PART I CONCEPTUALIZING INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE

Chapter 13 Interculturality Versus Intercultural Competencies in Latin America

1313

INTERCULTURALITY VERSUS INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCIES

IN LATIN AMERICA

Adriana Medina-López-Portillo and John H. Sinnigen

We are currently living in the midst of a maelstrom of crises that requires a fresh examination of

the norms and practices that have been dominant in the modern world system—namely, the

“Western” (Euro-U.S.) paradigm of an individualistic, militarist, consumerist culture; capitalist

economics; and elite-dominated electoral politics. The worldwide economic meltdown has

aggravated the already existing state of crisis evident in a severely degraded environment,

ceaseless wars, and increasing social polarization of poor and rich within individual nations and

throughout the world system (Wallerstein, 1990). Although progressive analysts have been

discussing the decline of the American empire since the Vietnam War, in November 2008, even

U.S. intelligence agencies explained a decline in U.S. world dominance in the face of emerging

powers such as India and China (Shane, 2008). Indeed, at the November 14–15, 2008, economic

summit in Washington, the exclusive club of the Western powers plus Japan, known as the G7,

was compelled to open its doors to the wider group of the G20, which included China and India,

as well as other countries from Asia and Latin America and Saudi Arabia, and clearly the United

States was a follower in the search for solutions to the crisis, while China, India, and Brazil were

among the leaders (Nayar, 2008). It would seem that the Washington Consensus, in which

neoconservative economic structural adjustment policies, promoted by the United States and

imposed across the underdeveloped world by the International Monetary Fund and the World

Bank, is coming to an end. The urgency of this maelstrom of crises requires that scholars and

practitioners of intercultural communication seek ways to participate in new solutions. Our

contribution is to examine interculturality in Latin America, and this will necessarily draw us out

of academia since intercultural concepts are embedded in indigenous-led social movements in

different parts of the continent whose concept of interculturality is communitarian and egalitarian

and recognizes the need for decisive political action.

In the United States, there is a developing consensus around the idea that intercultural

competency refers to the individual skills, knowledge, attributes, behaviors, and attitudes needed

to interact successfully with people from different cultures (Deardorff, 2006). According to this

largely academic consensus, individuals need to focus on their personal intercultural exchanges

and receive training to improve their skills and knowledge. The result of this learning process

should be an enhanced quality of the effectiveness and appropriateness of such exchanges and an

ever increasing capacity for getting along with individuals from different cultural backgrounds.

Such an approach is appropriate for training professionals in the growing number of areas that

require interculturally competent workers. In Latin America, although there are approaches

similar to this U.S. concept of intercultural competence,1 the preferred term is interculturality,

and the difference between the two terms is conceptual. Intercultural competence refers to an

individual set of skills that can be acquired and learned; interculturality refers to a historic

condition. Intercultural competence is primarily an academic matter and produces valuable

scholarship and training programs and methodologies. Interculturality points to the radical

restructuring of the historically pronounced uneven relations of wealth and power that have

existed between Europeans and their descendants and indigenous and other subordinated groups

during the last half millennium. This history has been characterized by an ongoing process of

conquest, exploitation, and resistance. In Latin America, interculturality is used to describe the

necessary conditions for a new social configuration that allows historically marginalized

indigenous groups and others, primarily Blacks, to pursue cultural, political, and economic

equality.

This chapter examines the relationships between Latin America’s indigenous populations

and the dominant groups in their respective countries, as well as implications for effective and

equitable intercultural exchange.2 In other words, the discussion leads to an examination of

power and equity among the groups and strategies for social change. These intercultural issues

are matters of extreme urgency in all those countries with large indigenous populations and at

this moment, particularly in Bolivia and Ecuador; we will highlight these two national cases in

this chapter. Both countries have been immersed recently in intense struggles around the

formulation of new constitutions that promote intercultural economic and political equality.3 In

both countries, the central struggle has been between recently empowered indigenous social

movements and the entrenched White/mestizo oligarchies and their foreign allies that have

traditionally held power. The recently elected governments of both countries play different sorts

of mediating roles; their policies are challenged by both the oligarchs and the social movements,

and they both are responses to extreme political instabilities exemplified by the continual

toppling of presidents. The 49-year-old Aymara leader, Evo Morales, elected in December 2005

with 53% of the vote, is the first indigenous president of Bolivia where native peoples make up

63% of the population. Not a professional politician, he became the general secretary of the coca

growers union in 1985 and came to the presidency as the leader of an indigenous social

movement. In a recent recall referendum, he received the support of 67% of voters. The 45-year-

old Rafael Correa, elected president of Ecuador in December 2006 with the support of 57% of

the voters in a second-round ballot, is a mestizo politician trained as an economist and a former

finance minister of this country with a 40% indigenous population. He has received the critical

support of the largest movement of native peoples, the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities

of Ecuador (CONAIE, its acronym in Spanish). Morales and Correa have both overseen the

drafting of new constitutions for their countries, and both propose a “re-founding” of their

respective nations. The Ecuadorian constitution was approved with a 65% yes vote in September

2008 and the new Bolivian constitution was approved in January 2009 with a 61% yes vote.

Thus these intercultural issues are of immediate political importance. (See Asamblea

Constituyente de Bolivia and Asamblea Constituyente de Ecuador for the full texts of both

constitutions.)

John Stolle-McAllister (2007), who studies the Ecuadorian CONAIE, points out that the

movement’s recent successes are based on 20 years of theorizing and living interculturality

through dialogs and political practices aimed at the decolonization of institutions and the

sociocultural fabric of the country. He argues that “one of the indigenous movement’s goals has

been to create an intercultural society in Ecuador that is based on mutual respect and equitable

distribution of resources and power. Intercultural policies go beyond recognizing the fact that

many different cultural groups share the same territory and history, instead proposing that those

different groups construct meaningful ways to interrelate” (p. 165). This concept of

interculturality has been initiated by the historically marginalized indigenous peoples and has as

its goal a society in which there would no longer be any marginalized groups and requires a

national effort to bring about cultural, economic, and political equality. A central pillar of this

interculturality is the Andean philosophical concept alli kawsay (good living), a concept that

stresses reciprocal, complementary, and cooperative relations and that puts into question the

European/U.S. civilizational web of individualism, colonialism, and modernity. Thus, this

Ecuadorian concept of interculturality points to a serious need to interrogate the philosophical

basis of intercultural competency, especially in the current conjuncture in which the Western

individualistic, capitalist paradigm is showing severe signs of weakness in dealing with urgent

ecological, social, and economic crises, crises that will be with us for quite some time.

In the Bolivian case, the social movement led by Morales generated a new political party,

the Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS, Movement to Socialism). Morales has stated that he

reluctantly became a politician only when he realized that politics could become genuine public

service, rather than a road to personal wealth and prestige. In this declaration, Morales was

echoing the words of another leader of an indigenous movement, Subcomandante Marcos of the

Mexican neo-Zapatistas, who declared that the new politics they practice and support is based on

the concept of mandar obedeciendo, governance through obedience to the popular will

(Holloway, 1996). We recognize that such declarations of deference to the popular are uttered by

many political leaders who then pursue personal wealth and prestige. The difference is that these

still-being-tested principles of Morales and Marcos are consonant with the communitarian

principles of indigenous cultures, and their practice thus far indicates an adherence to them. The

Bolivians have a philosophy similar to that of CONAIE Article 1 of the proposed constitution, a

product of more than 25 years of debate, which reads, “Bolivia is constituted as a Unified Social,

Plurinational, Communitarian, free, independent, democratic, intercultural, and decentralized

State with autonomies. Bolivia is founded on plurality and political, economic, juridical, cultural

and linguistic pluralism in the process of integrating the country.” (Asamblea Constituyente de

Bolivia)4 It also stresses Andean philosophical principles, including suma qamaña (good living)

and ñandereko (harmonious living) and the need to decolonize the country. That is, their

proposal to re-found the nation invokes the traditional communitarian values of the majority

population that includes respect for “Pachamama,” Mother Nature, the earth, the supreme

goddess of the Aymara and Quechua religions, which is being destroyed by industrialization and

neoconservative economic policies (Rebick, 2006). The Bolivian MAS combines cultural

identitarian politics with an egalitarian communitarian intercultural economic and political

agenda. They advocate what Bolivian Vice President Álvaro García has called

“Andean/Amazonian capitalism” (Cockcroft, 2008) and call for a mixed economy with private,

state, and communitarian property based on the pre-Columbian ayllu. Their international vision

is anti-imperialist, and their commitment to interculturality extends to all the peoples of the

world. Such a daring policy has been actively opposed by the traditional elites, who see their

traditional privileges threatened, and by the U.S. government, which has historically relied on

local elites to assert its imperial power and has no assurances of success.5

The Need for History

A popular saying throughout Latin America goes something like “U.S. Americans never

remember, and we never forget,” and indigenous social movements are steeped in history. Their

call for re-founding the nation through decolonization points to the fact that nominal political

independence obtained in the 19th century led to neocolonialism rather than effective economic

and political sovereignty.

To understand the different attitudes toward history and interculturality in the

economically hyper-developed United States and the economically underdeveloped Latin

American nations, we need to look at the incorporation of both areas into the expanding

European capitalist system in the 16th century, and there we come to the tale of the silver and the

rock. In Latin America, most notably in the areas of the Aztec and Inca empires, large quantities

of silver were found, and these areas were rapidly turned into major exporters of valuable

minerals and other raw materials, through what the Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano (1971)

has called the open veins of Latin America. Thus, silver, a synecdoche of rich natural resources,

condemned Latin America to a path of what Andre Gunder Frank (1969) called “the

development of underdevelopment.” Those veins are still open, Latin American economies have

always been organized around the needs of the international markets, and Latin American rulers

have more interests in common with metropolitan elites than with the majority of their fellow

citizens, especially the indigenous and Black citizens. The conquest of the Americas involved

genocide of the indigenous populations north and south, but in Latin America, especially in the

areas of the Aztec and Inca empires, those populations had developed a high level of civilization.

The Spaniards and Portuguese then turned the peasants and artisans into miners and workers in

other sorts of slave-like occupations, and a new ethnic/cultural group emerged, the mixed-blood

mestizos. The cultures of the area have been a hybrid ever since. Thus, interculturality has been a

condition of life in Latin America for over 500 years. Of course, it has been a sort of

interculturality with no equality. The original mixed-blood mestizos were first produced by the

rape of Indian women by the conquistadors, and the continued hegemony of the Europeans and

their descendents was guaranteed by arms and by laws. The indigenous communities, along with

the African slaves who joined them during the colonial period, were always treated as less than

human by their White rulers, and numerous epithets are used to refer to them, epithets

emphasizing their ignorance that are similar to those used by racist Whites in the United States to

refer to Blacks—for example, right-wing Bolivians refer to Evo Morales as an “Indian monkey”

(Cockcroft, 2008). Even the 19th-century liberals sought a European-based society that would

require the acculturation of the indigenous populations. Of course, there were always defenders

of the rights of the Indians, like Fray Bartolomé de las Casas, the first bishop of Chiapas, but the

assertion of the autonomy of indigenous cultures and communities is a relatively new

phenomenon (see de las Casas, 2003).

In recent Latin American history, while Europeans and their descendents have composed

the dominant elites, mestizos have gained some economic and political power (especially in

Mexico after the 1910–1921 Revolution), and the marginalized Indians have continually resisted

European rule. Thus, current movements are but the most recent and advanced version of a 500-

year struggle, and in fact, 1992, the quincentenary of Columbus’s maiden voyage, was an

important moment of reflection and consolidation for native peoples with the award of the Nobel

Peace Prize to Rigoberta Menchú and the first Continental Indigenous Summit held in

Teotihuacan Mexico. In fact, Morales says that it was at that moment that his movement decided

to “move from resistance to the taking of power” (Rebick, 2006).

Unlike the rich mineral resources found by the Spaniards and Portuguese in Latin

America, a major source of wealth for the development of European capitalism, the English

Mayflower Pilgrims who arrived on the coast of Massachusetts in 1620 found only Plymouth

Rock (so the tradition goes) and no evident natural resources of great value. Thus, the United

States had the good fortune to be born unimportant to the world economy—La importancia de

no nacer importante (Galeano, 1971, p. 170). The colonists and the newly independent country

developed primarily on the basis of small farms and manufacturing, and they formed a strong

internal market and infrastructure that were a sound basis for subsequent economic development.

Native peoples in the area of the United States were primarily nomadic and never effectively

incorporated into this developing economy. There was little miscegenation of Europeans and

Indians, and many Indians were killed and pushed off their lands, with many still living on

reservations today (Zinn, 1980, especially chap. 1). On the other hand, Latin American countries

such as Mexico celebrate their indigenous heritage as part of their national identity, even though

Indians are continually subjected to repression and discrimination; in the United States, the

indigenous heritage is almost never celebrated, except perhaps fleetingly at Thanksgiving. The

native basis of interculturality in Latin America and the aggressive role of their social

movements in asserting the rights of their marginalized communities in the framework of a new

foundation of the nation provide the historical basis for understanding the strong social

communitarian anti-imperialist force of interculturality in countries such as Bolivia and Ecuador.

All objects of study need to be treated as moments in a world historical process, and that

is true of the differences between intercultural competencies in the United States and

interculturality in Latin America. As a hegemonic world power, the United States is (in)famous

for its monolingualism and ethnocentricity, and most intercultural communication programs in

the country do not require advanced study of a language other than English. Thus, this U.S.

perspective treats language, an essential human trait, as incidental to intercultural studies. The

Latin American social movements we have analyzed briefly have developed through over 500

years of struggle against hegemonic world powers, from Spain in the 16th century to the United

States in the 21st, and these movements are all multilingual and intercultural by definition, a

function of the linguistic richness of their cultures. The world has much to learn from their

counterhegemonic intercultural politics and discourse that, starting from the needs of

marginalized cultures, advocate mutual respect and economic and political equality of all

cultures rather than the acculturation of the oppressed.

The Formation of Nation-States in Latin America and the Impact on Interculturality

The development of the rich and diverse indigenous cultures in the region suffered a near fatal

blow with the arrival of the Europeans. Five hundred years of genocide, exploitation, rape,

submission, appropriation of territories and natural resources, and cultural imperialism ensued.

The indigenous populations were dehumanized by the Europeans, who treated the indigenous

groups as soulless savages, which—in their eyes—legitimized their right to destroying their

customs, traditions, religion, and culture by determining that such cultural eradication was the

indigenous people’s only way to salvation and to “civilization” (De la Torre, 2006). This

“civilizing idea,” alive to this date, has permeated all sectors of society, from the criollos and

mestizos to significant sections of the indigenous populations who, as a result of the

pervasiveness of the attack, have developed a paradoxical state of internalized prejudice and

discrimination, on one hand, and of cultural pride and resistance, on the other.

The 19th century witnessed the independence of the different regions in the continent,

and “Latin America,” as we know it, was born. Nation-states were created, and an attempt to

develop national identities began. Subercaseaux (2002) distinguishes four periods of national

identity creation: the foundational period of Independence (the most intense period, which was in

effect between 1810 and 1840), an Integrative period from 1890 to 1920, the Revolutionary

period (1950—1975), and the Globalized period that started in the 1980s.6 He explains how the

concept of the nation-states and their mythologies evolved and were expanded through time. In

the Independence period, the purpose was to build, educate, and civilize nation-states led by the

elites and the state. During the Integrative period, the goals of the Independence period were

expanded to add the integration of new social and ethnic sectors. The state services were

expanded, and the concept of nation was linked to the idea of mestizaje. The Revolutionary

period’s goal was to transform the socioeconomic structures to benefit workers and the poorest in

society. The concept of nation was linked to the concept of social class and anti-imperialism.

Finally, the goal of the Globalized period, in which we are now, is for the nation-states to enter

the globalization stage while keeping their identity in a context of cultural diversity.

The Latin American scholar who has theorized globalization the most extensively is the

Argentine-Mexican philosopher-anthropologist Nestor García Canclini. García Canclini´s best-

known work in the United States is his interdisciplinary 2005 Hybrid Cultures: Strategies for

Entering and Leaving Modernity (published originally in Spanish in 1989). Here he seriously

interrogates the trope of tradition/modernity typically used in the analysis of Latin America and

argues for a process of political and cultural democratization in which traditional cultural

symbols and practices, although necessarily “impure,” need to resist being trampled by

modernity. García Canclini focuses on interactions and argues against essentialisms of all sorts,

asserting instead that culture is a process and that identities are always in flux. He states that

contemporary conditions of commerce and communication produce cultural hybrids as the

globalization of economic and cultural processes allows, for example, indigenous communities

in places such as Mexico and Perú to produce and export their crafts to a global market, rather

than just selling them to tourists, as the satellite dish and the computer meet the loom and pottery

wheel. Through such exchanges, traditional production processes are at once maintained and

transformed; the modern is articulated with the traditional. Subcomandante Marcos and the neo-

Zapatista movement that appeared on the world scene on January 1, 1994, the day the

modernizing project of North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect,

would be a prime example of such hybridization, as they express throughout the world through

an extremely astute use of the Internet their demands based in indigenous traditions. In his 1999

La globalización imaginada (Imagined Globalization, not yet available in English), García

Canclini analyzes the relations between globalization and interculturality, and he maintains that

contemporary globalization is modifying the meaning of culture. He points out that from the

1960s to the 1980s, sociosemiotic, anthropological, sociological, and other studies were

establishing culture as “the process of production, circulation, and consumption of meanings in

social life,” a concept that was intended for each individual society (García Canclini, 1999, pp.

61–62). Then in the 1990s, however, there was a push for a reconceptualization of culture in the

direction of interculturality, such that the study of culture would necessarily be intercultural, that

is, a relational study of culture (Sinnigen & Medina, 2002).

Demographics and Interculturality

Subercaseaux (2002) observes that it is difficult to determine an exact current indigenous

population size in Latin America and asserts that conservative numbers indicate that out of 515

million Latin Americans, there are between 33 and 41 million indigenous people, that is,

between 6.4% and 8% of the total population. According to the scholar, only five countries are

home to approximately 90% of this population: Perú with 27%, Mexico with 26%, Guatemala

with 15%, Bolivia with 12%, and Ecuador with 8%. The roughly 41 million indigenous people

form 400 different ethnic groups. Each of these groups is a complex cultural system, with its own

symbols—language being a fundamental one—cosmovisions, traditions, and socioeconomic and

political organization. The only Latin American country without an indigenous population is

Uruguay, followed by Brazil, with only an approximate .2%.

We conclude this section by recapitulating the examples we have offered so far that

illustrate the expressions of interculturality as implemented in Latin America: (a) additions and

changes to the constitutions or other state documents in at least 15 countries that acknowledge

the multicultural character of the population and explicitly state the rights of the diverse groups,

including the recognition of linguistic pluralism; (b) diverse indigenous movements throughout

the region—we mentioned the cases of Chiapas, Mexico, Bolivia, and Ecuador; (c) the elected

governments of Ecuador and Bolivia—with the previous creation of a new political party in the

latter country; (d) dialogues and political and intercultural practices; (e) self-governance of

indigenous communities—Chiapas, Mexico, is a good example; (f) respect for Pachamama and

encouragement for good living; (g) communitarian practices; and (h) the dissemination of

intercultural bilingual education, to which we now turn our attention.

Interculturality and Intercultural Bilingual Education

As mentioned in this chapter, one mechanism for implementing interculturality in some Latin

American countries has been through intercultural bilingual education. The historic background

of interculturality and intercultural bilingual education is one and the same, with interculturality

being the condition that allowed intercultural bilingual education to flourish, and we can trace

their origins back to the Colonization Era.

The approach of the Europeans to indigenous cultures was one of acculturation, that is,

the suppression of indigenous cultures and the assimilation of the native peoples into the

European model. In their thorough article on intercultural bilingual education, “La Educación

Intercultural Bilingüe en América Latina: Balance y Perspectivas” (“The Intercultural Bilingual

Education in Latin America: Balances and Perspectives”), López and Küper (1999) indicate that

at the beginning of the Conquest, the indigenous languages were used in education along with

Castilian and Latin, a practice soon to be changed when the Spanish Crown banned the use of

native languages. During the Independence and Integrative periods of nation building, the

emphasis was placed on creating monolingual and monocultural states, which accelerated the

assimilation process by the indigenous groups. As a result of this ideology, acquiring education

became a major challenge for the indigenous students, who had to learn the curriculum in

Spanish, a foreign language to them. This practice slowed down their learning, with many of

them having to repeat each grade for 2 or 3 years. In response to this incongruence, starting in

the 1930s, teachers around Latin America began to teach in the students’ languages to create a

bridge to the Spanish language. Although the emphasis of this method was placed on the learning

of Spanish, it was by far a gentler pedagogy than the previous one. By the 1940s, this idea of

teaching in native languages with the goal of assimilation was pervasive and became

institutionalized, supported by the Evangelists who came from the United States. This was the

beginning of the bilingual education model.

In 1940, the Cuban sociologist Fernando Ortiz used the term transculturation rather than

acculturation to describe Cuban society. According to this concept, the different cultural

communities in Cuban history, Taino Indians, Spaniards, Africans, and others, all contributed to

the economic, cultural, and political development of the nation, thus arguing against the

prevalent concept of acculturation according to which the descendants of African slaves needed

(the Tainos were eradicated) to acculturate into the dominant culture of the descendants of the

slave owners. In his Contrapunteo cubano del tabaco y el azúcar (Cuban Counterpoint), Ortiz

(1940) wove a fascinating cultural, economic, and political tale of the two principal products of

the island, tobacco and sugar, the former native to Cuba, the latter imported, in the transcultural

process of the formation of the Cuban nation and the development of the world capitalist system.

Regarding tobacco, he states, “What among the Indians had been a social institution of a magic-

religious character became among the whites an institution of economic character, a

characteristic phenomenon of complete transculturation” (pp. 219–220).7 This sort of

transcultural study, grounded in the intersection of the cultural, the economic, and the political, is

an important precursor of the contemporary use of interculturality as a strategy for cultural,

economic, and political social transformation.

In the 1960s and 1970s, new experimental models developed apart from the neo-

Evangelist and assimilationist models (López & Küper, 1999). According to López and Küper

(1999), the indigenous groups were now supported in learning their own native language in the

schools, along with a second language. This practice was based on the understanding that the

learning of the first language would help the learning of the second language. Simultaneously, a

need surfaced to modify the curriculum so that it corresponded to the reality and context of the

students.

In his article “La Praxis de la Interculturalidad en los Estados Nacionales

Latinoamericanos” (“The Praxis of Interculturality in the Latin American Nation-States”),

Tubino (2005) asserts that in the 1970s, the aim was to offer an intercultural and bilingual

education. The term bicultural was dropped due to the conceptual problems that arose. In this

context, biculturalism was understood as the ability to function equally and simultaneously in

two different cultural environments. This framework ignored the uneven existing power relations

between the indigenous groups and the dominant group, as well as the prestige differential

between the indigenous languages and the national languages. The culture and language of the

dominant group were the acceptable ways of being, knowing, and communicating. According to

Tubino, the concept of bicultural education meant to place both languages and cultures together,

as if they were parallel. “On the contrary, the concept of interculturality places emphasis on

communication, contact, the interrelation between both languages, but, above all, the cultures”

(p. 87). The term bicultural was replaced by the term intercultural, which has as its backdrop the

notion of interculturality, the cultural platform espoused by the indigenous groups.

Guerrero Arias (in Stolle-McAllister, 2007) introduces the concept of interculturality and

describes its different elements and implications:

Interculturality is not the simple coexistence of different cultures, but rather the

sharing of these cultures in their difference, and sharing is only possible from

living of everyday life among culturally differentiated communities, each with

its own and distinct meanings of existence. It implies dialogical meetings and a

continuous relation of alterity between concrete subjects, among human beings

endowed with distinct visions of the world, among those that produce symbolic

exchanges of senses and meanings. (p. 165)8

Interculturality in this sense implies the sharing of experiences and physical and

imaginary spaces among peoples who are culturally different. This exchange and coexistence can

only be successful if equal participation in all decision-making processes is guaranteed. At the

level of a nation-state, an example would be the representation of the diverse groups in the

Ecuadorian Congress. At an international level, such interculturality would require the full and

equal participation of the native people’s organizations in all decisions made by foreign agencies

and nongovernmental organizations that affect them.

In turn, De la Torre (2006) defines interculturality as “the dynamic articulation between

ethnic groups (internally) and with the hegemonic society, in a search of a permanent harmonic

space of social interrelation that promotes into the future important processes of decentralization

and social participation in more equitable conditions” (p. [**000?**]). The model of

interculturality he proposes (informed by the intercultural project in Ecuador) is that of

knowledge exchange, respect for the characteristics and interests of each group, and identity

reaffirmation in the dynamic context of the contemporary world.9

An important aspect of the concept of interculturality is the idea that the indigenous

cultures are not stagnant and frozen in time but that they evolve and hybridize with intercultural

contact (Tubino, 2005). Cultures and identities are diachronic, and there is no need to isolate

them from external influences. “Cultural conservationism presupposes atemporal inexistent

essences. Intercultural education, in contrast, instead of suggesting a forced return to an idealized

past or to the essence of an abstract culture, will have as its goal to better the quality and

symmetry of the exchanges” (Tubino, 2005, p. 88). That is to say that the interculturality

paradigm is not an attempt to preserve indigenous cultures intact but to make them active

participants in and contributors to the cultural, political, and social life of their respective

countries. By the organic nature of the exchange, it is to be expected that the indigenous and

hegemonic cultures will both be influenced and transformed in subtle and not so subtle ways.

Tubino (2005) summarizes his discussion by underlying the two key notions regarding

interculturality discussed above. First, the strengthening of the ethnic-cultural identities of the

indigenous groups has to occur simultaneously to the intercultural dialogue as identities are

created in relation to the “other.” Ways of making the ethnic-cultural identities stronger are the

reappropriation of cultural traditions, the revival of native tongues, and the banishment of

internalized racism. He continues by stating, “From this point of view, interculturality is a way of

understanding and rebuilding the socialization processes that are produced in asymmetrical

multicultural contexts” (p. 89). Second, there is a need to redefine the power relationship

between the official national culture and the indigenous cultures.

Interculturality, understood this way, promotes the relationship and an active coexistence

among the different cultural groups (De la Torre, 2006; Tubino, 2005). Isolation and

encapsulation in one’s own cultural traditions and understandings of the world go against the

dynamic process of culture and represent a stagnant and unrealistic view of what culture is.

López and Küper (1999) argue that since the early 1980s, some Latin American policy

makers have offered intercultural bilingual education, which entails a curriculum based on the

students’ cultural frame of reference and introduces elements of other cultures at the same time,

including the hegemonic culture. It is imparted in the native language and another language of

European origin. They explain the intercultural dimension in education as follows:

The intercultural dimension in education refers to the curricular relationship

between the practical and theoretical knowledge and the native or adopted

values of the indigenous societies and those unknown and other, as much as the

search for dialogue and a permanent complementarity between the traditional

culture and the Occidental one, in order to satisfy the needs of the indigenous

populations and to contribute to the quest of better a life conditions. (p. 22)

Intercultural bilingual education contains paradoxes and challenges; a significant pitfall is

that this education is targeted to the indigenous populations only. Thus, the task of achieving

mutual understanding is not shared by hegemonic groups. It is a lopsided system that places the

burden (and the gains) on the indigenous groups, as if only those groups needed the intercultural

education. It seems to us that until the hegemonic groups enter the dialogue and accompany it

with meaningful actions, interculturality will not be fully achieved. These meaningful actions

may be participation in the intercultural bilingual education, where the members of the

hegemonic groups have to learn about, with, and from indigenous groups. At a political level, it

may mean that the indigenous groups share the power, as has been already suggested, as in

having political representation in Congress.

In addition, Tubino (2005) is concerned about the emphasis that teachers place on the

“promotion and reinvindication of the ‘original culture’ of the users” (p. 88). This goal implies a

focus on the past, on the culture of the ancestors, and goes against the natural evolution of

cultures that occurs when they are in contact with each other. Finally, Salmerón (1998)

acknowledges the difficulties of attempting to operate within an intercultural frame of reference:

“The recognition of egalitarianism is the golden rule of democratic societies for the public

sphere, but it bears a difficulty: the demand to give a space to some differences, that is, to

something that, by definition, is not universally shared” (p. 55). In other words, as cultures come

together, they bring along a set of unique characteristics that may clash with the unique

characteristics of the other cultures with which they interact. Thus, the challenge of

implementing interculturality is this lack of knowledge in understanding the values,

cosmovision, and ways of living and knowing of the particular groups. These elements have to

be negotiated but at a table where all of groups have equal value.

At a nation-state level, there are also important matters to be considered. Several Latin

American countries have appropriated the interculturality discourse and have inserted it in their

constitutions and other major legal documents. This move is contrary to the 19th-century goal of

homogenizing the population to create and develop national identities that would bring

cohesiveness to the diverse populations. It also challenges the hegemonic group’s desire to retain

its wealth and power. Therefore, there is a concern that, once interculturality becomes part of

official discourse, interculturality may be turned into a slogan with no real applications (Tubino,

2005; Walsh, 2002) unless the indigenous groups continue to advance their agenda, something

that is currently occurring in Ecuador and Bolivia.

Conclusion

In this chapter, we have situated a comparison of intercultural competencies in the United States

and the theory and practice of interculturality in parts of Latin America in the context of the

maelstrom of economic, ecological, and social crises in which we are currently immersed and in

the disparate histories of the United States and Latin America. In a search for alternatives to the

individualistic, capitalist, and militarist social and cultural models that underlie the current crises,

we have looked to the communitarian theories and practices of indigenous social movements in

Latin America, especially in Ecuador and Bolivia. These movements are steeped in over 500

years of resistance to colonial and neocolonial rule in the area and seek a re-founding of their

nations through a process of decolonization based on intercultural principles of mutual human

respect, equality, and respect for nature. We have looked at examples such as the draft of the new

Bolivian constitution in which the term intercultural is used frequently in referring to mutual

respect of all peoples and cultures (Afro-Bolivians are expressly included). As illustrated in this

chapter through the examples of Bolivia and Ecuador, interculturality is incorporated into an

antihegemonic sociocultural-political movement that is operating on severely contested terrain.

This study would suggest that to be truly effective, intercultural communication should

move beyond the limits of individualistic and interpersonal concerns. Although by and large,

there is not an equivalent in the United States to the traditions of communitarian egalitarian

practices in countries such as Bolivia and Ecuador, there is a long and too often ignored ideal of

equality, and that ideal can become a force for achieving greater economic and political equality

among groups and not just a supposed equality of opportunity for primarily middle-class

individuals. It would require that the hegemonic White upper- and middle-class groups listen to

the less privileged Black and Latino minorities instead of insisting on their assimilation and that

all Americans address the negative impacts of U.S. imperialism throughout the world. Those

negative impacts and the reactions to them are particularly evident in the midst of the current

crises in which the United States is engaging in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S.

government and finance capitalists are responsible for the financial meltdown, and the

government persists in efforts to destabilize governments in Latin America, specifically in

Bolivia. The realization of the ideal of equality would obviously include an end to poverty in the

richest country in the history of the world, a realization of the “freedom from want” espoused by

President Franklin D. Roosevelt and largely ignored by his successors. U.S. interculturalists can

benefit from a reflection on the civil rights movement, perhaps the greatest example of

successful intercultural communication in U.S. history, a great social movement initiated by

African Americans that gained considerable support among other groups and became a source of

inspiration for social movements throughout the world. Although this movement’s initial

demands were an end to legal segregation and disenfranchisement, it later incorporated economic

equality and anti-imperialism.

We would conclude by posing Stolle-McAllister’s (2007) challenge to the readers of this

chapter: “In our studies of the humanities [and social sciences], how can our work contribute to

understanding diversity as a way of contributing to the much needed cultural, political, social,

environmental and economic changes that our societies and our global civilization need to

prosper and to find a sustainable alli kawsay, or good living? How does our work contribute to

improving the human condition that we purport to be studying?” (p. [**000?**]). That, after all,

is a goal shared by all interculturalists.

Notes

1. An example of scholarship that follows this trend is Cantú-Licón’s (2001) work in which

she measures intercultural competencies in college students at the Instituto Tecnológico y de

Estudios Superiores de Monterrey (ITESM) in Monterrey, Mexico, for which she used the

Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI). The scholar frames her study using the

framework of globalization and the imperatives of effective and appropriate communication

that it brings. As with most intercultural competencies discourses in the United States, this

study and other similar works speak to affluent sectors of society that focus their approach

on national cultures to enhance business and communication practices. This is not to say that

this trend and its worldview is not legitimate and that it does not have its place, but they only

speak to the reality of a fraction of the population in a hegemonic position.

2. For reasons of space, this chapter focuses only on the indigenous populations of Latin

America.

3. Eleven countries have included in their constitution articles and wording that underline

the multicultural and/or multilingual nature of the nations, and four others have recognized

the indigenous rights in various state legal documents. The countries whose constitutions

have been modified are Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico,

Nicaragua, Paraguay, Perú, and Venezuela. The countries that have included it in other legal

documents besides the constitution are Chile, El Salvador, Honduras, and Panama (López &

Küper, 1999).

4. Unless otherwise stated, all translations are ours.

5. As scholars in the fields of intercultural communication and Latin American studies, we

have gone outside the academy in our study of interculturality because the most compelling

and urgent intercultural visions are those of the indigenous social movements and not those

of scholars. We are inspired by those movements that are putting their visions into practice

on a massive scale in ways that provide hope for a continent where the military dictatorships

of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s were followed by the disastrous application of

neoconservative economic policies that are still in effect. Regarding these policies, there is a

vernacular Latin American expression to the effect that, at a macroeconomic level, the

economy is doing fine, but the people are in terrible shape. Maybe that situation is changing,

although there are no guarantees. Latin American history is filled with stories of dashed

hopes, and this compelling story could become another one of them. We do not idealize

these movements or the individuals involved in them. We have not dealt with the many

polemics around them because this chapter did not seem to be the appropriate place to do so

(Cockcroft, 2008).

6. The dates are approximations.

7. Citation from the English translation by Harriet de Onís.

8. Translation is Stolle-McAllister’s.

9. The intercultural project in Ecuador stems from the indigenous resistance to the racist

attitudes and practices inherited from colonial times (Stolle-McAllister, 2007). The scholar

reports that the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE) was

founded in1986. Starting in 1990, CONAIE organized uprisings that advanced significantly

the cause of the indigenous population, such as “the recognition of indigenous communities

as important and culturally different than the rest of Ecuador, the granting of land title to

Amazonian peoples, regularization of land titles in the highlands, and the foundation of

bilingual/intercultural education for indigenous children” (p. 164). By 1996, CONAIE’s

political party was winning seats in Congress and regional offices, and in 2007, CONAIE

participated in the constitution’s rewrite. At the heart of these initiatives is the push toward

an intercultural society that will decolonize “pubic institutions and individual minds, [find]

new forms of representation and eliminat[e] the structural economic and social inequalities”

(p. 165).

References

Asamblea Constituyente de Bolivia. (2007, December). Nueva Constitución del Estado.

Retrieved November 23, 2008, from

http://www.presidencia.gob.bo/asamblea/nueva_cpe_aprobada_en_grande_en_detalle_y_en_revi

sion.pdf[**NOT CITED IN THE TEXT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD A CITE, OR SHOULD

THE REFERENCE BE DELETED?**]

Asamblea Constituyente de Ecuador. (2008, October). Retrieved March 27, 2009.

http://www.asambleaconstituyente.gov.ec/documentos/definitiva_constitucion.pdf

Cantú-Licón, L. (2001). Medición de habilidades interculturales en estudios

universitarios [Intercultural skills assessment in University Studies]. Unpublished master’s

thesis, Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, Campus Monterrey,

Monterrey, Mexico.

Jack Sinnigen � 3/27/09 4:46 PMComment: now cited. I think it is helpful to have a reference to the text, although it is certainly an easy to find public document. I can live without the references to both constitutions.js

Cockcroft, J. (2008, November 28–30). Indigenous people rising. Counterpunch.

Retrieved November 29, 2008, from http://www.counterpunch.org/cockcroft11282008.html

De la Torre, L. (2006). La interculturalidad desde la perspectiva del desarrollo social y

cultural [Interculturality from a perspective of social and cultural development]. Revista Sarance,

Instituto Otavaleño de Antropología—Universidad de Otavalo, 25, 62–87.

de las Casas, B. (2003). An account, much abbreviated, of the destruction of the Indies,

with related texts (F. W. Knight, Ed., & Andrew Hurley, Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.

Deardorff, D. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a

student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10, 241–

267.

Frank, A. G. (1969). Latin America: Underdevelopment or revolution; essays on the

development of underdevelopment and the immediate enemy. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Galeano, E. (1971). Las venas abiertas de América Latina [The open veins of Latin

America]. México: Siglo XXI.

García Canclini, N. (1999). La globalización imaginada [Imagined globalization].

Buenos Aires: Paidós.

García Canclini, N. (2005). Hybrid cultures: Strategies for entering and leaving

modernity (C. L. Chiappari & S. L. López, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Holloway, J. (1996). The concept of power in the Zapatistas. Retrieved November 26,

2008, from http://www.korotonomedya.net/chiapas/power.html

López, L. E., & Küper, W. (1999). La educación intercultural bilingüe en América

Latina: Balance y perspectivas [The intercultural bilingual education in Latin America: Balances

and perspectives]. Revista Ibero Americana de Educación, 20. Retrieved October 8, 2008, from

http://www.rieoei.org/rie20a02.htm

Nayar, K. P. (2008, November 17). Global table changeth: New faces make their

presence felt at rich man’s club. The Telegraph. Retrieved November 26, 2008,

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1081117/jsp/frontpage/story_10121960.jsp

Ortiz, F. (1963). Contrapunteo cubano del tabaco y el azúcar [Cuban counterpoint].

Havana: Consejo Nacional de la Cultura.

Rebick, J. (2006, September 9). Peaceful revolution is taking place. Retrieved November

22, 2008, from http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/3238

Salmerón, F. (1998). Diversidad cultural y tolerancia [Cultural diversity and tolerance].

Mexico: Paidós.

Shane, S. (2008, November 20). Global forecast by American intelligence expects Al

Qaeda’s appeal to falter. New York Times. Retrieved November 22, 2008, from

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/world/21intel.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=intelligence%20decli

ne&st=cse

Sinnigen, J., & Medina, A. (2002). Modern language class struggles. Bulletin of the

Association of Departments of Foreign Languages, 33, 50–56.

Stolle-McAllister, J. (2007). Constructing interculturality in Ecuador: Challenges to the

humanities. International Journal of the Humanities, 5(6), 163–169.

Subercaseaux, B. (2002). Nación y cultura en América Latina: Diversidad cultural y

globalización [Nation and Culture in Latin America: Cultural Diversity and Globalization].

Santiago, Chile: Editorial LOM.

Tubino, F. (2005). La praxis de la interculturalidad en los estados nacionales

latinoamericanos [The praxis of interculturality in the Latin American nation-states]. Cuadernos

Internacionales, 3(5), 83–96.

Wallerstein, I. (1990). Culture as the ideological battleground of the modern world-

system. In M. Featherstone (Ed.), Global culture (pp. 31–55). London: Sage.

Walsh, C. (2002). (De) Construir la interculturalidad. Consideraciones críticas desde la

política, la colonialidad y los movimientos indígenas y negros en el Ecuador [(De)Constucting

Interculturality. Critical Considerations from Politics, Coloniality and Indigenous and Black

Movements in Ecuador]. In N. Fuller (Ed.), Interculturalidad y Política: Desafíos y

Posibilidades (pp. 116–142). Lima: Red para el Desarrollo de las Ciencias Sociales en el Perú.

Zinn, H. (1980). People’s history of the United States. Retrieved November 26, 2008,

from http://www.historyisaweapon.com/zinnapeopleshistory.html