The collection of food recipes that I find encompassed under the term ‘Yucatecan gastronomy' is not an eclectic assortment of recipes drawn from different culinary traditions, but recipes that sprang from the co-existence, intersection, and blending of diverse culinary cultures in response to the food preferences of local people. At an early stage, domestic Yucatecan cooks and their nineteenth-and early-twentieth-century cookbooks displayed an all-embracing openness to international influences and included recipes from North American, European, Caribbean, and even Mexican cuisines. In their homes, cooks (primarily the female members of households) sought to appropriate dishes, ingredients, and recipes that confirmed them, their families, and their immediate circle of friends as cosmopolitan in orientation and intent. The display of culinary inclusiveness enhanced regional self-esteem, publicly showcasing the economic power and cultural cosmopolitanism, the sophistication and worldliness of the regional elites. However, their culinary practices did not yet amount to a regional gastronomic tradition in the contemporary sense of the term. Yucatecan ‘sophistication' was deployed against other regional cuisines. In Yucatán, as I show below, some dishes created by local cooks were chosen, gradually, to represent the cultural uniqueness of the region. Later on, during the twentieth century, they were gathered into a canonical collection of recipes, techniques, technology, ingredients, and eating etiquette that provided the ground for the invention and affirmation of a distinctive Yucatecan gastronomy. Many Yucatecans have progressively come to see the culinary field from which Yucatecan gastronomy emerged as the embodiment of regional culture and values and as fundamentally different from Mexican cuisine.
The creation of an imagined national Mexican community involved attempts to silence regional differences throughout the territory of the Mexican state. Yucatecans (as well as the inhabitants of other Mexican regions) were particularly active in forging a regional identity that would counter the homogenizing cultural policies of central Mexican society. As I will elaborate in chapter 1, during the two-centuries-long period that began with the independence of New Spain and of the colonial province of Yucatán from Spanish domination in 1821, central Mexican intellectuals and politicians were involved in the design and invention of a ‘modern' nation—Mexico. At the same time, Yucatecan intellectuals disputed whether Yucatán should join Mexico or remain a separate republic. Central Mexicans, in the meantime, launched the process of ideological homogenization of the country by imposing cultural icons that were primarily meaningful to the inhabitants of the central highlands over those favored by the inhabitants of the different regions (now states of a federal republic). Taking this historical context into account, I argue that, in practice, these symbolic impositions produced effects that translated into additional modes of subordination: the history of the region was politically converted into a minor episode in the grand narrative of the emergence of Mexico (Craib 2002; de Gortari Rabiela 1982; Florescano 2005; Gruzinski 2001; Tenorio Trillo 1998). Central Mexican institutions initiated maneuvers intended to ensure regional economic dependency on central institutions, and local powers were placed under the surveillance of the Mexican army (Campos García 2004). In consequence, regional cultural productions that differed from those established and promoted in central Mexico were dismissed as close-minded and parochial. However, during the period spanning from the second half of the nineteenth century to the beginning of the twentieth century, Yucatecan elites monopolized the production of henequen natural fiber, accumulating sufficient power to oppose central Mexican designs that they perceived as contrary to regional interests, while still maintaining political and economic negotiations with Porfirio Díaz's progress-oriented regimes (Alisky 1980; Baklanoff 1980; G. Joseph 1986; Wells 1982). As Vargas Cetina argues (2010a, 2010b), Yucatecan elites had accumulated both money and power, allowing them to affirm and disseminate their own cultural preferences as characteristic of Yucatecan society at large. Literature, music, and food became important markers during the invention of a Yucatecan regional identity that stood (and still stands) in opposition to Mexican culture.
The Regional Foodscape: Post-national and Post-colonial Configurations
Throughout this book, I examine how the historical and political divide between Yucatecan and Mexican culture is often played out in the cultural arena. Within this framework, food occupies a prominent position. As its identity (and difference) from other culinary forms is emphasized, it becomes a powerful marker in the recognition, inclusion, and exclusion of im/possible interlocutors in everyday forms of conviviality and commensality (Ayora-Diaz 2009). Yucatecans are particularly proud of local virtues, and hospitality is paramount among them. However, regionally, hospitality practices are often redefined and restructured in order to deal with unwanted guests. In chapters 1 and 3, drawing from Derrida (2000), I discuss how power relations pre-date and inscribe moral and political ambivalence into practices of hospitality in post-colonial society. In Yucatán, understandings of hospitality are continuously negotiated and revised to make comprehensible the shifting forms of Yucatecan-outsider interaction. It is in the context of a regional politics of identity grounded in the historical resistance to central Mexican society (and in the negotiation of local-national relations) that different codes of hospitality clash, are negotiated, and must be continuously revised and resignified.
Since the second half of the twentieth century, societies have witnessed different forms of articulation between the post-national and the post-colonial global conditions. The term ‘post-colonial' is loaded with ambiguity and has been criticized with regard to the temporal connotations of the prefix ‘post-' (McClintock 1992; Mignolo 1993; Shohat 1992). Here, following Young (2001), I understand post-colonial as a condition, not as the point in time of the demise of colonialism. That is, I see it as a stage for global transformations into new structures of economic imperialism and domination, as well as for the spawning of new forms of cultural colonialism that displace and replace direct forms of intervention and domination. In this sense, post-colonial critique seeks to deconstruct and denaturalize the subordinate location of regional and local cultures vis-à-vis the modern nation-state. It attempts to extricate the conceptual dichotomies that, on the one hand, harden and legitimize cultural colonial power and, on the other, limit our understanding of contemporary cultural hybridity and post-coloniality (Bhabha 1994; Patke 2006; Prakash 1992; Radhakrishnan 1993).
I am thus concerned with the ways in which the formation of the Mexican nation-state has relied on the design and deployment of pedagogic measures that sought and still seek to homogenize a highly culturally diverse territory, while concealing the persisting (and new) performative fractures that undermine the modern project of state formation.10 Thus, although I pay attention to the cultural colonialism implicit in the expansion of US fast-food franchises into the Yucatecan culinary field, along with other universalizing strategies of cultural homogenization and domination (such as the dissemination of French standards required for the recognition of haute cuisine), I privilege the analysis of the ways in which the invention of a national cuisine is interlocked with both voluntary and involuntary attempts to erase the culinary diversity within the Mexican nation-state.
In critiquing this form of cultural domination, I contend that it is necessary to take into account two overlapping dimensions that constitute the post-national order. On the one hand, we need to focus on what Habermas (2001) has identified as the ‘postnational constellation', that is, the supranational processes—such as NAFTA, the EU, and others that are more diffuse (being tied to the unimpeded power of corporations)—that have eroded the power of the