Aztlán: A Journal of Chicano Studies 35:1 Spring 2010 © University of California Regents 135
George Hartley
ABSTRACT: In this essay I argue that the primary role that Gloria Anzaldúa creates for herself as a writer and activist is that of the curandera of conquest, the healer of la herida abierta (the open wound) created by the borders imposed by capitalism, nationalism, imperialism, sexism, homophobia, and racism. After examining Anzaldúa’s Prietita and the Ghost Woman as both an illustration (in content) and an example (in enactment) of her practice as a curandera, I provide a brief overview of curanderismo and key developments in the theories of decolonization within global indigenous studies since the turn of the twenty-first century. I read Anzaldúa’s decolonizing work as a companion to this recent decolonization move within indigenous theory and practice.
In a 1991 interview concerning the Quincentennial celebrations, Gloria Anzaldúa defines her project of “spiritual activism” as a decolonizing countermovement to Euro-American glorifications of both conquests, the Spanish and the Anglo (2000, 177–94). She anchors her rejection of colonialism in what she calls the “New Tribalism,” grounded in her attention to the indigenous roots of mestizaje. Noting that the Conquest was enacted through writing (letters between Columbus and Isabella, chronicles written by the clergy, and, we could add, treaties between the U.S. government and hand-chosen tribal “representatives”), she argues for “reclaiming the agency of reinscribing, taking off their inscriptions and reinscribing ourselves” (189) as a step toward healing of the Earth (193). In this example we see Anzaldúa’s self-definition as a curandera of conquest, a healer of la herida abierta, the open wound created by the borders that neocolonialism has imposed—borders policing class, national, gender, sexual, racial, and religious divisions. Anzaldúa’s healing work in defining mestiza consciousness functions as a necessary precondition for liberation from below and as the embodiment of a concrete, historically embedded alternative to the colonizing Eurocentric rationality of modernity.1
Such healing work involves a diagnosis and a remedy. Anzaldúa situates her diagnosis within her chronicling of Anglo terrorism in the Southwest. The social forces of oppression that she identifies produce the illness: internalized colonialism. Having internalized the perspective of the colonizers, one sees oneself through the colonizers’ eyes and in terms of the colonizers’ values and, then, is rajada: sliced right down the middle by the inner conflict resulting from such internalization. This slice or cut—what Anzaldúa (1987, 67) refers to as la rajadura—manifests as the individual incorporation of the herida abierta of the border. The Chicana’s process of recognizing and purging herself of this internalized alien and constantly self-damning perspective and replacing it with a positive, re-indigenized self-orientation is the primary act of decolonizing that Anzaldúa’s writings make possible. In this way she provides the remedy for the root cause of the many symptoms of colonized selfhood.
I clarify my claim that Anzaldúa is the curandera of conquest first by examining her book Prietita and the Ghost Woman (2001). Next, I lay out the key elements of curanderismo. I provide a brief overview of key developments in the theories of decolonization within global indigenous studies since the turn of the twenty-first century, looking specifically at the work of Maori scholar Linda Tuhiwai Smith and that of two native North American activist-theoreticians, Waziyatawin Angela Wilson and Taiaiake Alfred. Finally, I show how Anzaldúa’s decolonizing work is already operating in terms similar to this recent decolonization move within indigenous theory and practice. As a gesture toward a kind of pan-tribal solidarity, I want to suggest a cross-reading of Anzaldúa within the terms of indigenous decolonization—and the reverse. Such a move might function as a bridgebetween global movements of indigenous decolonization and Anzaldúa’s militant Chicana critique of Spanish and Anglo colonialisms, which in turn raises important issues for cross-border indigenism and for peoples who have been detribalized through ethnic cleansing of various sorts.2
GEORGE HARTLEY, an associate professor in the Department of English and the Latin American Studies Program at Ohio University, is author of The Abyss of Representation: Marxism and the Postmodern Sublime (2003) and Textual Politics and the Language Poets (1989). He is currently writing a book manuscript titled “The Curandera of Conquest: Gloria Anzaldúa’s Decolonizing Consciousness.” He can be contacted at hartleyg@ohio.edu.
The Curandera of Conquest
Decolonization and the Curandera’s Apprentice
We see a prime example of the workings of decolonization in one of
Anzaldúa’s children’s stories. Prietita, a dark-complexioned young girl, is
apprenticed to a curandera. Prietita’s name is slang for “little dark girl,”
meaning that she appears more indigenous than other Chicanas (Anzaldúa
1983). Anzaldúa shows in this cuento (story) that the turn to curanderismo
itself is a decolonizing act, and that decolonization, by healing the wounds
of conquest, is a form of curanderismo.
A curandera is a female traditional Mexican or Chicana healer or
medicine woman who makes use of ancient rituals and (primarily herbal)
remedies known as remedios.3 In this way, she draws on a body of knowledge
that has been suppressed by the colonizing forces. A Christianized
synthesis of indigenous healing practices from Arab Africa, Europe, and the
Americas, curanderismo made possible a mode of practical consciousness
that offered indigenous peoples (including mestizos) a concrete yet discreet
means of resisting the colonizing impact of the Spanish Conquest and with
it the initial moment of modernity-coloniality. The second conquest, the
later moment of modernity promulgated by U.S. imperialism, inflicted
yet another colonial practice of wounding in its continuous expansion
of military and economic aggression under the Monroe Doctrine. In her
development of what she refers to in Borderlands/La Frontera as the new
mestiza consciousness, Anzaldúa herself becomes the decolonizing curandera
of conquest.
In Prietita and the Ghost Woman (2001), Anzaldúa picks up on her earlier
self-identification as la Prieta, the dark girl with Indian features.4 As the
story opens, Prietita is working in the garden of a curandera when she learns
that her mother is suffering from a recurring sickness. Knowing that Doña
Lola, the curandera, “can cure almost any sickness” and knows “almost every
healing plant” in the Rio Grande Valley of South Texas, Prietita asks her
for a remedio, or remedy. But Doña Lola informs Prietita that she has run
out of ruda, a crucial ingredient in the cure. She sends Prietita on a quest
for the missing plant, which can only be found in a dangerous place—the
King Ranch, whose occupants are famous for shooting trespassers. The actual
trespassers, the Euro-American invaders who conquered South Texas and
established such colonial enterprises as the King Ranch, have turned the
tables and are now defending “their” territory from others.5
Doña Lola provides Prietita, then, with the crucial experience that
teaches her that her own development as a curandera requires fearless
confrontation with colonialist violence. The story thus becomes an
138
Hartley
illustration of the educating function of the curandera, of the necessary
transmission of sacred knowledge from one generation to the next if there
is to be health and cultural survival. Conveying this message in a bilingual
children’s book is itself a way of synthesizing medium and message—it is
a story about cultural transmission told by means of a genre devoted to
(usually monolingual) cultural transmission. Rather than passing on the
standard colonialist revisions of history as taught in mainstream children’s
literature and the educational system, Anzaldúa appropriates the medium
for her decolonizing mission.
In this story Anzaldúa brings together several of the critical motifs of
her Borderlands (1987). Probably most important is the insistence on the
need to reclaim the cultural embodiments of indigenous womanhood that
have been demonized by Christianity and Western rationalism. A prominent
example in Borderlands is Anzaldúa’s reconstruction of Coatlicue, the
monstrous earth-mother deity of the Aztecs (Aigner-Varoz 2000, 56–57;
Alarcón 1989; Bost 2005; Lara 2008). In the masculinist cosmology of the
Aztecs, Coatlicue (Earth) and her daughter Coyolxauhqui (Moon) are
eclipsed and dismembered by Coatlicue’s son Huitzilopochtli (Sun/War). By
contrast, in Anzaldúa’s reconstructed cosmology, which involves returning
to the matriarchal roots of Amerindian symbolism, the female principle
embodied by Coatlicue and Coyolxauhqui is returned to its rightful place
at the center of social consciousness.6 Monstrosity and dismemberment here
pave the way for insight into the nature of the soul and the healing of the
social wound—la herida abierta. Anzaldúa carries out the same revisionary
project in the story of the curandera’s apprentice.
For Prietita, even though she is unaware of this throughout most of the
story, the figure in need of reclamation and transfiguration is La Llorona, the
infamous weeping woman of Mexican culture. Elsewhere Anzaldúa explains
La Llorona’s origins: “La Llorona is a ghost woman with long black hair
and dressed in white who appears at night, sometimes near bodies of water,
sometimes at crossroads, calling with loud and terrifying wails for her lost
children. She has her origins in various prehispanic deities: Cihuacóatl,
Xtabai, Xonaxi Queculla, and Auicanime” (2000, 576, n.8). Having lost
her own children tragically, La Llorona is often said to roam in search of
other wayward children to drown in lakes, rivers, acequias, and other bodies
of water (Arrizón 2000; Carbonell 1999; Garber 2001, 152–54). As part
of the transborder Mexican cultural practice of denigrating female figures,
the demonization of La Llorona reinforces the perception of the power of
women as frightening and seemingly destructive. This is especially true of
139
The Curandera of Conquest
curanderas and brujas, who are often cast as evil and seductive witches—an
expression of Christian intolerance of heterodoxy and otherness. It is in this
spirit, for example, that Irene Lara writes of taking on “bruja positionalities”—
of reappropriating the power of such demonized female figures—as
part of a “project concerned with decolonizing the sacred from oppressive
Christian and western worldviews that perpetuate desconocimientos that
negatively impact women’s lives” (2005, 12).
Prietita’s quest involves many dangers and leaps of faith. The first
challenge, mentioned above, is entering the forbidden King Ranch. Finding
no ruda plants outside the perimeter of the ranch, Prietita realizes that she
must sneak under the barbwire. She finds herself walking deeper and deeper
into the woods. Hearing the sound of a woman crying, she is confronted
by a danger that she has learned to fear as much as, if not more than,
gringos with guns—La Llorona. Prietita responds as she has been raised to
do: “She remembered her grandmother’s stories of la Llorona—the ghost
woman [ la mujer fantasma] dressed in white. Her grandmother said that la
Llorona appeared at night by rivers or lagoons, crying for her lost children
and looking for other children to steal.” In Prietita’s response we see the
internalization of colonization in action and the ideological reverse of the
generational transmission that Anzaldúa seeks. Prietita’s grandmother has
bought into the lie of patriarchy that claims that La Llorona is an evil force
to be feared and avoided.
As part of her development, Prietita must trust her intuition that the
animals she meets are not simply animals but helpers in her quest. It is
possible, moreover, that each animal is a nagual for La Llorona, an animal
form that she assumes. Shape shifting is a notion common throughout
indigenous cultures in the Americas.7 The animals that Prietita meets—the
white-tail deer ( venadita), the salamander, the dove, the jaguar, and the
lightning bugs—have sacred significance to Mesoamerican peoples, who
regard many of them as naguals. Whether we are to see them as manifestations
of La Llorona or simply as animal guides that lead Prietita to her,
the key here is that Prietita instinctively trusts them, speaks to them, and
follows their lead through the forest. The animals bring her to La Llorona,
who floats above the waters of a lagoon. When Prietita arrives, La Llorona’s
behavior is just the opposite of what the legends attribute to her. Instead
of stealing and murdering Prietita, she shows her where to find the ruda
and then leads her back to the barbwire boundary of the King Ranch. La
Llorona leads Prietita, in other words, on the path of the curandera and
thereby contributes to two forms of healing: healing Prietita’s mother with
140
Hartley
the ruda (the standard act of the curandera) and healing the cultural status
of women by negating the negative representation usually attributed to the
La Llorona figure (the larger transformative social act of the curandera).
Prietita’s family is waiting for her outside the barbwire fence. Telling
them of her success, she says, “A ghost woman in white was my guide.” Her
cousin Teté responds with the typical colonized reaction to any reference to
La Llorona: “But everyone knows she takes children away. She doesn’t bring
them back.” Doña Lola knows better, however, explaining that “perhaps she
is not what others think she is.” In the same vein Anzaldúa writes, “Behind,
the world admonishes you to stick to the old-and-tried dominant paradigm,
the secure relationships within it. Adelante, la Llorona whispers, ‘You have
a task, a calling, only you can bring forth your potential.’ You yearn to
know what that ever-present inner watcher is asking of you” (2002, 556).
Doña Lola has provided Prietita with access to the decolonizing power
of the curandera, the power to heal the open wound of the colonial border
by reclaiming the healing and guiding power of indigenous women. This
takes place through the reappropriation of figures such as La Llorona,
Malinche (the indigenous princess who led Cortés to Moctezuma),
Coatlicue (the monstrous Toltec earth mother), and Coyolxauhqui
(Coatlicue’s daughter, the moon goddess who was murdered by her brother
Huitzilopochtli, the sun-war god). Each local, individual healing act of
the curandera is a moment of participating in the larger healing process of
decolonization. And Anzaldúa’s own act of telling Prietita’s story is at once
an example of and an exposition on the political power of reclaiming the
curandera as the curandera reclaims La Llorona. In her remarks on countering
five hundred years of colonialism, Anzaldúa says, “I’ve recuperated
la Llorona to trace how we go from victimhood to active resistance, from
the wailing of suffering and grief to the grito of resistance, and on to the
grito of celebration and joy” (2000, 180). Anzaldúa herself is the curandera
when she engages in the process of telling this story, and in the process, she
continues the transmission of healing knowledge in the face of colonial
forgetting and erasure.
Curanderismo
Prietita is, of course, a figure for Anzaldúa’s own initiation into a decolonial
curanderismo. When I call Anzaldúa the curandera of conquest, this is no
metaphor. I am not suggesting that Anzaldúa’s project is to conquest and
colonialism what the curandera’s is to sickness, curses, and other maladies
141
The Curandera of Conquest
that fall under the healer’s purview. I mean that Anzaldúa’s decolonial
project is in fact a form of curanderismo, that she consciously applies the
concepts and practices of the curandera to the social ills of colonialism that
she hopes to help heal. These are concepts and practices that she hopes
to pass on to others who would take on (apprentice themselves to) such a
project. An overview of traditional concepts and practices of curanderismo
will provide us with a key to understanding Anzaldúa’s references to these
concepts and practices and how they operate within her decolonial mode
of curanderismo.
Curanderismo is a healing practice with origins in Arab (via Spain),
African (via diasporic slaves), Greek, Spanish, and Amerindian cultures.
Despite being superficially transformed by the “civilized” monotheistic
traditions of Islam and Christianity, the practices and belief systems of
curanderismo stem primarily from polytheistic tribal-indigenous sources.
Curanderas often use Christianized elements, but these elements themselves
are primarily pre-Christian and are given a Christian veneer through various
syncretistic influences. These elements are in substance no different
from those of Aztec or Maya healing practices. Furthermore, elements that
clearly derive from Europe are themselves carryovers from pre-Christian
indigenous European practices, again despite having been clothed in
Christian trappings. Even as late as the Spanish Inquisition, which was
concurrent with the Conquest of the Americas, pre-Christian “folk” beliefs
and practices persisted—as seen in the attempts to eradicate witchcraft.
The characterization in the Americas of the bruja as a witch who practices
black magic was shaped in part by the Inquisition (although there are
indigenous roots here as well).
When I speak of curanderismo and Anzaldúa’s adoption of it as
indigenous, then, I am referring in part to its roots in global indigenous
cultures; but I am at the same time speaking of current-day indigenous
practices that have survived in spite of hundreds of years of attempts to
squash them. While never overtly saying so—although she does point
to others who have (2000, 19)—Anzaldúa frames herself in her poeticspiritual-
activist practice as a curandera as she engages in Aztec and other
Mesoamerican practices and their survival in so-called folk culture.8 For
what is spoken of as Mexican folk culture is often a composite of various
detribalized indigenous elements, detribalized in the sense that the tribal
roots of many Mexicans, especially in the north in places such as Texas,
have been forgotten or suppressed. In The Last Generation, Cherríe Moraga
argues that the majority of Chicanos have been
142
Hartley
denied direct information regarding our tribal affiliations. Since our
origins are usually in the southwest and México, Chicanos’ Indian roots
encompass a range of nations including Apache, Yaqui, Papago, Navajo,
and Tarahumara from the border regions, as well as dozens of Native tribes
throughout México. Regardless of verifiable genealogy, many Chicanos
have recently begun to experience a kind of collective longing to return
to our culture’s traditional Indigenous beliefs and ways of constructing
community in order to find concrete solutions for the myriad problems
confronting us, from the toxic dump sites in our neighborhoods to rape.
(1999, 166)
Anzaldúa’s decolonizing project seeks to remember these tribal roots
and to highlight their continuing existence today, as Guillermo Bonfil
Batalla argues in his study of indigenous Mexico (1996). This act flies
in the face of both the Spanish and Anglo-American conquests of tribal
cultures in North America and the attempts by both the Mexican and
the U.S. national projects to relegate indigenous cultures to museums
and murals as safe relics of the past. Anzaldúa was quite conscious, even
so, of the resistances such an indigenous identification might cause. In
an interview, she discussed the ways in which both Chicanas and Native
women challenged this move. Hating the Indian in themselves, some Raza
display the mechanisms of internalized colonialism as they treat “las indias”
as other: “Nosotras gets divided into nos/otras, into an us/them division.
The us/them dichotomy locks us into a who-is-more-oppressed dynamic.
Internalized racism and internalized shame get played out” (2004, 10). She
also points to the tendency among some Native women to see Chicanas
as appropriationists who continue “the abuse of native spirituality and
the Internet appropriation of Indian symbols, rituals, vision quests, and
spiritual healing practices like shamanism. Some natives put Chicanas/os
on the side of the dominators and claim our fantasies are similar to those of
‘whites.’”9 This rift—interestingly described as the “open herida”—becomes
further complicated as different groups are pitted against one another for
resources in academic institutions, aggravating the “wounds of genocidal
colonization and marginalization that have never formed scabs because
they’ve continued to bleed for centuries.”
When Anzaldúa describes the open wound of the border in specific
terms, as specific types of ailments, she draws directly from curanderismo.
Elena Avila, to whom Anzaldúa refers in later work (2002, 580), writes
that curanderismo recognizes three categories of diseases: physical, emotional,
and spiritual. The primary physical diseases that curanderas treat
are (a) bilis, bile or rage, from Greek humoral theory, as seen in someone
143
The Curandera of Conquest
who would be characterized as a rage-aholic; (b) empacho, a blockage of
the stomach or digestive tract, requiring massage-like treatment, or any
kind of blockage of the body’s physical or emotional energies (of the heart
or the soul); and (c) mal aire, bad air, which manifests in cold symptoms,
earaches, and sometimes facial paralysis, all from exposure to night air.
Avila explains that Mesoamerican tribes were “aware that diseases were
caused by airborne bacteria,” even though they called these tiny organisms
“spirits” (1999, 47–48). The physical ailments that Anzaldúa deals with
are primarily empacho (see below in relation to Coatlicue) and mal aire or
mal aigre (see my discussion of susto below). The physical, emotional, and
spiritual are intricately interconnected for her.
The emotional diseases include: (a) envidia, envy; (b) mal puesto, a hex
or curse; (c) mal de ojo, illness caused by staring (with an ojo de venado,
an object resembling the eye of a deer, often prescribed as remedy); and
finally, (d) mala suerte, bad luck, which Avila suggests we experience when
life does not match our expectations, leading to low self-esteem, worry,
and helplessness (1999, 61). Anzaldúa rarely makes specific reference to
these ailments, but I would argue that internalized colonization, which
she emphasizes, is a form of mal de ojo in that it involves the debilitating
effects of being seen as the other in colonial society. In “Metaphors in the
Tradition of the Shaman,” Anzaldúa suggests the cure for this colonizing
mal de ojo, which inheres in the very metaphors by which we make sense
of our world, involves replacing the internalized disempowering metaphors
with empowering ones:
La curación—“the cure”—may consist of removing something (disindoctrination)—
of extracting the old dead metaphors. Or it may consist
of adding what is lacking—restoring the balance and strengthening the
physical, mental, and emotional states of the person. . . . In Borderlands/La
frontera, I articulate the debilitating states that women and the colonized
go through and the resulting disempowerment. . . . [The disempowering
metaphor] will endure until we replace it with a new metaphor, one that
we believe in both consciously and unconsciously. (1990, 99–100)
Noting that envidia, or envy, is often the emotion behind mal de
ojo, Anzaldúa argues that such is the expected outcome of a people whose
values promote communal harmony over individual glory. While such
values are often necessary for the group’s survival, they tend to harden into
demands for conformity and humility. People who appear to emphasize the
self over the group, then, lay themselves open for envy and its destructive
results. When a culture establishes and polices hierarchical orders, anyone
144
Hartley
seeking minority recognition is defined as deviant and insubordinate.
“The Chicano, mexicano, and some Indian cultures have no tolerance
for deviance,” Anzaldúa writes, relating homophobia to such communal
intolerance. “The queer are the mirror reflecting the heterosexual tribe’s
fear: being different, being other and therefore lesser, therefore subhuman,
in-human, non-human” (1987, 40).
Anzaldúa refers to the spiritual diseases frequently in her work. The two
primary types that curanderas work with are (a) susto, or soul loss, which
we suffer if we experience a frightening or traumatic event intense enough
to cause our soul to temporarily leave our body (Avila 1999, 64); and (b)
espanto, the susto (fright) caused by seeing a ghost, not honoring the dead,
or leaving unfinished business. Anzaldúa explains that because indigenous
peoples of the Americas believe in the physicality of the soul, they then
believe that the soul (which contains many layers or manifestations) can be
affected by external forces (2002, 577, n.12). Susto is a fright that results in
the loss of the soul. “The afflicted one is allowed to rest and recuperate, to
withdraw into the ‘underworld’ without drawing condemnation” (1987, 70).
But in a world dominated by Western notions of science and medicine (a
West that had vanquished its own indigenous systems such as the medieval
“folk” medicine brought over by the Conquistadors), Anzaldúa was not supposed
to give credence to the indigenous beliefs underlying curanderismo.
“So I grew up in the interface,” she tells us, “trying not to give countenance
to el mal aigre, evil non-human, non-corporeal entities riding the wind, that
could come in through the window, through my nose with my breath. I was
not supposed to believe in susto, a sudden shock or fall that frightens the
soul out of the body” (1987, 60). Living at the intersection of indigenous
and European spiritual-medicinal belief systems resulted in yet another form
of la herida abierta of mestizaje. Ironically, then, this colonial attempt to
squash curanderismo itself gave rise to a new need for a cure.
Just as there are many different diseases treated by curanderas, Avila
explains there are also various different specialists in curanderismo (1999,
69–86). They include (a) hierbero, or herbalist; (b) sobadora, or masseuse,
with a healing touch; (c) partera, the midwife who gives a child a deep
sense of place and belonging; (d) consejera, or counselor, who uses pláticas
(heart-to-heart talks) to allow the victim to desahogar (let off steam, vent);
(e) espiritualista, the trance medium who channels spirits; (f) huesero, akin
to a chiropractor; and (g) curandera total, who employs all four levels of
medicine that Avila identifies—physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual.
In her discussions of indigenist-mestiza practice and in her own practice as
145
The Curandera of Conquest
described in her major writings, Anzaldúa deals with issues related to each
of these roles except for (to my knowledge) the sobadora and the huesero.
Her mestiza consciousness project works specifically with the problems of
empacho, susto, and espanto. The Coatlicue state, for example—the primary
condition responsible for the development of mestiza consciousness—begins
with empacho: “Blocks ( Coatlicue states) are related to my cultural identity.
The painful periods of confusion that I suffer from are symptomatic of a larger
creative process: cultural shifts. The stress of living with cultural ambiguity
both compels me to write and blocks me” (1987, 96).
In the process, the mestiza writer is ejected “as nahual, an agent of
transformation, able to modify and shape primordial energy and therefore
able to change herself and others into turkey, coyote, tree, or human”
(1987, 96–97). It is exactly this process of empowering transformation
that Anzaldúa attributes to La Llorona in Prietita and the Ghost Woman.
Elsewhere she specifically refers to this process as a limpia, a cleansing ritual
carried out by the curandera (2002, 554).
The actual formal practice of curanderismo takes place in just such
ceremonies and the making, prescribing, and sometimes administering
of remedios. The primary ceremonies include limpias, pláticas, and soul
recovery. Limpias, or ceremonial cleansings, often use sacred smoke from
copal or sage as a cleansing medium. The burning of the resin copal—from
the Nahuatl word copalli, meaning incense—is known in other contexts
as smudging. Anzaldúa describes performing such cleansing ceremonies
throughout her work, such as during her observance of el día de la Chicana
y el Chicano: “On that day I clean my altars, light my Coatlalopeuh candle,
burn sage and copal, take el baño para espantar basura [a bath for scaring
away trash], sweep my house” (1987, 110). Or her description of the
writing process as sacred ritual for the nahual mestiza writer: “I sit here
before my computer, Amiguita, my altar on top of the monitor with the
Virgen de Coatlalopeuh candle and copal incense burning. My companion,
a wooden serpent staff with feathers, is to my right while I ponder
the ways metaphor and symbol concretize the spirit and etherealize the
body” (97). In this computer/altar assemblage Anzaldúa creates a site for
the concretizing/etherealizing practice of “mestiza” consciousness in one
of her most profound interventions: the transformative combination of
her curandera’s altar (the techno-site for concretizing the spirit) and her
computer monitor (the techno-site for etherializing the body). This metaphoric
complex undermines Western linear temporality and its ideology of
progress that normally polices the distinction between computer and altar
146
Hartley
by manifesting the contemporaneity and compatibility of indigenous and
Western practices—a Quetzalcoátlan fusing of “opposites” already embodied
by her feathered serpent staff. In this way, Anzaldúa fuses what Western
logic perceives as the premodern and the postmodern when she refuses to
privilege the narcissistic self-importance of the modern itself.
Anzaldúa’s use of the plática ritual, the heart-to-heart talks with the
sufferer, is a crucial element of her decolonizing work. The typical purpose
of the plática is to plumb the depths of the sufferer’s soul or psyche in order
to unearth the causes of the person’s malaise. Then the curandera provides
healthy direction and encouragement. In Anzaldúa’s work this exchange
is part of her social analysis of the forces/sources of oppression on a larger
sociohistorical scale, namely the impact of colonialism on those who are
marked by the marking of the border. In this sense, her whole system could
be seen as a mode of plática performance; yet this mode shows up in much
more specific instances throughout her work, informing, for example, the
whole second-person mode of address of “Now let us shift . . .” In that essay,
Anzaldúa is engaged in a plática with herself—but herself as the representative
of the whole class of border victims falling under her term “Mestiza,” as
she says in Borderlands: “I am playing with my Self, I am playing with the
world’s soul, I am the dialogue between my Self and el espíritu del mundo. I
change myself, I change the world” (1987, 92).
The curandera’s practice of soul retrieval is probably the most significant
and all-encompassing of Anzaldúa’s own healing practices in relation
to the communally experienced susto of conquest. The Coatlicue state,
in its shamanic and poetic modes, is just such a process of soul retrieval.
Anzaldúa refers to this process as “making face,” which she calls “a Nahuatl
concept” (2002, 95), or making soul (1987, 68; 1995), a post-Jungian concept
developed by James Hillman (1977). She explains the relationships
between these concepts as follows:
We need Coatlicue to slow us up so that the psyche can assimilate previous
experiences and process the changes. If we don’t take the time, she’ll
lay us low with an illness, forcing us to “rest.” Come, little green snake.
Let the wound caused by the serpent be cured by the serpent. The soul
uses everything to further its own making. Those activities or Coatlicue
states which disrupt the smooth flow (complacency) of life are exactly
what propel the soul to do its work: make soul, increase consciousness of
itself. Our greatest disappointments and painful experiences—if we can
make meaning out of them—can lead us toward becoming more of who
we are. Or they can remain meaningless. The Coatlicue state can be a
way station or it can be a way of life. (1987, 68)
147
The Curandera of Conquest
Here Anzaldúa, in concise form, presents a decolonizing theory of
trauma. While this scenario applies to ways of dealing with any illness,
the primary illness that concerns Anzaldúa, again, is the open wound of
the creation and colonization of border regions.10 Illness functions here as
a symptom rather than as the main condition to be addressed. This is so
because “local” illnesses, so to speak, are symptomatic manifestations of
the larger illness of colonialism. The traumatic experiences of the changes
wrought by colonization are what need to be acknowledged and processed
in order, in the language of curanderismo, for the soul to be retrieved or, in
the language of psychoanalysis, for the traumatized psyche to be reintegrated
and resymbolized. When we ignore these signs and attempt to push through
trauma in order to get on with our lives, as if nothing had ever happened,
we need “ Coatlicue to slow us up,” forcing us to rest in order to confront
the need for the painful process of psychic reintegration—painful because
it requires intense self-scrutiny (soul searching) into the ways we have
internalized the colonizing forces behind the trauma.
The Coatlicue state, in other words, descends on us like an illness.
We can either accommodate ourselves to this illness (make it “a way of
life”) or we can take it as a sign for the need for soul work (make it “a
way station”). So what remedy does Anzaldúa the curandera prescribe?
“Let the wound caused by the serpent be cured by the serpent.” Laid low
by Coatlicue, the sufferer’s only healthy alternative to suffering as a way
of life is to embrace the Coatlicue state. This horrifying ordeal means
going down into the depths of the soul in order to cross over to the other
shore—the transformed self who has confronted the traumatizing and
debilitating effects of internalized colonialism and who has reintegrated
the stigmatized elements of the precolonized self (such as Coatlicue or
Malinche or La Llorona) by embracing these elements in all their enabling
forms (Alarcón 1989; Arrizón 2000; L. Pérez 1998). Such was the defining
gesture of the Chicano movement: its embrace of the indigenous roots of
Mexican American culture as an anticolonial act of self-definition, the
transformation of the negative connotations of the name “Chicano” into
a source of pride—for “Chicano” had previously pointed to the “barbaric”
Indian half of the mestizo, the half that is the Mexica or meXicano victim
of the Spanish Conquest (Alarcón 1989).
Anzaldúa’s writings on the Coatlicue state are part of her function as
an espiritualista, the spirit medium who engages in the healing activities
of the shaman. Her journey through the “dark night of the soul” that characterizes
the critical but horrifying process of self-revelation at the heart
148
Hartley
of the Coatlicue state is a shamanic journey of healing. She describes the
nature of this Coatlicue state:
During the Coatlicue phase you thought you’d wandered off the path
of conocimiento, but this detour is part of the path. Your bodymindsoul
is the hermetic vessel where transformation takes place. The shift must
be more than intellectual. Escaping the illusion of isolation, you prod
yourself to get out of bed, clean your house, then yourself. You light la
virgen de Guadalupe candle and copal, and, with a bundle of yierbitas
(ruda y yerba buena), brush the smoke down your body, sweeping away
the pain, grief, and fear of the past that’s been stalking you, severing the
cords binding you to it. (2002, 554)
Finally, Anzaldúa also participates in another crucial element of curanderismo—
the transmission of cultural knowledge. Doña Lola, as we have
seen, does this in her mentoring of Prietita. The speaker of the final poem
in Borderlands, “No se raje, chicanita” (“Don’t Give In, Chicanita”), also
does so (Anzaldúa 1987, 222–25). Dedicated to Missy Anzaldúa, Gloria’s
niece, the poem brings the book to a close by emphasizing the need to pass
on cultural wisdom so that the culture may survive and heal itself.
The translation of the title, although it was written by Anzaldúa herself,
leaves out a crucial dimension of the colonial symbolism of the poem.
“No se raje” literally means “don’t split.” The phrase thus operates within
the tropological circulation of la rajadura, the internal soul-splitting that
marks mestizaje throughout Borderlands. Anzaldúa is urging her niece to
avoid the self-mutilating internalizations of colonialism. Yes, “don’t split,”
“don’t take off,” “don’t give in”—but more important, “don’t split yourself
as you attempt to make your way through the colonial conditions of the
Borderlands.” The first line—“No se raje mí prietita”—positions Missy
Anzaldúa as another incarnation of Prietita. The curandera’s prescription
is to remember her roots in the people of the land “before the Gringo”
(Anzaldúa 1987, 224, line 12). These roots are passed down by the “strong
women” who have raised her: “my sister, your mom, my mother and I” (line
16). In the process, Anzaldúa seems to be healing herself as she takes her
place in the family line of women who in other contexts have alienated
her and treated her as the deviant. In accordance with many indigenous
prophecies, these women, who take pride in their Mexicana-Chicana-
Tejana and Indian spirit (24–25), will outlast the whites as the latter kill
each other off.11 And in a moment of connecting the power of women
with revolutionary transformation, the speaker foresees the moment when
that “sleeping serpent, / rebellion-(r)evolution, will spring up” (40–41).12
149
The Curandera of Conquest
This revolutionary evolution through the healing path of Coatlicue into
la raza cósmica will give serpent-woman body to Anzaldúa’s decolonizing
imperative: “Like old skin will fall the slave ways of / obedience, acceptance,
silence. / Like serpent lightning we’ll move, little woman” (42–45).
Decolonizing Indigenous Knowledges
The decolonizing impact of Anzaldúa’s development of healing practices
becomes especially clear when related to recent decolonization moves
within indigenous theory and practice. As I suggested in my introduction,
I want to initiate a gesture toward a kind of pan-tribal solidarity (including
detribalized Chicana/os) by cross-reading Anzaldúa’s curandera project
within the terms of indigenous decolonization in order to see Anzaldúa as
a bridge between militant Chicana anticolonial critics such as Chela Sandoval
(2000) and scholar-activists in the global movements of indigenous
decolonization such as Linda Tuhiwai Smith (Maori), Waziyatawin Angela
Wilson (Dakota), and Taiaiake Alfred (Kanien’kehá:ka, or Mohawk). An
extensive elaboration on the potential relationships between these writers
is beyond the scope of this essay. I nevertheless want to suggest that the
full decolonizing impact of Anzaldúa’s indigenous project becomes clearer
when viewed in such a context. I am not at all pretending to posit any
direct influence in either direction between Anzaldúa’s work and that of
these writers (much of which has appeared since Anzaldúa’s death); rather,
I want to call for reading these projects as part of a larger decolonizing
development.
While Anzaldúa does refer to Smith’s book in her works cited section
for “Now let us shift . . .” (2002, 590), she does not directly refer to Smith
in the body of the essay. And while there has been a focus on decolonization
among Chicana scholar-activists for some two decades now, much of which
includes the refiguration of indigeneity and curanderismo in constructions
of chicanisma (or Chicana feminism), I am especially interested in this
essay in pursuing the hope for a Chicana/North American indigenous
coalitional politics that Anzaldúa expresses in one of her last interviews
(2004). Lara Medina has also stressed the coalition building that can result
from the politically spiritualized turn to indigenismo, writing that as “ mestizas
living between the north and the south, these women act as bridges
between groups. . . . Participating in ceremonies not only shares healing
knowledge but builds political alliances between Chicanas and northern
indígena peoples” (1998, 198). This healing, Medina claims, results from the
150
Hartley
decolonization of the spirit through a reclaimed ritual community (191).
This is what many scholars see as the promise of Anzaldúa’s “spiritual activism”
(Anzaldúa 2002; Keating 2006, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c; Lara 2005, 2008;
L. Pérez 1998; Ramírez 2002) and what AnaLouise Keating characterizes
as Anzaldúa’s “radically inclusive politics” (2008a, 53).
Linda Smith’s Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples
(1999) critiques the standard Eurocentric academic methodology that bases
itself on a presumed positivism. More important, she lays out the issues and
alternative methodologies that indigenous peoples themselves should attend
to in their research on their own communities, in terms and contexts specific
to their communities. She cites as an example her own relationship to
colonialism as an indigenous person of the place that Europeans called New
Zealand. Smith lists twenty-five different indigenous decolonizing projects:
claiming, testimonies, story telling, celebrating survival, remembering, indigenizing,
intervening, revitalizing, connecting, reading, writing, representing,
gendering, envisioning, reframing, restoring, returning, democratizing, networking,
naming, protecting, creating, negotiating, discovering, and sharing.
Borderlands and Prietita and the Ghost Woman enact each of these projects. The
writing of Prietita’s story, for example, intervenes in the colonizing process in
order to provide the gendered revisioning of Chicana-indigenous practices
and perspectives that allow the children (and adults) hearing or reading
the book to discover ways to reclaim the vilified figures of womanhood and
restore them to their rightful, celebrated roles as healing protectors of the
people. This act testifies to the power of naming and self-representation as La
Llorona is transformed from the evil child murderer into the divine cosmic
healing force that Anzaldúa allows us to see in her. By sharing this democratizing
challenge to patriarchal-colonial systems, the writer administers the
curandera’s remedy for the social ills of colonialism.
One of the most enabling elements of Smith’s Decolonizing Methodologies
is a chart consisting of labeled concentric circles that graphically
illustrate some of the relationships between Smith’s twenty-five (and other)
decolonizing projects (fig. 1). In explaining the function of the chart, Smith
writes, “Self-determination in a research agenda becomes something more
than a political goal. It becomes a goal of social justice which is expressed
through and across a wide range of psychological, social, cultural and
economic terrains. It necessarily involves the processes of transformation,
of decolonization, of healing and of mobilization as peoples” (1999,
116). In describing this diagram, Smith points to the wavelike nature of
the concentric rings in relation to the center of self-determination. The
151
The Curandera of Conquest
diagram, then, represents not simply a system of logical relationships but
also a complex of phenomenological relationships, specifically the body’s
absorption of rhythmic and spatial influences in its environment and the
impact of these influences on particular cosmological frameworks. The
chart, Smith writes, uses the metaphor of ocean tides in order to present
“a simple representation of an indigenous research agenda” from a Pacific
peoples’ perspective:
From [this] perspective the sea is a giver of life, it sets time and conveys
movement. Within the greater ebb and flow of the ocean are smaller
localised environments which have enabled Pacific peoples to develop
enduring relationships to the sea. For Polynesian peoples the significant
deity of the sea is Tangaroa. Although there are many directions that can
be named, the chart takes the Maori equivalent of the four directions: the
northern, the eastern, the southern and the western. The tides represent
movement, change, process, life, inward and outward flows of ideas,
reflections and actions. The four directions named here—decolonization,
healing, transformation and mobilization—represent processes. They
are not goals or ends in themselves. They are processes which connect,
inform and clarify the tensions between the local, the regional and the
global. They are processes which can be incorporated into practices and
methodologies. (116)
Figure 1. Linda Tuhiwai Smith, “The Indigenous Research Agenda,” 1999. Reprinted by permission
of Linda Tuhiwai Smith.
152
Hartley
Smith relates this figural schema to what she refers to as the four major
tides of indigenous decolonization: survival, recovery, development, selfdetermination.
These conditions through which indigenous communities
move are not sequential: “the survival of peoples as physical beings, of
languages, of social and spiritual practices, of social relations, and of the
arts are all subject to some basic prioritizing. Similarly, the recovery of territories,
of indigenous rights, and histories are also subject to prioritizing
and to recognition that indigenous cultures have changed inexorably.”
Given that “indigenous peoples are not in control and are subject to a
continuing set of external conditions,” Smith explains, “specific lands and
designated areas become a priority because the bulldozers are due to start
destruction any day now” (116). Again we see the fusion of theory and
content as Smith, in explaining the function of her chart, draws together
methodological principles, localizing metaphors (tides), decolonizing
goals (survival, recovery, development, self-determination), pragmatic
considerations (recognizing the influences of cultural change and colonial
power structures), and stark images of colonialism in action (the bulldozer).
One of the methodologies Smith discusses is the decolonizing project
of connecting—which is also one of Anzaldúa’s primary projects. Smith
explains the notion of connection by enacting it, showing the connections
between diverse kinds of connectedness, all of which are connected to
colonialism’s forces of disconnection: “Many indigenous creation stories,”
Smith writes, “link people through genealogy to the land, to stars and other
places in the universe, to birds and fish, animals, insects and plants. To be
connected is to be whole.” Such a connecting process in New South Wales,
for example, literally connects members of families with one another as a
way of restoring “the descendants of ‘stolen children’ . . . to their family connections.”
Indigenous children had been forcibly taken from their families
and put through a dehumanizing adoption process. “Being reconnected
to their families and their culture has been a painful journey for many of
these children, now adults.” Another form of reconnection involves the
restoration of rituals and practices. “In New Zealand,” Smith explains,
“one example of this is the practice of burying the afterbirth in the land.
The word for afterbirth is the same as the word for land, whenua” (150).
Here we see the “connections” established between the various modes of
connection: connections through cosmology, family, community, ritual
practice, and linguistic patterns. Colonization involves a host of practices
and institutions of disconnection, and so decolonization requires a host of
practices and institutions of reconnection.
153
The Curandera of Conquest
One of the decolonizing projects most connected to my discussion of
Anzaldúa’s healing project is restoring. Approaches to spiritual, emotional,
physical, and material restoration must be framed in local indigenous
terms. “Restorative justice in Canada, for example,” writes Smith, “applies
concepts of the ‘healing circle’ and victim restoration which are based on
indigenous processes.” She points to similar programs elsewhere: “In New
Zealand adoption policies and programmes for dealing with children have
similarly coopted indigenous practices. Restoring is a project which is conceived
as a holistic approach to problem solving. It is holistic in terms of the
emotional, spiritual and physical nexus, and also in terms of the individual
and the collective, the political and the cultural. Restorative programmes
are based on a model of healing rather than of punishing” (155). While
these programs involve elements from a variety of cultures, including
Western, and might thus be seen as “hybrid” constructs, the key here is
that whatever the component elements of the programs, the framework
is defined according to specific indigenous ways of thinking and knowing.
Just such a specified framing is at the heart of the indigenous decolonization
movement in North America. For Waziyatawin, “decolonization
concerns a simultaneous critical interrogation of the colonizing forces that
have damaged our lives in profound ways, coupled with a return to those
ways that nourished and sustained us as Indigenous Peoples for thousands
of years” (Wilson 2005, 1). Decolonization, then, involves a double gesture
of exposing the processes of genocidal attempts at cultural erasure coupled
with a self-reflective cultural revitalization. For Waziyatawin and Taiaiake
both, this double gesture operates at once within a local, tribal culturalpolitical-
spiritual context as well as on a global scale. Waziyatawin writes,
“With 300 million Indigenous Peoples worldwide with common histories
of struggle against colonialism and neocolonialism, we have tremendous
potential to transform the world” (13).
Colonization, Taiaiake explains, is an ongoing process that does not
simply involve the theft of land and the imposition of alien political, economic,
linguistic, and religious structures onto indigenous peoples, although
all of that is involved. Most important, colonization means the wearing
down and stripping away of indigenous spirit and values that manifest
themselves in the rituals and relationships of daily existence. Decolonization,
then, demands the conscious, active reorientation of each moment,
of each gesture toward a revitalization of traditional indigenous values.
These values can then provide for a resurgence of Onkwehonwe (original
peoples’) existence, the experiential “rites of resurgence” that define original
154
Hartley
people, as Taiaiake puts it in Wasáse (Alfred 2005, 29). “Make no mistake
about it, Brothers and Sisters,” Taiaiake warns, “the war is on. There is no
post-colonial situation; the invaders our ancestors fought against are still
here, for they have not yet rooted themselves and been transformed into
real people of this homeland” (38).13
Drawing on past and present indigenous sources and traditions in their
definitions of decolonization, both of these writers fight to reclaim lands,
treaty rights, native languages, and indigenous pride and dignity based on
a revitalization or resurgence of traditional indigenous values and customs.
For both activists, the reclamation of the past becomes a critical element
of the present move toward a future self-determination for Indian peoples
unshackled by the institutions and ideological chains of colonialism.
Taiaiake’s decolonial project begins with his recognition that the processes
of colonization run much deeper and along a greater number of diverse
channels than has previously been recognized, resulting in a nearly paralyzing
state of internalized colonization and the nearly complete destruction
of indigenous modes of being. Such, I have been arguing, is at the heart of
Anzaldúa’s decolonizing indigenism.
The primary goal of decolonization as Waziyatawin approaches it
is cultural survival. In Remember This! Dakota Decolonization and the Eli
Taylor Narratives (Wilson 2005), Waziyatawin foregrounds the decolonizing
challenge of indigenous oral history to the Eurocentric assumptions
and validation processes whereby historians in power determine the value
of sources, methods, and definitions. By recording the oral stories told to
her in the Dakota language by her adopted grandfather, Eli Taylor, and by
elaborating on how these stories reveal the underlying worldview of the
Dakota, Waziyatawin also helps pass down a body of historical material
that will serve in the reconstruction of Dakota culture. Noting that stories
told in one’s native language “teach more about how we look into the
past, how we make sense of that past, and how we remain affected today,”
Waziyatawin points to the broader significance of these stories: they provide
the “ability to define our history for ourselves, shaping our historical
consciousness in a way that inextricably links it with our sense of identity”
(17). She continues:
The stories have a transformative effect in our contemporary lives
because they help determine our sense of who we are and where we are
going. Through gifted storytellers the stories are interpreted through the
generations, and we come to understand the meaning of being Dakota.
This understanding and sense of identity is one that transcends time,
155
The Curandera of Conquest
the changing world, and modern technology. It is what will carry us into
the future. (17)
The implications of this passage are enormous. Through this single
project Waziyatawin brings together decolonizing processes for dealing
with language and tradition; family and community; academic disciplines
(and disciplining) and local knowledges; relationships to past, present, and
future; individual and tribal identities; and the limiting impact of Eurocentric
modernity.14 These decolonizing processes extend to governance,
economic organization, spirituality, and dignity. This is exactly in line with
the projects of both Anzaldúa and Smith.
Mestiza-Indigenist Consciousness and the Curandera of
Conquest
As we have seen through an exploration of Prietita, the elements of curanderismo,
and recent developments in indigenous decolonization theory,
Anzaldúa offers her mestiza consciousness as a path of power and healing.
In her essay “Poet as Curandera,” Pat Mora makes the following observation:
“Just as the curandera uses white magic, manipulates the symbols that are
part of her patients’ experience base to ease communication, the Chicana
writer seeks to heal cultural wounds of historical neglect by providing
opportunities to remember the past, to share and ease bitterness, to describe
what has been viewed as unworthy of description, to cure by incantations
and rhythms, by listening with her entire being and responding. She then
gathers the tales and myths, weaves them together, and, if lucky, casts spells”
(1993, 131). Borderlands is just such a woven work of healing. Tey Diana
Rebolledo argues that the “curandera emerges as a compelling figure in
Chicano literature because she is a woman who has control over her own
life and destiny as well as that of others. . . . She has a special relationship
to and understanding of earth and nature—she understands the cycles of
creation, development, and destruction, thus unifying the past, present, and
future. She incorporates intuition and rationality; she studies power and
bends with it or harnesses it; she takes an active role in her environment”
(1995, 86–97).
Anzaldúa would prefer to live in a world that was never wounded in
the first place and that therefore would not require the development and
honing of mestiza consciousness (Joysmith 2009). We must recognize that
her classic Borderlands is not so much a celebration of mestiza consciousness
156
Hartley
as it is the identification of a weapon in the fight against colonization and
the remedy that can cure the stunted spiritual condition of internalized
colonization. The historical origin of mestizaje in the Americas is, after all,
in violence, rape, and conquest; it is not a condition that anyone strove
for before or after 1521. The “mestiza” consciousness that Anzaldúa in fact
celebrates draws the notion of mestizaje into a primarily indigenized circle
of relationships that go far beyond the pairing of the Spanish Cortés and
indigenous Malintzín, the usual imaginary parents of Mexicanidad. This
is no notion of racial purity, but rather an imperative to recognize the
suppressed side of mestizaje. Anzaldúa does not turn to mestizaje as a condition
of mixed identity to be celebrated in some postmodern veneration
of multiplicity and difference, as a force that—according to the worn-out
formula of much postmodern cultural studies—troubles the fixed boundaries
of white-supremacist identity. In fact, I would argue that mestizaje more
often than not tends to reinforce notions of racial purity by embodying that
which is to be feared and eradicated by eugenicist practices. The sight of the
other as other reinforces the policing of the boundaries of the self. Anzaldúa
turns instead to mestizaje as experiential knowledge,15 a knowledge that can
challenge racist or sexist identities made possible (but not necessary) by
the border condition of cultural mix-up. Anzaldúa’s ultimate decolonizing
act is to elaborate on the indigenous contexts of mestizaje. As such, she
herself is the curandera of conquest.
Notes
1. Anzaldúa describes mestiza consciousness as follows: “The work of
mestiza consciousness is to break down the subject-object duality that keeps her a
prisoner and to show in the flesh and through the images in her work how duality
is transcended. The answer to the problem between the white race and the colored,
between males and females, lies in healing the split that originates in the very
foundation of our lives, our culture, our languages, our thoughts” (1987, 102).
2. Much of the crucial decolonization work done by Chicana feminists
in the 1990s (especially that written in relation to Anzaldúa) operated within
the terms of postmodern theory, albeit sometimes as a critical appropriation of
postmodernist themes and figures. For example, in The Decolonial Imaginary:
Writing Chicanas into History, Emma Pérez writes that Anzaldúa’s Borderlands “was
to be the progression toward postmodern, postnational identities for Chicanas/
mestizas” (1999, 25). Seeing postmodern critique as primarily one internal to
157
The Curandera of Conquest
the Eurocentric discourse of modernity, I am more concerned here with the
ways in which Anzaldúa’s emphasis on indigeneity operates within a different
mode altogether. See also Alarcón (1989, 1995, 1996, 1999), Aldama (2001), D.
Castillo (1995), González (2004), Lara (2008), Sandoval (2000), Torres (2003),
and Yarbro-Bejarano (1994).
3. The male is called a curandero. Curanderismo refers to the practice of this
so-called folk medicine. See Avila (1999).
4. Prietita and the Ghost Woman is not paginated, so quotations will not
include page references.
5. Anzaldúa’s father was a sharecropper in an experimental government
program for farmers, Rio Farms, which was adjacent to the King Ranch (1987, 31).
For a brief history of Rio Farms, see Santa Ana (2001). For a sense of the King
Ranch’s romanticization of its role in the conquest of Texas, see the ranch’s website
at http://www.king-ranch.com. For the impact of the Anglo invasion on indigenous
peoples in Texas, see Anderson (2005); for its impact on the newly independent
Mexicans, see Chávez (2007) and Ramos (2008).
6. For an extended discussion of this notion of the eclipse of the female
genetrix, see Paula Gunn Allen’s The Sacred Hoop, particularly the chapter titled
“Grandmother of the Sun: Ritual Gynocracy in Native America” (1992, 13–29).
7. Anzaldúa (2002, 577, n.4) explains her use of the nagual figure as
follows: “Naguala is the feminine form of nagual, the capacity some people such as
mexican indigenous shamans have of ‘shapeshifting’—becoming an animal, place,
or thing by inhabiting that thing or by shifting into the perspective of their animal
companion. I have extended the term to include an aspect of the self unknown to
the conscious self. Nagualismo is a Mexican spiritual knowledge system where the
practitioner searches for spirit signs. I call the maker of spirit signs ‘la naguala,’ a
creative, dreamlike consciousness able to make broader associations and connections
than waking consciousness.”
8. For example, in Borderlands she speaks to the indigenous nature of
Mexican folk practice: “My family, like most Chicanos, did not practice Roman
Catholicism but a folk Catholicism with many pagan elements. La Virgen de
Guadalupe’s Indian name is Coatlalopeuh. She is the central deity connecting us
to our Indian ancestry” (1987, 47).
9. This charge of romantic appropriation has also been leveled against
Anzaldúa by Chicana/o scholars such as Contreras (2008), Sáenz (1997), and
Saldaña-Portillo (2001). Anzaldúa (2000, 2004) speaks directly of her involvement
with contemporary indigenous political issues in her interviews with Hernández-
Avila and SAIL.
10. Torres (2003, chap. 1) offers a compelling prescription for dealing with
the trauma of colonization. She suggests that Chicanas must first acknowledge
the historical and contemporary roots of colonialism in internalized shame, then
engage in constructive releases of anger at those colonizing roots, and finally, move
from pain toward love as an act of resistance against the oppressor and a healing
act of self-empowerment.
11. Just five years after the publication of Borderlands/La Frontera, Leslie
Marmon Silko published her monumental novel Almanac of the Dead (1992), which
158
Hartley
also revolves around indigenous prophecies of the liberation of the Americas after
the self-destruction of Euro-American society.
12. Interestingly, this explicit connection between evolution and revolution
does not occur in the Spanish version, where both terms are conflated into one,
rebeldía.
13. In the preface to his second edition of Peace, Power, Righteousness (Alfred
2009), Taiaiake provides an important overview of his work of the past fifteen years,
beginning with Heeding the Voices of Our Ancestors (Alfred 1995).
14. See also Wilson (2008) and Wilson and Yellow Bird (2005) for a fuller
understanding of Waziyatawin’s methodology.
15. This turn to experiential knowledge or la facultad could be aligned with
the work done in the wake of Satya Mohanty (1997) were it not for the lingering
Eurocentric cast of that project, signaled by the self-chosen label of postpositivism.
Such a positioning in relation to the Western legacy of positivism remains bound
by what the “post” suggests has been superseded. The whole postpositivist argument
against postmodern “relativism” remains bound to a conversation that operates
within and remains subject to the terms of Western metaphysics; the “claims of
history” should be made in another arena altogether. Postpositivism thus must
be seen as the internal critique of positivism itself. I am thinking in particular
of the work of Chandra Mohanty (2003), relating Mohanty’s thought to global
feminism; Moya (2001), relating to Chicanos; and Teuton (2008), relating to
American Indians.
Works Cited
Aigner-Varoz, Erica. 2000. “Metaphors of a Mestiza Consciousness: Anzaldua’s
Borderlands/La Frontera.” MELUS 25, no. 2: 47–62.
Alarcón, Norma. 1989. “Traddutora, Traditora: A Paradigmatic Figure of Chicana
Feminism.” Cultural Critique 13: 57–87.
———. 1995. “Cognitive Desires: An Allegory of/for Chicana Critics.” In Las
Formas de Nuestras Voces: Chicana and Mexicana Writers in Mexico, ed. Claire
Joysmith, 65–85. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
———. 1996. “Anzaldúa’s Frontera: Inscribing Gynetics.” In Displacement, Diaspora,
and Geographies of Identity, ed. Smadar Lavie and Ted Swedenburg, 41–53.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
———. 1999. “Chicana Feminism: In the Tracks of ‘The’ Native Woman.” In
Between Woman and Nation: Nationalisms, Transnational Feminisms, and
the State, ed. Caren Kaplan, Norma Alarcón, and Minoo Moallem, 63–71.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Aldama, Arturo J. 2001. Disrupting Savagism: Intersecting Chicana/o, Mexican
Immigrant, and Native American Struggles for Self-Representation. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
159
The Curandera of Conquest
Alfred, Gerald R. [Taiaiake Alfred]. 1995. Heeding the Voices of Our Ancestors:
Kahnawake Mohawk Politics and the Rise of Native Nationalism. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Alfred, Taiaiake. 2005. Wasáse: Indigenous Pathways of Action and Freedom. New
York: Broadview Press.
———. 2009. Peace, Power, Righteousness: An Indigenous Manifesto. 2nd ed. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Allen, Paula Gunn. 1992. The Sacred Hoop: Recovering the Feminine in American
Indian Traditions. 2nd ed. Boston: Beacon.
Anderson, Gary Clayton. 2005. The Conquest of Texas: Ethnic Cleansing in the
Promised Land, 1820–1875. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Anzaldúa, Gloria. 1983. “La Prieta.” In This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by
Radical Women of Color, ed. Cherríe Moraga and Gloria Anzaldúa, 198–209.
New York: Kitchen Table/Women of Color Press.
———. 1987. Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza. San Francisco: Aunt Lute.
———. 1990. “Metaphors in the Tradition of the Shaman.” In Conversant Essays:
Contemporary Poets on Poetry, ed. James McCorkle, 99–100. Detroit: Wayne
State University Press.
———, ed. 1995. Making Face, Making Soul/Haciendo Caras: Creative and Critical
Perspectives by Feminists of Color. San Francisco: Aunt Lute.
———. 2000. Interviews/Entrevistas. Ed. AnaLouise Keating. New York: Routledge.
———. 2001. Prietita and the Ghost Woman/Prietita y la Llorona. San Francisco:
Children’s Book Press.
———. 2002. “Now let us shift . . . the path of conocimiento . . . inner work,
public acts.” In This Bridge We Call Home: Radical Visions for Transformation,
ed. Gloria Anzaldúa and AnaLouise Keating, 540–78. New York: Routledge.
———. 2004. “Speaking across the Divide: An Email Interview.” SAIL: Studies in
American Indian Literatures 15 (Fall 2003–Winter 2004): 7–20.
Arrizón, Alicia. 2000. “Mythical Performativity: Relocating Aztlán in Chicana
Feminist Cultural Productions.” Theatre Journal 52, no. 1: 23–49.
Avila, Elena. 1999. Woman Who Glows in the Dark: A Curandera Reveals Traditional
Aztec Secrets of Physical and Spiritual Health. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/
Putnam.
Bonfil Batalla, Guillermo. 1996. México Profundo: Reclaiming a Civilization. Trans.
Philip A. Dennis. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bost, Suzanne. 2005. “Gloria Anzaldúa’s Mestiza Pain: Mexican Sacrifice, Chicana
Embodiment, and Feminist Politics.” Aztlán: A Journal of Chicano Studies 30,
no. 2: 5–34.
Carbonell, Ana Maria. 1999. “From Llorona to Gritona: Coatlicue in Feminist Tales
by Viramontes and Cisneros.” MELUS 24, no. 2: 53–74.
Castillo, Debra. 1995. “Postmodern Indigenism: ‘Quetzalcoatl and All That.’”
Modern Fiction Studies 41, no. 1 (Spring): 35–73.
Chávez, Ernesto. 2007. The U.S. War with Mexico: A Brief History with Documents.
New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Contreras, Sheila Marie. 2008. Blood Lines: Myth, Indigenism, and Chicana/o Literature.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
160
Hartley
Garber, Linda. 2001. Identity Poetics: Race, Class, and the Lesbian-Feminist Roots of
Queer Theory. New York: Columbia University Press.
González, Marcial. 2004. “Postmodernism, Historical Materialism and Chicana/o
Cultural Studies.” Science & Society 68, no. 2: 161–86.
Hillman, James. 1977. Re-Visioning Psychology. New York: Harper.
Joysmith, Claire. 2009. “‘Let Us Be the Healing of the Wound’: Anzaldúa’s Post-
September 11, 2001, Testimonial Vision.” In Güeras y Prietas: Celebrating 20
Years of Borderlands/La Frontera, ed. Norma E. Cantú and Christina L. Gutiérrez,
93–100. San Antonio, TX: Adelante Project.
Keating, AnaLouise. 2006. “From Borderlands and New Mestizas to Nepantlas and
Nepantleras: Anzaldúan Theories for Social Change.” Human Architecture:
Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge 4: 5–16.
———. 2008a. “‘I’m a Citizen of the Universe’: Gloria Anzaldúa’s Spiritual Activism
as Catalyst for Social Change.” Feminist Studies 34, nos. 1–2: 53–69.
———, ed. 2008b. EntreMundos/AmongWorlds: New Perspectives on Gloria Anzaldúa.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
———. 2008c. “Shifting Perspectives: Spiritual Activism, Social Transformation,
and the Politics of Spirit.” In Keating 2008b, 241–54.
Lara, Irene. 2005. “Bruja Positionalities: Toward a Chicana/Latina Spiritual Activism.”
Chicana/Latina Studies 4, no. 2: 10–45.
———. 2008. “Goddess of the Américas in the Decolonial Imaginary: Beyond the
Virtuous Virgen/Pagan Puta Dichotomy.” Feminist Studies 34, nos. 1–2: 99–127.
Medina, Lara. 1998. “Los Espíritus Siguen Hablando: Chicana Spiritualities. In
Living Chicana Theory, ed. Carla Trujillo, 189–213. Berkeley, CA: Third
Woman Press.
Mohanty, Chandra. 2003. Feminism Without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing
Solidarity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Mohanty, Satya. 1997. Literary Theory and the Claims of History: Postmodernism,
Objectivity, Multicultural Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Mora, Pat. 1993. Nepantla: Essays from the Land in the Middle. Albuquerque: University
of New Mexico Press.
Moraga, Cherríe. 1999. The Last Generation: Prose and Poetry. Cambridge, MA:
South End Press.
Moya, Paula. 2001. “Chicana Feminism and Postmodernist Theory.” Signs 26, no.
2: 441–83.
Pérez, Emma. 1999. The Decolonial Imaginary: Writing Chicanas into History. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
Pérez, Laura E. 1998. “Spirit Glyphs: Reimagining Art and Artist in the Work of
Chicana Tlamatinime.” Modern Fiction Studies 44, no. 1: 36–76.
Ramírez, Sarah. 2002. “Borders, Feminism, and Spirituality: Movements in Chicana
Aesthetic Revisioning.” In Decolonial Voices: Chicana and Chicano Cultural
Studies in the 21st Century, ed. Arturo Aldama and Naomi Quiñonez, 223–42.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Ramos, Raul A. 2008. Beyond the Alamo: Forging Mexican Ethnicity in San Antonio,
1821–1861. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
161
The Curandera of Conquest
Rebolledo, Tey Diana. 1995. Women Singing in the Snow: A Cultural Analysis of
Chicana Literature. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Sáenz, Benjamin Alire. 1997. “In the Borderlands of Chicano Identity, There Are
Only Fragments.” In Border Theory: The Limits of Cultural Politics, ed. Scott
Michaelsen and David E. Johnson, 68–96. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Saldaña-Portillo, Josefina. 2001. “Who’s the Indian in Aztlán? Re-Writing Mestizaje,
Indianism, and Chicanismo from the Lacandón.” In The Latin American
Subaltern Studies Reader, ed. Ileana Rodriguez, 402–23. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Sandoval, Chela. 2000. Methodology of the Oppressed. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Santa Ana, Rod. 2001. “Unique Rio Farms Celebrates 60th Birthday.” AgNews
(Texas A&M University System Agriculture Program), December 25. http://
newagnews.tamu.edu/dailynews/stories/SOIL/Dec2501a.htm.
Silko, Leslie Marmon. 1992. Almanac of the Dead. New York: Penguin.
Smith, Linda Tuhiwai. 1999. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous
Peoples. London: Zed.
Teuton, Sean Kicummah. 2008. Red Land, Red Power: Grounding Knowledge in the
American Indian Novel. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Torres, Edén E. 2003. Chicana Without Apology, Chicana Sin Vergüenza: The New
Chicana Cultural Studies. New York: Routledge.
Wilson, Waziyatawin Angela. 2005. Remember This! Decolonization and the Eli Taylor
Narratives. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
———. 2008. What Does Justice Look Like? The Struggle for Liberation in Dakota
Homeland. St. Paul: Living Justice Press.
Wilson, Waziyatawin Angela, and Michael Yellow Bird, eds. 2005. For Indigenous
Eyes Only: A Decolonization Handbook. Santa Fe: School of American Research
Press.
Yarbro-Bejarano, Yvonne. 1994. “Gloria Anzaldúa’s Borderlands/La frontera: Cultural
Studies, ‘Difference,’ and the Non-Unitary Subject.” Cultural Critique
28 (Fall): 5–28.
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen