![Sample our Arts journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110799/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Arts.jpg"})
Abstract
We examine Chicano on the Storm, performed in 1991 by Richard Montoya of the theater group CitationCulture Clash, and Border Brujo, performed in 1990 by Guillermo Gómez-Peña to explore the ways that the performances stage identities. We contend that the performances advance commentaries about the cultural milieu shaping Chicana/o identities and the notion of a foundational “Chicano” identity by performing psychic trauma so that struggles and tensions may be exorcized. Subsequently a ChicanoBrujo subjectivity is possible. Both performances yield insights about the confluence of culture, performance, and narratives that position us to advance the contours of a decolonial performance practice that melds insights from cultural performance scholarship with that of emancipatory cultural concepts derived from Mexican oral tradition.
Both authors are equal contributors to the research and writing of this manuscript. An earlier version of this essay was presented at the Western States Communication Association conference, San Francisco, February 2005.
Both authors are equal contributors to the research and writing of this manuscript. An earlier version of this essay was presented at the Western States Communication Association conference, San Francisco, February 2005.
Acknowledgments
The authors appreciate the support of the anonymous reviewers and the editor for their comments and suggestions that strengthened further this essay. We also extend our thanks to the CSU writing group, Eric Aoki, Karrin Anderson, Kirsti Broadfoot, Carl Burgchardt, Martín Carcasson, Greg Dickinson, and Brian Ott, for their feedback on an earlier draft of this essay.
Notes
Both authors are equal contributors to the research and writing of this manuscript. An earlier version of this essay was presented at the Western States Communication Association conference, San Francisco, February 2005.
1. Throughout our essay, we aim to highlight nuances across three symbols that appear interchangeable—Chicana/o, “Chicano,” and Chicano. We use Chicana/o (with no surrounding markers) to reference the living beings who avow such an identity; “Chicano” conveys the constructed discursive identity that contemporary scholars criticize for its nationalistic and patriarchal foundationalism; Chicano (or Chicana, the feminine parallel) is a self-designated label arising during the Chicano movement expressing cultural pride.
2. For non-English words, the normative practice is to italicize them. However, we believe such a practice is textually disruptive and contradictory to the spirit of our manuscript. The performances we analyze dramatize and work toward undoing the effects of “psychic trauma” (Anzaldúa); thus, to italicize Spanish words implies an endorsement of “difference” as negative and a perpetuation of psychic trauma. Therefore, we purposely do not italicize any Spanish terms.
3. Gómez-Peña's later work such as the Mexterminator performances and Two Underdiscovered Amerindians Visit Spain, however, does reflect the influence of ethnographic practice and the history of “otherizing.”
4. When talking about “Chicana/o theater” we use gender inclusive language. Where “Chicano” appears in relation to theater such references are purposeful to mark a cultural moment where Chicana/o theater was construed in male terms.
5. Perhaps relevant, each performance varies in length; Chicano on the Storm is approximately ten minutes, whereas Border Brujo approximates sixty minutes.
6. Some individuals may be familiar with Moreno's work via his character Cantinflas in the film Around the World in 80 Days. In that role, Moreno's artistry or performance illustrates the use of performance to simultaneously diminish and tout a culture. On this note, we appreciate one reviewer bringing this film to our attention.
7. The Royal Chicano Art Force was located in Sacramento and established in 1969. It was an artist collective concerned with “economic, political, cultural and social” issues impacting Chicana/o communities (Goldman 35).
8. Our identification of “Enigma” in Montoya's performance is not our doing; rather the name is listed in the performer's published manuscript.
9. The code switching that Montoya exhibits is not what would be considered Spanglish that is, the literal fusion of Spanish and English words. However, Montoya's use of Spanish offers an identity based connection for audience members (on this point, see Anzaldúa 54–59).
10. Loosely translated as the wailing woman, La Llorona is Chicana/o folklore to which different versions circulate, both culturally and artistically. Told by parents to children to encourage good behavior, La Llorona wanders riverbanks looking for her children that she supposedly killed in a fit of jealous anger because of her husband's infidelities. Most versions proffer a heteronormative perspective, an exception being Palacios.
11. We will use el movimiento as an alternate referent for the Chicana/o movement.
12. Chicana feminists challenged and unsettled the unified stable “Chicano” subject by underscoring its patriarchal and masculinist tendencies (CitationChabram and Fregoso). Subsequent to the Chicana/o movement, transformations to the label Chicano include Chicano/a, Chicana/o and Chican@.
13. For a more elaborate discussion on Chicana/os as “White” turn to Martinez or Haney Lopez, both of whom discuss the materiality of Whiteness for Chicana/os.
14. We should clarify that the designators of “Authoritative and Normal Voices” are not our choosing, but rather those invoked by CitationGómez-Peña (Warrior).
15. For a more elaborate discussion of both the conflation of Latina/o identities and the commodification of Latina/o bodies see CitationDávila.
16. The long history of sexualization of Latina/os in mass media is well documented by scholars such as CitationKeller and CitationRodriguez.