Octavio Paz and the Chicano

Author(s): Luis Leal

Source: Latin American Literary Review , Spring, 1977, Vol. 5, No. 10, Special Issue of
Chicano Literature (Spring, 1977), pp. 115-123
Published by: Latin American Literary Review

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20119068

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Latin American Literary Review is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Latin American Literary Review

This content downloaded from

148.224.96.21 on Tue, 24 Jan 2023 13:54:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Octavio Paz and the Chicano

LUIS LEAL
The two Mexican writers who have exercised the greatest
attraction for the Chicano are Jos? Vasconcelos and Octavio Paz. One
may ask why? There are, of course, some external similarities in the lives
of these two thinkers. Both lived in the United States, and both became
preoccupied with the nature of the descendant of the Mexican im
migrant. Vasconcelos is admired more for his theory of the cosmic race,
than for his remarks about the Pochos in his autobiography; and Paz
more for his stature as a universal man of letters than for his essay on the
Pachuco. If we associate the name of Paz with the word Pachuco, we go
back to the word Pocho when thinking about Vasconcelos. In the second
volume of his autobiography, published in 1936, Vasconcelos speaks of
the Mexican in the United States, whom he calls pocho, in these terms:
Pocho is "a word used in California to designate the ungrateful Mexican
who denies his Mexican background although he carries it in his blood,
and in his acts-tries to ape the present masters of the region."l
Vasconcelos was not the first to use the word pocho. In 1930
Manuel Gamio had defined pocho not as a Mexican Uving in the United
States, but as an American of Mexican origin. 2 The word has been
included by Santamar?a in his Diccionario de mejicanismos [Dictionary
of Mexicanisms] with that meaning, and also to designate the Spanish
spoken by the descendants of Spanish-speaking persons living in
California. Paz, conscious of the demeaning nature of the word pocho,
does not use it in "The Pachuco and Other Extremes," the first of the
essays published in 1950 under the title The Labyrinth of Solitude.3 The
word has survived, however, in Chicano literature. As late as 1959 Jos?
Antonio Villarreal uses it in his novel, the title of which is, precisely,
Pocho. 4 The hero of the novel, Richard Rubio, uses it with pride. When
the girl who has just come from Mexico laughs at the way he speaks
Spanish, he says, 4tI am a Pocho, and we speak Uke this because here in
California we make Castilian words out of English words." (p. 165)

This content downloaded from

148.224.96.21 on Tue, 24 Jan 2023 13:54:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
116 LATIN AMERICAN LITERARY REVIEW

The scene we have just referred to takes place, in the novel,

around 1939, and it is natural that the word pocho should be used. But by
that time the word pachuco was already common and is also used in this
novel. Although the word pocho has disappeared, its derivative,
pochismo, is still in use today to designate the use of modified English
words when talking Spanish, which is a characteristic of Chicano
Uterature. Estelle Chac?n has pointed out that Alurista "uses
Pochismos at their ultimate beauty and maximum extent. Alurista
through his art raised the use of Pochismos to the esthetic level. ' '5
Paz Uved in Los Angeles for a year when he was a boy, and
then briefly in 1944. By that time the Pachuco had already become a
national figure as a result of the so-called zoot-suit riots. It is during
this time, perhaps, that Paz conceived the idea of writing about the
Pachucos. In The Labyrinth he had this to say, "When I arrived in
the United States I lived for a while in Los Angeles, a city inhabited
by over a million persons of Mexican origin. At first sight, the visitor
is surprised not only by the purity of the sky and the ugliness of the
dispersed and ostentatious buildings, but also by the city's vaguely
Mexican atmosphere, which cannot be captured in words or concepts.
This Mexicanism?delight in decorations, carelessness and pomp,
negligence, passion and reserve?floats in the air. I say 'floats'
because it never mixes or unites with the other world, the North
American world based on precision and efficiency." (pp. 12-13). In the
United States, Paz began to understand the significance of being a
Mexican, "for," he said in 1973, "I felt solidarity with the mistreated
Mexicans, with the Pachucos, who are now called Chicanos. I felt
myself to be a Chicano, and I thought that the Chicano was one of the
extremes of the Mexican. I reaUzed that the Mexicans had the
possibility of becoming like the oppressed, marginal being that is the
Pachuco."6
We may say that Vasconcelos' remarks about the pocho are
obsolete. Vasconcelos did not live long enough to see the resurgence of
the Chicano movement, as well as its renaissance in the theatre, the arts,
and uterature. But Paz, still living, has changed his ideas as a result of
the impression that the Chicano struggle for dignity has had on his
thinking. In the interview that Jos? Armas published in his review De
Colores in 1975, Paz said, "I believe that the Chicano movement has
impressed the Mexicans and they foUow it with a great deal of attention.
NaturaUy, at times we do not have all the information that we should
have. [...] And consequently, I beheve that although the Chicano
movement is seen with interest, it is not as well known as it should
be."7
Paz had analyzed the nature of the Pachuco 25 years earlier, in
his now famous book. He was not, however, the first to do it, although he
says he was. Before him George S?nchez, Beatrice Griffith, Carey

This content downloaded from

148.224.96.21 on Tue, 24 Jan 2023 13:54:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Octavio Paz and the Chicano 117

McWilliams and others had studied the Pachuco. 8 This problem has
been thoroughly analyzed by Arturo Madrid in his article, "In Search of
the Authentic Pachuco: An Interpretative Essay."9 But without
question it was Paz who first brought a contemporary philosophy,
existentialism, to the interpretation of the nature of the Pachuco. His
aim was not, as is well known, the study of the Pachuco himself, but the
Pachuco as one of the extremes which the Mexican could become. "The
Pachucos," he said in the second Spanish edition of The Labyrinth,
published in 1959, "are youth, for the most part of Mexican origin, who
form gangs in Southern cities; they can be identified by their language
and behavior as weU as by the clothing they affect. They are instinctive
rebels, and North American racism has vested its wrath on them more
than once. But the pachucos do not attempt to vindicate their race or the
nationality of their forebears. Their attitude reveals an obstinate, almost
fanatical will-to-be, but this will affirms nothing specific except their
determination [... ] not to be like those around them. The pachuco does
not want to become a Mexican again; at the same time he does not want
to blend into the life of North America. His whole being is sheer negative
impulse, a tangle of contradictions, an enigma. Even his very name is
enigmatic: pachuco, a word of uncertain derivation, saying nothing and
saying everything. It is a strange word with no definite meaning, or, to
be more exact, it is charged Uke all popular creations with a diversity of
meanings." (p. 14)
What Paz does not say in his essay is that the Pachuco was not
only rejected in American society, but also by Mexico. If the Pachuco did
not want to become a Mexican again or blend into the life of North
America it was because he could not do either, as Paz could have
ascertained by using an historical perspective. This lack of an historical
perspective in his treatment of the Pachuco has been pointed out by
Madrid, who says, "Paz's thesis is worthy of serious consideration
because he saw the Pachuco at close range and because, being a Mexican,
he was free of the racial bigotry of some of the Pachuco's Anglo
American interpreters. Yet one would expect at least a minimal
historical background to back up his conclusions. But Paz was not in
terested in examining the historical causes of the conflictive existence of
the Pachuco and even less its possible solutions. He was more interested
in the Pachuco's behavior?his will to be different?and then only in
sofar as what that behavior said about the character of the Mexican." (p.
37) The fact that Paz did not use, in this essay, an historical perspective
does not mean, as we shall see, that he is not interested in the historical
process or in man's obligation to be acquainted with that process.
We could ask if Paz' study of the Pachuco of 27 years ago has
any relevance for us today in our understanding of the Chicano. Is there
any relationship between the Chicano and the Pachuco? Fortunately we
have Paz' answer to this question. In his interview with Armas he was

This content downloaded from

148.224.96.21 on Tue, 24 Jan 2023 13:54:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
118 LATIN AMERICAN LITERARY REVIEW

asked: * 'Do you agree with the idea that thepachuco was the precursor of
the Chicano?" Paz answered, "Yes. I believe that the pachuco, in a
certain way, was the precursor of the Chicano.... When I examined him
(I believe I was the first to do it), I found two things. In the first place, an
attitude of desperation in face of the situation he confronted. And the
answer was a revolt. [...] A revolt that was somewhat like committing
suicide, for there was no hope of it becoming anything. But anyway I
found a rebelUous attitude. Instead of saying let's adapt to the Anglo
American world, they said we are going to be different from that world.
[...] And that is what they decided to do. Instinctively, they dressed in
an extravagant manner and used a special language, etc. ..." (p. 14) And
it is in this rebelUous attitude where Paz sees the Pachuco as the
precursor of the Chicano, although the Chicano has organized himself
"in a very different way," says Paz, "not under aesthetic or suicidal
principles, but under poUtical principles. Nevertheless, the origins of
this organization, of this revolt, are to be found in the world of the
pachuco/1 (p. 15)
Paz goes on to explain that the Pachuco was not the intellectual
precursor of the Chicano movement, although there may be a
psychological, emotional, that is, existential relationship between the
two movements. But ideologically the Chicano movement is related to
the movements of other minorities in the world, and especially to that of
the Black movement. It is also related to the nationalistic movement of
Mexico, a result of the Revolution, which the Chicanos have assimilated.
Paz sees in the Chicano movement a continuation of the struggle of the
people of Mexican descent living in the United States; a struggle that
was initiated in 1847 and still continues.
Although Paz confessed to Armas that he was not too well
acquainted with Chicano literature, he nevertheless gave his opinion
about the political nature of that Uterature. He makes a distinction
between literature on political topics written by politicians, and political
Uterature written by poets. He says, "There is a great difference between
a politician who writes poems, and a poet who writes political poems. If
those who write are poets, what they write must be good. But the im
portant thing is this. For apolitical poem to have political value it must
be based on an experience Uved by the poet. And Chicano poetry could be
like that, since it is based on a lived context. But, naturally, apart from
the experience, the practical version, the language, is necessary." (p. 18)
Unfortunately, Paz does not mention any literary works written by
Chicanos, although he says he has read some. To Armas' question, "Do
you know the literature of the Chicanos?" Paz responded, "I know it
very little. I have read some poems that I have liked; also some prose
works; but I do not know it well." (p. 17)
In this interview with Armas Paz touched upon an important
subject in contemporary Chicano thought. Armas begins by asking Paz

This content downloaded from

148.224.96.21 on Tue, 24 Jan 2023 13:54:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Octavio Paz and the Chicano 119

how he, being a cosmopolitan man of letters, came to write The

Labyrinth of Solitude. Paz defends himself by saying that not aU his
works treat of universal themes, that he has written extensively, in prose
and poetry, aboutMexico. "I have written," he says, "many poems with
Mexican themes. I have written Posdata. I beUeve that? besides, I have
written extensively about Mexican literature and art." (p. 18) He further
states that a good writer writes about aU themes in which he is in
terested. "I consider," he says, "that a good national writer is a good
universal writer. And that a universal writer has to be national. Both
things are related." (p. 18) Armas goes on to say that he had asked him
that question because here in the United States the moment in the
political development of the Chicano has arrived when it is thought that
"la Raza" should stop being nationalistic and become more universal.
Paz inquires, "Do you mean more Anglo-American?" and Armas says,
"In some ways." Paz rejects the idea and goes onto advise the Chicanos
to preserve their identity. This doe?, not mean, of course, that they
should ignore the external world. "It is very difficult," he says, "to
maintain this equilibrium, but you must do it. You have to be, on the one
hand, Chicanos, and on the other, members of the North American
world. Because you live here. You belong here. [...] You have done it
before, and you can keep on doing it." (p. 19)
Paz sees no problem in the fact that the Chicano is standing
between two worlds. For him, the interrelationship of cultures is an
essential historical process. To understand a national group, it is
necessary to understand its relationship to other national or in
ternational groups. "The history of Mexico," he says, "cannot be un
derstood without the history of Spain," and the Chicanos and the
Mexicanos cannot understand each other without knowing both the
history of Mexico and the history of the Chicanos. At the same time,
Chicano history cannot be understood without understanding the
history of the United States, any more than the Mexican can understand
himself without understanding pre-hispanic history and the history of
Spain; and the history of Spain cannot be understood without un
derstanding Arab history, any more than the history of the United
States can be understood apart from the history of England. He ends by
saying, "Without world history, you do not know what you are, nor do I
know who I am. In this sense you and I are universalist s. But we are
universalists in a point in space and in a determined time. After that you
are the Chicano and I am the Mexicano. We belong to a nation, to a
family, to a barrio, to an epoch." (p. 20)
The dialogue between Armas and Paz had been initiated
precisely with a question about the differences between the Chicano and
the Mexican. To the question, "Do you see any differences between the
Mexican and the Chicano?" Paz answered, "It is obvious that there are
differences. There is a great difference, of course, between a Mexican and

This content downloaded from

148.224.96.21 ff:ffff:ffff on Thu, 01 Jan 1976 12:34:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
120 LATIN AMERICAN LITERARY REVIEW

a Chicano." (p. 11) To the question, "Are these differences cultural,

social, political, or national?" Paz said, "We both have the same origin.
We are fundamentaUy the same, but have had an independent history.
The War with the United States, and then a series of catastrophes that
have taken place in Mexico have forced part of the Mexican population to
migrate to the United States. As a result a large Mexican community
was created, and little by little it has been transformed into the Chicano
movement. Then we can say that although the origins are the same, we
have lived under different environments and have had a different
evolution. This is what characterizes us: a common origin, a common
culture, and at the same time, social, economic, and some cultural
differences." (pp. 11-12)
The most surprising revelation in this interview is the
discovery that Paz is in favor of some aspects oichicanismo. To him, the
Chicanos have maintained their cultural traditions much more faithfully
than the large city dwellers of Mexico. He finds this traditional strain of
the Chicano in the maintenance of certain provincial values, especially in
the keeping of strong family ties. For Paz, the family is the depository of
traditional values that is necessary to keep. The family has been the
vehicle through which these values have been transmitted; that is to say,
certain fundamental attitudes towards Ufe, such as good and evil,
ugUness and beauty, sex, death, life beyond, the value of time, the value
of pleasure, the community. "For example," he says, "I believe that
among Chicanos there is something very important and that is com
munication. You represent a society much less lonely than the North
American society. I believe that communal values are much more im
portant among Chicanos than they are in the Anglo-American society."
(p. 14)
Do Chicanos accept or reject what Paz has to say about them?
Not a great deal has been written about the first chapter of The
Labyrinth of Solitude dealing with the Pachuco. There is no question,
however, that Paz' name is mentioned by Chicano writers in superlative
terms, sometimes even with reverence. Hilario Contreras, in his article
"The Chicanos' Search for Identity," 10calls him "the great Mexican
poet and thinker" (p. 29), and Sylvia Alicia Gonzales in her study,
"National Character vs. UniversaUty in Chicano Poetry," n refers to
him as "the emminent writer and philosopher" (p. 10), to mention only
two recent references.
This fascination with Paz goes beyond the writer. As Jos?
Armas points out in his introductory remarks to the interview, "Octavio
Paz is the most widely read Latin American writer among the Chicanos.
Probably every Chicano Studies Program at the college level has made
El laberinto de la soledad required reading." (p. 5) The reason for this
popularity, according to Armas, is because the book "came at a time
when Chicanos were beginning to reassert themselves and make

This content downloaded from

148.224.96.21 on Tue, 24 Jan 2023 13:54:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Octavio Paz and the Chicano 121

themselves heard and seen as a people." (p. 5) About this time, The
Labyrinth...was discovered by Chicanos. In it they found "insights into
the make up of the Mexicano." (p. 6) The groping Chicano, according to
Armas, embraced Paz because he "gave their identity some reassurance
and offered some guidance from which to build their movement. " (p. 6)
This is not to say, he continues, "that the Chicano
movement is the result of Octavio Paz [...] But Paz provided some
framework from which to begin to determine for themselves, in an
intellectual sense, what were some of the things that made a Chicano
a Chicano." (p. 6) Another reason given by Armas to explain Paz'
popularity among the Chicanos has to do with his stature and the
interest that he has shown in the Chicano. "Paz, as a Mexican," says
Armas "presents another picture of ourselves. We, as Chicanos,
seldom get that feedback. Paz represents our roots, cultural base, and
our history as a people." (p. 7) An excellent example to illustrate what
Armas says would be the book Pensamientos on los Chicanos, by Eliu
Carranza, n who accepts Paz' ideas as expressed in The Labyrinth...in
toto and at face value. Another one would be Luis D?vilas' un
published article, "On fhe Nature of Chicano Literature: en los ex
tremos del Laberinto,'13 in which he makes use of Paz' idea of the
Pachuco as a solitary being.
On the other hand, the ideas presented by Paz in his book have
been criticized both here and in Mexico. Rub?n Salazar MaU?n, in
Mexico, wrote several articles critical of the ideas presented by Paz. In
reference to chapter I he says, "El Pachuco resulta anacr?nico personaje
epis?dico que ha desaparecido" 14 ["The Pachuco turns out to be an
anachronistic episodic individual who has disappeared."] But it is Carlos
Blanco Aguinaga's article, "El laberinto fabricado por Octavio Paz"
["The Labyrinth Fabricated by Octavio Paz"], published in Aztl?n in
1972,15 that really brings out Paz' untenable generalizations about the
character of the Mexican, his inconsistencies in his interpretation of
history, and the subjective nature of many of his observations about
culture. Although this study does not refer only to chapter I on the
Pachuco, but deals with the book in its totality, one of the reasons it was
written was to warn the Chicano about the deceptive nature of Paz'
ideas.
More specifically, Don Porath, in his article, "Chicanos and
Existentialism,'16 addresses himself to Paz' study of the Pachuco and
finds it wanting. He blames Paz' analysis for the misinterpretation of the
importance of the Pachuco "by suggesting that everything he does is
masochistic, and he is redeemed when he is finaUy put upon by the
dominant society." (p. 16) At the same time, he says, Paz "fails to
recognize the 'true' Mexican in the Pachuco since the Pachuco evinces a
different reaction to a different environment [...] Unfortunately, rather
than give him credit for the uniqueness he exhibits, Paz sees him only as

This content downloaded from

148.224.96.21 on Tue, 24 Jan 2023 13:54:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
122 LATIN AMERICAN LITERARY REVIEW

a clownish aberrancy caught in limbo between two cultures. " (p. 16) On
the other hand, he agrees with Paz about the Pachuco being the
precursor of the Chicano. But, he states, "there are a number of in
tervening variables, such as the Second World War, and the G.I. Bill
which offered an opportunity for Chicanos to enter coUege in relatively
larger numbers." (p. 17) More to the point, Porath states, "We might
question the suggestion that his conclusions have anything to do with
the Chicano, or even parallel Chicano thought." (p. 25) However, he
praises Paz for supporting the rights of the Chicano to develop his dif
ferences, for his existentialist approach to the problem, and for being
cognizant of the differences in character between the Anglo-American
and the Mexican. But we must keep in mind that for Paz the Pachuco and
the Chicano are, in character, Mexican also. "Whether we Ukeitornot,"
he says in The Labyrinth, "these persons are Mexican, are one of the
extremes at which the Mexican can arrive. " (p. 14)
Two years before, Arturo Madrid, in his essay on the Pachuco,
had rejected Paz' central thesis, that is, that the Pachuco had volun
tarily, and for masochistic reasons, isolated himself from society. He
says, "Are we to believe the Pachuco, or any other Mexican, sought out,
took 'painful satisfaction' in the curbside clubbings, the stationhouse
beatings he regularly received? Does anyone really think redemption was
to be had in the soUtude of the cellblocks of Chino, San Quentin, or
Folsom?" (p. 38)
In order to give perspective to this statement by Madrid it
must be pointed out that Paz' book is an analysis of the character of the
Mexican, and the Pachuco represents one of the extremes at which that
character can arrive. For this reason the essay on the Pachuco takes on
additional meaning when read in context with the rest of the book.
Armando Rend?n, in his Chicano Manifesto11, for instance, makes use of
an idea presented by Paz in Chapter 5 of The Labyrinth (p. 92), "The
Conquest and Colonialism," to better explain the Ch?canos' religious
experience.
Summarizing, we may say that the ideas of Octavio Paz
regarding the Pachuco and the Chicano have had more influence upon
Chicano thought than those of any other contemporary Mexican thinker.
No discussion of the nature of the Chicano can be complete without
taking into consideration his ideas on the subject. Whether we agree
with them or not, there is no question that they have stimulated
discussion about the true nature of the Chicano, as well as his
relationship to the Pachuco, the Mexicano, and the Anglo-American.
They have served also as a foundation upon which to build a Chicano
existentialist philosophy, a philosophy not yet completely formulated,
although the basis for it already exists, thanks to Paz' interest in the
Chicano and his destiny.
The main contribution of Octavio Paz towards the quest for
identity is that he has helped Chicanos to identify with a Mexican

This content downloaded from

148.224.96.21 on Tue, 24 Jan 2023 13:54:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Octavio Paz and the Chicano 123

heritage. And it is here that we find the great difference between the
Pachuco and the Chicano. The Pachuco, according to Paz, rejected his
Mexican background and at the same time refused to accept the Anglo
American culture. On the other hand, the Chicano. by identifying with
Mexican traditions and history, has been able to rediscover his cultural
heritage, which has become an important base in his quest for identity.
University of California, Santa Barbara

NOTES

1 Jos? Vasconcelos, "Asoma el pochismo" ["Pochismo Appears"], La tormenta

[The S to rm] in Obras, I (M?xico: Libreros Mexicanos Unidos, 1957), p. 781.
2 Manuel Gamio, Mexican Immigration to the United States (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1930), p. 129.
^ Translated by Lysander Kemp and published in 1961 by Grove Press. Sub
sequent quotations are from this edition.
4 (GardenCity,N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1970).
5 Estelle Chac?n, "Pochismos," El Grito. Ill, 1 (Fall, 1969), 35.
6 Octavio Paz?Juli?n R?os, Solo a dos voces [Solo with Two Voices] (Barcelona
Editorial Lumen, 1973), [p. 5].
7 Jos? Armas, "Entrevista con Octavio Paz" ["Interview with Octavio Paz"], De
Colores, 11,2 (1975). Our translation, as are all those from this interview.
8 George I. S?nchez, "Pachucos in the Making," Common Ground, IV (Fall,
1943), 13-20; Beatrice Griffith, American Me (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company,
1948): Carey McWilliams, North from Mexico (Philadelphia and New York: J. B. Lip
pincottCo., 1949).
9 Aztl?n, IV, 1 (Spring, 1973), 31-60. For other studies about the Pachuco see p.
60 of this article.
10 Con Safos, II, 5 (1971?), 26-30.
H De Colores. I, 4 (1974?), 10-21.
u (Berkeley: California Book Co., 1971).
13 A paperreadinl971 at the MMLA Convention held in Detroit, Michigan.
14 Book review in Ma?ana (July 11,1959), p. 54.
15 Vol. Ill, No. 1 (Spring, 1972), pp. 1-12.
16 De Colores, I, 2 (1974?), 6-29.
17 ArmandoB. Rend?n, Chicano Manifesto ( New York: Macmillan, 1971), p. 9.

This content downloaded from

148.224.96.21 on Tue, 24 Jan 2023 13:54:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms