초록 열기/닫기 버튼
This article is located in the debates which have marked Latinamericanist theory and criticism in the last quarter century or so. It explores the problems of using the figure of El Inca Garcilaso as symbolic in some way of the emergence of a collective Lain American identity. The first part centers on a critique of some of the limitations of postcolonial theory in this regard, particularly Walter Mignolo’s influential idea of the colonial Baroque as an expression of the “creole wound.” The article suggests that the appropriation of El Inca Garcilaso (as a positive or negative paradigm) is somewhat ahistorical, that it would be more accurate to think of the Latin American 17th century as involving something more like a “creole interregnum,” with its own peculiar forms of hegemony. The second part looks, by contrast, at the concrete historical appropriation of the figure of El Inca by Túpac Amaru II (José Gabriel Condorcanqui) in the great rebellion he led in Alto Perú in 1780-82, which suggests the lines of an alternative, egalitarian modernity for Latin America.
