Analysis Of The Cruceño Movement

The cruceño movement not only addresses issues of class and regional culture, but also of race and ethnicity. When discussing indigeneity, Jackson and Kay (2005) remind scholars not to essentialize indigeneity and instead, take a relational approach that recognizes process and context. This point is particularly salient given that, as Antonio notes, Aymaran groups in the altiplano have come to represent Bolivian indigeneity as a whole. In looking at Camba and cruceño identity, we see how geography intersects with race and ethnicity and as such, these concepts must be examined in relation to each other. In 1958, Robert Alexander’s The Bolivian National Revolution, established a dichotomy still in play today: the urban white man and the rural
Some authors offer too simplistic an interpretation, framing the cruceño movement in terms of a socio-political versus economic dichotomy. Morales (2010), recognizes the long history of regionalism and racial tensions within Bolivia, yet concludes that the cruceño movement is “primarily about economics.” Given that Morales’s work is frequently cited in the literature to give historical context, this text acts as a fundamental and current interpretation of Bolivian history. Thus, while this solely economic interpretation is not the dominant discourse in the literature, Morales’ prominence in the field merits a serious evaluation of this claim. There are, however, those who deny that Evo Morales’ administration has actually—not just symbolically—threatened the cruceño elite’s economic power. Authors like Webber (2007, 2008) and Hindery (2013) argue that Evo Morales has not challenged the cruceño elite’s economic power, conceded to the autonomist movement, pursued a neoliberal development model, and put the socialist agenda on the backburner. Although international and economic repercussions to such radical socialist change that keeps the President’s hands tied, given the reproduction of the neoliberal model and continued exploitation of natural resources, it is unclear if the state poses a real concern to the cruceño elite’s grasp on their key
Pineo (2014) claims that the cruceño movement was primarily driven by the elite for a perceived “usurpation of their birthright…to rule over the indigenous majority.” Thus, he situates the movement in terms of a post-colonial, racial hierarchy embedded in Bolivian society. Even still, this explanation falls flat as some authors question the legitimacy of the present-day challenge to the cruceño elite’s real socio-political power. Oikonomakis & Espinoza (2004) point to the decline of social movement representatives and the increase in technocrats and traditional experts in Morales’ cabinet as evidence of the how the administration is not, as the Vice President claims, a subordination of the state to social movement demands. One could argue, therefore, that the state does not face a real threat to the cruceño elites’ socio-political standing. The perceived or symbolic threat to this racial hierarchy may be more relevant than any true challenge to the social order. While this debate of economic incentives versus racial socio-political order invokes salient points of debate, they are both overly simplistic interpretations that fail to fully address the interplay between the economic, social, political, racial, and the long history of regional tensions within Bolivia. As such, Gramsci’s concept of hegemony more directly addresses these intersecting