Indigenous Peoples and the Formation of Contemporary Mexican National Identity: Culture, Power, and Resistance [EXTRACT]

Indigenous Peoples and the Formation of Contemporary

Mexican National Identity:

Culture, Power, and Resistance

Raul Eduardo Barclay Contreras

A thesis submitted in satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in Government

Department of Government

University of Essex

February 2015

Indigenous Peoples and the Formation of Contemporary Mexican National Identity: Culture, Power, and Resistance

Raul Eduardo Barclay Contreras

Abstract

This thesis contributes to our understanding of contemporary Mexican national identity by charting the role indigeneity has played in instituting the dominant ‘Mestizo’ identity, as well as the efforts of indigenous peoples to secure social, cultural, and political recognition through the construction of an indigenous identity outside the Mestizo frame.

Marxist, sociological, functionalist and deliberative approaches to this domain of inquiry furnish us with many useful insights, but they also suffer from some problematic features, in particular, economic reductionism, determinism, subjectivism and foundationalism. Drawing on the Essex School of Discourse Analysis and Lacanian psychoanalysis as articulated in the ‘logics approach’ (Glynos & Howarth 2007) I seek to synthesize key elements of these approaches (while also avoiding some of the pitfalls) in a detailed study of the way indigenous peoples and movements have deployed culture in their efforts to resist and contest the dominant ‘Mestizo’ identity frame.

The substantive part of the thesis comprises four chapters. I show, first, how contemporary, dominant Mexican national identity is a product of concerted efforts over extended periods of time to transform a heterogeneous country into a unified and homogeneous ethnic nation. This hegemonic identity – ‘Mestizo’ identity – articulates elements from Mexican post-revolutionary discourse, including associated indigenous symbols. However, I go on to show how the mobilisations and events spearheaded by the EZLN from 1994 to 1996 crystalized a moment of possibility because it created a space in which indigenous peoples could contest the Mestizo regime and articulate distinctive political demands for recognition and representation. Indigenous peoples started to develop a set of local, autonomous and independent cultural practices from the ‘bottom up’, with the aim of securing social, cultural and political recognition. The final two chapters comprise a detailed qualitative case study of one such practice of resistance. Access to the Ñomndaa indigenous group in Guerrero has made it possible for me to chart the development of a specific type of cultural resistance exercised primarily through radio broadcasting in a municipality of Guerrero, showing how this spurred broader counter-hegemonic efforts to contest the Mestizo imaginary. Central to this resistance movement were practices enacting logics of cultural re-valuation and consciousness-raising, which in turn elicited harsh governmental counter-tactics. In the final chapter I show how the indigenous people sought to embed these logics of re-valuation and consciousness-raising into the local provision of elementary school education. In sum, I argue that a critical analysis of national identity discourse and indigenous practices of resistance as a function of logics can help us better draw out the social, political, and ideological dimensions of national identity construction processes.

3

1. Introduction

Mexican society has experienced considerable transformations in its social, political and

economic structures and practices over the course of the last four decades. These

transformations are often understood to be part of a process of “democratization”, which

helped to include previously excluded sectors of Mexican society in an active participative

role in the social, cultural, economic and political life of the country. Such transformations

can be understood as “politico-electoral” transformations, where the hegemonic political

party PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party) lost its first state government election in 1989

and its first presidential election in 2000. They can also be understood as “economic”

transformations, where a state-driven economy was transformed into a free-market-

neoliberal economy; or “social” transformations, where the business class substituted the

political elite at the top of the social hierarchy. However, despite all these

transformations, one thing remained constant: the Mestizo configuration of Mexican

national identity.

This thesis aims to explore the different social, political and ideological practices

that resisted and contested the Mestizo discourse of national identity in the name of an

alternative indigenous political and cultural identity. It argues that indigenous people

continue to develop and reproduce a set of local, autonomous and independent practices

in different social domains with the aim of contesting the discourse of national identity

and achieving political agency.

Mexican national identity, as it is conceived today, is a hegemonic articulation of

different factors and symbols, which is a product of the country’s history and social

composition. The current conception of Mexican identity was constructed through a post-

revolutionary discourse that incorporated indigenous symbols, revolutionary identity, and

other imaginaries, such as the Mestizo imaginary, to construct a long-lasting articulation

4

that unified a heterogeneous country into a homogenous ethnic nation. The so-called

“Indian problem” was tackled historically by an agency constituted in the 1940s, called

Instituto Nacional Indigenista (INI) (National Indigenist Institute). The INI was responsible

for the creation of “indigenismo”, a social and scientific paradigm that was constituted by

a set of government institutions and policies, and which shaped the national conception of

Indians and instituted them simultaneously as both a social problem and an obstacle to

reaching modernity (Taylor, 2009). In this way, the indigenous identity was shaped by non-

indigenous social scientists in order to configure a homogenous nation under mestizo

nationalism. The Mestizo is characterized as a mixed race (Indigenous/European)

descendant from the ancient indigenous cultures, but who has evolved over time through

a process of race mixing into a modern Western individual, proud of his indigenous past

but Western in every aspect of his social and political life.

From the 1970s, “Indigenismo” as a political programme began to attract more

vocal critical attention. Increasingly seen as a thinly disguised political devise for social

control, this period witnessed a series of attempts to create a more “just” and

“democratic” perception of indigenous identity, but always from the perspective of non-

indigenous actors. During this period, vocal criticism of the indigenous peoples’ place in

Mexico´s social, cultural and political spectrum notably increased. This was triggered by

the fact that “throughout the 1980s and 1990s the PRI [government] increasingly resorted

to forms of dominance and coercion to project an increasingly dwindling form of

hegemony. It is within this that crisis of hegemony unfolded” (Morton, 2003, 648). A series

of events from 1994 to 1996, however, created a moment of possibility when the

indigenous people began to articulate political demands for respect, recognition and

representation, in an attempt to create a new collective indigenous identity that could be

representative of the indigenous and contest the Mestizo hegemonic identity discourse.

Indigenous mobilization in the social and political arena started to have tremendous

impact at both national and international levels. A form of neo-Indigenismo took place,

advocating self-determination, respect, and acknowledgment as well as spaces in the

5

social and political ground to continue practising different social, religious, cultural and

political beliefs (Morris, 2001).

This social and political mobilization produced a series of accords in 1996: the San

Andres Agreements between the EZLN (National Liberation Zapatista Army) and the

government, and the COCOPA (Concord and Pacification Commission) accords. Then, in

2001, under President Vicente Fox, the accords were “acknowledged” by the Mexican

Congress “recognizing” indigenous cultures and languages at the constitutional level.

However, the constitutional recognition was watered down, changing or omitting issues of

indigenous autonomy raised in the accords, including, for instance, issues around access

to indigenous mass media. Instead, congress added into the document on several

occasions the statement that “the Mexican nation is one and indivisible” (Hernandez,

2002). No other secondary laws where amended in order to enforce the changes made to

the Constitution. As such, cultural, social and political practices continued unaltered and

discourses of “modernization” and “social progress” continue to be articulated now from

within the neo-liberal political project. A few years later, in 2003, Fox closed down the

debilitated INI and created a small agency called CONADEPI (National Council for the

development of Indigenous Communities) which does not have a “clear institutional

mechanism through which it might mediate between indigenous peoples and the State”

(Taylor, 2009, 111).

With this turn of events, and the so called “acknowledgement” of the San Andres

Agreements, the mobilization and discussion about indigenous rights has almost

disappeared from the national arena, thereby marginalising important indigenous

concerns. Indigenous symbols certainly have a presence in national monuments, and their

language (Nahuatl, Amusgo and so on) appears etched on national buildings and murals.

However, meaningful social and political space has been denied (Morris, 2001), provoking

struggle for the recognition of their different cultural, political and social practices.

Such indigenous socio-cultural and political struggles have been studied by

different scholars using diverse theoretical perspectives, which I have found helpful to

6

characterise as Marxist, Sociological, Functionalist and Deliberative perspectives. This

large corpus of literature has provided considerable insights regarding indigenous people’s

political and social struggles, offering explanations for the exclusion of indigenous people

from the social and political arena and the exclusion of indigenous cultures from the social

field; offering reasons for the lack of success in the constitution of national pan-

indigenous alliances; and accounting for the different pathways followed in pursuit of

political recognition.

Nevertheless, there are some important areas that the existing literature has not

yet addressed in a satisfactory way, in particular the way different indigenous people use

particular cultural traits in the resistance and contestation of the discourse of national

identity embodied by the Mestizo. A focus on such cultural practices can help us

understand how such practices of cultural resistance are “spilling over” to other areas of

the social in order to develop new sets of political practices which, in turn, look for the

constitution of an independent indigenous culture and political identity. Likewise, they can

help explain how those practices confer political agency to indigenous people in their

every day practices. The basic argument of this thesis is that indigenous people are using

cultural traits to resist and contest the discourse of Mestizo national identity in their quest

for social, cultural and political recognition and representation. It argues that indigenous

people are developing independent, local, autonomous cultural practices of resistance

with clear potential to link up with one another into a movement that unifies and

promotes them all.

In making this argument I rely on the “logics approach” (Glynos & Howarth 2007),

which seeks to operationalize the ontological presuppositions of Political Discourse

Theory. Hence, this contribution looks at the development and construction of discourses

and the signification and institutionalization of social and political practices that, in turn,

shape society and politics. These elements will allow me to explain the constitution of a

hegemonic political and cultural identity, the connotation and significance that were given

to certain elements like indigeneity, and the meaning of certain practices of resistance.

7

I apply a qualitative research methodology through the analysis of primary and

secondary literature. As part of my research strategy I also conduct an in-depth case

study, focussing on the municipality of Xochistlahuaca in the state of Guerrero. The first

part of this in-depth case study is focused on the communitarian radio station, “Radio

Ñomndaa”, and the second part is based on the study of elementary schools’

implementation of “Dual Immersion” as a multicultural education, also in the community

of Xochistlahuaca. This in-depth case study approach will allow me to elucidate and

examine the different practices of resistance and its articulation in the quest for cultural

recognition and political agency.

In what follows, I will provide a guide for the development of this thesis’

contribution and rationale. With this purpose in mind, I will, first, develop and explain the

place of this research with reference to existing literature on the topic of indigeneity, with

a specific focus on the issues of indigenous social and political struggles and mobilization

in Mexico. Then, I am going to provide a brief summary of the insights found in the

existing theoretical accounts as well as this thesis´ main argument and research questions.

Finally, I will present a summary of the chapters of this thesis, which, in turn, will provide

the overall structure and argument.

1.1. Place and Significance of the Research

In this section I explain the reasons why I have concentrated on this particular topic of

research as well as its contributions to issues of indigeneity and socio-political inclusion.

To do so, I will explain the context surrounding this research in regard to existing studies

of issues of indigeneity and political mobilization.

In the 1990s, Mexico underwent a voracious process of structural change, which

had a profound effect on the country’s political, economic, and cultural institutions. These

changes opened up political space to several previously excluded groups, allowing them to

8

participate in the social and political arena and articulate their own particular demands.

One of these groups was the now well documented and studied EZLN (National Liberation

Zapatista Army), who advocated the political, social and cultural inclusion of indigenous

groups within the structures of the Mexican state. This social and political movement and

its social and political impacts have been widely studied from several different theoretical

perspectives (Weinberg, 2000; Harvey, 1998; Froehling, 1997; Clifford, 2005; Inclan, 2006;

Morton, 2013).

However, following the Zapatista furore and the subsequent academic interest in

the movement’s impact on the politico-electoral, economic, and social mobilization fields,

little attention has since been paid to the openings that this political movement provided

for indigenous people and the diverse forms of organization that emanated from them.

The existing studies are both necessary and useful in accounting for the effects of the

movement and the benefits that it brought, not only to indigeneity, but also to the general

Mexican context. Nonetheless, it is important to look beyond the Zapatista movement and

observe and analyse how other indigenous people are creating new forms of

communitarian organization and resistance under the banner of indigeneity. This thesis is

an attempt take up this challenge.

1.1.1. The Place of the Research in the Academic Literature

Several attempts have been made at articulating indigeneity inside different theoretical

frameworks. As a result, there is a vast literature regarding the place of indigenous people

inside their respective societies and the different processes of political and social

mobilization that these ethnic groups have created. This section will look briefly at some

of the key academic contributions made to the study. In the same manner, I will point out

some of the issues that these academic works fail to fully explicate and, consequently,

where this thesis intents to intervene and build on the existing literature on the subject.

9

I have divided the main collection of academic works on indigeneity and

indigenous groups into four sub-groups - Marxist, sociological, functionalist and

deliberative – which represent the main theoretical approaches employed. The Marxist

approach (Warman, 1970; Bonfil Batalla, 1987, 1970; Nolasco, 1970; Oliviera, 1970;

Villoro, 1950; Lombardo Toledano, 1983; Mariatuegui, 1957) provides us with a critical

dimension to the study of indigeneity, by providing an economic explanation for the

exclusion of indigenous people from the social and political spectrum. In doing so, it grants

us with a solution to this exclusion through integration into modern forms of economic

production which, in turn, will grant the indigenous social, cultural and political space in

the Mestizo society.

Although this research is extremely productive in questioning the economic and

social policies of the Mexican government, and in providing answers to the problem of

indigenous socio-cultural and political inclusion, it loses sight of important elements that

account for cultural and political identity. It does not, for instance, explain the important

role of culture in the construction of a cultural and political identity and in the process of

achieving political agency. Moreover, it does not attempt to clarify the role of cultural

resistance in such a process. I argue that these shortcomings come from the commitment

to a rigid theoretical framework that is unable to accommodate or voice different social,

cultural, political and ideological elements. In doing so, this approach undervalues the

importance of culture and ideology in the construction of political and cultural identities.

Other scholars, however, have paid closer attention to the role of culture in the

construction of a cultural and political identity, as well as its importance in the building of

a nation state or political project. These scholars belong to the sociological approach (Rex,

1996; Roosens, 1989; Kuper, 1988, 2003; Snipp, 1989; Lattas, 1993; Field, 1994; Forte,

2013; Stocker, 2013), which contains within it a number of different interpretations of

culture. The literature oscillates between debates of anti-essentialist/essentialist cultural

approaches and pro-indigenous/anti-indigenous approaches.

10

The sociological approaches place greater importance on issues of culture and

practice in the construction of a cultural and political identity. In doing so, they highlight

the importance of acquiring cohesion in a nation state and the way cultural practices are

regulated in order to achieve this. It also places interest in the importance of culture and

identity in political mobilization. In particular, these approaches are interested in

explaining how cultural elements can be mobilized politically for the achievement of

certain social and cultural demands. Nevertheless, the Sociological approach fails to fully

realize the importance of cultural elements and how they could be mobilized politically.

Moreover, some studies in this approach conceive of culture as a mere carrier of political

demands, attaching no intrinsic value to culture itself.

Other approaches articulate how particular cultural elements can be mobilized

politically and socially. Amongst these approaches I find the functionalist approach

(Eisenstadt, 2011; Bob, 2005; Inclan, 2006; Sonnleitner, 2001). This approach gives identity

and political mobilization an anti-essentialist and instrumental character. Identities, as

well as the means of political mobilization, are determined by the social contexts. These

contexts are also determined by the individual benefit that any political or cultural identity

provides. In other words, political demands and cultural identity are going to be

determined and chosen according to individual interests. This approach contributes to our

understanding on how culture can be mobilized in political terms for the fulfillment of a

set of demands. Yet this approach still misjudges ethnicity and culture in the building of a

cultural and political identity as well as their relation to a specific set of political demands.

The deliberative approach (Tully, 2008, 1995; Sonnleitner, 2013; Kymlicka, 2001,

1995; Habermas, 1998; Bankes, 2013) provides us with new way of understanding political

mobilization. It represents a deeper and more nuanced approach to conceptualizing the

relationship between political mobilization, cultural recognition and the importance of

ethnic identity. It also gives us new ways of understanding political and cultural

recognition and multiculturalism through political deliberation. Nonetheless, it does not

explain how to reach the necessary state of mutual recognition for political deliberation.

In failing to do so, the deliberative approach does not account for the importance of

11

cultural and political resistance, nor does it explain the process of construction of a

political identity for the style of political deliberation envisioned in the theory.

This brief overview has highlighted several issues in the current approaches to the

study of indigeneity which require further attention. The failure of Marxist, sociological,

functionalist and deliberative approaches to give a satisfactory account of the issues of

cultural mobilization in the quest for political representation, the importance of resistance

in the process of acquiring political agency, and the underlying importance of cultural

practices, requires new avenues of investigation and, crucially, a different theoretical

approach.

1.1.2. Research Topic and Questions

I have already established the position of this research in relation to the wider social and

academic context. Now I turn to identify the underlying questions that drive this research

and briefly present the cases I use to illustrate my argument.

The central aim of this thesis is to provide a better understanding of how

indigenous people in Mexico mobilize particular cultural elements in the form of political

resistance. It is through political resistance that political demands for cultural, social and

political recognition are crystallized. As such, the aim of this culturally-informed political

resistance is the constitution of an alternative cultural and political identity, in opposition

to the Mestizo identity, under which indigeneity is currently subsumed. I aim to tackle

such dynamics through a case-study which analyses two particular forms of cultural

mobilization in indigenous political resistance. This case study analyses how indigenous

people mobilize cultural traits, such as language, in the creation and promotion of a new

set of social, political and ideological practices, which are aimed at the re-articulation of

indigeneity and the construction of an independent cultural and political identity. The first

part of the case study looks at a communitarian radio station, “Radio Ñomndaa”, which

12

broadcasts in Ñomndaa (Amusgo) and has created a set of resistance and revalorization

practices in its community, Xochistlahuaca. The second part of this case study is based in

the same municipality, but in the elementary schools, where the same set of

revalorization practices promoted by Radio Ñomndaa are changing the way elementary

school education is implemented.

The case study research outlined above attempts to address the following research

questions:

1) What role has the indigenous element played in the construction of the

hegemonic Mestizo ethnic discourse? This thesis aims to explain how the Mexican

national identity was shaped through a set of cultural practices which hijacked the

concept of indigeneity, using it symbolically to integrate indigenous people into a project

of modernization and Westernization, whilst simultaneously hollowing out its cultural

dimension through the employment of specific fantasmatic (ideological), political and

social logics. This explanation will also address why indigenous people have been

culturally, socially and politically excluded, and, subsequently, why indigenous people do

not possess any political agency. These points speak to two further sub-questions: How do

indigenous groups intervene and contest the hegemonic Mestizo discourse? And, how

does the hegemonic Mestizo discourse respond to these attempted contestations? In

short, this thesis aims to show both how indigenous people contest the cultural practice

deployed by the Mestizo Regime and how the Mestizo Regime responds to the attempted

articulations of cultural resistance.

2) What is the character of new indigenous practices and imaginaries? This

question tackles the fantasmatic, political and social character of resistance practices. As

such, this thesis attempts to describe the meaning of such practices of resistance, the

answer to which, I believe, lies in political agency and cultural inclusion. These practices of

resistance are not only aiming to contest the hegemonic discourse of national and cultural

identity, but also to create something new to replace it. What is this new articulation?

What are the political demands of such articulations? What is its relation with the Mestizo

13

cultural identity? These are some of the sub-questions that are also addressed throughout

in this thesis.

The basic aim of this thesis is, therefore, to explain how the social, political and

ideological practices brought about by the Mestizo Regime articulated a cultural identity

that used indigeneity as a symbolic tool whilst excluding socially different indigenous

cultural practices. Likewise, I seek to explain how the indigenous people are developing

practices of resistance that contest the Mestizo Regime’s practices, in the hope of

achieving socio-cultural recognition and constituting an indigenous political identity to

provide them with political agency. In the next section, I describe the theoretical approach

that will allow me to achieve this aim.

1.1.3. Theoretical Framework and Research Strategy

This thesis, as has already been mentioned, relies on the contribution of Political

Discourse Theory and, in particular, the “logics approach” to critical explanation (Glynos

and Howarth, 2007; Laclau, 1990, 1994, 1996, 2005; Laclau and Mouffe, 1985; Howarth,

2000; Norval, 1996; Mouffe, 1993, 2000). Discourse theory provides two fundamental

points for the interpretation of social and political phenomenon: 1) Reality is discursively

constructed; and, 2) Discourse comprises radically contingent articulations of different

symbols, elements and practices. According to this ontological position, meanings and

identities are never fully fixed and permanent; all meaning is always subject to the

prospect of contestation and change. The construction of meaning is achieved through the

linking together of what otherwise would be heterogeneous sets of elements. Why some

meanings are able to become dominant and stable is explained through the re-articulation

of Gramsci’s concept of hegemony. Hegemonic articulations cover up their contingent

character through ideological practices. Fantasy is the discursive element mobilized in

ideological practices and accounts for the “grip” of discourses. This ontological framework

finds its operationalization through the “logics” approach (Glynos and Howarth, 2007),

14

which provides an analytical grammar that helps classify the different social, political and

fantasmatic discursive practices. This represents the ontological and analytical basis of this

thesis that will inform my empirical analysis, including my in-depth case study.

1.1.4. Organization of Research

Having provided the thesis context, aims and tools of investigation, now I proceed to

provide a brief overview of the main chapters of the thesis, which develop my overall

argument.

Chapter 1 surveys the large array of literature on the articulation of indigeneity

inside diverse theoretical frameworks. The literature highlights general problems in the

articulation of indigeneity, and political inclusion and mobilization as well as specific

examples of its articulation in the Mexican context. As I have already mentioned, the

literature is divided into four theoretical approaches - Marxist, sociological, functionalist

and deliberative - in order to properly highlight the different contributions and, indeed,

the specific deficiencies of the different perspectives. In each of the sub-sections, I provide

a summary of the main theoretical assumptions as well as detailed analysis of the specific

contributions and deficiencies to the study of indigeneity and indigenous groups in

Mexico.

Chapter 2 provides the theoretical basis of this thesis, together with the research

strategy. In it, I develop the post-structuralist ontological foundations for the research. I

present the key ontological assumptions of Political Discourse Theory and introduce key

concepts, such as “discourse”, “articulation”, “hegemony”, “identity”, “Ideology” and

“fantasy”, all of which will help me in constructing a new interpretation for my case. Also, I

develop the analytical framework in which I operationalize my post-structuralist ontology.

This analytical framework, I explain, is a form of typology presented in the “logics

approach” to critical explanation, which includes: Fantasmatic logics, Political logics, Social

15

Logics and Counter logics (Glynos and Howarth, 2007). In addition to the “logics”

approach, I introduce the Foucaudian notion of governmentality. This will help me to

interpret the different technologies utilized in the construction of the Mexican national

identity. Furthermore, in this chapter I present the case study as my core method of

research and provide the rationale behind this choice of method.

Chapter 3 presents the different technologies utilized by the Mestizo Regime in the

construction of the Mestizo national identity. In it, I introduce the notion of “cultural

governmentality” which, when articulated with the notion of “logics”, provides me with a

new way of interpreting the practices that instituted indigeneity inside the Mestizo

Regime. I explain the practices carried out by the regime in different fields (Fantasmatic,

Political and Social) which take form of the fantasmatic logic of Western liberalism, the

political logics of de-particularization and stratification, and the social logics of

acculturation and integration. Also, I introduce the Tequio as a counter logic, which

accounts for the indigenous resistance to the articulation of the discourse of national

identity.

In chapter 4, I look at the period of crisis in the hegemonic construction of national

identity. I call this period “The Moment of Possibility”. In it, I give three different examples

in three different periods of time where the discourse of national identity was being

contested. These examples represent attempts at developing a counter narrative of the

place of indigenous people in that construction of national identity as well as questioning

their place in wider society and politics.

Chapter 5 is the first part of my case study, in which I describe the indigenous

people’s practices of resistance through language and other cultural traits. I provide an

interpretation of these resistance practices in terms of social, political and fantasmatic

logics, but I also examine a set of governmental tactics which account for the Mestizo

Regime’s response to the implementation of this new set of resistance practices.

Finally, Chapter 6 focuses on showing how the new indigenous practices of

consciousness raising and cultural revaluation are starting to be embedded in different

16

social practices. In this chapter, I present their particular embedding within the local

elementary school system. I do so by examining the introduction of a new educational

program “Dual Immersion”, which gives the same value and importance to both languages

(Spanish and Ñomndaa) and both cultures (Mestizo and Indigenous).

The conclusion of the thesis restates the original research aims and argumentation,

stating the main research findings and pointing out their contribution to existing debates

on indigeneity in the Mexican context, whilst also offering some future avenues for

development. The conclusion suggests how this thesis has found an increased

development of new cultural resistance practices through local, autonomous, indigenous

forms of organization which are being developed and implemented in different social

spheres (media, education, etc.). This form of organization not only resists the social,

political and ideological practices implemented by the Mestizo Regime, but also

contributes to the struggle to build an indigenous identity outside of the Mestizo cultural

configuration and, subsequently, allowing the indigenous to achieve political agency.

Furthermore, the conclusion highlights, in contrast to other approaches, the importance

of social organization as a form of resistance outside the conventional methods and

structures of social movements.