Islamic world (see The Guardian, London, 3
October 2001, p. 18). There are of course many
other examples of such views and my point here
is to remind ourselves that a detailed and contin-
uing critique of positions which proclaim the
supremacy of the west remains vital, for scien-
tific and political reasons.
In some ways it might be seen as natural, in
confronting the above types of view, to proclaim
the moral superiority of the non-west and the
corruption and decadence of the west itself. We
then have an unproductive exchange of different
essentializations which can never lead to the kind
of critical cross-cultural exchange and under-
standing that is so urgently needed. What is
needed is the continual search for hybrid forms
of knowledge and interpretation so that we avoid
unhelpful essentializations and the economy
of stereotype. In rethinking our views on the
geographies of the cultural and the political, and
in the specific context of the global and the demo-
cratic, the following three interconnected points
strike me as being particularly relevant.
First, as one example, if we consider the
Zapatista uprising in Mexico, we will find that
the way the Zapatistas have conceptualized
democracy does not flow out of the terminology
of Euro-American political philsophy but rather
emanates from Maya social organization, in
which reciprocity, communal values and the
validity of wisdom are seen as central. This does
not mean that the Zapatistas have the ‘correct
interpretation’, but rather that employing the
term ‘democracy’ does not necessarily hold the
Zapatistas to any one-dimensional interpretation.
Instead when the term ‘democracy’ is deployed by
the Zapatistas, it can become a connector through
which liberal concepts of democracy and indige-
nous concepts of reciprocity and community can
be related to each other in a process of respectful
and critical dialogue. In this sense then the mean-
ings of ‘democracy’ become hybridized, plural
and culturally mixed, enriching our political
vocabularies and enhancing our cross-cultural
understanding.
Second, the significance of a broad cross-
cultural understanding has implications within
nation-states as well as across them. Thus, in the
Bolivian case, where ethnic and cultural differ-
ence is such a crucial factor, the Bolivian anthro-
pologist Rivera (1990) reminds us of the realities
of ‘internal colonialism’. She argues that the
ideal of equality has continued to be based on a
western model of citizenship, where notions of
being ‘modern’, ‘rational’ and ‘proprietary’ have
prolonged a process of exclusion which is
anchored in the colonial experience. Consequently,
a genuinely democratic reform will have tocontain some form of articulation between the
direct democracy of the indigenous ayllu com-
munities and the representative democracy of the
nation-state as a whole. A key issue here is the
conceptualization of citizenship in relation to a
multicultural reality where the indigenous has
been historically subjugated. Institutional
reforms in this context also require profound
changes in outlook and a ‘radical decolonization’
of Bolivia’s social and political structures. The
question of decolonization relates not only to
‘structures’ but also to imaginations and, as
Rivera indicates for Bolivia, profound changes of
outlook are required if new forms of hybrid
democracy can emerge – forms which will have
the support of the majority of the population in a
society increasingly riven by political turmoil.
Finally, and centrally, radical changes in out-
look are also needed to think through the rele-
vance of non-western forms of democratic
practice. Notions of reciprocity in the sharing of
resources, communal values and redistribution,
cooperative forms of labour, the preservation of
fragile environments and the prioritization of
ethical values which elevate wisdom over episte-
mology, exemplify some aspects of indigenous
approaches to democratic organization.
Reciprocity also has to be rooted in recogni-
tion and respect, and one of the key problems we
face in the west is to find ways of expanding our
geographies of reference and learning so we do
not reproduce the arrogance and ignorance of
self-contained visions of superiority. This does
not mean that the meaning of the west begins and
ends with such visions. Differences and struggles
within are a key part of the continuing dynamic
within both west and non-west and in their
inescapable encounters. Going beyond the veil of
Euro-Americanism is a continuing struggle itself
and one that assumes increasing urgency in our
contemporary world.NOTES1 See the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity
(LIBERTAD) Act of 1996, Public Law 104–114, 12
March 1996, 110 Stat. 785–824, Washington DC,
United States General Printing Office, pp. 786–8.
2 In the case of Britain, one obviously thinks of the
example of the colonization of Ireland where subordi-
nating modes of representation also accompanied
imperial rule (see, for example, Perry Curtis Jr, 1997),
so I am not arguing for a total distinction between the
United States and all the countries of the west, but the
formative and exceptional encounters with three inter-
nal others – Indian, Hispanic and African – does
seem to be particularly relevant to US–Third World
interactions in the twentieth century.430 BEYOND THE WEST3029-ch22.qxd 03-10-02 11:01 AM Page 430