PDF file

ocu^^'"""
^ G&H1P&
l
The ambi guities of " integration " : Mexican perspectives .
Draft for comments .
by M .Sc ., Research Fellow , Finn Stepputat
Institute of Cultural Sociology
University of Copenhagen
Abstract :
•Local integration ' is one of the central concepts in the
international discourse on refugees . During the second half of the
80 's, the" Mexican government has opted for the self -sufficiency
and integration of Guatemalan refugees who are living in settle ments in Mexico , but the concept as well as the practice of integration display several ambiguities .
Mexico has a long tradition of seeking policies for integrat ing the indigenous " people . The paper explores the concept of
• integration ' in this context , before it goes on to analyse the
actual programme for self -sufficiency and integration of Guatema lan refugees in Yucatan . In this case , contradictions have devel from beintegration
integration
from above ' and '
oped between
'
e. the
low '. Finally the paper examines the 'island -image ',, i.
perception of settlements as self-contained communities , an image
which is found in the refugee -administration , but also among the
refugees themselves .
The paper is based on two field-studies , in 1988 and 1990 , in
and around a refugee -settlement in Campeche , Yucatan .
1111 111111111 1 11 1111111111
302838045X
2
Introduction .
From 1981-83 a violent political conflict forced more than
100 ,000 Guatemalan peasants to seek refuge in Chiapas , Mexico .
UNHCR recognized 45,000 as refugees and assisted them through the
Mexican Commission for Assistance to Refugees (
COMAR )
. In 1984 ,
the Mexican government decided to relocate the refugees , due to
frequent military incursions from the Guatemalan army , and to a
number of political , social , and logistic problems .
Many refugees resisted relocation , but at the end of 1984 ,
20.
.000 Guatemalans lived in camps in the sparsely populated prov Q .Roo ), well away from the
inces of Campeche and Quinatana Roo (
border . To the Executive Committee of the UMHCR -Office , the representative of the Mexican government explained the relocation in terms of the necesity "to shift from the emergency stage to
one of lasting and stable solutions " (
Gonzales , 1984 , p .5, my
emphasis )
.
stated
that progra mmes of productive
The representative
activities would be carried out in the camps , "directed towards
integration
achieving eventual
and self-sufficiency
for those
Guatemalan refugees who cannot return to their country " (
ibid .
p .6, my emphasis ). In 1990 Mexico is about to embark on a similar programme of productive activities for the refugees who succesfull y resisted relocation in 1984 , and stayed in the conflic tive province of Chiapas .
In the UNHCR -jargon , Mexico has thus opted for the 'local—
integration -in-the-country -of-first -asylum " - solution
for the
relocated refugees . The European and North American nation -states
which at present are tightening up on their practices of asylum
and their laws of immigration - eagerly propagate this option .
Therefore the forms , and implications of local integration deserve
further examination .
The aim of this paper is to analyse the 'integration ' of the
Guatemalan refugees in Campeche . Before going into details of the
refugee -situation , I will explore the concept of integration as
it has developed in a Mexican context , in order to cast light on
the present refugee -policy .
National integration .
Within the social sciences , the concept of 'integration ' is
related to the functionalist analysis of the processes of change
in the contact between parts - separated social institutions that combine into a qualitatively different x^hole . The concept
has also made its way into the political discourse of the modern
nation -state : Within the realm of politics , 'integration ' is a
political device in the construction of nation -states which include heter ogeneous population -segments , be it immigrants or indigenous people .
3
Having a large proportion of indigenous peoples within her
territory , Mexico provides one example . As other newly formed
nation -states in Latinamerica , Mexico inclined to race -politics
in the 19th century . The race -politics sought the "whitening " of
the nation through the inmigration of whites and/or the exter mination /marginalisation of the Indian race (
Stavenhagen , 1984 )
.
The Mexican revolution (
1910-20) gave birth to a new trend
of nation -state politics in Latinamerica , the Indigenismo , which
translates into Indian advocacy . In contrast to the former racial
homogenization
of the nation -state , the indiqenistas of the Mexi can revolution sought a cultural homogenization . While the tradi tional indigenistas represented indigenous cultures as barriers
to development and modernization , advocates of cultural plura lism , who have won influence during the past two decades , represent these cultures as resources for development .
The "Indiqenismo ": Culture as barrier .
In his book , "Forging patria " from 1910 , the Mexican anthro pologist , Manuel Gamio , described how the indigenous cultures
would have to fuse into the progressive , mainstream culture of
the mestizos , the Spanish speaking , non-indian people of mixed
Spanish and Indian descent . According to Gamio , the "small nations " of indigenous people represented obstacles to the unity
and progress of the nation . Their disappearence required special
messures to be taken by the state , and a special knowledge of the
Hewitt , 1988 )
cultures to be accumulated (
.
The post -revolutionary , nationalist ideology leaned ^heavily
on the image of a splendid , pre -colombian past , in order to distance Mexico from the European colonial powers . The revolution
of the Mexicans
was a reconquest of the past , a reconcilation
Paz , 1973 )
with their history
. On the other hand , the poor ,
(
contemporary Indian was tantamount to backwardness . The plight of
the modern nation was to bring development and cultural change to
the indigenous people , so that they could contribute to the progress of the nation . The distinguished Mexican anthropologist ,
Gonzalo Aguirre Beltran wrote in 1967 :
"A true nation can be formed only with equal and ratio by all the citizenry of the entire
nal participation
society ."
(
.
..
)
"the revolution sought to integrate
ethnic groups ,
the socially and culturall y segregated
as Indians , into the national
generally
designated
society ."(Aguirre Beltran , 1967/1979 , p .143 , my emphasis).
The links between the indigenismo and the nation -state adduring the 20 's and 30 's, and
ministration was institutionalized
found the present form in 1948 , when the Institut e Nacional Indigenista . INI , was created . The work of Aguirre Beltran , in which
expression , was
found its most sophisticated
the indigenismo
prescriptions
have inclosely related to INI . His analysis and
fluenced several decades of policy towards the indigenous popula tion , and still permeates the Mexican administration .
4
The work of Aguirre Beltran is based on the analysis of the
regions
of refuge ', where colonial structures and "the archaic ,
'
clearly preindustrial culture have found shelter from the forces
7)
ibid .
p.
. Within these regions , Indians
of modern civilization " (
and mesti zos live relatively segregated in a caste -like , symbio tic , dual structure .
.
.
.
) retain their old values ,
"The indigenous groups (
behavior
, little modified by invenand
norms
customs ,
appear to be the most back acculturation
,
and
tion and
the
national
population . Thus they are
ward section of
subjugation
exploitation
by the techni and
subject to
", (
economically
more
developed
groups
ibid .
cally and
p .23 )
.
Although he included structures of domination in his analysis, Aguirre Beltran , who was strongly influenced by the North American 'culturalist ' tradition , explained the domination in terms
of the culture of the dominated people . Like the Chicago -school
c.f.Park and Burgess , 1921), he puts emphasis on
of sociology (
the concept of 'acculturation 1 , x^hich is the companion of develop ment and integration , as opposed to segregation , enculturation
Aguirre Beltran / 1979 , p .143)
.
and domination (
Consequently , the breaking up of the colonial patterns of
domination by means of an agrarian reform , for example , is only
one necesary precondition for the achievement of development and
national unity . The state has to bring cultural change to the
"indigenous populations with primitive cultures and closed to
change ", which requires certain preconditions :
"Such conditions involve changing the integrative mecha nisms that maintain the stability of Indian cultures
ibid .
p .148),
and keep them separate and identifiable ", (
In the analysis of Aguirre Beltran , the politico -religious
hierarchies , and the values and norms which support them , are the
central integrative mechanis m in the Mexican highland communities .
Hence , they must be substituted by modern politica l and juridical
institutions . Furthermore , bilingual literacy programmes , and the
construction of roads , "breaking the self-sufficiency and geogra phic immobility of the regions of refuge " constitute necesary
ibid . pl49 )
.
preconditions for development and integration (
The conditions may be generated by the community itself or
by external agencies , mediated through goverment -trained , indige cultural promoters '. As remarked by
nous agents , the socalled '
Aguirre Beltran , the use of cultural promoters is one of the
methods , which applied anthropology has evolved in order to overcome the barriers to the national integration of heterogeneous
societies .
In swif the integration of the Indians into the nation -state ,
when they cease to be Indians . Until the decade of
completed
is
the 70 's, this assimilationst indigenismo dominated the official
5
policy towards indigenous groups in Mexico . It should be noted ,
though , that the assimilationism has been an international , rather
than a local phenomenon . In the statute of the office of UNHCR ,
for examples, we can read that UNHCR should facilitate the "asof refugees ) within new national
similation
communities " if
(
UNHCR , 1951)
voluntary repatriation is not possible (
.
The influence in Mexico of the indigenis -mo - as an alterna tive to the crude - repression , still exercised in some Latinameri can countries - must be ascribed to the relative strength of the
urban bourgeoisie vis a vis the traditional rural elites . But the
fact that the indigenismo took a new turn in the 70 's, to a large
extent , can be ascribed to the unprecedented rise of ethnic consciousness and militancy among the indigenous people in Mexico ,
Arizpe , 1988 )
as well as in Latin America in general (
.
Cultural pluralism : Culture as a ressource .
In 1982 , Mexico , as the first country in Latin America , made
cultural pluralism its official policy towards indigenous groups .
Several decades earlier , a few indigenistas had pronounced a
critique of the prevailing assimilationism . One of them was Moises
Saenz , a former Viceminister of Education who had had disappoint ing experiences with the introduction of cultural change in indigenous communities in the 30 's. In his book "Mexico Integra "
1939 ), he propagated the idea that local forms of indigenous
(
governments could articulate with the national society , without
hampering an integrated nation (
Hewitt , 1988 )
.
This line of thought reemerged in the 60 " s within a branch
of the Latin American dependency -school . Based on a historical structural analysis of the socalled 'internal colonies ' where the
social relations of the colonial situation continued to exist ,
Rudolfo Stavenhagen argued that acculturation was not a neces Stavenhagen , 1969 )
sary precondition for development (
.
to Stavenhagen , social , rather
than cultural ,
According
change would bring about development of the indigenous communities
in the internal colonies . But the social change , the 'decoloniza capitalist
tion ', required radical changes in the surrounding
society , since the internal colonies were not isolated from the
national economy . The 'internal colonies ' of Stavenhagen resembled
Aguirre Beltrans '
regions of refuge ', but he inserted them in the
relations of
the wider .context of national and international
exploitation .
Guillermo Bonfil deve loped the argument further . He makes
distinction
between 'ethnic identit y ' and the "super -ethnic "
the
*
of
indio
category
' which is a product of the colonial subjugation
To
Bonfil , the present indigenous cultures are
Bonfil , 1972)
.
(
"inauthentic (
alienated , deformed by the persistence of
and
.
.
.
)
exploitation " (
Bonfil , 1970 , p .
52, my
mechanisms
of
exterior
the
somewhere
beneath
t
h
e
Indianness
,
But
ethnic
translation )
.
specific
colonial
,
due
to
the
form
of
exidentity has survived
ploitation of the indigenous population .
•»
»
The cultural homo geni2ation is not a precondition for nation al unity . On the contrary , the diversity of cultures is a poten tial for future development . Bonfil expects the authentic cultures
and other
(
and ethnic identities of the indigenous population
marginalized groups ) to develop much needed civilisational alter natives for a pluri-cultural Mexico , once their liberation is
consummated :
"The problem of a common nationality does not reside in
the cultural plurality , but in the exploitation and
subjugation of culturally different social entities ".
Ibid .
p .59 , my translation ).
(
It should be noted , that ethnic identity is considered a
precondition for liberation . Ethnic identity unites disadvantaged
Indians of a community , and constitutes a media for the communica tion of demands towards the government . Furthermore , the process
of 'acculturation ' frequently takes on the shape of ..an anomysyndrome through the combination of deculturation and marginaliza Hewitt , 1988 )
^.
tion (
Indigenous mobilization and the political crisis during the
70 '
s sharpened the debate on cultural pluralism , which had reper cussions in academic circles as well as in governmental offices .
The government made room for special representations of ethnic
groups , supported programmes for the reappraisal of indigenous
identities , and so forth , until cultural pluralism , in 1982 ,
became the official policy towards indigenous groups .
Mexico was the first Latin American state to opt for cultural
• an
pluralism , but again it should be noted that Mexico follows '
Canada , USA ,
international trend of cultural pluralism -policies (
Holland , Sweden ,...). This is not the place- for a critical evalua c.f. Ortiz , 1984 ,
tion of the experiences with cultural pluralism (
Europe
). We will turn
on Latin America , and Mullard , 1987 , on
instead to an analysis of the present policy of 'integration ' of
Guatemalan refugees in Campeche .
The Campeche experience : "Eventual
integration ".
As indicated in the introduction , the first declarations on
the programmes for the relocated Guatemalan refugees in Campeche
and Q .Roo ) spoke of an "eventual integration and self -sufficien (
cy" of the refugees . Suceeding declarations and publications from
COMAR, suggests that the reluctance as to the integration of refu. While 'self -sufCOMAR , 1985 , 1986 , 1987 , 1988)
gees vanished (
ficiency ' throughout the publications means a level of living
which is comparable to that of the Mexicans of the surrounding
COMAR ,
(
communities - permitting the withdrawal of assistance
1987 ) - the meaning of 'integration ' is qualified and discussed
further .
In April , 1985 , COMAR and UNHCR organized a seminar on the
"productive integration " of the Guatemalan refugees in the south -
7
east of Mexico , with the participation of representatives
of the
refugees , federal and local governmental institutions , and a
COMAR-Q .Roo , 1985 ). In the "Conclusions
couple of researchers
(
Recomendations
"
from
the seminar , the participants emphasize
and
that the motivation and participation
of the refugees is very
important for the outcome of the productive projects . In order to
obtain the participation , it is necesary ,
"to respect the cultural expressions , the organizational
forms , and the initiatives of the refugees . The preser vation of the refugees ' culture is not incompatible with
their integration ". (
.
.
.
) The preservation of the Guatemalan culture is a . constant preoccupation
for those
who are responsable for the integration in Campeche and
ibid . pp .6 and 10, my emphasis )
Quintana Roo" (
.
The culture should not only be respected , it should be encouraged . The seminar recommended that special projects be organized to "preserve , recover , and develop the different ethnic
and cultural expressions of the Guatemalans " (
ibid . p .11)
.
As stated by the succeeding seminar in 1986 , "the basis for
socio -economic ) integration
the formulation of the programme for (
of the refugees ' cultural identity "
has been the preservation
COMAR , 1986 , part III#24)
. Since the majorit y of the refugees
(
are (
Mayan ) peasants , the productive programme included agricul tural production for subsistence and sale , while occassional wageprojects
poultry , pigs , arts and
labour and non-agricultural
(
crafts , workshops etc .) were supposed to provide cash-income .
In sum , the seminar -statements quoted here explicitly refer
to , and take part in , the ongoing debate between assimilationists
and pluralists : Culture is regarded a resource and a precondition
for productive integration .
As to the practice of the policy , these programmatic and
statements
on the socio-economic integration
of the
political
on the
refugees , appeared in a context of severe constraints
movement and productive activities of the refugees : Until 1986
the migration authorities were in control of the camps , and the
refugees officiall y needed permission to leave . In addition , the
local government of Campeche had given the relocated refugees a
very reluctant , or outright hostile , reception in Campeche . As an
editorial a^i the local newspaper Tribuna de Campeche read in May ,
1984 : "Campeche await the arrival of the refugee with suspicion .
. The reluctance made
.." (
cited from Aguayo and O 'Dogherty , 1986 )
it difficult to provide the refugees with land , and the local
government obstructed the first large-scale development programme
which should have been based on refugee -labour and financed by
the international community .
The refugees were granted a visa , the Migratory Formular #3
to be renewed annually ), which perm itted them to engage in wage (
labour in the province of residence , i.e. Campeche . But COMAR
insisted in mediating the labour-contracts between refugees and
Mexican employers . In general , COMAR and the migration authorities
8
sought to disencourage
wage labour ,
contacts (
lation . The surrounding
permanent residence in
the refugees from engaging in spontaneous
land-use , and barter ) with the local popu villages were warned not to grant refugees
their communities .
In spite of the imposed restrictions , the refugees have engaged extensively in spontaneous relations of exchange with Mexi cans : They work in- and outside the province of Campeche , they
sharecrop community lands which should not be sharecropped accord ing to the law , well -to-do refugees engage in comercial travels
all over the south of Mexico , etcetera . The refugees would probab ly have done so under all circumstances , but several features of
the programme for self-sufficiency have certainly reinforced the
development of spontaneous exchange relations :
1) COMAR has never been able to provide the refugees (
in
Campeche ) with the quantity and quality of land which is necesar y
for their subsistence production . The situation improved in 1988
approved by the Campeche
with the acquisition of additional lands (
government ) on funds from the European Economic Community , but
each household has less than one hectare under cultivation .
2) COMAR assumed a central role in the organization of the
agricultural and income-generating projects in the camps . COMAR
decided on the technology to be applied - not always in accordance
with the refugees - and for a variety of reasons , COMAR decided
to give continuity to the principles of collective production
that reigned during the phase of relief and construction , 1984 85. But most of the refugees had no recent experiences with collective production at the village lands in Guatemala . The ethnic
and regional boundaries criss -crossing the camp-population further
hampered the collective enterprises . They turned out to be failures , and the guidelines for organization were changed in 1986 -87
see Stepputat , 1989 ).
(
3) COMAR exercised a firm and bureaucratic control with wagelabour and production in order to assess the household -incomes
and decide on the cutbacks in assistance .
4)In accordance with the programme for self -sufficiency , the
relief -assistance was cut back gradually from 1986 onwards . As of
.
. In1991 the households will not receive any direct assistance .
stead they have the opportunity to enter credit -schemes and to
relocate to new settlements in Campeche , where the houses , schools
in
and clinics are less provisional than the ones19 constructed
1984 .
for self-sufficiency
the programme
Far from considering
redundant , I claim that the refugees ' spontaneous efforts to
insert themselves into the regional economy of the south -east of
Mexico have been indispensable for their ability to manage despite
the cutbacks . On their way to eventual self-sufficiency , the
refugees transgress many of the restrictions to which they are
subject . Maybe this was what the Mexican government representative
meant when he declared that the programme should be directed
towards the "eventual integration " of the refugees .
9
The position of COMAR is amibiguous : On one hand the commission has tacitly accepted the state of affairs and has gradually
softened up the control with the movement and production of the
refugees . On the other hand , COMAR and the Mexican government
refuse to abolish the restrictions
on the refugees ' room for
manoevre : The refugees in Campeche have to reside in their settle ments , they are not allowed to work outside Campeche , and they
need special permission to leave the province . Besides , refugees
cannot buy land , enter the institutionalized peasant communities
the ejidos ), or own a lorry .
(
In order to overcome the restrictions , some groups of Guatemalans applied for Mexican citizenship in 1989 . The applications
have been ignored . In July 1990 , the Guatemalan President Vinicio
Cerezo asked his Mexican collogue to grant the refugees Mexican
CAR , 1990 )
citizenship . His petition was refused (
.
Thus , there are limits to the formal integration of- refugees .
Refugees are ascribed to their settlements . Their potential for
accumulation is limited by the restrictions on property , and when
working outside of Campeche the refugees lack legal protection .
Thus the refugees are in a structural position which is similar to
that of the subjugated caste of indios in Aguirre Beltrans '
Regions of Refuge ' where the colonial structures
"found shelter
from the forces of modern civilization ".
The case of the relocated refugees in Campeche supports the
argument of Gaim Kibreab on the conceptional confusion of 'local
settlements ' and 'local integration ' in the literature on African
Kibreab , 1989 )
refugee -politics
. He argues that while UNHCR
(
considers local integration a desirable permanent solution which
can be achieved through the development of local settlements , the
African host governments (
as well as the local host populations
and the refugees themselves ) in general are opposed to local
is the only
integration
as a solution . To them , repatriation
solution ? Local settlements are transient , and historical evidence
from Africa suggests that they "are planned in such a way as to
into host societies " (
ibid .
prevent refugees from integrating
p .488)
.
local integration ',
for the concept of '
As a substitute
medium term asylum ' to indicate
Kibreab suggests the notion of '
the character of the politics of local settlements . This notion is
temporary integration ', that surfaced
matched by the notion of '
in my discussions with COMAR-officials on the present Mexican
politics on the refugee -situation in Chiapas .
CIREFCA and the local integration in Chiapas .
More than half of the recognized Guatemalan refugees resisted
Roo in 1984 . In 1989 , 22,500 refugees
relocation to Campeche and Q.
and camps near the frontier between
lived in 123 settlements
Guatemala and Mexico . Groups of refugees shelter on private lands ,
or in the outskirts of peasan t communities . Since their arrival ,
10
the refugees in Chiapas have received relief from the UNHCR , WFP ,
s. Hence , they have constituted
and several NGO '
a very cheap
labour force in the region .
In the wake of the International Conference on Central American Refugees , CIREFCA , which was held in Guatemala City in May ,
1989 , the Mexican Government has adopted a more "realistic " straaccording to the COMAR coortegy towards the refugees in Chiapas (
Concerted
Plan
CIREFCA
of Action , which was agreed
dinator ). The
designed
to
the
meeting
is
at
,
help refugees return and
upon
into their own communities , or, if return is not
reintegrate
their integration
posible , to facilitate
into the communities
Refugees , 1989 )
that have received them (
.
Thus , in the words of the Mexican government , "Mexico has
committed herself to seek productive and lasting solutions until
COMAR , 1989b )
time comes for repatriation " (
. The transience of
the situation is repeatedly emphasized , and the concept of integration is carefully excluded from the programmes and decla rations . In a circular on education , COMAR explicitly notes that
the schools for the children of Guatemalan refugees will be "incorporated - not integrated - in the national (
educational ) system " (
COMAR , 1989a )
. The refugee schools - including clases on
Guatemala in the programme - will continue to be different from
the Mexican schools . Therefore the phrase "not integrated " means
"not assimilated ".
The official classification of the new programme is "develop COMAR , 1989c ). Since land is a scarce
ment for self -sufficienc y" (
and highly disputed resource in the State of Chiapas , the pro gramme is different from the Campeche /Q .
Roo - programmes for self sufficiency . Wage -labour in reforestation -, infrastructure -, and
other externally financed projects will provide the main income .
UNHCR , EEC , and the Swedish Government have. designated special
fonds for the programme which also include vegetable gardens ,
animal -breeding , and ponds for pisciculture .
COMAR has planned to resettle and concentrate the dispersed
Chiapas -refugees in 10-12 "own towns " (
poblados propios ) which
means settlements on aquired land , where the local Mexican landas they have done on
owners or communities cannot kick them out (
occasions )
. The settlements will contain 4-500 fami( COMAR , 1989c )
lies each , and will be provided with adequate social services .
The decision to concentrate the refugees in settlements is
questioned by UNHCR officers who argue that the present dispersion
would favour future integration . But it should be clear by now
that the Mexican Government does not want the Guatemalan refugees
to 'integrate * in the sense of becoming Mexicans or becoming invisible within the Mexican society .
The Mexican government has several reasons to keep the refugees together and impede their integration or even naturalization
in Mexico : The government seeks to evade yet another source of
conflict over scarce resources in the crisis -ridden Mexican society; It upholds the visibility of the refugees vis a vis the inter -
11
national community that supports the refugees financially ; And it
upholds the visibility of the refugees vis a vis the Guatemalan
government , emphasizing the transiency of the situation and the
need to negotiate repatriation . Finally , the segregated
settle ments facilitate the provision of assistance and communal services .
The theories of Mary Douglas (
1966 ) and Victor Turner (
1967 )
may provide a different class of explanation of the reluctance to
integrate the refugees . The ambiguous situation of refugees is a
treshold state which is akin to the liminal phase of the rites de
passages as analysed by Victor Turner . They are "betwixt and
between ", a socially , unclear category of people that should be
isolated . In the theory of Mary Douglas such categories are considered to be impure , dangerous , and contagious : Some people
feared for example , that the Guatemalan refugees would bring
subversion , criminality and diseases with them from Central Amerisee Aguayo , 1985 for examples )
ca (
.
The island -image of refugee settlements
In February , 1990 , a local bus crashed on the road to a
refugee settlement in Q .Roo . 4 Mexicans and 11 Guatemalans were
killed . This sad accident became an eye-opener for one staff member of COMAR in Mexico City , who suddenly "realized that the
refugees
don '
t live on islands ", as he told me . I in turn was
surprised by the fact that he was surprised by the mobility of
the refugees and the extensive interrelations between refugees
and the surrounding society . His surprise suggests that the policy
relative ) isolation of the refugees , is more than a deliberate
of (
expression of razon d 'etat .
The use of the island -metaphor suggests that the political
motives merge with the Romantic imagery of the 'community ': The
self contained , functional , harmonious , and perfectl y viable socioeconomic entity , existing in a vacuum . In this functionalistic
version culture - the shared norms and values - gives coherence
to the community (
c.f. Redfield , 1941)
.
The imagery of the community moreover lends credibility to
the idea , that a relatively isolated , self-contained settlement
of the
might become self-sufficient . The initial organization
settlements in Campeche was based on the principle that the adults
should contribute a certain number of working days per month to
the community , either in the cultivation of the land , in the
settlement projects , in works of construction and maintenance , or
organization , education , health , etc .
)
. As
in community services (
the coordinator of COMAR-Campeche put it, the refugees would be
self -sufficient when they were "working every day , either for the
Refugees , 1987)
.
community or for wages " (
The idea of a self -contained , self -sufficient refugee -community (
which per definition lacks political rights ) is not incompatible with the concept of cultural pluralism . Indeed , the
of the culture of the refugees is
preservation
or recovering
functional in the sense that the maintenance of internal cultural
12
coherence and external
likely to occur .
links to Guatemala make repatriation
more
include
for self-sufficiency
In practice , the programmes
bicultural
education
including
grade
and
,
the
1.
)
in
bilingual
(
the themes of "Guatemalan geography , history , and institutions ,
in order to preserve the national consciousness and cultural
COMAR , 1989a )
. In Campeche , the progra mme also supidentity " (
expressions
, such as the recovering of the Kekported cultural
the
performance of the dance the Kekchi
chi 's "Deer-dance ". For
costly
costumes and masks which they had
the
had to re-produce
Guatemala
.
left behind in
The Kekchi dancing group spent more than one year and alot
of money on the preparations , but it was rather difficult to
gather the dancers for rehearsal and performance . They were often
"outside " the settlement . But they loved the action of the dance :
"It gives us a bit of joy in the midst of sorrow ". The reactions
of other groups in the settlement ranged from : "Our dances are
but we are not enough people to perform
(
much more beautyful
them )"... to : "What a waste of time !".
The Deer-dance illustrates two general problems of perceiving
refugee -settlements as self -contained , viable entities . One is
formal )
of the population , sharing only the (
the heterogeneity
second
experience
exile
.
The
is
t
h
e
above
of
nationa lity and the
mentioned spatial dispersion of the productive activities which
is emphasised by a combination of cutbacks in assistance , insuffiand
cient ressources , and inappropriate ties of organization
control .
between the dispersion /heterogenity
and
The contradiction
the community ' is reflected in the discours es in
the ideology of '
COMAR as well as among the refugees . "Now , the refugees have
forgotten how to work together " as a COMAR official told me , referring to the spirit of solidarity and cooperation that prevailed
among the relocated refugees during the first months of construc in 1988 ) refugee -representa tion . At meetings in the settlement (
tives deplored what they perceived as a general lack of fullfilment of communal duties , an increasing level of criminality , an
increasing untidiness of the settlement , and other signs of social
disorder . "There is no unity anymore !". "The young people roam in
foreign places while they ought to serve their peop le who suffered
for them !
"
community '-ideology is not exclusive ly a matter of
Thus the '
and administrate the refugee -policy . Among the
design
those who
idea
of 'community ', the dream of unity / solidarity ,
refugees the
frequently .
self-sufficiency ), is pronounced
(
and independence
during
flight
, exile
crisis
of
moments
The solidarity displayed in
the
Long
ago
community
refugee
'
.
and relocation epitomizes the '
myths
into
turned
resistance
and
common experiences of hardships
.
that support the image of the 'refugee -community '
the
After years of cutbacks and everyday -struggle for survival ,
of conununity refugee -community ' is only one of a variety
'
13
images , and the cultures , understood as forms of practice , are
multiple . For some groups of refugees it is very important , for
example , to uphold the image of transcience . Those who accepted
relocation
as "traitors " by those who
in 1989 were perceived
Chiapas
Likewise
,
refugees
who recently have opted
stayed in
.
the
for yet another relocation from the old Campeche camps to less
provisional settlements in Campeche have "given up the hope and
the fight for repatriation ". It is as if some Guatemalan refugees
are more authentic than others . Thus , the importance of upholding
the image of transcience is not exclusively a matter of the Mexi can government either , but there are many , and conflicting , ways
of upholding the image of transcience .
Conclusions .
The concept of 'integration ' has many meanings and has been
applied in many different contexts : In some contexts 'integration '
denotes a social , systemic process that goes on , as if members of
society do not matter . In other contexts 'integration ' denotes
regio deliberate nation -state policies in a diversity of fields (
nal or industrial '"development , indigenous people , immigrants ,
refugees .
.
.
)
. As we have seen , 'integration ' denotes assimilatio nist as well as pluralist policies ; this might cause confusion in
the international communication .
In yet other contexts 'integration ' denotes the autonomous
efforts of indigenous people or refugees to develop exchange
relations with the national society . We might oppose the autono mous 'integration from below ' to the directed and controlled 'integration from above ' of the nation -state . The relations between
these strategies constitute an important field for further investigation .
When moving from the integration ,pf indigenous people to the
integration of refugees , we saw a different set of contradictions
western ) international
comand ambiguities emerge : While the (
local integration ' as a durable solution , the
munity insists on '
of the situation .
local government insists on the transcience
Thus , the local government transforms the concept of 'integration '
temporary integration ', or it reclas into 'incorporation ', or '
.
sifies the policy as 'development for self -sufficiency '
In conclusion , we have to be very conscious of when and how
we use the concept of 'integration '. We also have to keep the
problems in perspective : We are discussing the use of 'integra tion ', but each month migration authorities apprehend and deport
thousands of refugees who are fleeing violent conflicts .
14
BIBLIOGRAPH Y
AGUAYO , S. ( 1985) , El exodo Centroamericano, Mexico , SEP.
AGUAYO , S . and L.O 'DOGHERTY ( 1986) , ' Los Refugiados Guatemaltecos
en Campeche y Quitana Roo ' , in Foro Intemacional , Vol .XXVII
No.2 .
A6UIRRE BELTRAN, G . ( 1979) , Regions o f Refucre . The Society for Ap no .12 , Washington .
(The
plied Anthropology , Monograph
Spanish n
i
1967) .
version appeared n
i
original
ARIZPE , L. ( 1988) , 'Anthropology in Latin America : Old Boundaries ,
n C .Mitchell ( ed. ) , Changin g Perspectives in
New Contexts ' i
Latin American Studies : Insights from Six Disciplines , Stanford, Cal ., Stanford University Press.
BONFIL , G. ( 1970) , ' Del indigenismo de la revolucion a la antropo loga critica ' , in A .Warman et al , De eso que Hainan Antropo loqia Mexicana . Mexico, Ed.Nuestro Tiempo S .A .
( 1972) , 'El concepto de indio en America : una categoria
a , vol IX.
de la situacion colonial ' , in Anales de antropolog i
Mexico.
CENTRAL AMERICA REPORT ,
( 1990)
2 7 July .
COMAR ( 1985) , 'Seminario sobre la Integracion Productiva de los
refugiados Guatemaltecos an el Sureste de Mexico ' ,
Bacalar , Q .Roo.
( 1986) , ' Seminario de Siho -Playa ' , Campeche .
( 198%) , ' Programa Multi Anual , Diagnostico ' , Campeche .
( 1988) , ' Parametros
1987 ' , Campeche .
( 1989& )
-(
de Ingreso de la Econoraia
en
' Circular No.2 , Educacion ' , 14/ 03 / 89 , Mexico D.F.
1989b)
' Speech to the Representatives of the
Community
in Mexico ' , Comitan , April 2 8 .
Refugee
( 1989c)
Familiar
Guatemalan
' Informe , 1989 ' , Mexico D.F.
DOUGLAS , M . ( 1966) , Purity and Danger : An Analysis of Concepts of
Pollution and Tabu , London .
GAMIO , M. ( 1910 )
Fonando Patria , Mexico, Porrua .
GONZALES, 0. ( 1984) , Speech given in the Debate of the XXXV Session of the Executive Committee of the UNHCR , Geneva .
HEWITT de ALCANTARA , C. ( 1988) , Imacrenes del Campo . La interpret -
«
k- *1
'^
15
acion antropologica
Mexico .
del
Mexico
rural . Mexico ,
Colegio
de
1989 ), '
Local Settlements
in Africa : A Misconceived
KIBREAB , G . (
Option ' in Journal of Refugee Studies ,, Vol .
2 No .
4.
1987 ), '
Pluralism , Ethnicism and Ideology : Implica MUliLARD , C. (
Pedagogy ', Working
tions for a Transformative
Paper no .2,
Center for Race and Ethnic Studies , University
of Amsterdam .
DUNBAR (
1984 ), Indians of the Americas . Human Rights
ORTIZ , R.
Self -Determination , New York , Praeger .
BURGESS
PARK , R.
W.
E.and E.
Sociology , Chicago .
1921), Introduction
(
PAZ , 0. (
1973 ), El laberinto
REDFIELD
REFUGEES , June 1987 , and December
1939 ), Mexico
(
of
ed ., Mexico , F.
de la soledad . 2.
C.
E.
, R. (
1941 ), The Folk Culture
SAENZ , Moises
guirre .
to the Science
and
of Yucatan . Chicago .
1989 , UNHCR , Geneva .
integro , Lima , Imprenta
STAVENHAGEN , R. (
1969 ), Las clases
aqrarias . Mexico , Siglo XXI .
sociales
1984 ) '
Indians in Latin
(
ment : Seeds of Change , no .
3/84 .
en
las
Torres
sociedades
America ', in
and Exile
1989 ), 'Self -sufficiency
STEPPUTAT , F. (
Guatemalan
Report on a field study 'among relocated
south east Mexico , aug .-nov .l988 '. Discussion Paper
Geneva .
TUR NER , V . (
1967 ), The Forest of Symbols : Aspects
al , Cornell University Press , New York .
A-
Develop -
in Mexico .
refugees
in
#9, UNRISD ,
of Ndembu Ritu -
NATIONS
1951 ), 'Statute of the Office of the United
UNITED
(
tions High Commissioner for Refugees ', Geneva .
Na-
ABSTRACT
THE AMBIGUITIES OF INTEGRATION
OF MEXICAN PERSPECTIVES
F i n n Stepputat
'Local i ntegrat ion ' i s one of the central concepts
international discourse on refugees .
i n the
Duri ng the second hal f of the
80 's, the Mexican government has opted for the sel f-sufficiency and
integration of Guatema l an refugees who are l iving i n sett l ements i n
Mexico , but the concept as wel l as the practice of integration
disp l ays several ambiguities.
Mexico has a l ong trad i tion of seeking pol icies for integrating the
indigenous peop l e .
The paper expl ores the concept of 'integration '
i n this context , before i t goes on to anal yze the actual programme
for sel f-sufficiency and integration of Guatema l an refugees i n
Yucatan .
In this case , contradictions have deve l oped between
'integration from above ' and 'integration from bel ow '.
F i n al l y the paper examines the 'isl and- image', i e the perception of
sett l ements as sel f-contained commun i ties, an i mage wh i ch is found
i n the refugee-administration , but al so among the refugees
themse l ves .
The paper is based on two f i el d-studies , i n 1988 and 1990 , i n and
around a refugee settl ement i n Campeche , Yucatan .