intelligent analysis of Mexican society fifty years ago
Octavio Paz won the Nobel Prize back in 1990. I haven’t ever read any of the literature he won for, but back in the pre-internet age I did read a most thoughtful book called “The Labyrinth of Solitude” about Mexican society. Some time later (about 21 years ago) I found this slim volume in a bookshop and only read it just now.
As pyramids played an important role in pre-Columbian societies in Mexico and as Paz likens the geological structure of Mexico to a pyramid, this is the origin of the title. There are three separate essays on Mexico here. The first is about the youth uprisings clamoring around the world in 1968 among which the most violently repressed was the one in Mexico. Government soldiers gunned down around 300 demonstrating students in Tlatelolco Square in Mexico City just before the ’68 Olympics. Paz writes a very perceptive essay in which he claims that such a ferocious reaction was a sign that the PRI regime had frozen, become sclerotic. He also felt that it was a sign that the Aztec penchant for bloodletting had not disappeared from the Mexican character, but I think this is somewhat too literary as “bloodletting” seems to be a universal human trait. Later on, in the last essay, Paz denies that the Aztecs were at the apex of Mexican civilization. They were more an aberration. It’s just that the world knows more about them.
The second essay is the major one, called “Development and Other Mirages”. Mexico developed economically a lot in the thirty years after 1940. Paz says it was due to industrialization by a new capitalist class, plus US influence and all the revolutionary reforms introduced after 1920. He notes a lot of “progress, but it is a disturbing sort of modernity” which failed to create a new social order. Overall, it’s an analysis of Mexico’s trajectory since the Revolution of 1910-1920, a critique of how the Revolution became ossified and captured by powerful men who proved capitalistic and self-serving. He says that the age of blind repetition of revolutionary slogans and ideas or the same old heroic murals on city walls is over. “Mexican culture has recovered its vocation as critic of society.” (p.51) I especially liked this part-sentence on page 67—“…every revolution that stifles criticism, that denies the right to contradict those in power, that prohibits the peaceful substitution of one government for another, is a revolution that defeats itself—is a fraud.”
If only I could hammer this into the skulls of Putin, Xi Jinpeng, the ayatollahs, and a certain orange-haired wannabe dictator. But while waiting for a chance, I could have done worse than to delve into Mexico’s 20th century past and read a very astute commentary on it. I haven’t given it more stars because I don’t think it is of interest to everyone. No, you should be fairly familiar with Mexican history and able to think about what Paz is saying.