We Are All Like Pope Francis

The term Latino is a social construction, a pan-ethnic identity that puts under one umbrella several more specific identities. While, the idea of Latino exists outside the United States now, it is still an American creation, and as we have written before, it is a creation that even people of Latin American descent in the United States don’t really embrace. If you ask a “Latino” in the U.S. who has origins in Mexico, what ethnicity she is, the odds are that she will say, “Mexican.” This is not an opinion, but a finding that is backed up by large-scale national research. I would assume that if you asked someone born and raised in Mexico who currently lives there what their ethnicity was, the likelihood of saying, “Mexican,” would go up even higher. It is not true 100% of the time as we can always find exceptions, but most people in the U.S. who have roots in Latin American will use their country of origin as their ethnic identity; most people in their country, also probably think of themselves in terms of their nationality (i.e., Mexicans in Mexico, Guatemalans in Guatemala, etc.)

Latino represents something of a compromise. When Cubans or Puerto Ricans stand as separate groups, they have a more cohesive collective cultural identity, but they lose numbers and power. Banding together allows them to share slightly less, but wield more influence.  Compromises are often about politics and power.

Dr. Alvarez’s post about the new pope focuses on the issue of identity, showing that from a cultural perspective, it is not a real clear case that the new pope is Latino, if at all. His parents were European, Italians who immigrated to Argentina, and he never lived in a multicultural Latino community like the United States where a label of Latino makes more sense.

But with regards to power and influence, compromises are sometimes made and the newly named Pope Francis is a compromise all around. First, he is a Jesuit, an order which itself has a complicated history with the church leadership in Rome. On the one hand, they have been called the church’s “elite troops” because of their role as missionaries, their direct work with the poor, and their commitment to education. On the other, they have been subject to suppression from Rome for activities that are not in line with the doctrines of the church. As recently as seventies, Pope John Paul II struggled with the Jesuits who advocated a liberation theology that sought to give voice and power to the poor, with movements throughout Latin America. Jesuits spoke truth to power and corruption in Latin American governments and in some cases paid for it with their freedom and lives. The then Jorge Bergoglio was the leader of the Jesuits in Buenos Aires when several Jesuit priests were imprisoned for speaking out against the government. It is unclear whether Bergoglio could have done more to protect the priests of his order, but his moderation in dealing with their imprisonment is indicative of his style. Aside from being a moderate Jesuit, almost an oxymoron, he also has ties to Europe and Latin America. For a church that has already shifted to the global south, Latin American and Africa, for its member base, many saw it as an imperative that the new pope would represent this geographical area; again, we see a compromise. While Jorge Mario Bergoglio was born in Argentina, his parents are Italian-born, allowing Rome to claim ties to his papacy just as Latin America does. Pope Francisco also splits the difference in terms of his theology. He is noted as being humble and committed to the poor, eschewing the extravagance of Rome, living in a small apartment, cooking for himself, and taking the bus; he does this while also holding the conservative line on issues such as gay marriage, the celibacy of priests, and abortion.

Father Michael Garanzini, the current Jesuit leader of the country’s largest Jesuit University, Loyola University Chicago, where both Dr. Alvarez and I attended for undergraduate studies, has noted Pope Francis’s history of moderation. He says that we probably should not expect great changes, but that his selection itself is in fact a great change that relates to many.

Because many people feel that they can claim a connection to Pope Francis, conservative and liberal, Europe and the Americas, and notably Latinos, why would we deny this sense of empowerment? So, perhaps we can decry his moderation as being too conservative, or we can say he is not us, that he is not authentically [insert identity here], but by opening the door to other groups, even a crack, perhaps a new light will shine through.

Pope Francis and Identity: Some Initial Thoughts

Readers of The Mexican Intellectual know that one theme we regularly address is ethnicity and ethnic identity.  I have written before, for example, about the limitations of a “Latino” ethnic construction for United States-born populations of Central American, South American, or Caribbean descent; arguing essentially that it obviates the national and cultural heritages of entire groups of people.  Thus, it should come as little surprise that I find the characterization of the recently-elected Pope Francis as Latino - as some in the press, among the faithful, or both have done - as misguided.  Not only does this characterization test the limits of a Latino ethnic construction, but it also is patently incorrect given the Pontiff's national origin, and it continues the tradition of American cultural hegemony in the region.

Photo credit: Paul Haring, Catholic News Service.
Available at http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1301150.htm

To be clear, “Latino” is a label of ethnic identity; socially constructed by and for populations from Central America, South America, or the Caribbean (regions loosely referred to as Latin America) who reside in the U.S.  Thus, in the U.S. context, people of Mexican, Guatemalan, Puerto Rican, or other national descents of these regions living in the U.S. identify as or are categorized by others as “Latino.”

Pope Francis, née Jorge Mario Bergoglio, is the son of an Italian immigrant to Argentina, and was born in the capital city, Buenos Aires, in December 1936.  As such, we can say we have an Argentinean Pope, or a South American Pope, or even a Latin American Pope, but we cannot say we have a Latino Pope.  Further, U.S. Latinos may have a sense of pride that a son of Latin America is the new Pontiff, but they cannot claim him as one of their own - as a Latino.  To project their U.S. constructed ethnic identity on a native Argentinean is naive at best, and imperialistic at worst.

Latinos Part Dos

So, none other than the Pew HISPANIC Research Center (my emphasis) has weighed in on how people who can trace some of their ancestry to Latin America living in the U.S. actually identify themselves. It wasn't much of a surprise that most Latinos don't identify as such at all. They don't even identify as Hispanic for that matter, making a lot of the debate that happens in intellectual circles and the media of little consequence. Their findings reveal that 51% identify by their country of origin and only 24% use a pan-ethnic label that groups them together, such as Latino or Hispanic. And when looking at those pan-ethnic labels, much to the chagrin of Latino studies programs all over the country who claim that Hispanic is an imposed label that affirms Spanish hegemony, only 14% of those surveyed would choose the term Latino, compared to 51% who don't care, and 33% who prefer Hispanic. As for the argument of denying imperialism, I never understood why trading a moniker associated with one empire for another would solve the problem. A critical race theorist might argue that any pan-ethnic label is really just a tool to bring the overall average down, to deny diversity, and create a garbage category that legally confirms the inferiority of said socially constructed group. As someone who does embrace the occasional label and who is ultimately pragmatic, I do think there is a reason for us to continue the push for unity, even though the Pew report also shows that more than two thirds of Latinos don't believe that we share a common culture. The reason is simple: there is power in numbers. We do share enough that working together could go a long way for improving the U.S. as a whole, especially given the demographic trajectory of the nation. Finally, for as much as us intellectuals would like to assert our uniqueness, I am reminded of Malcolm X who noted that to outsiders we all pretty much look the same anyway.