Race, Space, and the Reinvention of Latin America in Mexican Chicago

Author(s): Nicholas De Genova

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 25, No. 5 (Sep., 1998), pp. 87-116
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2634090 .
Accessed: 04/11/2012 21:25

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.

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Latin American
Perspectives.

http://www.jstor.org
 Race, Space, and theReinvention
of
Latin Americain Mexican Chicago
by
NicholasDe Genova

Whilefashionable butfacileinvocations oftransnationalismandglobali-

zationhaveproliferated in recentacademicdiscourse,scantattention has
beenpaidtothemoreradicalimplications ofthesenewsocio-spatialforma-
tions.Thisarticlewilladopta critical
transnationalperspectivederivedfrom
myethnographic researchamongMexican/migrant' workers in Chicagoto
dislodgesomeofthedominant spatialideologiesthatundergirda prevailing
"commonsense"abouttheUnitedStatesandLatinAmerica.Throughthe
lensofwhatI wouldliketocall "MexicanChicago,"andrevisiting someof
the crucialpresuppositions of Chicano studies,I will suggesta critical
reevaluationoftheconceptual foundations of"LatinAmerica"as ithascon-
ventionallybeen construedas an objectof spatialknowledgeforLatin
AmericanstudiesintheUnitedStates-whichis reallytosay,fromtheepis-
temologicalstandpoint ofU.S. imperialism. To statetheproblemmoregen-
I wanttorender
erally, anorthodox spatial"knowledge" moreaccountable to
a regimeofspatialpowerandinequality, andthistransformedconceptualiza-
tionofLatinAmericawillenable-and require-a rethinking ofthespaceof
theU.S nation-stateitself.Thus,thisarticlewillalso seektorevisesomeof
theprincipalconcerns atstakeintheprojectofChicanostudies, motivatedby

NicholasDe Genovais anactingassistant professorofanthropology atStanfordUniversity.He is

completing hisPh.D.dissertationattheUniversityofChicago.Histhesis,"Working theBounda-
ries,MakingtheDifference: Race andSpace inMexicanChicago,"focuseson Mexicanmigra-
tion,industrial andtheproduction
labor,racialization, ofurbanspace.He hasrecently published
in Social Text,Transition,andPublicCulture.He thanksRittyLukoseforhercareful,critical
engagement withthefinalformulations ofthisarticle.Earlierversions
ofitwerepresented tothe
University ofIllinoisat Chicago/Colegio de MichoacanProjectConference "MexicoandChi-
cago: A DynamicTransnational Relationship,"Chicago, IL, May 12, 1995, to the panel
"Boundaries, ImaginedandEnforced: Anthropology andCulturalCritiqueintheUnitedStates"
atthe93d annualmeeting oftheAmerican Anthropological Association, GA,Decem-
Atlanta,
ber 1, 1994,to theNationalAssociationforChicanoStudies,MidwestRegionalFoco, "The
XICANO Conference:A Returnto NuestraComunidad," Minneapolis,MN, November12,
1994,andtheUniversity ofChicagoCenterforLatinAmericanStudiesConference "(Re)con-
structinglo popular:Culture, andtheStateinLatinAmerica,"
Identity, Chicago,IL, September
24, 1994.
LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES, Issue 102,Vol.25 No. 5, September1998 87-116
? 1998LatinAmericanPerspectives

87
88 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

a concomitant toLatinAmerica.Furthermore,
responsibility I willtrytoelu-
cidatethewaysin whichthespatialtopography oftheAmericasis intrinsi-
callyracializedand involvesa continuousworkof reracialization thatis
manifestinthedialecticalarticulations
ofglobalprocesseswiththelocalities
wheretheglobaltakesplace.Chicagowillserveas a pivotthatcanorientthe
agonistic(typicallycentrifugal) of LatinAmericanstudies,
triangulation
Chicanostudies,andtherather lesscohesivefieldconcerned insomewayor
another withtheUnitedStatesthatis regrettably glossedas Americanstud-
ies. Fromthecriticalstandpoint ofa MexicanChicago(one thatbelongsto
LatinAmerica),I wantto suggesta criticaltheory oftransnationalism from
belowthatcanreckonwithU.S. imperialism anditsconceitsbyinterrogating
someoftheconstructions of"race"and"space"thatintersect intheimagin-
ingandenforcement oftheboundaries oftheU.S. nation-state.
Forthisitwill
be necessaryto defamiliarize
thenation-state'sartifice
andartifacts evenas
we remainconfined bythem.

LOCATING THE SUBJECT:

MEXICAN CHICAGO

Therelationship betweenMexicoandtheUnitedStateshasitsoriginsina
historyofinvasionandconquest,warfare andsubjugation, exploitation and
oppression.Itis possible(indeed,productive)tocomprehend thishistory as
oneofunstablefrontiers andviolableboundaries, as onewherespaceis not
merelycontiguous butcolonizedand,hence,coterminous. It is wellknown
thatwhatis nowtheSouthwestern UnitedStateswasannexedfrom Mexicoin
1848forthewestward expansionoftheU.S. nation-state. AfterU.S. troops
occupiedMexicoCityitself, Mexicocededroughly halfofitsnationalterri-
tory(corresponding in area to Germanyand Francecombined).Approxi-
mately80,000Mexicanssummarily becameU.S. citizens.A newborderwas
abruptlyestablished alongtheRio Bravo/Rfo Grandeto separateterritories
and a population thathad notpreviously beendivided.Indeed,a founding
premiseofChicanostudiesis therecognition that"we didn'tcrossthebor-
der;thebordercrossedus" (Acufia,1996: 109).2Therehearsal ofthishistory
is a prerequisiteforanyresponsibleaccountof Mexicanmigration to the
UnitedStates.Scholarship thattakesMexicanimmigration as itsobjectwith-
outstartingherereducesMexicanmigration tojustanother immigrant stream
andtacitlyparticipatesintheerasureofa distinct(racialized)historicityand
thehistoricalclaimsthattheChicanostudiesprojectalonehas emphasized.
Fromthisvantagepoint,thewestward extensionoftheUnitedStates-itself
predicatedupon relentlessinternational conflictas well as a formidable
 De Genova/MEXICAN CHICAGO 89

exportofcapital-laid thefoundations fora distinctly transnational history

thatcannotbe adequately represented andshouldnotbe smuglysubsumed by
theimperial-national chauvinism frequently operative in Americanstudies
oritssubsidiary "ethnic" studies.3 Wecanafford neither thecredulity northe
duplicityofspeakingofU.S. imperialism onlyinthepasttense.Thepresent
andfuture existenceoftheUnitedStatesis predicated andpossibleonlyon
thebasisofrenewedconquestandcontinuous domination.4
The UnitedStatesall tooeasilyassumestheformofa pre-given, stable,
andenduring truthinthepresent andcomesdangerously closetoanunexam-
ined,naturalized, and normative presupposition.5 Ratherthanpresumethe
fixityandintegrityoftheU.S. nation-state, I wouldliketoemphasizeitscon-
restlessness
stitutive (Taussig,1992).Itis inthissensethatI wanttointroduce
theproposition of a MexicanChicago-confinedwithintheboundariesof
theU.S. nation-statebutalso a sitefortheirproduction. Andhere,byempha-
sizingtheproduction of theseboundaries, I wantto suggestthatChicago
becomesa siteoftheircontingency.
WhenI invokea MexicanChicago,whatI am addressing is something
more significant thanthe mere presencein Chicago of Mexican peo-
ple-somehow consideredto be "outof place,"in effect, outsideof their
"naturalhabitat."Howevermyresearchmightbe described, itis decidedly
not about "displacedpersons"floatingin some purported "postmodern
hyper-space";6 noris itabout"immigrants" ifthatcategory is understood in
itsconventionally teleologicalsense.In theformer configuration, Mexican
migrants neverquitearriveandestablishthemselves in theUnitedStatesin
any substantive, meaningful sense;in thelatter, it is presumedthatthere
could be no otherpossibleendforthemthanto settlepermanently. In one
case,ina virtualworldoftheirown,theirfeetneverseemtotouchtheground;
intheother, inthepromised landatlast,theymightas wellgetdownontheir
kneestokisstheground.The thematic ofcontinuity anddisjuncture is usu-
allymappedontothemigrants themselves; eitheras outcastsoras assimila-
torstheycometorepresent a condition ofdisplacement thatreinscribes the
andsecurity
stability ofseparate places.Instead,I wanttoemphasizethepro-
ductionof a conjunctural space withtransformative repercussions in all
directions(Lefebvre,1991[1974]).In thespiritofGuillermo Gomez-Penia's
appealfor"a newcartography ... tointerprettheworld-in-crisis" (1993: 43)
andhisrecognition that"thereareLatinAmericasoutsideofLatinAmerica"
(Fusco,1995: 163) andMichaelKearney'sandRogerBartra'sconcurrence
that"LatinAmericadoes notendat theU.S. border"(Bartra,1993: 11; cf.
Kearney, 1991:68),I wanttoassert, whenI advancetheideaofMexicanChi-
cago,thatsomething aboutChicagoitselfhasbecomeelusive,evenirretriev-
able,fortheU.S. nation-state, and I wantto insistupontheadmissionof
90 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

Chicagoto itsproperplace withinLatinAmerica.Thisconceptualmove,I

wanttoemphasize, oughtnotbe misconstrued tooperatewithin a nationalis-
ticbinarism thatwouldthen purportto render Chicago somehow retrievable
in turnforthe Mexican nation-state; such a zero-sum proposition wouldbe
counterproductive and fancifulin the extreme.Indeed,earlierformula-
tions-suchas JoseVasconcelos'sMexicode afuera,an"outerMexico",ora
Mexicooutsideofitself(cf.Skirius,1976),orAmericoParedes's"Greater
Mexico"-have reinscribed precisely sucha binary juxtaposition ofnation-
statespace.Rather, whenI posita ChicagothatbelongstoLatinAmerica,the
forceofmyintervention is directedagainsttheepistemological stabilityof
theU.S. nation-state as a presupposition. The "Mexican"in MexicanChi-
cago,however, pertains notto theMexicannation-state orto anypresumed
essentialMexicannessbuttotheparticular socialsituationofMexican-origin
migrant laborers,forwhich"Mexican"(inmyformulation) servesas short-
hand but through which the salience of "Mexican"-for these
migrants-itself comesto be reconfigured. I willbeginbytrying to situate
thesocialspecificitiesofthisMexicanChicagowithin thewiderrelationship
betweentheUnitedStatesandMexico,theconsideration of which(within
theUnitedStates)is itselfconventionally subsumed undertherubricofLatin
Americanstudies.
LatinAmerican studiesintheUnitedStates-indeed,virtually all institu-
tionalizedarea-studies programs-owetheirepistemological formulation
and(mostimportant) theiroriginalmaterial endowments andlegitimation to
historical
a particular moment intheascendant hegemony ofU.S. imperial-
ism,afterWorldWarII (Berger,1995;McCaughey, 1984;Nader,1997;Wal-
1997).7Thereis nodearth
lerstein, ofexplicitcommentary intheconference
proceedings ofthe periodbemoaning the lack of and
expertise generaligno-
ranceprevailingintheUnitedStateswithregard togeopolitical areasof"stra-
tegicimportance tothenationalinterest."8 Although someearlyantecedents
ofLatinAmerican studiesemerged during theprewar yearsofFranklin Roo-
sevelt'sGood NeighborPolicy,therealboom came onlyaftertheCuban
Revolution(Berger,1995). Despitethecriticalpoliticalengagement and
explicitanti-imperialism thathave oftendistinguished scholarsin Latin
AmericanstudiesintheU.S. academy(cf.Bray,1992;Chilcote,1997),itis
necessaryto adoptthisunderstanding of theimperialist epistemology that
frames LatinAmericanstudiestoestablisha starting pointthatmakespossi-
ble certainoperative premises.
The mostcrucialofthesepreliminary considerations is a recognition of
thefactthatsomething called"LatinAmerican studies"(intheUnitedStates)
was historicallyconceptualized andis inherently comprehensible as consti-
tutingknowledgeabouta geopolitical regionthatis outsideofthephysical
 De Genova/MEXICAN CHICAGO 91

space ofthecontinental UnitedStates-outsideofthecontiguous 48 states.

LatinAmericanstudieswas createdas a wayofknowingthatis positioned
fromwithin theseemingly stableconfinesoftheU.S. nation-state. Chicago
couldneverhavebeenconventionally conceivedtobelongtoLatinAmerica,
plainlyenough,becauseChicagois locatedinsideof"America"-thatis,the
UnitedStatesof(non-Latin) America.A secondpremise, following uponthe
is thattheU.S. nation-state
first, hasenforced a nationalidentitywhoseimag-
inedcommunity is imaginedto be linguistically homogeneous: theUnited
Stateshasbeenmanufactured tobe English-speaking
historically (Simpson,
1986; Liebowitz,1984). Here,in theworkof homogenizing theUnited
States,everything southof the continental UnitedStatesmustalso be
homogenized-as"Latin"orLatino-despitethefactthatmanylanguages
without Latinantecedents arerepresented amongthepopulations includedin
theregioncalled"LatinAmerica." Whathasbeendefinitive of"LatinAmer-
ica" is notanypositiveproposition orotherwise)
(linguistic aboutthatvast
regionoftheglobebutrather thattheUnitedStatesis not"Latin"andthat
LatinAmericais something else.Moretothepoint,as Gomez-Penia putsit,
"FortheNorthAmerican... theborderis wheretheThirdWorldbegins"
(Fusco, 1995: 148-149).Fromtheimperialepistemological standpoint of
LatinAmericanstudiesin theUnitedStates,the"Latin"label is meaning-
ful-fundamentally-asa markerof LatinAmerica'sessentialotherness.
Hence,a thirdpremise:thedifference betweentheUnitedStatesand its
imperialobject,LatinAmerica,is also a thoroughly racializedconstruction
ofdifference. Historically,thehegemony intheUnitedStatesofa rulingclass
descendedfromnorthwestern Europe(predominantly Anglo-Saxon)has
involvedthecontinuous taskofproducing a national"majority" racializedas
"white"againstothersubordinated segmentsof theworkingclasses vari-
ouslyracializedas something else (Allen,1994; Horsman,1981; Ignatiev,
1995; Roediger,1991; 1994; Saxton,1990; Takaki,1979). "Whiteness" is
nota factofnature;it is a factofwhitesupremacy. Thus,theU.S. nation-
state'slaboriousefforts athomogenization entailanideologicalmanufacture
of nationalidentity and citizenship, inherentlyracializedas white.These
constructions are neverseparablefromtheactualheterogeneity to which
thoseefforts aredirected, and,moreimportant, theyarepartofa dialecticin
whichhomogenization is likewiseinseparable fromtheproduction ofdiffer-
ence and theregimentation and subordination of theheterogeneity so pro-
duced(GuptaandFerguson,1992: 16).
The historicalconsolidation of racisthegemonyin the UnitedStates
(whichhas involveda continuous makingand remaking of whiteness)is
inseparablefromthe historyof the westwardcolonizationof the North
American continent inthemakingoftheUnitedStates.Onecentral featureof
92 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

thatcolonialhistory, of course,was theimperialist war againstMexico,

whichsecuredfortheexpanding UnitedStatesthevastterritory thatwould
come to be called theSouthwestand summarily colonizeda preexisting
Mexicanpopulationthatwouldthereafter be subjectedto multipleclearly
racializedformsof displacement, disenfranchisement, exploitation,and
oppression. Expressingthecolonialist racismthatembellished thisMexican
episodein thehistoryof U.S. expansion,one participant on theSantaFe
expeditiondeclared, "There are no people on the continent of America,
whether civilizedoruncivilized, with one ortwo exceptions, more miserable
in condition ordespicablein moralsthanthemongrelraceinhabiting New
Mexico"(quotedinHorsman, 1981:212). The"national" differencebetween
theUnitedStatesandMexicohas been,in effect, racializedfromitsincep-
tion.Furthermore, theintrinsic significance forall ofLatinAmericaimplied
bythisracistimperialism towardMexicois wellexemplified bythefollow-
inginvective, publishedin theIllinoisStateRegisterin June1846: "The
Mexicans.. . arereptilesinthepathofprogressive democracy-who,with
hisbigbootson,is boundtotravelfrom Portland toPatagonia-andtheymust
eithercrawlor be crushed"(quotedin Horsman,1981: 236). Indeed,pre-
Mexicohasbeenrecurrently
dictably, construed as thethreshold betweenthe
UnitedStatesnation-state andLatinAmerica.Likewise,overthecourseof
U.S. history,theracialdenigration oftheMexicanpeoplehashadrepercus-
sionsinbothdirections-both inwardandoutward; theformations andtrans-
formations of whitesupremacy, at homeand abroad,have beenmutually
constitutive.
Withthisinterrogation ofthe"LatinAmerica"construct I hopeto have
begunto openup an intellectual space in whichto interrogate thecommon
senseofU.S. imperialism, whichpredicates theintegrity oftheU.S. nation-
stateitselfandcherishesanotherwise naturalized notionofLatinAmericaas
somehow"outthere"-a logicthatdictatesthatChicagocouldnotpossibly
be considered tobelong,insomemeaningful way,toMexico.As I havesug-
gested,thereis anextensive andprestigious bodyofanti-imperialist scholar-
shipin LatinAmericanstudies,but it is exceedingly uncommon to findthe
relationship betweentheUnited States and Mexican problema-
nation-states
tizedintermsofthekindofanti-imperialist historicism availableintheChi-
cano perspective, which exposes and interrogates the United States's
"national"claimstoterritories thatitinvaded, conquered, andcolonizedas a
preludetoitscareerofempirebuilding throughout therestofLatinAmerica.9
Evenoutstanding works(e.g.,Katz,1981)devotedtothehistory ofU.S. mili-
taryintervention andimperialist diplomacy duringtheMexicanRevolution
(notso farremovedchronologically fromtheTreatyofGuadalupeHidalgo)
tendto leave intactthestablejuxtaposition of twoterritory-based nation-
 De Genova/MEXICAN CHICAGO 93

statesforwhich"national"spaceis entirely dehistoricized. In thissense,the

imperialistic
conceptual foundations ofLatinAmerican studieshaveso thor-
oughlyfixedthelimitsofknowledge thateventhemoreresponsible scholar-
shiptendstoreinscribe andnaturalize theborderbetweentheUnitedStates
andMexico.
WhileI haveemphasized theanti-imperialist
historicism ofChicanostud-
ies in mycritiqueofthepresuppositions ofLatinAmericanstudies,it now
becomesimperative to examinethelimitations intrinsicto theconventional
conceptualizationoftheChicanostudiesprojectitself.Ifa MexicanChicago
violatestheconstitutivepremises ofLatinAmerican studies, italsopresents a
dilemmaforChicanostudies.Although therewouldappeartobe a neatand
convenient divisionofintellectuallaborbetweenthetwo,as defined inciden-
tallybyan orientation to thenorthor southoftheborder, sucha simplistic
partitioningwouldelideentirely thedistincthistory ofChicanostudiesas a
politicalprojectand,moreover, wouldmerelysettlefora restoration ofthe
spatializedand racialized"national"difference betweentheUnitedStates
andMexicothatI wanttoproblematize.
Theintellectualformulation andacademicinstitutionalization ofChicano
studiesin thelate 1960sandearly1970swereinseparable fromtheradical
politicizationand avowedactivismof theChicanomovement acrossthe
Southwest, especiallyinCalifornia (Mufioz,1989).One ofthehallmarks of
thatmovement wasitsboldconfrontation withtheracialoppression intrinsic
totheChicanoexperience. Rejectingthedominant mythology ofthe"melt-
ingpot"anditsinherent assimilationism,theChicanomovement commonly
cultivateda nationalist and frequently
sensibility -articulated a separatism
basedon a theory oftheChicanoSouthwest as an internal colony(Barrera,
1979; Barrera,Mufioz,and Ornelas,1972), culminating in a programof
nationalliberationthatreclaimedtheSouthwest andrenameditAztlan(cf.
AnayaandLomeli,1991:205-218).
Chicagohasneverenjoyedan easyorsecureplaceinthedreaming ofthe
Chicanohomeland Aztlan,andconsequently Chicago'srelationship toChi-
canostudiesremainsa complicated one.10Theseemingincommensurability
ofChicagowiththemythic imageofAztlanresidesprecisely in thetension
betweenMexicanChicago's originsin 20th-century migrations and the
indigenous claimsofa moreconventional Chicanonationalism distinguished
bya territorial
orientationtotheoccupied,colonizedMexicanlandsthathave
come to be called theSouthwest. Most Chicanoscholarship consciously
exploresthemesrelatedtoMexicanexperiences in theso-calledSouthwest,
andrhetorical emphasisis placedon thehistorical priorityandmultigenera-
tionallongevity ofChicanosin thatregion.Chicagohas beenalmostinvisi-
ble-or in anycase, ratherincidental-inmostChicanoscholarshipand
94 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

as well.11
literature ThistensionbetweenMexicanChicagoandconventional
understandings ofwhatis a properorauthentic place forChicanoconcerns
canprovidean instructive standpoint ofcritiquefromwhichwe mightbegin
to pose questionsaboutthepresentand futurecomplications of Chicano
studies.Thesequestionshavealreadybeenanticipated bysomepreliminary
gesturestowarda reconceptualization of theparadigm.FollowingSergio
Elizondo'splea fora moremetaphorical and mobileunderstanding of the
conceptofAztlan(1991: 217),itwouldbe possibletostretch theconceptof
Aztlanto wherever Mexicanpeople migrate.Similarly, followingGloria
Anzalduia'sevocationoftheborderas "an openwound"where"twoworlds
[merge]toforma third country" (1987: 2-3) orRudolfoAnaya'sproposition
that"Aztlancan becomethenationthatmediatesbetweenAnglo-America
and LatinAmerica"(1991: 241), it wouldbe possibleto subscribeto still
moremetaphysical renovationsofChicanonationalism. Butitmaybe neces-
sarytorethink themythic narrativeofAztlanaltogether toretooltheimpulse
thathas driventheChicanostudiesprojectforthemorecomplicatedand
bewildering social configurationthatincreasingly interweaves Mexicoand
theUnitedStatestodayandtranscends thetraditional terrainoftheChicano
Southwest.12

MuchoftheChicanostudiesscholarship andliteraturehastakenas a prin-

cipalconcerntheexperiences ofU.S.-born,U.S.-raised"Chicanos,"witha
moresubduedandsomewhat ambivalent interestin Mexicanmigration per
se.13Historicalscholarship inparticularis thebranchofChicanostudiesthat
hasreadilyincludedmigrants from Mexicoindepictions oftheChicanopeo-
Thisinclusivegesture
ple/nation. is especiallyviablewhentheserepresenta-
tionsemphasizethecondition ofracialization thatis thecommonplightof
Mexicanmigrants andU.S.-bornChicanos(a condition prioritized
through
theuseofla raza as a preferred nomenclature). Yet,thesociocultural distinc-
tionpersists(alongwithall theincongruities and conflicts impliedbythat
distinction)andraisestheanalytical questionwherelo mexicanoendsandlo
chicanobegins.One tendency (mostfavored byhistorians, seekingtorepre-
senta coherent polity)mightholdthatthistransition occursas soonas mexi-
canoscrosstheborder;theother(perhapsmoreliterary) optionwouldfocus
insteadupontheimplicitand seemingly inevitablerupture betweenthose
sameMexicanmigrants andthe"Chicano"children theyraisein a foreign
land.The firstnotionimputesa quasi-magical transformative powerto the
border;thesecondimaginesMexicanmigrants to be doublycondemned,
bothas permanently displacedpersonsand as inescapablyestranged from
theirownchildren. My concernhereis thatthesecondeptions restupona
commonpremise-a radicaldisjuncture andirreducible differencebetween
theUnitedStatesandMexico.Inotherwords,nomatter howwemight define
 De Genova/MEXICAN CHICAGO 95

"Chicano,"thefoundational premiseof Chicanostudiesseemsto takefor

granted thesolidnessandfixity (inthepresent)oftheUnitedStatesas such,
whichis reallyto saythatitpresupposes theU.S. nation-state.
My concernhereis simplyto questionthewaysin whichChicanostud-
ies-as a modeofinquiry andanintellectual projectas wellas a standpoint of
critiqueand a positionforpoliticalaction-has been confinedwithinthe
boundariesof theU.S. nation-state. "Ironically,"GuillermoGomez-Peiia
pointsout,"theconservative Anglo-Americans who are witnessing with
panictheirreversible borderization of theUnitedStatestendto agreewith
ChicanoandMexicanseparatists whoclaimto speakfromtheleft.... The
threepartieswouldliketosee theborderclosed.Theirintransigent viewsare
basedonthemodernist premisethatidentity andcultureareclosedsystems,
andthatthelessthesesystems change,themore'authentic' theyare"(1993:
47). As I havepointedoutrepeatedly, Chicanostudiesis founded upona rec-
ognition oftheimperialistandracistcharacter ofthewestward expansionof
theUnitedStatesandthesocialandpoliticalinequality thathas definedthe
historical experienceofmostChicanos.Theexplicitly antiracist,antiassimi-
lationistpoliticsofChicanostudieshaslongprovided a welcomealternative
tothetypeof"ethnic"saga thatmightotherwise be construed as "Mexican-
American"in theidiomofeitherAmericanstudiesorethnicstudies.14Fur-
thermore, Chicanostudiesembodieda boldeffort at self-representation not
onlyagainstcultural invisibility,marginalization,andcriminalization inthe
UnitedStates(see Blea, 1988; Gomez-Quiiiones, 1982; Madrid-Barela,
1973b;Mirande,1985;Montiel,1970;Rocco, 1976;Romano,1968; 1970;
Vaca, 1970a; 1970b)butalso againsttheelitistclass biasesandEurocentric
culturalandracialchauvinism ofearlierMexicanintellectuals' accountsof
Chicano"inauthenticity"'1 (see Fusco, 1995: 105, 161-162;Limon,1989;
Madrid-Barela, 1973a;Ybarra-Frausto, 1992).Thereis certainly a vitaland
well-established necessity forthekindsofresearchenabledbytheChicano
studiesparadigm (Garcia,1986).Butinthefinalanalysis, theexclusivecon-
cernof ChicanostudiesresideswithintheUnitedStates,in a way thatis
analogousto thepreoccupation ofLatinAmericanstudieswiththatwhich
residesoutsideofit.What wanttoexamineis howthetransnationalization
I
ofMexicanlabor,whichis attheheartoftheproduction ofa MexicanChi-
cago,requires us toreconsider the confinements
territorial ofboththeseper-
spectives. Having thusfarpostulated the conceptual possibilityandthecriti-
cal promiseofthisMexicanChicago,I nowwanttocircleintowarda closer
appraisalofwhatMexicanChicagois (orinanycase,mightbe) bywayofa
brief(stillprefatory)consideration ofwhatitis not.
To invokea MexicanChicagois notatall toinvent an islandoranyother
kindof discretevillage-likespace merelysituatedin the"context"of the
96 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

widercity.Thatis theethnographic never-never-land ofanthropological and

sociologicalfairytales:a mythic place of essentializedand homogeneous
"culture"in an inevitably naturalizedand isomorphicrelationship to its
boundedspatiallocation.The ChicagoSchoolof sociology(led byRobert
ParkandErnestBurgess)devisedanurbansociologythatexplicitly soughtto
emulatetheethnographic techniques ofBoasian(primitivist) anthropology,
coupledwitha purportedly "ecological"perspective, approaching "thecity"
as a singular,universal,evolutionary andnatural fact."Thecity"(whichordi-
narily meantChicago)wasvariously described as "thenaturalhabitat ofcivi-
lizedman,""an organism," "a productofnature, andparticularly ofhuman
nature," butalso as "a complexof distinct social worldswhichtouchbut
nevercompletely penetrate,each withitsownschemeoflife,separatedby
distanceswhichare notgeographical butsocial,""a naturalsegregation of
individuals onthebasisoftheirinterests andattitudes," and"a natural distri-
butionofculturalisolation,socialdisorganization, delinquency, perversion
andvice."16Thisconceptual framework servedaboveallelsetonaturalize the
spatialconfigurations ofsocialinequality thatarethehallmark ofcapitalist
urbanism. Itis notatall difficult
todiscernherea pioneering groundwork for
muchofthe"knowledge" producedbyhegemonic sociologyin theUnited
Statesthroughout the20thcentury, a prolegomena fora certainsociological
commonsenseinAmerican studies.Predictably, immigrants (andtheirghet-
tos)occupieda prominent (albeitinglorious) placeinthissociology'sethno-
graphicrepresentations, and theproblematic of assimilation loomedlarge
(see Wirth,1928; Zorbaugh,1929). The conflicting productions of urban
spaceseemedtovanish,andwhatremained was "thecityas a sociallabora-
tory"(Park,1929),wherecontrolled experiments coulddefinean "empirical
politics"directedat controlling the"disorganization" and"pathologies"of
immigrants and otherswho divergedfromthepresumed"mainstream of
Americanlife."Indeed,thecrucialplaceof"theimmigrant" as a category in
Americanstudieshas beenalmostseamlesslyinscribed byrepresentational
strategiesthatinevitably bifurcate betweenassimilation andsocial"pathol-
ogy"(i.e.,a perceived failureatorrejection ofassimilation).Reproducing the
presuppositions of the Chicago School, the subdisciplinary intellectual
ghettoknownas "urbananthropology" typicallyinvolvedsomething likea
traditionally conceived"island"ethnography thatsimplyhappenedto be
conducted inanurbancontext (see Hannerz,1980:3; Sanjek,1990).Follow-
ingitssociologicalantecedents, urbananthropology likewisecombinedthe
functionalist illusionofdiscrete, synchronic, essential,bounded"cultures"
withtheevolutionist tautology of modernization theorythattemporalized
urbanspacesonlyby dehistoricizing themwithinthedevelopmental para-
digmof a "rural-urban continuum" (see Cohn,1987:27).'7 The conceptual
 De Genova/MEXICAN CHICAGO 97

progeny ofthesepremises includedsuchregrettable inventions as "urbanvil-

lagers,""peasantsin thecity,""menof twoworlds,"andtheinfamousbut
intractable"culture ofpoverty" thesis.Thecity,treated merelyas a complex
aggregate of naturalized sociocultural processes,was thereby reducedto a
"context"-virtual background noiseagainstwhichmorefamiliar, holistic,
"cultural"unitscouldbe "putin theirplace" andisolatedforethnographic
objectification.
MexicanChicagois notso localizedas to readilypermitsuchfantasies;
thephysicalcoordinates ofitsinnumerable localitiesaremuchmoreelusive.
Moreover,MexicanChicago is notreducibleto anylocationas such.In
effect,MexicanChicago'srelationship to a moregenericChicagois analo-
goustoChicago'srelationship toLatinAmerica;bothdefythesegregation-
ist'smetaphysics offlatcartographic modesofknowingso dearto thepro-
grammatic paradigmsof anthropology and area studiesalike(see Malkki,
1992).Chicagocannotbeunderstood as a mere"context" assumedtoprovide
a singularandunified fieldwheresociallifehappenstotakeplace,andMexi-
canmigrants inChicagocannotbe enclosedwithin anencompassed spaceof
homogenized cultural isolation-notevenintheseveralneighborhoods that
are almostexclusively Mexican.Instead,Chicagoas urbanspace is itself
continuously producedandreproduced through thecontradictions ofstrug-
glesinwhichMexicanmigrants arecentrally implicated-struggles overthe
city,forandagainstthecity,withthecitymuchmorethanstruggles simplyin
thecity-whereMexicancommunities themselves canbe constituted notin
isolationbutindeedonlyin themidstof social conflict."Space's invest-
ment-theproduction of space-has nothingincidentalaboutit,"argues
HenriLefebvre."Itis a matter oflifeanddeath"(1991 [1974]: 417).
A MexicanChicagoemerges;itbeginstobe possibletodiscernitsrough
outline.Mexicanmigration to Chicago activelyreworksand reproduces
social space,suchthatChicagoandMexicoareimplicated byone another.
WhatI intend hereis nottheold-fashioned anthropological conceitaboutthe
essentialirreducibility of"culture" (forinstance, amongMexicanpeoplein
Chicago). Theoreticalarguments aside,thisessentialist conceitcan come
dangerously close to thelong-standing racistpositionin U.S. immigration
politicsand popularprejudicethatMexicansare "unassimilable" intothe
alleged"mainstream ofAmerican life."Moreover, overlysanguineaccounts
ofthetransnationalism ofMexicanmigration tooeasilyrunthissameriskof
appearing torecapitulate thesetime-worn, intrinsicallyracistrepresentations
ofMexicanmigrants as sojourning "homingpigeons."'8 I willnot,however,
flatterU.S. imperialism byrecapitulating itsownpresumptuous moderniza-
tionnarrative,whereby anyonewhomigrates fromtheThirdWorldis simply
seekingthepreciousopportunity tosettleandpledgeallegiancetotheflag,'9
98 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

orthemorejadedpostmodernization narrative
(temperedbya creeping dread
ofthewaningofhighimperialprosperity), whereby everyone in theThird
Worldis effectively onemorebarbarian atthegates,merelya potential
"ille-
galalien"hopingtocollectwelfare attheexpenseofU.S. citizens.Thewhole
problematicdevised around categorizationsof immigrantsas either
"sojourners"or "settlers"is one in whichthespatialconceitsofthenation-
stateprevail.In contrast,
I arguethattheeveryday-life practicesofmigrant
workersproducea livingspace in Chicagothatconjoinsit irreversibly to
Mexicoandrenderitirretrievable fortheU.S. nation-state.Therecouldnot
possiblyexistwithin Chicagoanidyllic"Mexican"cultural spaceconceived
as somehowindependent oftheprofound socialinequalityandviolenceof
U.S. capitalism. A Chicagothatbelongsto Mexico,a Chicagothatcan be
claimedforLatinAmerica,clearlydoes notcease tobe confined withinthe
domainoftheUnitedStates,butitis significant thattheU.S. nation-state
and
U.S. imperialism arecontradicted at theverycore-"in theheartland"-in
Chicago.

TRANSNATIONALISM GOES
TO WORK ... IN CHICAGO

The needof a constantly

expanding market foritsproductschasesthebour-
geoisieoverthewholesurfaceoftheglobe.It mustnestleeverywhere, settle
everywhere,establishconnections
everywhere. The bourgeoisie
has through
oftheworldmarket
itsexploitation givena cosmopolitan character
toproduc-
tionandconsumption ineverycountry....Nationalone-sidedness
andnarrow-
nessbecomemoreandmoreimpossible....
KarlMarxandFriedrichEngels
(1967[1847]:83-84)

Capitalbyitsnaturedrivesbeyondeveryspatialbarrier.
Thus,thecreationof
thephysicalconditionsof exchange-of themeansof communication and
transport-theannihilationof space by time-becomes an extraordinary
forit.
necessity
-Karl Marx(1973[1858]:524)

Nationalone-sidedness andnarrowness areindeedimpossible(although

theysurelycontinue fora motley
toprovidea lastrefuge assortmentofscoun-
drelsand fools); furthermore,theperpetualannihilationof space, which
Marxidentifiedlong ago, is evermorecrucialforthewaysthatwe must
think-fortheverywaysthatwe canevenbegintothink-aboutsociallife.
Ofcourse,themasternarratives ofcapitalarenottheonlywaysinwhichour
 De Genova/MEXICAN CHICAGO 99

worldis continuously reinscribed,andso itis necessary totrytounderstand

something ofthecomplexandheterogeneous humanexperiences thatpro-
vide thesubordinated storiesthatrundialecticallyparallelto themain
currents ofannihilation. Butitis irresponsible totalkabouttransnational-
ismunlessonebeginswitha recognition oftheimperialist worlddivisionsof
labor thatperpetuateever-widening gulfsof inequalityamong nation-
states-whose bordersare typicallyand rigorously enforcedand whose
internal labormarkets arecommonly policedthrough outright terror.
Trans-
nationalism, as I wouldliketoemploytheterm, mustexistinsomeworking
relationtoimperialism.
WhileMarxlongago delineated theglobalizingcharacter ofcapital,the
term"globalization"has acquireda new distinction in the wake of the
unprecedented upsurgeanddramatic diversificationofforeign directcapital
investments overthepast25 years."Globalization" plainlyservesas a euphe-
mismfortheacceleratedanddiversified exportofcapitalon a globalscale
thatmarksthemostrecentreconfigurations andrearticulations ofan imperi-
alistworldorder-an unmistakable andunprecedented transnationalization
ofcapital,a transnationalism, so tospeak,fromabove.Transnationalism, as
specifiedforthepurposesof anthropological inquiry, involvesthewaysin
whichthemacroeconomic andstate-drivenpoliticalprocessesthatannihilate
space anddestabilizenationalboundaries havecontributed totheprolifera-
tionofsociocultural interactions ofa neworderandanunprecedented inten-
sity,toa greatextent becauseofradicallyexpandedandrelatively accessible
meansofcommunication andtransport (see Appadurai,1990; 1991; 1996;
Basch,GlickSchiller,andSzantonBlanc,1994;GlickSchiller,Basch,and
SzantonBlanc,1992;Kearney, 1991;Rouse,1991;1992).Myinterest hereis
to sharpenthecriticalperspective madepossibleby discoursesof transna-
tionalism bywayofan emphasisonthetransnationalization oflaborandthe
racializedclass politicsofglobalization-toadvance,as itwere,a transna-
tionalism frombelow.20 Transnational labormigration is thepremier formof
a morerestless, humansideoftheaccelerated processesofglobalization. As
capitalhas burrowed intoeverynookoftheworldin themakingofan ever
moreglobalizedmarketplace andthecontinuous reconsolidation ofanimpe-
rialistdivisionoflabor,oneofthecommodities thatis exchanged, necessar-
ily and inevitably, is labor-power-homogenized, abstract, highlymobile
(indeed,migratory) labor.But themigratory movement of homogenized,
abstractlabor is embodiedin the restlesslife and death of concrete
labor-whichis to say,in thiscase,actualMexican/migrant workers.
Thereis a specialcharacter toMexicanmigration totheUnitedStates:it
has providedU.S. capitalismwiththeonlyimmigrant laborreservethatis
sufficiently flexibleand tractablethatit can neverbe fullyreplacedor
100 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

completely excluded(Cockcroft, 1986).The 1911Dillingham Immigration

Commissionspokeplainlyof theU.S. nation-state's positionon Mexican
migrant labor:"Whiletheyarenoteasilyassimilated, thisis ofno verygreat
importance as longas mostofthemreturn totheirnativeland.In thecase of
theMexican,he is less desirableas a citizenthanas a laborer"(quotedin
Calavita,1992:180).Thisis stillverymuchthefundamental perspective that
informs themilitarized politicsof borderpatrol,whichis designednotso
muchto haltundocumented migration fromMexico as to controltheflow
likea faucetwhileitintensifies theexploitability oftheundocumented labor-
erswhomustexistina sustained conditionoflegalvulnerability (Cockcroft,
1986;Kearney, 1991).Anditis thesamesentiment thathasinformed ongo-
ingcampaigns (instigatedbyCalifornia's Proposition 187andthenescalated
byPresident Clinton'sIllegalImmigration Reform andImmigrant Responsi-
bilityActof 1996)todenyrudimentary civilrights toundocumented immi-
grantsand theirchildrenalike.2' An increasingly hostileand intransigent
atmosphere forundocumented immigrants' children doesnotso muchdeter
labormigration as aimtodeter(or,inanyevent, restrict)
family migration and
settlement,so that"mostofthemreturn totheirnativeland."Intheimagining
andenforcement oftheU.S. nation-state anditsboundaries, Mexicansinpar-
ticularare considered"undesirables" and "outlaws"-evenas theirlabor
meetsa criticalneedforimportant sectorsofU.S. capitalism.
Chicago was a privilegedsite in thehistoricaldevelopment of North
American capitalism andas suchwasalwayslinkedtothecolonization ofthe
NorthAmericancontinent byU.S. imperialism (Cronon,1991; Mayerand
Wade,1969).Moreover, as a majorindustrialcenter,Chicagohaslongbeena
premier destination forlabormigrations. As theUnitedStates'squintessen-
tialrailroadmetropolis duringthe19thcentury andtheearlydecadesofthe
20th(Cronon,1991: 83), Chicagoquicklybecamean important (one might
sayinevitable)destination forMexicanmigrant labor,theearlypatterns of
whichcorresponded totheexpansionofrailroads(Masseyetal., 1987).The
Mexicanpopulation inChicagofirst achievednotablesizeduring WorldWar
I and has beengrowingalmostcontinuously eversince(AfioNuevo Kerr,
1976: 69-77).22Chicago'sMexicanpopulation increasedbynearly40 per-
centinthedecadeofthe1980saloneandis thesecond-largest concentration
ofMexican/Chicano settlement in thecountry today,numbering well over
halfa millioninthemetropolitan areaandover15 percent ofthepopulation
withinthecitylimits.
In theearly20thcentury, enclavesofMexicanmigrants firstdeveloped
nearrailroadyards,stockyards, meat-packing plants,andsteelmills,where
theywereemployedprincipally as strike-breakers andtemporary (reserve-
army)laborrecruited deliberatelyon racialgrounds(Taylor,1932: 117; cf.
 De Genova/MEXICAN CHICAGO 101

Acufia,1981: 130-131;AfioNuevoKerr,1976: 25-26). Todaythesesame

enclaves have dramaticallyexpanded into largely migrantMexican
working-class neighborhoods, althoughthestockyardsandpackinghouses
closeddecadesago andtherailroadsandsteelarevirtually moribund indus-
triesthatno longerabsorbmuchnewlyarrived migrantlabor.Thisparadox
underscores thefactthatChicagohasbeenan increasingly prominent desti-
nationforMexicanmigrant laborintheUnitedStatesevenas thetotalpopu-
lationofthecityhasdeclinedinthewakeofa dramatic loss ofjobsinmanu-
facturing(Betancur,Cordova,and Torres,1993; cf. Squireset al., 1987:
23-60).MexicansandChicanosin Chicagocontinueto be concentrated in
"low-skill"occupations,withroughly halfholdingjobs as industrial
opera-
andothertypesofmanuallaborers.
tives,fabricators, (Only6.4 percent ofthe
Mexican/Chicano workforce in Chicagohold managerialor professional
MexicansinChicagoaremorethantwiceas likelytobe factory
positions.)23
workers as whitesorAfrican Americans,whichagainhelpstounderscore the
factthatMexicanmigrants anevermoreimportant
constitute segment ofthe
working class in generalinmetropolitanChicago,specifically incorporated
intoan evermorecentralplaceatthe"deskilled"industrial coreofcapitalist
production.24
Buttodaymorethanever,becauseoftheparticularly transnational
charac-
terof Mexicanmigration, Mexicanpeoplein Chicagoare frequently able,
throughnumeroustechnologies and considerablehumanconnections, to
maintain acrossvastphysicaldistances.Thiscan only
activesocialrelations
meanthatproletarian classformation itselfmustbegintobe understood tobe
complicated innewwaysbytransnational socialprocesses.In oneverycom-
monandfamiliar configuration,theU.S.-dollarwagesofMexican/migrant
in
workers Chicago areremittedto theagrarian villagesofruralMexicoand
provide crucialmaterial sustenance to ways of lifedefinedby subsistence
farming and small-scalecommerce.25 These remittancesnotonlyprovide
neededsupportto theimmediatefamiliesof migrants(e.g., in building
homes,buyinglandor livestock, or capitalizingsmallbusinesses)butalso
financepublicworksprojects(inconjunction withstatefundsandvoluntary
local labor),buildchurches, sponsorfestivals,anddevelopsoccerstadiums,
andsometimes providematerial aid tovictimsofa varietyofsocialcalami-
ties,nottheleastofwhichis theviolenceoflocal stateapparatuses (e.g.,in
Guerrero). In thisrespect,thepreponderantly proletariancompositionof
MexicanChicagois undeniably andirreducibly enmeshed (albeittovarying
degrees)inthepractical presentandtheimaginedfutures ofcountlessagrar-
ian communities acrosstheMexicancountryside. And likewise,theinnu-
merablelocalconcerns ofruralMexicohavea palpablepresenceintheevery-
day livesof migrant workers in Chicago.Whilethereciprocalideological
102 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

dichotomies between"thecity"and"thecountry" andbetweenwagelabor

andpeasantsubsistence mayproliferate, thepractical
realitiesbecomeentan-
gledin unprecedented ways.
The incorporation ofMexican/migrant laborintolow-wagejobs in both
thedowngraded manufacturing andtheexpandedservicesectoris one hall-
markofChicago'sagonisticaccessiontothestatusof"globalcity"(see Sas-
sen,1984; 1988; 1989; 1994). Of course,Chicagowas alreadya relatively
"global"city,albeitofa different orderina differentepoch;itsmanufacturing
industriessuppliedcommodities acrosstheworldevenin the19thcentury.
More important, givenradicallyshifting criteriaChicago is perhapsless
"global"nowthanitoncewas (King,1990).Itsnewlyglobalizedreconfigu-
rationis agonisticin thesensethatitis decidedlypartial-stilltoomuchan
industrialcityintheconvulsive throesofdeindustrialization,notquiteliving
up tothestandards ofglittering globalizationthatwouldensureita place on
theworldmapofthe21stcentury. Yet,onedistinctive feature ofChicagoin
theeraofglobalization is thatifitis notexactlya "worldcity"ithascertainly
becomea Mexicancitythrough theentrenchment oftransnationalizedlabor
and migrant workers'improvisational productions of locality(Appadurai,
1995; cf. Sassen,1996b).It bearsrepeating thatthisis notto pretendthat
otherChicagoshavebeensomehoweclipsedbutrather toemphasizea differ-
entialspacethathas developedintheirmidst.FollowingLefebvre'scharac-
terizationof space as "whole and broken . . . at one and the same time"
(1991[1974]:356),I havepositeda pluralization
ofurbanspacethatidenti-
fiesglobalization
processesas capableof violentdisjunctures
and creative
ferments,bothdisproportionatelyfeltamongthepoorestpeople.It is like-
wisefromthisvantagepoint,through thecriticallensofa transnationalism
frombelow,thatitbecomespossibletodiscerninChicagoas globalcityone
ofitsmostsalientforms,MexicanChicago.

RACIALIZATION IN A GLOBAL CITY

AND THE GLOBALIZATION OF RACISM

of labormigration
The transnationalism undertheconditions ofradical
thataresynonymous
inequality withglobalcapitalismis meaningful
beyond
consequencesforclass formation
itscontradictory amongMexicansthem-
selves.AkhilGuptaand JamesFergusonhave arguedpersuasively fora
rejectionof conventionalpresumptions of an isomorphicconnection
between"culture"and"place"anda natural disconnectionandautonomy of
spaces.Theyproceedfromthepremisethatspaceshavealwaysbeeninter-
connected "Ifwe questiona pre-given
hierarchically. worldofseparateand
 De Genova/MEXICAN CHICAGO 103

discrete'peoplesand cultures,' " theyargue,"and see insteada difference-

producing setofrelations, weturnfroma projectofjuxtaposing pre-existing
differences to one of exploring theconstruction ofdifferences in historical
process"(1992: 16). Fromthisperspective, Mexican/migrant workersnot
onlygo toworkincapitalist production butalso areembroiled intheproduc-
tionofdifference-and, I wouldemphasize,racializeddifference-within
specificlocal configurations ofcapitalisthegemony as well as transnation-
ally,acrossa globalcapitalisttopography ofdomination. Of necessity, this
production ofdifference requirestheproduction of a space forthatdiffer-
ence,a spacedefinedin andthrough difference.
Here,againstthemorecommonplace, one-sidedfascination withwhat
transnationalism is doingtosubvert or(atleast)unsettle priorconfigurations
of social order,I wantto stresstheinevitably dialecticalcharacter of the
articulation thattranspires betweentheforcesof globalization and estab-
lishedstructures of social inequality.In a programmatic essayon race and
working-class history in theUnitedStates,David Roedigerconcludes:"To
explorehow,whatever theirracism,American workers madeclass-conscious
choiceswithin theparameters opentothem,is ofundoubted importance. To
explorehowracismshapedthoseparameters is also profitable.Tojoin both
concerns, ortorealizethattheyarejoinedina tragichistory, is oneofthekey
areasofunfinished businessforthenewlaborhistory" (1994: 34). I wantto
extendthisargument aboutthewriting ofhistory intoboththewriting andthe
organizing ofworking-class historyas itis beingmadein thepresent. To do
so, however, involvesnotonlyrecognizing racismas a centralproblemof
working-class consciousnessand actionwithintheUnitedStatesbutalso
attending tothelaboriousworkofracialization-the production ofracialized
difference-in theeveryday regimentation ofworking-class lifeas itis situ-
atedatthespecificlocalcross-sections ofanevermoretransnational division
oflabor.Theproduction ofa MexicanChicago,then,is inextricable fromthe
racializedproduction ofChicago'sMexicans.
Mexican/migrant experiencesin Chicago involvea multiplicity of
difference-producing encountersand strugglesover space. As Lefebvre
pointsout,"Thecityandtheurbansphereare... thesetting ofstruggle; they
arealso,however, thestakesofthatstruggle" (1991[1974]:386). Chicagois
renowned as a "cityofneighborhoods," andbynomerecoincidence itis also
notorious forits racialsegregation. Indeed,Chicago'sneighborhoods are
oftenremarkably distinctiveandidentifiable fora verydurablereason:they
arecommonly surrounded bymaterial boundaries. Therailroadsandfacto-
riesthatplayedsucha defining roleinthegenesisofChicagoentailenormous
physicalenactments ofcapitalon theurbanlandscape.Thisis thecapitalist
builtenvironment thathegemonicsociologyhas mystified as "ecology."
104 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

Working-class communities wererelegatedto whatever space was leftfor

use,amidtheindustrial
residential developments andthecrisscrossing ofele-
vatedrailroadsthatliterallywallinwholesectionsofthecity.Thesephysical
barriershaveprovideda veryeffective materialfoundation forsocial and
especiallyracial segregation. The incorporation of a burgeoning Mexi-
can/migrant population intoChicago'ssocialpatchwork has meantthatthe
insertionofMexicans(andLatinos,ingeneral)intotheracialdividebetween
whiteandBlackis also spatialized.In themostprominent examples,Mexi-
can neighborhoods throughout Chicagooccupyinterstitial zones between
AfricanAmericanneighborhoods and therecedingneighborhoods of the
whiteworkingclass.26The large-scale,neighborhood-by-neighborhood
evacuation ofthecitybywhitesknownas "whiteflight" dramatically accel-
eratedaftertheAfrican American rebellionof1968thatfollowedtheassassi-
nationofMartinLutherKing,Jr.Atthattime,97 percent ofthenonwhites in
Chicago were African Americans; Latinos still a
representedrelatively negli-
gibleproportion ofthecity'spopulation. Butitwasprecisely atthatconjunc-
turethatMexicanmigration toChicagobegantorapidly increase,andMexi-
can migrants oftenfoundavailableto themexactlythosepanickedwhite
working-class neighborhoods thatsharedboundarieswithBlack working-
classneighborhoods, inevitably poorer.Since 1968,"Mexican"has become
an evermorepronounced thirdtermin theracialorderofChicago.
TheAfrican American rebellion ofthe1960sprovidesa crucialhistorical
dimension thatis oftenneglected inthenarratives ofglobalization inrelation
to thedeindustrializationoflargeurbancentersin theUnitedStates.27 The
transformations of theworldeconomythatbecamemanifest in theearly
1970scannotbe understood simplyineconomicterms, as theywereimmedi-
atelyprecededbypoliticalupheavals, bothathomeandabroad,thatacutely
impactedU.S. imperialism inparticular. Moreimportant, thedevastation of
theindustrialfoundations ofbigcitiesintheUnitedStatesneedstobe recog-
nizednotas an unforeseen consequenceofblindeconomicforcesbutrather
as anaggressivepolicyofdisinvestment thathada disproportionate effecton
BlackAmerica.Itis precisely inthissocialclimatethatMexican(frequently
undocumented) migration to Chicagocameto servethenewlaborrequire-
mentsofsmall-andmiddle-scale employers whocouldnotafford simplyto
pickupandleavethecity(orrelocated onlytosuburban areas),wouldnottol-
eratethemilitancy ofAfricanAmericanworkers, and neededa cheapand
(legally)vulnerablealternative.28 Thus,theinsertion of Mexicanmigrants
intothebottom ranksofa raciallypolarizedworking classservedas a trans-
nationalfixfora politicalcrisisof labor subordination withinthe U.S.
nation-stateandheralded theenforcement ofanausterity regimeforall work-
ersintheUnitedStatesthatwouldmorecloselycorrespond totheconditions
 De Genova/MEXICAN CHICAGO 105

ofthegloballabormarket. Butwhatis worthemphasizing is thatglobaliza-

tionis notmerelyajuggernaut thatdestroys everything initspathbutarticu-
lates-in thecourseof its ownlocalization-withlocal configurations of
socialdivisionandpoliticalconflict thatareelaborated through theregimen-
tationofspaceandtheproduction ofdifference.
Ultimately, theseexperiencesof theregimentation of urbanspace and
labor-force segmentation areconstitutive in a largerprocessofreracializa-
tionat workin theformation of a MexicanChicago.Despitethemultiple
"cultural" inflectionsoftheconfrontations andconflicts inthisproduction of
difference, I characterizethisprocessas racialization toclarify thatitis prin-
cipallya matterof social inequality and subordination. Likewise,inserted
intoa preexisting polarity ofwhiteandblackintheracistorderofcapitalist
hegemony in theUnitedStates,Mexicanmigrants' understandings oftheir
own"cultural" identitiesthemselves havebecomethoroughly saturated with
ideologiesof racialdifference. Whileplainlyconsciousof and commonly
outspokenabouttheracializeddiscrimination and injusticethatconfront
them(including ofcoursetheexistence ofa specialpoliceforce-theBorder
Patrol-devotedalmostexclusively to theirrepression), Mexicanmigrants
nonetheless frequently are interpolated by the hegemonicracismof the
UnitedStatesagainsttheAfricanAmericanswho oftenappearto be their
mostpalpablecompetition in thescrambleforjobs andspace.In thissense
also,Mexicanmigrants inChicagoareverycommonly mooredideologically
toa contradictory intermediary spacebetweenwhiteandBlackandproduce
collectiveunderstandings ofthemselves thatarepreeminently racialized.
I callthisprocessa reracialization becausethereisanobviousandimpor-
tantracializationthathas alreadybeen accomplishedin Mexico priorto
migration (whichis atleastanalytically distinct as Mexican).Butitis impera-
tiveto emphasizeherethatthisprocessof reracialization is itselftransna-
tionalinitsrepercussions. Thetransnational migration thathelpstoensnare
MexicoandtheUnitedStatesinanirreversible, mutually constitutive condi-
tionengenders an unrelenting circulationnotonlyofmoney,commodities,
andhumanbeingsbutalso ofideology, especiallytheideologiesofracialdif-
ference thatlie atthecoreofworking-class experience intheUnitedStates.
Whilemuchofthisracialideologyis continually (re)elaborated inChicago,
itsconsequencesareevidencedin seemingly remoteMexicanvillagesand,
becauseoftherural-urban migration within Mexicothatis oftenassociated
withtransnational migration, inplaceslikeMexicoCityas well.In short, on
thebasisofpreliminary research inMexico29 I wouldcontendthatMexico's
distinct andrelatively fluidracialordermaybe currently undergoing a pro-
foundideologicalreelaboration thatreflectsand refractsthe racialized
migrantencounterand increasingly sharessome of the rigidityof the
106 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

dominant racialideologiesoftheUnitedStates.Thereracialization ofMexi-

can migrants in theUnitedStatesis no less transnational thanMexican
migrant laboritself,andthusapparently local productions ofdifferenceare
alsoglobalizedandentaila reinscription oftheracializeddifferencebetween
theUnitedStatesandMexicoevenas thetwoareconjoinedmoreextensively
thaneverbefore.As migration experiencespermeate theinnumerable com-
munities inMexicoinwhichmigrants continue toparticipateandas migrant
"knowledge"comesto reshapetheworldviews evenof people who have
nevermigrated, it becomesevermoredifficult to disentanglewhatcan be
properly attributed to a socialhistorypurported to be Mexicanandwhatto
anotherthatis saidtobe thatoftheUnitedStates.Inthislighttheproduction
ofa MexicanChicagoevokesnotonlythecontingency ofthespace ofthe
U.S. nation-state butalso onemanifestation ofa laboriousprocesswhereby
whatis at stakeis nothing less thanthereinvention ofLatinAmericaitself.

CONCLUSION

If I haveproducedonlya preliminary rendering ofMexicanChicagoin

I hopenevertheless
thisarticle, tohavemadea programmatic gesturetoward
thenecessity ofitsrecognitionandtohaveatleastbeguntocharttheprincipal
contoursof its space. Throughthecriticallens of MexicanChicago,it is
increasingly difficult
toimaginethatLatinAmericabeginsonlyattheborder
andincreasingly necessarytodiscerntheracializedboundaries ofthespace
oftheU.S. nation-stateimplodeddeepwithin itsterritorial
map.Thebounda-
riesbetweentheUnitedStatesand Mexicoareevermoreconfounded and
convulsedbytransnational migration.Atthesametime,however, migration
processesarecontinually embroiled in a relentlessproduction andregimen-
tationofracializeddifference thatmakepossibletheultimate reimagining
andenforcement ofthesesameboundaries. The boundary lineshaveless to
do withtheborderitselfthanwiththetextures ofeveryday lifeforMexican
workersin theUnitedStates.The borderis everywhere-constantly rein-
scribing thesocialpositionofMexicanmigrants intheUnitedStatesas that
of "illegal"outsiders,racializedothers,whosesingularrole is to provide
cheapandtractable labor.Theirracializationis plainlyinseparablefrom their
subordination as workers.Anditis thisproduction ofdifferencethatinevita-
blyentailstheproduction ofa differentialspace-the production ofa Mexi-
canChicago,a ChicagothatbelongstoLatinAmericaevenas itis atworkin
thereinvention ofLatinAmerica.
Myargument forMexicanChicagois situated atthecenterofa triangula-
tionofLatinAmerican, Chicano,andAmericanstudies,divergent academic
 De Genova/MEXICAN CHICAGO 107

discoursesthathavelongappearedtobe firmly grounded byseemingly self-

evidentterritorial
moorings. In an effortto disrupt
thesubsumption of"the
immigrant" intotheconventional narrativesofhegemonicsociologyin the
UnitedStatesand to subverttheimperial-national chauvinismby which
Americanstudiespresumes toknowitsobject,I posita MexicanChicagoas
thelocusforan interrogation ofthespace oftheU.S. nation-state itself.A
criticaltransnationalismthatcouldrenderMexicanChicagointelligible is
onethatcancomprehend a production ofdifferential
spacewhileneverlos-
ing sightof its entanglement in a moreintenseproduction of difference,
exposingtheworkofracialization inthesubordination oflabor.Inasmuchas
MexicanChicagoliesbeyondthereachoftheterritorial nationalism thathas
informed thehistoricalclaimsofChicanostudies,I havesoughttorevisethe
historicism
anti-imperialist of thatparadigmto advancean explicitly anti-
imperialist oftransnationalism
theorization thatsituates
MexicanChicagoin
LatinAmerica,beyondthereachof theU.S. nation-state evenwhileit is
nuzzleddangerously close to itscore.

NOTES

1. Thecategory "migrant" shouldnotbe conflated withthemorepreciseterm"migratory";

rather,itis intended toserveas a category ofanalysisthatdisrupts theimplicitteleologyofthe
moreconventional term"immigrant." Thus,by "Mexican/migrant" I meansomeonewhohas
migrated fromMexicototheUnitedStates(whomI happentohaveknowninChicago)incontra-
distinction tothosewhowerebornoratleastraisedintheUnitedStates.AmongthosewhomI
designate Mexican/migrant thereis a remarkable heterogeneityofexperiences ranging from sea-
sonal migration to long-term settlement and fromundocumented statusto U.S. citizenship.
Despitethisheterogeneity, theterms"MexicanAmerican"and "Chicano/a"havevirtually no
currency forself-identification;
thepervasivecategory is "Mexicano/a."
2. Thissensibilitycanbetracedthroughout Chicanostudiesscholarship (e.g.,Acufia,1981;
Almaguer, 1994;Barrera,1979;Montejano,1987;Mufioz,1989).-
3. Davis(1990),DesmondandDominguez(1996),andMay(1996) haveregistered various
criticalperspectives on theprofession of Americanstudiesfromtheirrespective standpoints
within it;all oftheseassessments havebeenpublished inAmerican Quarterly,thejournalofthe
AmericanStudiesAssociation.
4. Anexplicitconsideration of"empire" inAmerican studieslongremained thedomainofa
relatively smallnumberofrevisionist historians suchas WilliamApplemanWilliams(1959;
1961; 1980). Culturalstudiesof U.S. imperialism haveemergedonlyveryslowlyandrather
recently (Drinnon,1980;KaplanandPease,1993;Mackenthun, 1997;Slotkin,1985; 1992;cf.
Mackenthun, 1996); whilethisdevelopment is laudatory,ithasremained principally in
literary
focusandthuslargelyoriented tothepast,although therearesomeexceptions (e.g.,Kennedy,
1996).
5. Cf.FernandoCoronil's(1996) suggestive readingofNicos Poulantzasconcerning the
fetishization ofgeography.
6. The phraseis FredricJameson's, as adoptedbyRogerRouse(1991: 8).
108 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

7. Mypersonalunderstanding ofthishistory hasbeengreatly enriched throughnumerous

conversations withBarneyCohn(see Cohn,1987[1980];CohnandChatterjee, n.d.).
8. Wagley(1964) is merelyoneinteresting exampleofwhatis probablya wholegenreof
academicproduction; itcompilesa report andseminarpapersfortheSocial ScienceResearch
CouncilandtheAmerican CouncilofLearnedSocieties.
9. David Maciel providesone instancein whichtheChicanoanti-imperialist perspective
frames thenarration ofa Mexicanhistory (fromthestandpoint ofMexico)-namely,thehistory
oftheMexicanworking class:"Thebasicpremiseofthestudyis theunityoftheMexicanwork-
ingclasson thetwosidesoftheRio Bravo.Itis thesamehistory ofoppression byimperialism
andcolonialismofcertainsectorsoftheUnitedStates"(1981:10).
10.Thespecificrecognition ofChicagoas a theoretical (andnotmerely empirical) question
forChicanostudieshas been anticipated (albeitin onlya preliminary fashion)by Sergio
Elizondo(1991), althoughtheconceptuallimitations of theSouthwestern regionalparadigm
wereaddressedmuchearlierinAztldn: International Journal ofChicanoStudiesResearchinits
specialissueonChicanosintheMidwest(Summer1976);seetheissue'sintroduction byGilbert
Cardenas(1976).
11. The mostprominent literary exceptionsare Ana Castillo(1994) and SandraCisneros
(1986).
12.Jos6David Saldivar,intheeffort "toarticulatea new,trans-geographical conception of
American culture" (1991: xi),makesan analogousargument infavorofreconceptualizing Chi-
cano cultural studies.
13.See Madrid-Barela (1976) foranattempt toproducea genealogyfortheterm"Chicano"
revealing that,despitecontemporary connotations, thetermoriginally referredto migrants.
14.Foranexcellent interrogation oftheperfidy of"ethnic"narratives inhegemonic sociol-
ogyin theUnitedStates,see StephenSteinberg (1989); see also Pease-Chock(1991) foran
accountof howtestimonial narratives about"illegalaliens"are appropriated forhegemonic
mythmakingabout"ethnic"success.
15. The mostnotoriousof theseis OctavioPaz's rendering of "The Pachucoand Other
Extremes" (1961).
16. Theseformulations (andtheirderivatives) recurwithremarkable regularitythroughout
theworkoftheChicagoSchool.Compilations oftheirclassicstatements includeParkandBur-
gess(1925), Short(1971), SmithandWhite(1929), andWirth(1964).
17.Cohn'scritical remarks aredirected toward theworkofRobertRedfield(1950; 1956).
18. Thisis a dangeraddressedbyLeo Chavez(1994) in hiscritiqueoftheworkofRoger
Rouse.
19. This presumedinevitability is a dangerimplicitin Chavez'searlyarguments (1991;
1992)abouttheincorporation andsettlement ofundocumented Latinoimmigrants, driven bythe
teleologicalanalogyof "ritesofpassage"in thelifecyclesof individuals. Similarly,Pierrette
Hondagneu-Sotelo's otherwise richethnography (1994) remains circumscribed bythisproblem
insofar as ittakes"settlement" as itsdefining presupposition. Although heis likewiseinterested
in"makingsenseofsettlement," Rouse(1992) providesa morenuancedaccountthatexplicitly
seekstodisrupt thisteleologicalcommonsense.Likewise,inhisanthropological history ofset-
tlement bya particular migrant community, RobertAlvarezJr.(1987) retrospectively accounts
forsettlement in thecounterteleological termsofa transborder regionalperspective.
20. SaskiaSassen(1996a) raisessimilarquestionsabouttheformation ofnewclaimstociti-
zenshipand rightsto place-"the new politicsmade possibleby globalization"-withan
emphasisontheconstitutive roleofimmigration. Likewise,Rouse(1995) hasbeguntodevelopa
provocative argument thatemphasizes thenational/transnational dialecticintheconfiguration of
exploitation, domination, andhegemony withintheUnitedStates.
 De Genova/MEXICAN CHICAGO 109

21. As a preludetowhatwilllikelybecomea moreconcerted campaigntodisenfranchise the

U.S.-bornchildrenof undocumented immigrants of theirbirthrightcitizenship,Schuckand
Smith(1985) havealreadyadvancedtheargument thatcitizenship shouldbe determined bya
moreactiveexpression ofmajoritarian "consent."
22. The principalexceptionto thisgeneraltrend(in Chicagoas elsewhere)was theGreat
Depressionera,whichbroughtabouta systematic exclusionof bothMexicanmigrants and
MexicanAmericans (i.e.,U.S. citizens)fromemployment andeconomicrelief, followedbythe
forcibledeportation of415,000Mexicansas wellas MexicanAmericansandthe"voluntary"
repatriationof85,000more(Masseyetal., 1987:42;cf.Acunia, 1981:136-154;Hoffman, 1974).
23. Data fromthe1990U.S. CensushavebeenanalyzedbytheLatinoInstitute, Chicago.
24. Ananalogouscase canclearlyalso be madeforLos Angeles(Acufia,1996: 175-208;cf.
Bacon, 1996).
25. MichaelKearney(1996) providesan excellentassessment of thetransformationsand
ultimate eclipseof"peasant"communities.
26. Thishasalso beguntohappenona largerscaleintheMexicanization ofan innerringof
industrial,traditionallywhiteworking-class suburbsthatforma buffer betweenthecityand
moreaffluent suburbs.
27. Masseyand Denton(1993) and Wilson(1987; 1996) areprominent examplesof this
omissionin hegemonic sociologicalaccountsofthe"concentration ofblackpoverty."
28. Characteristic ofhegemonic sociologyis Waldinger's (1996) depoliticizedaccountof
labor-market competition betweenAfricanAmericans andrecentimmigrants inpostindustrial
NewYorkCity,whichobfuscates theoperations ofracismthrough anentirelynaturalizedmodel
of"ethnic-niche" formation.
29. I referspecificallytotimespentin 1992in metropolitan MexicoCity(amongworking
peopleoriginally fromruralareasinGuerrero, Morelos,Michoacan,andPuebla)andvisitstoa
smalltownin ruralMorelosthathasbeendeeplyinvolvedin migration to Chicago.Giventhe
theoreticalprioritiesofthisarticle,I am unableto devotemoreattention to theseexperiences
here.

REFERENCES

Acunia,Rodolfo
1981 OccupiedAmerica:A HistoryofChicanos.2d ed. New York:HarperandRow.
1996Anything ButMexican:Chicanosin Contemporary Los Angeles.New York:Verso.
Allen,TheodoreW.
1994 TheInvention oftheWhiteRace. Vol.1. Racial Oppressionand Social Control.New
York:Verso.
Almaguer,Tomas
1994 Racial FaultLines: TheHistoricalOriginsof WhiteSupremacy in California.Ber-
keley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Alvarez,RobertR., Jr.
1987Familia:Migration andAdaptation inBaja andAltaCalifornia,
1800-1975.Berkeley:
ofCalifornia
University Press.
Anaya,RudolfoA.
1991 "Aztlan:a homelandwithout boundaries,"pp. 230-241in RudolfoAnayaandFran-
ciscoLomelf(eds.),Aztldn:Essayson theChicanoHomeland.Albuquerque: Universityof
New MexicoPress.
110 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

Anaya,RudolfoA. andFranciscoLomeli(eds.)
1991Aztldn:Essayson theChicanoHomeland.Albuquerque: University ofNew Mexico
Press.
AnloNuevoKerr,Louise
1976"TheChicanoexperience in Chicago,1920-70."Ph.D. diss.,University ofIllinoisat
Chicago.
Anzaldua,Gloria
1987 Borderlands/La Frontera:The New Mestiza. San Francisco:Spinster/Aunt Lute
Books.
Appadurai, Arijun
1990"Disjuncture anddifference intheglobalculturaleconomy." PublicCulture 2(2): 1-24.
1991"Globalethnoscapes: notesandqueriesfora transnational anthropology,"pp. 191-210
in RichardG. Fox (ed.), Recapturing Anthropology: Working in thePresent.Santa Fe:
SchoolofAmericanResearchPress.
1995"Theproduction oflocality," chap.9 inRichardFardon(ed.), Counterworks: Manag-
ingtheDiversity ofKnowledge.London:Routledge.
1996Modernity at Large: CulturalDimensionsofGlobalization. Minneapolis:University
ofMinnesotaPress.
Bacon,David
1996"Putting L.A. onthemap:howCalifornia's immigrantworkers arerevitalizing
labor."
TheVillageVoice,March19.
Barrera, Mario
1979Race and Class intheSouthwest: A Theory ofRacialInequality.NotreDame,IN: Uni-
versity ofNotreDame Press.
Barrera, Mario,CarlosMufioz,andCharlesOrnelas
1972"Thebarrioas internal colony," pp.465-498inHarlanHahn(ed.),Peopleand Politics
in UrbanSociety.Los Angeles:Sage.
Bartra,Roger
1993 "Introduction," pp. 11-12in GuillermoG6mez-Pefia, Warriorfor Gringostroika. St.
Paul: Graywolf Press.
Basch,Linda,NinaGlickSchiller,andCristinaSzantonBlanc
1994 Nations Unbound:Transnational Projects,PostcolonialPredicaments, and De-
Nation-States.
territorialized Langhorne, PA: GordonandBreach.
Berger,MarkT.
1995 UnderNorthern Eyes:LatinAmericanStudiesand U.S. Hegemony in theAmericas,
1898-1990.Bloomington, IN: IndianaUniversity Press.
Betancur, JohnJ.,TeresaCordova,andMariade los AngelesTorres
1993"Economicrestructuring andtheprocessofincorporation ofLatinosintotheChicago
economy," pp. 109-132inRebeccaMoralesandFrankBonilla(eds.),Latinosina Changing
U.S.Economy:Comparative Perspectives onGrowing Inequality.
Newbury Park,CA: Sage.
Blea, IreneI.
1988 Towarda ChicanoSocial Science.New York:Praeger.
Bray,MarjorieWoodford
1992"LatinAmerican studies,"inJoBuhle,PaulBuhle,andDan Georgakas(eds.),Encyclo-
pedia oftheAmerican Left.Urbana,IL: University ofIllinoisPress.
Calavita,Kitty
1992 Inside theState: The BraceroProgram,Immigration, and theLN.S. New York:
Routledge.
 De Genova/MEXICAN CHICAGO 111

Cardenas,Gilbert
1976"Introduction: WhoaretheMidwestern Chicanos?Implications forChicanostudies."
Aztldn7(2): 141-152.
Castillo,Ana
1994MassacreoftheDreamers:Essays on Xicanisma.Albuquerque:University of New
MexicoPress.
Chavez,Leo R.
1991"Outsidetheimagined community: undocumented andexperiences
settlers ofincorpo-
ration."AmericanEthnologist 18: 257-278.
1992ShadowedLives:Undocumented ImmigrantsinAmerican Ft.Worth,
Society. TX: Har-
court,BraceJovanovich.
1994 "Thepoweroftheimaginedcommunity: thesettlementofundocumented Mexicans
andCentralAmericans in theUnitedStates."AmericanAnthropologist 96(1): 52-73.
Chilcote,RonaldH.
1997 "U.S. hegemonyand academicsin the Americas."LatinAmericanPerspectives
24(1): 73-77.
Cisneros,Sandra
1986 TheHouse on MangoStreet.Houston:ArtePublicoPress.
Cockcroft, JamesD.
1986 Outlawsin thePromisedLand: MexicanImmigrant Workersand America'sFuture.
New York:GrovePress.
Cohn,BernardS.
1987(1980)"Historyandanthropology: thestateofplay,"pp. 18-49inAnAnthropologist
AmongtheHistorians.New Delhi:OxfordUniversity Press.
Cohn,BernardS. andPiyaChatterjee
n.d."Colonialknowledges/imperial outreach:WorldWarII andtheinvention ofareastudies
in theUnitedStates."MS, Department ofAnthropology,University ofChicago.
Coronil,Fernando
1996 "BeyondOccidentalism:towardnonimperial geohistoricalcategories."Cultural
Anthropology 11(1): 51-87.
Cronon,William
1991Nature'sMetropolis:Chicagoand theGreatWest.New York:W. W. Norton.
Davis,AllenF.
1990 "ThepoliticsofAmericanstudies."AmericanQuarterly 42(3): 353-374.
Desmond,JaneC. andVirginiaR. Domfnguez
1996 "Resituating Americanstudiesin a criticalinternationalism."AmericanQuarterly
48(3): 475-490.
Drinnon,Richard
1980FacingWest:TheMetaphysics andEmpire-Building.
ofIndian-Hating NewYork:New
AmericanLibrary.
Elizondo,SergioD.
1991 "ABC: Aztlan,theborderlands, and Chicago,"pp. 205-218in RudolfoAnayaand
FranciscoLomeli(eds.),Aztldn:Essayson theChicanoHomeland.Albuquerque: Univer-
sityofNew MexicoPress.
Fusco,Coco
1995Englishis BrokenHere:Noteson CulturalFusionsin theAmericas.New York:New
Press.
112 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

Garcia,IgnacioM.
1986"Juncture intheroad:Chicanostudiessince'El Plande SantaBarbara,"'pp.181-203in
David R. Maciel andIsidroD. Ortiz(eds.), Chicanas/Chicanos at theCrossroads:Social,
Economic,and PoliticalChange.Tucson:University ofArizonaPress.
GlickSchiller,Nina,LindaBasch,andCristinaSzanton-Blanc (eds.)
1992Towards a TransnationalPerspectiveonMigration. AnnalsoftheNewYorkAcademy
ofSciences645.
G6mez-Pefia, Guillermo
1993 Warriorfor Gringostroika.
St. Paul:GraywolfPress.
G6mez-Quifiones, Juan
1982 "On culture." RevistaChicano-Riquefna 10(1-2):290-308.
Gupta,AkhilandJamesFerguson
1992"Beyond'culture':space,identity, andthepoliticsofdifference."
CulturalAnthropol-
ogy7(1): 6-23.
Hannerz,Ulf
1980ExploringtheCity:InquiriesTowardan UrbanAnthropology. New York:Columbia
UniversityPress.
Hoffman, Abraham
1974 UnwantedMexicanAmericansin the GreatDepression:Repatriation Pressures,
1926-1939.Tucson:University ofArizonaPress.
Hondagneu-Sotelo, Pierrette
1994GenderedTransitions. MexicanExperiences ofImmigration. of
Berkeley:University
CaliforniaPress.
Horsman,Reginald
1981Race and Manifest Destiny:TheOriginsofAmerican Racial Anglo-Saxonism.Cam-
bridge:HarvardUniversity Press.
Ignatiev,
Noel
1995How theIrishBecameWhite.New York:Routledge.
Kaplan,AmyandDonaldE. Pease
1993 CulturesofUnitedStatesImperialism. Durham,NC: Duke University Press.
Katz,Friedrich
1981TheSecretWarinMexico:Europe,theUnitedStates,andtheMexicanRevolution. Chi-
cago: University ofChicagoPress.
Kearney,Michael
1991"Bordersandboundaries ofstatesandselfattheendofempire." JournalofHistorical
Sociology4(1): 52-74.
1996Reconceptualizing thePeasantry: AnthropologyinGlobalPerspective.Boulder:West-
viewPress.
Kennedy, Liam
1996"Aliennation:whitemaleparanoiaandimperial culture
intheUnitedStates."Journal
ofAmericanStudies30(1): 87-100.
King,Anthony D.
1990 Global Cities:Post-Imperialism and theInternationalizationofLondon.New York:
Routledge.
Lefebvre,Henri
1991(1974)TheProduction ofSpace. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
 De Genova/MEXICAN CHICAGO 113

Liebowitz,ArnoldH.
1984 "The officialcharacter of languagein theUnitedStates:literacyrequirements for
immigration, citizenship,
andentrance intoAmericanlife."Aztldn15(1): 25-70.
Lim6n,Jos6E.
1989"Carne,carnales,andtheCarnivalesque: Bakhtinian batos,disorder, andnarrative dis-
courses."AmericanEthnologist 16(3): 471-486.
McCaughey, RobertA.
1984International StudiesandAcademicEnterprise: A ChapterintheEnclosureofAmeri-
can Learning.New York:ColumbiaUniversity Press.
Maciel,David
1981La clase obreraen la historiade Mexico:Al nortedel Rio Bravo(pasado inmediato,
1930-1981).MexicoCity:SigloXXI/Instituto de Investigaciones Socialesde la UNAM.
Mackenthun, Gesa
1996"Stateoftheart:addingempiretothestudyofAmerican culture."JournalofAmerican
Studies30(2): 263-269.
1997 MetaphorsofDispossession:AmericanBeginnings and theTranslation ofEmpire,
1492-1637.Norman:University ofOklahomaPress.
Madrid-Barela,Arturo
1973a "In searchoftheauthentic pachuco:an interpretive essay."Aztldn4(1): 31-60.
1973b"Towardsan understanding oftheChicanoexperience.'Aztldn4(1): 185-193.
1976 "Pochos,thedifferent Mexicans:an interpretiveessay,pt. 1" Aztldn7(1): 51-64.
Malkki,Liisa
1992"Nationalgeographic: therooting ofpeoplesandtheterritorialization ofnationaliden-
tityamongscholarsandrefugees." CulturalAnthropology 7(1): 24-44.
Marx,Karl
1973(1858)Grundrisse: Foundations oftheCritiqueofPoliticalEconomy. NewYork:Vin-
tageBooks.
Marx,KarlandFriedrich Engels
1967(1848)TheCommunist Manifesto. New York:PenguinBooks.
Massey,DouglasS. andNancyA. Denton
1993AmericanApartheid: Segregation andtheMakingoftheUnderclass. Cambridge: Har-
vardUniversity Press.
Massey,Douglaset al.
1987Return toAztldn:TheSocial ProcessofInternational Migrationfrom Western Mexico.
Berkeley:University ofCalifornia Press.
May,ElaineTyler
1996 "TheradicalrootsofAmerican studies:presidentialaddresstotheAmericanStudies
Association,November 9, 1995.?AmericanQuarterly 48(2): 179-200.
Mayer,HaroldM. andRichardC. Wade
1969 Chicago:Growth ofa Metropolis. Chicago:University ofChicagoPress.
Mirande,Alfredo
1985 TheChicanoExperience:AnAlternative Perspective. SouthBend,IN: University of
NotreDame Press.
Montejano,David
1987AnglosandMexicansintheMakingofTexas,1836-1986.Austin:University ofTexas
Press.
Montiel,Miguel
1970 "The socialsciencemythoftheMexican-American family." El Grito3(4): 56-63.
Munioz,Carlos,Jr.
114 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

1989 Youth, Power:TheChicanoMovement.

Identity, New York:Verso.
Nader,Laura
1997"Thephantom factor: impactofthecoldwaron anthropology," pp. 107-146inNoam
Chomsky etal.,TheColdWarandtheUniversity: Towardan Intellectual
History ofthePost-
war Years.New York:New Press.
Park,RobertE.
1929"Thecityas a sociallaboratory," pp. 1-19inT. V. SmithandLeonardD. White(eds.),
Chicago:AnExperiment inSocialScienceResearch.Chicago:University ofChicagoPress.
Park,RobertE. andErnestW. Burgess
1925 TheCity.Chicago:University ofChicagoPress.
Paz, Octavio
1961TheLabyrinth ofSolitude.New York:GrovePress.
Pease-Chock,Phyllis
1991" 'Illegalaliens'and 'opportunity':myth-making incongressionaltestimony." Ameri-
can Ethnologist 18(2): 279-294.
Redfield,Robert
1950A VillageThatChoseProgress:ChanKomRevisited. Chicago:University ofChicago
Press.
1956 TheLittleCommunity/Peasant Societyand Culture.Chicago:University ofChicago
Press.
Rocco,RaymondA.
1976"TheChicanointhesocialsciences:traditional concepts,
myths, andimages."Aztldn
7(1).
Roediger,David R.
1991 TheWagesofWhiteness: Race and theMakingoftheAmericanWorking Class. New
York:Verso.
1994TowardtheAbolition ofWhiteness: EssaysonRace,Politics,and Working Class His-
tory.New York:Verso.
Romano-V., OctavioIgnacio
1968 "The anthropology and sociologyof the Mexican-Americans: the distortionof
Mexican-American history." El Grito2(1): 13-26.
1970 "Social science,objectivity,andtheChicanos."El Grito4(1): 4-16.
Rouse,Roger
1991 "Mexicanmigration andthesocialspaceofpostmodernism." Diaspora 1(1): 8-23.
1992"Makingsenseofsettlement: classtransformation,cultural andtransnational-
struggle,
ismamongMexicanmigrants intheUnitedStates,"pp.25-52inNinaGlickSchiller, Linda
Basch,andCristinaSzantonBlanc(eds.),Towardsa Transnational Perspective on Migra-
tion.AnnalsoftheNew YorkAcademyofSciences645.
1995"Thinking through transnationalism: notesonthecultural
politicsofclassrelationsin
thecontemporary UnitedStates."PublicCulture7(2): 353-402.
Saldivar,Jos6David
1991 TheDialecticsofOurAmerica:Genealogy, CulturalCritique,and Literary History.
Durham,NC: Duke University Press.
Sanjek,Roger
1990"Urbananthropology inthe1980's:a worldview."AnnualReviewofAnthropology 19:
151-186.
 De Genova/MEXICAN CHICAGO 115

Sassen,Saskia
1984"Thenewlabordemand inglobalcities,"pp. 139-171inMichaelPeterSmith(ed.),Cit-
ies inTransformation: Class, Capital,and theState.UrbanAffairs AnnualReview26.
1988 TheMobilityofLabor and Capital:A Studyin International Investment and Labor
Flow.New York:Cambridge University Press.
1989"America'simmigration 'problem."'WorldPolicyJournal6(4): 811-832.
1994Citiesina WorldEconomy.ThousandOaks,CA: PineForgePress.
1996a"Whosecityis it?Globalizationandtheformation ofnewclaims."Public Culture
8(2): 205-223.
1996b"Rebuilding theglobalcity:economics,ethnicity, andspace,"pp. 23-42in Anthony
D. King(ed.),Re-presenting theCity:Ethnicity, Capital,and Culturein the21stCentury
Metropolis. New York:New YorkUniversity Press.
Saxton,Alexander
1990 The Rise and Fall of the WhiteRepublic:Class Politicsand Mass Culturein
Nineteenth-Century America.New York:Verso.
Schuck,PeterH. andRogersM. Smith
1985Citizenship WithoutConsent:IllegalAliensin theAmerican Polity.New Haven:Yale
University Press.
Short,JamesF.,Jr.
1971TheSocial FabricoftheMetropolis:Contributions oftheChicagoSchoolof Urban
Sociology.Chicago:University ofChicagoPress.
Simpson,David
1986ThePoliticsofAmericanEnglish,1776-1850.New York:OxfordUniversity Press.
Skirius,John
1978"VasconcelosandMexicode afuera(1928)."Aztldn7(3): 479-497.
Slotkin,Richard
1985TheFatalEnvironment: TheMythoftheFrontier intheAgeofIndustrialization,
1800-
1890.New York:Harper-Collins.
1992GunfighterNation: TheMythoftheFrontier inTwentieth-CenturyAmerica.NewYork:
Harper-Collins.
Smith,T. V. andLeonardD. White
1929Chicago:AnExperiment inSocial ScienceResearch.Chicago:University ofChicago
Press.
Steinberg,Stephen
1989 TheEthnicMyth:Race, Ethnicity, and Class inAmerica.Updatedandexpandeded.
Boston:BeaconPress.
Squires,Gregory D., LarryBennett, KathleenMcCourt,andPhillipNyden
1987Chicago:Race,Class,andtheResponsetoUrbanDecline.Philadelphia: TempleUni-
versityPress.
Takaki,Ronald
1979IronCages:Race and Culturein19th-CenturyAmerica. NewYork:OxfordUniversity
Press.
Taussig,Michael
1992TheNervousSystem. New York:Roudledge.
Taylor,Paul
1932MexicanLaborintheUnitedStates:Chicagoand theCalumetDistrict.University of
California inEconomics7(2).
Publications
116 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

Vaca,NickC.
1970a "The Mexican-American in thesocial sciences,1912-1970,pt. 1, 1912-1935."El
Grito3(3): 3-24.
1970b"The Mexican-American in thesocial sciences,1912-1970,pt.2, 1936-1970."El
Grito4(1): 17-51.
Wagley,Charles(ed.)
1964Social ScienceResearchon LatinAmerica.New York:ColumbiaUniversity Press.
Waldinger, Roger
1996 StillthePromisedCity?African-Americans and New Immigrants in Postindustrial
New York.Cambridge:HarvardUniversity Press.
Wallerstein,Immanuel
1997"Theunintended consequences ofcoldwarareastudies,"pp. 195-232inNoamChom-
skyetal., TheCold Warand theUniversity: Towardan Intellectual
HistoryofthePostwar
Years.New York:New Press.
Williams,WilliamAppleman
1959 TheTragedyofAmerican Diplomacy.Cleveland:World.
1961 TheContoursofAmerican History. Cleveland:World.
1980Empireas a WayofLife.New York:OxfordUniversity Press.
Wilson,WilliamJulius
1987TheTrulyDisadvantaged: TheInnerCity,theUnderclass, andPublicPolicy.Chicago:
University ofChicagoPress.
1996 WhenWork Disappears:The WorldoftheNew UrbanPoor.New York:Knopf.
Wirth,Louis
1928TheGhetto.Chicago:University ofChicagoPress.
1964 On Citiesand Social Life:SelectedPapers.Chicago:University ofChicagoPress.
Ybarra-Frausto,Tomas
1992 "InterviewwithTomas Ybarra-Frausto: The Chicano movementin a multicul-
tural/multinational pp. 207-215in GeorgeYudice,JeanFranco,andJuanFlores
society,"
(eds.),OnEdge: TheCrisisofContemporary LatinAmerican Culture. Univer-
Minneapolis:
sityofMinnesotaPress.
Zorbaugh, HarveyWarren
1929TheGoldCoastandtheSlum:A SociologicalStudyofChicago'sNearNorth Side.Chi-
cago: UniversityofChicagoPress.