse and his populist socialprogrammes. It remains to be seen whether these programmes, in the long run, willreally create sustainable endogenous development. For now, these programmes haveserved to maintain his popularity. In two words, what keeps Chavez in power isbasically two things: his discourse and oil.RRR: I’d like to complete the panorama from the other side: what has the oppositionfailed to understand that has meant it has been unable to win over these majorities thatare with Chavez?YS: Because it hasn’t seen them as real human beings, it hasn’t recognized them, it hasmade them invisible. I ask myself how it is possible that we have become so insensitivein the face of a social problem. When the popular uprising of 1989 happened, whatthey called the ‘Caracazo’, it fulfilled a fear held by the sectors of society that lived inthe valley of Caracas. Let’s accept this topographic imaginary that divides the citybetween the valley [where the middle, professional and upper classes live] and thehillsides [where the working classes/popular sectors live]. When these dreaded masses‘came down from the hills’ during the Caracazo it was a dramatic enactment of the fearthat people prophetically referred to as ‘the day they come down from the hills’.The fear had been fulfilled. Afterwards there was a great silence. But nobody ever saidagain ‘the day they come down from the hills’. With this silence the stereotype ofseeing the Other as a barbarian was reinforced. Without taking into account the factthat on the day of the Caracazo the middle classes also took part in the looting. It wasbetter not to recognize this barbarian and the violence that we all have inside us. WhatI’m getting at is that this great barbarian, which was those people who had and whoprofited from economic and political power, had made the excluded sector invisible.By not recognizing this it was possible for us to fantasize, to believe that we had reached

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 S3 2 8

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:20

28

Oct

ober

201

4

an advanced stage of development, that we were cosmopolitan, that there wasn’t animmense majority who were not participating in this supposed development and thissupposed democracy. Yet how could we talk about a democracy if such a largepercentage of the population had been excluded? What I mean is that we were livingthe myth of democracy. According to the polls it seems that in Venezuela we all wantdemocracy, but what is democracy? When people are asked they say that democracy isliberty. But then again what do they mean by liberty? People don’t really know whatdemocracy is and when people tell you they want democracy they’re talking abouttheir idea of democracy. You have to look more closely at the representations thatpeople fashion based on the notion of democracy. For example, with the coup of April2002 and the fleeting seizure of power by Carmona, when he was swearing himself inand had demolished all the authorities that Chavez had created with the backing of a stilltransparent popular vote, people shouted ‘Long Live Democracy!’ On the other hand,we have this other democracy, created by Chavez, whose hegemony has now hijackedall the public authorities, so that, in effect, the independence of the political authoritieshas no credibility. So, we are faced with a terrible trap laid by the language ofconfrontation. We need a self-reflexive critical way of thinking that can dig itself out ofthe trenches of confrontation.RRR: So, what we have is two poles, each of which has a blind spot. Each one of themis unable to see part of the country. It looks like we are at an impasse.YS: Yes, I think that the only person who has identified our situation was Clinton, whenhe said ‘Venezuela is in a cul-de-sac’. And what we want is a quick exit. We are reallyundergoing a transformation, a painful and difficult transformation. But we need tocreate spaces, mediating social movements that can act as bridges between thesedichotomies, which can overcome the two current autistic discourses, which canquestion both sectors and have a visible space from which to address people. Tell me ifsomeone who wants to say anything against the privately owned media in this countrycan find a space to make themselves heard within that media. Equally, anyone whowants to criticize the government won’t find a space in the state media. That’s whyI think that the speech made by Margarita Lopez at the National Assembly, whenChavez’s mandate was relegitimized through his ratification at this year’s referendum,was so important. She made a very brave criticism of the government from within thespace of Chavismo itself, exhorting it to give up this crude discourse which dividessociety into good and evil, revolutionaries and coup plotters. She also warned Chavez,who was there, not to give in to the temptations of authoritarianism. Some people saythat all she did was pose a few timid questions. I don’t think that they were timid if youtake into account the situation in which they were articulated. It’s not so much whatwas said, as the moment in which it was said. It’s often the case that what is mostimportant is the occasion, the right moment and the enunciating subject.RRR: I was just thinking about those caught up in all of this and I was thinking about theprocess that is possibly going to occur in the long term, which is the transformation ofVenezuelan society. In relation to this long-term transformation, what role do youthink what we might still call popular culture is playing in this process, that is, what doyou think that the average Venezuelan, in his or her approach to daily life, is makingof all this?YS: At this moment I don’t know what the average Venezuelan is making of this, it isvery difficult to know that. There are divisions within the popular sectors too, because

I N T E R V I E W W I T H Y O L A N D A S A L A S 3 2 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:20

28

Oct

ober

201

4

it’s naive to think that the masses are all with Chavez. Some of them are againsthim, because they’re still unemployed, because their basic needs are not being met.But there is something that cannot be denied and that is that they are becoming morevisible, that they are becoming conscious of their rights. Now, let’s see whichimaginary Chavez is controlling from his position of power: that this is a governmentfor the people and the people are the protagonists. And up to a point they do have aleading role, because Chavez has made these people visible. And that’s what is sofrightening to the middle classes and the traditional holders of economic power.Because they see this visibility from the viewpoint of that nineteenth-century imaginaryof civilization versus barbarism. Those sectors who had made the ‘barbarian’ invisiblenow perceive the presence of ‘barbarism’ wielding political power. And you askyourself how it’s possible that we’re still using these dichotomies or these images thathave been passed down to us from the nineteenth century.RRR: But there is also a perception of these people who aspire to be middle class andwho like to imagine themselves as middle class, who want to ascend socially, don’t youagree?YS: I don’t know if there is this feeling or class consciousness. I think the problem ismuch more serious. For many people the most immediate problem is survival. Somepeople don’t want to live on the handouts that the government provides with its socialplans or programmes; they would rather to have the possibility of getting a better paidjob. Something which is very difficult during this crisis. In the here and now, theproblem is posed in terms of survival, there’s not much room for aspirations for socialbetterment. Unfortunately, on the other hand, a significant part of that sector which isdefined as the opposition or civil society lacks social sensibility. Here the only way ofcreating a social conscience is for the parties to get stronger, but also to speak out aboutthis social problem. This civil society that has been formed in the public arena,marching through the streets, protesting against Chavez, which has taken to the publicspace in order to raise its voice, now has to move into another arena, which is that ofbecoming involved in plans for social development, cultivating a constructivesensibility towards the rest of that sector of society that it had made invisible. We haveto fight for a society where there is room for all of us. From the position of theopposition we have to develop social plans, we have to create civil societies and socialmovements that work alongside the political parties to win back this space. This wouldprevent Chavez from having an absolute monopoly over the popular bases.RRR: But how do we take this step from occupying a space to opening this space up toeveryone? I think that this is a very difficult step, because occupying a space is an act ofviolence, to some extent, it implies a symbolic violence which is that of stating ‘here Iam’. How do you move from that symbolic violence to the democratic gesture whichimplies, ‘there’s room for all of us here’? I think that this is a leap which is very difficultto make. . ..YS: . . . the question should be: what are the strategies for getting to this democraticgesture? Saying ‘there’s room for all of us here’ implies at least a possibility of making achange to language, although most of the time I see it as a slogan that people saywithout any conviction. But at least it’s being said and it implies that we need to createthe mechanisms so that there is room for all of us. It would seem that the governmenthas a way of including the sectors which have traditionally been excluded, thedispossessed sectors, which are its social programmes, referred to as ‘missions’, which

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 S3 3 0

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:20

28

Oct

ober

201

4

glorifies their work, furthermore, with this politico-religious or crusading title.Because the army plays a leading role in them. So on one side there’s this governmentplan. But those who oppose Chavez have no plan for social solidarity nor any nationalproject. What they’ve done until now has been to group themselves together under theumbrella ‘civil society’ and say that they’ve also got the backing of the masses and thatthere is space for them within this civil society. But in reality, the masses are beingfought over in the background, they have become political capital. But other than thisrhetoric there are not many actions or organizational forms which put into practiceplans of action for social development from the sphere of the private sector. Those whohave aligned themselves with the opposition still don’t want to get involved in this. Thepoint is that this would be an effective way of preventing the government frommaintaining its monopoly over the popular bases.

Look, what’s the slogan the government transmits from its Ministry of Culture?‘The people are our culture.’ And if you think about it, that is what has been created.When people say to me there is no programme of popular culture, I say yes, there is.Because those revolutionaries on the street is in itself a cultural plan.RRR: That’s exactly what I wanted to get to – how do you think this government seesculture? Because it is clear that what they consider to be elite culture doesn’t come intotheir plans for development. . ..YS: At the moment that would seem to be the case. That is what we haven’t grasped,because we still think of culture as elite culture, as the beaux-arts. And what happens isthat when you start to analyse this slogan, ‘the people are our culture’, you realize,for example, that venues like the Teatro Teresa Carreno or the Teatro Municipal,which were the venues which represented the culture of beaux-arts, have beentransformed into spaces where political rallies are held, where Chavez and hisfollowers go to talk about their achievements, where they hold their meetings withintellectuals and social movements from Venezuela and other countries which aresympathetic to them. One has to understand that in this way what is taking place is anintervention in these spaces with a view to a transformation of their use and meaning,so that they can say to us that this is also culture: it is political, revolutionary culture.I don’t think it is healthy to take over all spaces in order to impose a political andcultural project under the guise that it is national, being aimed at the whole country,because differences, heterogeneity are not being respected, nor divergence of opinion.At the moment, anyone who is not on the side of this revolutionary culture does nothave a space of representation in the public sphere. But clearly, there is a programmehere, which has been beyond our comprehension, to propose an alternative civilsociety, that is, the creation of other, emergent cultural spaces. For example, therewas an interesting situation when a well-known musical group took it uponthemselves to give a concert in the street. This was an interesting gesture, but it didn’tturn out to be anything more than an isolated gesture. Because so-called civil society isnot yet sufficiently capable of responding in order to create alternative situations, ithas not gone further than the protest marches on the street. I think that this was animportant stage, but there’s a need to go further with gestures, strategies and actionswhich demonstrate an alternative national project which incorporates a true notion ofdemocracy and a more egalitarian society, without the great social divisions that wehave today.

I N T E R V I E W W I T H Y O L A N D A S A L A S 3 3 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:20

28

Oct

ober

201

4

With respect to the broadening of the concept of culture, if the spaces which werehome to the beaux-arts are being closed, then one has to take to the streets to producethis kind of culture. This would also imply becoming part of a circuit outside of themarket and it doesn’t seem as though many people are prepared to do that, or at leastthey haven’t realized the impact that this would have.RRR: This brings us to the problem of the media . . . how do you see the function thatthe media has acquired in this process? Because this is exactly where I think there is acrucial point. . ..YS: The privately owned media have contributed to exacerbating the dichotomies andautisms. They continue to reproduce a minority discourse where even many of thosewho are against Chavez don’t feel that they are represented. To the extent that thestate-controlled media, which are also biased, but towards the Government, areincreasingly watched and listened to by people who are opposed to them, but who arelooking for the other side of the information, so that they can attempt to construct theirown truth.RRR: But, on the other hand, don’t you think that the media have taken on thefunctions that other institutions should perform, such as those of the political parties?YS: . . . yes, but this was happening before Chavez. Look how absurd it was when atone point the media, in alliance with certain political parties who had already lost theirclaims to representativeness, thought that an ex-beauty queen, Irene Saenz, couldbecome president of the republic. Politics had been reduced to a kind of dramatic farce.Furthermore, who helped to render the already fragile political signs meaningless?The media, who dedicated themselves to antipolitics and offered their backing of abeauty queen as a political alternative. They thought that politics could be conductedthrough the media, with all of the tricks of the trade.RRR: And don’t you think that Chavez has joined in this whole game of media-drivenpolitics and that in a certain way he is winning the game?YS: Yes, but Chavez is a media warrior and this is one thing that does fit in with thisprofound, possibly atavistic and deeply ingrained popular imaginary that we weretalking about.RRR: In that case what we have functioning here is what Martın-Barbero calls a popularmatrix, which runs through the media and returns to the popular. . ..YS: . . . exactly. While in the other case, what we had was a fraudulent, mass discoursewhich lacked a true popular basis.RRR: . . . and in the midst of this polarized panorama, what’s left for intellectuals whoare neither on one side nor the other?YS: They must fight to create their own spaces where they can speak with their ownvoices. Confront the two polarized groups; be clear that they cannot coexist with twoauthoritarianisms at the same time. They have to break with these dichotomizedschemes and contaminate these two confrontational discourses; they have to show thatother ways of seeing reality can exist. We have to lose this fear of being rejected byboth sides. Of course this implies a certain degree of isolation.RRR: And are there spaces for this discourse at the current time?YS: . . . very few, very few, but we have to fight for them. We have to start with thepeople around us and not allow them to discredit us or humiliate us because we are notwith anyone. We have to reject authoritarianisms and humiliations, from whatevergroup they come from. But the thing is, there’s also a problem, in our case, which is

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 S3 3 2

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:20

28

Oct

ober

201

4

that our academic world and our intellectuals have been deeply conservative. While theacademic world abroad was questioning many forms of the discourse of power, when itwas undertaking studies of culture and power, here in Venezuela they were justbeginning to timidly imitate this with discourses and methods of analysis which werenot really subverting the structures. The most timid subjects were tackled, women’sstudies, for example, from a discursive perspective, but few intellectuals got activelyinvolved in leading social movements. The testimonio lost its validity here, for example.Testimonial literature emerged within the left as a form of subverting order. And thissuddenly stopped being valuable, as if there were no longer any need to subvertthat order.

In Venezuela we stopped talking about the need for intellectuals to be sociallycommitted. The nation was no longer of interest unless it was being studied assomething from the past, that is, how it had been built, how a citizenry had beendeveloped, and in reality what was being studied was how a bourgeoisie had beenformed. But we’ve yet to see a real critical revision dedicated to studying the essenceand the mentality of that bourgeoisie, of that nation and its process of modernization.

If you talk about social commitment you are considered unfashionable andnostalgic for the 1960s. And it’s not that, it’s about being involved withtransformational social movements. There are many ways of intervening socially.There are many intellectuals who are currently working with the government, keepinga low profile, and their work is innovative, although it is not being reported by themedia. They are there for their transformational ideas, even though they do notsympathize with the political practices of the messianic caudillos. But the thing is thatthe other side, the opposition, would not even offer them the possibility of forming acooperative or a social programme. I think the most serious thing is the lack of socialawareness of the majority of the opposition. We will not have a more solid politicalspace until people realize this. And to answer your question, the function of theintellectual is, amongst other things, to make visible this failing, this fundamental lackof social awareness on the part of the opposition.

Raquel Rivas Rojas teaches at the Universidad Simon Bolıvar in Caracas, Venezuela.

Yolanda Salas has taught in the US and Venezuela and has written extensively on

questions of culture, including Bolıvar y la historia en la conciencia popular.

I N T E R V I E W W I T H Y O L A N D A S A L A S 3 3 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:20

28

Oct

ober

201

4