Teorías del comercio exterior.

84

Latinx critical race theory, also called LatCrit theory, has expanded the explorations of institutional systems of oppression beyond the black/white paradigm. These explorations acknowledge and analyze the many dimensions of Latinx experiences that include, but are not limited to, issues of immigration, citizenship, language, bilingual education, and discrimination based on skin color, or nationality (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012; Johnson, 2011; Trucios-Haynes, 2001). A group of Latinx legal scholars formally named “LatCrit” theory at a colloquium on Latinxs and critical race theory during the 1996 Hispanic National Bar Association’s annual meeting in Puerto Rico (Valdes, 1997). The following year, Francisco Valdes described the LatCrit theoretical development as an opportunity, open to scholars for investigation. Valdes presented a preliminary explanation of LatCrit theory as “the emerging field of legal scholarship that examines critically the social and legal positioning of Latinas/os, especially Latinas/os within the United States, to help rectify the shortcomings of existing social and legal conditions” (1997, p. 3). Twenty years after the development of LatCrit, it is still applied to current issues to explain the nuanced subordination and domination of Latinx people and other racialized peoples (Bender, 2016).

LatCrit theory focuses attention on the diversity and complexities of Latinx communities and can assist with the development of theories around Latinx identification and naming of racial and ethnic discrimination. As a tool to address socio-legal issues affecting Latinxs, LatCrit theory relies on four levels of operation. First, the production of critical knowledge advances understanding of the relationship between Latinxs and the law through historical and present day analyses of society and law as a starting point for further action (Valdes, 1997). Second, the advancement of substantive transformation prioritizes praxis as fundamental to LatCrit theory and is the practical movement of creating change to improve the lives of Latinxs.

85

Next, the connection of social, political, and economic struggle(s) recognizes the interconnected nature of oppression. LatCrit theory is not exclusively in service to Latinxs, but serves as a bridge to dismantle all forms of oppression (Valdes, 1997). Finally, the cultivation of scholarly community and coalition nurtures the connected network of intellectuals with interest and commitment to improving the law and society to eliminate oppression (Valdes, 1997).

Concepts, such as color-blindness and counterstorytelling, have been adopted by LatCrit theorists and expanded from critical race theory. Color-blindness is the systematic form of racial and ethnic discrimination that privileges Western, Eurocentric, white perspectives as normal and neutral. It is often expressed by someone saying, “I don’t see race,” “Race doesn’t matter,” or “We now live in a post-racial society.” A person who has or takes on a color-blind stance presumes all people are the same and should be treated the same, because race does not matter (Neville & Lilly, 2000). Education scholar Sheri A. Castro Atwater (2008) found that teachers rely on color-blindness as a philosophy in their relational, pedagogical, and curriculum

decisions because of perceived advantages or to prevent conflict or appearance of prejudice. By turning a blind eye to race, teachers and society in general are also unable to see racism and racial injustices. LatCrit theory expands color-blindness beyond the black/white paradigm to include the invisibility of ethnicity, nationality, citizenship, and language. A color-blind perspective addresses only the most obvious and visible forms of discrimination, but does not address institutional or systemic oppression. Color-blindness does not acknowledge the historical legacy of white social and political dominance. This legacy of dominance, or

hegemony, is perpetuated through the development and maintenance of color-blind policy and discriminatory local and federal governance. Racism becomes embedded in thought processes

86

and social structures and remains a part of the normalized, neutral ways society functions, keeping racialized communities in subordinate positions (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012).

Atwater outlined a historical context for color-blindness that cited its roots to the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson, when Justice John Marshall Harlan stated in his dissent,

The white race deems itself to be the dominant race in this country…But in view of the constitution, in the eyes of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens (Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896, as cited in Atwater, 2008, p. 246).

Legal scholars considered color-blindness to be a progressive approach to racism and bigotry, to promote equal treatment regardless of race and color (Atwater, 2008). LatCrit theory reveals the ways legal policy is complicit in ongoing oppression by not pointedly “seeing” race or

addressing racism (Bender, 2016). It also uses empowerment and voice as tools to name and dismantle the power of subordination and domination.

Empowerment and voice are realized through access to, creation, and sharing of counternarratives, or counterstories. Counterstories are writings and speech that challenge the validity of accepted truths, particularly those maintained by dominant communities (Delgado, 1989; Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). Information that has previously been accepted as truth is critically questioned and challenged through discovery and creation of counterstories. Counterstories challenge “majoritarian,” “monovocal,” “master,” or “standard” stories or

narratives that have been developed over time from a legacy of white privilege and are routinely accepted as natural stories of everyday, normal life (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002). Counterstories are developed as first-person accounts, recounts of another’s narrative, or composite stories combining various narratives that may include a social, political, and historical contextual

87

placement (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002). Counterstorytelling, a form of speech, is used as a method for sharing the stories of those in the margins, giving voice to those who have been traditionally and systematically silenced. It is used as a tool for analyzing and challenging stories of those in power and whose story is considered normal and neutral in the dominant discourse.

Pérez Huber (2009) detailed the way LatCrit theory utilizes testimonio, which emerged out of Latin American Studies as a form of documenting and narrating personal experiences of injustice and oppression. Through her research and collaborations with her research

participants, Pérez Huber expanded the definition of testimonio to “a verbal journey of a witness who speaks to reveal the racial, classed, gendered, and nativist injustices they have suffered as a means of healing, empowerment, and advocacy for a more humane present and future” (2009, p. 644). LatCrit theory, like CRT, has been applied as a theoretical and methodological framework in a variety of disciplines.