Photo by
Lydia Gonzales
|
A Sociological
Biography of Gonzalo F. Santos
Disclaimer 1: The
following text represent exclusively
the
views of the author and should not be construed to represent
those
of any person, group, institution, ethnicity, movement, or
country mentioned or with whom he chooses to associate freely.
Gonzalo F. Santos is an
academic worker who has taught (helped others learn and question)
historical social science at the California
State University at
Bakersfield since 1992. CSUB is a nice, small, four-year higher
education institution that serves the southern San Joaquin Valley, one
of the richest and most intensely developed agricultural areas in the
world. The area is the historic site of great
migrant
farmworker struggles (Asian, Mexican,
Dust Bowl "Okie")
and the homeland of the famous United
Farmworkers of America, founded by C�sar Ch�vez
and Dolores Huerta. The other
major industry in the area is oil, mostly occupying Anglo workers in
past decades. Hence the special blend of blue collar flavors that made
possible the famous "Bakersfield
sound." Native Americans of many tribes - some indigenous to the
area and many forced to "relocate" from as far as northern Mexico - are
concentrated in the nearby Tule River Reservation.
Recent waves of southern Mexico indigenous
peoples to the valley has reinforced the Indian
presence.
The college, though growing
fast, is still small; the students are great. Most of them work, study,
are raising families -- in short, they are heroic! Many of them, by the
way, are the children
of farmworkers or oil workers going to college for the first time in
their
family's history.
Meanwhile, farm work
continues to be a very exploited
and devalued "ethnicized" occupation: work in the fields remains
defined and stigmatized as "illegal immigrant, temporary, Mexican
work" by a mighty agroindustrial
complex that sells $25+ billion in products a year but pays most of its 350,000 workers
less than $6,000 a year and
shields itself from most legal ties
& responsibilities
towards them by relying on a vast contracting system, forcing
farmworkers
to work as purely casual, piece-workers without most of the benefits
enjoyed
by workers in all other sectors, and subjecting them to all sorts of
abuse,
such as pesticide exposure and unpaid overwork.
It must be said, though,
other types of jobs, previously highly coveted, have been and are being
degraded to farmworker levels of pay, benefits, and status, instead of
farmworker levels
being upgraded to them. All is not well in the political economy of today.
Professor Santos is
fortunate: he is rewarded with, and recognized by, the income, status,
and job security of a tenured associate professor - the combined
outcome of difficult periodic collective bargaining struggles and, of
course, his own accumulated record of work. He belongs to the largest
single faculty union in the country, the California Faculty
Association. His labor situation,
therefore,
markedly contrasts that of most other workers in the United States,
who,
mostly unorganized, are frequently subjected to the whimsy of corporate
downsizing
& de-skilling plans, the volatility of the globalizing job markets,
and
the arbitrary top-down assessments of their "individual merit" when it
comes
to pay raises and benefits.
Speaking of "merit," yes,
Dr. Santos was socially certified having some with a Ph.D. in sociology
from the
University of Binghamton
in
upstate New York. His dissertation was a study of Latino peoples in
North America over the last six centuries. He has written from time to
time on Latinos
& Latin America, the modern world-system, ethnic relations, and
human
migrations. [See some of his "Scholarly
Publications"]
Titles aside, and cognizant
that biography informs and conforms scholarship, Santos grew up in the
Sixties in Mexico, where he initially studied physics and participated in
the
pro-democracy
movement
of 1968, a youthful movement that was abruptly drowned in blood in
the
so-called "Free World" two decades before the same thing happened in
China.
Santos then went to the United States, where he studied physics some
more
in Colorado, taught college math for a while, and actively participated
in
the various Third World solidarity movements and the Chicano movement
of
the 1970s & 80s. Eventually, after becoming aware of the
theoretical shortcomings
of these movements - though not their moral strength - he decided to
study
historical sociology from a world-system's perspective. So he went into
monasterial
retreat (ph.d. program) for some years in upstate New York. His mentor
was
the late Terence Hopkins, an incomparable, original thinker and true
teacher,
who, along with the prolific Immanuel
Wallerstein, co-founded and developed the world-systems perspective in
the
U.S. social sciences since the seventies.
Santos came out of graduate
studies in 1992, only to witness the end of the Cold War and the demise
of historical socialism, the passage of the North American Free Trade
Agreement and the armed uprising it sparked in southern Mexico. Going
on since January 1, 1994, the Zapatista
indigenous "glocal" rebellion can be seen as one of the first
post-Cold-War social uprisings in the World's "South" against the
very narrow, but hegemonic,
vision of globalism now emanating from the World's "North" -- a vision
blindly
adopted so far by most of the elites of the "South."
We are certainly all part
now of an inegalitarian, worldwide, social system; actually, we've been
in it for centuries, it's just that for a while last century some
thought they had
escaped it altogether. Not so, it turned out. Now everybody is clearly
and
firmly back in, subjected to all the tensions and challenges of
"globalization." To those that believe they're "just back" or just
awoke to the realization that they are in and of a
global system, if not for it,
Santos likes to enjoin them:
Welcome to the
system, roll up your sleeves and join one of the many long standing
struggles to better
the world. Or are you going to opt, like so many frequently do,
to
be willing to struggle just for your personal, local, national
freedoms,
rights, and well being, but not necessarily for anybody else's,
or worse still, in direct conflict with everybody else's?
Which brings us to the purpose of getting an education. To those
trying to get an education and further themselves, Santos congratulates
and vows to help them, but asks them to ponder these questions:
What will you do
after you graduate and seek the rewards of your college
education, when you are nevertheless still subjected to the
frequent ill effects of the "magic of the marketplace," the
dehumanizing and Earth-toxic tendencies of "mass consumption?"
Are you going to vociferously (or quietly), individually (or
collectively), clamor (or scramble) to transfer unto "others" (or "far
away") the deepening social & environmental costs of our predatory
and unsustainable global system?
Alas, there are
no others, there is no away in what Buckminster Fuller called "spaceship
Earth."
So listen to what Rigoberta Menchu, a
Guatemalan Maya recipient of the Noble Peace Prize, once said to the
students of San Francisco State University:
If you only go for
a degree, you will have a very poor education. A piece of paper isn't
knowledge. I have 16 honorary doctorates and I can't cure anyone. You
have to share your
creativity and help people. Have a social consciousness and serve
society. Peace doesn't come when a dove falls from the sky and lands on
your head. Things change not just by thinking but by taking action.
Don't study in dark rooms. Nothing happens just because it happens, it
takes a struggle. It takes young people like you who are willing to
struggle.
|
Most of us, unfortunately,
find ourselves currently afflicted by the T.I.N.A. Syndrome ("There
Is No Alternative"). But life itself teaches those who avoid facing
the truth. As everything solid melts into air (ideologies, countries,
jobs, savings, social relations, habitats, security, values) in the
wake of the ubiquitous, relentless, endless capitalist accumulation,
commercialization, and global integration, people will have to come out
with alternative
visions and models of being than the present one, whether they like
it or not. Santos merely guides and assists folks to intellectually and
ethically face up to our imploding historical social system, in the
hope that they will
be better prepared for our fast approaching planetary rendezvous with destiny.
In terms of his residential
status and cultural identity, Santos is thought to be, at least to some
bureaucratically minded and legalistic folks, a permanent resident
legal alien living in the United States. What an alien label! Nothing could be further from the
truth in these times of fast North
American integration. Santos only admits to having undergone a transformation
of sorts in the last three decades, and sees himself nowadays as a
formerly chicanizing,
currently latinizing, euromexican intellectual of the einsteinista /
neo-marxista / pro-zapatista persuasion, living translocally as a
mobile, waged, bilingual householder (con gente aqu� y
all�, y voy y vengo seguido electr�nica y
f�sicamente), father
of three and
husband of one, a denizen of what is now the semi-melted North
American granule of the world-system, currently engaged in the study
and teaching of preborder / border / transborder / nonborder forms of
peoplehood in human history, and
steadfastly resisting as much as he can the further fictitious
merchandising of everything around him, including higher education!
He is therefore neither permanent
nor alien to the region in which he lives, nor has he, on
occasion, been willing to let legal matters get on the way of
basic human solidarity!
He is, in reality, a
privileged global consumer (four fifths of humanity is not, though it mostly produces, if
at all, for the other fifth - us folks in the world's
privileged "North" plus the dispersed, ineffective elites in the
world's "South"). But despite his privileged location, which affords
him the time and means to think
and study about all this, he is an advocate of creating and extending a
global citizenship for all of humanity;
and more broadly, of urgently organizing a much more egalitarian and
democratic, ecologically sustainable & friendly, new world system.
Why? It
has to do with his reading of what is bound to happen if we blithely
continue to inflict the logics of "nationhood" and "state power," "self
regulated markets,"
"accumulation," and "mass consumption" on this good earth for too much
longer,
all for the sake of illusory profits, the thrill of superpower command,
anachronistic
"we/them" dogmas, and the very real, though short-term, privileges some
of
us enjoy. Ultimately, what exists and demands moral allegiance is the web of life, not the forces and
structures
that tear at it or would divorce us humans from it and from each other.
Until all shall share and protect the living earth, the system will
increasingly...
Postscript After September 11
(Written january 10, 2004)
Disclaimer 2: The author of this postscript is not now, nor has he
ever
been, a terrorist, though this may soon become immaterial to getting
himself deported or
indefinitely detained as an unlawful alien thinker.
The above
was
written in the transitional years following the collapse of the
Cold
War but
prior
to September 11, 2001, when it became clear to professor Santos and many others
that
we had to come to grips with having reached the limits of the world as
we
knew it, and envision an entirely new one before being engulfed by
chaos.
Professor Santos does not wish to change a word he wrote then, for it
captures
some of the flavor of the critique of globalization expressed at the
time,
and because it now seems a prescient text.
At the time, and in contrast, some pro-systemic scholars, like Francis
Fukuyama, disagreed that anything was fundamentally wrong with the
world-system, even if it was widely felt to be careening without much
control by anyone, and so, drunk with triumphalism, he posited it had
arrived... to heaven! We had reached, he proclaimed, the pinnacle of
human achievement, the perfect formula for human society; so we could
now settle, at long last, for a placid future, an indefinite
continuation of the near-perfect present; hence, "the end of history."
Such idyllic nonsense has been known to have afflicted the minds
of elites in past epochs, precisely when their social order was about to blow up in their faces.
Others, more "realistic," like Samuel Huntington (of Vietnam Era hawk
adviser vintage), aware of the demise of the 20th-century colossal
clash of ideologies (liberalism, fascism, and Marxism-Leninism), but
nevertheless inveterate
Western supremacists too ossified to be able to conceive or support a
more egalitarian world order, sounded the alarm: what they saw looming ahead was, what
else,
but a repeat of the Cold War
scenario:
a formalized, irreconcilable world schism between permanently hostile camps, with
similar
dangers for hot world wars, etc., -- but this time it was to be a Cultural
Cold War, fought between geocultural zones of the world deemed
inherently
incompatible and unredeemable; hence, "the clash of civilizations."
This
alarmist culturalist analysis had the strong stench of the early
20th-century
"White Man's Burden"
eurocentric defense of colonialism and its terrors, initially intended
by
Rudyard Kipling to prod the U.S. to become fully imperialist in the
Philippines,
now resuscitated by Huntington et al. to prod the U.S. to an aggressive
strategy
to shore up its fast diminishing global hegemony. It was a call for the
U.S.
to lead the fight of "The West vs. the Rest." Needless to say,
Huntington's call to encircle the supposedly more "civilized" Western
wagons to fight
the non-Western Perpetual Others went down in global public opinion -
mostly
made up of those supposed Others, highly Americanized by now, just like
we
Americans have become culturally highly hybrid ourselves - with the same degree of amused
contempt than Fukuyama's call to begin enjoying (by eating
cake, perhaps?) our recently inaugurated Capitalist Nirvana, in a
world
where half its population "lives" on less than two dollars a day.
Enter Real History rudely onto stage on September 11, 2001.
Both
prevalent schools of pro-systemic thought in the late 90s had missed
the mark by a
mile. Instead, history continued, not the way anyone expected
or wished for, but with a twist and a vengeance, violently filling the
void created by the absolute absence
of real
initiatives to transform an ailing world. History continued
with the
most spectacular, devastating, (and telegenic) attack on the population
and
central sites of the world's most powerful country ever, carried out,
not
by a cultural constellation of hostile powers brandishing "weapons of mass destruction," but by
a handful of determined, irredentist fanatics armed with nothing more
than box
cutters and engineering wit, and imbued with a millenarian vision of religious deliverance (pseudo Islamic in this instance, but
it could have very well been pseudo Christian or pseudo any number of
other religions,
or ethnonationalist, or racial, or take your pick) from a satanic
modernity.
Sounds like a cultural clash? Sure, terrorist cultural extremist nuts -
especially those who feel are pursuing a mission from God - will always
clash
with everybody else, including the vast numbers of non-violent,
non-extremists in their own culture. But precisely what culture are we
talking about in this
case? The 9/11 terrorists were almost all college educated... in the
West!
It turns out these quite traveled, modern fanatics cooked up their
millenarian
charlatanry
in
places like Hamburg! Muslims? Sure, in the same way that Mussolini and
Franco
and Pinochet all thought of themselves as Christian knights - as
preposterous
and as
quite
besides the point. Sociologically, the 9/11 attackers are better
characterized
as cosmopolitan, Western educated, relatively affluent, embittered
young
men exhibiting a very high degree of anomie.
And there's more: their leader, Osama bin Laden, turned out to be a
rich
and well-connected son of an even richer Saudi businessman, one of "our
best
assets" in the CIA covert campaign against the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan
in the 1980s. The U.S. government trained bin Laden and funneled funds
&
weapons through his operations to the Afghan "freedom fighters," as
Ronald
Reagan then called them, later morphed as the Taliban.
So just how alien are these evil terrorists, one has to ask?
And
isn't there a pattern of deep denial here in the way the West - and
most especially
the U.S. leaders - have pretended that U.S.-deposed tyrants like Saddam
Hussein
and Manuel Noriega were not of Western/U.S. manufacture, opting instead
on
blaming their unquestionable evil nature and deeds on their victims'
cultures, crimes perpetrated with the tacit, or covert, or open Western
complicity during
the Cold War?
Isn't the real evil culture we must confront and expunge from
this world the Cold War culture of superpower impunity, covertness,
paranoia, and violence that the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.
institutionalized and took to such extremes, and from whence all these
monsters sprung? If so, why then are we allowing some of the worst extant former cold warriors to continue in
power
in Washington, to frame policy and to be seen as our foremost
anti-terrorist crusaders? Haven't we learned anything from all the
evil-doing that was
done in our (and the Russians') name, and in the name of freedom (and
Communism)
in the last half-century?
We are in denial. The Russians seem to have owned up to it since
Gorbachev went to the U.N. to apologize for the invasion of
Afghanistan. Perhaps
they had little choice once the Soviet system imploded, but that's
still
commendable and better than, say, the lack of atonement in the West for
the Atlantic slave trade. Germany has certainly atoned for the Jewish
holocaust,
Japan for its genocides in Asia (well, some, not enough) - all to their
enduring credit in the eyes
of the suffering world that just came out of that horrific century. Not
us.
Our leaders do not believe there's anything they need to apologize for,
and
a lots of U.S. citizens, too many unfortunately, agree with them. Of all our national leaders in over
half
a century,
only Martin Luther King ever broke away and denounced that evil Cold
War culture,
which he saw as "a death wish" derailing the aims of the Civil Rights
Movement,
causing untold devastation in places like Southeast Asia, Africa, and
Latin America, and making of the United States "the greatest purveyor
of violence in the world today," a nation "on the wrong side of the
world's revolution...
approaching spiritual death." But that was in 1967.
A
vast silence on the U.S. misdeeds of that era and its legacy pervades
and, in fact, has allowed the morphing of that death wish mentality
into the prime
cultural basis behind today's "War on Terrorism."
Why have we allowed it to happen so easily, without much sustained
resistance,
and despite the loud criticism from every corner of the globe? Can we
allow
that to become the lasting
legacy
of September 11? Professor Santos defies anyone to read Dr. King's
indictment
of the Cold War culture, boldly issued in his 1967 speech, and continue to
assert, reflecting
on the direction we are heading
today, that
we
have uprooted it; that the nation has overcome that death culture and
recovered
its spiritual bearings.
Our leaders are failing us. Who will speak up and tell the truth of
this
death wish culture still among us, especially in today's chilled
political environment and amidst the frenzied media circus?
Perhaps it is not convenient - or patriotic! - to raise these questions
at this time of national grieving, warefare, and heightened domestic
alert,
we are told. The tragic attacks of September 11, we are told, inaugurated a period in which we are "at war"
again,
a new twilight, world-ordering, Manichean struggle -- not between
recognizable, fixed geopolitical (as before) or geocultural camps
(� la Huntington),
but between "Good and Evil," against "terrorism" (cap that with a T) as defined, targeted, and fought by
none
other than the unquestionably supreme military power on Earth. If that
sounds
like an extremely dangerous recipe for world peace, it is! And not a
very
healthy development for our republic, either. We in the United States
are
asked to forgo many of our most precious civil liberties - or have been told they're gone,
�
la Patriot Act and our Commander-in-Chief's orders to set up "special"
(read
kangaroo) military tribunals - , endure massive deficits to lavishly
fund
a new War & Security Economy, and send our young people to fight and die in real
wars,
even if no one else in the entire world supports any of it.
This pseudo patriotic "War on Terrorism" is, to put it bluntly,
hegemonic
lunacy, a sure way to erode whatever influence the U.S. hopes to exert
in
the world, let alone enhance real national security, just as Al Qaida's terrorist beliefs and
actions,
though pseudo religious, are criminal and clearly self-destructive. The
difference
is that the "War on Terrorism" dementia has taken hold of those running
the
world's military megapower, while the latter has so far taken hold of
scattered
bands of disaffected renegades of modernity. Call it the clash of
"asymmetrical
fundamentalisms." What a spectacle we behold!
It seems we have now entered an era characterized, if not fully yet,
certainly by many incipient and expanding manifestations of world
geopolitical chaos, "asymmetrical conflict," and deepening economic and
social disorder. This may be the preamble for "symmetrical conflict," as we
have witnessed recently between Europe and the United States over Iraq.
Not even a shadow of world consensus exists as to what constitutes an
acceptable set of new principles for world governance. Certainly the
powerful states do not want to relinquish power to a more democratic,
equitable world order. And certainly nobody accepts the notion of global
dominion without leadership, world order by force and without
legitimacy - nobody,
it seems, but the current
U.S. regime and its precious few international acolytes and neocon think tanks. As to
restructuring the world-economy, the so-called Washington Consensus,
which served as the blueprint over last two decades, is comatose, if not dead, as recent world
meetings in
Cancun and Miami attest. The world spins faster and faster but adrift,
without
an anchoring ideological legitimization of its structures, producing
larger
and larger convulsions, dislocations, and stagnations that are hurting
billions
of human beings and their habitats, descending our times into what
appears
to be a dark new era of global unfreedom.
The history of our new post-Cold War, post-9/11 era is being written
with ink from the inkwell of systemic chaos and world polarization. We
did not write well the story of our world when we had a chance after
the Cold War ended and before September 11. And after September 11, the
writing has gotten much worse. Le Monde wrote in its editorial the
day after September 11, 2001:
"Nous sommes tous Am�ricains." A huge opportunity for world (and
U.S.) redemption and renewal had been born out of an unparalleled human
tragedy. William Sloane Coffin, pastor emeritus of the Riverside Church
in Manhattan, has now assessed the loss of that unique chance:
[Pastor
Sloane Coffin is pictured to the right]
The President, after all, did not have to declare war. He could have
called the terrorists mass murderers, their deeds crimes against
humanity. He could have said to the American people and the world, "We
will respond, but not in kind. We will not seek to avenge the death of
innocent Americans by the death of innocent victims elsewhere, lest we
become what we abhor. We refuse to ratchet up the cycle of violence
that brings only ever more death, destruction and deprivation. What we
will do is build coalitions with other nations. We
will share intelligence, freeze assets and engage in forceful
extraditions of terrorists if internationally sanctioned. I promise to
do all in my power to see justice done, but by the force of law only,
never by the law of force."
It was a ripe
moment -- to educate the soul of
the nation, to improve the quality of our suffering. We had lost our
sense of invulnerability and superpower invincibility, but as these
were only illusions, we should not have grieved their passing. Other
nations too had been unfairly hurt, many of them, and far worse than
we. But instead of deepening our kinship with the world's suffering,
the President chose to invoke an almost unlimited sense of entitlement
to pursue in our own way what he termed a struggle "to rid the world of
evil."
|
That this "deepening our
kinship with the world's suffering" did not happen but, tragically,
quite the opposite, was not pre-ordained, was not
inevitable. Humanity - and especially the people of the United States -
could have written an entirely different
history during the last three years, but we did not. We were misled,
and
worse, many wished to be misled, because they resisted and
still resist
facing up to some very unpleasant truths and consequences for the world
left over from the Cold War we waged for half a century. So many
otherwise nice, decent folks in the United States, far too many, quickly fell for the
19-century rhetoric of imperial
retribution and fell prey to panic, warmongering, and paranoia. Ah, and
then
there was the sheer mendacity about why we had to go to war in Iraq.
Too
many in the United States went for it (compared to zero outside it). We
did
not react that way when Timothy McVeigh blew up a federal building in
Oklahoma, killing and wounding hundreds of U.S. innocent civilians.
We understood
that to be an enormous criminal act, not a war. Not so when a few
errant
Arab criminals with no country attacked us. We all share
responsibility
for that, if indeed our national leaders bear responsibility for
appealing
to our worst angels and instilling so much fear and bravado, and the
news
media conglomerates for pandering war and relentlessly propagandizing
whatever
came out of Washington since September 11.
It's time to own up to, defend, and more fully exercise, our democratic
traditions!
Thank goodness there is an internet today, where dissenting voices like
professor
Santos' and others can still find refuge from the media conglomerates'
choke hold on America. But on the main, in the real world, that choke
hold is effective: the ink with which our present story is being
written is poisoned, the story is a sham. Other inkwells then, with
new, more honest, colorful inks to write
and make our biographies with, are urgently required. The good news is
that
they are, in fact, presently being thought out, experimented on, and
begun
to be made by humans everywhere, from intellectuals and activists to
workers and artists, in all communities of faiths, and in all social
movements, on
the web. The question is whether the new inkwells and inks to write a
new
story will be made in time, and whether enough women and men of good
will
will dare rewrite and repaint the world before humanity falls into the
abyss
the neocon hawks wish to take us.
On February 15, 2003, over 30 million people marched all over the world
- in over 700 cities - a first in world history, protesting the U.S.
pre-announced
intentions to invade Iraq, which despite that show of global
repudiation
and the subsequent U.N. Security Council's own repudiation, brazenly
happened
anyway, deepening the chaos in the world. People resisting war or
working to rescue our democracy
have not given up.
There are apparently now two superpowers: a military colossus with
political
feet of clay, the United States, and global public opinion, an emerging
social
colossus. Why not merge them, make the former the citadel of the
latter,
instead of its nemesis? It can be done, it must be done. It depends on
each
and everyone of us! Again, as pastor Sloane Coffin put it:
So much is at
stake in the new [era] that despair is not an option. Better by far to heed the poet and
double the heart's might.
Professor Santos believes it's
time for us all to write these words and paint these colors into our
unfolding
biographies, everywhere:
Paintings by Sandra
Dionisi
"Nous
sommes tous Afghani, Nous sommes tous Am�ricains & Iraqi, Nous sommes tous Arab & Muslim,
Nous
sommes tous Palestinian & Israeli, Nous sommes tous Marcos, Nous sommes tous les Sem Terra, Nous sommes tous les Sans Papiers."
"Pour tous, tout; pour nous,
rien. Another
world is possible."
"Todos
somos Afganos, Todos somos Americanos e Irak�s, Todos
somos
Arabes y Musulmanes, Todos somos Palestinos & Israelis, Todos somos
Marcos,
Todos somos los Sin Tierra, Todos somos los Sin Papeles."
"Para todos, todo; para nosotros, nada. Otro mundo es
posible."
|