Audio of the talk given by Valentino Gianuzzi (Manchester) for CLACS’s seminar series, entitled ‘Before Amauta: The Early Peruvian Avant-Gardes and the Fear of Modernity (1916-1926)’.
The Centre for Latin American and Caribbean Studies at Manchester would like to invite PhD students working in Latin American and Caribbean Studies at the Universities of Manchester, Liverpool and Lancaster to participate in a PG symposium funded by the North West Doctoral Training Centre and the North West Consortium Doctoral Training Partnership.
The event will take place on Tuesday 16 May at the University of Manchester and will provide PhD students with the opportunity to present papers on their research in a friendly and constructive environment, and to get feedback from peers and staff. Dr Paulo Drinot (UCL) will be giving a keynote talk as part of the day.
There are funds available for train travel, and lunch will be provided. The event is free but registration is required. You can register here: https://tinyurl.com/lud6e2p
Audio of the talk given by Dr Deborah Toner (Leicester) as part of the Centre for Latin American and Caribbean Studies research seminar.
Tessa Morrison, MPhil/PhD candidate at the Institute of Modern Languages Research, School of Advanced Studies, University of London, writes on Prof. Saúl Sosnowski‘s (University of Maryland) talk for CLACS earlier this year.
On 16th February 2016, CLACS welcomed Saúl Sosnowski, a leading scholar on Latin American Literature, to speak about elements of his current team-based research project entitled “Exile, Transnational Migration and the Transformation of Public Culture.” Professor Sosnowski, who has published extensively on exile literature, turned his sights on this occasion to los retornados – those citizens of Argentina, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay who returned from exile after the military dictatorships in each country.
At the beginning of the talk, the seemingly simple question was posed: what happened when they got back? Sosnowski and his team had interviewed over one hundred returnees to try and assess how well they had integrated back into their home country’s society, how the re-integration process had been affected by each country’s policies towards returnees (or lack thereof) and how returnees, in turn, had affected public policy, focussing particularly on scientific and technological research. In each case, there were variables that affected the outcome: the duration of the dictatorships; the intensity of their policies; and public attitude toward exiles. National reactions between the four countries thus varied from a rejection of those became to be seen as foreigners to full acceptance of the returnees. Of the four countries, Paraguay, Sosnowski stated, “is always the most dramatic” – at a time when the country afforded little priority or funding to research, lacked academic diversity and had a lower literacy rate (62%), not only were the returnees not welcomed back but there also lingered an oft openly-voiced longing for Stroessner and his rule. By comparison, Uruguay, the country that had imprisoned the most and killed the least, designed the best policies for returnees and paved the smoothest path to reintegration. Where progress was made, it was found to be more efficient where exiles and insilios (the term coined for those who stayed) cooperated. However, many interviewees spoke of a communal and communicative breakdown between those who left and those who stayed. Several times during the talk, Sosnowski echoed the sentiment that had been voiced: “we didn’t ask them and they didn’t ask us”. The return was not easy and often did not produce the immediate relief the returnees had envisaged but despite having lived for many years overseas, many still considered the country they had left home and retained an allegiance to their nation-state.
Despite commending the actions Uruguay took to welcome the returnees back, even before the end of the dictatorship, Sosnowski conceded that most interviewees recognised their familial situation and home life as their main motivation to return, rather than government initiatives. He explained that the returns were not massive but rather occurred in “faltering waves” as exiles returned after having experienced another life. One such case was Argentine writer Mario Goloboff, who had lived in exile for over 30 years. Goloboff was asked by a journalist why he wanted to go home. He answered “well, one wants to die in his own land”. His contemporary, Tununa Mercado by comparison was quoted by Sosnowski as saying: “I have to return to Argentina because it is my own country. It is what defines me, what I am. I don’t know why anyone would want to die upon returning to their homeland. It is a sort of shortening of the time phenomenon; it’s something that places you at the zero point.” As Sosnowski explained, Mercardo was voicing the disorientation felt by many returnees and asking “where do I go from here?”. As someone whose own research interests lies in exile literature, upon hearing this question, I instinctively reframed that question to ask “where does the writer go from here?”.
Nostalgia is a theme that many writers have to negotiate whilst in exile and manifests itself in their work. Of those returning, Sosnowski explained that they returned expecting to fit back into the life they left when they were twenty years old – nostalgia then, appears to be not only suffered whilst still in exile but it is carried across the ocean and back onto home turf. One thing became certain amongst the interviewees: upon return, neither the person they were nor the country they had left behind would be the same. Sosnowski talked about those who tried to return more than once, found all was not as they had remembered (or imagined) and ended up caught in a constant back and forth. His description of them being “happiest on the aeroplane” led me to recall Perri Rossi’s depiction of the airport and the safe haven offered by this in-between space. And yet, did this misguided nostalgia prove a limitation for the returning writers? From the testimony Sosnowski offered, it would appear not. He took the example of the Uruguayan writer Fernando Butazzoni, who said he never again felt quite at home. As pointed out though, Butazzoni had lived in many countries, the idea of home had become portable to him and yet he still chose to go home. Despite his claim that he didn’t feel at home, he went on to immerse himself in Uruguay society as a prominent cultural figure and engage himself in the reestablishment of the country. Luisa Valenzuela, one of Argentina’s most prominent women writers, asserted that “one carries roots within ourselves”, they are not something firmly planted in one place but something to be carried. She suggested that for writers in particular, their roots are carried to their true home: the edge, the margins. This was a fitting idea for Sosnowski to conclude his talk with as, as he pointed out, it is the lines, borders, edges and margins that underscore the estranged from the one who is at home.
Thank you to Professor Saul Sosnowski for an enriching talk, to those who attended for the lively discussion that followed and to CLACS for hosting the event. I look forward to reading the full study upon publication.
Email: tessa.morrison [at] postgrad.sas.ac.uk
On 26 April, CLACS organised a symposium for PhD students working in Latin American and Caribbean Studies at the Universities of Manchester and Liverpool. The event was funded by the North West Doctoral Training Centre. The event built on previous symposia organised in Manchester and provided PhD students with the opportunity to present papers on their research in a friendly and constructive environment, and to get feedback from peers and staff.
Linda Avendano (HCRI) kicked off the symposium with a presentation on child soldiers and miners in Colombia. Linda discussed the current academic interpretation of ‘child soldiering’ and its implications in terms of human rights violations and policy interventions. She argued for a wider comprehension of the multiple roles performed by children in current conflicts and outlined a theoretical framework that can help address gaps in theorising and practice.
Carole Myers (SALC) discussed elective cosmetic rhinoplasty in contemporary Brazilian women, focusing on the appropriation of cultural influences and their significance in contemporary Brazilian society.
Luis Eduardo Pérez Murcia (SEED) shared the results of his ethnographic work among displaced people in Colombia. He explained the multiple ways in which they construct narratives of home that are crucially shaped by the experiences of conflict and Displacement.
Nicola Astudillo-Jones (SALC) gave the first of two presentations dealing with cinema. She showed how British spectators of Latin American films at Manchester’s Viva Festival perceive Latin America-ness in terms of imagined cosmopolitan communities.
Nicola Runciman (SALC) continued with the topic of cinema, but moved from reception to film analysis, examining the narrative, aesthetic and socio-political functions of the Chilean landscape as it emerges in two recent films: El año del tigre (Sebastián Lelio, 2011) and Matar a un hombre (Alejandro Fernández Almendras, 2014). Nicola demonstrated how these films engage with nationally specific concerns about the social order while also articulating a troubling dimension of the body’s relationship to the external world, a dimension which connects the particular and the universal.
After lunch, Dr. Jon Beasley-Murray (University of British Columbia) gave a keynote talk on Latin American literature and infrapolitics as part of the day, entitled “What’s the Use of Literature? Machinery and Mechanism in the Latin American Canon”.
The afternoon session was devoted to literature. María Montt Strabucchi (SALC) explored Colombian author Santiago Gamboa’s novel Los Impostores (2002) in dialogue with the work of Sara Ahmed, Homi Bhabha and Jean-Luc Nancy, in order to draw out the challenge of essentialist views as well as the understandings of community that the novel suggests.
Ailsa Peate (Liverpool) analysed Rogelio Guedea’s Detective Trilogy and demonstrated how the Mexican author presents an original interpretation of the genre, achieved in part by creating a distressing plot based on historical events, which draws our attention to the corruption currently at the heart of the Mexican political elite.
Finally, Rafael Argenton Freire (SALC) looked at Brazilian Romantic poet Gonçalves Dias (1823-1864). Rafael explored how Gonçalves Dias self-fashioned himself as a poet in relation to European models and as a poet writing within and against the ideology of a Romantic, post-independence Brazil. Moreover, he look at how and to what extent his role within the literary relations of production contributed to his literary success and public recognition as a poet.
Prof. Peter Wade closed the symposium with a talk on how to get published in Latin American Studies, which provided very useful tips.
In sum, it was a long but fulfilling day in which we all engaged in exciting and stimulating discussions and that demonstrated the excellent research being carried out by our PhD students.
Here you can listen to the audio of the talk given by Dr Jo Evans (UCL) on childhood and adolescence in Luis Buñuel’s films as part of our Seminar Series.
Abstract: Childhood and adolescence have become an important focus of attention for film and film studies in recent years. Films like We Need to Talk About Kevin (Ramsey 2011), Gone Baby Gone (Affleck 2007), even Boyhood (Linklater, 2014), address the ethical complexity of our parental and/or social responsibility for children, and film scholars now pay serious attention to our relationship with the child on screen.
Major academic studies have emerged. Emma Wilson’s Cinema’s Missing Children(2003) and Sarah Wright’s The Child in Spanish Cinema (2013) provide the theoretical foundations for any serious analysis of the representation of children on screen, while Carolina Rocha’s special issue of Studies in Hispanic Cinemas(2011) on ‘Children in Hispanic Cinema’ testifies the importance of this topic for scholars Spanish-language film. Yet to date, with the exception of studies of Los olvidados, scholars have paid little attention to the representation of childhood in the work of the director who is arguably still the best-known Spanish-language auteur. With a view to addressing this perceived gap, this paper will examine the Spanish-Mexican director Luis Buñuel’s complex, provocative, ambivalent, blackly comic and, at times, frankly disturbing representation of the child on screen.