August 30, 2006
Lesson Plan:Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza.
Anzaldúa’s book is theoretical, political, poetical, and personal. Writing about external, communal, and individual borderlands from a position on, around, and between those borders, Anzaldúa subversively advocates a political mobilization around the “mestiza consciousness,” for only multiplicity—internal as well as external—can break down the “subject-object duality that keeps her [one] a prisoner” (80). Anzaldúa identifies herself as a Chicana lesbian feminist from the tejas-Mexican border, and she writes of the contradictions and coalitions she must negotiate between these multiple identities. Her gender and sexuality, for example, are at odds with patriarchal culture, but she inhabits these contradictory positions tactically.
As she writes of her sexuality, “As a lesbian, I have no race, my own people disclaim me; but I am all races because there is the queer of me in all races” (80). Similarly but in terms of gender, she explains “I am cultureless because, as a feminist, I challenge the collective cultural/religious male-derived beliefs of Indo-Hispanics and Anglos; yet I am cultured because I am participating in the creation of yet another culture, a new story to explain the world and our participation in it, a new value system with images and symbols that connect us to each other and to the planet” (80-81).
Anzaldúa’s mixed genre writing style pedagogically models her “mestiza consciousness” subject. Writing in multiple English and Spanish languages—she enumerates eight versions with which she is acquainted—and flowing between history, theory, poetry, and personal narrative, Anzaldúa teaches her own version of mestiza consciousness through example. The poem she begins with is not enough to inspire change, just as the history lesson that follows about the U.S.-Mexican border, while informative, does not tell the whole story. It is only in the multiplicity of forms and languages that Anzaldúa can teach us about the borderlands; it is only from the multiplicity of our own experiences that we can learn.
See also:
Anzaldúa, Gloria, ed. Making Face, Making Soul/Haciendo Caras: Creative and Critical Perspectives by Women of Color. San Francisco: Aunt Lute, 1990.
Anzaldúa, Gloria and Cherríe Moraga, eds. This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color. Watertown: Persephone, 1981.
Anzaldúa, Gloria and A. Keating. This Bridge We Call Home: Radical Visions for Transformation. New York: Routledge, 2002.
Anzaldúa Biography
When Gloria Anzaldúa described the United States and Mexico border as “una herida 
abierta” (an open wound), she spoke from her lived experience as a native border dweller. Born in the ranch settlement of Jesus Maria in south Texas, Anzaldúa grew up in the small town of Hargill, Texas, and later wrote and taught in Northern California. She received her B.A. from Pan American University and her M.A. from the University of Texas at Austin. In her poetry, fiction, essays, and autobiography, she wrote eloquently of the indignities a Chicana lesbian feminist overcomes as she escapes the strictures of patriarchal Chicano traditions and confronts the injustices of dominant culture. She died on May 15, 2004 at her home in Santa Cruz, California from complications due to diabetes. She was within weeks of completing her dissertation and receiving her doctorate from the University of California at Santa Cruz.
(Adapted from Sonia Saldivar-Hull, “Gloria Anzaldua,” Heath Anthology of American Literature. Ed. Paul Lauter. 5th Ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006)
Discussion Questions: Borderlands/La Frontera
“Borders are set up to define the places that are safe and unsafe, to distinguish us from them. A border is a dividing line, a narrow strip along a steep edge. A borderland is a vague and undetermined place created by the emotional residue of an unnatural boundary. It is in a constant state of transition.”
-Gloria Anzaldúa, Borderlands/La Frontera
1. Border figures and border identities. In Chapter 3 of Borderlands/La Frontera Anzaldúa describes la Virgen de Guadalupe (the Virgin of Guadalupe) as a figure that,
unites people of different races, religions, languages: Chicano protestants, American Indians and whites. “Nuestra abogada siempre serás/Our mediatrix you will always be.” She mediates between the Spanish and Indian cultures…and between Chicanos and the white world…La Virgen de Guadalupe is the symbol of ethnic identity and of the tolerance for ambiguity that Chicanos-mexicanos, people of mixed race, people who have Indian blood, people who cross cultures, by necessity possess. (Lauter 2744-5)
What makes the Virgin of Guadalupe such a powerful figure for Anzaldúa? Why might ambiguity or in-betweenness be a source of strength for her? To whom might a figure like the Virgin of Guadalupe appeal? Why?
2. Anzaldúa and W.E.B. Dubois. In Chapter 7, Anzaldúa addresses the downside of mestizaje, writing that, “The ambivalence from the clash of voices results in mental and emotional states of perplexity. Internal strife results in insecurity and indecisiveness. The mestiza’s dual or multiple personality is plagued by psychic restlessness” (Lauter 2753).
How might we relate Anzaldúa’s discussion of mestizaje and the “clash of voices” to W.E.B. Dubois’ theory of double consciousness? What are the pluses and minuses of seeing the world from two perspectives at once? Gender certainly plays a larger role in Anzaldúa’s theory than it does in Dubois’s. How does gender affect the “dual or multiple personality” of the mestiza?
3. Multiple voices, multiple perspectives. In her book Anzaldúa includes a wide variety of writing styles: autobiography, poetry, song, mythology, prose and fiction, not to mention that she writes in Spanish, English and Nahuatl. Why does Anzaldúa incorporate so many different forms of writing and so many different languages into her narrative? What are the benefits of doing this? What are the drawbacks? How might her decision to write from multiple perspectives reflect a kind of border identity or mestizaje?
4. Snake talk. Anzaldúa spends a lot of time exploring the serpent figure in pre-Columbian culture. She writes that,
In pre-Columbian America the most notable symbol was the serpent. The Olmecs associated womanhood with the Serpent’s mouth which was guarded by rows of dangerous teeth…They considered it the most sacred place on earth, a place of refuge, the creative womb from which all things were born and to which all things returned. Snake people had holes, entrances to the body of the Earth Serpent; they followed the Serpent’s way, identified with the Serpent deity, with the mouth, both the eater and the eaten. (Lauter 2748)
Why is the Serpent such a powerful figure for Anzaldúa? What does the figure of the Serpent add to her discussion of mestizaje, and especially to female mestizaje? How does Anzaldúa mobilize Aztec and Mayan mythology to empower women? What does it mean to identify with “both the eater and the eaten”? How might this kind of dual-identification help solve some of the conflict that exists along the Mexico-U.S. border today?
Assignment: Borderlands/La Frontera and Maria Full of Grace (2004)
Write a letter from Gloria Anzaldúa to Maria from Maria Full of Grace advising her on how to adjust to life in New York. In this letter, make sure to address the following issues:
12c91. Introduction: Why does Gloria Anzaldúa feel she is well-positioned to give Maria advice? What kind of perspective does Anzaldúa (as a lesbian Chicana feminist) offer?
2. Maria’s body as a vessel (for drugs, but also for her unborn child): In what ways does Maria’s body empower her? In what ways does it disempower her?
3. Was Maria’s decision to be a drug mule a good decision? Why or why not? Did she have any other options?
4. Maria’s cultural transition: What are some strategies Maria could use to adapt to her new life in New York?
5. Old traditions/new traditions: How can Maria respect her Colombian heritage while adapting to life in New York?
6. Women immigrants: What special challenges do women immigrants face? Has Maria done a good job of dealing with these challenges? What might she have done better?
7. Maria’s decision to keep her baby: Was this a good decision? Why or why not?