The Dilemmas of the Border Theory of José David Saldívar and Gloria Anzaldúa

The intent of this paper is to study how the border theory represented by José David Saldívar and Gloria Anzaldúa is criticized for its dilemma. Slavoj Žižek criticizes multiculturalists’ advocacy of cultural differences, which the border theorists emphasize. Žižek’s dissatisfaction lies in multicultualrists’ failure to focus on the economic class issues in their criticisms. Žižek regards multiculturalists’ openness and their critiques are in default due to their displacement of the issue of class struggle with cultural issues. This paper focuses on the ways this border theory is attacked for its culturalism. Just as Saldívar focuses on the borderlands of the Southwest as “the Lost Land” after the Guadaleupe-Hidalgo Treaty in 1848, Gloria Anzaldúa also regards this area as the homeland of the Chicano/s, the American people of Mestizaje. Saldívar is accused of lacking political awareness of class struggle with his praise of mobility and in-betweenness of the border. Lao-Montes specifically criticizes Saldívar for his lack of concern for the colored people in the States, thus committing the American mainstream ideologies of racism. As for the Chicano studies of Gloria Anzaldúa, she is a harsh critic of white supremacy of American main stream ideology and its gender biases as well. Anzaldúa’s use of mestizaje is a mode similar to Saldívar’s borderlands of in-betweenness. However, Scott Michaelsen and David E. Johnson regard that Anzaldúa commits colonialism by insisting on the Spanish American writing as “a final destination for all world writing” and “othering” the indigenous culture. Scott Michaelsen and David E. Johnson also criticize Anzaldúa’s border theory for her “demonization and repression of a presumed white or Anglo culture”. The rest of the paper will pay attention to overcoming these dilemmas by way of the political logic of Zapatistas.