The Chancellor and the Indian Princess

Literary Essay

The Chancellor and the Indian Princess: Essentialism in Chicana/o Culture and Sheila Ortiz Taylor’s Imaginary Parents

What is identity? What makes up an individual’s definition of themself? Though the questions posed are indeed complex and some would argue, unanswerable, there are those whose identities are made up of certain distinguishable factors. To some, the labels, titles, and groups human beings subscribe to and associate with are what help create identity. Others would say that life experience is the definitive answer. Though we may not know what exactly generates identity, we can know what an individual asserts their identity to be. Furthermore, the solidarity that arises from commonality between identities further establishes them; identities that strive to achieve the same accomplishments and have struggled under the same discriminations tend to combine and grow in strength. When identity is combined in such a way, it can be called a movement. The Chicana/o Movement is one such movement. The individuals who make up the Chicana/o Movement have emphasized the requirements to be considered Chicana/o time and again, mainly found in the movement’s literature. Yet, what occurs when someone deviates from these requirements? Can one still be considered a Chicana/o? Although the author Sheila Ortiz Taylor identifies as Chicana, her memoir Imaginary Parents is generally not considered a part of the Chicana/o canon due to the essentialist elements of the Chicana/o identity, which are projected on her and her work. Although the Chicana/o Movement has sought to bring together those that have been marginalized, it has in turn alienated Chicanas and Chicanos through its essentialism of race and culture. Through the treatment of Ortiz Taylor’s work, we can identify the ways in which Chicana/o individuals are essentialized as well as how Ortiz Taylor’s Chicana identity is valid and authentic.

Essentialism, as defined by Bernardo J. Canteñs, “claims that the identity of a group is based on a property or set of properties that are necessarily shared by all individuals of the group; moreover, having this property or set of properties is sufficient for an individual to belong to the group in question” (Canteñs, 182). Not only does society practice essentialism in this manner, society also essentializes what constitutes and what does not constitute Culture. This essentializing pares down Culture to a few basic elements, which are generally superficial and generally visible to the naked eye. Without a doubt, the most visible of these elements is Race. Due to this, Race is oftentimes inaccurately lumped in as another component of “Culture.” In his article “On the Metaphysics of a Cultural Identity: A Darwinian Paradigm,” Canteñs provides multiple differentiations between Race and Culture, citing that racial identity “can be determined and prescribed by others” while cultural identity is defined by “self-determination…One’s feelings about identifying with a particular culture provide strong evidence for determining that one belongs to that culture” (170). In this respect, though a certain culture may not believe an individual has the criteria needed to belong to the group, the individual in question certainly possesses the power to subscribe to an identity that aligns with that culture, race and appearance aside.

Generally, the cultures that delineate what is “required” to be accepted into a specific culture are hegemonic in nature. The definitions of what are socially acceptable, courteous, successful, etc. have also been made by these hegemonic cultures, who also act as oppressors of minority cultures. In Alan Hyde’s “The Racial Body,” the author labels this higher authority as the “chancellor,” or “the figure of authority who knows…how to read bodies for their racial identity. This kind of race does not offer any scope for ‘choosing’ or ‘identifying with’ a race, for it enacts a scheme of power relations as it surveys the body” (231).

Historically, Mexican immigrants, Mexican-Americans, and Chicana/os have been, like many others, horribly discriminated against in the United States. The aforementioned peoples have been assigned a minority status for decades, with lesser economic and social opportunity available to them (Segura, 47). Additionally, the higher social authority has ascribed the label “Hispanic” to multiple Latino cultures, or as Rafael Pérez-Torres writes in his book Mestizaje, “[society] has helped propagate a sense of Hispanic identity that subsumes difference under a single and simple category of ethnic identification” (11.) Under this kind of social oppression, there would understandably be those under this generalization who would want to individualize and identify themselves apart from the crowd. The Chicana/o movement did just that, with Chicana/os reclaiming their power to define who they are and what they stand for without the approval of the “chancellor.”

According to Chicana/os, the following are required to be considered Chicana/o: One must be of Mexican descent, one must seek the reclamation of an indigenous past, one must maintain a working class affiliation, as well as understand the historical implications of Mexico and the Chicano Movement. Due to the former two criteria, the appearance of having Mexican indigenous heritage (a dark complexion, hair, eyes, etc.) is somewhat of an unwritten rule/desire within the Chicana/o criteria (Alvarez). Therefore, looking India/o can be viewed with the same importance as being of natural native descent. The other two criteria are also central aspects of the Chicana/o self. Though ultimately all four make up the Chicana/o, it would prove fruitful for argument’s sake to differentiate the four into two categories: the former two as the External Chicana/o and the latter two as the Internal Chicana/o.

Following his definition of essentialism, Canteñs states, “under [the] view of group identity, there will always be some disagreements as to where we draw the line among distinct cultures and who should be considered a member of a given culture” (183). Various cultures certainly have the right to “draw the line,” as Canteñs puts it, but there is a fine barrier between exclusion and discrimination. Though Chicana/os certainly have the right to some amount of exclusion, the Chicana/o criteria also essentializes the Internal and External Chicana/o, so that anyone who deviates from the criteria will find difficulty in being acknowledged as Chicana/o. One might assume that due to the oppression and prejudice many in the Chicana/o Movement have experienced, Chicana/os would be more accepting of those who push the boundaries of their “norm,” just as they pushed the boundary of “the norm” that the white “chancellor” imposed. However, in essentializing the Chicana/o, Chicana/os are re-enacting to some degree the actions of the white “chancellor” upon themselves. Sheila Ortiz Taylor is one of the many whose work has been excluded from the Chicana/o canon due to this essentialism. Her memoir, Imaginary Parents, is one such work.

For some time now, Ortiz Taylor’s works have been under scrutiny as to whether they can consider them “‘legitimate Chicano text [s] (Christian, 90). In accordance with the essentialism that has sprung from the Chicana/o criteria, not receiving Imaginary Parents in the Chicana/o canon makes sense on a surface level basis. Imaginary Parents is composed of various vignettes detailing events throughout Ortiz Taylor — and her sister, Sandra Ortiz Taylor’s — lives. From the essentialist Chicana/o point of view, the text proves that Ortiz Taylor’s life is not “Chicana” enough to fit the requirements of the canon. Nevertheless, this could not be further from the truth. Although Ortiz Taylor pushes the boundaries of what is required to be a Chicana, she proves herself worthy of the identity of “Chicana” within the pages of Imaginary Parents.

Early on in Imaginary Parents, Ortiz Taylor describes her physical appearance as a young child. In a photograph of herself and a family friend’s son, Ortiz Taylor illustrates herself as a “cherubic” toddler, with golden curls and blue eyes (Taylor, 16), a far cry from the darker complexion of the majority of Chicana/os with indigenous Mexican heritage. Ortiz Taylor being of Mexican descent is without refute. Despite her father being Caucasian, her mother and mother’s family most definitely are (Taylor, 110). So, if Ortiz Taylor is undeniably of Mexican descent, then why is her racial appearance such a factor in allowing her into the Chicana/o canon? Whether it be just or not, Ortiz Taylor’s skin color takes precedence in this decision. With a white or European appearance, Ortiz Taylor can be vicariously associated with the Caucasian Spanish Oppressor of the original conquest of Mexico. And if Ortiz Taylor resembles the original oppressor, therefore representing all that symbolizes, wouldn’t it go against the whole purpose of being a Chicana/o to recognize her as one? Although this argument is understandable, it nonetheless marginalizes Ortiz Taylor based on her racial appearance, something which, as discussed previously, is separate from Ortiz Taylor’s Chicana culture.

Furthermore, Ortiz Taylor reclaims her indigenous heritage in much more meaningful and valid ways than just her racial appearance. Within Imaginary Parents, Ortiz Taylor identifies many aspects of indigenous Mexican culture from her family’s past. Her heritage is inextricably tied to Mexico, as evidenced in the story of her mother’s almost-abduction by Pancho Villa, who eventually gifts his whip to Ortiz Taylor’s grandfather (91-92). Moreover, Ortiz Taylor writes with deft knowledge of those that have come before her, making connections to her heritage through the simplest things. In the chapter “La Frontera,” Ortiz Taylor relays some of her family history, as well its indigenous past in this manner: “I wander over to the table of family pictures, a forest of silver frames covering a large round table. In the center are my great grandmother…and my great grandfather…In [one] photograph my great grandmother stands alone and in that one you can see it, that she must have been an Indian princess and not an early Californian at all” (112). In likening her great grandmother to an Indian princess instead of a Californian, Ortiz Taylor presents the pride she associates with her indigenous heritage. Labeling her great grandmother a “princess” implies regality and royalty, which in turn implies Ortiz Taylor treats this Mexican Indian past with reverence and respect. With Ortiz Taylor’s family history linked to one of the most famous Mexican figures, as well as her delve into her indigenous heritage, there is no doubt Ortiz Taylor understands the implications and history of the generations that came before her. Therefore, Ortiz Taylor fulfills the criteria of the External and Internal Chicana.

Not only does Ortiz Taylor prove her Chicana-ness in Imaginary Parents, her depiction of her parents lends for a critical view of Chicana/o essentialism. Both of her parents represent the extremes to which Ortiz Taylor is expected to fulfill her Chicana-ness. Ortiz Taylor’s father, Jack, acts as Allen Hyde’s “chancellor,” dictating what culture must be and how, if one belongs to a certain culture, one should behave. Although Jack is not of Mexican — or even Latino — descent, he nonetheless speaks fluent Spanish and reinforces (what he believes to be) his daughters’ native culture. This ranges from his demand that they learn and speak in Spanish (160), to his design of the Ortiz Taylor’s family home, modeled after Jack’s idea of a truly Mexican hacienda: “Every hinge and doorknob in the house is a replica taken from Mexican houses…On the windows are authentic rejas…[and] hand-painted Mexican tiles [on the floors]” (5). This persistent projection of Jack’s opinion of his family’s culture not only affects his daughters, but also Ortiz Taylor’s mother, Juanita. While Jack acts as “chancellor” to Ortiz Taylor’s development of Chicana identity, Juanita acts as the cultural con-conformist. Though Juanita and her family are of Mexican descent, she doesn’t actively pursue educating her daughters on the subject, nor do they and she speak fluent Spanish. In one instance when Jack states that his wife and in laws are “losing their own Mexican heritage,” Juanita angrily retorts, “‘We’re not Mexicans, we’re Early Californians’” (110). Though it may seem that Juanita is rejecting her native heritage and culture (that Ortiz Taylor identifies and regains in the text), this is not the case. Instead, Juanita represents a woman who, although cannot be considered Chicana, is at peace with her heritage and does not feel the need to establish this. It is simply a part of her being. This is evidenced through the acceptance of her ethnic appearance, dressing in a Mexican manner with “a red hibiscus [in her hair]…wearing a red house dress…covered in a pattern of yellow sombreros” (32). Toward the end of the work, the reader discovers that Juanita also understands Spanish, albeit selectively and when the talk is directed towards her: “I see that [my mother] has understood them, these men in their admiration. Every single word. My mother, who never could remember how to pronounce hay during my father’s nightly Spanish lessons, now understood cada palabra” (247). Juanita’s behavior does not show a distancing of herself from her heritage, but rather shows Juanita’s lack of need to answer to society’s, or her husband’s, expectations of culture. Juanita resists essentialism, something which her daughter, in her own form, does as well.

Despite the evidence for the contrary, Chicana/o essentialists will still refute Sheila Ortiz Taylor’s identifications as a Chicana, as well as her experience as one worthy of the Chicana/o canon. In actuality, another memoir that has been accepted into the Chicana/o canon, Hunger of Memory by Richard Rodriguez, also serves as an example of Chicana/o essentialism. Granted, Rodriguez’s memoir is poignant and visceral, relating his experiences growing up the child of Mexican immigrants in 1950s/60s California. Rodriguez, with his indigenous looks and dark complexion, looks the part of the Chicano. However, he states within his memoir that although he witnesses the advent of the Chicana/o Movement, he does not identify as such: “I am not the best person to evaluate the Third World Student Movement. My relationship to many of the self-proclaimed Chicano students was not an easy one” (Rodriguez, 159). If Rodriguez does not identify as Chicano, why then is he included in the Chicana/o canon and Ortiz Taylor not? As Bernardo J. Canteñs relayed, self-determination is the largest factor in belonging to a culture. Richard Rodriguez decidedly does not belong to Chicana/o culture, whereas Sheila Ortiz Taylor decidedly does. The individual assertions of these authors should take precedence over their racial appearance, and Chicana/o essentialist should take this into consideration and expand their views as to what and who constitutes the label “Chicana/o.”

Though the essentialism that has been projected on Sheila Ortiz Taylor and her memoir Imaginary Parents has yielded mostly negative views on her stance as a self-determined Chicana and her inclusion in the Chicana/o canon, it has also positively provided a way in which Ortiz Taylor can assert her Chicana-ness further. However, Ortiz Taylor is not the only one to be excluded from their self-identifying culture. Scholars and non-scholars alike must understand that though an individual or their work may not fit under specific standards of what constitutes, well, anything: Culture, Race, Gender, Religion, etc, this does not necessarily discount them from the right to inhabit that particular space or role. In this day and age, essentialism seems to be steadily losing its place in the fabric of society. The collective acceptance of individuals who do not “fit the mold” is on the rise more so than ever before. Essentialism may not be dead, but hopefully along with the awareness of it, comes the abandonment of it.

Works Cited

Alvarez, Alma R. “Chicana/o-ism.” Southern Oregon University, Ashland, Oregon. 7 Jan. 2013.

Lecture.

Canteñs, Bernardo J. “On the Metaphysics of Cultural Identity: A Darwinian Paradigm.” Latino

Studies 7.2 (2009): 167-196. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 2 Mar. 2013.

Christian, Karen. “Will The ‘Real Chicano’ Please Stand Up? The Challenge of John Rechy and

Sheila Ortiz Taylor to Chicano Essentialism.” The Americas Review: A Review of

Hispanic Literature and Art of the USA 20.2 (1992): 89-104. MLA International

Bibliography. Web. 2 Mar. 2013.

Gómez, Christina. “The Continual Significance of Skin Color: An Exploratory Study of

Latinos in the Northeast” Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 22.1 (2000): 94.

Academic Search Complete. Web. 2 Mar. 2013.

Hyde, Alan. “The Racial Body.” Bodies of Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1997. 222-40.

Print.

Pérez-Torres, Rafael. Mestizaje: Critical Uses of Race in Chicano Culture. Minneapolis:

University of Minnesota, 2006. Print.

Rodriguez, Richard. Hunger of Memory: The Education of Richard Rodriguez: An

Autobiography. New York: Bantam, 1983. Print.

Segura, Denise A. “Chicanas and Triple Oppression in the Labor Force.” Chicana Voices:

Intersections of Class, Race, and Gender. Ed. Teresa Córdova. Alburquerque: University

of New Mexico, 1993. 47. Print.

Taylor, Sheila Ortiz, and Sandra Ortiz Taylor. Imaginary Parents. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico, 1996. Print.