The large spectrum of an unknown power

Not too long ago somebody asked me who I considered was governing Mexico, in a general way and with plenty reference to parties and electoral history – mostly of recent years, my answer left me a bit unsatisfied and I guess that him, the one who asked, was unconvinced as well.

Right after that time the question has come back to me with different partners; on my way to work while listening to some argue on the radio, as a headline in the cover of a magazine tendentiously denouncing some character of national politics or, the most recent one, as part of a conversation with a friend who just came back to Mexico with the nostalgia that lingers in a place that was once your home.

I cannot remember when was the first time I wondered about it, that first moment wasn’t at all close to the first time I tried to answer, not even to a foreign, but my inability to please his curiosity fed mine at the same time, mostly because I was doubtful with my response.

Trying to explain the complexity of a society like Mexican is a challenge that many have tried to fight, not only because in Mexico coexist an enormous quantity of realities that cannot be simply reflected in an answer, but because each and every one of those who have tried to respond has a different vision that is related to their past. Is like aiming to describe a whole dinner to somebody who has never tried any of the dishes in his life, the spectrum of sensations and factors surrounding the single act of biting and tasting has itself a number of personal, physical and historical references that only the person describing can fully understand, and even when the listener has already tried it, the experience and understanding of each one is different.

That’s the level of complexity in Mexico, its cuisine and its reality.

Who is governing Mexico then? If we exclusively consider the electoral process there could not be a sole posture; the moderate right was in power during 71 years and afterwards there was a change of party that was measured as highly determinant for the country, but 12 years after those historical elections we can only conclude that the so-called "transition" was nothing but a step took away from the change expectations.

Since the entrance of liberal politics in the 80s, the party in power began an internal adjustment that derived in the institutionalization of what nowadays is known as the partisan left, the determination of not giving a step towards (neo) liberalism as a general policy amongst the Mexican State leaded to those who still believed in the State figure to become the opposition and formed, with different kinds of leftists, the third force on board inside the political games in Mexico. In the other hand, the party which had never denied its extreme right characteristics or had not claims on quitting its principles of conservationism, was taking advantage and making steps towards power by slowly filling the empty spaces left in the evolution.

During these 30 years, every process has had a fragile stability that precisely allowed the development of these changes, subtle at times and highly evident at others, but that has always been there, smouldering, silently reminding to those actors the brittle strength of a political system founded in the idea of a country that has never been entirely feet-grounded because it doesn’t reach to completely reflect what Mexico is, or what it can be.

This ghost might be the reason why so many politicians have changed groups, tribes, jackets and discourses depending on the economic time, the environment or the interests put on the table, but something clear is that Mexican population in its generality has never been fully considered as a determinant for decision-making. Worse is the fact that these ‘radical’ changes in the parties only blur the general image of the politician according to the general profile and turns it into a species of flexible prototype, a grey toy which moves depending on the convenient friction, delegitimizing or damaging those wanting to submerge in this complex and tricky cosmos known as Political System.

We don’t know who governs Mexico; if we create a map organized by colours according to the Party, the product would be ironically a politically grey country; a blue federal government, which actions covers and affects every single corner of the territory, a yellow capital constantly trying to fight for expand its capacity of influence and incidence, paradoxically restricted by its own power and condition; and a multiplicity of green-red governments spread on the rest of the State, standing still for a long 100 years now and which have might tinge at moments their strength, but are not at all considering to move a millimetre of their power and where, we must clarify, white has never had a shot.  

This grey is not leftist, neither right nor centre, the inhabitants might be, but as a whole it is nothing but an apocryphal  colour determined by several factors, either internal and external, but always depending on three equally amorphous and dangerous things: fear, incertitude and violence.

About a month ago 49 dead bodies were found in Cadereyta, at the northern part of the country, summed to the scandalous and alarming quantity of deaths that Mexico has lived during the past years as a result of the Drug War. The news had great impact in media, both for the number and for the difficulty on identifying the bodies because those who carried out the work entrusted to erase any trace that would allow to recognize them, those 49 bodies could be from any Mexican, they had no face, no prints and no marks, they were everyone and no one at once.

They symbolically represent the government, the headless and fragmented Mexican power, the faceless elite in reproduction; excluding and including people and making them dispensable as much as forgettable, but they are at the same time the reflection of a tied-up Mexican society attached to these three characters of Mexican life and history; the incertitude, reminding them that power is ephemeral, faddy and easy to mislay, the fear to lose it and the violence born out of them.

“I still don’t understand how Mexicans, after suffering so much violence throughout their history, are able to keep receiving other people with care and how can they give away really valuable friendships” I was told a bit after. I can’t get it either, maybe that is why we have emerged as a colourful society who is ready to keep on moving forward through the political greyscale. Now we are a couple of weeks away from an election that promises to be historical -as usual, and that will test our ability to be governed by a group of economical and political interests that will never overcome the Mexican spirit.

Life loves the conscience we have about it.

- Tell me, why don't you like cars?
- Well, firstly, the driver's position is awful. Alters the digestion, tightens the stomach and enlarges the heart.
Secondly, traffic has become the assholes drama; accidents are petty tragedies and the risks of the route, the only adventure we have left.
In the third place, motorsport is an accumulation system where there is no lower exchange, except by insults, and where people never meets. It is a social dispersion system: everyone in their box.

And finally: through cars, oil and automobile companies impose their laws, destroy cities, make us spend fortunes in roads and policemans, contaminate the world and most of all, make people believe there is nothing better. 


Charles, vif ou mort.

An image is worth a thousand ideas?

Whenever we talk about the evolving role of women over time, especially during the last decades, it comes to mind the extensive and characteristic advertising series on the 50s, sordid, directs and imperatives, that left no doubt which was the role of women at that time – from that decade’s pin-up girls to the classic ad of the abnegated and solicit housewife resolving her life and marriage through a blender, we can see an endless number of pictures, ads, that had no intention on hiding which aspirations and occupations a woman could have.

The generation of women at that time started to speak louder, and with that voice a wide number of women’s liberation movements arise, as we all know, and thus an alleged change in commercial content and messages that were released through magazines, T.V and radio spots.

For a while now, as expected in an age where politically correct becomes popular and accepted without questioning its veracity, several studies have been done with the purpose of showing that turn on the expectations and reflection on social development of women’s life, but it is not quite necessary to be an expert in semiotics to notice there is still a long way to go.

If we observe closely at advertisement images and messages, without any analytical effort, we can see a wide number of elements that are still standing, sometimes subtly, sometimes in a more cynical way directly evoking that / woman of the 50s. Plainly comparing is much more evident; at the bottom of the discourse, the perpetuation of feminine image has remain, perhaps has changed the waywomen are talk to, but basically the message remains the same.

It is well known Axe's campaing about manly scent power on women, but that idea is not an innovation at all.

Objectification and stereotype of women has give a tour much more direct. Mainly over physical attributes. 

A suffering housewife, at first example, cause she ruinned dinner in the 50s. Another woman in a dark enviroment, resembling a bit that decade, announcing cleaning products as a solution to her torment.

Keeping weight at time she does housework is  not the same as being  'skin good enough to eat' but the message has not change - skinny is better.

Women in housework again; a "Wifesaver" cuisine with it's happy owner on one hand and a locked girl performing her job at laundry on the other. 

First image is pretty obvious, second one, sponsored by a car dealership, speaks about used cars in reference as the number of men existing on a woman's past.

Allutson to beauty over intelligence or any other quality a woman could have is common: Most men ask 'is she pretty?' not 'is she clever' is complemented by the idea that there are certain types of women in whom the appeal is greater after drinking a beer.

Animalize a woman, without space and freedom, is not a forgotten matter.

We are like butterflies who flutter for a day and think it's forever.

There has been a continuous effort to remind this on my everyday life. I cannot specifically remember when I read it for the first time, as I’ve been –irony- religiously following Carl Sagan’s reflections for a while now. When I decided to quit my dream of becoming an astrophysicist and choose the socials and humanities path, I did my best to not get my science part banished; paradoxically, science has help me to keep my feet grounded and understand that society and human being –in general- is nothing more than a tiny piece of this universe and will never ever overcome it, as much as he tries.

It is not hard to recognize it as it is to acknowledge it: we are all stardust. We are a miniscule part of an unimaginable immense universe that works by itself, with its own rules, paths and process. For it, it does not matter at all if this or that country leader gets an oil concession through a company, if a forest gets burn in silence or if a war is declared. It will be important to us, because we are directly affected by those actions, but universe will keep working at its rhythm and there is no way we can stop it nor pressure it otherwise.

We can admit this, but to acknowledge it is different; as we have been raised believing human is the only thing to know –or at least the most important- it is tough to fully comprehend and practice the smallness of our life, it requires to be humble, simple-hearted, avow that each and every member of the planet, alive or dead, is just the same as you: the initial matter which formed that tree in your yard, the neighbor’s dog, your parents, and the person you can’t stand at work is exactly the same. While for some people, this could be an undeniable establishment of nature’s beauty, for others might symbolize poverty or weakness; human being is so scared of admitting his tininess that he can’t notice he is actually lasting, with his existence, in the greatness of cosmos.

To be honest, I still have not completely done it, but the times I evoke it I suddenly find certain –and great- peace of mind. Knowing that I’m not as big as I was taught makes me realize those conflicts and muddles in my life are neither, that nothing can be such a big deal and the world is not that big after all, astronomically we are all at the same place. Yet, is not that easy to spread this peaceful sensation to others, but there is essentially nothing left to lose.