Amaya and Federico Pino (2015) offer a slightly different lens on cruceño movement. Amaya and Federico Pino’s work could be interpreted as another story of lost hegemony, this time defining hegemony primarily in terms of development ideology. Nevertheless, this text breaks away from other interpretations as it conflates hegemony with development strategies. Instead of focusing on the indigenous/non-indigenous binary, Amaya and Federico Pino interpret hegemony as the two competing development ideologies of “capitalista transnacional” [transnational capitalism] and “del desarrollo del presidente indígena, con su concepción socialista” [the development of the indigenous president, with his socialist project]. As such, the authors frame these
…show more content…
Peña Claros’s use of Laclau’s theory of populism frame the cruceño movement as change from above. This builds on the assumption that elite’s hegemony is still largely in tact as they maintain the position from above. This division between cruceño hegemony and the state’s power presents an interesting contrast for further …show more content…
Although social and ethnic movements are usually reserved for movements that are progressive in nature, Centellas highlights how social movements are often loosely defined in Bolivia, Using García Linera, Marxa, and Patricia’s (2004) definition for a social movement (“collective action that attempts to bring change to the established social systems or defend some material interest”) the right-wing cruceño movement meets the requirements to be considered an “’ethnic’ social movement.” The cruceño movement both opposes the state and its established relation with regional departments mobilizes to defend their material interests. Moreover, social movements are often blurred along the lines of political parties. As a result, interest groups can gain the status of a social movement. Centellas does not assert that the cruceño demand for autonomy is a social movement. Rather, he uses the cruceño movement to highlight the shortcomings of scholarly definitions of social and ethnic movements. This oberservation about the loose definition of ethnic social movements provides context for how the cruceño movement at its organizations—like Comité Pro Santa Cruz and Nación Camba—dawn the guise of progressive
Peña Claros’s use of Laclau’s theory of populism frame the cruceño movement as change from above. This builds on the assumption that elite’s hegemony is still largely in tact as they maintain the position from above. This division between cruceño hegemony and the state’s power presents an interesting contrast for further …show more content…
Although social and ethnic movements are usually reserved for movements that are progressive in nature, Centellas highlights how social movements are often loosely defined in Bolivia, Using García Linera, Marxa, and Patricia’s (2004) definition for a social movement (“collective action that attempts to bring change to the established social systems or defend some material interest”) the right-wing cruceño movement meets the requirements to be considered an “’ethnic’ social movement.” The cruceño movement both opposes the state and its established relation with regional departments mobilizes to defend their material interests. Moreover, social movements are often blurred along the lines of political parties. As a result, interest groups can gain the status of a social movement. Centellas does not assert that the cruceño demand for autonomy is a social movement. Rather, he uses the cruceño movement to highlight the shortcomings of scholarly definitions of social and ethnic movements. This oberservation about the loose definition of ethnic social movements provides context for how the cruceño movement at its organizations—like Comité Pro Santa Cruz and Nación Camba—dawn the guise of progressive