Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis paper explores how the Cold War directly and indirectly shapedthe terrain on which popular music evolved in Uruguay during the period ofauthoritarianism that stretched from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s. Fourmoments in the evolution of two distinct musical movements, one associatedwith protest, the other with rock, reveal the intersection of politics andculture in the world of popular music. When Cold War driven repressionsupersedes aesthetic divisions between musicians, a new movement ariseswhich brings together both tendencies in order to resist authoritarianism"between the lines."Keywords: Music, Cold War, Authoritarianism, Social Movements,ResistanceResumenEste trabajo explora las formas en las cuales la Guerra Fría estructuró,tanto directa como indirectamente, el terreno en el que se desarrolla la músicapopular durante el período autoritario desde mediados de los sesenta hasta1985. Cuatro momentos en la evolución de dos movimientos musicalesdistintos, uno asociado a la tendencia de protesta, el otro asociado al rocknacional, muestran la intersección de la política y la cultura en el mundomusical. La represión motivada por la Guerra Fría lleva a que los músicoslogren transcender las divisiones entre ellos, y emerge un nuevo movimientoque une ambas tendencias para lograr "entre líneas" resistir al autoritarismo.Palabras clave: música, guerra fría, autoritarismo, resistencia, movimientosociales.

During the 1960s and 1970s, the Uruguayan and Brazilian states clashed with politically and culturally contestatarian artistic movements. While counter-cultural artists built their images and created art against the grain of accepted cultural norms, politically engaged artists supported and participated in the struggle for social change, serving as mouthpieces for social movements by using their songs to transmit political messages. Not all artists fell squarely into one camp or the other, and career trajectories more often delved into more than one type of expression. Still, identifying artists with one or the other category according to the predominant tendencies in musical production contributes to the analysis of the period. Both types of artists encountered varying forms of repression which transformed their art aesthetically and according to communicative necessities. The movements to which they belonged accordingly re-shaped themselves. The state responded to these transformations and adjusted its approach to cultural movements in turn, participating in a dialogue charged with different and unequal power relations.

This introductory essay conceptually situates the dialogue between Actor-Network Theory (ANT) and Social Movement Studies that this special issue aims to foster. Rather than considering ANT as a theory in the classic sense, we define it as a theoretical sensibility open to permanently redrawing its own shape in response to the relational entanglements it studies. ANT and its sibling, assemblage theory, have allowed scholars to attend to the complex ecologies within which agents, both human and non-human, mobilise to effect change in overlapping social, ecological, economic and technological realms. In these studies, relations take precedence over substances, thereby forging a radically decentred, redistributed approach to mobilisation. As such, ANT offers a point of departure from dominant understandings of social movements that rely on modernist, dualist epistemologies; ANT studies have expanded the body politic through the incorporation of non-human actants, and redefined collective action as a form of association between heterogeneous entities. Ultimately, we argue that ANT is a useful tool in the task of constructing forms of attention and care that aspire to learn from and think with social movements, rather than explaining them away.

Taking his most recent publications on ways to engage with the planet as a point of departure, this conversation with Bruno Latour considers some of the political and conceptual challenges associated with what he calls the New Climate Regime. Latour discusses the need for breaking with the modernist framework that set the stage for the environmental crisis in the first place, and which has also hindered the capacity of social movements to affect the situation. Latour argues that only a new body politic (inclusive of non-humans) and a new geosocial politics (attuned to Gaia) will open up the possibility for sustaining life on our severely damaged planet.