Creative Zapatista Resistance

CreativeResistanceandUtopianSubjectivities:

ZapatistaAutonomyasDiscourse,Power,andPractice

SydneyBlume

AppalachianStateUniversity

May2018

Abstract

TheZapatistasstagedamilitantuprisingagainsttheMexicangovernmentonJanuary1st, 1994buthavesinceadoptedadistinctlynon-hegemonicapproachofcreativeresistance basedontherecognitionthatthestateitselfissubjecttoagreaterhegemonicsystem.This thesisexplorestheZapatistas’autonomousprojectbasedonanalternativediscoursethatacts asresistancetothehegemonicsystemofneoliberalismandtheregimesofpowerthat maintainit.DrawingfromEscobar’s(1995)post-structuralistdiscursiveanalysis,ittracesthe reinforcingrelationsofpowerinthehegemonicsystemthroughexaminingthedevelopment discourse,itsconnectionstocoloniality,anditsprivilegingofEuro-centricformsknowledge whichshapesubjectivitiestosetthelimitsofpossibilityand,inthat,assertviolencetowards non-dominantpeoplesandtheenvironment.Thus,inordertochangethedominantorderand preventthisviolence,theremustbechangeatthelevelofdiscourse.TheZapatistashave createdanalternativediscourse(Zapatismo)thatprovidesthebasisforutopiancreative resistancethroughopeningthelimitsofpossibilityandcapacitatingpeopletocreatetheir idealrealities.Thethesisexplorestheeffectsofthisdiscourseonresistancethrough examiningitsnewformsofknowledge,power,andsubjectivities,andsubsequentinfluence onthecreationofZapatistaautonomouscommunitiesandthesuccessesoftheZapatistas’ autonomouseducationandhealthsystems.ItarguesthattheZapatistas’emphasisonutopian creativeresistance,autonomy,andpluralismcaninformnon-hegemonic,anti-systemic approachesinfutureresistancemovements. keywords: Zapatistas, autonomy, creative resistance, neoliberalism, utopian subjectivity, discourse, development, hegemony, anti-systemic social movements

Acknowledgements

ThisthesisisdedicatedtotheZapatistas–theonesinChiapas,whosedailyactsofresistance andcommitmenttoautonomyinthefaceofoppressioncreatetransformative knowledge-practicesthatareworthstudying,andtotheonesglobally,whohavetakenupthe calltoresisthegemonywhereverandhowevertheycan.Theyhavegivenmehopeanda clearercalltoaction.

IofferthehighestthankstoDr.BrianBurkeandDr.DanaPowell,thefacultyadvisorsofthis thesis.IthasbeenanhonortoworkwiththetwoprofessorswhoseworkImostadmireand whohavebeenthemostinspiringeducatorsI’vehad.Dr.Burke’shorizontaladvisingwas exemplaryoftheZapatistas(aconsejar-escuchando).Iamsincerelythankfulforhis provocativequestions,accompaniedthinking,andenthusiasticremindersthatthisresearch matters.Andalsoforthefantasticreadinglistonsocialmovementtheorythathasmademe allthemorerevolutionary.IhopethisundergraduatethesisonZapatistaautonomyisafair substitutionfortheonethatwasn’twritten.Dr.PowelldirectedmethrougheverythingI knowaboutindigenousstudies.Iamgratefulforherexcitementandinsightsintoquestions ofsovereigntyandpoliticaldifference.Bothofthemhavechallengedmymindtoexpandin transformativeways.

IexpressmydeepestgratitudetotheSustainableDevelopmentDepartmentofAppalachian Stateforitsremarkablefacultyandradicalcurriculum.Ifeelincrediblyfortunatetohave learnedwitheveryoneinthisdepartmentforthepastfouryears.Ithasforeverchangedthe waythatIseeandinteractwiththeworld.

Iamthankfulformyfriendsandfamily,whokindlylistenedtomyrantingsabouthegemony andravingsaboutrevolution,whoofferedmeunendingencouragement,andwhoremindme ofthemostimportantpartsofitall.

IamalsogratefulforthesupportofHonorsCollegeandtheopportunitytodoundergraduate research.

IalsowanttoacknowledgetheHimnoZapatista,homemadetortillas,anda pañuelo al cuello forhelpingmerememberZapatistasolidarityduringparticularlyintenseboutsof thesis-inducedtimeimbalance.

¡VivanlosZapatistas!

AvenuesforSystemicResistance:AnIntroduction

Vamos vamos vamos, vamos adelante, para que salgamos en la lucha avante, porque nuestra patria grita y necesita de todo el esfuerzo de los Zapatistas.

Let’sgo,let’sgo,let’sgetgoingforward,sothatwecomeoutinthefightahead, becauseourhomelandcriesoutandneedsalloftheeffortoftheZapatistas.

(HimnoZapatista)

Widespreadpoverty.Climatechange.Extremeinequality.Waroveroil.Sweatshop andprisonslavery.Ecologicaldestruction.Corruptandoppressivegovernments.Theseare allrealitiesoftheworldweliveintoday.Insum,it’samess:socially,ecologically, politically,andeconomically.Whatmakesthisevenmoredauntingisthatit’snotquiteclear whotoblameorwhattherootcauseis—itisanentireflawedsystem.Despitethis,or perhapsbecauseofit,thereisresistanceeverywhere.However,inordertoeffectivelyresist, wemustunderstandthebasisofthesystemthatcontinuestohide,permit,orjustifyworld problems.Thatistheinspirationandpurposeofthiswork:tocontributetotheunderstanding ofthedominantsystemandresistanceagainstitinordertoinformfuturemovementsthatcan leadtopositivechange.Iwillexaminetheunderlyingdiscourseofthedominantsystemand howitmaintainshegemonytohelpelucidatethewaysthatresistancecanbemobilized againstitatthefoundationallevel.Then,IwillshowhowtheZapatistasfromChiapas, Mexicohavetakenonthisdiscursiveresistancebyestablishinganalternativediscourse.I willthenshowhowthisinformstheirpracticeinautonomythroughtheexamplesoftheir governancestructureandautonomouseducationandhealthsystems.

IntroductiontotheZapatistas

TheZapatistasenteredtheglobalsceneonJanuary1stof1994inamilitantuprising againsttheMexicanStatebecauseofitsviolenceagainstthepeopleanddictatorialpower regime.IntheirFirstDeclarationoftheLacandonJungle,theZapatistaGeneralCommand wrote:

We,themenandwomen,fullandfree,areconsciousthatthewarthatwehave declaredisourlastresort,butalsoajustone.Thedictatorshavebeenapplyingan undeclaredgenocidalwaragainstourpeopleformanyyears...Wedeclarethatwe willnotstopfightinguntilthebasicdemandsofourpeoplehavebeenmetbyforming agovernmentofourcountrythatisfreeanddemocratic.(EZLN1993)

ThiscivilwarlastedforjusttwelvedaysbeforetheZapatistas,respondingtotheurgingof civilsociety,putdowntheirweaponstonegotiatewiththestate.However,thoughthis uprisingiswhatmadethemknown,itwouldberemisstoconsidertheirresistancetoand negotiationwiththestatetheircentralobjective.IntheirSecondDeclarationjusthalfayear followingtheuprising,theyredirectedtheirattention,callinguponcivilsociety“toorganize itselfinordertodirectpeacefuleffortstowardsdemocracy,freedom,andjustice”and denouncingpoweronprinciple,statingthat“th[eir]revolutionwillnotendinanewclass, factionofaclass,orgroupinpower.Itwillendinafreeanddemocraticspaceforpolitical struggle”(EZLN1994).

BytheThirdDeclaration,theZapatistasprovidedtheiranswertohowcivilsociety couldorganizetoachievethisdemocracy,freedom,andjustice:

Theonlymeansofincorporating,withjusticeanddignity,theindigenousofthe Nation,istorecognizethecharacteristicsoftheirownsocial,politicalandcultural organization.Autonomyisnotseparation;itisintegrationofthemosthumbleand forgottenminoritiesofcontemporaryMexico.(EZLN1995)

Afterfailednegotiationswiththestateinwhichthegovernmentrefusedtorecognizetheir mostelementaldemandsofacknowledgingpeople’sconstitutionalrighttoaltertheir governmentandindigenousrightstoautonomy,andafterafailedelectoralprocessinwhich theMexicangovernmentimposed,onceagain,itssingle-partypower,theZapatistassought toemphasizeautonomy.Thestatehadmadeitclearthattheywouldnotaccommodatethe Zapatistas’demandsandcouldnotaltertheirdictatorialsystem,soautonomywasananswer toaddressingtheZapatistas’needsoutsideofthestate.Theycalleduponcivilsocietytoform aNationalLiberationMovementandcreate“transitionalgovernmentstodemocracy,” definedbythecommunitiesthatcreatethem.

Theyalsolookedbeyondthestateastherootoftheirproblemstoaddressthe“brutal system”—the“economically,politically,andsociallyrepressiveprogramofneoliberalism [that]hasdemonstrateditsinefficiency,itsdeceptions,andthecruelinjusticeatitsessence” (ibid.).Theyrecognizedthatthoughthestate’sdictatorialruledidrestrictnational sovereignty,“thetruelossofnationalsovereigntywasconcretizedinthesecretpactsand publiceconomiccabinetwiththeownersofmoneyandforeigngovernments”(EZLN1996).

This,too,wasreasonfortheircallforautonomy.Sincethestatewasentwinedinagreater hegemoniceconomicsystemthatwasthebasisforsomanyofthecontinuedinjustices, autonomyfromboththestateandsystemofneoliberalismwasapathtocreatingsociety outsideofthese.TheirFourthandFifthDeclarations(1996;1998)goontohighlightwhat thismovementtoautonomylookslike.Theydescribea“plural,tolerant,inclusive, democratic,just,freeandnewsociety”aswellastheirfocusontherightsoftheindigenous

peoplesofMexicotoachievethis,continuallyemphasizingapeacefultransitionto democracyandarefusalofpoliticalpower.

TheseDeclarationshighlightthebasisoftheZapatistas’resistancetothehegemony ofthestateandneoliberalsystemandtheircreativeresponsetobuildingcommunity autonomywithtruedemocracyandindigenousrights.Inthisapproachtosocialchange,the Zapatistashavegonebeyondreformorrevolutiontoradicallyre-createsocietybasedonan alternativediscoursethatresiststhediscoursemaintainedbythehegemonicsystematthe foundationallevel.Iwillarguethatthiscreativeresistancethroughanalternativediscourse hascontributedtosocialchangebothinChiapasandinanti-systemicsocialmovements worldwidebyinformingutopiansubjectivitiesandcreatingnewknowledge-practices.To clarifymyargument,Iwillnowprovideanoverviewofsomeofthekeytermsandtheories thatframethisresearch.

TheoreticalOverview

Discourse

Foucault’sunderstandingofdiscourseisrootedfromanexplorationofthehistoryof humannatureinwhichheidentifiesthattherearenouniversaltruths,onlyhistorical creationsofassumptions,abstractions,andconceptsthatplayaroleinshapingand influencinghumanpractices,behaviors,andperceptions(FoucaultinRabinow1984).

Discourses,inFoucault’swork,arewaysofconstitutingknowledge,togetherwiththe socialpractices,formsofsubjectivityandpowerrelationswhichinhereinsuch knowledgesandrelationsbetweenthem.Discoursesaremorethanwaysofthinking andproducingmeaning.Theyconstitutethe'nature'ofthebody,unconsciousand consciousmindandemotionallifeofthesubjectstheyseektogovern(Weedon1997: 105)

Essentially,discoursesetsthelimitstopossibilitybyframingwaysofthinkingand perceiving.

ForFoucault,thebasisofthediscoursematterslessthanhowthediscourseactually operatesinshapinghumans,anddiscourseprovidesawayofconnectingthislivedrealityto thehiddenformsofpowerthatshapeit(Rabinow1984).Discourseandpowerareentwined becausethosethathavethepoweroverrepresentationandwhosewaysofknowingarethe basisofthediscoursethushavepowerovertheaction,perception,andimaginationofthose thatareshapedbythediscourse.Foucault’sunderstandingofdiscoursehasopenedthe analysisof“themechanismsbywhichacertainorderofdiscourseproducespermissible modesofbeingandthinkingwhiledisqualifyingandevenmakingothersimpossible” (Escobar1995:5).

Assuch,thisunderstandingofdiscourseisvitaltoanalyzingtransformativesocial movementsliketheZapatistas.Totrulyresistthesystemsofpowerthattheyoppose,they resistthatsystem’sclaimsoverrepresentationanddiscourse-formationthroughtheir movement’stheorizingandpracticeofanalternativediscourse.

Hegemony

Gramscidefineshegemonyaseconomicdominationthroughcontrollingthemeansof productionthatextends“beyondeconomicclassinterestintothesphereofpoliticaldirection throughasystemofclassalliances”(GramsciinForgacs1988:423).Hegemonyiscreated andmaintainedbythereinforcingnetworkofrelationsbetweeneconomicdomination, politicalcontrol,andeliteclassalliancesthatworksasasystemofcontrolboththrough coercionandconsent.Theeconomic,class,andpoliticalpowerinthenetworkofhegemony

enablescoercion,andtheir“prestige(andconsequentconfidence)whichthedominantgroup enjoysbecauseofitspositionandfunctionintheworldofproduction”causesthemassesto consenttotheirdomination(ibid.:307).

Furthermore,thenarrativesthatbecomehegemonicarealwaysfromthepointofview oftherulers.Hegemonycomestoinclude“theformationofanewideological‘terrain’” baseduponthedominant“political,culturalandmoralleadership”whichhastheabilityto createconsentfromthemasses(GramsciinForgacs1988:423).This‘ideologicalterrain’is whatGramscidescribesas‘commonsense,’ortaken-for-grantedknowledge.

Anabilitytoimposecommonsensetruths,whichassumethatexistingpowerrelations aretheonlyonespossible,isacrucialdimensionofanypowerregime.Hegemony,it shouldbenoted,doesnotrequirethatthosewhoareruled,thesubalterns,seetheir subjugationasjustified,onlythattheyseeitasafixedandunchangeablerealityit wouldbefutiletooppose.(Crehan2016:51-52)

Thustherelationsofpowerbetweeneconomicdominationandpoliticalnetworkscreatethe necessarycontexttopermithegemonybecausetheirreinforcingalliancesmakechangeseem impossible.Thisallowstheirdiscoursetoturnintocommonsenseandtoshapethe knowledge,practice,andsubjectivityofthepeoplesothatthepowerrelationsthatcreated thediscourseareassumedtobethenaturalwayofthings.Adiscoursebecomeshegemonic, then,whenitisbasedonthepointofviewofandissupportedbythedominanteconomic, political,andsocialpowers.

Establishingthissystemofhegemonywithpopularconsenttocreatea “cultural-socialunitybasedonacommonconceptionoftheworldrequiresconsiderable politicalwork”(Crehan2016:40).Itdependsonanetworkbetweendominantinstitutions thatworkwithinasimilarframingoftheworldwhichcreatestheperspectivethattheir

dominationisinevitableandacquiescence,theonlypath.AccordingtoGramsci,then,in ordertocreatesocialtransformationtocounterhegemony,“thereisaneed‘fornewpopular beliefs,thatistosayanewcommonsenseandwithitanewcultureandanewphilosophy whichwillberootedinthepopularconsciousnesswiththesamesolidityandimperative qualityastraditionalbeliefs”(GramsciquotedinCrehan2016:77).Arguably,forthesenew perspectivestogainthesamesolidityascommonsensebeliefs,theymustbeputinto practice.ForGramsciandotherbuildersofcounter-hegemony,thenewcommonsensemust bepracticedwithinnewdominantformsofpower–economic,political,andsocial–asa reclamationofthestatebytheproletariat.

TheZapatistasprovideanexampleofcreatingnewcommonsenseandsystemsto supportitspractice,butinaninvariablydistinctwayfromGramsciancounter-hegemonic approaches.Ratherthanendeavorfortheirdiscoursetobecomehegemonic,theyresist hegemonyonprinciple,seekingchangefromcivilsocietywithouttakingstatepower.

Utopia

Utopiaisacontentiousterm:itsimultaneouslymeansaperfect,idealsocietyandalso literallymeans‘noplace’fromitsGreekroots.Theworditselfseemstosaythataperfect societyisimpossible.However,thatisnottosaythatutopianthinkingandimaginingdonot haveafunction:“utopiaasamethodofthinkingfortransformingtheworld”isan emancipatorypractice“aboutinspiringandincitinganimaginationinacollectivestruggle” (Satgar2014:216).Itisespeciallyimportantinthecontextofhistoricallysubjugated societiesthatremainsubjecttoahegemonicsystemleftoverfromcolonialexploitation.

Envisioninganidealsociety,though,requiresananalysisofthepresentasaresultof historyandassubjecttothehegemonicsystemthathasbeencreated.Asutopiansocialist RickTurnerunderstood,“utopianthoughtha[s]togrowoutofanunderstandingandcritical analysisofhowthepastshapesthepresent,andhowsocialstructures[are]constructed” (ibid.:216).Anoteofhopehereisthatthesesocialstructuresthatformpartofahegemonic systemhavebeenhistoricallycreatedbyandfromcollectivehumanagency,andthuscanbe changedbyanewdirectioninthatcollectiveagency.

Thisunderstandingofhistoricalcontextandmobilizationofcollectiveagencyhas beenvitaltotheZapatistas’projectforautonomy.Mattiaceexplainstheimportanceof utopianthinkingintheircontext:

Utopia was[anovel]...basedonaperfectsociety[thatSirThomasMore,the Englishphilosopherandwriter]imaginedtoexistamongthatnativepeopleofthe recentlydiscoveredAmericas.Formostofthealmostfivehundredyearssincethen, however,America’sindigenouspeoplehavenotbeenpermittedtoimagine,much lessimplement,theirownideasaboutwhatabettersocietymightbelike.Whathas changedinthepresentgeneration,moststrikinglyinChiapas,isthatIndianshave assertedtherighttodreamofutopias,notbecausetheirsocietiesareutopian,but becausethey—likeallpeopleseverywhere—havetherighttoreflectonandimagine alternativefutures.(Mattiace2003:185-86)

Mattiace’sfinalpointaboutwhatutopianmeansiskeytothisframingofutopia.Utopiais notastatethatwillbeachievedthroughprogressorevenapossiblefinishedproduct,but ratherisimportanttotheprocessofsocialchange.Utopianthinkingcanonlyariseoutof liberationfromthehegemonicdiscoursethatframesthepossibilityofactionwithinthe dominantsystem.Oncefreefromthatconstrainttoimagination,utopianthinkingcaninspire radicallytransformativesocialchange.IarguethattheZapatistas,bycreatingaliberatory

alternativediscourse,createautopiansubjectivitythatenablespeoplenotonlyto“reflecton andimaginealternativefutures”likeMattiacedescribes,butalsoenablesthemtotakesteps toenactingandpracticingthesealternativesduetotheirinfrastructureofsocialsupport.

Subjectivity

Subjectivityconstituteshumanthoughtandperception,includingthe“consciousand unconsciousthoughtsandemotionsoftheindividual,”theirsenseofidentity,andtheir“ways ofunderstanding[their]relationtotheworld”(Weedon1997:32).Thepoststructuralists understandsubjectivitytobeshapedbydiscourseandthustheproductofhistoryandthe relationsofpowerthatcreatethem.Becausethesediscoursesarebasedoncertain assumptionsaboutthenatureofsocietyandpower,theydeterminethepossibilitiesof subjectivitythatanindividualcanexperience;“individualaccesstosubjectivityisgoverned byhistoricallyspecificsocialfactorsandtheformsofpoweratworkinaparticularsociety” (ibid.:919).Thissubjectivityisshapedandformedbyinstitutionalpracticesinaprocessthat extendsthroughoutlife.Subjectivitiesareinstilledmostefficientlywhentheyreproducea specificsocialhierarchybecausethatperpetuatesthediscoursethatcreatesitbypreferencing certainpowerstructureoverothers(ibid.).

Becauseofthewaythatsubjectivityiscreatedthroughalifelong,contextually embeddedprocessandbecauseitisaproductofthedominantdiscourseatworkinthis contextandbecauseitissuchaningrainedpsychologicalpositioning,itiswildlydifficultto change.Itrequiresfarmorethanaconsciousthoughtorrealizationtoaltersubjectivity. Arguably,theonlywayitcanchangeisthroughchangingpracticebasedonanalternative discoursethatisalsoembeddedininstitutions,society,andrelationsofpower.Iarguethat

theZapatistashavecreatedafoundationforchangingsubjectivitiesbypracticingan alternativediscoursethatissupportedbyautonomousinstitutionsandsocietalstructures. However,groundedresearchonthisislacking,thoughitmaynowbepossibletoexamine sincetheZapatistashavebeenpracticingautonomyfornearlytwenty-fiveyears.

Neoliberalism

Harvey(2005)providesathoroughhistoryandanalysisofneoliberalism.Hedefines neoliberalismasapoliticaleconomictheorythatclaimsthathumanwell-beingcanbe maximizedthroughprotectingindividualeconomicrightswithinaninstitutionalframework thatensuresthefunctioningoffreemarketcapitalismandprotectsprivatepropertyrights (ibid.:2).Itisbaseduponthebeliefthatgovernmentinterventionintheeconomypreventsit fromworkingatmaximumefficiencytobestmeettheneedsofsociety,andsolimits governmentactiontomaintainingastablecurrencyandcuttingtaxesfromthetopearnersto promotemorereinvestment.

Throughnetworksofrelations,neoliberalismhasgainedinfluenceovereducation, media,corporateleaders,andfinancial,international,andstateinstitutionsandhasthus becomeahegemonicdiscourse.Ithasgainedcommonsupportboththroughcoercion,like MargaretThatcher’srepetitionthat“thereisnoalternative”systemandalsothrough manipulatingmassconsentthroughco-optingdesiresforpersonalfreedomandredirecting socialdiscontentateconomicconditionstowardsthestate.Duetothesealliances,networks ofrelations,andhegemonicsocialpositioningthatweresolidifiedinthe1970sand80s,it hasleftalegacythathasmadeitextremelydifficultforsuccessivepoliticalpowerstochange (ibid.).

Neoliberalpolicyhasbeenacauseforcontinuedstateviolenceagainsttheindigenous andpoorofMexicoduetoeconomicpoliciesthathaveexcludedthelaborandproductsof thepoorfromnewglobalizedmarketsthathasledtoincreasingpoverty(Harvey2001),cuts tosocialwelfareprogramsthatpermitpreventabledeaths(Cuevas2007),andthreatstofood securityandfoodsovereigntyduetotheriseofGMOs(geneticallymodifiedorganisms) whicharearesultoftheextensionofcapitalcontrolovereventhemostelementalaspectsof life(Harvey2001).

State Violence

Gupta’s(2012)analysisofpovertyinIndiaaddressesstatestructuralviolence.He clarifiesthatthestateisacomplexcollectionofpartsratherthananessentializedandunified force.Duetotheeverydaypracticesofstatebureaucracyandprogramsshapedbythe discourseofneoliberalism,thestatepermitsstructuralviolence(ibid.:21).Structuralviolence is“thedifferencebetweentheoptimallifeexpectancyandtheactuallifeexpectancy” (Galtung1971:74).Itcanbecausedbyextremepoverty,lackofaccesstosocialservices, environmentaldegradation,andmore.Throughstructuralviolence,physicalharmisdone, butnotbyanindividualorthroughanact,ratherthroughthevictim’slocationinsociety (Gupta2012).However,thisisnottosaythattherearenotculpritsofthisviolence.AsGupta understandsit,“allthosewhobenefitfromthestatusquoanddonotwishtoseeitchanged thenbecomecomplicitinthisviolenceagainstthepoor”(ibid.:21).InMexico,indigenous peopleandtheruralpooringeneralhavebeensubjecttostructuralviolencefromthestate, andtheZapatistas’uprising,astheystateintheirdeclarations,hasaimedtoaddressthis

violence.TheircalltoallofcivilsocietytotakeupthefightisreminiscentofGupta’s accusationofthestatusquo’scompliancewithviolence.

Knowledge-Practices

Casas-Cortés,Osterweil,andPowell(2008)addresssocialmovementsas“important sitesofknowledgecreation,reformulation,anddiffusion”whichtheycall “knowledge-practices”torecognizethe“concrete,embodied,lived,andsituatedcharacter” ofknowledge(20).Theirinterventiononaddressingknowledge-practicesissignificant becausesocialmovementsareoftenjudgedsolelyontheirachievementofpoliticaland socialchangeandnotontheircontributionstosocialandpoliticaltheory,movement strategy,ornewwaysofknowingandbeing.Additionally,recognizingknowledge-practices fromsocialmovementschallengesthehegemonyontruth-makingofscientistsandpolicy makersbyacknowledgingcollectiveknowledgeproductionasequallyvaluable(ibid.)

TheZapatistasareashiningexampleofasocialmovement’screationof knowledge-practices.Theyhavedemonstratedcollaborativeknowledgeproductionbetween socialistguerrillasandindigenouscommunitiesthroughaprocessofre-evaluating historicallyimposedknowledgeauthorities(ibid.:40).Additionally,someoftheirpractices suchas mandar-obedeciendo haveinformedthepracticesofsocialmovements transnationally,whichIwillexploreintheconclusion.

Creative Resistance

Iunderstandcreativeresistanceasanyapproachtosocio-politicalchangethat balancesdestructionwithre-creation.Itseekstoprovidealternativestotheinstitutionsor systemsthatareresistedbothtodiminishtheirpowerandseeminginevitabilityandto

prepareforafutureinwhichthoseinstitutionsarefinallyeliminated.Creativeresistanceis similartobuildingcounter-power,whichisanimportantpartofanarchistand counter-hegemonicsocialmovements(Graeber2004;Dixon2014).Counter-powerinvolves creatingnewpopularinstitutionstotakelegitimacyfromthedominantinstitutions.Itseeksto developnewsocialrelationsandformsofsocialorganization,enactinga‘prefigurative politics’inthatthemethodsofresistancearerepresentativeofthetypeofrealitythatthe resistanceseekstoachieve(Dixon2014).Buildingcounter-powerisanimaginativeprocess becauseitworksagainstformsofdominationtocreateandradicallytransformsocialforms (Graeber2004).

However,Iusetheterm‘creativeresistance’becauseIseeitasamoreexpansive definitionthancounter-powerbecauseitopensthepossibilitiesofresistancebeyondthe realmofinstitutionsandpowerstructures.Itencompassesanypositiveorgenerativepractice thatactsasresistance.Furthermore,ratherthanemphasizingtheantagonisticaspectof resistance,itemphasizesthepositive,solutionsideofitbyhighlightingitscreativity.The Zapatistasdemonstratecreativeresistancebecausetheyhavebuiltautonomythroughnew socialinfrastructureincludinghealthclinics,schools,andjudicialcourts.

HistoryoftheZapatistas

Weareaproductof500yearsofstruggle:firstagainstslavery,thenduringtheWar ofIndependenceagainstSpainledbyinsurgents,thentoavoidbeingabsorbedby NorthAmericanimperialism,thentopromulgateourconstitutionandexpelthe Frenchempirefromoursoil,andlaterthedictatorshipofPorfirioDiazdeniedusthe justapplicationoftheReformlawsandthepeoplerebelledandleaderslikeVillaand Zapataemerged,poormenjustlikeus.Wehavebeendeniedthemostelemental educationsotheycanuseusascannonfodderandpillagethewealthofourcountry. Theydon'tcarethatwehavenothing,absolutelynothing,notevenaroofoverour

heads,noland,nowork,nohealthcare,nofoodnoreducation.Norareweableto freelyanddemocraticallyelectourpoliticalrepresentatives,noristhereindependence fromforeigners,noristherepeacenorjusticeforourselvesandourchildren. Buttoday,wesayENOUGHISENOUGH.(EZLN1993)

InChiapas,inSouthernMexico,thecontemporaryindigenouspeopleareMayan, havingexistedtherethroughtheAztecEmpireandSpanishconquest.TheSpanishconquest inthe16thcenturybeganthedispossessionoflandfromindigenouspeople,which concentratedbothlandandpowerinthehandsofasmalleliteclassandcreatedalegacyof inequalityforcenturiestocome.InthethirtyyearsleadinguptotheMexicanRevolutionof 1910,onethirdofChiapas’mostfertilesurfaceareafortropicalagriculturewassoldto foreignpurchasersbytheMexicangovernment(Rus,HernándezCastillo,andMattiace2003: 3),furtherexacerbatinglandandwealthinequality.

In1910,poorpeasantsstagedarevolutionagainstthisinequalitywhichhad culminatedinanoligarchicaldictatorshipunderPorfirioDiaz.IntheSouth,therevolution wasledbyEmilianoZapata,fromwhomtheZapatistasgettheirname.Therevolution broughtaboutamassivelandreformtoredistributethelandthathadbeenhighly concentratedinthehandsoftheSpanishandmestizoelitessincecolonization,establishing formsofreclamationthatincludedprivatesmallholdings,indigenouscommunityland,and ejidos whichprovidedlandtocommunities.However,duetocorruptionintheelitepolitical class,theeffectsofthisdidnotalwaysspreadwidely,aswasthecaseinChiapas(Earleand Simonelli2005).

Furthermore,therevolutionaryenergywasinstitutionalizedintheInstitutional RevolutionaryParty(PRI),whichenteredthepoliticalscenein1929.Thispartysoughtto

institutionalizethe‘revolutionaryclasses’byestablishingapatron-clientrelationshipwith popularclassorganizationssuchastheNationalPeasantConfederation(CNC)aswellas withcivilsociety.PeoplecametorelyonthePRIfortheirdevelopmentneeds,only receivingstateassistanceifitwasassuredthattheywouldcontinuetovotePRI.PRI maintainedsingle-partypowerfrom1929to1982,essentiallyfunctioningasa‘democratic’ dictatorship.ThisbastardizationofdemocracyiswhattheZapatistasmeanintheFirst Declarationaboutlackingthefreedomtoelecttheirrepresentatives.

Inadditiontopoliticaldependence,thissocialinequalityalsocontributedtoeconomic dependence.Thelandpovertycreatedbytheprioraccumulationandsubsequent concentrationinthehandsoflocalelitesaffectedeachindigenouscommunitydifferently,but generally,theywereforcedtoseekworkoutsideoftheirownterritoriesaswagelaborers. Indigenouspeoplesbecamethelaborsupplybasetoanexpandingagriculturalindustry. Thoughmanycommunitiesstillmaintainedcontrolofsomeoftheirhomelands,thelackof sufficientresourcesonthediminishedlandbaseforcedpeopletoenterthemigratorylabor streamtosustainthemselves(Rus,HernándezCastillo,andMattiace2003).

Inthe1970s,MexicoexperiencedaneconomiccrisisandthePRIbeganneoliberal restructuring,inpartwithstructuraladjustmentprogramsfromtheWorldBank,toopen Mexicoforglobaldevelopment.Theyreformedthegovernmentforfiscalconservatismto supportafreemarket,whichcutspendingonsocialservicesbyprivatizingschooling, healthcare,andhousing,cuttingwageregulations,andeliminatinggovernmentsubsidiesfor domesticagriculturalproductiontoalloweverythingtofallunderthecontrolofthe

‘efficient’market(Rus,HernándezCastillo,andMattiace2003).Thisneoliberalreformhad widespreadeffects,politically,economically,andsocially.

Politically,thePRIhadtoaltertheirsystemofcorporatismandclientelism,which wasnotcompatiblewiththenewneoliberalstatestructurebecauseitrequiresheavystate spendingtointerveneeconomicallyandmaintainpatron-clientrelationships.Inthepast,the PRI “hadconsolidateditsrulethroughacorporatistsrelationwithitspopulace... circumscribing[potentiallyoppositionalsegmentsofthepopulation’s]abilitytochallenge stateauthoritybyestablishingthestateasthesourceoftheirlegitimacyandlivelihood” (Speed2008:21).However,neoliberallimitsonstatepowerledtoachangeintheexercise ofgovernance.Ratherthancontrolpeopledirectlythroughtheircorporatistpatron-client relationship,thestatebecamelimitedtomaintainingthestabilityofthemarket,whichis assistedbyasystemoflawandorderthatseekstoshapeandcontrolitssubjects.Thisnew structureisconsistentwiththelogicsoflatecapitalismsuchasself-regulation,self-help,and managerialism.ThestateessentiallydivestsresponsibilityofsocialwelfaretoNGOswho alsotendtoreproducethelogicsofcapitalismthroughworkshopsandtrainingforselfhelp (ibid.).

Economically,theneoliberal-inspiredreductionofgovernmentsubsidiesonnational agriculturalproductionandtheinfluxofforeignfoodcommoditiescausedMexican agriculturetoplummet.Duetotheeconomiccrisisinthelate70s,productioncosts increased,butthegovernmentdidnotprovideanyadditionalsupport,optinginsteadtoallow thepricesofdomesticcorntomatchpricesontheglobalcornmarket.Thisandtheadoption ofchemicalinputssuchaspesticidesandherbicidestoreplaceindigenouslaborers,reduced

agriculturalwagepositions.“Essentially,Chiapas’sindigenouspeoples,whoforalmosta centuryhadbeenmaneuveredintorelyingonseasonal,oftenmigratoryagriculturallaborto maintainthemselves,suddenlyfoundthattheagriculturaleconomydidnotneedthem”(Rus, HernándezCastillo,andMattiace2003:7).Asaresponsetoalackofwagelabor, impoverishmentincreased,butsmall-scaleand ejido agriculturalproductionalsoexpandedas indigenouspeoplesoughttomeettheirneedsinotherways.

Socially,neoliberalismalsocreatedanewapproachtoaddressingindigenouspeoples, movingfrom indigenismo toneoliberalmulticulturalism. Indigenismo hadbeenthestate policytowardsindigenouspeoplesincetheRevolution.Itdefinedindigenouspeoplesasan ‘Other’tobeintegratedintothenationalidentity(LeyvaSolano2005).Neoliberal multiculturalismsoughttokeepindigenousrightswithinaneconomicallyproductiveregime andpoliticallimitation.Itrecognizedcommunityautonomyandindigenousrightsonly insofarastheydidnotinterferewithmarketparticipationandrecognizedpoliticalrightsonly insofarasitdidnotchallengethestate(Hale2007).Itconstituteda“modeofgovernance basedonaunitarypackageofcitizenshiprightsandatendentiouspremisethatpeoplecould enjoytheserightsonlybyconformingtoahomogeneousmestizoculturalideal”(ibid.).

Thoughlimitingtrueindigenoussovereigntyand economicintegration,thisapproachgained hegemonicappealundertheprogressivepromiseofequality.

Theindigenouspeoplewhohadbeendispossessedoftheirlandandhadthenturned towagelaborwereleft,duetotheneoliberalreform,withnoland,nowork,andnosocial servicestomeettheirmostelementalneeds.Sohavingbeenbasicallyabandonedbythestate afteralegacyofcoercedstatedependencefromthepatron-clientsystem,manyindigenous

peopleinChiapasretreatedintotheLacandonjungletoform(orjoin)self-reliantcolonies.In thethirtyyearsbetweenthe60sand90s,morethan200thousandpeoplecametolivein morethanonethousandnewcommunities(Rus,HernándezCastillo,andMattiace2003).

Thecoloniesinthejunglehadnocontactwithorassistancefromgovernmentorpeasant organizations(ibid.),whichmeantalackofaccesstoresources,butfreedomfromthe patron-clientsystemthatusedpoweroverresourcestocontrolthepeopleandmaintain hegemony(EarleandSimonelli2005).

TheZapatistasaroseoutofanencounterbetweentheseindigenouspeasant communities,LiberationTheologycatechistsfromtheCatholicChurch,andnon-indigenous urbanMaoistrevolutionaries(Stahler-Sholk2010).Indigenouscommunitieshadbeen exposedtoLiberationTheologythroughtheRomanCatholicChurchstartinginthemid50s whenindigenouspeoples(bothmenandwomen)werefirsttrainedascatechistsunderthe LiberationTheologistBishopSamuelRuízGarcía.TheysituatedtheGospelwithintheir culturalandsocioeconomicreality,whichencouragedaprocessofreflectiononindigenous marginalization,thepoliticizationofspiritualbeliefs,andanemphasisonliberationand autonomy(EarleandSimonelli2005).

Inthelate70s,anurbanguerrillaorganizationwasformedfromsurvivorsofpast guerrillagroupstocreatetheForcesofNationalLiberation(FuerzasdeLiberaciónNacional, FLN).Intheearly80s,theysentsomerepresentativestotheChiapanhighlands“toinitiatea newfrontofarmedstruggleinpreparationfortheanticipatedprotractedpolitico-military nationalstrugglenecessarytoinstallasocialistsystem”(Khasnabish2010:56).TheEZLN (EjércitoZapatistadeLiberaciónNacional,ZapatistaNationalLiberationArmy)wasbornin

1983outoftheencounterofeachoftheseactors:theindigenouscommunities,actorsof LiberationTheology,andtheFLN.TheZapatistastruggleemergedfromthecombinationof thesedifferentworldviews,approachestosocialchange,anddiscoursesinaprocessof negotiationthatrequiredthesubordinationofguerrillapreconceptionsandtherecognitionof valueinotherwaysofknowing(ibid.).Arguably,itwasthisintegrationofideologiesand collaborationthathasallowedtheZapatistas’discourse(Zapatismo)togainsuchstrength.

Tellingly,itwasonlyoncetheideologicaldogmatismoftheurbanrevolutionaries hadbeendefeatedandreplacedbyanorganicradicalanalysisbornoftheencounter ofdifferentworlds,thehierarchicallinkstotheFLNsevered,andthebase communitiesestablishedasthehighestauthority...thattheEZLNandZapatismo expandedexponentially.Thisnovelapproachtoradicalstruggleanditspromiseof buildingadifferentworldanimatedthenationalandtransnationalresonanceof Zapatismointheyearsfollowingtheuprising.(Khasnabish2010:74)

Furthermore,thisfoundationalcollaborationisalignedwiththeZapatistas’approachto socialchange:

Theleadersofthepolitico-militaryorganizationbehindthevillage‘supportbases’ oftheEZLNdreamed,andhavecontinuedtodream,ofthepossibilityofunitingthe sociallydiverseexpressionsofdiscontentwithneoliberalcapitalismintoapluralistic andinclusive‘rainbowcoalition’thatwouldrevivetheMexicanLeftandtranscend thesocialboundariesbetweenindigenouspeopleandmestizosthatthestatehadso assiduouslycultivatedformanydecadesafterthe1910Revolutionthrough assimilationistpoliciesdesignedtoturn‘IndiansintoMexicans.’(Gledhill2014:512)

ThefoundationofZapatismointhenegotiationbetweendiversewaysofknowinghasgiven itstrengthasanalternativediscoursethatisopentoawidevarietyofperspectivesand practices,makingitmoreeasilyadoptedbydisparategroupsandorganizationsbothwithin Mexicoandbeyond.Thediscourse’sopennessandpluralityiskeytotheZapatistas’goalto encouragediverse,locallysituatedpracticesofanti-systemicresistancebeyondChiapas.

IwouldliketonoteherethatthoughtheZapatistaswerefoundedfromamilitant guerrillauprisingwithdefinedleaderssuchasSubcomandanteInsurgenteMarcos,and thoughtheyremainedamilitantly-directedmovementthrough2003whentheirgovernance wasrestructuredtoexplicitlyturnoverthepowertothepeople,thisisnotthefocusofthis thesis.Thisthesisdoesnotaddressthemovement’santi-vanguardistvanguardormilitant foundationbecause,thoughtheyaresignificant,IseetheZapatistas’knowledge-practicesas theirmostimportantcontribution,includingtheirapproachestosocialmovementchangethat havebeenbuiltfromanalternativediscoursethathasformedthebasisforautonomoussocial structuresandformsofgovernance.Itisthisalternativediscourseanditssubsequent enactmentthroughnewpracticesthatthisthesiswilladdress.

TheZapatistas’formationofanalternativediscourseprovidesanavenuefor anti-systemicresistancethroughitsbasisuponalternativeformsofknowledge,power,and subjectivitythatresistthesefoundationalelementsinthedominantdiscourse.Thecreationof analternativediscourseopensthepossibilitiesforcreatingsolutionsoutsideofthedominant discourse.Liketheoft-quotedwisdomfromEinstein,problemscannotbesolvedfromthe samethinkingthatcreatedthem.Similarly,systemicproblemsthatarerootedinacertain discoursecannotbetrulychangedwithoutanewdiscursivefoundation.Zapatismo,the Zapatistas’alternativediscourse,informsthecreationofpluralistic,people-powered, autonomouscommunitieswithsupportiveinfrastructuresthatactasresistancebyrejecting stateinstitutionsandthebasicassumptionsofneoliberallogic.Thisiscreativeresistancein thatitestablishesalternativesthatresistthepowerofthedominantsystem.Iwillarguethat theirapproachtoresistanceisutopianbecauseZapatismoenablespeopletostepoutsideof

theframingofthedominantsystemtoimaginetheiridealrealitiesandthencapacitatesthem topursuethese.InthewaythattheZapatistas’projectbothcreatesalternativediscourseand establishessocialstructurestoreinforceandenableit,itisabletoresistdominationonboth thematerialanddiscursivelevels.Becauseoftheinclusivedynamismoftheirdiscourseand creative,radicalmodeofsocietalchange,theZapatistasstandasinspirationtoanti-systemic socialmovementseverywhere.Thesuccessesoftheirautonomousprojectareaglimmerof hopeinanexploitativeandoppressiveglobalsystem.Theyareareminderthatanotherworld ispossible.

Inwhatfollows,Iwillexaminehowdevelopment–acomponentofthedominant discoursethatisparticularlyimportantforgeneratingconsent–informssubjectivitiesand practices.Thisinvolvestracinghowthedevelopmentdiscoursehasfunctionedinhistory,is connectedtolonger-lastingformsofhegemony,andhaspermittedthecontinuationofmany oftheproblemsthatfaceourworld.ThenIwillexplorehowtheZapatistas’creationofan alternativediscourseactsascreativeresistancetothehegemonicdiscoursebyanalyzingit throughthesamethreeaxesofknowledge,power,andsubjectivity.Thisrevealshowit providesabasisforutopia,ortheself-definitionandpursuitofalternativesubjectivitiesand practices.ThenIwillexaminewhateffectstheZapatistaautonomousalternativeshavehad onlivedrealitiesandsubjectivitiesofZapatistacommunitiesthroughtheirsystemof governance,autonomouseducation,andautonomoushealthsystem.Iwillconcludeby analyzingthestrategiesandeffectsofthediscoursethroughthelensofnon-hegemonic, anarchist,andanti-systemicsocialmovementtheoriestoexplorewhatknowledge-practices fromtheZapatistascanbeinformativetoothersocialmovements.

InterventioninResearch

InanalyzingtheeffectsoftheZapatistadiscourseonlivedreality,Iamenteringintoa discussionwithMelenotte(2015)andMentinis(2006),whobotharguethatwhileZapatismo isclearlyastrongandcompellingdiscoursethathasbeenreferencedinmanynon-hegemonic socialmovements,itisnotenoughtomakerealanti-systemicchangeandhasnotaffected realitytothedegreethatonewouldhopegiventhatitishighlycommendedbysocial movementscholars.Melenottearguesthatwhiletheautonomousdesignandresistanceto powerhierarchiesisindeedprogressive,thediscoursedoesnotachieveinrealitywhatit claims,remainsafarcryfromcreatingworldchange,andthatanyutopianframingofthe Zapatistasisquestionable(2015:62).Mentinishassimilarqualms,statingthatthe“rebellion managedtemporarilytodestabilizethedominanthegemonicdiscourseofcapitalism,butit hasfailedtoarticulateadiscoursethatcouldbecomehegemonicorcounter-hegemonicona nationalorinternationallevel”becauseithasbeenunabletoestablishnewfixedmeanings andaunifieddiscourse(2006:100).

Forone,IthinkthismissesthepointthattheZapatistasdonotintendfortheir discoursespecificallytobecomehegemonicorevencounter-hegemonic–thoughthey convokeotherstotakeonanti-systemicresistance,theyexplicitlystatethatitisnottheir intentiontounitemovementsunderasinglediscourseorleadership(EZLN2013).Theyare intentionallynon-hegemonicbecausetheyemphasizepluralityandnon-unificationand eschewstate-takingrevolution.Non-hegemonicapproachestosocialchangerejectthelogic ofhegemonyasawhole,creatingradicalchangewithouttakingpower(Day2005).Thisisa

contrasttocounter-hegemony,whichseeksliberationfromhegemonybycreatinganew hegemonythroughunificationandorganizedleadership,allowingtheoppressedtotake power.Proponentsofcounter-hegemonyhavecritiquednon-hegemonicapproachesfortheir inabilitytotrulytransformhegemonicsystemsbecauseofthelackofstrategyandunity (Carroll2006;McKay2005).Indeed,thisappearstobeMentinis’critiqueoftheZapatistas. However,IwouldargueagainstMentinis’claimthattheZapatistaslackanarticulate, unifieddiscourseandthatthispreventsthemfrombeingabletomakeglobalsocialchange.

TheZapatistashavearticulatedadiscourse–itispluralistic,dynamic,flexible,and non-hegemonic.Becauseitcallsforchangeinacontext-specificway,thediscourseisopen ended,andthisisoneofitsgreatestassetsbecauseofhowitcaninspirediverse,widespread actiontoresisthegemony.TheZapatistas’callfora“globalizationofrebellion”(EZLN 2005)mightseemlikeashifttocounter-hegemonicorganizing,butIthinkthiswouldbe inaccurate,bothbecausetheirapproachtorebelliondefiestakingpoweronprincipleand becausetheyexplicitlystatethatthey“donotintendtouniteunderasingleleadership,beit Zapatistaoranyother”(EZLN2013).Theirunificationisnotapositiveunificationundera commonleadershiporadiscourse,butratheranegativeunificationunderacommondenial ofanexploitativehegemony(EZLN2013;Holloway2010).Thisnegativeunificationis arguablyevenmorevaluablethanapositiveunificationofcounter-hegemonybecauseit keepsopenthepossibilityofheterogeneousapproachestochange,andthushasevenmore potentialtobewidelyaccepted,apointthatIthinkMentinisandMelenottemiss.

IdoagreewithMentinis(2006),though,thatthereisalackofanalysisofsubjectivity changeinrelationtotheradicalpoliticsoftheZapatistas,andIthinkthisisinpartdueto

Melenotte’s(2015)observationthatthereisalackofanalysisoflivedpractices.Social transformationandsubjectivitychangecomethroughtheconstructionandimplementationof socialalternatives,butmostscholarlyliteratureontheZapatistasexaminesjustthetheory andnarrativeelementsofthediscoursewithoutthoroughlyanalyzingthepractice(Mentinis 2006;Melenotte2015).Thisisnottosay,however,thatZapatistanarrativeshavenotmade significantchangesinreality,justthatthebulkofresearchhastendedtofocusontheoryover practice.Mycontribution,then,istoexaminehowZapatistadiscourse(asbothnarrative theoryandradicalpractice)supportssubjectivitychanges.IncounteringMelenotteand Mentinis,IarguethatthoughZapatismohasnotcreatedasweepingworldshifttoutopia,it hasindeedbeguntolaythegroundworkforcreatingutopiansubjectivitiesbyopeningthe possibilitiesofimaginationandenablingthecapacitationandtheenactmentof community-directedalternativesthatbuildautonomyandpursuetheseimaginedideal societies.

Furthermore,IbelievethereisapracticalreasoningforstudyingtheZapatistasin 2018.Forone,changefromthedominantsystemismoreurgentthanever.Climatechangeis alreadybeyondthepointofnoreturnduetothelevelofgreenhousegasemissionsinthe atmosphereandwillonlyincreaserisksandinstabilitytothepoor(WorldBank2014)ina worldthatalreadyhasalarminginequality,poverty,andexploitation.Thehegemonicforces atplayhavedonelittletobringaboutpositivechange,andareperhaps,bydesignof bureaucracy,unableto(Gupta2012).Assuch,thereisapracticalneedtobringexamplesof effectiveresistanceintocontemporaryconversationinordertoberemindedthatchangeis possibleandthatthereareinformativeavenuesfordoingsotoencourageimmediateaction.

Additionally,theZapatistashavenowmaintainedautonomouscontrolofalargeportionof Chiapasforaround25yearsandsoarealong-standingresistancemovement.Theageofthe movementisvaluableinexploringthetypesofchangesthattaketimeandrequirepatient persistence.

TheHegemonyoftheDevelopmentDiscourse:apost-structuralistanalysis

TounderstandwhytheZapatistas’formofresistanceisbothnecessaryandradically effective,wehavetostepbacktoexplorethesystemofoppressionthattheyareresisting.I examinethissystemthroughthedevelopmentdiscoursedrawingprimarilyfromEscobar’s (1995)poststructuralistanalysisofthedevelopmentdiscourse,Galeano’s(1973)historyof theplunderofLatinAmerica,andSachsandEsteva’s(2010)definitionsofkeyconcepts withinthedevelopmentdiscourse.Examiningthedevelopmentdiscourseisinsightfulto understandthewaysthatexistingdominantpowersandthesystemofglobalcapitalismwork withincertainnarrativesofmodernizationthatvaluespecificformsofknowledgeandcreate subjectivitieswhichessentiallysettheframeworkforwhatisevenconsideredpossible.

Thesystemofrelations[betweeninstitutions,socioeconomicprocesses,formsof knowledge,andothers]establishesadiscursivepracticethatsetstherulesofthe game:whocanspeak,fromwhatpointsofview,withwhatauthority,andaccording towhatcriteriaofexpertise;itsetstherulesthatmustbefollowedforthisorthat problem,theory,orobjecttoemergeandbenamed,analyzed,andeventually transformedintoapolicyoraplan.(Escobar1995:41)

Alone,institutionsandstatepowerscanexpressdomination,butitisthroughtheirmutually reinforcingrelationsbetweeneachoftheseelementsandtheexistingnetworksofpowerat playthatahegemonicdiscourseismaintained.Itsubsequentlyshapespractices,policies,and

perspectivestoworkwithintheframingofthediscourseandthusperpetuatesthedomination oftheactorsandelementsinvolvedinitscreation.

Coloniality

Inordertoestablishhegemonyatall,theremustbeahistoriccreationofeconomic domination,politicalcontrol,andeliteclassalliances.Imperialismandcolonialismprovided thathistoricalfoundation.CorecountriesfromtheglobalNorthextractedwealthfromthe peripherycountriesoftheglobalSouthintheformofresourcesandlabor,leaving infrastructuredesignedforextraction.Itisthroughthiswealthextractionthatthecore countrieswereabletoindustrializeanddevelopthemilitarypowertobecomedominant globalpowers.Colonialandimperialpowersalsoinfluencedthepoliticalregimesinthese peripherycountriestosupporttheireconomicimpositionwhetherovertlythroughdirect colonialruleormorecovertlythroughnegotiatingwithaneliteclassorimposingeconomic dependenceonmanufacturedgoods.Essentially,colonialismandimperialismallowedwealth andpowertoconcentratewithinaneliteclassoftheglobalNorthwhichhasleftalegacyon globalrelationsandcontinuestoremaindominantworldpowerstoday.

Thelegacyofcontrolandhegemonythataroseoutofcolonialismcanbetermed ‘coloniality’.Itopensupanunderstandingofthenetworkofimpactsofcolonialismthat enableitsperpetuation.

Colonialityreferstoapatternofpowerwhichhasemergedasaresultofcolonialism, butisnotlimitedtoaformalsetofpolicies(Quijano,2000).Rather,colonialityexerts aspecificstrategyofcontrolanddominationdefinedbyseveraloperations:(a)the classificationandrankingofpeoplesoftheworldbasedontheideasofraceand culture;(b)thecreationofinstitutionswhosefunctionistodefineandmaintainsuch classifications(governments,universities,churches);(c)thedefinitionofspaces appropriatetosuchgoals;(d)thepromotionofanepistemologicalperspectiveto articulatethemeaningandprofileofthispowermatrix.(Misoczky2011:347)

Colonialityhascreatedacontextthatjustifiesandpermits‘Development,’theprojectofthe globalNorthtoimproveglobalprosperitythroughpromotingaunidirectionalpathof progressandmodernizationintheglobalSouththroughcapitalistdevelopment.

Rostow’s(1968)modelofsocialprogressdescribesthispath;itpositsdevelopment asaunidirectionallyprogressive,ordered,andscientificprocess.Rostowpresentsfivestages ofgrowththatunderstandtraditionalsocietiesasbeinglimitedbytheirinefficiencyandthat willeventuallymaturetoastageofhighmass-consumption,typicallydueto“someexternal intrusionbymoreadvancedsocieties”whoincorporatetheideathateconomicprogressisa necessarygood(ibid.:6).Thesebeliefsinboththeinherentgoodofeconomicprogressand thenecessityofanoutsiderpushtoachievesocietalmaturityhavebeenvitaltorationalize foreignaidanddevelopmentprojects.Additionally,thecreationofahierarchyofpeoples, knowledges,andwaysofbeinglikeinRostow’smodelhaspositionedtheglobalNorthasan authorityonthenatural,inevitableprogressionofsocietytolegitimizetheircontinued interventionintheglobalSouth.

Workingwithinthecontextofcoloniality,developmenthasactedasarestructuringof theoldsystemsofcolonialismandimperialism.Itarguablyoriginatedfromanintentionof welfare–theglobalNorth,positioningthemselvesasthemostadvancedsocietiesonRostow’s hierarchy,soughttobringprosperitytotheglobalSouthtoincreaseoverallglobalprosperity. Truman’sinauguralspeechin1949describedthisnewvision:

Theoldimperialism–exploitationforforeignprofit–hasnoplaceinourplans.What weenvisageisaprogramofdevelopmentbasedontheconceptsofdemocratic fair-dealing.Allcountries,includingourown,willgreatlybenefitfromaconstructive programforthebetteruseoftheworld'shumanandnaturalresources.Experience showsthatourcommercewithothercountriesexpandsastheyprogressindustrially

andeconomically.Greaterproductionisthekeytoprosperityandpeace.Andthekey togreaterproductionisawiderandmorevigorousapplicationofmodernscientific andtechnicalknowledge.(Truman1949)

Keytothisvisionistheassumptionthatthetoolsofcapitalistdevelopment,science,and technologyareneutrallybeneficial,theuniversalstandardfordevelopment,andvitaltothe maturityofamodernstate.ItisthesebasicassumptionsofdevelopmentthatIwillexplore next.

CapitalismandtheCreationofPower

Capitalism,astheorizedbyAdamSmithin1776,isbasedonthebeliefthathumans areinherentlyself-interestedandthatopeningmarketstoallowfornaturalcompetition throughthepursuitofself-interestmaximizesefficiencyforthegreaterprosperityofall.This competitiveadvantagedependsonconstantgrowthtoensurecorporatereinvestment (MagdoffandBellamyFoster2011).Additionally,everythingcanbeabstractedtoa monetaryvalueinordertomaximizeefficiencyintradeandexchange(Smith1776).Ina criticalanalysisofcapitalism,Marx(1887)identifiesitsinherentviewthatlaborisaunique typeofcommoditythat,whenused,createsnewvalueratherthandeclininginvalue(i.e., gettingusedup).Thecommoditiesproducedbylabortypicallyhaveexchange-valueshigher thantheircostsofproduction,whichcreatessurplusvaluethatbecomestheprofitofthe ownersofthemeansofproduction.Capitalismthusreliesontheexploitationofwagelabor tocreatesurplusvalueandalsoonprivateownershipoverthemeansofproductionand resultingprofits.

Asaneconomicmodel,capitalismgainedpowerthroughwideadoptioninthe imperialcountriesoftheglobalNorth,whothenbroughtittothecountriesthatthey

dominated.Itslogichasshapedthepathofglobaldevelopment.Inthesecoloniesthat providedslavelabortothecolonizers,slaverycouldeffectivelytransitiontowagelaborand evenbenefittheownerofthemeansofproductionindoingsobyreducingtheirneedto providelife-givingresourcestothe‘freed’slaveandincorporatingthemintotheconsumer market(Marx1887;Sheppardet.al.2009).Inasimilarmove,colonialismandimperialism transitionedintointernationalcontroloverdevelopmentanditsprojectofinternational capitalistexpansion.Inthistransition,colonialpowerssavedenergybyforfeitingdirect controlovertheircolonieswhilestillbenefitingfromtheirextractiverelationships(Galeano 1973).Aswasbecomingevidentinthemid-twentiethcentury,thegrowthimperativeof capitalismwaschallengedbythelimitationsofanation’snaturalresourcesandevenofits ever-more-consumingmarket-base(Escobar1995).TheendoftheSecondWorldWarhad broughtthesechallengesintosharprelief,andthehegemonyofthefreeenterprisesystem wasatstake;duringthewar,U.S.surpluscapitalhadaccumulatedandindustrialproductive capacityhaddoubled,sotheywereboundforcatastrophicinflationifunablereinvest.As such,theUnitedStatessoughttoinvestabroad,opennewmarketsforU.S.goods,and establishtheirglobalmilitarydominationtoprotecttheireconomicinterestsinresources, markets,andconsumers(ibid.:71)

Atthissametime,theInternationalMonetaryFundandtheWorldBankwerecreated attheBrettonWoodsconferencewithgoalstohelpreconstructpost-warEurope.Theirfocus alsoexpandedtoaidtheless-developedcountriesoftheworldindevelopinginfrastructure andtoassisttheirincorporationintotheglobalmarketsoastoreapthebenefitsofcapitalist growthandpreventtheirconversiontocommunism(Escobar1995).InthefirstUN

proceedingsoftheBrettonWoodsConferencein1944,thepurposeoftheInternational MonetaryFundwasstated“tofacilitatetheexpansionandbalancedgrowthofinternational tradeandtocontributeinthiswaytothemaintenanceofahighlevelofemploymentandreal income,whichmustbeaprimaryobjectiveofeconomicpolicy”(BrettonWoodsConference 1944).Economicgrowththroughinternationaltradewasthuspositionedasapathwayto improvingtheprosperityofallactorsinvolved.

Fortuitously,thisbeliefthatwelfarecouldbeenhancedthroughinternational economicexpansionalsoaddressedtheU.S.needtoexpandaccesstoresources,markets, andconsumers.Thesegoalswerealsoabettedbythefactthatdevelopmentaidprojects alwaysgivesloansinU.S.dollarsandoftenrequirecontractswithU.S.-basedfirms,which systematicallyincorporatesrecipientsintotheU.S.marketeconomy(Escobar1995).

Capitalistexpansiondrivenbygoalsofinternationaldevelopmenthavethusactedasforms ofneo-imperialismbecausetheinstitutionandstatepowersoftheglobalNorthhavebeen abletocontinueexercisingcontrolovernon-dominantstates.

Inthisprocess,theglobalNorthhasgainedaccesstoexploitablelaborandresources throughouttheworld,and,becausetheyexclusivelyheldthemeansofproductionof industrializationuntilfairlyrecently,havedisproportionatelyprofitedfromtheseeconomic relations.Itisunsurprising,then,thattheseprojectshaveincreasedtheinequalityinand exploitationofdevelopingcountries.AsGaleanowrites:

Thestrengthoftheimperialist[development]systemasawholerestsonthe necessaryinequalityofitsparts,andthisinequalityassumesevermoredramatic dimensions.Theoppressorcountriesgetsteadilyricherinabsoluteterms—andmuch moresoinrelativeterms—throughthedynamicofgrowingdisparity.(1973:3)

Thisisthenatureoftherelationship:fordominantclassestogetricher,thenon-dominant massesmustbesubjecttotheextractionoftheirwealth–bothlaborandresources.Regardless ofanytrueintentofwelfare,theprofitabilityofdevelopmentcreatedbythisextractionhas maintainedtheeconomicdominationoftheinstitutions,governments,andnon-stateactors involvedandhasundoubtedlyencouragedfurtherinvestment.

ThecollaborationbetweentheWorldBankandotherinternationaldevelopment agencies,thestatesoftheglobalNorth,andcorporateandfinancialleadershasbeenvitalto maintainingthehegemonythatincludesthecapitalistlogicandguidingdevelopmentaction tosuitthesegoals.Peet(2009)traceshowtheWorldBankgainedtheconfidenceofWall Streetbyshapingtheirdevelopmentpoliciesaround“fiscalandmonetarydiscipline”and ensuringactivitiesthatwereguaranteedtocreateareturnoninvestment.

Theideaofearlydevelopmenteconomicswastoremoveblockagesto,orsetthe preconditionsfor,economicgrowthbymakingcapitalinvestments(projectlending) thatwouldraiseproductivity.Moneyspentonprogramlending(thatis,broadersocial programsdealingwitheducationandhealthaswellasmoredirectlyeconomic projects)wasregardedasawasteofscarceresources.SotheWorldBankessentially loanedmoneyforinfrastructureprojectsthatcouldbeshowntobeviableintermsof prospectiveinterestandprincipalrepayments.(Peet2009:130)

Whilethismakessensewithinthelogicofcapitalism,theviewofwhichislimitedtothe abstractionofmoney,itfailstoconsidertheself-determinedneedsoftherecipientsof developmentaid,whichhaspolitical,social,andenvironmentalrepercussionsinadditionto theprivilegedeconomiceffects.

Projectsforthedevelopmentofextractiveindustriestypicallyguaranteeareturnon investment,butthereisstrongstatisticalevidencethathighextractivewealthisassociated withgovernmentcorruption,civilwar,andpoverty.Thisiscalledthe‘resourcecurse’(Ross

2001). AnexampleofthisistheMexicanstateofChiapas,whichhasgreatwealthofnatural resources,butduetothecoloniallegacyandcontinuedeconomicdevelopment,hasnot benefitedfromtheextractionoftheseresources.Thoughitholds21%ofthenation’s petroleum,47%ofthenaturalgas,andproduces55%oftheelectricity,ithasthehighest ratesofpovertyandmarginalizationinMexico,especiallywithinindigenouspopulations (Cuevas2007:2)andin1995,22%ofpeopleinChiapasstilllackedaccesstoelectricity (Hausmann,Espinoza,andSantos2015).Chiapasalsohasacorruptgovernmentandan ongoinglow-intensitycivilwar(EarleandSimonelli2005;Esteva1999).

AnotherexamplefromChiapasofcapitalist-orienteddevelopmentistheexploitation ofitstropicalagriculturalwealth,whichneatlysummarizesmanyofthekeyimpactsofthe hegemonyofacapitalistdiscourse.Tosupportthecapitalistlogicthathailstheefficiencyof exploitingacountry’scomparativeadvantageontheglobalmarket,inthelate1800s,the ChiapangovernmentsoldathirdofthebestlandforagriculturalproductioninChiapasto foreigninvestorsforlargescaleplantations,dispossessingindigenouspeoplesfromtheir landswithself-sufficientfoodsystemsandimposingtaxesinordertoforcethemintothe marketeconomy(Rus,HernándezCastillo,andMattiace2003:3).Thelandusedfor subsistencepracticesoftheindigenouspeopleswouldhavebeenseenbythestatetohaveno economicvalue,andsotheirsaleanddevelopmentwouldallowboththeland,andthepeople dispossessedfromthem,tobeincorporatedintothemarketeconomytoextractvalue.Thisis whatMarxtermedprimitiveaccumulation,which"entail[s]takingland,enclosingit,and expellingaresidentpopulationtocreatealandlessproletariat,andthenreleasingtheland intotheprivatisedmainstreamofcapitalaccumulation"(Harvey2005).

Theeffectsofthislegacywerethreefold:indigenouscommunitieshavecontinuedto providecheaplaborforplantationagriculturesincetheirdispossession,largescale mono-cropmarketagriculturehasremainedvulnerabletothechangeofmarketvalues(Rus, HernándezCastillo,andMattiace2003),andrainforestlandhasbeendegradedduetothe intensivepracticesoflargescaleagricultureandthedisplacementofindigenousswidden agroforestrythatmaintainsforestecologyandbiodiversity(Diemontet.al.2006).Because capitalismrequirescheaplabortocreatesurplusvalue,itpromotesdispossession,prior accumulation,andthedisruptionofsubsistencepractices.Largescalemonocropagriculture isbasedontheideaofeconomiesofscale,whichisthatprofitsincreasethroughthecost advantagesandefficiencyoflargescaleproduction.However,theseeconomiesarehighly vulnerablebecausetheirprofitabilityisdependentononevaluesetbytheglobalmarket.

Becausethereisnodiversityinproduction,ifthevalueofthecropthatisproduced plummets,theproducerhasnobackupandthusistypicallyputoutofbusinesses.Also,the capitalistframeworkonlyprovidesthemeanstovaluewhatcanbecommodified,soit establishesaviewoftheenvironmentasacompilationofextractableresourcesandworks withinanassumptionthathumansareseparatefromnature,mastersoverit,andableto exploititfortheirowngain.Withouteconomicvaluationforahealthyenvironment,then, ecologicaldegradationnaturallyfollows.

Capitalismhasbeenkeytoestablishingthehegemonyofthedevelopmentdiscourse throughenablingtheeconomicdominationofcertainactorsintheglobalNorthandthrough itspositioninginthediscourseasaneutrallybeneficialtoolfordevelopment.Thelogics implicitincapitalismhavethusgainedhegemonythroughtheirassumption,preference,and

practicebytheinstitutions,governments,andnon-stateactorsthatformthenetworkof power.Scienceandtechnologyhavealsobeenusedastoolsofmodernitytoimprovemarket efficiencyinsupportofcapitalistlogics,actingasanotherkeypointinwebofhegemony.

Knowledge:ScienceandTechnology

Inthesamewaythateconomictheoryhasbeenunderstoodasaneutraltoolofglobal development,scienceandtechnologyhavebeendeemedtobeself-evidentmarkersofthe progressofcivilization.Economics,science,andtechnologyhadbeenintegraltothe developmentofWesternnations,andassuch,wereassumedtobetheobviousapproachesto assistthe‘underdeveloped’worldontheirwaytodevelopment.Inthemid-twentiethcentury, therewasariseinfaithinscienceandtechnologyasboth“markersofcivilization”andas “neutralandinevitablybeneficial”toolsthatcouldprovidesolutionsfortheworld’s problems(Escobar1995:36).Knowledgebecameinextricablytiedtoscience,andbeyond that,‘rational’thoughtbecamebasedinanideologyofscienceandtechnologythathailed theirabilitytosimplifynature,production,andsocietytomaximizeefficiencyforcapitalist development.

Scotttracesthewaythata‘scientific,’rationalizingapproachwasemployedtoensure economicgainthroughtheexampleofscientificforestryinGermanythatreducedthe complexityofanaturalforestintoamanageablesystemtosuitmarketproduction.He explainshow“forestscienceandgeometry,backedbystatepower,hadthecapacityto transformthereal,diverse,andchaoticold-growthforestintoanew,moreuniformforest thatcloselyresembledtheadministrativegridofitstechniques”(1998:15).Ratherthan

demonstratingarealscientificunderstandingofforestecology(andcausingecological disasterasaresult),forestsciencewasusedasatoolforefficientmanagement,andnature wasthusconvertedinto‘naturalresources’readytobeexploitedforfinancialgain.This exampleisfarfromasolitarycase:itseemsthatwherevereconomiclogichastriumphed, sciencehasbeenusedasatooltoachieveitsgoals.

Themarriageofscienceandcapitalismisexacerbatedbythe‘neoliberalizationof science’whichisunderstoodasthe“movetoproduceknowledgeusefulformarket-based endeavors”(BurkeandHeynen2014:13).Ithasbeencreatedthroughnetworksofrelations betweencorporations,universities,andscientists.Accesstopractical,placebasedscience andplatformsforscientificdiscussionishighlyexclusionaryduetothisneoliberalizationthat gearstheproductionofsciencetowardsprivate,policy,oreconomicendeavors.“Itisnow axiomaticthatscienceisnottheneutral,knowledge-seekingworkofindividuals,butratheris asocioculturalprocessproducedthroughparticularrelationsofpower”(BurkeandHeynen 2014:8).Certainformsofknowledgehavegaineddominancebecausethepeoplewhouse themhavepoliticalandeconomicinfluence.ThisechoesGramsci’sunderstandingofthe hegemoniccreationofcommonsensethatstressestheimportanceofthe“ensembleofthe systemofrelations”thatisneededtoproduceknowledge(Crehan2016). Within development’snetworkofrelations,sciencehasbeenusedtofurtherpromoteandrationalize developmentprojectsandsupportincreasedeconomization.

Thesesystemsofinfluencethatmaintainhegemonyoverscientificknowledgealso systematicallydevalueotherwaysofknowing.Drawingfromtheirresearchonmarginalized environmentalknowledges,BurkeandHeynen(2014)statethatthe“producersofembodied

knowledgeaboutneoliberalcapitalism’sramificationsareoftenignoredaspoliticiansuse formalscience,economics,andideologytoimplementtheirvision”(13).Because neoliberalismhasestablishedhegemoniccontrolovertheproductionofknowledge,itcan excludeformsofknowledgethatthreatenitscontinuation.Itisthroughtheengagementof certainideologies(neoliberalism,capitalism,science)withinnetworksofrelationsof powerfulactorsthatthehegemonicdiscourseismaintained,restrictingtheframeof possibilitieswithintheideologicalassumptionsthatitpromotes.

Asscienceandtechnologyhavehelddominanceoverwhatcountsas‘knowledge’ withinthedevelopmentdiscourse,theyhavebecomeemblematicofmodernizationand developmentthroughbeing“theorizedasasortofmoralforcethatwouldoperatebycreating anethicsofinnovation,yield,andresult”andthuscontribute“totheplanetaryextensionof modernistideals”(Escobar1995:36).Sointhissense,theyalsoincludeanassimilatory culturalproject,onethatfurthersaconceptof‘modernization’thatthedevelopment discourserelieson.

CulturalProjectandSubjectivity

Thedevelopmentdiscourseestablishesaculturalprojectthatshapesthesubjectivities ofallthosewhoselivesareinfluencedbyitshegemony.Theseincludethehomogenization ofidentityandrepresentationthatarisesoutofthenarrativesofmodernizationandprogress, thecreationoflackanddevaluationthatcomesfromcapitalism,andthedependencethatis createdbydevelopmentinterventions.Thesesubjectivitiesarecreatedbykeynarrativesof

thediscourse,andtheirsubsequentinfluenceonpeople’sperceptionsandactionsfurther reinforcesthehegemonyofthenarratives.

Homogenization of Identity and Representation

Progress,andtheassumptionofmodernization’sroleinfurtheringprogress,actsasa homogenizingforcebecauseitisconceivedasasingularpath.BasedonRostow’s(1968) theoryofprogress,forexample,allsocietieswouldeventuallyexistinstatesofhigh-mass capitalistconsumption.Sachs(2010)confrontsthisquestionofhomogenization:

Whatwouldacompletelydevelopedworldlooklike?Wedon’tknow,butmost certainlyitwouldbebothboringandfraughtwithdanger,fordevelopmentcannotbe separatedfromtheideathatallpeoplesoftheplanetaremovingalongonesingle tracktowardssomestateofmaturity,exemplifiedbythenations‘runninginfront’.In thisview,Tuaregs,ZapotecosorRajasthanisarenotseenaslivingdiverseand non-comparablewaysofhumanexistence,butassomehowlackingintermsofwhat hasbeenachievedbytheadvancedcountries.Consequently,catchingupwas declaredtobetheirhistoricaltask.Fromthestart,development’shiddenagendawas nothingelsethantheWesternizationoftheworld.(xvii)

Inthisway,thenarrativeof‘progress’ishomogenizingbothinitsperspectiveandits goal–theuniquequalitiesofdiversesocietiesareflattenedbycharacterizingthemsolelyby theirlackofmodernityandtheobjectiveistoassimilateintoaunitarymodelofmodernized society.

Progress,inthisway,delegitimizesanddevalueswaysofknowingandbeingthatare notdistinctly‘modern’andrejectstheircontinuedexistenceinthenameofsocietalprogress. Accordingly,duetotheemphasisonformalscienceinmodernity,non-expertformsof knowledgearedevalued.Forexample,inthecontextofengagingwithenvironmentalscience fortheproductionofpolicy,thedominationofformalscience,dueinparttoitsentanglement

inasystemofhegemony,meantthat“certifiedexperts’research[could]serveasalegitimate foundationforpolicy,whiletheexperientialandembodied(butnonstatistical)knowledge andconcernsoftheuncertifiedpopulace[were]devaluedasunsystematicandnonscientific” (BurkeandHeynen2014).Alackofmodernity(inthiscaseduetotheclassificationof knowledgeas‘nonscientific’),thus,becomesavalidexcuseforexcludingalternativewaysof knowingwhenmodernityisheldasthepinnacleofadvancement.Furthermore,therepeated invalidationofnon-dominantwaysofknowingbyexpertsorotherpowerfulactorsinthe networkofhegemonyeventuallycausespeopletoconsiderthemselvesasnon-knowers.As such,theycometoacceptandinternalizethehierarchyofknowledgeandsubmittothe expertauthority(ibid.).

Asadefiningfeatureoflatecapitalism,managerialismbecomesthestandardof managementupagainstwhichalternativeformsaredevalued.Managerialismisan“ideology operatingincomplicitywithcorporationsandgovernmentsinordertodisseminatetheir politicalagendas”(Misoczyky2011:348).Itisbasedonaspecificideaofcontrol,progress, andorderthatassumesthathierarchiesarethenaturalpowerstructure.Throughthewaythat knowledgeoftenhavetoengagewiththebureaucraticstructureofthisideology,alternative approachestomanagementsuchasempowermentandbottom-upparticipatorydemocracy becomeco-optedordiluted(Misoczyky2011).Asthedevaluationofalternatewaysof knowingisacommonareaofresistanceinthecaseoftheZapatistas,Iwillexploremoreof thislateron,specificallythroughexamplesofagriculture,temporalities,andindigenous representation.

Capitalist Devaluation

Everyeconomyisamoralrealmbecauseofthewaythatitcreatesasystemoflaws andassumptionsaboutthebehaviorsofhumans.Capitalism,asamoralrealm,establishes valuebasedonitslimitedstructureforevaluatingit:theabstractionofmoney(Marglin 2008).Anythingthatcannotbequantifiablyvaluedmonetarilyisthussystematically devalued.AsEscobarexplains:

Establishingeconomicvaluerequiresthedisvaluingofallotherformsofsocial existence.Disvaluetransmogrifiesskillsintolacks,commonsintoresources,menand womenintocommodifiedlabour,traditionintoburden,wisdomintoignorance, autonomyintodependency.Ittransmogrifiespeople’sautonomousactivities embodyingwants,skills,hopesandinteractionswithoneanother,andwiththe environment,intoneedswhosesatisfactionrequiresthemediationofthemarket. (2010:15)

LikeSachsdescribes,thecommonoutcomeofthissystematicdevaluationistheimposition oflack:lackofrelationalunderstandingsofnature,lackofcommunityvalues,orlackof meansforsurvival,forexample.Ross(2002)providesacomparisonoftheecological knowledgeandperspectivesontheenvironmentoftwogenerationsofMayanpeopleliving intheLacandonjungletoexaminetheeffectofexposuretothedevelopmentdiscourseby meansofNGOs.Hefoundthattheoldergenerationhadarichecologicalknowledgethatwas tiedtoarelationalperspectiveofnatureembeddedinareligiousframework,whereasthe youngergenerationhadlessecologicalknowledge,andtheframeworkfortheirperspective oftheenvironmentwasbasedonaninstrumentalviewofnature.Thoughtheystillnotedthe importanceofpreservingtheforest,theydidsofromanentirelydifferentframework(ibid.). Thisexampleshowshowtheimpositionofthedevelopmentdiscourse,evenforthe

benevolentpurposeofpreservingtheenvironment,canshapesubjectivitiesinawaythat devaluestraditionalwaysofknowingandrelating.

Marglin(2008)writesaboutthemoralrealmofthecapitalisteconomytoexplainhow thiscreatesasubjectivitychangethatdisruptscommunityvaluesandreciprocitybutthat encouragesfurtherintegrationintothemarket.Thecapitalisteconomyemphasizesthevalue ofmarketefficiencyasthehighestgood,promotesindividualismandmaterialprosperity,and deemsrationalthoughttobesuperior.Accordingly, “underminingcommunityisthelogical andpracticalconsequenceofpromotingthemarketsystem”(Marglin2008:3).Thisis becausestrongcommunitiessustainculturesoftrustandreciprocitythatcreatecommunity reliancewhichcannotbequantified,monetized,ormeasurablypredicted,andthuscannot existwithinthemarketsystemandmaximizedforefficiency.Assuch,communitysupport mechanismssuchasbarnraisingsareabandonedinfavorofindividualized,measurablefire insurance.Thisdevaluationofnon-commoditiesandconsequentdestructionofcommunity relianceencouragesthepurchaseofmarketsolutions.Andso,thesubjectivitiesthatthe economycreatesservetoreproducetheeconomy(ibid.)

Thecapitalisteconomyisfoundedonthe‘lawofscarcity’which“wasconstruedby economiststodenotethetechnicalassumptionthatman’swantsaregreat,nottosayinfinite, whereashismeansarelimitedthoughimprovable”(SachsandEsteva2010:16).Thisfuels ever-increasingconsumptiontopermittheconstantgrowthrequiredforcapitalismtoexist (whichisinherentlyunsustainableonafiniteplanet).Italsorepresentsahijackingofhuman valuation–capitalism’sexchange-valueandprofit-focusedideologybecomessoentrenched thatuse-valueandotherformsofsocialvalueareforgotten.Thedocumentary Darwin’s

Nightmare capturedastunningexampleofthis:intracingthestoryofthefishingindustryof NilePerchinLakeVictoria,theownerofafishfactoryrevealedinaninterviewthathewas exportingfivetonsoffishaday.Duringthetimeoftheinterview,therewasafamineinthe areasurroundingthelake.Whentheintervieweraskedtheownerhowhethoughtthefamine couldbeaddressed,theownerofthelucrative,arguablyabundantfishfactoryassumedthat theywouldreceiveforeignfoodaid(Sauper2004).Itseemsthatthelogicofcapitalismhad becomesoingrainedinhimthathenolongersawthefishhewasexporting transcontinentallyashavinganyuse-value,andthus,havingthepotentialtohelptoalleviate thefaminebysellingdomestically.

Thoughtheeconomiccreationoflackdoesnotseematalldesirable,capitalismhas managedtobecomehegemonicthroughalluringpeoplewithitspromisesof“opulencefor all”(SmithquotedinCrehan2016:82).Acapitalistperspectiveonrealitycompletewiththe assumptionofeconomiclogicshasvitallyexplained“asmustanypotentiallyhegemonic narrative,whysuchasystemwouldbeintheinterestsofsocietyasawhole”(Crehan2016: 82).Itisarguablythroughthisappealofworkingtowardsthecommongoodthatcapitalism hasgainedsuchprominencewithinthehegemonicdevelopmentdiscourse.

Dependency in Development

Anotherkeysubjectivitycreatedbythedevelopmentdiscourseistheformationof dependency.Itstemsfromthewaythatthenetworkofrelationsthatmaintainthehegemony ofthediscoursepositionthedominantstates,institutions,andnon-stateactorsasthetopof animposedhierarchy.Theyarethemostadvancedbywayofmodernization,themost knowledgeablebywayofthecontrolofscience,themostauthoritativebymeansof

managerialism,andthemostwealthybymeansofcolonialityandneo-imperialism.However, thedominantnarrativewithinaidorganizationsisoneofglobalwelfare.Intheirhegemony overknowledgeandrepresentation,“developmentinstitutions[areableto]describeproblems inawaythatjustifiestheirinterventions”(Pigg1993quotedinWest2006).Also,since globalwelfareisassumedinthediscoursetobeachievedthroughinternationalcapitalist expansion,developmentaidcontinuestoopendoorstofurtherexpansion.Asexplainedby RobertoCamposasaBrazilianambassadorinWashington,foreignaidservestoexpand “foreignmarketstoabsorbU.S.surplusesandalleviatesuper-productionintheU.S. exportingindustries”(Galeano1973).Inthedefinitionoftheproblemandtheproposalofthe solutioninthisway,foreignaidwilloften,bydesignorfortuity,servetheinterestsofthe powerful.Forexample,countrieswitha‘hungerproblem’mightgetfloodedwithexcess U.S.cornandwheatandMonsantoseeds,intendedtomodernizeagricultureandalleviate hunger,butalsofurtherdestabilizinglocalfoodproductionandforcingeconomic dependenceonglobalpowers(HartmannandBoyce1982).

Thedevelopmentdiscoursealsoimposesdependencythroughprofessionalization, whichprivilegesscienceandexpertknowledgeinawaythatestablishesandformalizes powerrelationsthatsetinstitutionalprofessionalsastheonlycapableactors.

Professionalizationtranslatesscientificdataintocapitalistparadigmsunderaguiseof scientificneutralitythatactuallydepoliticizestheissuesandpromotesthedevelopment discourse(Escobar1995:45-46,105).Theprocessofprofessionalizationcreatesaprecedent inwhichregularpeopleareportrayedasincapableofaddressingtheirproblemsbecausethey requirehelpfrom‘professionals,’andbecomedependentonexternalactors.

Developmentinitscurrentformthroughtheexistinghegemonyisinextricablybound tocoloniality,bothbecauseitisbasedonthewealthandideologiesofdominantcolonial powers,andalsobecauseitisstillorganizedtopromotetheinterestsoftheinstitutionsofthe globalelite.Developmentprojectsstillservethesedominantpowers:theWorldBankand IMFwillonlymakeloansifthirdworldcountriescarryoutstructuraladjustmentprogramsto openmarkets,removeimportbarriers,cutspendingonsocialprograms,devaluecurrencies, eliminatesubsidiesandpricesupports,andencourageexports(Greenberg1997).Becauseat best,theseprogramsarebasedonaWesternideaofprogress,andatworstaretoolstofurther theexploitationofthethirdworld,theprogramsarestillinseparablyentwinedwith coloniality,andtheycreatedependencyonthedominantdevelopmentactorsbecauseofit. Forexample,throughthe1970s,communicationandtransportbetweencountriesinLatin AmericastilllargelyhadtogothroughEuropeanorU.S.intermediariesbecausethecreation ofthisinfrastructurewascarriedoutbyandfortheglobalNorth(Galeano1973).

Dependencytheoristsinparticularhavecritiquedthedevelopmentprojectby assertingthatdevelopmentincorecountrieshasonlyeverresultedfromthesimultaneous creationofunderdevelopmentinperipherycountries;theU.S.andU.K.wouldnotbetherich globalpowersthattheyaretodayhadtheynotextractedwealthfromotherpeople,lands,and nations(Galeano1973).Underdevelopmenthasbeenvitaltothegrowthofglobalcapitalism, thestrengthofwhichisnecessarilybasedoninequality.Thisisevidencedthroughthefact thathistoricallycolonizedcountrieslargelyremainprimaryproducersandthatthree-quarters ofthirdworldcountries’salesaremadetoimperialistcountries(ibid.).TheglobalNorthhas

continuedtoextractwealthoutoftheglobalSouth,whichhasenabledthemtohold economicdomination,whichisavitalaspectofmaintaininghegemony.

MaintainingHegemony

Throughthemutuallyreinforcingrelationsbetweenglobalpowers,theirnarrativesof modernizationandprogress,economicstructureofcapitalism,andthelogicsand subjectivitiesthatareformedbyengagingwiththeseparts,thedevelopmentdiscourseisable tomaintainhegemony.Asanexampleofhowthisprocesslooksforaspecificinstitution, Escobar(1995)tracesthehegemonyoftheWorldBank:

ThisishowtheWorldBankmaintainsintellectualandandfinancialhegemonyin development:itchannelsthelargestamountoffunds;itopensnewregionsto investmentthroughtransportation,electrification,andtelecommunicationsprojects;it contributestothespreadofMNCs[multinationalcorporations]throughcontracts;it deepensdependenceoninternationalmarketsbyinsistingonproductionforexports; itrefusestolendto‘unfriendlygovernments’(suchasChileunderAllende);it opposesprotectionistmeasuresoflocalindustries;itfostersthelossofcontrolof resourcesbylocalpeoplebyinsistingonlargeprojectsthatbenefitnationalelitesand MNCs;itrespondscloselytotheinterestsofinternationalcapitalismingeneraland U.S.foreignpolicyinparticular;anditcollaborateswithandhelpsmaintaininpower corruptandundemocraticregimesthroughouttheThirdWorld.(165)

Insum,duetoitsplentifulwealthfrompastexploitation,theWorldBankhasthepowerto controltheworldeconomy,andalsoglobalpolitics,bypreferencingfreemarket neoliberalismthatrequiresstatestoexercisepoweronlyinsofarasitsupportstheir engagementwiththeglobalmarketthroughexport-orientedinfrastructureandprivatization.

Assoonasstatesseektoprotecttheirnationaleconomiesthroughprotectionistpoliciesor landredistribution,theWorldBankrevokesaccesstodevelopmentfunding(andhistorically, theCIAstagesacoup).Andyet,consideringthecapitalistlogicunderwhichtheWorldBank

operates,theseactionsarenotonlyexcusable,butnecessarytomaintainfinancialsolvency (Escobar1995;Ross2001).Throughtheirwealthofresourcesandabilitytoorchestrate multinationalcorporationsandstategovernments,theymaintainhegemony,andinthe practiceandimpositionofparticularwaysofknowing,thesestructuresofdominantpower effectivelycreatecertainsubjectivitieswhichservethedevelopmentproject.

Becauseofitshegemonythatshapestheframeworkforwhatisevenimaginable, evencritiquesofdevelopmentthathaveledtoreformslikesustainabledevelopmentorthe greeneconomyhavelargelyremainedinsidethediscourse.Thereformationtowards ‘sustainable’developmentdoesnotstrayfromeithertheinevitabilityofdevelopmentorthe capitalistlogicthatassumesthateconomicgrowthisnecessaryforthereductionofpoverty.

While Our Common Future,afoundationalinternationalreportonsustainabledevelopment, doesmakementionofequityandwealthredistribution,itstillmaintainsthat“growthmustbe revivedindevelopingcountriesbecausethatiswherethelinksbetweeneconomicgrowth, thealleviationofpoverty,andenvironmentalconditionsoperatemostdirectly”(1987).

Sustainabledevelopment,asthisreportshows,stillholdstheassumptionsoftheeconomic logicbyclaimingthatgrowthisnecessaryinordertosolveproblemssuchaspovertyand environmentaldegradation.

Thesubjectivitiesinstilledbythedevelopmentdiscourseshowhowcontrolis extendedtothesiteoftheindividualsothatpeopleessentiallycometodominatethemselves, ahighlyefficientpracticeofdiscipline.Thediscourse’seffectsuponsubjectivitycanbe comparedtoFoucault’s(1978)analysisofpoweroverlifewhichexplainshowthe institutionalizationoftheeconomicsystem“requiredatransformationatthelevelofthe

individual–theproductionof...docilebodies”(Escobar1995:60).Thisisessentiallyhow thedevelopmentdiscourse’scontroloversubjectivitiesandknowledgefunctions:itactsasa formofdisciplinetoefficientlyincorporatethesubjectintothedominantsystematthe individuallevel.Thisapproachtodisciplineeffectivelydiscouragesautonomousbodiesand populationsthroughforcingsubmissiontostructuresthatsuitthedominantpowers.The transformationoftheindividualtobecompatiblewiththediscoursecreatestheconsent neededtoestablishhegemony(Gramsci1988).Thedevelopmentdiscourse’sdisciplinary effectsareachievedthroughpracticeslikeconditionalWorldBankfunding,theimpositionof aspecificeconomicvaluation(anddevaluation),andthepromotionofparticularformsof managerialismandtechnification.Together,theseandotheraspectsofthedevelopment discoursebuildhegemonybysubtlyshapingpossibilitiesforactionandperception.

Oncesubsumedintothedominantdiscourse,allactionbecomeslimitedbythe knowledgesandlogicsthatareassumedbythediscourse,whichdiscouragesthecreationof autonomoussolutions.Thus,tochangedevelopmentinpracticeandresistdomination,the discoursemustbedismantledsothatalternativescanbeimaginedandenacted.

Zapatismo:analternativediscourseforutopianresistance

Adiscursiveapproachtoresistancestemsfromtheunderstandingthat,asexplored throughGramsciandFoucault,dominantpowerisnolongerembodiedsolelyinthestatebut ratherisspreadwidelyandreinforcedevenbythosewhodonotholdpowerduetotheir consenttoitsdominantdiscourse.Stategovernmentsarethemselvessubjecttolarger structuresofpowerwhicharesupportedandinformedbythedevelopmentdiscourse,

primarilythehegemonyofneoliberalismthatreliesonglobalizationandfreemarket capitalism.Theproblemsthatarisefromthesestructures,then,betheyinequality,poverty,or ecologicaldisaster,becomemorechallengingtoaddressbecauseanentiresystemofpower andunderstandingoftheworldistoblame. Sincethedominantdiscoursebecomesinstilled inthesubconsciousthroughengagingwithinstitutions(schools,corporations,stateservices, legalsystems),otherpeople,andtheenvironment,steppingoutsideoftheenforced subjectivityisnecessarytoopenupalternatives.Gramsci,asrelatedbyCrehan,has suggestedthatthisisdonethroughrecognizingtherelationsandhistorythathaveformedthe subjectivity:

Weshouldthinkofhumanbeingsasensemblesofrelations,ensemblesthatcomeinto beinginspecifichistoricalcontexts...Oncewemovefromthinkingofindividuals asautonomousentitiesandbegintoseetheminsteadasthesumoftheirrelationships withthehumanandnaturalworld,theverynotionofsubjectivityshifts.Subjectivity nowbecomestheproductofourlifeexperiencesassocialindividuals.(Crehan2016: 60)

InChiapas,thishistoryandsetofrelationshasbeenalteredsincethetimeofconquest,but thereisandalwayshasbeenresistance.Conquestisadialecticbetweentheconquerorsand thoseresistingtobeconquered(EarleandSimonelli2005).Thoughconquesthasevolved intoanentirehegemonicsystem,thediscursivebattlecontinues.AsStahler-Sholksuggests, “theoldparadigmsoftakingstatepowerbyarmedassaultshouldbewaninginthefaceof newrealitiesinwhichthestateisnotthesolelocusofpower,forcingarethinkingofwhatwe evenmeanbytheconceptof‘revolution’”(2010:272).Anti-systemicmovementstakeona newapproachtosocialchangeinthatthey“seektotransformsocietyfrombelow,while challengingcapitalismasaglobalparadigm”(ibid.).Alternativestructurestothestateare

necessarytotransformpoliticalandcivilsocietyandtoenablepeopletorebelagainstthe dominantdiscoursetorevokeconsenttoitshegemony.

Forthisreason,afternearlyadecadeofclandestineorganizingthat,onJanuary1st, 1994,eruptedintotwelvedaysofarmedrebellion,theZapatistaUprisingtransferredmostof itsfocustopoliticalautonomy,communitydevelopment,andtheformationofanalternative discourse.TheZapatistas’alternativediscourseopensupthepossibilitytoimaginea differentrealityanddifferentsetofsubjectivities.Itinherentlyhasutopianpotential,whichI defineastheabilitytodefinespecificgoalsandvaluesofsocietyandtobeenabledtopursue them.Utopiaisnotafixedidealstate,butratherthefreedomandcapabilitytoconstantly re-defineandenactthepracticesandvaluesthatareagreeduponbyagroupofpeople. Utopianapproachesrequirefreedomfromthelimitingassumptionsandsubjectivitiesofthe developmentdiscourse.Creativeresistancethatseekstoformanalternativediscourseisthus primedtoachievethisbecauseitincludesaprocessofredefinitionandmovementstoputthe newdefinitionsintopractice.

TheZapatistastakeonutopiabyredefiningpower,scarcity,commonsense, autonomy,value,andexpertiseintheiralternativediscourse,whichthenactsasthebasisfor societaltransformationbyinformingalternativewaysofknowingandbeingtorevoke consenttothehegemonyofthedominantdiscourse.Here,IwillanalyzeZapatismoto demonstratehowiteffectivelydefinesalternativestothedevelopmentdiscourseinitsways ofknowing,structuresofpower,andformsofsubjectivitytoprovidethebasisforcreative resistancetodismantlethedominantdiscourse.

Knowledge

Inthecreationoftheiralternativediscourse,itisimportanttonotethattheZapatistas workoutsideofthebinarybetweentraditionandmodernity.Insomeways,theZapatistasare arguablyamodernsocialmovement–theiruseoftheinternetincreatingatransnational network,forexample,hasbeenvital(Khasnabish2010).Ontheotherhand,theirrevaluation ofdistinctlynon-modernwaysofknowing,oftenrootedfromindigenousperspectives,seems topaintthemasasortofreturntotradition.However,eitherdesignationwouldbe inaccurate.TheZapatistastranscendthebinarycompletely,makingthemdistinctly transmodern.

Misoczyky(2011)describestransmodernityasabreakfromthemodernuniversality ofwaysofknowingandbeingthroughareturnoftherepressedandhistoricallydepreciated cultures,knowledges,andsubjectivitiesasworld-actors.Itisnotanexplicitdeparturefrom modernitytotradition,butratheraninclusive,alternativemodernitythatmakesspacefor otherwaysofknowing.Inthisway,itrejectscolonialityandits“practicesofoppression, racialdiscrimination,andconcentrationofpoliticalandeconomicpower”whichare inextricablytiedtothecreationofmodernityandits“rhetoricofprogress,salvation, technology,anddemocracy”(Misoczyky2011:348).Inordertorejecttheoppressionand hegemonycreatedbycoloniality,modernityasauniversalclaimonknowingandbeingmust berejected.Transmodernity,then,withitsrevaluationofrepressedformsofknowingand being,resiststheuniversalityofmodernityandthecolonialitythatitistiedtoandcreatesa moreinclusivespaceforhistoricallydepreciatedanddiscountedwaysofknowingandbeing.

Assuch,Zapatismoactsaatransmoderndiscoursebyelevatingwaysofknowingthat havebeenexcludedinthecolonialityofmodernity’sclaimstouniversalizedknowledge whilesimultaneouslyacceptingthecontributionsofmodernity.Zapatismoresiststhe economiclogicsupportedbyrationalizingscienceandmodernizationnarrativesofthe developmentdiscoursebyrevaluingnon-dominanteconomicknowledgesthathavebeen historicallydevaluedanddepreciatedandthatdirectlyopposethedominanteconomiclogics. SpeakingonindigenousresistanceinthecontextoftheNorthAmericanNishnaabeg,Leanne Simpsontheorizestheimportanceofcultural,political,andintellectualresurgenceas resistanceto“cognitiveimperialism”thathasworkedasan“insidiousmechanismtopromote neo-assimilationandobfuscatethehistoricatrocitiesofcolonialism”(2011:32).Shebuilds thisargumentthroughexploringtheresurgenceoftraditionalNishnaabegchildrearing practicesasaformofresistancebecausetheyformthebasisforrootedcultural understandingsoftreaties,non-authoritarianism,andvaluesofgentleness,kindness,and humility.Thedevaluationandsubsequentabandonmentofthesepracticesfromthecolonial imposition(duetoinabilitytotaketimeofftoraisechildrenandtheculturalclashofnot discipliningchildren,forexample),ledtothedilutionoftraditionalNishnaabegleadership thathasreducedNishnaabegclaimstosovereigntyandcontributedtotheirassimilationinto thestategovernment,andthus,torecoverthesepracticesisapoliticalmovetosovereignty (ibid.).Similarly,Zapatismoelevatesnon-dominantandalternativeformsofknowledgeand practicesasamovementtowardsautonomyandasresistancetothedevelopmentdiscourse, whichworksas‘cognitiveimperialism.’

LeyvaSolano(2016)offersanotherperspectiveontheimportanceofrevaluing repressedknowledges.Shedefines‘epistemicjustice’asthejusticevaluedinpluricultural societythatshouldguaranteeall(especiallythediscriminated,thesubalterns),therighttobe recognizedandtreatedasproducersandcreatorsofknowledgeontheirowntermsandwithin theirownlanguages.TheZapatistas,accordingtoLeyvaSolano,haveclearlycreateda wealthoftheoreticalknowledge,but“allofthatwouldbenothingmorethanaheapof bibliographytociteifitcouldn’thavethe‘glocal’impactthatithas,ifitcouldnotsustain thecomplexdailyroutineoffullautonomy”(45).Thus,thelivedpracticesofknowledgeare importantbothinthattheyexpandinclusivityoftheproductionofknowledgeandalso connectknowledgetolivedreality.Theknowledge-practicesofZapatismoareexemplaryof bothofthesequalities.Throughthewaysthatitbothbuildsuponpeople’sknowledgeand alsocapacitatesthemtoformmoreknowledgeabouttheirownlives,Zapatismopresentsan alternativetothehierarchical,top-downandexclusionaryknowledgeofdominant developmentdiscourse.

Milpa Agriculture

TheZapatistas’revaluationofknowledgeandinclusiveapproachtoitresiststhe dominantdiscoursetobuildautonomy.The milpa,asbothanagriculturalpracticeand accompanyinglogicofself-sufficiency,isoneprimaryformofknowledgethattheZapatistas drawontoresistthepushtomodernizeagricultureandincorporateintoglobalcapitalism. Milpa isatraditionalagriculturalpracticestemmingfromtheMayasofcultivatingadiverse varietyofcropsinsmallclearingswithinthejungletomimicthenaturaljunglesystems.The cropsgrown,primarilymaize,beans,squash,andavocados,areboth“nutritionallyand

environmentallycomplementary”providingabalanceddietandaformofintercroppingthat maintainssoilnutrientstoavoidtheneedforfertilizersandpesticides(Mann2005).The milpa is,bynature,small-scale,diverse,andcultivatedbyhandwhichsupports self-sufficiencyandecologicalwell-being(EarleandSimonelli2005).

Thiscontrastssharplytolarge-scale,mono-crop,andmechanizedmodernagriculture thatispromotedindevelopmentprojectsanddefendedbythedominantdiscourse.

Modernizedagriculturehasbeencelebratedforitssupposedabilitytosolveworldhunger duetoscientificandtechnologicaladvancementsandmaximizationofproductionefficiency andhasthusbeensupportedbytheWorldBank,internationalaidorganizations,and corporationstoservethispurpose.However,theadvancementsofmodernizedagricultureare basedonanindustrial,scientificrationalismthatseekstomakeagriculturalproductionmore legibletoboththeproducerandthestatetofacilitatemarketproduction;theyarenotbased onscientificstudiesofagriculturalproduction(Scott1998).Thepracticesrootedinthis ideology,then,ignoreascientificunderstandingofecologicalprinciples,nutrientcycles,and soilhealthinthenameofefficiencyandhighcropyield,leadingtoecologicaldisaster.

Furthermore,theconversionofagriculturetoahyper-efficientsystemforproducinga singularcommodityfortheglobalmarketeliminatesagriculture’sembeddednessina networkofrelationsbetweentheland,producers,andconsumersaswellasits non-commodityvaluation.

Incontrast,thewaythat milpa productionworkswithintheecologicalcontextofthe tropicalforests,clearingonlysmallplotsinrotationandleavingacanopy,promotesdiverse ecosystemsandretainsgoodsoilhealth.Itsswidden-fallowmethodhasbeenprovento

conserveandrestorerainforestsandmaintainbiodiversityintheLacandonJungle(Diemont et.al.2005).Evenregardingthemodernidealofefficiency,asanagriculturalmethod, milpa productionismoreefficientthanmodernizedagriculture.AnextensivestudyfromRobert Netting(1993)showedthat“ifefficiencyismeasuredintermsofproductivityofland, smallholdersareinfactmoreefficient”(EarleandSimonelli2005:17).Despitescientific researchlikethisthatnowdefendsthevaluesofsmall-scaleandtraditionalmodelsof agriculturelikethe milpa,thedominationofthedevelopmentdiscoursehasledtoaunilateral spreadofmodernizedagriculture,furthershowingthatitsvalueisprimarilyinitsmarket efficiency.

Basedonmarketlogicandinanefforttopromotedevelopment,officialsfromthe Mexicangovernmentwouldtravelto ejidos withaprogramto‘improve’theircoffee production,supplyingfertilizersandsuggestinglessshadeonthecoffeetrees.Some communities,wherethememberswereenculturatedwithMayantraditionand milpa logic, foundthroughsmalltestareasthatthesepracticesdidincreasecoffeeproductionforashort periodoftime,butdecreasedthelifespanofcoffeeplantsandmadethemmoresusceptibleto blight,leadingthemtorefusethisnewtechnology(EarleandSimonelli2005:47-48).

Exampleslikethisshowhowlocally-specificknowledgesbasedonrootedunderstandings canbemorereliablethananexclusivefocusonmarketefficiency.

However,duetotheneoliberalizationofknowledgethatprivilegesthecreationof knowledgesthataremarketableandthatmaintainshegemonythroughanetworkofrelations betweencorporations,universities,scientists,andgovernmentagencies,thesealternateways ofknowingaresystemicallydevalued(BurkeandHeynen2014).OnewaythattheZapatistas

resistthedevaluationoftheseisthroughsupporting milpa production,bothtoelevate indigenousknowledgeandforitsroleinsupportingautonomythroughitslogicof self-sufficiency.

Economic Logic

Milpa extendsbeyondanagriculturalpracticetoalogicthat“ispartofacultural ethicbackedbysounddefensiveeconomicsthatMayamenshouldhavetheirmilpa,evenifit didnotsufficetofeedafamilyallyear.Itexpressesitselfculturallyinmanydomainsof thoughtandaction,butitsmateriallogic,averyoldone,says,astheZapatistasdotoday,that whateverelse,growmostofyourownfood,”(EarleandSimonelli2005:246).Inherently, the milpa logicofself-sufficiencyopposesacapitalistlogic.Thisisbecauseatitscore, capitalismreliesonwagelabortocreatesurplusvalueintheproductionofcommoditiesso thatthecapitalist,astheownerofthemeansofproduction,canmakeaprofit.Asa preconditiontowagelabor,peoplemustbeunabletomeettheirbasicneedsontheirownso thattheyhavetopurchasegoodsonthemarkettodoso,requiringthattheyselltheirlaboras acommodityinexchangeformoney(Marx1867).Thus,the milpa logicofself-sufficiency resistsincorporationintothewageeconomybyreducingtheneedformoneyandmarket interaction.

However,thisself-sufficiencyisoftenchallengedbycorruptgovernment patron-clientrelationsthatprovideaidinexchangeforvoteswhichcandisempower communitiesbycreatingdependence,inadditiontooutrightdestructionof milpas asa politicalattackonZapatistaautonomy(EarleandSimonelli2005).Forcingeconomic dependencelikethisthroughunderminingself-sufficiencyhashistoricallybeenacolonial

tooltoconsolidatepower,andastrategyforadvancingthedominantdevelopmentdiscourse.

Withthiscontext,theZapatistasvigilantlyopposegovernmentaid,recognizingthatit underminestheirautonomywhichissotiedtotheirself-sufficiency.Stahler-Sholkprovides anexampleofthisinterplayofpowerbetweentheZapatistas,thegovernment,and non-Zapatistacommunities:

MyinterviewsintheregioncorrespondingtotheCaracolofLaGarruchasuggested thatthosewhoremainedinthemovementderivedprideandself-esteemfromtheir abilitytoanalyzeandrejectthegovernment'scarrot-and-stickapproach.Theirenvy ofthebeneficiariesofgovernmentaidwasmixedwithpityforfellowindigenous peasantswhoweredevelopingdependenciesonaficklepatronandwhoinsome caseshadevenstoppedplantingtheirownmilpa(cornfield),acrucialmarkerof indigenousidentityinthisregion...theimpactwasdisempoweringforthe communities.(2010:273)

ThisexampledemonstratessomeofthecomplexitiesoftheZapatistastruggle.Itisbyno meanseasytomaintaina milpa;itisalaborintensiveprocessthatrequiresspecificseasonal attention.Especiallyininter-mixedZapatistaandnon-ZapatistacommunitieswhereZapatista communitymembersseetheirneighborsreceive“free”aidfromthegovernment,the dedicationto(atleastpartial)self-sufficiencyrequiresdeterminationandaconstant remembranceofvalues,aswellasbroadernetworksofnon-statesupporttofillthegapsin meetingbasicneeds.However,theZapatistasseethatthealternativetothislaboristolose theirautonomythroughbecomingdependentonacorruptgovernmentwhichtheycannot speakagainstforfearoflosingresources.Bysituatingtheirdailypracticeswithinabroader understandingofpoliticalpowerdynamics,theZapatistasfindstrengthtocontinuetheir traditional milpa andtopreservethe milpa logicofself-sufficiency.Theeconomiclogicof

the milpa ispairedwithbroaderZapatistanetworksthatserveasinstitutionalsupporttotheir alternativediscourse.

InorderfortheZapatistas’discourseand milpa logictofunctionandnavigate resistancetocapitalismwithinaglobalcapitalisteconomy,theyemployasocialsolidarity economywithnetworksofsocialinfrastructureformulti-scalarsupport. Milpa allowspeople tobemostlyself-sufficientintheirfoodproduction,butitislaborintensive,limitingtowhat canbeproduced,andleavesfamiliesvulnerableifsomething(paramilitaryinvasion,blight) weretodestroytheir milpa. Becauseofthesechallenges,itisnotthateconomicallyviableor evendesirabletoexclusivelyproduceforfamilyconsumption.Assuch,iftheZapatistas weretoencourage milpa productionwithoutcreatingnetworksofsupport,itwouldlikelyfail andpeoplewouldresorttopurchasingonthemarket.Instead,theymobilizetradenetworks andcooperativesforbothinternaltradewithinZapatistacommunitiesandbetweenZapatista municipalitiesaswellastradeontheglobalmarket.Thisallowsforsomedegreeof specializationtoproductioninadditiontothe milpas,withcertaincommunitiescollectively purchasingmaterialstoproducehoney,bread,orcoffeefortrade.Thefamily-based milpa is connectedtonetworksofcommunitysupportandcommunitycooperatives,whichengagein tradeandsupportwithinthemunicipality,whichinturnengagesintheregionalgroupof municipalitiestocreateadistincteconomyofscalewithoutsacrificingthecoreZapatista valuesofautonomyandgovernmentresistance(EarleandSimonelli2005,19).Thisnetwork alsoprovidesthebasisforproductioncooperatives,fair-tradecoffeemarketnetworks,and agroecologicalworkshopsthatbuildrelationalsupportwithproducerstorecognizelocal controlandfairlynegotiatetermsandpriceswhilestillopeningaccesstoresources.Italso

supportsregionalcooperativestoresthatincludecooperativepurchasingandtheconstruction ofregionalwarehousesforpurchasedgoodstoavoidcontactwithintermediariesand centralization.ThisagaindemonstratesthetransmodernityoftheZapatistas’movement:by elevatinglocallybased,non-dominantagriculturalpracticesandsupportingthemthrough distinctlymoderneconomicnetworks,theychallengethebinarybetweenthemodernand non-modern.Additionally,theseeconomicnetworks,whicharespecificallyputinplaceto supportlocalautonomy,alsochallengethebinarybetweenthelocalandglobal.

Asarelationalnetwork,itishighlyflexiblebecauseofitssmall-scalebasis,butitis stillabletobenefitfromcollectivityandscaleefficiencies(ibid.;Stahler-Sholk2010:281).

Throughthisalternativeeconomicmodelbasedin milpa logic,meaningprioritizing self-sufficient(orcommunity-sufficient)production,thatengageswiththemarketwithout resortingtoexploitationandwagelabor,theZapatistasopposetheeconomiclogicofthe dominantdiscourse.Thetradenetworksaremoreofanexpressionofsolidarityandmutual supporttopromotetheautonomousprojectasawholeratherthanadehumanizedmarket exchange.Thesemulti-scalarrelationalnetworksarevitalforthesupportofthe implementationoftheZapatistadiscourseregardingautonomy,self-sufficiency,resistanceto neoliberalcapitalismandstatecontrol,andfair,dignifiedwork.Regardlessofthestrengthof thediscourseorallureofitsvalues,withoutnetworksofsupportthataredistinctfromthe dominantinstitutions,thediscourseisdestinedtohavelittlerealimpact.Thisisbecausethe dominantdiscourseissupportedbystructuresofpowerandinstitutionsthatarebasedonand reinforcedbyitslogic,creatinganetworkthatmaintainsitshegemony,soeffective resistancerequiressimilarnetworksofsupport.Asjustdemonstrated,modernity’shegemony

overknowledgehasdevaluednon-dominantwaysofknowinginregardstoagricultural practicesandeconomiclogics.Similarly,ithasalsodevaluednon-dominanttemporalities.

Temporalities

Zapatismoisbasedonalternatetemporalitiesinresistancetotheethnocentric temporalityofthedominantdiscourse.Indevelopmentdiscourse,timeisconceivedaslinear andprogressivelyunfolding,alwaysfromalessdevelopedstatetoamoredevelopedstate. Rostow’spathtomodernizationhighlightsthelineardevelopmenttemporalitythatassumes developmentisaninevitableandunidirectionalprocess.Onthebasisoftheseassumptions, hedeterminesfivedistinctphasesofeconomicgrowthbasedonsocietallevelsof consumption,income,mechanization,technology,andgovernmentstructurethatcharacterize thetransitionfromasimplistictraditionalsocietytoacomplexmodernsociety(Rostow 1968).Sincetimeislinearandprogressiveanddevelopmentisinevitable,timetakesonan almostmaterialunderstandinginthatphasesofdevelopmentcanbeidentifiedandseparated intosegmentsbasedoncertaincharacteristics.

Rostow’sunderstandingoftimeisnothingnew,whencolonistsand conquistadors arrivedinnewlands,theybroughtwiththemthishegemonictemporalitythatdevalued indigenoustemporalities.Insituatingtheindigenouscontextasabackgroundtothe modernizingproject,thecolonistsessentiallydisregardedtheindigenouswaysofknowingas bothinferiorandirrelevanttotheirgoalsofprogress.Also,inpositingindigenouswaysat themostbasicandprimitivephaseintheirunderstandingoflineardevelopment,they anachronizedindigenousways,makingthemincommensurablewithmoderntimewhichled

toadichotomyofeitherexclusionfrommodernityorexpectationsofassimilation(Rifkin 2017;Hale2007).

Byrecognizingamultiplicityoftemporalitiesthroughdrawingfromindigenous temporalities,theZapatistasresistthistemporalviolencethatseekstoassimilatetheminto ‘modern’timeandcondemntheirwaysofknowingasarchaicandimpossiblydivergentfrom modernity(Rifkin2017).Thedominanttemporalityholdshegemonythroughpeoples’ compliancewithitssingularvalidity,sothemaintenanceofanalternativetemporality inherentlyresiststhedominant’shegemonybyopeningwaysofknowingandbeingthatare notlimitedtolineartime.

SincetheindigenouspeoplesofChiapasareMayan,theZapatistasdrawfromMayan temporalityintheirdiscourse.TheMayancalendarworksasacycle,representingan understandingofcyclicaltimelikethemooncycleandtheseasons,whichisthesuncycle.

AnancientMayansymboloftimeisthe caracol,orsnailshell,whichalsorepresents continuity(EarleandSimonelli2005).Thisunderstandingofcyclicalandcontinuoustime directlyopposesthelinearityandimplicitemphasisonprogresswithinthehegemonic temporalitybyemphasizingaconnectiontothenaturalrhythmsoflife.Inthisway,itis consistentwithMayan(oratleast,HighlandChiapasMayan)valuesofharmonywithinthe physicalandsocialenvironment(Proochista2012).

Additionally, caracol timecreatesaframeworkforunderstandingindigenous traditioninamoderncontexttoopposetheanachronizationofthedominanttemporality.Just asthe caracol spiralsoutward,timecanbeunderstoodasaspiralrootedinacentralhistory oftraditionthatiseverexpanding,butalwaysconnectedtothatcenter.Ratherthan

positioningtraditionandmodernityastwoseparatepositionsonalinearhistory,the caracol obfuscatesthisbinarybecauseitisalwayssimultaneouslybasedinthetraditionofthecenter ofthespiralwhileconnectedtomoderntimeattheopeningoftheshell.

Drawinginspirationfromthesenseoftimeandcontinuitythatthenameimplies,the reorganizationofZapatistagovernmentin2003arrangedintoautonomouszonescalled caracoles.Thisnewstructureofgovernance(whichwillbeexploredinthesectiononthe practiceofZapatismo)stemsfromtherecognitionthattheirresistanceisnotalimitedevent thatwillprogresstoachangedrealityinthefuture,butratherthatoppressionisarecurring seasoninthecyclingoftimeandsoresistancemustdesignstructuresandtoolsthatcan continuallyprecludedominationwhenoppression(perhapsinevitably)occurs.

Thecaracolisalivingentitywherecommunity,history,andtimecontinuallyinteract. Itisaremarkablyconservativeworldview(sic),aconcentricethnocentrismthat preservestraditionwhilerejectinganylinearsenseof[such].Itdoesnotreject modernization,butitdoesprovincializemodernity’scolonialroots.Itmakesclear thatapeople’sautonomyovertheirownmaterialcultureisatstake,andit demonstratesanunderstandingandsolutiontothatproblemwithoutconfusing exchangewithimperialism,autonomywithisolation,traditionwithessentialism,nor thepastwithhistory.(Bahn2009,552)

Inthisway,drawingfromindigenousknowledgeandtraditionsdoesnothavetobea‘return tothepast,’nordoindigenouspeoplehavetobedestinedtothelimitedconceptof modernization,asbothareviolentassumptionsoflineartimethatdichotomizeindigenous peoples.Instead,theycandrawtruthfrombothtraditionandmodernityasfreeagentsin determiningtheirrealitieswhileretainingtheunderstandingthattheirliveshavebeen irrevocablyalteredbythehistoryofcolonialisminawaythatcontinuestoaffecttheir present.Wherelinearitycreateslimitsbyprofferinganinevitablepath,thedesignofthe

spiraling caracol infersbothcurvingchange,progressiveexpansion,andacentralbasisin tradition,openingpossibilitiesfor‘progress’beyondthatofthelimitedunderstandingof modernization.Theactofreclaimingtradition,history,andwaysofknowingandsituating theminthemoderncontextempowerspeopletoenvisionthemselvesasactivelybeingable todreamofandenactnewalternativesintheirfutures(Rifkin2017).

Dreamtemporalitiessimilarlyupsetthelinearityoftime;inMayantradition,dreamis apreludetorealityandpredictivedreamingisnotuncommon(EarleandSimonelli2005).In thisway,too,thereispowerintheabilitytodreamofandimaginealternatives;itisthefirst steptocreatinganewreality.Thus,the caracol anddreamtemporalitiesbecomeaformof resistancetothehegemonictemporalityofthedevelopmentdiscourse.

Zapatismo’sbasisinindigenoustemporalitiesandwaysofknowingisaninspiration andconstantreminderofthefactthatalternatewaysandunderstandingsotherthanthe hegemonicdiscoursedoexist–theyexistedbeforecolonialcontactandtheyexisttoday.The coloniallegacycannotbeerasedorignored,butitdoesnotneedtoconsumeallotherways intoitshomogenizingdomain.Rootingbacktothecenterofthesnailshell,totheindigenous waysofknowingwhichinherentlyopposethehegemonicdiscourse,canopenupthe imaginationofalternativestocreatenewrealities.The caracol structureofgovernment mentionedaboveisoneoftheseimaginedalternativesandisanexampleofthealternative structuresofpowerthattheZapatistashaveadoptedtocounterthepowerstructuresofthe dominantdiscourse.Thesealternativestructuresofpowerwillbeexploredinwhatfollows.

Power

Inbuildinganalternateworld,theZapatistasrejectthedominantdiscourseinits expressionsofpower:thereinforcementofhegemonicknowledgeincludingmodernization, capitalism,andlinearprogress;thereproductionofcolonialsystemsofexploitationand externalcontrol;andthepaternalisticrepresentationsofindigenouspeoples.Zapatismo resiststhisbycontextualizingandhistoricizingtheirstruggleandchallengingthenatureof powerrelationsthroughproposingnewstructuresofpowerbasedonalternateformsof knowledge,rejectingstatelegitimacybypracticingautonomousformsofgovernancebased around mandar obedeciendo (leadingbyobeying),andreclaimingrepresentationtoexpand therealmofpossibleactions.

ThecontextualizationoftheirownsubjectionwiththemetanarrativeofEuropean historyandhegemonicdiscoursehasbeenvitaltothecreationofanewpraxistofind alternativestotheirstruggle,leadingthemtoquestionthebasisofthehegemony–itslimited knowledge,waysofgovernance,andrepresentation–thathadexploitedthemthroughouttheir history,andtocreateanewformofgovernancetoactivelyopposethis.Keytothecreation oftheiralternativesis mandar obedeciendo,themostcoreprincipleofZapatistapower.It means‘leadingbyobeying’toconveythatleadersservethepeopleinaformofradical governmentalrepresentation.Itisdesignedtostructurallyquestionthelegitimacyof authorityandpreventhierarchicaldominationthroughdemandinguseofcommunity consensusandisanintegralpartofallZapatistagovernancestructures.

TheZapatistas’rule-without-powerdeniesdominationonprincipleandpermitsthe creationofpluralisticautonomy.Theirrefusaltoparticipateinstateelections,despitea

strongpossibilityofwinningthem,isanexampleoftherejectionofthatformofpoweron principle(ibid.:205).TheZapatistasrejectsovereignty,definedasthesupremepowerofa state’sauthoritytoself-govern,infavorofautonomy.ReyesandKauffmantracethehistory ofsovereigntytoitsbasisonAristotle’snotionof‘naturalslavery’inwhichtherearesome whowereborntoruleandsomewhowereborntoberuled.Assuch,inthestructureof sovereigntytherealwaysexistsarulerandasubject,arelationshipthatisreinforcedby commandobedienceor mandato-obedecer.Thus,sovereignpowerisinherentlybasedin domination.Assuch,theZapatistasdonotseekinclusioninsovereigntyortoreplacethe existingsovereigntybutratherseekautonomytoabandonthedominance-imperative (mandato-obedecer) inrelationsofsovereigntyandpromote mandar obedeciendo (Reyes andKauffman2011).Theseactionsarerevolutionary,andyetnotbythecommon understandingofthewordthatmeanstooverthrowandreplacestatepower.Arevolutionthat doesnotseektotakepowerseemslikeaparadox,buttheZapatistasseethispositioningasan opportunitytocreateanalternative.

Whatwehavetorelateistheparadoxthatweare.Whyarevolutionaryarmyisnot aimingtoseizepower,whyanarmydoesn’tfightifthat’sitsjob.Alltheparadoxes wefaced[havebeen]thewaywe’vegrownandbecomestronginacommunitysofar removedfromtheestablishedculture.(Marcos2001quotedinBahn2009)

IntheZapatistas’refusaltotakepowerandintheirpracticeofautonomydespitelacking staterecognition,theybothdenystatelegitimacyandalsostrengthentheirownautonomous power.

PerhapsoneofthemostdirectformsofZapatistaautonomyisintheir self-governance,whichhasevolvedthroughouttheirlifespan.Theirself-governancedrew

inspirationfromtheassembly-basedgovernancepracticesthatexistedinindigenous communitiespriortotheuprisingin1994(Stahler-Sholk2010).ThesePluriethnic

AutonomousRegions(RAPs)werecreatedasaregionalgovernmentbasedoncommunity consensusbetweenthelevelofthemunicipalityandthestatethatintendedtocreateadegree ofautonomytoenableindigenousnegotiationwiththestate.Thisemphasisoncreating regionalgovernmentissignificantbecauseakeycolonialimpactwastostripawayregional governancetoremoveanythreattotheirdomination,soreclaimingthisspaceisanactof indigenousresurgenceandresistancetothecoloniallegacy(Rus,HernándezCastillo,and Mattiace2003).DrawingontheRAPsstructure,theZapatistascreatedZapatista

AutonomousRegions(RAZs),municipalauthoritiesthathavediverseapproachesto governanceandvaryingresponsibilities,somedrawingdirectlyfromRAP,andotherstaking onnewforms(ibid.)

Sincethe1994militantuprisingandcreationofRAZ,Zapatistaimpacthasbeen primarilyinnon-militaryorganizing.Theyhaveworkedtoconstructautonomousspacesthat arelocallyrootedbutstillconnectedtotransnationalnetworks.Thishasbeenvitalbecausein 1996,theZapatistaschosetorejectallgovernmentaid,recognizingtheconstraintsthat dependencymadeontheirautonomousproject.Assuch,negotiatingwithtransnational organizations,NGOs,andsupportfromcivilsocietyhasbecomeevenmorevitalinorderto meettheirmaterialdevelopmentneeds(Stahler-Sholk2010).Boththemovementto non-militarygovernanceandorganizingaswellastheneedtonegotiatewithrelationships withexternalactorsledtoarestructuringofgovernancein2003(ibid.;MartínezEspinoza 2006;Gledhill2014)

Juntas de Buen Gobierno and Caracoles

In2003,theZapatistasestablishedfiveregionalstructurescalledCaracolesthateach havearotatingCouncilofGoodGovernance(JuntasdeBuenGobierno,JBGs).The distinctionbetweentheCaracolandtheJuntaisthattheCaracolisaspace,acommunity politicalcenterwheremeetings,exchanges,andcivildecisionsareheld,whereastheJuntais therotatingcouncilthatisinchargeofprocessesofautonomy,governance,andmanaging therolesofthecommunity.Together,theirpurposeistobuildautonomy,development, democracy,andresistance(MartínezEspinoza2006)andtoactasaplaceofencounter betweentheZapatistasandexternalactors,andtospecifically workagainsttheruleofthe stategovernment,termedthe‘malgobierno’(‘badgovernment’).

TheJuntasreclaimcontroloverdevelopmentbyrenegotiatingtherelationshipswith NGOsandcivilsocietyasaresponsetounequalpowerdynamicsthathavemadeaidabout charityratherthansolidarity.AidtoZapatistacommunitieshassometimesbeenunhelpfulat best,likethedonationofa“pinkstilettoheel...withoutitsmate ,”andharmfulto 1 autonomyatworst.NGOsandinternationalaidagencieshavepracticeda“sophisticated charity...intheirdecidingwhatthecommunitiesneed,and,withoutevenconsultingthem, imposingnotjustspecificprojects,butalsothetimesandmeansoftheirimplementation” (EZLN2003).Aidinthisformisdisempoweringimpositionthatdeniesthedecision-making poweroftheautonomousgovernments.Assuch,theJuntasseektoreclaimpowertoself

1 SubcomandanteMarcoswrites: Fromwhatourpeoplereceivedinbenefitinthiswar,Isavedanexampleof "humanitarianaid"fortheChiapanecoindigenous,whicharrivedafewweeksago:apinkstilettoheel,imported,size61/2 withoutitsmate.Ialwayscarryitinmybackpackinordertoremindmyself,inthemidstofinterviews,photoreportsand attractivesexualpropositions,whatwearetothecountryafterthefirstofJanuary:aCinderella.Thesegoodpeoplewho, sincerely,sendusapinkstilettoheel,size61/2,imported,withoutitsmate,thinkingthat,poorasweare,we'llaccept anything,charityandalms....Thesupportwearedemandingisforthebuildingofasmallpartofthatworldwhereall worldsfit.Itis,then,politicalsupport,notcharity. (EZLN2003)

govern,makingitclearthattheyseek “politicalsupport,notcharity”(ibid.). Theynegotiate thetermsofNGOactivitiesandchargeatenpercenttaxondonatedresourcestospreadmore evenlytoless-favoredcommunitiestoattendtotheunequalattentionofaid.Theyalso negotiatevisitationandapprovalofresearchtomaintainauthorityovertheirrepresentation (Stahler-Sholk2010;MartínezEspinoza2006;Speed2008).TheJuntasmonitorcommunity works,laws,andprojectsandaddressconflictanddisputeresolutionwithintheirjurisdiction. Theyseektoensurepolitical,economic,andsocialdevelopmentaswellaspromote democracyasdefinedbytheZapatistaswhichincludes mandar-obedeciendo,collective consensusdecision-making,respecttodifference,totalcommunityparticipation,andthe denialofauthoritativepower(MartínezEspinoza2006).

BecausetheJuntasexercisetheauthoritytoapproveresearchanditspublicationsasa partoftheirnegotiationwithoutsiders,Speed(2008)hasnotedthereisalackof ethnographicdescriptionoftheJuntaspublishedduetothelongapprovalprocess.Detailed descriptionsoftheirprocessofgovernancecouldbeinformativetocounterinsurgents,so Speed,likemanyothers,describetheprocessgenerallywithoutethnographicdetail.This authorityoverresearchiswhatSimpson(2007),writingaboutanthropologicalresearchon MohawkNation,explainsas“ethnographicrefusal.”Inanindigenouscontext,“theanalysis ofdifference”hasalwayshadpoliticalsignificancebecauseitisboundupwithahistoryof colonialdominationoverrepresentation.Ethnographicrefusal,then,isareclamationof poweroverrepresentation,intimatelytiedtotheirpoliticalrightswhichhavesooftenrelied onculturaldifference.Likethis,theZapatistas’poweroverresearchontheircommunitiesis anaffirmationoftheirautonomousauthority.Thelackofdetailedethnographicresearch,

then,isinsightfulinitsabsence;itshowsthattheJuntasareexercisingthisauthorityover scholarlyrepresentation.Assuch,thedescriptionoftheJuntasinwhatfollowsismore focusedontheirgeneralrolesandstructuresthanspecificexamples.

EachJuntaismadeupofseventofifteenmemberswhorotateonaweeklyor bi-weeklybasiswithalternatemembersalwayspresentatmeetingstobeengagedand preparedforrotation.ThegovernancestyleistruetothenameoftheCaracol,whichmeans snail,becauseofits“frequentrotations[and]rearticulationofjusticeanddemocracytoa socialdialogueinspiralrotation,ratherthanalinearmonologueofpoliticalefficiency [which]isdesignedtoobviatepoliticalcorruptionwhilepromotingautonomyand self-governance”(Bahn2009).

TheJuntamembersallcomefromcouncilsofautonomoustownshipsthatarechosen bycommunities(Speed2008).ThekeyactorsoftheJuntasaretheindigenouscommunities asthecreatorsofZapatistainstitutionsandthefinaldecision-makersandbeneficiaries,the EZLNasthearmeddefenseofautonomousterritoriestoopposetheMexicanmilitaryor paramilitaryforces,andcivilsocietyastheprovisionerofmaterialdevelopmentforthe autonomousregionsandasassistanceinresistancetotheofficial‘bad’government (MartínezEspinoza2006).

TheoutcomesoftheJuntashavebeenuneven–itisacomplicateddecision-making processwithdiverseexpressionsandsoisconfusingtonavigateandinconsistent(Speed 2008).ThisisbecausetheZapatistashavetakenonaflexiblemodel,an“autonomyof autonomies”inthattheyhaveconvoked“civilsocietytodefinetheirowndemandsand modalitiesaccordingtotheirlocalvisions,ratherthanimposingaunifiedcentralmodeof

self-governance”(StahlerSholk2010:279).Additionally,thecyclingofdialoguefromthe leveloftheJuntastothemunicipalitiestothecommunitiesandbackaroundagain,truetothe spiralingofthe caracol, isaslowprocess(alsolikethe caracol),butitseekstoensurethe expressionoftrue,Zapatista-defineddemocracy.TheZapatistasrecognizethatitisdifficult andinefficient,butaffirmitsmissiontocreating“anewwayofdoingpolitics”(Bahn2009). Itschallengesandcomplexityinthenameoftruedemocracydrawthequestionofwhether efficientpoliticsshouldreallybethegoalatalliftheyignorethevoicesofthepeople.In sum,therestructuringtotheJuntashasallowedZapatistaautonomytomoveonwardby creatingframeworkforpracticeofrightsandautonomy(Speed2008;ReyesandKaufman 2011).

Thoughtheresultsareuneven,theactualpracticesoftheJuntashaveaffectedthe economic,political,andsocialrealmsofZapatistalife(MartínezEspinoza2006).

Economically,theyhaveimprovedbasicsubsistencethroughprovidingsupportforfood production,developmentofinfrastructure,andthecommercializationofproductswith effectiveandtransparentmanagement.

Socially,theJuntashaveincreasedtensionsbetweenZapatistasandanti-Zapatistas, buttheyhaveimprovedsocialrelationswithinZapatistacommunitieswithoutrelyingonthe EZLN.Theyhaveinstilledaneffectivejusticesystem(whichwillbeexploredabitlater)and haveimprovedculturalexpressionthroughautonomousradioandsupportforartistic endeavorssuchasvideos,publications,andmurals(MartínezEspinoza2006).One shortcomingisthattheJuntashavenoteradicatedwomen’srightsviolations.Thoughthe ZapatistaRevolutionaryWomen’sLawhasaprogressivetakeonwomen’srightsbothin

relationtothestateandtotheirfamiliesandcommunities,theimplementationoftheserights bywomenhasbeenmetwithchallengesandviolencefromboththestatemilitaryand paramilitaryforcesaswellasintimatepartners.WhiletheZapatistascoulddomoreto enforcetheimplementationoftheserights,manyZapatistawomendorecognizethatchange isaprocessandthatthroughimprovingawarenessandeducationovertime,theexpressionof women’srightswillbeimplemented(HernándezCastillo1997).

Politically,therehasbeenimprovedparticipationofthecommunitiesinpublic mattersandinstitutionalcommunicationthroughthemoreaccessiblestructureoftheCaracol. Thestructurehasconsolidatedavenuesforcommunicationwithexternalorganizationsand hasreorganizedstrategiesforconflictresolution,forestconservation,drugtrafficking,and abuseofcommercialization.Thoughtherehavebeenimprovedlinkagesbetweenciviland militaryauthorities,thereisstillaheavypresenceoftheEZLNandalackofsurveillanceand controlofthemfromtheJuntas.Thepoliticalturnover,inthissense,hasbeenagradual process(MartínezEspinoza2006).

Autonomous Justice

TheJuntasalsomanagetheautonomoussystemsofvigilance,health,education, commerce,production,andjusticewhicharepracticesofautonomythatdonotwaitonstate recognition(MartínezEspinoza2006).ThesesystemsandthepracticesoftheJuntasasa wholecreatenewsocialrelationsandestablishpoliticallegitimacybytakingonrolesthat havetypicallybeenprovidedbythestateandprovidingforthepeopleintheirjurisdiction (StahlerSholk2010).Infact,Zapatistasystemshavebeensoeffectivethattheirjurisdiction hasextendedbeyondZapatistas.

Specifically,theZapatistasautonomousjusticesystemhasbeensuccessfulinboth improvingjusticewithinZapatistacommunitiesandalsoinexpandingZapatistajurisdiction beyondtheirowncommunities,whichservestopromotetheirprojectforautonomy.The justicesystemismorecloselyalignedwithindigenousformsofjusticethatinclude mediation,damagerepair,andreinsertingtheguiltybackintosociety.Ithasarisenasa responsetoalackofindigenousaccesstojustice.Thismodelhasreducedthecrimeindexin Zapatistacommunities(BurgueteCalyMayor2003;MartínezEspinoza2006).Duetotheir alternativemodel,theautonomousjusticesystemhasalsoappealedtonon-Zapatistasfor conflictresolution,whichStahler-Sholk(2010)describeshere:

MostofthedisputesbroughttotheZapatistas’authoritiesforresolutionwereactually broughtbynon-Zapatistas.TheirpreferencefortheZapatistaauthoritiesoverstate institutionsmaystemfromavarietyoffactors–theperceptionthatZapatista authoritiesweremorebalanced,didnotchargemoneyforjustice,offeredthechance toconductproceedingsinindigenouslanguages,andgenerallyremediedoffenses withrestitutionratherthanretribution–butwhateverthereasonsforthepreference,it reflectedthegrowinglegitimacyandthereforeempowermentoftheZapatistaproject. (276)

ThiscoincideswithJeanDennison’swork(2014)onthe‘logicofrecognition’inOsage Nationinwhichsheclaimsthatexpandingjurisdictiontonon-nativesiswayfornative nationstoassertindependentself-governance.Similarly,openingtheautonomousjustice systemtonon-Zapatistascanservetopromotetheirprojectforautonomybyelevatingtheir legitimacyoverthestate.Theirautonomyhasalwaysbeenconnectedwitharesistancetoand rejectionofstatepoweranditsnetworksofhegemony,andsoestablishingcounter-powerin theformofautonomoussystems–justiceandotherwise–activelyworkstowardstheirgoalsby denyingstatelegitimacyandtransformingsocialrelationsbasedontheirvisionforsociety.

However,thisexpandedjurisdictionisalsoapointofconflict:Zapatistashave sometimesarrestednon-Zapatistasforbreakingtheirlawsevenwhentheculpritsdonot recognizetheZapatistas’jurisdiction,andthishasledtomilitaryoppressionfromthestate (BurgueteCalyMayor2003:209).EarleandSimonellidescribeoneexampleofthisconflict overjurisdictioninwhichtheautonomousZapatistacommunityTierrayLibertad apprehendedtwononZapatistasaccordingtotheirautonomouslaw.TheMexican governmentsawthisasathreattotheirlegitimacyanduseditasabasisfortheinvasionand attackofTierrayLibertad.OnMay1,1998(anationalholiday),thegovernmentsent1,500 peopletodestroyhomes,schools,healthclinics, milpas, andbeehives.Theconflictoverlegal jurisdictionwasthebasisforadisproportionatelyviolentattackonallthesystemsthat formedabasisforZapatistaautonomy,nodoubtduetothegeneralthreattostatelegitimacy thattheirautonomyposes.Onalessovertnote,thestatehasalsoattemptedtodenyZapatista autonomythrougharemunicipalizationprojecttoabsorbZapatistacommunitiesintothestate governance(EarleandSimonelli2005).

Relation to the State

ThelegalbasisforZapatistaautonomyinrelationtothestate’sstanceonindigenous rightshaschangedovertime,buthasalwaysexistedwithinarestricteddefinitionofrights andautonomythatworkedwithintheinterestofthestate.TheRevolutionaryagrarianreform providedthebasisfor ejidos toassimilateindigenouspeoplesintomestizopeasantstosuit thestate’snationalidentity(Gledhill2014).However,inthe1990sunderSalinas’s presidency,the ejido structurewasdismantled,removinglegalprotectionforcollectiveland andreducinggovernmentsupportforsubsistenceproductioninordertocoincidewiththe

state’sneoliberalproject(SiederandBarreraVivero2017).Anotheraspectoftheneoliberal projectwasanemphasisonneoliberalmulticulturalism,whichallowsthepracticeof indigenousrightsonlyinsofarastheydonotinterferewiththemarket(Gledhill2014;Hale 2007).Thispreventstrueself-determinedexerciseofindigenousrightsbylimitingthe exerciseofrightswithinthestate’sframeworkandmaintainingaculturalbasisforrights ratherthanapoliticalone.

Themulticulturallegalrecognitionofindigenousrightshaslargelybeenignoredby theMexicanSupremeCourt,wherethereisnojurisprudenceforupholdingindigenous peoples’claimtocollectiverights(SiederandBarreraVivero2017).Followingtheuprising in1994,TheZapatistascounseledwithcivilsocietytoestablishaprecedentfordefending indigenousrightswhichtheycodifiedintheSanAndrésAccords.TheSanAndrésAccords soughttobreakfromthestatelimitationonrightsbyrecognizingindigenous self-determinationandrightstocommunalautonomy,seekingapoliticalbasisfortheir rights.AftermonthsofnegotiatingwiththeMexicangovernment,thepresidentruledthe autonomyintheAccordstobeunconstitutional(Rus,HernándezCastillo,andMattiace 2003).Thestatehasrefusedindigenousself-determinationandinsteadrestrictedtheir relationshiptoindigenouspeoplesasoneofpaternalismandcooptationaswellas militarizationandrepression,stillwithaperspectiveofindigenouspeoplesasculturally, ratherthanpolitically,different(SiederandBarreraVivero2017).

Thisculturalbasisforrightsishighlyproblematic.LatinAmericahastypically focusedonaculturalbasisforindigenousrightsandautonomywhichrestrictslegalrightsto animposedcolonialdefinitionofauthenticitywhichisabaselessbinarycreatedby

modernity.Thelegalizationof‘indianness’thusrestrictsthechangeofculturalperspectives andpracticesbecauselegalrightsdependontheirpreservedauthenticity(SiederandBarrera Vivero2017),whichisespeciallyharmfulinrespecttounjustindigenouscustoms.

Indigenouswomeninparticularhavebeenvocalaboutchallengingthetraditional-modern binaryandthebasisofrightsonculturebecausetheyrecognizethattherearetraditional customsthatexcludethemfrompolitical,social,oreconomicrightssuchastheinabilityto inheritlandorparticipateingovernment.Theyhaveasserted“theirrightstomaintaincultural differenceswhile,atthesametime,demandingtherighttochangethosetraditionsthat oppressorexcludethem”(HernándezCastillo1997).Thisupsetsthetraditional-modern binarythathavesolongformedthebasisofindigenousmovementsby,liketheSanAndrés Accords,assertingself-determinationofidentityoutsideofalimited,state-imposed representationofculture.

TheZapatistas’structuresofpowerenactanalternativediscoursebybasing governanceonindigenouspracticesandknowledge,rejectingpowerbothinthedominant stateinstitutionsandonprincipleintheirownstructures,andinreclaimingtheiridentities fromtheviolentrepresentationsofthedominantdiscourse.Bycriticallyanalyzingtheir histories,theZapatistashaveidentifiedcritiquesofthecorruptionofauthority,hierarchical governance,oppressivecontrol,andthepotentialforasingle-partymonopolythatthe caracol structureisdesignedtopreventthroughitsradicalgovernancestyleofcycling representatives,dialogueandconsensus,capacitation,and mandar obedeciendo.

Inthisnewformofgovernance,theZapatistasproposetoleadnotthroughclaiming powerbutthroughtruerepresentationandcapacitation,recognizingindividualrightsto

autonomy(Rus,HernándezCastillo,andMattiace2003,186).Bybuildingautonomyon regionalandcommunitylevels,theyworktounitemunicipalitiestoreplaceofficial governmentstructuresandtherebymakestatepoliticsirrelevantwithintheirterritories(Rus, HernándezCastillo,andMattiace2003:188;Bahn2009:550;Stahler-Sholk2010:274).This denialofstategovernmentservesasresistancetothehegemonicdiscoursebyrefusingthe basisofpowerthatconstantlyreproducesthediscourse,isreinforcedbyit,andpromotesthe homogenizationofsubjectsduetotheuniformapproachtogovernancewhichshapespeople tofitwithinitsorganizing,legibility-creatingstructures(Scott1998).Theyenableautonomy byprovidingcapacitationserviceslikeworkshopsandtrainingstothecommunitiesrather thanimposingcontrolandjustgivingoutresourcesthatcreatedependence.Encouraging communitycapacitationovertop-downcontrolcreatesmorepluralisticautonomous communitiesbecauseeachbecomestheshapedbythepeoplewholiveinit.

Subjectivity

Theformationofalternativesubjectivitiesisshapedbytheknowledgeandpower preferencesofadiscourseandisvitaltoundoingvaluesandperspectivesfromthedominant discourse.Subjectivitiesaresocialconstructionsandsoarealmostinevitablyshapedtothe hegemonicdevelopmentdiscourse(Stahler-Sholk2010,277).Inordertounleashutopian potential,peoplemustbefreetodefinetheiridealrealitieswithoutimposedlimitationsand assumptionsabouttheircapabilitytodoso.SoinorderfortheZapatistasutopianmovement tofunction,theyrequireanalternativediscoursethatinformssubjectivitiesthatenable utopianimaginaries.Here,IwillexploretheZapatistas’redefinitionofscarcitythrough self-sufficiencyandredefinitionofexpertisethroughself-capacitationaswellastheir

promotionofpluralityandreclamationoverrepresentationtoexaminetheirutopianpotential forreshapingsubjectivitiesbeforeexploringhowthesehaveplayedoutinpractice.

Thedevelopmentdiscourseisbasedoncertaineconomiclogicsthataresteepedina subjectivityofhelplessnessandscarcitythatcreateseconomicvalueonlybydevaluingall non-commodities.Theeconomic‘lawofscarcity’doesnotdenoteanactualphysical scarcity,butratheracrucialsubjectivityofsuchthatenableseconomicgrowthtocontinue. However,sincethissameeconomicsysteminherentlycreatesimpoverishmentby commodifyingbasicneedswhilemarginalizingmassestomaintainaclassofwagelaborers atthebrinkofsurvival,thescarcitycanbecomeveryreal.Likethis,peopleinChiapasfaced realscarcityfromtheneoliberalstate-inducedagriculturaldeclineinthe60sand70swhich leadmanyChiapanecostoseeklandandformcommunitiesintheLacandonjungletomeet theirbasicneeds(EarleandSimonelli2005).

Estevahighlightsthat“forpeopleonthemargins,disengagingfromtheeconomic logicofthemarket...hasbecometheveryconditionforsurvival”(2010:17).Thisis preciselythepaththattheZapatistashavetaken.Theirfocusonself-sufficiency,especiallyin regardsto milpa cultivationandcreationofautonomousschoolsandhealthcenters,has developedalternativestomeetsurvivalneedsoutsideofthemarket’seconomiclogic.

Thoughtherearechallengestotheautonomousproductionofallbasicneedsandprovisionof services,movingtowardsself-sufficiencyandself-capacitationtakesstepstowardscreatinga subjectivitythatopposesscarcity,wherewantsandmeansbecomeindistinguishable.A citizenofaZapatistaresistancecommunityinChiapashighlightsthismentality:

Whatdoweneedtolive?Weneedfood:wecangrowit.Weneedclothes:our grandmascanmakethem.Weneededucation:wealreadyhaveourownautonomous

schools,teachingourvaluesandhistory.Weneedhouses:well,wecanlookforother meanstobuildthem,likeadobe.(quotedinEarleandSimonelli2005:190)

Thefreedomtodefineneedsandvaluesinthiswayandtotakeactiontopursuethemis essentiallyamovementtowardsutopia.Thisperspectivedirectlyopposesthehegemonic discoursebyrefusingthesubjectivityofscarcitythattheeconomiclogiccreates.The Zapatistashelpenablethissubjectivityofself-sufficiencybysupportingcommunity measurestowardspursuingthesealternatives,bothmateriallyanddiscursivelysuchasin theirsupportforcommunitycooperativesasexploredearlierortheautonomoushealthand educationsystemsthatwillbeexploredlateron.

Sincethegoaloftheautonomousprojectistoopposethedominantsystem,this self-sufficiencyisfurtherimportantaspreparationforthesystem’sdemise.Fromtheir interactionswithZapatistacommunities,EarleandSimonellielucidatethat“Zapatismo strivesforthis:iftheglobalsystemwentdown,asthechildrenassure...theywouldnotbe greatlyinconveniencedexceptforthelossofmachetesandmaybethoseplasticjugsfor haulingwater.Itwouldnotbelifethreatening”(2005:290).Acrucialaspectofcreating self-sufficiencytoresistthesubjectivityofscarcityisthroughself-capacitationwhichresists professionalizationandexpertizationofthedevelopmentdiscourse.

Professionalization,inaccordancewiththeeconomiclogicofscarcity,leadstoa learnedhelplessnessthatpreventsactiontowardssocialmobilizationandleavescommunities withproblemsunaddressed.TheZapatistasresistthesubjectivityofhelplessnessfrom professionalizationthroughtheirpracticesinself-capacitation.Theyactivelysupportthe capacitationoftheircommunitiessothateveryonecanbecomeskilledtosupporttheir community’sneedswithoutrelianceonoutsiders.Forexample,inthecommunityofCerro

Verde,integrationwiththeZapatistasledtoanincreasedaccesstoworkshopstoenhance self-sufficiencypractices,healthandhygienelearningandinstructortraining,andthe designingofaprimaryschoolcurriculumtoservetheinterestsoftheresistanceand emphasizeknowledgethatthecommunityfoundtobemostlocallyapplicable.Asawhole, thecommunitybecamemorecapacitatedtohelpthemselvesinmeetingtheirneeds(Earle andSimonelli2005).Thisdiscourseofcapacitationisabasistothepursuitofutopiabecause itopensthepossibilitytocreatingthebestlifeofthecommunitythroughtheactionofthe verysamecommunitymembers.Itempowerspeopletotakemattersintotheirownhands.

Zapatismoasanalternativediscoursedoesnotneatlyfitintoexistingindigenousor moderndiscourses.Althoughsomeofthevaluesdefinedinthediscoursedodrawfromlocal indigenousvaluesandculturaltraditions,itisnotfittingtocallitanindigenousdiscourse.

TheZapatistasdonotrestricttheirunderstandingofutopiatoasortofidyllicrural preservationofindigenousculture.Thatsortofanachronizationthatlimitsindigenous identitytoapre-contact,traditionalrolehasbeentheresultofaraciallyviolentstateproject toassimilateindigenouspeopleandmarginalizethosethatresistthestate(Hale2007).In theirsupportforcollectiveandindividualrightsandquestioningofstate-imposeddefinitions, theydoalignwithexistingLatinAmericanindigenousmovements(Harvey2016),butwithin theprocessofdefiningvalueswithinthediscourse,theZapatistascriticallyanalyze problematicindigenoustraditionslikegenderrolesandhierarchicalpower(TorresRojas 2012:153;Shenker2012;HernándezCastillo1997).Additionally,theZapatistadiscourseis notamodernizationdiscourse.WhiletheZapatistasdoutilizemoderntechnologylikethe

internetforpromotingtheircauseonaglobalscale,theyarenotboundtotheimperativeof technologicalprogressandrecognizevalueintraditionalpracticesandwaysofknowing.

Post-colonialthinkersoftendefinethisthirdwaythatisneithermodernnortraditional asahybrid.Hybriditycreatesanalternativediscoursethroughtheself-directedadoptionof certainaspectsofmodernitythatcreatesamorenaturalprocessofadaptation.Itbothrequires freedom(becausepeopleneedtobeabletoself-determinewhichaspectsofmodernityto adopt),andcreatesfreedom(becausethehybridspaceupsetsthebinarybetweenmodernand traditional)(Cesaire1956).However,hybridityassumestwoseparate,static,andpurewholes thatarecombinedtocreateathirdspacethat,whiledifferent,isconsideredequallyboth staticwholesinaccordancewiththebiologicalunderstandingofhybridity.

Rifkin(2017)andWest(2006)analyzethisthirdwayasamultiplicityinstead. Multiplicityrecognizesmanydistinctwaysthatarenotalwayscommensurable.Indeed,it recognizesthat,intheinteractionofdiscourses,therecanbeevolutionfrommutualinfluence withoutinherentlychangingorabandoningtheoriginalnorbeingcompletelyincorporated intoonedominantway.Iwouldargue,followingtheideasfromRifkin(2017)andWest (2006),thatZapatismoisamultiplicity.Itdrawsheavilyfromthelocalcontextandhistoryof indigenoustraditionsandMexicanindigenousresistancecenteredaroundpoliticalcollective rightsandalsoworkswithinthepresent-daycontextthatincludesmoderntechnologiesand findingcreativewaystoengagewiththeeconomy.Themodernityofthemovementdoesnot makeitanylessaboutindigenousrights,nordoestheemphasisonindigenouswaysof knowingmakeitanylessmodern.Instead,itemphasizestheabilityofanalternative

discoursetocreateself-definedutopiaforsocialtransformationbecauseitprovidesfreedom fromthehegemonicdiscourse.

Inthismultiplicityandintheautonomouspeople-centereddesignoftheir governance,theZapatistasstepoutsideoftheconstraininglimitationsofthedominant discoursetocreatespaceforplurality.ThisappreciationforpluralityisdefinedintheFourth DeclarationoftheZapatistas:“intheworldwewant,manyworldsfit”(Bahn2009).Plurality recognizesdiversityinpeopleandexpandsthesupportbaseofthemovementbyrefusing rigiddefinitionsthatcanbeexclusionary.Itisevidentinthestructuresofgovernmentwithin thecommunities,where,inaccordancetothediversepeoplethatcreatethem,havediverse stylesofgovernance,names,degreesofautonomy,andinfluenceoverthecommunities(Rus, HernándezCastillo,andMattiace2003).Consideringsubjectivityasanindividual’ssenseof identityandrelatingtotheworld,emphasizingdiversityandpluralityinthiswayis empoweringbecauseitopensspaceforself-definedidentities,notforcingthemtobeshaped toahegemonicdiscourse.Pluralityalsohastheaddedbenefitofdrawingglobalsupportby allowingtheworld’ssubalternstoidentifywiththemovement(Melenotte2015).This,in part,comesfromtherefusaltoidentifyassolelyanindigenousmovement.Thoughthe ZapatistashaveanobviousbasisinthestrugglesofindigenouspeoplesinChiapas,theysee thattheiroppositiontotheexploitationofneoliberalismisastrugglethatissharedwidely. Theyalsochallengethewaythatindigenouspeopleshavebeenrepresentedinthe developmentdiscoursethroughreclaimingthatrepresentation.

TheZapatistasreclaimpoweroverindigenousrepresentationandrecognitiontoresist thedichotomizingpracticesof indigenismo thathavebeenenforcedbythestategovernment

andfurtherimposedthroughitspoliciesofneoliberalmulticulturalism.Essentially, indigenismo createdtwopartstotheindigenousperson–thevindictive,radical,violent, backwards,rural‘other,’aswellastheseparate,modernized‘indiopermitido’,whois allowedtoexistintheeyeofthestateonlybecausetheyadoptthedominantdiscourseand workwiththegovernment’sneoliberalprojecttoreinforceandendorsethedivide(Hale 2007).Thegovernmentbothcreatesandrewardsthe‘indiopermitido’andcondemnsthe ‘other’toracializedpovertyandsocialexclusion(ibid.).Thisdivideforcesaspecific definitionuponindigenouspeoplesthatalsoechoesthedichotomycreatedby anachronization;indigenouspeopleareeitherrural,poor,disempowered,andracialized,or completelymodern,urban,andnotreallyauthenticallyindigenousanymoreandtherefore unabletoclaimrightstoland.Inthisway,itrevokesindigenouspoweroveridentity.Above all,itisanexpressionofdominationandoppressionfromthesystemsofpowerbecauseit providesalimitedstandardthatmustbemetandextortsassimilationintoa‘superior’mass.

Inoppositionto indigenismo is indianismo,whichaimsfortheliberationof indigenoussocietythroughrecognizingindigenouspeoplesaspoliticalentitiesandopposing theneoliberalintegration(LeyvaSolano2005). Indianismo holdsthatindigenouscivilization canfunctionasanalternativetotheWesternprojectwhilenotbeinglimitedbycultural notionsof‘authenticity’thatpreventpoliticalconsideration,andtheZapatistasbuiltoff existingnetworksof indianista organizationstoformpoliticalalliancesunitedunderthe commondemandforconstitutionalrecognitionofindigenousrights(ibid.).Insodoing,they haveresistedtheneoliberaldiscourseguidingthestateassimilationproject.

Halesuggeststhatresistancetoneoliberalmulticulturalismrequiresaprocessof rearticulationtoredefinethetermsofindigenousstruggleandchallengethedichotomyto createanewbasisforindigenousrightsthatarenotlimitedtoareturntoruralculture.

However,whileHalecontendsthattheradicalrefusaloftheEZLNcanbecomean “othering”processthatreinforcesthedichotomyandinsteadcallsforarenegotiationofthe termsbetweenthestateandindigenouspeoplesofMexico,IwouldarguethatZapatismois essentiallyaprocessofrearticulationthatimaginesanewtypeofrelationshipandtermswith thestate–onethatrejectsstatelegitimacyafterahistoryoffailednegotiationsandbuilds autonomywithoutseekingstaterecognition.

Zapatismo’sengagementwithmultiplicityandutopianidealscreatesastrongallure thatmakesitmoresuitedtoenablewidesocialtransformation.Bycreatingaplacefor non-dominantwaysofknowingandbeing,itbecomesinclusivetothe‘common-sense’or popularbeliefsthatareexcludedfromthedominantdiscourse.Thisinclusivitythrough multiplicityhelpstobuildthestrengthofZapatismoasanalternativediscourse(Leyva Solano2005;Harvey2016).AsGramsciargues,anewcommonsensemustbeestablishedto createsocialtransformation(1988).Accordingly,theZapatistauprising,bybuildinga discoursethatrevaluesindigenousworldviews,knowledge,andsubjectivitiesmoreequally, hasbroughtaboutmassivesocialtransformationandcontinuestoinfluencenon-hegemonic socialmovementstoday.Sincedevelopmentasadiscourseinformsaction,solidifies structuresofpower,andmaintainshegemony,resistancetothathegemonymustoriginateat thediscursivelevelaswell.Fortruesocialtransformationandtheinternalizationofthe alternativediscourse,itmustbeputintopractice.

DiscourseinPractice:enablingautonomyandalteringsubjectivities

AsSubcomandanteMarcoshassaid“thereisatimetoaskpowertochange,thereisa timetodemandchangefrompower,andthereisatimeto exercise power”(Reyesand Kaufman2011:514).TheZapatistashaveexercisedpowerbycreatingautonomous communitieswithautonomoussocialservicestobothdenystatelegitimacyandpower;in this,theypracticetheiralternativediscoursetocreatesocialtransformation.Thisapproachis “aformof‘prefigurativepolitics’thatinvolvesactingonthenewpatternsofrelationsthat aretheultimategoal”basedontherecognitionthat“puttinganewideologyintopracticeis thekeytocreatingfundamentaltransformationandtheinternalizationoftheideology” (Stahler-Sholk2010:275).Tobothservethebasicneedsoftheircommunitiesandtopractice theirnon-hegemonicdiscourse,theZapatistashaveestablishedautonomouseducationand healthservices.Byexaminingtheseautonomoussocialservices,Iwillexplorehowthe discourseoftheZapatistasactuallyworkstoalterthelivedrealitiesofthoseinZapatista communities.

AutonomousEducationSystem

EducationandliteracyratesinChiapasareabysmal.Censusstatisticsshowthatin 2006,nearlyhalfofChiapas’populationover15yearsoldhadnotcompletedprimary educationandafifthhadneverreceivedanyinstructionatall(TorresRojas2012).Thelack offormaleducationisevenworseforindigenouspopulations.In2005,43%ofindigenous adultsinChiapaswereilliterate,withChiapasholdingthehighestrateofilliteracyinMexico (Shenker2011;TorresRojas2012).Iwillnote,though,thatsinceliteracyisbynomeansthe solesignifierofeducation,whichcantakemanyformsincludingoraltraditionandpractical

knowledge,thesestatisticspointtoalackofformalstateschooling.Recentstudiesfromthe NationalCouncilfortheEvaluationofSocialDevelopmentPolicyinMexicoshowthatthere aresignificantcorrelationsbetweenpoverty,rurality,indigeneity,andeducational disadvantage(KhooandWalsh2016:15).

ThecauseofsucheducationalneglectisduetotheverydiscoursethattheZapatistas oppose.ThegovernmentdoesnotinvestineducationinChiapassimplybecausethereisno ‘returnoninvestment.’Sincerural,indigenouspoorareunlikelytocontributetothenational economy,Chiapasreceivestheleastandtheworstresources(TorresRojas2012:138,139).

Evenwheneducationisreceived,though,itisatoolofdevelopmenttopromotethe dominantdiscourse.Itservestoworkwithinthestructureofneoliberalismandits assumptions,reproducesinequality,andactsasinstitutionalizedsurveillance(Khooand Walsh2016:11).Furthermore,conventionalstateeducationactsasviolencetowards indigenouspeoplesbothdirectlyandthroughunderminingtheirlanguageandtraditional waysofknowing.Teachershavebeenknowntophysicallyandverballyattackindigenous childrenandcallthemracialpejoratives(TorresRojas2012).Ingovernmentschools, studentsareforcedtolearnSpanishtoeradicateindigenouslanguagestoassimilatetheminto thenationalidentity(ibid.:137).Additionally,theschoolsaredirectlyopposedtotraditional formsofknowingandwaysoflearning:indigenouslearningistypicallyactivethrough engagingwiththecommunitywhereasingovernmentschools,studentslearnpassivelyina classroom.Thecurriculumoftenreinforcesnegativestereotypesofindigenouspeoplesand devaluesindigenousknowledgeandrurallivelihoods,leadingstudentstobelievethatthe onlywaytomakealivingistofindwagedworkoutsideofthecommunity(KhooandWalsh

2016).Thus,tocombatilliteracy,violence,andthehomogenizationofthedominant discourse,theZapatistascreatedanalternativeeducationbasedonZapatismo.

TheZapatistasputtheirdiscourseintoactionthroughbasingtheireducationona criticalpedagogyasresistanceagainstoppression,drawingfromthepedagogiesofboth FreireandCheGuevarawhichalignwiththeirdiscourse.Freirearguesthatthesocial, political,andeconomicdominationofthepoorpreventscriticalawarenessoftheworldfrom whichtheycanonlybeliberatedbyaprocessofconscientizationthatsituatestheir oppressioninitscontextandisledbyaliberatoryeducator(Shenker2012:434).However, Esteva,Stuchul,andPrakash(2005)arguethatFreireanpedagogyactuallyservesthevery discoursethatitclaimstooppose.Thepedagogyisstillbasedoncolonizingassumptions aboutwhatmakesahumanbeingbyfocusing(liketheverysamedevelopmentdiscoursethat hecritiques)onrationalism,amodernsenseofindividuality,andtheabstractthinkingof Westernconsciousness.Itfurtherservestheneoliberaldiscourseinthecreationofadouble bindinwhichtheproblemofadomesticatingeducationrequiresconscientization,butthat liberationmustcomefromaliberatingeducator.Inthisway,itdoesnotcapacitatepeopleto freethemselvesoftheirownaccord,butratherswitchestheirdependencetoadifferent externalfigure(ibid.:3).ThisisclearlycountertotheZapatistas’movementtowards autonomyandself-capacitation.Additionally,withinFreireanpedagogy,rebellionnever transcendssubjectivity;peoplearealwaysjustsubjectswhoresistthesystemwithout adoptingnewwaysofthinkingandactingthatgobeyondthedominantsystem(Esteva, Stuchul,andPrakash2005:25).Again,thisisquitedifferentfromtheZapatistamovement thatfocusesoncreativeresistancebybuildinganalternatesystem.However,thoughFreire

createdapedagogystillbasedinWesternassumptions,thatisnottosaythattherearenot valuablelessonsthatcanbetakenawayforcreatingaliberatoryeducation.TheFreirean emphasisonparticipation,dialogue,andnon-authoritarianismthatenablesstudentstoshape theireducationisespeciallyrelevantintheZapatistas’autonomousschoolsystem. ThepedagogyofCheGuevarabuildsonsomeofthesesamelessons.Accordingto CheGuevara’spedagogy,educationmustworktochangethesubjectivitiesofstudentsto developthevaluesnecessaryforcreatinganewsociety.Itemphasizesaparticipatoryand horizontalmodelinwhichallmembersofsocietylearntogether,throughaction,andfree fromhierarchy(Shenker2011:434).Thisemphasisonworkinginteractivelyinshaping educationencompassesthedistinctionbetweenlearningandeducationthatEsteva,Stuchul andPrakashuseasacritiqueofFreire.Theycompare‘education’asa“passivedependence onthesystemthatprovideseducation”to‘learning’asthe“autonomouscapacityforbuilding creativerelationshipswithothersandwithnature,relationshipsthatgenerateknowingand wisdom,”(2005:28).Basedonthisdistinction,theZapatistaautonomouseducationsystem ismorefocusedon‘learning’thanitison‘education.’Theydrawkeylessonsfromboth FreireandCheGuevaraincludingactiveparticipation,horizontality,dialogue,and communityconnectionstocreateasystemofeducationinformedbynewstructuresofpower thatworkstobothaddresstheneglectandviolenceofstateeducationandtoinstillZapatista subjectivitiesbyprovidingcapacitationtostrengthentheircommunitiestobuildfurther autonomy.Next,Iwillexplorehow.

Drawingfromtheirdiscourseandalternativepedagogies,theautonomouseducation systemoftheZapatistasworkstorescueancestralknowledgeandhistoricalmemoryandto

fuelpoliticaltransformationtocontinueinthefightforautonomy(TorresRojas2012).The recognitionofformsofknowingoutsideofthedominantscientific,economicrationalityis vitaltothepracticeofthealternativediscourse.Justasstateeducationreproducesthe dominantdiscourseofindividualizingandhomogenizingneoliberalismtocreatesubjectsthat engageintheglobalcapitalistmarket,theautonomouseducationseekstoreproduce solidarity,collectivity,politicalethic,andindigenousculturetocreateactive,empowered subjectstostrengthenautonomouscommunities.Shenker(2012)analyzesthesuccessofthe objectivesofanautonomousschoolinMoreliawhichincludegoalstoprotectindigenous culture,values,andlanguage,supportindigenousrights,promotegenderequality,develop educationfortheruralcontext,andstrengthencommunityindependencefromexternal organizations.

Toachievethis,theZapatistasuseaparticipatory,multilingualcurriculumthatis designedbyeachautonomouscommunityandtaughtbyeducationpromotersthrough enseñar aprendiendo,whichmeanslearningwhileteaching.Thisechoes mandar obedeciendo,drawingacomparisonbetweentheirnon-hierarchicalapproachtoboth educationandgovernance,andalsoshowshowGuevara’sparticipatory,non-hierarchical pedagogyhasbeenimplemented.TheeducationpromotersareabletopromotetheZapatista discoursebecausetheyarechosenoutoftheirowncommunitiesandthusareintegrally connectedtothecommunityknowledge.Theyarecapacitatedtobeeducatorsbyteachers, doctors,anduniversitystudentsthatarebroughtinbytheZapatistabasebeforereturningto theircommunitiestoteach.Becausetheyarepartofthecommunity,thepromotersteachin theirlocallanguageandareintegratedintotheirlocalculture,avoidingtheracial

discriminationandlanguageviolenceofthegovernmentschools(TorresRojas2012; Shenker2012).Sincethecurriculumoftheautonomousschoolsisdesignedbythe communities,itsschedulingandmaterialreflectseachcommunity’sneedstoenablethe promotionoftheircultureandvalues.IntheMoreliaschool,thetimetableandcalendar scheduleoftheschoolsarestructuredaroundagriculturalcommitmentsbynotholdingclass duringcrucialplantingandharvestingseasonsandbyteachingagriculturalmethodsasapart ofthecurriculum.Thisincludescommunalworkontheschool’ssugarcaneplantationwhich teachesstudentshowtoworkcooperatively,akeyskilltopreparethemforlivingand workinginthecommunities(Shenker2012).

Studentsalsoworktobothrescueculturalknowledgeandactasagentsintheirown educationbyinterviewingeldersontheirhistories,stories,andculture.Theyemphasizethe importanceofindigenouscosmologyandidentitybutthroughacriticallens,recognizingthe needtoadaptproblematictraditionssuchastheoppressionofwomen(TorresRojas2012).

Thesupportofindigenousvaluesandcultureinthiswayservestoresistneoliberal homogenizationthatgloballycreatesacultureandsetofvaluesaroundcapitalism.In followingFreireanideasofconscientization,thecurriculumalsoteachesanindigenous perspectiveonhistory,studyingthepre-conquestMayansocieties,indigenousresistanceto colonialism,andtheMexicanRevolutiontoplaceZapatistaresistancewithinthebroader context.

Evenfromayoungage,studentsaretaughtpoliticalconceptssuchasneoliberalism, commandauthority,classdivision,communaldecisionmaking,and mandar-obedeciendo to createapoliticallyliterateandawarepopulation(Shenker2011).TosustaintheZapatista

uprisingintothefuture,theyrequirethemobilizationoftheyouth.Inthissense,educationis multifunctional:itprovidesaresponsetothelackorpoorqualityofstateeducation,it supportstheexpressionofautonomybycreatingsocialservicestopreventdependenceonthe state,anditalsointendstoinspireyouthengagementintheZapatistas’politicalproject.Part oftheworkinachievingthisistocreatesubjectivitychangesthroughpracticingthe discourse.Byactivelyparticipatinginnon-hierarchicaleducation,workingcommunally,and studyingtheirownculture,history,andvalues,theyoungZapatistasliveoutthediscourse andthusareshapedbyZapatismoratherthanthedominantdiscoursethatthestateeducation promotes.

Overall,thecommunityautonomouseducationprojectshavebeensuccessfulasa directsolutiontotheneglectandviolenceofstateeducation,infurtheringZapatista autonomy,andinpromotingnewsubjectivitiesthatalignwithZapatismo.TheZapatistas havecreatedmorethan500autonomousschoolsinChiapas,providingculturallyrelevant andnon-hierarchicaleducationtocommunitiesthathadlackedappropriateoravailable education(TorresRojas2012).Shenker’sanalysis(2012)oftheautonomousschoolin Moreliashowsthattheyhavebeenhighlysuccessfulonmostobjectivesincludingtheirgoals toprotectindigenousculture,values,andlanguage,developeducationfortheruralcontext, andstrengthencommunityindependencefromexternalorganizations.Theirlanguage protectionhasbeensuccessfulthroughteachingclassesmostlyintheTojolaballanguageand creatinginnovativealternativemethodstoteachreadingandwritingTojolabalthrough culturallyrelevantpicturebooks.Additionally,thecommunalworkinthecurriculumand activeparticipationinthelearningprocessissuccessfullypromotingZapatistavaluesand

preparingstudentsforavarietyofimportantrolesintheircommunities.Itis,essentially,a personalizedpreparatoryschool.

Otherobjectiveshavebeenlesssuccessful,butarestillconstantlyimproving.These includetheirsupportofindigenousrightsandpromotionofgenderequality.Shenkercites thatprogressisstillbeingmadeoneducatingthepromoterssothattheyareabletospeakto allsidesofpoliticaldebates,butitissuccessfulinthatstudentsshowinterestandpolitical consciousnessandbecomeconfidenttoprotecttheirrights.Inregardstogenderequality,the schoolsaregraduallyimproving:theratioofboystogirlsinschoolsisnearlyequal,evenin secondaryeducation.Thisisastarkimprovementfromthepreviousgeneration,whereitwas notuncommonforgirlstoneverattendschoolortoleaveataveryyoungagetohelptheir motherswithdomesticlabor.Thisequalizingeducationisleadingtoequalqualificationfor positionsofleadershipandresponsibilitiesinthecommunities,rolesthatmanyinthethe oldergenerationsofwomenhavenotbeenabletotakeonbecauseoftheirlackofeducation. However,therearestillmanygenderrolesthatcreateanimbalanceinlaborlikethewomen’s intensiveroleofpreparingtortillaseachday(Shenker2012).

Afurtherchallengeoftheautonomouseducationisthattheyarenotrecognizedas legitimatebythestate,sostudentsthatgraduatecannotqualifyforuniversities.Though manyinthecommunitydonotseethisasproblembecausetheyareprimarilyanagricultural community(ibid.),thisstillcreateslimitationstotheopportunitiesofthestudents.However, eventhislimitationisbeingaddressedbytheautonomousuniversity,Universidaddela Tierra(UniversityoftheEarth,orUnitierra),andautonomoustertiaryeducation,Centro IndígenadeCapacitaciónIntegral(IndigenousCenterforIntegralCapacitation,orCIDECI).

Bothworktofacilitatethecapacitationofstudentstoworktowardslocallyappropriate developmentalternativestobuildcommunityautonomy(KhooandWalsh2016).Theirmain goalsaretostrengthencollectivities,democratizeeducation,politics,andsocialrelations, andpromotehorizontalityandplurality.Unitierraaddressesthisthroughpracticallearningon anindividualandself-directedlevelandtherecoveryoftraditionalknowledgethathasbeen devaluedthroughstateeducationprograms.UnitierraandCIDECIarebothassociatedwith theZapatistas,thoughCIDECIismoredirectlyrelated,withthemajorityoftheirstudents comingfromZapatistacommunitiesandZapatistaautonomousprimaryandsecondary schooling.CIDECIenablesstudentstoservetheircommunitiesbyfocusingeducationon trainingandinstructionwithinworkshopsettingstolearnartisanalandvocationalskillstoa higherprofessionallevel(ibid.).Thisdegreeofcapacitationcanhelptobuildmoreautonomy intheircommunitiesthroughequippingcommunitymemberswithsomeofthehigherlevel skillsthatusuallyrequireexternaldependence.

Inalllevelsoftheautonomousschools,thecapacitationofstudentstodevelop solutionstotheircommunities’problemsandtocriticallyengagewiththepoliticalcontext thatcreatesthemcombatsthelearnedhelplessnessanddependencethatthedominant discoursepromotesthroughprofessionalization.Thisfocusoncapacitationupsetsthepower structuresofthedominantdiscoursebydistributingpowerhorizontallyandalsopromotesthe Zapatistas’projectofbuildingautonomy.Furthermore,theeducationbasisintraditional wayscontributestoresistingneoliberalhomogenization.Bybuildingofftraditionalformsof knowingandculturalvaluesthataredecidedbyeachautonomouscommunity,thisstructure ofeducationworkstodefendpluralityfrombeingsubsumedintothesingulardominant

discoursewithitsspecificformsofrational,scientificknowledge,hierarchicalpower structures,andsubjectivitiesofprofessionalizationandeconomization.However,forallofits successes,theautonomouseducationsystemstillhaschallenges.

Instrivingtobeanautonomoussystemsofeducation,theZapatistaschoolsstruggle withnegotiatingtheirrelationshiptothestateinregardstotheirpoliticalproject.Sincethe Zapatistaseschewattemptsatreforminfavoroftakingpowerontheirownregardlessof staterecognition,theydonothaveadirecteffectlargerthantheirownautonomous communities.Thegrowthoftheirschoolshasnotpreventedthecontinuingatrocitiesofstate schoolingthatdiscriminateandassimilateindigenouspeoples(KhooandWalsh2016,22).

Thisopensthecontinuingdebatearoundweighingenergyputintostatereformand collaborationversustherejectionofthestateandcreationofautonomousalternativestoit.

Thissamedilemmaofstatereformorrejectionisaparadoxinregardstotheneoliberal agenda.ThoughtheZapatistas’rejectionofthestateisduetotheiroppositionofits neoliberaldiscoursewhich,withitsassumptionsoftheuniversalityoffreemarketglobal capitalism,ledtotheplightandcontinuedexploitationofpoorruralindigenouspeoplesin Chiapas,thatverysamerejectionofstateservicessuitstheneoliberalagendawhichaimsto reducethepowerofthestateinfavorofprivatizationtoalloweverythingtocomeunderthe poweroftheefficientmarket.Thus,intheirrejectionofstateservices,theZapatistasare,ina way,supportingthestate’sneoliberalagenda.However,theZapatistadiscoursethatprovides thebasisforthecommunitiesandautonomouseducationisinherentlyanti-neoliberalbecause ofitspromotionofself-sufficiencyforasteady-stateeconomyandcommunitarianprinciples (ibid.).Additionally,sincetheirschoolsarenotofficiallyrecognized,theirabilitytochange

thestategovernmentfromwithinislimitedbecausegraduatesdonothavetechnicallylegible qualifications.Eventhroughthechallengesthough,theautonomouseducationprovidesan exampletothethefunctionofthediscourseinpractice.

Insum,autonomouseducationinZapatistacommunitiesisbothcreatingalternatives totheslowanddirectviolenceofthestateschoolsandalsocontributingtothepromotionof Zapatismothroughshapingalternativesubjectivitiesintheyouth.Thecapacitationof educationpromoterstoservetheirowncommunitiesandworkwiththemtocreatea curriculumthatisbasedontheneedsofthecommunityshowshowtheZapatistaemphasis onpluralityandcapacitationcanbemobilizedtocreateeffectivealternatives.Through basingthestructureandcurriculumoftheautonomousschoolsuponZapatismo,the community,andespeciallythechildren,putthediscourseintopracticewhichleadstothe developmentofnewsubjectivities.Changingsubjectivitiesisnotanimmediateorconscious decision,butinpointedlypracticingalternativesintheirschools,thestudentsraisedinthe ZapatistacommunitiesareinstilledwiththevaluesandsubjectivitiesofZapatismo.A valuablecontributiontoresearch,Ithink,wouldbeacomparativestudyofsubjectivitiesof childrenraisedinZapatistacommunitiescomparedtosimilarnon-Zapatistacommunitiesto qualifythedifferenceandclearlyseetheeffectsoflivingoutthediscourse.Though MelenotteandMentinisbotharguethatZapatismoitselfisnotenoughtocreaterealchange againstthehegemonicsystem,autonomouseducationatleastshowsthatthediscourseisable toinspirerealsolutionsandcontributetoalteringsubjectivities.Theprocessisgradual,butI thinktheexistingsuccessesoftheautonomouseducationandthestructuraldesignthatseeks toconstantlyimprove,adapt,andfurthercapacitatetoincreaseautonomyshowsthat

Zapatismoisindeedcontributingtotheprogressofthemovementagainsthegemony.Now,I willsimilarlyexaminetheZapatista’sautonomoushealthcenterstoofferanotheranalysisof howZapatismohasworkedinpracticeandhowithascontributedtobothtangibleoutcomes andsubjectivitychanges.

AutonomousHealthSystem

HealthcareinChiapashas,likestateeducation,inflictedbothdirectandslow violenceagainstindigenouspeoplesandespeciallyindigenouswomenduetoneoliberal logic,racism,andclassism,allembeddedincoloniality.Theneoliberallogicofthestatehas ledtotheprivatizationofhealthsystemstoreducestatecostsandincludeeverythingintothe logicofthemarketunderencouragementfromtheIMFandWorldBank(AmarozSolaegui 2011).Thisprivatizationandsubsequentsegregationofhealthservicesbyclasshasledtoan increaseintheratesofhealthdisparityandpreventabledeaths(ibid.;Cuevas2007).Chiapas inparticularhassomeoftheworsthealthcareinthenation,withpopulationtohospitalbed ratiosfarmoreimbalancedthantheglobalrecommendations(Cuevas2007).Thelackof accesstohealthservices,exacerbatedbystateneoliberalpolicies,isaformofstructural violence(Gupta2012)becauseitpermitsthepreventabledeathsofthepoorandespecially theindigenouspoor.

Oneofthemostcommonpreventabledeathsismaternaldeath,makingup52%of preventabledeaths,thoughitisevenbelievedthat40-45%ofmaternaldeathsgounreported (Williams2012).Thesepreventabledeaths,especiallymaternaldeaths,havemultiple causes–peopledolackaccesstohealthclinics,butalsotheviolencethatindigenouspeople (primarilywomen)faceinstatehealthclinicsdiscouragesthemfromseekingmedicalcare.

Accordingtoonephysician-anthropologist,“indigenouswomenfromChiapaspreferredto dieathomefromchildbirththanbeexposedtotheabuseexertedupontheminpublic hospitalsthroughoutthestate...[particularly]racistdenigration,politicalinterrogationand forcedsterilization”(Williams2012).Forcedsterilizationisaformofgenocide,andwhenit isusedspecificallyagainstindigenouspopulationsisethnocide.

Forcedsterilizationaswellasothercoercedbirthcontrolpracticesisoneofthemore sinisteroutcomesofthedevelopmentdiscoursewhichhasemphasizedtheimportanceof populationcontrolforpovertyreduction(ibid.).BasedonaMalthusianrationality,theWorld BankunderRobertMcNamarapromotedpopulationcontrolasalogicalwaytoimprove economicwealth.Likethedevelopmentargumentthatgrowthimproveslivingconditionsby increasingthesizeofthepieratherthandividingitmoreevenly,thisapproachsimilarly avoidsredistributionbyinsteadreducingthenumberofpeoplethatwantaslice.Thissame logichasbeenpromotedbybothDwightD.EisenhowerandLyndonB.Johnsoninforeign policyandlargedevelopmentaidfoundations,aswellasbymanyNorthern environmentalists.AsEduardoGaleanoputit,

[The]aim[ofpopulationcontrol]istojustifytheveryunequalincomedistribution betweencountriesandsocialclasses,toconvincethepoorthatpovertyistheresultof thechildrentheydon’tavoidhaving,andtodamtherebelliousadvanceofthemasses ...inLatinAmericaitismorehygienicandeffectivetokill guerrilleros inthewomb thaninthemountainsorthestreets”(Galeano1973)

Populationcontrolthroughforcedsterilizationisthusahighlypoliticalprojectbecauseitis alignedwithspecificpoliticalpositioningthatrejectsredistribution,andfurthermore,has historicallyfunctionedtorepressstatedissent,makingtheZapatistasmorelikelyvictimsof thisviolence.

ForcedorcoercedsterilizationisamajorfearforwomeninChiapas,and understandablyso:“accordingtohospitalrecords(inComitán),ofthe2,931womenwho deliveredchildreninthehospitalin1996,866weresterilizedafterdelivery,”(Williams 2012).Thoughthehospitalstatedthatallofthesesterilizationswereconsensual,thereare concernsaroundthelanguagebarrier,coercivepracticesduringpainfullabor,andlackoffull proceduraldisclosure.Athirdpartyresearchteamestimatedthatathirdofwomenhadnot takenpartinthedecisiontobesterilized(ibid.).Thus,sterilizationisadirect,genocidal violenceagainstruralindigenouswomeninChiapasfromthestatehealthclinicsthathas bothracialanddevelopmentdiscourseorigins.

Theclinicsalsoposemoreindirectandslowerformsofviolencethatpreventproper healthcareordiscouragepeoplefromseekingcare.Statehealthclinicsprovideservices exclusivelyinSpanishanddonotrecognizetraditionalmedicinalpracticeswhichboth discountsanddevaluesindigenouswaysandcreatesbarrierstopropercare(ibid.).Mayan medicinehasexistedsince300ADinavarietyofpracticesincluding“thecurandero [healer],hierbero[herbgatherer],pulsador[pulsetaker],Ilol[physician],[and]partera [midwife],”(Cuevas2007:4).However,thistraditionalmedicinehasbeenseverely discountedbythebiomedicalmodelofstatehealthcarewhichissteepedinthe professionalizationofthedevelopmentdiscourseandsoassumesthattheexpertopinionof thedoctorissuperiortoanyoftheexperiencesorknowledgeofthenon-expertpatient.Also aproductofthisdiscourseistheassumptionthattherationallyscientificapproachesof modernmedicinearetheonlyvalidapproachestomedicine.Thisisexacerbatedbyracist

beliefsthatpositindigenouspeopleasinherentlyignorant(Williams2012).Inthisway,state healthclinicsareproductsofandpromotethedevelopmentdiscourse.

Thelogicofneoliberalismthathasledtotheprivatizationofhealthcareandthe growinghealthdisparityaswellastherelatedslowanddirectviolencefromclinicphysicians showhowthedevelopmentdiscoursehashadreal,tangibleeffectsontheindigenouspeople inChiapas.Furthermore,theracialdenigration,mistreatment,andprofessionalizationthat devaluesindigenouspeoplesandtheirpracticesshowtherelatedeffectsonsubjectivitythat stemfromthebiomedicalmodelbytreatingpeopleasthoughtheirtraditionalwayshaveno placeinmodernityandinstillingafearofstatemedicineduetoviolenceandsterilization.

However,theZapatistashavefoundresistancetotheseviolencesandcausaldiscourseby creatinganautonomoushealthsystemwhichIwillexamineinthefollowingtoexplorehow Zapatismocanformabasisforalternativestothedominantsystem.

Foucaultspeaksaboutbiopowertoexplainthehistoricalshiftofpoliticsthathas repositionedpowerasagenerative,lifegivingforcethroughdisciplineoverindividual bodiesandcontrolofpopulations.Thus,inordertoopposepower,resistancemustwork againstthestate’sabilitytoadministerlifetobeginwith.Inthissense,seekingreformby makingdemandsofthestatetoprovidelife-givingservicesonlyreinforcesthestate’spower (Foucault1978).Resistance,then,astheZapatistashavetakenitinregardstotheir autonomoushealthclinics,mustdenythelife-givingpowerofthestatebycreating autonomousalternativesratherthanseekingchangefromwithinthestate.

TheZapatistashavedevelopedtheZapatistaAutonomousHealthSystem(Sistemade SaludAutónomoZapatista,SSAZ)todefendtherighttohealth,whichtheyhavedefinedas

theability “tolivewithouthumiliation,”whichincludeslivingconditions,housing,nutrition, labour,justice,andeducation(AmarozSolaegui2011;Cuevas2007).TheZapatistasbelieve thateveryoneisentitledtohealthcarewhethertheyareaffiliatedwiththeZapatistasornot andthatallpatientsshouldbetreatedwithrespecttotheirdignity,culture,beliefs,andin theirownlanguage.Thisisachievedbecause,likewiththeirautonomouseducationstructure, thehealthpromoterscomefromthecommunitiesthattheyserve(Cuevas2007;Williams 2012).Theirhealthcarestructurehasbasesinboththeaidinterventionduringtheindigenous uprisingsofthe1970sand80saswellasOrganizationofIndigenousMedicsinChiapas (OMIECH).Theaidinterventioninthe70sand80sfromtheCatholicChurch,NGOs, universities,andNationalInstituteofIndigenousAffairsbroughtallopathicmedicineand methodologiestoenablecommunitiestoself-treat,includingfirstaidtrainingandcourseson commondiseases(Cuevas2007).OMIECHisneitherafederalnorZapatistaorganization, buthasprovidedafoundationforZapatistaautonomoushealthbycreatingaframeworkfor theautonomousorganizationofindigenoushealthpractitionersandbeginningthe recuperationofindigenousChiapanmedicalknowledgeincludingbirthingpracticesand herbalmedicine(Williams2012:71).

Bothoftheseinfluencesleftalegacyofself-capacitationandintegrationofaplurality ofmedicinalapproaches.Thehealthpromotersarerural,peasantandtypicallyindigenous peopleswhoarecapacitatedbytheZapatistasindiagnosticabilities,treatments,and preventativemeasuresfromtheperspectiveofWesternmedicineinordertoresolvethemost commonhealthproblemsandprovidepreventativehealthcare.Whentheydetectrisksthat requirehigherlevelsofattention,theydoreferpeopletothestatehospitalsformore

intensivelevelsofcare(AmarozSolaegui2011),butZapatistasoftenfaceviolenceand harassmentfromstatemilitarythatguardstheentrancetopublichospitals(Williams2012).

ThiscapacitationisakeypartoftheZapatistasprojectforautonomyandemblematicofthe discoursethatseekstoempowerandenablepeopletohaveagencyinalteringtheirrealities. Itpromotesasubjectivityofcompetenceandindependencebyfacilitatingcommunitiesto meettheirownneedswhichcontraststhedevelopmentdiscoursethatfostersamentalityof learneddependence.

AlsoinaccordancewiththeZapatistas’promotionofindigenousvalues,thereisa movementintheSSAZtointegratehealthcarewithtraditionalmedicinefromherbalists, curanderos(healers),hueseros(boneandmusclespecialists),andespeciallyparteras (midwives).Thehealthpromotersofthecommunitiesarealsomobilizedtorecover knowledgeofhealingandmedicinefromeldersinadditiontotheircapacitationinWestern medicine.Therearemovesnowtorealisticallyintegratenaturalandchemicalmedicinesby startingwithnaturalmethodswhicharemorepreventativemeasuresandworkslowerand thenresortingtochemicalmedicineswhennecessary(Or2014;Rodriguez2013).This incorporationoftraditionalmedicinesresiststhedevaluationofindigenousknowledgeand homogenizationofthedevelopmentdiscourseinregardstoscientificknowledge.Itsupports thepluralityofmedicalpracticesbyrecognizingthevalueofbothtraditionalandmodern medicines.Thepracticeofself-capacitationforbuildingautonomyintheZapatistahealth systemsdemonstratetheenactmentofthetheoryofZapatismo,butthetangibleresultson livedexperiencesofhealthhavebeenextremelypowerfulaswell.

TheZapatistaautonomoushealthclinicshavesignificantlycontributedtohealthin Chiapasandhelpstopromotetheirprojectofautonomy,thoughtheydostillfacesome challenges.ThehealthratesinChiapas,includingofpeople,land,air,water,plants,and animals,arenowevenbetterthanthatofcities,andthoughthispositiveoutcomeaswellas theonesthatfollowaredifficulttodistinguishfromimprovededucation,food,agricultural ecology,andhousingsupport,itisevidentthattheautonomoushealthclinicshaveindeed contributed(Rodriguez2013;Cuevas2007).By2007,therewerealready200community healthclinicsand25autonomousregionalhealthclinics,someofwhichwereovertenyears old,aswellasspecialclinicsfordentistry,gynecology,andoptometry(Cuevas2007).Since theseclinicsarerunbythecommunitiesthemselvesinaparticipatorymanner,theyareable toavoidthepreviousabusesofthestateclinicsincludingracism,lackoftranslation,and directviolencelikeforcedsterilization,whichencouragesmorepeopletoseekmedical attentionandpreventativehealth.Oneparticularlysuccessfulcaseshowsthatinajungle regionwherematernalmortalityhadbeenveryhigh,thecreationoftwoautonomousclinics successfullyeliminatedmaternaldeathsforspansofmorethansevenyearsthrough cooperationbetweenhealthoutreachworkersandmidwivesandtherecognitionofwomen’s traditionalknowledge(ibid.,12).Thus,therehavebeenverytangiblepositiveoutcomesfrom thecreationoftheautonomoushealthclinics,showingthestrengthofZapatismotocreate viablealternatives.

However,therearestillchallengesfacedandprogresstobemadeintheautonomous healthmodel.Thoughthereissomeintegrationwithtraditionalmedicine(Or2014; Rodriguez2013;Cuevas2007),thehealthcaremodelitselfisbasedonmodernmedicineand

hasfailedtofullydevelopamedicalpracticebasedonindigenousmodelsofhealthcare (Cuevas2007).Thecooperationwithtraditionalmedicinepractitionershasbeenminimal withtheexceptionofthemidwiveswhohavebeenmoreintegrated(ibid.).Progresscouldbe madetocriticallycomparetheeffectsoftraditionalpracticestochemicalmedicinesand modernpracticesonthehealthofpeopleandtheenvironmenttoestablishapracticethatisa fairandcriticalmultiplicity.Additionally,therearestillchallengesinfindingfundingand negotiatingwiththenationalhealthservices.TheZapatistasdrawhealthfundingfromthe nationalandinternationalcommunityofsympathizers,fromcommunitycooperative production,andsomefromchargingmedicalfeesfornon-Zapatistassincetheydonot contributetothecommunitywork.Thoughtheautonomoushealthsystemhasthreelevels (community,municipal,andcaracol)oforganizationandcare,thehighestcaracollevel worksasmoreofasupportcommitteetokeeptheotherlevelsrunningratherthanproviding ahigherdegreeofcare.Forthis,theautonomoushealthclinicsstillreferpatientstostate medicalestablishmentsandalsousevaccinessuppliedbystatemedicine(Cuevas2007).

Relianceonthestateinthisregardisnotideal,butatthesametime,thisinteractionisonly asalastresort,andtheprogressionoftheautonomoushealthclinicinsuchashortperiod mightpointtofurtherdevelopmentofthesystemtoestablishmorespecializedlevelsofcare toreducesaidreliance.However,takenasawhole,therelativesuccessoftheautonomous healthclinicsspeakstothepracticalityofZapatismo.

TheZapatistaautonomoushealthsystemdemonstrateswhatresultscomeoutof puttingZapatismointopractice,andinthat,showshowitfunctionsincreatingutopian alternatives.Theautonomoushealthclinicsworkasmorethanacollectiveorganizationfor

health–theyalsoareanexerciseinindigenousrightsandautonomybyprovidingaplatform formoreculturallyappropriatecareandworkingasanactingdefenseagainsttheviolenceof thestatehealthclinics.Likeintheautonomouseducationsystem,thecapacitationofthe healthpromotersandpersonalizedcareforeachcommunitycountersboththelearned helplessnessandhomogenizationofthedevelopmentdiscourse.Theautonomoushealth systemdesign,inthewayitcapacitatesruralpeasantstotreattheirowncommunitiesand createsnetworksofsupport,isadesignthatisresilientbecauseitisflexibleand decentralized.Duetoitsstrongcommunitybasis,itcangrowandexpandtomoreservices andwiderpopulationswithoutlosingtherootednessofcarethatdistinguishesit.Its effectivenessinreducingmaternalmortalityandprovidingpreventativehealthcareand educationmorebroadlyshowshowthebasisonZapatismodrivesthecreationof autonomousalternativesbasedonnewformsofknowledge,power,andsubjectivity.

Zapatismo,throughenablingutopianpursuitofnewrealities,isindeedabletocreateviable alternativesthataddressrealproblemscausedbyneglectandmistreatmentbythestate.

Autonomoushealth,likeautonomouseducation,continuestoprovethat‘anotherworldis possible’.Next,IwillexplorewhatthefunctionoftheZapatistadiscourse,especiallyin regardstotheautonomoushealthandeducationsystemsexploredabove,meansforthe broaderanti-systemic,non-hegemonicproject.

‘Aworldinwhichmanyworldsfit’:theZapatistasandGlobalResistance

RememberthattheZapatistas’uprisingwasfirstandforemosttocounterneoliberal capitalism,andessentiallytheentiredominantsystem,byopposingitthroughthecreationof

alternativesonthelevelofautonomousinfrastructureandservicesandthelevelofdiscourse.

Seeingthatthedominantdevelopmentdiscourseprovidesthebaseassumptionsforthe dominantsystem,analternativediscourseisnecessarytoresist.Zapatismoprovidesthis alternativediscourse,andinitsemphasisonhorizontality, mandar-obedeciendo, andintegral recognitionofpluralitiesandmultiplicities,itactsasanon-hegemonicalternativebecauseit outrightdeniesthepossibilityforpoliticalorculturaldominance.Throughputtingpeople firstandrecognizingtheirpowerandfurthercapacitatingthemtochangetheirownrealities, Zapatismoenablesutopia,understoodhereastheself-definitionandpursuitofalternative subjectivitiesandpractices.Theexpressionofthisutopiancapabilityinthecreationof alternativesystemssuchastheautonomouseducationandhealthsystemsshowshowthe discourseisinfactworkingtowardsthemaingoalofresistingthedominantsystem.These autonomoussystems,alongwithZapatistagovernancestructuresandproduction cooperatives,workindependentlyfromthehegemonicsystemandcausaldominant discourse,engagingwithstategovernmentsandglobalmarketsonlyinsofarasitisstill requiredtomeetneedswithoutseriouslyunderminingautonomy.

Furthermore,overtimethesubjectivities,whichareestablishedthroughlived practicesofthealternativediscourse,shifttooneinwhichtheautomaticresponsetoa problemistocollectivelyimagineandthenpracticeasolution,astarkcomparisontothe learnedhelplessnessandincapacitationofthedevelopmentdiscourse.Essentially,Zapatismo worksastheultimateoppositiontotheneoliberalmentalitythat‘thereisnoalternative’ (Harvey2005).However,allofthisisnottosaythattheZapatistasarechanging,nor

intendingtochange,theworldontheirown.Rather,theyseektosupportandlearnfrom othersandletotherslearnfromthem:

Whatwewantintheworldistotellallofthosewhoareresistingandfightingintheir ownwaysandintheirowncountries,thatyouarenotalone,thatwe,theZapatistas, eventhoughweareverysmall,aresupportingyou,andwearegoingtolookathow tohelpyouinyourstrugglesandtospeaktoyouinordertolearn,becausewhatwe have,infact,learnedistolearn.(EZLN2005)

Theiremphasisonconstantlearningandsolidarityhelpsbuildthefoundationforan expansivenetworkofrelatedsocialmovements.Becauseoftheirdevotiontopluralitythatis exemplifiedintheirstatement“intheworldwewant,manyworldsfit,”theZapatistascreate thepossibilitytomobilizecollectively,unitedunderacommondenialofthedominant systemandasharedaffirmationinthepossibilityofcreatinganotherway,thoughtheseother waysmaydiffer(EZLN1996;2013).Andtruly,thismobilizationisoccurringallover.The Zapatistasrecognizethat“asthereisaneoliberalglobalization,thereisaglobalizationof rebellion”(EZLN2005).Sometimestheserebellionsandmovementsexplicitlydraw inspirationfromtheZapatistasandothersexpressradicaldemocracyandautonomyin independentways.However,theZapatistaanalysisthatthereisa‘globalizationofrebellion’ isevident.Inwhatfollows,Iwillexploresomeoftheseotheranti-systemicmovements towardsautonomytoexaminetheircommonqualitieswiththeZapatistasandconcludeby drawinglessonsfromtheZapatistasforthefutureofanti-systemic,non-hegemonicand counter-hegemonicsocialmovementsanduprisings.

Inthisfinalpart,Iwillbroadentheconversationonresistancebyexaminingthe Zapatistasthroughthelensofanarchist,non-hegemonic,andanti-systemicsocialmovement theoryandprovidingafewexamplesofotherrecentcreativeresistancestoshowthatthisisa

widespreadmovement.Escobarexplainsthat“thecontemporarycrisisisacrisisofa particular modelo civilizatorio,orcivilizationalmodel,thatofpatriarchalWesterncapitalist modernity”(2018:ix).Inlaypersonterms,“it’sthesystem,man.”Ecologicaldisaster, exploitation,andsocialinequality(tonamejustafew)thatmakeupthiscontemporarycrisis arealljustsymptomsofthedominantsystem,ormodelofcivilization,whichhasatitsbasis aparticulardiscoursethatsetsthelimitsofpossibilitywithinthatsystembydetermining whichformsofknowledge,power,andsubjectivitiesreignsupreme.Thesystemicnatureof thepresentcrisiscanmakeresistanceseemdauntingandchange,insurmountable–howdoes onechangeadiscourse?Regardingthis,theZapatistasareencouragingbecausetheirmodel ofcreativeresistancehascreatedchangeatthediscursivelevel.Here,Iwanttohighlight certainaspectsoftheZapatistas’modelofresistancethatareinformativeforsocial movementsmorebroadly.

TheZapatistas’utopian,plural,andautonomousapproachtoresistancehasbeen powerfulandhas,Iwouldargue,successfullycontributedtothesystemicchangethatthey desirebothinitsfunctionintheirowncommunitiesandinthewaythatithasinspiredor informedotheranti-systemicsocialmovements.Theiruniqueknowledge-practicesand inspirationtoothersisavaluablecontributionthatMelenotte(2015)andMentinis(2006)did notconsiderintheirevaluationofthemovement.TheZapatistastakeautopianapproachto resistanceinthattheybelieveanotherworldispossibleandtakestepstoachievethat.A utopianapproachrequiresboththeimaginationtodreamofanalternativetothedominant systemandalsothecapacitytobuildthosealternativesascounter-powertothedominant.

TheZapatistashave,throughthebasisoftheiralternativediscoursethatsupports utopianimagination,builtcounter-powerthroughtheircreationofautonomouscommunities withinfrastructure,socialservices,andnetworksoftradewhichhaveactedbothassteps towardscreatingtheworldthattheywishtoliveinandalsoresistingthedominantsystems ofneoliberalismandstatecontrol.Theirapproachtoresistanceinthiswayisinsightful,too, inthatitaddressespressingsurvivalissueslikelackofhealthcareandeducationwhileacting aspartofagreaterpoliticalproject.ThisiswhatDixon(2014),writingabout‘another politics,’meanswhenspeakingoftheimportanceofmaintainingtheideaof“inthisworld butnotofit”becauseit“emphasizesboththecircumstancesinwhichwestruggleandour capacitytocollectivelyimagineandpushbeyondthem”(126).Tocreateutopia,thereneeds tobe,simultaneously,directactionnowandplanningfortheutopianideal.Additionally, Dixontalksaboutcreativeresistanceasworking“against-and-beyond,”bothopposing dominationandbuildingnewformsofsocialorganization.SubcomandanteInsurgente Marcoswritesaboutthisnotionexplicitlyinone2013publicationregardingthesixth Zapatistadeclaration:

‘Coulditbeanotherway?’Thisquestioncouldbetheonethatsparksrebellionandits broaderacceptance.Andthiscouldbebecausethereisa“no”thathasbirthedit:it doesn’thavetobethisway... Whatwewanttosay,compañeras,compañeros, compañeroas,isthatwhatconvokedusallintheSixthwasthisrebellious,heretic, rude,irreverent,bothersome,uncomfortable‘no.’Wehavegottentothispoint becauseourrealities,histories,andrebellionshavebroughtustothis‘itdoesn’thave tobethisway.’Thisandalsobecause,intuitivelyorbydesign,wehaveanswered ‘yes’tothequestion,‘coulditbeanotherway?’(EZLN2013)

Thiscommonlyshared‘yes’istheutopianapproachthatstemsfromtheoppositiontothe dominantsystem,theshared‘no.’Thiscommonalityofsharingthe“against-and-beyond,”

theoppositionandtheutopianhope,toformabasisofresistanceisimportantinanarchist theoryaswell.Graeber(2004)highlightshowanarchistsshare“therejectionofcertaintypes ofsocialrelations,theconfidencethatcertainotherswouldbemuchbetteronesonwhichto buildalivablesociety,[and]thebeliefthatsuchasocietycouldactuallyexist,”(4).Eachof theseaspectsarevitaltoutopiansocialmovements:itbeginswiththe‘no,’therejectionof thedominantsystem,inordertoopenspaceforthe‘yes,’thecreationofanotherway.This collective‘no’anddiverseapproachto‘yeses’iswhatHardtandNegri(2004)call‘the multitude’(JurisandKhasnabish2013).Furthermore,fortheZapatistas,thenewapproaches ofthe‘yes’mustbeconsistentwiththe‘no,’asseenintheexamplesoftheirautonomous governance,education,andhealth.Thesefoundationalbeliefsarevitalforaction,andthe Zapatistasareanexampleofwhatthatactioncanlooklike,especiallyinregardstopower relations,whichIwillexplorenext.

OneofthemostcentralelementsoftheZapatistas’projectisautonomy,whichthey haveenactedbothincreatingcommunitiesthatareself-rulingandself-servicingtodenythe stateandalsobyrejectingoppressionanddominationasarulebyputtingpowerinthehands ofthepeople.Theirquestforautonomyisrootedfromtheirdenialoftheexploitativepower relationsthathaveplaguedChiapasforalmosthalfamillenniumandbeliefthatsocietycan bebuiltuponastructureinwhichthepeoplehavethepower.TheZapatistashavebuilttheir autonomythroughhorizontalstructuresofgovernance,employing mandar obedeciendo inall leadershippositions,andpracticingconsensus-styledecisionmaking,allofwhichhavebeen epitomizedinthe caracol governancestructuresthattheyestablishedin2003.Bydenying poweroutrightthroughtheseapproachestogovernance,theirrejectionofthestatetakeson

anotherlevel:notonlyaretheyrejectingthecorruptionandexploitationofthestate government,butitsentirestructuralbasis.

CreatingnewsocialrelationsasabasisforresistanceinthiswayiswhatDixon (2014)calls“prefigurativepolitics,”anapproachinwhichthemethodsofresistancematch therealitythatthemovementisseekingtocreate.Assuch,resistancebecomesnotonly aboutthenegativeaspectofwhatitisresisting,butalsothepositiveaspectofwhatisbeing createdtoreplaceit.ThesestrategiesfromtheZapatistas,includinghorizontality,consensus, leadingbyobeying,andempoweringcapacitationinbothpoliticaleducationandhardskills, arethuskeylessonsincreativeresistancebyprovidingsomeexamplesofthewaythatthe process(socialmovement/resistance)cancoincidewiththedesiredproduct(utopiansociety).

Escobar(2018)alsotakesontheimportanceofautonomyinlookingatitthroughthe designlens.Heexplainsthat“autonomyisthekeyto autopoiesis,ortheself-creationof livingsystems”(5).Designhastypicallybeenattherootofunsustainability,buttheabilityto createanewdesign,whichhearguesthateveryoneiscapableofdoing,isautonomy,which issustainablebecauseitsupportsasystemofself-creationthatcanexistinperpetuity.

Designingreality,astheZapatistashavetakenonintheirdiscourseandautonomous communities,ispowerfulbecausedesignsshapepeopleandcreateculture(Escobar2018).

AsIarguedearlier,theZapatistas’emphasisonself-capacitationandself-sufficiencythatis supportedinthedesignoftheircommunitiescreatesnewsubjectivitiesthatresistthe dependenceandhelplessnesssubjectivitiesofthedominantdiscourse.Autonomy,then,isa keyelementofanti-systemicsocialmovementsbothinthatitpreparesforsystemicchange andthefallofdominantpowers,createstheopportunitytoestablishnewformsofhorizontal,

people-centeredgovernancemodeledonthefuturethatisdesired,andshapessubjectivities throughself-createddesignsofreality.Thislastaspectofself-createddesignalsopermitsfor amultiplicityofdesignstocreateapluralisticreality,whichisanotherkeyaspectofsocial change.

Pluralityisimportantforanti-systemicresistancebecauseitcreatesthepossibilityfor moreinclusivemassmobilizationandalsobecauseitrejectsthehomogenizingdominant discourse’sviolentdevaluationofnon-dominantways.Autonomousdesignanda non-hegemonicfocusonpowerbothhelpenablethecreationofpluralisticalternativesfor “reimaginingandreconstructinglocalworlds”(Escobar2018:4).Apluralityofsmalllocal worldsisstrangetoconsideramassmovement,butwhentheoppositionalforceis all-encompassingandhomogenizing,itmakessenseasameansofresistance.Emphasizing people’spowertodesignrealityandcapacitatingthemtodosoisamovementtoplurality becausepeopleareinherentlyheterogeneous.Thisapproachalsoisinclusivetoawide varietyofpeopleandapproaches,soitmakes‘takingdownthesystem’muchmoreplausible becauseitdoesnothavetobeunified.TheZapatistashavepromotedthisideaofplurality, wordedwellbyMarcoshere:

TheSixth[DeclarationoftheLacandonJungle]wasconvokedbytheZapatistas.To convokeisnottounite.Wedon’tintendtouniteunderasingleleadership,beit Zapatistaoranyother.Wedonotseektoco-opt,recruit,supplant,impersonate, simulate,trick,subordinate,oruseanybody.Ourdestinyisthesame,buttherichness oftheSixthisitsdifference,itsheterogeneity,theautonomyofdistinctmodesof walking,thisisitsstrength.Weofferandwillcontinuetoofferrespect,andwe demandandwillcontinuetodemandthesame.Theonlyrequirementtoadheretothe Sixthisthe“no”thatconvokesusandthecommitmenttoconstructthe“yeses”that arenecessary.(EZLN2013)

Thisrefersbacktothe“against-and-beyond”approachaboveforitsroleincreatingan inclusiveplurality;theonlystipulationtojoiningthefightoftheZapatistasistheagreement thattheworlddoesnothavetobethiswayandthededicationtomakeanotherworld possible.Inthisway,pluralityworksbothasprocessandproduct–itisinclusiveand widespreadinthewaythatitextendsaninvitationtothewholeworldwhichbuilds movementpowerbyencouragingamultitudeoflocalizedresistanceasprocess,andalso,in itsactualization,resiststhehomogenizationoftheglobal,neoliberalsystemofoppression.

Thisiskeytotheanti-systemicmovementasawhole.Ifitcanbetakenupanywhere,by anyone,withanyconceptionofutopia,andtakestepstoestablishingautonomythenit becomesnot-so-insurmountableofatask.

Essentially,thisisareiterationofmyargumentagainstMentinis’sandMelenotte’s claimsthattheZapatistas’discourseisinsufficienttocreatingglobalchange.TheZapatistas’ multitude-basedapproachofunificationaroundacommondenialofahegemonicsystemand opennesstodiverseresponseshasprofoundpotentialforcreatingwidespreadnon-hegemonic change.Andinfact,it’salreadyhappeningallovertheworld.Next,Iwillgiveacursory lookatsomeoftheseotherautonomousanti-systemicsocialmovementstoshowsomeofthe commonapproachesthattheytake.

RojavaisanautonomousruralregioninNorthernSyriathatisbasedaround democraticconfederalismandhasmaintainedautonomysince2012(Huff,Tasdemir,and Huff2018).LiketheZapatistas,ittoobeganwithamilitantaspect,thoughinRojava,the militaryeffortremainsamajorpartoftheirsocietybecauseofthepressingviolencethatthey facefromhostilestatesandjihadistgroups(ibid.,SystemDMedia2015).However,theyare

alsoworkingtowardsautopianfuturebyreturningpowertothepeoplethroughmultiple levelsofdecisionmakingbasedaroundcommunitydeliberationandthroughemphasizing communitycapacitationtoaddresstheirownproblems(Huff,Tasdemir,andHuff2018).

Theyarebuildingeconomicautonomyinoperatingcommunityproductioncooperatives, whichareespeciallynecessarybecausetheyareunderatradeembargo,andcollectivizing resources,whichwaseasiertodobecauseofthevastnumberofpeoplethatfledtheregion (SystemDMedia2015).LiketheZapatistas,inRojava,asmostlyKurds,theirresistanceis alsoduetocenturiesofethnicoppression.Further,theyhavetakendefinitestepsto promotinggenderequalityincludinga40%quotaforwomen’sparticipationingovernance andawomen’sarmy(theYPJ)thatprotectswomenincivilsociety.Rojavaisanexampleof creativeresistancebecauseofthewaythattheyhavesoughttocreateutopiabybuilding autonomythroughcreatingpeople-powereddemocracy,emphasizingtheimportanceof ethnicplurality,andcreatingaplatformforcommunitycapacitation(ibid.,Huff,Tasdemir, andHuff2018).

AnothercreativeresistancemovementistheLandlessWorkers’MovementofBrazil (TrabalhadoresSemTerraorMST).TheMSTisaruralpeasantlandmovementthatsettles unusedlandtogetthegovernmenttoexpropriateittothemandestablishself-sufficient communitiesasaresponsetothedevastatinglandlessnessthatmanyBraziliansfaceasa resultoftheircolonialhistoryandrecentriseinneoliberalpolicy(DinizandGilbert2013). Themovementemphasizesautonomy,solidarity,andsocialownershipandpractices cooperativeproductionasaresistancetoneoliberalism.Theyemploydemocraticdecision makingbasedaroundconsensusandprovidefreeschoolingbasedoncriticalpedagogyto

capacitatetheyouth.Intheirprocessofcriticaldialogue,inspiredbyFreire,toconstantly reassessandimprovetheircommunities,theMSTtransitionedfromamorecapitalistically drivencooperativemodeltoaproductionmodelbasedaroundpeasantvaluesandwaysof lifetorecognizethedesiresofthepeople(ibid.).Theircommitmenttoautonomythrough peoplepowerandemphasisonflexibilitythroughcriticalevaluationpositionsthemtobe sustainableinthelongrun,andtheirself-sufficientcommunitiesoutsideofthedominant systemestablishesthemasacreativeresistancemovement.

MutualAidDisasterRelief(MADR)presentsadifferentformofcreativeresistance thantheotherexamplesbecausetheyareanorganizationalnetworkfordisasterreliefrather thanasetautonomouscommunity.Theyarebasedonprinciplesofsolidarity,mutualaid, andautonomousdirectactionandemphasizeagrassroots,decentralized,andpluralapproach todisasterrelief(MutualAidDisasterRelief2018b).MADRdrawsdirectlyfromthe Zapatistas,citing mandar obedeciendo asacorevaluetorecognizetheimportanceof non-hegemonicleadership.Theirdisasterreliefprogramsfunctionastemporaryautonomous zonesthatbuildpowerfromwithinandbelowtoopenupvisionsofabetterworldtothose onthemargins,autopianvision.Theyseektomakechangewithoutstatepowerorcoercion. Theirfocuson“solidarity,notcharity”seekstosupportpeopleindisasterinwhatever waytheyneedittoacknowledgetheautonomyofpeopleindisaster.Forexample,following HurricaneMaria’sdisastroushitonPuertoRico,MADR’sNGOstatusallowedthemtogive communityleadersaccesstoresourcesfromFEMA(FederalEmergencyManagement Agency)thatwerepreviouslyinaccessibleduetobureaucratichoops.Bysimplyenabling

existingcommunityorganizationstohelpmeettheircommunities’needs,theywereableto bringmoreaidtomanyareasindesperateneed.

Additionally,theyemphasizetheimportanceofcommunityorganizingas preventativedisasterrelieftocreatefreedomfromthe“reflectiveimpotence”thatcapitalism inspiresand,instead,usurpsurvivalmechanismsandfacilitatepeoples’capacitationtomeet theirownneeds(MutualAidDisasterRelief2018a).Inthisway,theyarestrategically meetingdirect,crisisneedswhilefacilitatingcapacitationandasubjectivitychangeaway fromthatofthedominantdiscoursethatoften(directlyorindirectly)causesthecrisis.

Furthermore,theirdecentralizednetworkoforganizationsbasedonalocalcontextallowfor diverseapproachesand,liketheZapatistas,seekstomobilizemanypeoplebroadlyina pluralityofactiontowardsacommongoal.

Theseexamplesserveprimarilytoshowthateverywherethedominantdiscoursehas soughttospreaditshegemony,ithasbeenmetwithresistance.Thecurrenttideofsocial movementsemployingcreativeresistancearetakingthistothenextlevelbyprovidingthe foundationtobuildapluralityofalternateutopianfuturesfreefromhegemony–“aworldin whichmanyworldsfit.”

Here,Ihaveanalyzedthediscourseofdevelopmenttoprovideanunderstandingof thebasisofthehegemonicsysteminordertodrawawarenesstotheunderlyingassumptions andpreferencestowardscertainformsofknowledge,power,andsubjectivity.Thisiscrucial forunderstandingthat,inordertochangethedominantorder,theremustbechangeatthe levelofdiscourse.IthenexaminedtheZapatistas’alternativediscoursetodemonstratehow itenablesresistancebothatthediscursivelevel(throughalternativeknowledge,power,and

subjectivities)andalsointhepracticesthatthediscourseinspires.Toevincehowthis practicalresistancehasplayedoutinreality,IexaminedtheZapatistas’autonomous governanceandeducationandhealthsystemswhichaddresscommunityneedsandbuild communityautonomytorejectstatelegitimacyasalife-givingpowerandtosolidifythe alternativesubjectivitiesofZapatismosuchasself-capacitationandtherevaluationof traditionalwaysofknowing.Finally,IanalyzedtheZapatistasthroughthelensesof anti-systemic,non-hegemonic,andanarchistsocialmovementstoestablishtheirstrengthasa socialmovementandseehowtheyhavecontributedtotheconversationofstrategiesthrough implementingutopiancreativeresistance,autonomy,andpluralism.Ithenofferedacursory glanceatotherautonomous,non-hegemonic,andanti-systemicsocialmovementstoshow thattheZapatistasarefarfromaninsularmovementinthecornerofMexico–thereis commonresistanceeverywhere.ManyoftheZapatistas’strategiesandknowledge-practices arewidelysharedinavarietyofdiverseapproachestosocialchangeandwillbeinformative tofuturemovementsaswell.Thisleavesuswithclearreasontobelievethattherecanbe changefromthedominantsystem.Inconclusion,IwanttoofferaquotethatIfeelsumsup thepurposeofthiswork:

Thehabitofthoughtwhichdefinestheworld,orsociety,asatotalizingsystem... tendstoleadalmostinevitablytoaviewofrevolutionsascataclysmicruptures. Since,afterall,howelsecouldonetotalizingsystembereplacedbyacompletely differentone?...Theeasiestwaytogetourmindsarounditistostopthinkingabout revolutionasathing–“the”revolution,thegreatcataclysmicbreak–andinsteadask “whatisrevolutionaryaction?”Wecouldthensuggest:revolutionaryactionisany collectiveactionwhichrejects,andthereforeconfronts,someformofpoweror dominationandindoingso,reconstitutessocialrelations–evenwithinthe collectivity–inthatlight.Revolutionaryactiondoesnotnecessarilyhavetoaimto topplegovernments.Attemptstocreateautonomouscommunitiesinthefaceof power...(onesthatconstitutethemselves,collectivelymaketheirownrulesor

principlesofoperation,andcontinuallyreexaminethem)would,forinstance,be almostbydefinitionrevolutionaryacts.Andhistoryshowsusthatthecontinual accumulationofsuchactscanchange(almost)everything.(Graeber2004:44-45)

Fightingasystemisdauntinguntilwerealizethatcreativeresistanceinthefaceofpoweris inherentlyrevolutionary.TakeitfromtheZapatistas,orthepeopleinRojava,ortheLandless WorkersinBrazil,orfromMutualAidDisasterRelief:changeispossible,anditis happeningnow.IfImay,Iwanttomakethepredictionthattherewillcomeatimewhen autonomousalternativesthatdenyanddisengagefromtheempireofhegemonicpowerand globalcapitalismwillbothoutnumberandoutweighthatdominantpower,andthe Zapatistas’beliefthat‘anotherworldispossible’willbemanifest.

References

AmarozSolaegui,Iliana.2011.ElDerechoalaSaludenComunidadesIndígenasdelEstado deChiapas. Revista Pueblos y Fronteras Digital 6,no.11: 8-37.

Bahn,Josh.2009.MarxisminaSnailShell:MakingHistoryinChiapas. Rethinking History 13,no.4:541-560.

Bowers,C.A.andFrédériqueApffel-Marglin.2005. Rethinking Freire: Globalization and the Environmental Crisis.NewJersey:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates,Inc.including Esteva,Gustavo,DanaL.Stuchul,andMadhuSuriPrakash.FromaPedagogyfor LiberationtoLiberationfromPedagogy.

BrettonWoodsConference.1944.ProceedingsandDocumentsoftheUnitedNations MonetaryandFinancialConference.Washington,DC:UnitedStatesGovernment PrintOffice,1948.

Burke,BrianJ.2018.ThesisAdvising.

Burke,BrianJ.andNikHeynen.2014.TransformingParticipatoryScienceinto SocioecologicalPraxis:ValuingMarginalizedEnvironmentalKnowledgesinthe FaceofNeoliberalizationofNatureandScience. Environment and Society: Advances in Research 5(2014):7-27.

BurgueteCalyMayor,Araceli.2003.Thedefactoautonomousprocess:newjurisdictions andparallelgovernmentsinrebellion. Mayan Lives, Mayan Utopias: The Indigenous Peoples of Chiapas and the Zapatista Rebellion.ed.JanRus,RosalvaAída HernándezCastillo,andShannonL.Mattiace.Lanham:RowmanandLittlefield Publishers.

Carroll,WilliamK.2006.Hegemony,Counter-Hegemony,Anti-Hegemony. Socialist Studies 2:9-43.

Casas-Cortés,MaríaIsabel,MichalOsterweil,andDanaE.Powell.2008.Blurring Boundaries:RecognizingKnowledge-PracticesintheStudyofSocialMovements. Anthropological Quarterly 81(1):17-58.

Crehan,Kate. Gramsci’s Common Sense: Inequality and Its Narratives.Durham:Duke UniversityPress,2016.

Cuevas,J.H.2007.HealthandAutonomy:TheCaseinChiapas. Health Systems Knowledge Network.InternationalDevelopmentResearchCentre.

Day,RichardJ.F.2005. Gramsci is Dead: Anarchist Currents in the Newest Social Movements. LondonandAnnArbor,MI:PlutoPress,andToronto:Betweenthe Lines.

De,Arindam.2017.Waterscarcitycouldresultinsomeregionslosing6%oftheirGDP: WorldBankreport. IndiaToday.LivingMediaIndiaLimited.

Dennison,Jean.2014.TheLogicofRecognition:DebatingOsageNationCitizenshipinthe Twenty-FirstCentury. American Indian Quarterly 38,no.1:1-35

Diemont,StewartA.W.,JayF.Martina,SamuelI.Levy-Tacher,RonaldB.Nigh,Pedro RamirezLopez,J.DuncanGolicher.2005.LacandonMayaforestmanagement: Restorationofsoilfertilityusingnativetreespecies. Ecological Engineering 28 (2006):205–212.

Diniz,AldivaSalesandBruceGilbert.2013."SocialistValuesandCooperationinBrazil's LandlessRuralWorkers'Movement." Latin American Perspectives 40,no.4:19-34.

Dixon,Chris.2014. Another Politics. California:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Donovan,KevinP.2014.‘Development’asif We have Never Been Modern: Fragmentsofa LatourianDevelopmentStudies. Development and Change 45(5):869-894.

Earle,DuncanandJeanneSimonelli. 2005. Uprising of Hope: Sharing the Zapatista Journey to Alternative Development.WalnutCreek,CA:AltaMiraPress,2005.

Escobar,Arturo.1995. Encountering Development: The making and unmaking of the third world. Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Escobar,Arturo.2018. Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical Interdependence, Autonomy, and the Making of Worlds. Durham:DukeUniversityPress.

Esteva,Gustavo.1999.TheZapatistasandPeople’sPower. Capital and Class 23(2): 153-182.

Esteva,Gustavo,DanaL.Stuchul,andMadhuSuriPrakash.2005.FromaPedagogyfor LiberationtoLiberationfromPedagogy.seeBowers,C.A.andFrédérique Apffel-Marglin.

EZLN.1993.FirstDeclarationoftheLacandonJungle:TodayweYaBasta!(Enoughis Enough).EnlaceZapatista,GeneralCommandoftheEZLN.

EZLN.1994.SecondDeclarationoftheLacandonJungle:Todaywesay:Wewillnot surrender!EnlaceZapatista,GeneralCommandoftheEZLN.

EZLN.1995.ThirdDeclarationoftheLacandonJungle:TheEZLNcallsfortheformationof aNationalLiberationMovement.EnlaceZapatista,GeneralCommandoftheEZLN.

EZLN.1998.FourthDeclarationoftheLacandonJungle:TODAYWESAY:WEARE HERE,WEAREREBELDIGNITY,THEFORGOTTENOFTHEHOMELAND. EnlaceZapatista,SubcomandanteInsurgenteMarcos.

EZLN.1995.FifthDeclarationoftheLacandonJungle:Todaywesay:Wearehere!Weare resisting!EnlaceZapatista,GeneralCommandoftheEZLN.

EZLN.2003.MarcostoNGOs:ZapatistasDon’tWantCharity,butRespect:TheThirteenth Stele-PartTwo:ADeath.EnlaceZapatista,SubcomandanteInsurgenteMarcos.

EZLN.2005.SixthDeclarationoftheLacandonJungle.EnlaceZapatista,Clandestine RevolutionaryIndigenousCommittee.

EZLN.2013.ThemandUs,PartV.–TheSixth.translationfromElKilomboIntergaláctico. EnlaceZapatista,SubcomandanteInsurgenteMarcos.

Foucault,Michel.1969and1978.in The Foucault Reader.ed.PaulRabinow.1984.Penguin Books.

Galeano,Eduardo.1973. Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent. NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress.

Gledhill,John.2014.IndigenousAutonomy,DelinquentStates,andtheLimitsofResistance. History and Anthropology 25(4):507-529.

Graeber,David.2004. Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology.Chicago:PricklyParadigm Press.

Gramsci,Antonio.1988. The Gramsci Reader.ed.DavidForgacs.NewYork:NewYork UniversityPress.

Greenberg,JamesB.1997.APoliticalEcologyofStructural-AdjustmentPolicies:TheCase oftheDominicanRepublic. Culture and Agriculture 19(3):85-93.

Gupta,Akhil.2012. Red tape: bureaucracy, structural violence, and poverty in India. Durham:DukeUniversityPress.

Hale,CharlesR.2007.RethinkingIndigenousPoliticsintheEraofthe“IndioPermitido.” NACLA.

Halebsky,SandorandRichardLegéHarris.1995. Capital, Power, and Inequality in Latin America. Boulder:WestviewPress.

Hartmann,BetsyandJamesK.Boyce.1982. Needless Hunger: Voices from a Bangladesh Village.SanFrancisco:InstituteforFoodandDevelopmentPolicy.

Harvey,David.2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism.Oxford;NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress.

Harvey,Neil.2016.Practicandolaautonomía:elzapatismoylaliberacióndecolonial. translatedtextincluding“Practicingautonomy:Zapatismoanddecolonialliberation” (2016)and“Zapatismoyautonomía”(2015). El Cotidiano 200.

Hausmann,Ricardo,LuisEspinozaandMiguelAngelSantos.2015.TheLow-Productivity

TrapCHIAPASGROWTHDIAGNOSTICS.CenterforInternationalDevelopment atHarvard:WorkingPaperNo.304.

HernándezCastillo,RosalvaAída.2017.BetweenHopeandAdversity:thestruggleof organizedwomeninChiapassincetheZapatistauprising. Journal of Latin American Anthropology 3(1):102-120.

Holloway,John.2010.ChangetheWorldwithoutTakingPower.Newedition,PlutoPress. GetPolitical.

Huff,Amber,SalimaTasdemir,andPatrickHuff.2018.Why#DefendAfrin?Confronting authoritarianpopulismwithradicaldemocracy.openDemocracy.February12. (accessedMarch27,2018)

Juris,JeffreyS.andAlexKhasnabish.2013. Insurgent Encounters: Transnational Activism, Ethnography, and the Political. Durham:DukeUniversityPress.

Khasnabish,Alex.2010. Zapatistas: rebellion from the grassroots to the global. BlackPoint, N.S.:FernwoodPub.

Khoo,Su-mingandAislingWalsh.2016.RegeneratingEducationfromBelow-Endogenous TertiaryEducationinAlternativeDevelopmentNiches. New Models of Development: Lessons from Latin America 22.

LeyvaSolano,Xochitl.2005.Indigenismo,Indianismoand‘EthnicCitizenship’inChiapas. Journal of Peasant Studies 32,no.3&4:555-583.

LeyvaSolano,Xochitl.2016.PueblosenResistencia,justiciaepistémicayguerra. Cuadernos de Antropología 44(2016):37-50.

Magdoff,FredandJohnBellamyFoster.2011. What every environmentalist needs to know about capitalism: A citizen’s guide to capitalism and the environment.NewYork: MonthlyReviewPress.

Mann,CharlesC.2005. 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus. New York:AlfredA.Knopf.

Marglin,StephenA.2008. The Dismal Science: How thinking like an economist undermines community.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

MartínezEspinoza,Manuel.2007.DerechosindígenasenAméricaLatina.Emergencia política,autonomíayzapatismo. Temas y Debates 13(agosto2007).

Marx,Karl.1887. Capital: A critique of political economy.VolumeI,BookOne:The process ofproductionofcapital.Moscow:ProgressPublishers,1887[1867].

McKay,Ian.2009."GramsciisDead:AnarchistCurrentsintheNewestSocialMovements." Capital & Class 33,no.98:131-140.

Melenotte,Sabrina.2015.Zapatistaautonomyandthemakingofalter-nativepolitics:views fromitsday-to-daypraxis. Focaal-Journal of Global and Historical Anthropology 72:51-63.

Mentinis,Mihalis.2006. Zapatistas: The Chiapas Revolt and What It Means for Radical Politics.London:PlutoPress.

Misoczky,MariaCeci.2011.WorldvisionsindisputeincontemporaryLatinAmerica: developmentxharmoniclife. Organization 18(3):345-363.

Montessori,NicolinaMontesano.2011.Thedesignofatheoretical,methodological, analyticalframeworktoanalysehegemonyindiscourse. Critical Discourse Studies 8, no.3:169-181.

MutualAidDisasterRelief,JimmyandTyler.2018a.ProtectorsvsProfiteers:AnIllustrated PresentationaboutDisasterCapitalismandtheRisingResistancetoIt.Lecture, AppalachianStateUniversityDepartmentofAnthropology,Boone,NC.March13.

MutualAidDisasterRelief.2018b. MutualAidDisasterRelief. https://mutualaiddisasterrelief.org/ (accessedMarch2018)

Or,Yael.2014.ZapatistaInspirationforDevelopment.HebrewUniversityofJerusalem: MastersFinalPaper.

OurCommonFuture:ReportoftheWorldCommissionofEnvironmentandDevelopment. 1987.UnitedNations.http://www.un-documents.net/a42-427.htm.

Peet,Richard.2009.UnholyTrinity:TheIMF,WorldBank,andWTO.2nded.Londonand

NewYork:ZedBooks.

Pigg,StacyLeigh.1993.UnintendedConsequences:TheIdeologicalImpactofDevelopment inNepal. South Asia Bulletin 8(1&2):45-58

Proochista,Ariana.2012.ChallengingOurUnderstandingofHealth:IndigenousPerspectives fromtheHighlandsofChiapas,Mexico. Oxford Development Studies 40(3): 405–421.

Rasiński,Lotar.2011.Theideaofdiscourseinpoststrucutralism:Derrida,Lacan,and Foucault. Teraźniejszość– Człowiek– Edukacja,1:Aquarterlyofsocialand educationalideas,7-22.

Reyes,AlvaroandMaraKaufman.2011.Sovereignty,Indigeneity,Territory:Zapatista AutonomyandtheNewPracticesofDecolonization. The South Atlantic Quarterly. Spring2011.

Rifkin,Mark.2017. Beyond Settler Time: Temporal Sovereignty and Indigenous Self-Determination. Durham:DukeUniversityPress.

Rodriguez,Chris.2013.AnotherWayofDoingHealth:LessonsfromtheZapatista AutonomousCommunitiesinChiapas,Mexico.inDoingNutritionDifferently: CriticalApproachestoDietandDietaryIntervention,editedbyJessicaHayes Conroy,199–217.Burlington,VT:Ashgate.

Ross,John.2006. ¡Zapatistas!: Making Another World Possible.NewYork:NationBooks.

Ross,Norbert.2002."CognitiveAspectsofIntergenerationalChange:MentalModels, CulturalChange,andEnvironmentalBehavioramongtheLacandonMayaof SouthernMexico." Human Organization 61(2):125-138.

Rostow,W.W.1968.TheStagesofEconomicGrowth:ANon-CommunistManifesto. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Rus,Jan,RosalvaAídaHernándezCastillo,andShannonL.Mattiace.2003. Mayan Lives, Mayan Utopias: The Indigenous Peoples of Chiapas and the Zapatista Rebellion. Lanham:RowmanandLittlefieldPublishers.

Sachs,WolfgangandGustavoEsteva.2010. The Development Dictionary: a guide to

knowledge as power. NewYork:ZedBooks.

Satgar,Vishwas.2014. The solidarity economy alternative: emerging theory and practice Pietermaritzburg,SouthAfrica:UniversityofKwaZulu-NatalPress.

Sauper,Hubert,dir.2004. Darwin’s Nightmare.Venice,Italy:InternationalFilmCircuit,1 September2004.Documentary.

Scott,JamesC.1998. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress.

Scott,JamesC.2009. The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia. NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress.

Shenker,SarahDee.2012.Towardsaworldinwhichmanyworldsfit?Zapatistaautonomous educationasanalternativemeansofdevelopment. International Journal of Educational Development 32,no.3:432-443.

Sheppard,Eric,PhilipW.Porter,DavidR.Faust,andRichaNagar.2009. A World of Difference: Encountering and Contesting Development.NewYork:TheGuilford Press.

Sieder,RachelandAnnaBarreraVivero.2017.“LegalizingIndigenousSelf-Determination: AutonomyandBuenVivirinLatinAmerica.” The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology 22(1):9-26.

Simpson,Leanne.2011. Dancing on Our Turtle’s Back: Stories of Nishnaabeg Re-creation, Resurgence, and a New Emergence.Manitoba:KromarPrinting.

Smith,Adam.1776.AnInquiryintotheNatureandCausesoftheWealthofNations. Scotland:WilliamStrahanand ThomasCadell.

Speed,Shannon.2008. Rights in rebellion : indigenous struggle and human rights in Chiapas.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress.

Stahler-Sholk,Richard.2007.ResistingNeoliberalHomogenization:TheZapatista AutonomyMovement. Latin America Perspectives 34,no.2:48-63.

Stahler-Sholk,Richard.2010.TheZapatistaSocialMovement:Innovationand Sustainability.

Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 35,no.3:269-290.

SystemDMedia.Rojava:Ademocraticsysteminprogress.FilmedFebruary2015. YoutubeVideo,16:52.PostedMay2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_dchu1i8cs&index=17&list=WL

TorresRojas,Irma.2012.LaNuevaEducaciónAutónomaZapatista:Formacióndeuna IdentidadDiferenteenlosNiñosdelasComunidadesAutónomasZapatistas. Revista Divergencia 1(2):135-160.

Weedon,Chris.1997.Feministpractice&poststructuralisttheory.Cambridge,MA: BlackwellPublishers.

West,Paige.2006. Conservation is Our Government Now: The Politics of Ecology in Papua New Guinea.Durham:DukeUniversityPress.

Williams,Caitlin.2012.ArevolutionthatmakespossibletheRevolution:Theimpactof Zapatismoonindigenouswomen’saccesstoreproductivehealthservicesinChiapas, Mexico.HonorsThesis,UniversityofNorthCarolina.

TheWorldBankGroup.2014.TurnDowntheHeat:ConfrontingtheNewClimateNormal. PotsdamInstituteforClimateImpactResearchandClimateAnalytics.International BankforReconstructionandDevelopment/TheWorldBank.WorldBank.org.

TheWorldBankGroup.2017.WorldBankGroupFinances.WorldBank.org.