Review: The Long Road from Guadalupe to Televisa

Author(s): Gustavo Verdesio

Review by: Gustavo Verdesio
Source: CR: The New Centennial Review, Vol. 2, No. 1, early modernities (spring 2002), pp. 277-
286
Published by: Michigan State University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41949316
Accessed: 11-02-2016 21:53 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Michigan State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to CR: The New
Centennial Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 21:53:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 BOOK REVIEW

The Road from

Long

to Televisa
Guadalupe

Gustavo Verdesio
ofMichigan
University

Imagesat War:MexicofromColumbustoBladeRunner(1492-2019).By
MacLean.Durham:
trans.Heather
SergeGruzinski, DukeUniversity
Press,
2001

THISLONGOVERDUETRANSLATION OF SERGEGRUZINSKI'S I99O BOOKIS A

welcomeadditionto theauthors corpusin English.It is,besides,an impor-
tantcompanionto The ConquestofMexicoin thatit supplementssome of
thattookplace duringcolonial
theaspectsoftheprocessofWesternization
book did notpayspecialattention.One
timesto whichtheaforementioned
of thoseneglectedaspects is the roleplayedby the imagethroughout the
colonialperiod.
One of the objectivesof this book is to show that images were very
importantforthe Europeansand thattheyconstitutedan extremely valu-
able tool forcolonization.There are different kinds of reasons forthe
relevanceof the imagein colonialtimes:spiritual(the imperativeof evan-
linguistic(as a toolto overcometheobstacleposedbytheindige-
gelization),
nouslanguagesto themissionariesmessage),and technical(theavailability
and popularizationof engravingsand of the printingpress [2]). Yet the
Amerindians
did notremainpassivebeforetheEuropeanaggression.
On the

• 277

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 21:53:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
278 • BookReview

contrary,theyrespondedto the imagesthatwereimposed on themwith

imagesof theirown creation.That is whyGruzinskiassertsthat,in good
part,theenterprise
ofcolonizationwas a war ofimagesthatlastedseveral
centuries(2).
The bookbeginswitha chapteron theAdmiraloftheOcean Sea,because
in Gruzinskis opiniontheimportanceoftheimagecan be tracedas farback
as his arrivalin Americanlands. ChristopherColumbus'sgaze is whatthe
chapterfocuseson in itsfirstsection.There,Gruzinskianalyzesthewaysin
whichColumbusdeals withindigenousobjectsthatseem to be representa-
tional.Yetit is FrayRamónPané (a Catalonianfriar)who,in 1496,studies
theindigenousobjectstodayknownas Cemies,whichhavemanymeanings,
origins,and forms(10). In spiteof thepolysemousnatureof thoseobjects
and thelackofreferentpointsforthetaskofinterpretingthemfroma com-
pletelydifferent
culture,FrayRamónPané does not describethemas idols
that representedfalse gods or the devil (11). They are, instead, things
endowedor not witha life(11).Columbus,forhis part,does not call the
Amerindiansidolaterseither(11).
AlthoughGruzinkis attributionof ethnographicsensitivityto Fray
RamónPané is arguable(because it soundslikea forcedattribution
ofmod-
ernvaluesto an earlymodernsubjectwho- I hastento declarein orderto
avoidfallingintoan anachronismthatwouldeventually be noticed- had no
knowledgeofanything remotelysimilarto ethnography),
it is clearthatthe
friartries,mostofthetime,to describetheindigenousritualsin theirown
That is, he does nottryto understandthemfroman exclusively
specificity.
Europeanstandpointbut tries,instead,to understandthe local contextin
whichtheytake place. Nevertheless,it can be said thatthe discoursesof
Pané and Columbusshareone traitwithmodernethnography: theyareuni-
lateraldiscoursesthatdo notgivetheAmerindian thechanceto produce,in
turn,a discourseabouttheEuropeansubject.
The following sectionstudiesPeterMartyrofAnghieras(humanistand
advisorto theSpanishCrown,thefirstto everpublishan encyclopedicvol-
ume on theNew World)interpretation ofthe Cemiesas ghosts(13-18)and
GonzaloFernándezde Oviedos(thefirstroyally appointedchroniclerofthe
Indies)characterization
ofthemas figures
ofthedevil(18-22).In bothcases,

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 21:53:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 GustavoVerdesio • 279

theindigenousobjectis reducedto somethingfamiliar,

to somethingeasily
understoodin the Europeanepisteme.Yet,it is withthe arrivalof Hernán
Cortés(theconquerorofMexico-Tenochtitlan)in thediscursivescene that
theword"Cerni"disappearsand giveswayto themostfamiliarone,at least
fora Europeanaudience:"idol"(22).
Accordingto Gruzinski,withCortésdisappearsanyinterestor concern
fortheelucidationofthequestionsaboutwhattheidolsmeantorwhatthey
wereused for;thatis,whatreplacesPanés curiosity
is a totalindifference
for
the identityand functionof the indigenousobjects(25). This attitudewas
theproductofa decisionand notofan impossibility (25-26).
Fromthenon,theidolbecomes,ifit is made ofa preciousmetal,a valu-
able curio (26). The object is now appreciatedforits value and, not less
importantly,forits beauty:manyofthemwillend up in one ofthegrowing
European collections.In thatnewhome(thecollection),indigenousobjects
are separatedfromtheiroriginalcontextsand are,in thatmanner,deprived
oftheirusual meaning(27). The firstidols seen byEuropeans,the Cemies,
werenotas valuableas the,say,Aztecones,because theyweremade ofless
materialssuch as stoneor wood.
interesting
Accordingto Gruzinski,the encounterwithmorecomplexcivilizations
such as theAztecs,first,
and theIncas,later,forcedEuropeansto come up
withmoreelaboratestrategiesforboth dominationand conversion(28).
Althoughthischaracterization
mayowe a lot to Europeanevolutionary
and
diffusionistmodels,it is truethata newstrategydeveloped:thatwhichcon-
sisted in the persecutionof objects that did not exist in the indigenous
world;thatis,thepersecutionoftheidols- a Europeanconstructwithouta
counterpart in anyofthe indigenousculturesencounteredbythe invaders
(28). Europeansstarted,then,watchingforsignsofa complexreligiouslife,
forindicatorsofan easilytakenwealth(29).
In thesecondchapter(entitled"War"),Gruzinskitellsus thattheadver-
sary'simagesareunacceptableiftheyare meantto be worshipped(30). This
notionstartsto becomedominantwith,again,Cortés,whostartedtheafore-
mentionedpractice: the systematicdestructionof the images of the
Amerindians(30). It is withCortés,then,thatthe persecutionof idolatry
takes the formof a two-stepoperation:first,the destructionof the native

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 21:53:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
280 • BookReview

idols,second,the substitution
of themby Christianimages(31). It was he
and notthepriestswhocamewithhimwhobothpreachedagainstthelocal
idols and replacedthemwithCatholicimages (32). In contrast,some of
thosepriestsshoweda remarkably
pragmaticattitudetowardsindigenous
images:"Whybothertakingawaytheiridols froma templeor an oratory
now,iftheythentransferthemelsewhere?" (34).
The Europeaninvasion,then,"unleasheda floodofWesternimagesonto
theAmericancontinents" (34). In Gruzinskisopinion,Cortésdid not take,
fromthoseWesternimages,theirdidactic,emotional,or mnemoniccapac-
ities-and thustheirqualitiesofrepresentation- as muchas theirmaterial
efficacy(37). That is, he triedto persuadetheAmerindiansthathis images
weremoreusefuland powerfulthantheirsand,therefore, thattheywould
be able to satisfyindigenousneeds and secular expectationsbetterthan
theirold idols (37).
The operationofsubstitution was notthatdifficult because,in general,
theAmerindiansrealizedthatit did not entaila majorchangein theways
in which thingsworked:"the sanctuaries,the local clergywere imper-
turbablyrecycledaroundthe new images"and "theprofanation remained
apparentlywithoutconsequenceon theorderofthingsand theworld"(38).
However, thisprocessofreplacement had notalwaysworkedso smoothly. It
sometimesencounteredunexpecteddifficulties, such as the "deviational"
the
interpretations aboriginesperformed vis-à-vistheChristianimages,for
example the widespreadbeliefamong indigenouscommunitiesthat all
Europeanreligiousimagesrepresented "dioses"(gods) and that,therefore,
thevirginMarys imagesweretheimagesofgod (39).
In anycase, the Spaniardsdid not abandontheirdoublepolicyofbar-
tering(goldand silver)and theimpositionofimages.These twooperations
werealwaystogether, accordingto Gruzinski,
and,in theWesternworldview,
the exchange favoredthe Europeans in the economic realm and the
Amerindians in thedomainoftheimage:theones theywereacquiringwere
thetrueones (41).
The idol,a Westerncreation,was the heirof a Judeo-Christian
world-
view,and itonlyexistedin thegaze oftheconquistadors(42). In thisworld-
view,theidol is a falseimageto whicha true(thatis,Western)one mustbe

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 21:53:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 GustavoVerdesio • 281

opposed (45). In thisrespect,colonizationappears,in the realmof images,

as a decontamination (47).
The Spaniardshad difficultyunderstanding how theindigenousimages
worked.Theyhad troublerealizingthattheAmerindiansimageswerenot
and thattheywerenotintendedas realisticrepresentations
figurative butas
a means of communication(50). Thereis also anotherformof indigenous
representationthat was difficultforthe Spaniards to grasp:the ixiptla.
Gruzinskidefinesit as follows:

The ixiptlacouldbe thestatueofa god... a divinity

thatappearedin a
a priest"representing"
vision, a deity
bycoveringhimselfinadornments,or
evena victim
whoturnsintoa goddestined tobe sacrificed.
Thesevarious
. . . couldbe juxtaposed
"semblances" the
during rituals:
thepriestsymbol-
izingthegodplacedhimself
nextto thestatuehe "represented"
andthere
wasno needfortheirappearances
tobe identical."
(50-51)

The ixiptlais, besides,the containerof a powerand the actualizationof a

power;itdoes notpointto a "beyond"but incarnatestheimmanenceofthe
forcesthatsurroundus as humanbeings(51).In oppositionto thisconcep-
tion we findthe Christianimage,that is a copy of an originalto which,
guidedbyresemblance, it points(51).
In thiscontextof mutualmisunderstanding, the Amerindianstriedto
hidetheirextant"idols"as wellas to producenewones.Thiswas nota very
difficult
operationforthembecause,traditionally, theworshipping ofgods
was done in private.Onlyon specialoccasionsweretheritualsmadepublic,
and mostofthetimetheytookplace beyondthegaze ofthepopulace- con-
tactwiththe gods was reservedforthe membersofthe nobility(55). Yetit
was notalwaysnecessaryfortheAmerindians to hidetheirreligiousobjects
fromtheinvaders,because manyofthemwerenot evenvisibleto Western
eyes.Trainedonlyto perceiveidols,the Spaniardswerenot able to see the
religiousnatureof some objects such as stones,mirrors, clothes,maguey
horns,flowers,and cocoa, to givejust a fewexamples(55-56).These non-
formsofreligiousrepresentation
figurative were,then,virtuallyinvisibleto
Westernsubjects.

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 21:53:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
282 # BookReview

evenmoreprivatethan
Indigenousreligiouspracticesbecame,therefore,
theyhad been and,ofcourse,completelyclandestine(57). Theirbeliefssur-
vivedmainlyinthreemedia:theman-gods(humanbeingsdressedlikegods),
theirvisions,and theircultobjects(59). Anotherformin whichAmerindian
religionsurvivedwas a widevarietyofsyncretisms thatconsistedin thejux-
- -
taposition notthesubstitution ofelementsfrombothcultures(59).
Yet,in thefirststagesoftheconquestofMexico,thedestructionoftem-
ples and "idols"somewhat or
paralyzed, at least shocked the
temporarily,
Amerindians
in a waythatstoppedthemfromgivingan organizedresponse
to theaggression(63). The firstFranciscanfriarswhopredicatedthegospel
in Mexico chose to be equipped with veryfew images to replace the
destroyedidols,though:theywereafraidthatthelocals wouldmisinterpret
some ofthe Christianimages,such as the representation
ofJesus'bodyon
thecross,as referring
to somethingsimilarto humansacrifices(65).
The Franciscanimageswerethe semblanceof anotherthing;theywere
in lieuoftheoriginal(66). Theywerealso moreinfluenced
byFlemishpaint-
ingsthanbytheItalianor Spanishtraditions(69-70) and PeterofGhent,a
Fleming, was one of the most renowned masters who taught the
Amerindianshow to reproducethe Christianart.Frescoes,walls saturated
withimages,also characterizedthe Franciscanenterpriseand broughtto
the forea new organizationof space (77). Theypopularized,also, a very
Westernpictorialtrend:an anthropomorphic kind of painting(78). This
trait and many others posed a challenge to the perceptivehabits of
Amerindians, forwhomtheWesternstylizedrepresentationofnature(caves,
clouds,and trees,forexample)was notbyanymeansobvious(79). The space
that organizedthose representedobjects was not,either,self-evident
to
indigenous eyes, and the actions portrayedbelonged to a repertoire
unknownto them(80).
Therewere,however,some possible bridgesbetweenindigenousand
Westernformsofrepresentation, as Gruzinskipointsout: the absenceofa
background and theproliferation emblemsin some Christianrepresenta-
of
tions;plus thegraphicrepresentation allowedsome roomfor
ofhierarchies
at leasta partialreceptionoftheOccidentalimagebytheAmerindians
(84).
Whatwas probablyless obviousto theAmerindianconsumersofWestern

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 21:53:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 GustavoVerdesio • 283

imageswas the imaginaryofwhichtheywerea part (85). The Franciscans

used imagesin yetanotherform:theatricalrepresentations
thathad plenty
ofspecialeffectsand trompel'oeil (90-91).
In chapter 4, the most extensiveand heavilydocumented chapter,
Gruzinskistudiesthebaroque imagein generaland the mythofthevirgin
ofGuadalupein particular.
This latteris reconstructedfromits origins,the
astuteconcoctionmasterminded by the head ofthe Mexicanchurch,Alonso
de Montufar(96 and passim).The framework fortheappearanceofthecult
is the1570s,a decade thathad markedthedepartureofPeterofGhentand
thearrivaloftheJesuitsand theInquisition,
whichchangedthereligioussit-
uationin Mexicocompletely (112).
The increasingcomplexityofthebaroqueimage- thatincludedtextsas
an important partofthevisualmessage- wheretheelementsweretheprod-
uct ofan intellectualconstruction
and thedeciphering ofit requireda cer-
tain degreeof education,lost a good part of the didacticstrengthof the
Franciscanimages(116).Duringthewholebaroqueperiodthereis,besides,
a proliferationofsacredimages,notonlyin publicplaces such as churches,
but also in privatehomes(137).And thoseimages,farfrombeingsimpleor
modest,wereopulent:the materialstheyweremade ofcost a lot of money
(145). Those imageswere also verypublic and massivelyconsumed.They
werean instrument used to achievea goal:theunificationofa veryhetero-
geneoussociety under a duringthebaroque
singleimaginary(146). Finally,
era the Inquisitionwas in chargeof the vigilanceof the qualityof images,
whichmeansthatthetribunalwatchedovertherespectofaestheticcanons
(157).
Chapter5 studiesthe consumptionof the baroque image,not onlyby
Europeanbut also bymestizoand Amerindiansubjects.The readeris pre-
sentedwitha societyin whichthe imageis omnipresentto thepointthat
somethinglikea "colonizationofeveryday life"startsto takeplace (161).All
kinds of objects were decoratedwithreligiousmotifs:fans and watches
depictingscenes fromthePassion ofChrist,stockingswithsaints images,
buttonsfeaturing the Virgin,and so on (161).Confronted withthisprolif-
eration of images, the church had to defendthe monopolyit claimed
againstall theseformsofappropriation ofthereligiousimages(163).Those

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 21:53:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
284 # BookReview

appropriationscould take the formof monstrousclandestine figures,

unorthodoxcommentaries, freeinterpretations,
and so forth(163-64).
Yetanotherformin whichthe masses appropriatedsacredimageswas
tattooingand bodypainting(165).Otherwaysin whichconsumersrelated
to imageswas by coercingimagesto fulfilltheirwishesby attackingand
sometimes destroyingthem (166-70), and by having visions (usually
promptedmoreby hallucinogenicdrugsthan by religiousfervor)or fan-
tasies (170-74).However,forthe church,the mostworrying
kindof appro-
priationwas theinsincereuse oftheimagesbyindigenoussubjectswhostill
believedin theirancientgods.Notwithstanding
theundeniableexistenceof
thesepractices,it is reasonableto assume thatnot all Amerindianscon-
sciouslymanipulatedChristianimages(177).Manyofthemsimplylookedat
theimagesin a different
way- a waythatwe shouldadmitescapes us (177).
Accordingto Gruzinski,though,thereis one thingwe can say about
indigenousreactionsto Westernreligiousimages:theyseem to havebeen
veryreceptiveto them(177).Thisreceptivity
can be explained,in part,byan
old Nahuatraditionthatconsistedofbringingbackhometheconqueredgods
fromtheirmilitaryraids(177).Anotherreasoncan be foundintheindigenous
beliefin theeffectiveness
oftheWesternimage(178).Yetanotherreason:the
missionaries
oftenused theword"ixiptla"to referto theimagesofthesaints
(178).This mayhave"takenon a tacticalrolefortheIndiansand been used
to masktherecourseto ancientdivinities,
butit also fulfilled
a function
that
was analogousto thatof the traditionalixiptla.It was considereda living
thing,to whichone offered
foodand drink.Fromtheverymomentofcontact
theWesternimagethusreceiveda nativeinterpretation"(179).
The appropriations thatthe Spaniardsviewedas indigenousmisunder-
standingsoftheChristianimagecan be betterexplained,Gruzinskitellsus,
byacceptingthatindigenousinterpretations werebased less on errorthan
on habits,practices,and notionsthatcouldhelpthemunderstand, and deal
with,colonialdomination(180).Therewere,ofcourse,misunderstandings,
buttheywereoccasionallymutual,liketheequationofsaintsand idolsthat
tookplace on bothsidesoftheculturalclash (180).
In any case, the indigenousimaginaryshowed a much more open
attitudetowardthe new than the Spaniards'imaginary,as is shown,for

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 21:53:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 GustavoVerdesio • 285

example,in the rapidincorporation

of indigenoussubjectsto the ranksof
thoseproducingChristianimages(185).Amerindians played,then,fromthe
timeof Peterof Ghenton, an importantrole in the diffusionof Western
images (192). Yet theirrole in the reproductionof the enemys images
changedovertime.For example,in the eighteenth centurytheproduction
of images "became an expressionof nativeresistancethat occasionally
turnedinto rebellion.Theyeven became concreterepresentations
of the
political,social and religiousrefusalofcolonialorder"(202).
Littlebylittle,Amerindians beganto oppose theirownChristianimages
to the ones producedby Europeansby claiming"the monopolyand the
authenticityofChristianworshipforthemselves. The fake,theimpostor,the
was
devil, the Spaniard"(203). But not all indigenousgroupsrespondedin
thesamewayto thechallengeposed bytheiconography broughtbythecon-
quistadors:the receptivity
dependedon the different imaginariesthatpre-
dominated in the different regionsof Mesoamerica (205). This is why
Gruzinskiprefersto talkabout indigenousimaginariesin theplural.
The conclusionofthisbook is a veryhurriedoverviewofthemostrecent
ofMexico,fromtheeighteenth
history to thedateofpublication(end
century
ofthetwentieth In theend,heproposesa nexusbetweenthebaroque
century).
andpostindustrial thebaroqueproliferation
imaginaries: ofimagessomewhat
openedthewayfor"thepolitics,machineryand effects
oftheimagetoday.It
did so not onlythroughits homogenizingfunctionand its universalizing
obsession,but also bycreatinga singularrapportwiththeimage,makingit
thebasisofa surreality
intowhichthegaze couldsink,thatabolishedthedis-
tancefromprototype to reflection,
erasingtheconditionsofits production"
(225). The whole chapterprovidesvaluable insights,as is customaryin
Gruzinski, but it lackssometimesthedepthofanalysisthatone wouldhave
desiredto see in theconclusionofsucha denseand richlydocumentedbook.
The conclusionis perhapstoo shortto accountforboththelongperiodthat
it intendsto coverand thenot-so-clearlinksbetweenthebaroqueimageand
theonesproducedbythemodern-day MexicannetworkTelevisa.
Throughoutthisvolumeone gets the impressionthatGruzinskicould
have gone furtherin the analysisof the cornucopiaof documentshe pres-
ents to the reader.He usuallystops analyzingonce he has more or less

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 21:53:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
286 • BookReview

squeezedthesourcesoftheinformation thatsrelevantto provinghispoint,

One
ofindigenouslivesand imaginaires.
whichis usuallytheWesternization
oftheindige-
couldsafelysaythatthepagesdedicatedto theWesternization
nouspeoplesofMexicobyEuropeansubjectsoutnumber, bya widemargin,
indigenousformsofresistanceto it.
theones dedicatedto registering
His claimthatthe studyofcolonialLatinAmericais importantforthe
ofthepresentis welcomein an academicworldthatconsis-
understanding
tentlyforgetsabout thatregion(227), as is thecase in postcolonialstudies
and otherprogressive scholarlypractices.However,thereshouldbe better
waysto makethisconnectionbetweenan unjustpresentand an ignomin-
ious past than to quicklypropose a nexus betweenthe futureworldpro-
posed by the filmBlade Runner(or the presentworld that some, like
Gruzinski,identify as postmodern)and the colonial Latin Americanone.
Thisis howhe sees thoselinks:"Theblurring theconfusionof
ofreferences,
theoverlapoflifeand fiction,
ethnicand culturalregisters, of
thediffusion
drugs,the multiplicationof the images bases also turnedthe New Spain
baroqueimaginairesintoa préfiguration oftheneobaroqueor postmodern
imaginairesthatwe experiencetoday"(226). It seems to me thatthiskind
ofparallelismentailssome risks,such as fallingintothetrapofbelievingin
a transhistoric
Zeitgeist It also
sharedbythebaroqueeraand postmodernity.
a and
seemsto me thatifone intendsto makesuch risky difficult-to-prove
statement,more documentationand discussion should be dedicated to
maketheargumentmorepersuasiveor at least moreplausible.
Havingsaid that,it is evidentthatwe arebeforean importantworkthat
contributesto theunderstanding oftheeffectsofcolonization thepeo-
on
as othercontributions
ples ofMexico.It is not,perhaps,as illuminating by
Gruzinski,like,say,The ConquestofMexico or his most recentEl pen-
samientomestizo, but it is relevantnonetheless.It offersthe readera mag-
nificentdocumentation,a series of insightfulreadingsperformedby an
and a focuson thehitherto
acuteobserver, neglectedroleoftheimagein the
colonizationofthatimportantregion.

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 21:53:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions