A Latin American Indian Re-reads the

Canon
Postcolonial Mimicry in El Sen or Presidente

Jorge J. Barrueto

As any Latin American of Indian extraction would testify, it is hard for an

Indian to make his or her voice heard. Political and economical exclusion
are the norm if not the unwritten law in many countries of the region. Even
harder is to hear Indian input in economic, political, and social policies since
elected politicians do not usually represent Indians. It is even difficult, almost
an anomaly, for an Indian to give his opinion about cultural phenomena,
especially art and literature since Latin American literature and subsequent
criticism is done with a open pro-European bias not only in the regional
praxis but also abroad. Therefore, and I think I speak for many Latin Americans of Indian extractionwho make up the majority in most of the countries of the regionthanks for the Postcolonial. This approach has allowed
me to re-read canonical works taking a new refreshing look at them and
hoping to bring to light a new body of criticism and, most importantly, to
allow the underdogs to give their view about the celebrated and canonized
narratives. I see El Sen or Presidente not in the vein of the traditional criticism
(but not by all means gone) of the writer as the origin of meaning, but of the
writer, as Heather Hirschfeld puts it, as a discursive formation embedded in
particular historical conditions and disciplinary needs (). In this essay, I
concentrate my efforts on the historical discourse that I discern in the work
of Miguel A ngel Asturias who, as we will see below, ascribed the problems of
Guatemala to the presence of the Indians.
In , Miguel A ngel Asturias went to France to thank the French writer
Hispanic Review (summer )
Copyright Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania

: summer

Paul Vale ry for the letter which the latter had written praising Asturiass
Leyendas de Guatemala (). One wonders what went on in Asturiass mind
when Vale ry suggested to him to return home to Guatemala. Vale ry wanted
Asturias to leave France, to go back to the Americas and to write about that
effervescent, unknown wilderness that Guatemala offered to the European
reader. Vale ry wanted Asturias to write not as an imitator of European literature, but as the indigenous voice of that primitive land in a state of formation. For Vale ry, who had been very supportive of Leyendas de Guatemala,
where Asturias suggested that an atavistic mentality was the main feature of
Guatemalan Indians, Asturias and Guatemala were a dual entity en efervecencia como la tierra, los volcanes, la naturaleza. 1 Years later, when Asturias published El Sen or Presidente (), Vale rys advice seemed to have had
a strong influence on the Guatemalan writer. Everything that Vale ry dreamed
of had come to life.
Although I do not intend to dwell on Valerys ideas, his views fit a pattern
of thinking about the Latin American Other. In the pages of El Sen or Presidente there is that efervecencia that Vale ry wanted, which seems to come
alive in the natives primitivism, their misplaced passion and their corrupted
persona. I, however, see this novel as the reflection of an inherited ideology
in Latin America that has produced specific patterns in the natives Otherness discernible in a rich body of literary imagery. This type of thinking,
which thoroughly pervades Asturiass narrative, is the undying echo of the
old and the new assumptions about the ontology of non-Europeans in the
Americas. The Others basic traits are not only imbedded in personal behavior but its presence is also incarnated in the political body which is the expression of the collective wish of the individual.2 In this case, the Other is the
Guatemalan society (and its inhabitants) which reveals an ideological thinking proposing that primitivism and degeneration are inherent to Latin American societies.
This qualitative dimension in El Sen or Presidente has never been addressed.
This novel, in fact, has been seen not as the formulation of a colonial discourse persistent in literary production in the region, but, on the contrary,
as the unique novel of political criticism. Asturiass novel has been heralded,
in fact, as being the novel which epitomizes the dictadura, a phenomenon

. Cited in dAussenac .
. I use Rey Chows definition of Otherness; she sees it as the image and silent object in Western
discursive production ().

Barrueto : -

perceived to be a natural and inherent trait in the region. For Lanoel d

Aussenac, for instance, this novel conveys Asturiass mensaje de denuncia
of the corruption in Guatemala (). This claim is echoed by Daniel Campion who sees this novel as having a clear goal of social protest (). For
Carlos Navarro, El Sen or Presidente is about the realidades escalofriantes
which dominate Latin America (). Asturias, as well, complements this
thinking claiming that his job and that of other Latin American writers is to
report on the historias [ . . . ] de ca rceles, persecusiones, barbarie y vandalismo de los sistemas dictatoriales latinoamericanos (Bellini ).
El Sen or Presidente is a great aesthetic achievement in the region and
perhaps is, with merit, one primordial expression of cultural production in
the first half of twentieth-century Latin America. Yet the views rendered
above about Asturiass novel do not address the ideological underpinnings,
which rise to the surface throughout the narrative. They are in fact part of
an Orientalist discourse to echo Edward Saids words that have constructed
the Other, this time Latin America as the land of corruption and anarchy.
For the above, Asturias points to political corruption as one of the problems
in his country, and identifies military dictatorships as sine qua non in the
region, yet these same essentializing views fail to address this narrative as the
expression of a particular historical moment, which served as the background to Asturiass writing. I propose instead a postcolonial critique which,
as Benita Parry points out, aims at deconstructing the premises of a discursive apparatus which constructed the Third World not only for Western
consumption, but also for the cultures so represented (). It will be clear
in my analysis that the ideological basis of this work does not reflect the telos
of social critique, but the reaffirmation of Eurocentric beliefs (and a body of
knowledge) which sees Latin America as the land of primitivism and corruption where the absurd predominates in social and political relations. I believe
that El Sen or Presidente unwittingly provides evidence of how literature, as
cultural praxis, exemplifies that ideological necessity of labeling Latin
America as the land where the said Otherness prevails, and where not only
the native but even society does not evolve toward higher goals. This position
confirms our claim that Asturiass novel is not a critique of political corruption, but conveys the message that the Other cannot be a civilized entity, and
that the Others nature should be recognized as a potential menace to Western civilization.
Mimicry is a term borrowed from Natural Science used when studying
animal behavior, such as the transformations a chameleon undergoes when

: summer

it finds itself within changing environments. Homi Bhabha, however, has

used this term to theorize the behavior of former colonized people who strive
or are compelled to behave in a similar way to (European) models. He also
sees mimicry as a psychological process in colonial relations which allows the
unveiling of the colonial thinking that has constructed the Other as a reflection of its own desire. Bhabhass argument is that the Western mind sees the
Other as trying to be like the norm, trying to resemble, to imitate Western
ways, that is, an entity wanting to be civilized, democratic, individualistic,
and rational. On the surface, these aspirations would appear to be normal
and acceptable, especially because they mimic accepted models of social and
political virtue. Yet, this process conveys a dual perception which betrays that
lofty commiseration. This lionizing of the eagerness of the native to be like
the European model also reveals, at the same time, civilized mans fear of the
Others savage ways (). Mimicry, to be sure, responds to the Eurocentric discourse which contends that the Other, although engaging in imitation,
is not like us, and his mere presence poses fear and anxiety in the colonial
mind.
For Bhabha, mimicry entails the notion that the Other is an erratic, eccentric, accidental subject which cannot aspire to have full human presence.
The Other is almost the same, but not quite (, ). Mimicry, however,
is not a straight metaphor; it is not a direct comment on the native, but
rather conveys its meaning through a subtle, repetitive rhetorical process.
Colonial discourse usually restates its view of the native through ad infinitum
literary exercises of irony, mimicry, and repetition. Of these, mimicry is
crucial for the understanding of that elusive, yet always omniscient Western
wish. For Bhabha, mimicry is constructed around an ambivalence, which
is the difference between the Self and the Other. For mimicry to be effective,
it must continually imagine and produce both the Others excess and his
difference while emphasizing a contrast between this immorality and the
proper behavior of Western man ().
On the exterior, it is the Others imitation of the European ways which
seems to make mockery (or a serious reaffirmation) of Western ways, yet this
resemblance is what unveils the colonial discourses strategy while affirming
its power. While showing the natives wishful engagement in imitation, colonial discourse acts as the witness to how this Other strives to imitate its
betters (suggesting his need for leadership) and, at the same time, how the
Other is intrinsically symbiotic to his excessive ways. Mimicry, in this way, is
actually the triumph of colonial thinking, since it proves to itself that the

Barrueto : -

colonized subject might aspire to a civilized status, but will never be equal
and will never reach full humanity. And history helps in this colonial bid,
which is, in fact, the eternal punishment of colonized subjects. Because the
natives original culture was wiped out or modified forever, the icon which
serves as the unattainable object of his desires (the Western model) is always
out of the natives reach. This phenomenon is not only a case of literary
rhetoric, but also reflects old patterns of thinking and provides the framework within which many Creole writers in Latin America work.3 These writers glorify European values, and always portray the Old World as the
pinnacle of civilization and the model for Latin America. El Sen or Presidente
is not different, and, in fact, it goes beyond simple mimicry. This novel is
not a social critique of the political situation in Guatemala, as those critics
mentioned before have pointed out, but actually is the powerful reaffirmation of colonial ideology, which, through Asturiass pen, essentializes Guatemalas society within specific boundaries. Recalling Vale rys words, Asturias
succeeds in giving us a fictional land in efervecencia that can never be the
embodiment of full presence.
Without exception, the colonial discourses goal is clear. It tries to produce
a recurring pattern in the Others personal behavior which elicits a civilized
response (white mans burden) and becomes the ubiquitous evidence of the
natives difference. As we can see in other canonical characters, the superstitious Don a Ba rbara, Solima n in El reino de este mundo, the languid Mara,
and the barbaric Indians in Huasipungo, to name a few, are symbols of Otherness which trigger that response, and provide the evidence of the Others
difference. Mimicry, as Bhabha comments, requires that the representation
of the Other is dependent upon some strategic limitation or prohibition
within the authoritative discourse itself. That is, the discourse makes sure
that the Other is believed to be a convincing failure. The objective is to
show to the world the natives basic essence: resemblance to the ideal Self
(his aspirations to European ideals) and yet this persona as the potential
menace (to those ideals) (). Again, colonial discourse, as seen in Asturiass
novel, is about itself, not the colonial Other. It is the establishment, after all,
which feels the fear of the menacing presence when confronted with the
deceitful Other.

. In literature, this ideology reflects basic tenets of the scientific narratives (Positivism and Social
Darwinism) which have influenced literary praxis since independent times. See Bentez-Rojo ().

: summer

The Other, however, is a complex subject in colonial discourse, since its

own inception as the Western antithesis reflects ambivalent feelings. The native is perennially the incarnation of that dreadful entity of resemblance/
fear which is internal to the mechanics of colonial discourse; this dichotomy
functions as a sign which constantly surfaces while under Western observation and vigilance as seen in the never-ending reaffirmation of the colonial
imaginary.4 This is, of course, embodied in the lack of civilization in the
natives corporeal and mental disposition that elicits the need for order and
reassurance in the Western mind. In El Sen or Presidente, Asturias constructs
a world where the danger to the well-being of the society depicted in his
story comes from the systematic behavior of the Other, which is perceived as
the immanent threat because of its continuous uncivilized nature.
The narrative conveys the message that the values of Modernity, themselves the highest points of a civilized worldand the symbolic referents of
the novelare ridiculed by the incomplete Guatemalans. This assumption
about the Other, which fathoms a betrayal to the civilized world, renders the
society in this novel as the nest of anarchy, immorality, and corruption
which, although restricted to the Others being, is also of deep concern to
the Western mind, since it could be the source of contamination. This evil
Other, however, is intrinsic to how the colonial discourses complex imagery
sees Latin America: the land of superstition, primitivism, and decay. In El
Sen or Presidente we read, for example, that Indians are too ignorant to know
what is good for them. The explicit example is given by Asturias, who has an
Indian reacting to the promise of a better type of government. [El] indio
contemplaba al general como un fetiche raro, sin comprender las pocas palabras que deca (). This is an illustration of the characteristics which
are assumed to be the reflection of the particular idiosyncrasies of the Latin
American rooted in human and cultural elements. These elements are, of
course, not only the incarnation of barbarism, but also, most importantly for
contemporary times, the organic components of the nation/state.
The notion of the aggregate social body as the expression of the collective
will was an idea that defined the Romantic quest for nationhood in the nineteenth century. The nation, that great modern panacea, seemed to be the

. Bhabha affirms that colonial discourse must always satisfy that demand for narrative, which
embodies the tangible evidence of its own claims (Location ). The repetitive tropes of savagery, corruption, and timeless existence present in El Sen or Presidente reflect that demand of the
colonial wish while at the same time reaffirming the truth about the native.

Barrueto : -

ultimate expression of peoples soul; the understanding was that a particular

kind of psyche would express itself in an equally distinct type of nation. This
innermost wish was assumed to be reflected on how territory, flags, and
holidays were imagined, and how the state was organized. The state, not just
the nation, was considered an expression of the peoples will in a historical
context. Johann Gottfried Herder, the patter familias of nationhood, synthesized the idea of culture and nation as reciprocal entities and used history as
the referent for his ideas. He thought that modern man really owed his basic
essence to past generations; that the very being of contemporary mankind
was a continuing dialogue between the generations (Malik ).
Extrapolating the idea of this dialogue to an inorganic body, Herder sanctioned the idea that this ongoing dialogue was actually something inexorable
in the composition of the nation. He theorized that the characteristics of the
national body were etched in time, and had an evolutionary component since
the spirit of the people went through a process of refinement and consolidation throughout history. It was this spirit which accounted for the cultural expressions seen in a determined country; the Volkgeist, as he called it,
was expressed in myths, songs, and literary works which for Herder carried
the peoples heritage through eternity. Those legends and myths, Herder assumed, were mimetic of earlier immemorial times which, he thought, had
been the place where that national spirit was forged (Malik ).5
These ideas, however, were not restricted to how Europeans saw their own
political experience, but also how they saw non-European social groups. By
the nineteenth century, with the political dominance of Europe over much
of the world, it was not difficult to see how the idea of the nation took a
foothold in political affairs in most of the world, especially in the new countries of Latin America. The nation was believed to be the result of a peoples
conscious decision to affirm its belief in a precise collective character,
which reflected their cultural and historical heritage (Malik ). Naturally,
this very influential idea provoked a quandary in the new countries which
lacked a homogeneous ethnicity; this situation, however, produced a utilitarian silver lining for the Creoles in the Americas (Alfaro-Alexander ).
This cultural heritage was not only restricted to Europe; it was, in fact, part
of the cultural export which, either by imposition or influence, had become

. Herders ideas were made known to the public in his Style and Art () and Outlines of a
Philosophy of the History of Man (; trans. ).

: summer

universal, and which, in the Latin American case, pervaded the relationships
between the Creole and the non-European natives.
By the second half of the nineteenth century, Europeans truly believed
they were living a revolutionary moment in their history. In these circumstances, deeply ethnocentric beliefs arose as Europe saw itself as the guiding
light from which civilization would spring to the whole world. It was the
time when the idea of primitive societies was defined to be, now on a scientific basis, the antithesis of this ascendant Europe. Kuper notes that this was
also a time when Europe saw itself as the model for the world, and when
primitivism was viewed as being a sine qua non for most non-European societies. This was also the moment when Europes intellectual ideas were expressed in a series of unchallengeable gospels; they gave birth to the notions
of the Romantic quest for nationhood, the idea of History as a universal
given, and the idea of the rational management of the state. For Kuper, the
political discourse of the time was influenced by Marxs class economics,
Webbers rationalization of the state, and Durkheims claim about organic
forms of solidarity, all of which saw as the antithesis of their theories the
existence of the traditional (i.e., primitive, underdeveloped, irrational, informal) society (). As mentioned before, it was also the time of the predominance of Darwins ideas on man as the end-product of evolution.
If the nation/state could be considered as the reflection of peoples character, and not the reflection of power politics, colonial thought was sowing the
seeds of its own deconstruction. That fear of the native, although in the
imaginary, loomed large in European consciousness. From the mere imagined personal characteristics of individual native behavior, native primitivism became the overriding feature of the natives own collective community.
This was the ultimate fear about the Other; the fear was not only about the
individual Other, but also about what he might produce, like the collective
Other (his society). As we will see in El Sen or Presidente, the Other, if left to
his wild ways, might pose a formidable menace to the established culture.6
This fear is seen in how similar and how different the Other was to Europes

. The fear, perhaps it should be clarified, is not what European individuals or countries feared
from the native subject, since political ties had long been broken. The fear in this novel is very
representative of the political situation in many countries in the region. The settler communities
(the Creoles) do indeed fear the brown masses over which they have political control. Asturias,
a ladino (Creole from Guatemala) knew of this fear closely. Guatemala, an overwhelmingly Indian
country, is controlled by a handful of people of Spanish descent who still rely on colonial structures in their relationships with the Indians (Hawkins ).

Barrueto : -

eyes. This political unconscious, of course, was better expressed in aesthetic

displays than in tangible reality.
In any event, the fear of the Other, as mentioned earlier, was not a phenomenon in the real world, but actually reflected a historical discourse in
which particular modes of thinking predominated. The likelihood of existence of this Otherness, of course, reflected the philosophical inheritance of
the Enlightenment (Dussel ), although it also responded to the aesthetic
fads prevalent in Europe in the first part of the twentieth century. One of the
latter was Surrealism, an aesthetic movement very much in vogue in Europe,
especially in France where Asturias made his home. He was familiar with
those ideas about dreamlike worlds, the bizarre, and the primitive mind due
to his long involvement in Parisian intellectual life. Although Surrealism
seemed to challenge, on the surface at least, the surrounding traditional aesthetics in Europe, it also appropriated Modern assumptions about the object
of its preoccupation (the Other) in order to establish its characteristics.
For Andre Breton, one of its main innovators, Surrealism would flourish
if artistic production were approached in a manner not found in everyday
life. For him, the bizarre and the primitive would only be found in spaces
released from the restraint of reason, morality and social convention (Mathews ). Of course, this particular place was either found only in dream
sequences or in the fantastic imagery assumed to be a rule in specific countries. It was not a surprise that in a deeply Eurocentric France, places like
Africa and other wild places would be the best locales for surrealist practitioners to find characters fitting those aesthetic prescriptions. Guatemala,
we will see, fitted the rationale as one of those anarchical places where peoples behavior was beyond moral restraint, and driven solely by the passion of desire (Mathews ).7 Asturias himself would find logic in these
explanations about surrealism and the Otherness of non-Europeans, especially in people whom he knew closely. He thought, for example, that
surrealist art echoed somewhat the magical and primitive mentality of the
Indians (Prieto ).8 This is the historical background on primitivism that

. According to Michel Carrouges, for Andre Breton, the foremost innovator of Surrealism,
meaning was to be found in the world of dreams, that place without conscious direction ().
. In Asturiass France, primitivism and the surreal were two concepts that shared many characteristics. Emery, commenting on Surrealism and the primitive, notes that in Europe there was a
widespread belief which held that only in primitive settings the individual could reach that
mental paroxysm that surrealists sought ().

: summer

allows the telos of mimicry to unfold in El Sen or Presidente, unveiling both

the limited capacity and the potential threat of the Other.
In this novel, there are many instances of the Others resemblance, to use
one of the components of mimicry, to the European model; in its pages, we
see the allusion to democracy, equality, and basic morality which cannot
prosper because the state has been usurped by a dictator. The ideological
component in this novel also expresses itself in the actions, individual and
collective, of the members of this fictional polity, a behavior which unveils
the ontology of the native. The society in this novel, even though it has been
seized by the dictator, is a site where ethical aspirations still reign, although
primitivism prevails. This wish for democracy is represented by the actions
of Eusebio Canales, Doctor Barren o, Fedina, and to a degree by Cara de
A ngel and Camila, who are the most representative victims of the dictatorship. They resemble the ideal Self, but only to a certain point. Their wishes
mimic those of European standards, but only to a degree which never surpasses mere wishful thinking.
The democratic aspirations of General Canales, for example, elucidate this
point. Canales wants to fight the dictatorship of El Presidente, and wishes to
improve conditions in his country. Canaless aspirations are a reflection of
Modernitys ideals: respect for the individual, justice, and equality. He has,
in fact, raised an army and is ready to march to the capital and claim the
government for democracy. Yet even with a seemingly powerful army, Canales does not follow through with his plans. He can dream of achieving, but
cannot carry out his original objective. He can mimic, but only to a certain
extent. His actions might resemble those of a European man, but his Otherness prevents him from achieving his objectives. This Otherness is always
lurking in the back, waiting to claim its own. When Canales dies, his followers immediately revert to superstition, thus betraying Canaless wishes for a
modern country and affirming the latent savagery of the native (). Superstition, however, is not a passing allusion, and, in fact, prevails in the novel
as the leitmotif pointing to the mental state of the native.
The native, it seems, cannot trust science and his own mind in order to
achieve his objectives in life; the native simply relies on superstitious devices
which he believes will deliver his wishes. The native simply takes for granted
the existence of an immanent power in which he must believe. It is interesting that from the start Asturias stresses the superstition which dominates the
peoples minds in his novel, clearly seen when Patahueca swears off some
bad omen which is preeminent in the inception of the plot (). Emphasiz-

Barrueto : -

ing hearsay and the unreal as characteristics of the natives mentality, Asturias seems to suggest that the natives would not relate to each other without
these elements. Idolatry and superstition are necessary for Asturiass plot,
and he identifies specific cultural phenomenaEuropean idealsas the opposite end to this debauchery.
El Sen or Presidente underscores the notion that modern society was also
defined as the place where the territorial state, the monogamous family and
private property were the main characteristics which defined mans existence.
Primitive societies, therefore, did not have those features. The primitive did
not have the notion of the marked territory as his home; his communities
were a reflection of personal, not consensual, ties and his sexual practices
were highly promiscuous. Of course, the primitive would not, by definition,
have respect for private property. In general, the idea that the native lacked
a progression in mentality was widespread; primitive man was illogical and
given to magic, unlike his European counterparts (Kuper ).
In the colonial logic, the Other can only aspire to but never be like the
master European blueprint. The Others action shows how the native strives
for betterment, yet his basic persona denies him success. He can resemble,
but cannot be European and his behavioral patterns always unveil his condition as he makes a mockery of human values and institutions. Love, to give
an example, is defiled by the crude attitude of the native. In this primeval
society love cannot flourish as a basic human emotion, and even the word
madre is synonymous with torment rather than love (). The love between Cara de A ngel and Camila cannot be a success; the corrupted practices
which abound around them forbid it. The Presidente, in fact, finds personal
delight in separating the couple. Fedianas love for her son, in another instance, is made the focus of ridicule and, in fact, she is ordered not to feel
anything for him (). The family, as well, is rendered as a remorseless
unit which is not conducive to the fostering of love. Camila is repudiated by
her blood relatives () and Benjamn and don a Venjamo n carry on an
incomprehensible caricature of marriage (). It is love, in fact, that triggers
the downfall of Cara de A ngel, as he is reminded that love is fregado, lamido, belitre y embustero aluding not to the mechanics of personal relationships, but to the political machinations of El Sen or Presidente ().
Love, or the substitute for it, is only found in a house of ill repute. A significant portion of the novel is developed around a brothel or the characters
who frequent it; of course, a brothel is not conducive to renovation of life
and the flourishing of real love, but points to the perversity of the characters.

: summer

In this situation, Farfa n can only feel love when there is a monetary medium
of exchange, and Va squez can only love somebody who actually hates him.
The idea of Europe as the antithesis of primitive society had a component
which was based on an unequivocal feature of the natives mind: primitivism.
This feature prevailed in the life of the Other because it existed in the minds
of the members of a determined society.9 Ferguson clarifies the particularities
of this thinking. He states that in the project of Modernity, European social
constructs were believed to reflect the rhythm of an inner movement,
which marked the progress and development of civilized man; this characteristic, of course, was the defining point of difference with the Other whose
inner spirit was considered to be lacking this type of motion (, ). This
obsession with movement and the stagnant is crucial to understanding the
society of El Sen or Presidente because society is supposed to be, at least in the
Herderian way, the reflection of the natives psyche. The effects of this type
of movement (or the absence of it) were seen in how the state apparatus was
administered. In an age where the idea of the nation state was taken to be
the highest achievement of the progressive wish of the people, this idea was
not difficult to accept. People were believed to collectively stamp their character into the type of government they would produce. There was, however,
a precondition for the formation of a modern nation. Movement (as in evolution and will) became linked to the ability to engage in abstract thought
and reason. Josep Pico notes that the principles of Modernityindividual
liberty, equality, and freedom from institutionalized oppressionwere believed to be achievable objectives if behavior was mediated by reason ().
Reason, however, was not, at least in the European mind, a universal feature,
and for discursive and political practices not extended to non-Europeans. It
was a de facto feature denied to the Other, so it was not difficult to guess
what type of government the Other would produce. Movement, as in progress; and reason, as the ability to think, were antithetical to the native. The
absence of reason, of course, entailed the assumption that the Other would
be engaging in primitive activities rather than constructive and progressive
goals.
The corruption of values is not limited to human feelings; degeneration

. As already mentioned, this is an old colonial idea which was alive and well in the th century,
and in fact, it was reinforced by the preponderant anthropological knowledge of the mid-century.
Claude Le vi-Strauss, the expert on primitive minds, would later synthesize the view that the
savage had mental structures that helped him understand the world ().

Barrueto : -

affects the symbol of progress, as well. Science, which conveys that sense of
objectivity, also suffers in this type of society. When Doctor Barren o discovers that adulterated medicine was the cause of the death of some patients,
his reward is a reprimand by el Sen or Presidente (). Even time, a useful
colonial trope, has seemingly stopped. For instance, besides the birth of Miguel, the son of Cara de A ngel and Camila, there are no signs of life itself
being generated. Time has come to a standstill. This inalterable temporality
seems to embrace most characters, especially el Sen or Presidente whose origins are unknown, and whose claim to power seems indefinite.10 He is the
immortal monster that disturbs the civilized psyche; he is, correlatively, the
undying representative of the endless dictatorships which Europeans see as
idiosyncratic to Latin America.11
Resemblance is, however, only one component of mimicry. Resemblance
is the ideal position of the Other that colonial discourse always extols. Poor
natives they can only aspire seems to be the slogan. Mimicry, as pointed
out, actually conveys another element which poses instability in the colonial
psyche: the fear of natives behavior. The fear of the Other is a long repetitive
nightmare. The world, however, is still a safe place; it is only in the mind of
the colonizer where this fear makes its home. The natives deportment, as
mentioned earlier, resembles that of the colonizer, but is characterized by the
natives innate propensity to wild practices. It would appear that the native
tries to imitate, and in fact does, but cannot hide his own being. The President, for example, uses the fac ade of a modern nation, with civil institutions
as the conveyors of democratic ideals, yet stamps the government with his
own corrupted bias. Government officials such as the Auditor are engaged in
a distinctive truculent behavior, not in the monitoring of the march of the
state as it would be in a civilized nation (). Society, not just the government, is so corrupted that even common citizens become informants for
the dictator. Resembling or trying to imitate the master is only a mild symptom of the natives difference. Colonial narratives must reveal the native as a
tangible menace, thus, to show the real fear that bothers the European psy-

. For Johannes Fabian, denial of coevalness, that is, the denial of the Other as a coequal being
living in the same historical time, has been a very useful colonial device to deny the native a basic
humanity (). Denying equal contemporaneousness, colonial thought makes sure to press for the
idea that the Others historical time explains his atavistic nature.
. It should be noted that Asturias lived in a Europe under the phantom of perhaps the two most
unethical and violent dictatorships in history (Stalins Soviet Union and Hitlers Germany), yet he
chose to place his perfect dictatorship in Guatemala.

: summer

che, the natives threat is magnified through allusion to undying features: the
natives systematic violence and cruelty as the preeminent device of politics
as demanded by ethnic traits and cultural beliefs.
Sure enough, primitivism mirrors deep cultural elements particular to
Guatemala due to the influence of the native Indians. Echoing Herders view
of culture, modern customs are the reflection of some innate traits in people
(the ongoing dialogue between the present and the past) which in this novel
is clear in the idea of Mayan sacrifices. The dictator is the embodiment of
Tohil, believed to be the Mayan world of the underworld, and, as with the
latter, the former demands a sacrifice to appease his madness (dAussenac
). The victim is Cara de A ngel, the old comrade who has fallen out of his
grace (). The Presidente does not trust Cara de A ngel because of the
latters marriage to his old nemesiss daughter. Of course, the sacrifice of
Cara de A ngel is part of a systematic pattern of behavior, common to barbaric societies, something which, recalling Le vi-Strauss, is an example of how
the savage mind works. This is what the civilized world fears (and imagines)
the most, a savage Other engaged in his own agency. Of course, this fear is
the epiphenomenon of the type of behavior which has allowed the Creole to
dominate political processes. The sacrifice of Cara de A ngel is the end
result of ruthless politics, and is carried out with the gusto for violence which
seems to pervade most human actions in this novel.12 The savage mind and
violence come together as the dual perennial features attributed to the Other.
Even the sacrificial victim (Cara de A ngel) has a hallucination which announces his own upcoming demise and lifelong imprisonment.
For Asturias, corruption is a timeless feature of Guatemala, and cultural
practices must be repetitive and always present in peoples activities. There is
no qualitative change and corruption seems to repeat itself ad infinitum. The
suffering of Cara de A ngel must be repetitive, like the continuous Mayan
sacrifices to Tohil; since the actions of the primitive are a replica of the past,
which is continually repeated, the message is that primitivism is intrinsical

. For Torgovnick, the Western mind always tries to repress the primitives excess, frenzy and
potential violence because the West recognizes those elements as part of its own experience
(). After independence, as it happened in most Latin American countries with a sizable native
population, the local e lites recast the Indian and his culture as the inverse image of Spanish
culture (Hawkins ). Today, this division is not just cultural but also political and economic. By
definition, political corruption is blamed on the cultural inheritance of the Indians, even though
Indians have no access to political power. It should be noted that Indian way of life is also blamed
for economic underdevelopment in Latin America, especially within Marxist theoretical musings.

Barrueto : -

to his being in a cyclical history. For Asturias, after all, the Indians of Guatemala were habitantes de mundos de otras categoras [ . . . ] Mayas sobrevivientes de soles prete ritos, no de este sol en movimiento (Hill ). It is
not surprising then that immediately after the death of General Canales (of
European extraction), the Indians disband and return to their old ways.
To be sure, El Sen or Presidente is a marvelous aesthetic achievement,
which, in spite of its shortcomings, has been a staple in the cultural foundations of the region and has produced a unique blend of literature unique to
Latin America. Asturiass preoccupations are not his, but those of many Latin
Americans who want to find an explanation for the regions problems. The
unfortunate dimension of this reality is that it also reflects the view of political e lites who, in response to racial and strategic agendas, have labeled the
Indians, as the antithesis to their interests. And, although Asturias shares
these views as seen in the pages of El Sen or Presidente, his positivism should
not, in the least, subtract any value from this aesthetic achievement. As Mario
Morales notes, Asturias had two complementary ideas about Guatemalas
politics. He wanted more European immigrants in Guatemala to improve
Guatemalas future, yet Asturias himself recognized the bleak prospects of
this goal, since his homeland was already a heterogeneous entity by the time
he wrote El Sen or Presidente (). Asturiass achievement is perhaps the
recognition of some of the problems of his country; regrettably, he overemphasizes the Indian contribution to Guatemalas problems. Perhaps Asturiass Eurocentrism is not his alone and it is found throughout Latin American
writing; but he, at least, admitted his shortcomings. Asturias realized that
another key problem in Guatemala was the inability of its ruling class to
integrate the majority of the countrys inhabitants into its society, leading to
the logical social and political inequalities (Morales ). And, as Jack Himelblau notes, El Sen or Presidente deeply indicts Guatemalas ruling class for
allowing the Indian to become the prey in the political reality depicted in the
novel ().
Mimicry is a valuable tool to unveil many parameters within which Latin
American praxis takes place. It provides the best explanation of what pervades literary discourse in Latin America, especially the knee-jerk embrace of
European ideals and the rejection of the native as an unwelcome presence.
Mimicry can also be a useful vehicle to cast doubt on claims that works like
El Sen or Presidente are somehow examples of social criticism. Mimicry, more
than anything, is the confirmation of the dominance of metropolitan power
which allows us to see that signifiers like dictatorships and political corrup-

: summer

tion are not acts of denunciation, but the reification of the immanent power
of colonial ideology as expressed in its undying teleology: calling for the
Others difference as the basis for political action.
This strategy has not been limited to individual behavior; it has been extrapolated to the macrocosm of the social collective, which contains the Others maximum expression of his soul: his primitive, corrupted, exotic,
teeming nation. For colonial discourse, as seen in this novel, the nation and
the native in Latin America have corrupted the ideals of democracy and
equality, which are, in themselves, the highest objectives of nationhood.
Mimicry provides evidence of the natives half-hearted wish to emulate European models and his proclivity to antipodal behavior, which unveils his true
condition. This novel, therefore, is the pinnacle of a cultural imposition,
which seeks to affirm that the native shows in his own persona his condition
and his difference. Difference cannot be erased easily, and is cloaked with
acceptability because it is now affirmed by the native (Asturias), not by the
old colonial authority.
The essence of this discussion is not that a dictator would be corrupted;
the point is that Latin America can only offer such a state of affairs. By
definition, this narratives goal is to prove that Latin American societies, even
though they are aware of the blueprint of Modernity, are unable to behave
accordingly. On the surface, although engaged in never-ending exercises of
mimicry, the Other is always revealed in his corrupted, primitive disposition,
which makes a mockery of the project of Modernity. This impairment of the
Other, however, is really about the colonial discourses confirmation of the
Others unreliability, thus strengthening the belief in the natives difference
and the need for his exclusion.

. (Ph.D., State University of New York at Albany, ) is an Assistant Professor of Spanish at Walsh University. His main areas of interest are Postcolonial
Theory, Cultural Studies, and Latin American Literature. Currently, he is working on
Psychoanalytic Theory and the images of Indians in the Latin American canon.

Works Cited
Alfaro-Alexander, Mara. El positivismo como poltica de discriminacio n racial y sus
consecuencias en Hispanoame rica. Ulula (): .

Barrueto : -

Asturias, Miguel A ngel. El Sen or Presidente. Ed. Lanoel dAussenac. Madrid: Ca tedra,
.
Bhabha, Homi K. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge, .
ngel Asturias. Trans. Ignacio Soriano. Buenos
Bellini, Giuseppe. La narrativa de Miguel A
Aires: Losada, .
Bentez-Rojo, Antonio. The Nineteenth-Century Spanish American Novel. Cambridge
History of Latin American Literature. Ed. Roberto Gonza lez Echevarra and Enrique
Pupo Walker. Vol. . Cambridge: Cambridge UP, . .
Carrouges, Michel. Andre Breton and the Basic Concepts of Surrealism. Trans. Maura
Prendergast. University, Alabama: U of Alabama P, .
Chow, Rey. Where Have All the Natives Gone? Contemporary Postcolonial Theory: A
Reader. Ed. Padmini Mongia. New York: Arnold, . .
dAussenac, Lanoel Alejandro. Introduction. El Sen or Presidente. By Miguel A ngel Asturias. Madrid: Ca tedra, . .
Dussel, Enrique. Eurocentrism and Modernity. The Postmodernism Debate in Latin
America. Ed. John Beverley, Michael Arona, and Jose Oviedo. Durham: Duke UP, .
.
Emery, Amy F. The Anthropological Imagination in Latin American Culture. Columbia:
U of Missouri P, .
Fabian, Johannes. Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes Its Object. New York:
Columbia UP, .
Ferguson, Harvie. Modernity and Subjectivity: Body, Soul, Spirit. Charlottesville: U Virginia P, .
Hawkins, John P. Inverse Images: The Meaning of Culture, Ethnicity, and Family in Postcolonial Guatemala. Albuquerque: New Mexico UP, .
ngel Asturias: lo ancestral en su obra. New York: Eliseo Torres &
Hill, Eladia Leo n. Miguel A
Sons, .
Hirschfeld, Heather. Early Modern Collaboration and Theories of Authorship. PMLA
. (): .
Kuper, Adam. The Invention of Primitive Society: Transformations of an Illusion. London:
Routledge, .
Le vi-Strauss, Claude. The Savage Mind. Chicago: Chicago UP, .
Malik, Kenan. The Meaning of Race: Race, History, and Culture. New York: New York UP,
.
Mathews, J. H. Surrealism and the Novel. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, .
Morales, Mario Roberto. Miguel A ngel Asturias: del positivismo liberal a la transculturacio n. Westminster, CA: Instituto Literario y Cultural Hispa nico, .
Navarro, Carlos. La hipotiposis del miedo en El Sen or Presidente. Homenaje a Miguel
ngel Asturias: variaciones interpretativas en torno a su obra. Ed. Helmy Giacoman.
A
Long Island City, NY: Long Island Publishing, Inc., . .
Parry, Benita. Resistance Theory/Theorizing Resistance or Two Cheers for Nativism.
Contemporary Postcolonial Theory: A Reader. Ed. Padmini Mongia. New York: Arnold,
. .

: summer

Pico, Josep, ed. Introduction. Modernidad y postmodernidad. Madrid: Alianza, .

.
ngel Asturias: Archaeology of Return. Cambridge: Cambridge UP,
Prieto, Rene . Miguel A
.
Torgovnick, Marianna. Primitive Passions: Men, Women, and the Quest of Ecstasy. Chicago: U of Chicago P, .