Moving Between Two Worlds Student Identity Negotiation in an Intercultural

Mexican Context

Rachel Taylor

Master’s Thesis International Development Studies

Graduate School of Social Science, University of Amsterdam

Student Number: 11570970

Thesis Supervisor: Dr. Rosanne Tromp

Second Reader: Dr. Courtney Vegelin

Email: retaylor394@gmail.com

Date: 4 July 2018

Word Count: 24,542

Abstract

In spite of changes to the Mexican constitution in 1991 recognizing the country as pluri-cultural

and the creation of the Intercultural University program in 2005, indigenous students are still

primarily taught using the national Mexican curriculum throughout their primary and secondary

schooling. Additionally, feelings of discrimination still exist amongst indigenous peoples in

Mexico. In opposition to many of students past schooling experiences, the Universidad

Intercultural Veracruzana looks to empower and uplift indigenous knowledges, languages, and

cultures. Extensive research exists surrounding the translation and enactment of the 2005 national

policy on the local level, but not regarding student identity negotiations due to this policy and its

translation. There is also plenty of research surrounding curricular impact on student identity

negotiation, but, much of this research occurs in the Global North. To address these knowledge

gaps, this study asks, how do the students at the university negotiate their cultural identity in

interaction with the university’s enacted curriculum? Through semi-structured interviews with

students and classroom observations at the Universidad Intercultural Veracruzana- Totonacapan

campus, this thesis examines how students negotiate their identities in the Mexican context where

interculturalism looks to reconcile and empower indigenous identities. This research finds, first,

that the intercultural curriculum at the university emphasizes cultural identity with particular

emphasis on indigenous and community identity. Second, students define their identity through

cultural associations, indigeneity, and community belonging. Third, students frequently re-

negotiate their cultural identities as they interact with the intercultural curriculum which opposes

many of their past experiences. Based on these findings, this thesis concludes that this re-

negotiation of cultural identity can lead to gaps between the students’ spoken interpretation and

acted translation of their identity. These findings imply that the empowerment of indigenous

identities in Mexico would need be incorporated into primary and secondary school curricula with

emphasis on indigenous knowledges, cultures, languages and ultimately, students’ cultural

identities.

Key Words: intercultural education; cultural identity; identity negotiation; indigenous; Mexico;

Veracruz; university

Acknowledgements

First, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Rosanne Tromp for the constant support and

motivation. This research would not have been possible without her connections or knowledge of

higher education in Mexico. Dr. Tromp’s guidance, extensive expertise, and wonderful feedback

helped me grow and learn so much from this process. This research also would not have been

possible without the support of my local supervisor in Mexico, Dr. Gunther Dietz. Dr. Dietz’s

support for my research and willingness to connect me with Universidad Veracruzana

Intercultural, Totonacapan Campus and always answer all of my questions was a source of

comfort while I was in-country and an incredible help to this study. I would also like to thank my

second reader, Dr. Courtney Vegelin for her readiness to support me and provide feedback.

My experience in Mexico was an incredible learning opportunity as well as a time for personal

growth. Many people locally made this possible. I want to thank the entire administration, staff,

and professors at the UVI-Totonacapan, where the research was conducted. This research would

not have been possible without them opening their classrooms (and homes) to me. The UVI

professors were extremely welcoming, always willing to talk and answer questions, and happily

connected me with most of my research participants. Their insight, hospitality, and

thoughtfulness made this an incredible experience. I want to especially thank Dr. Daisy Bernal

for showing me the Totonacapan region, sharing all of her knowledge and wisdom with me,

treating me as a colleague, and for becoming a dear friend.

I am incredibly grateful to the students of the UVI-Totonacapan. Beyond being participants in

my research, the students treated me as a friend. The students extended immense kindness to

show me around their communities and homes and open their hearts to me. I thank them for

participating, for learning with me, and for teaching me so much.

Living in a small town in extremely rural Veracruz, Mexico was daunting and would have been

much more difficult had I not found the family I stayed with. They included me in their meals,

their adventures, and their celebrations—making me feel safe and at home the entire time. They

were always willing to explain cultural differences, teach me how to do laundry by hand, and

gave me numerous rides to the distant bus station. I will forever be grateful for their hospitality

during a challenging 10 weeks.

Of course, I would also like to thank my family and loved ones, particularly my parents, Amy

and Joe Taylor, and my partner, Antonio Belmar, for answering every panicked phone call,

talking me through writer’s blocks, and supporting me every step of the way. I am extremely

grateful for their constant support.

Thank you all.

Rachel Taylor

July, 2018

Agradecimientos

Primero que todo, quiero agradecerle a mi supervisora, la Dra. Rosanne Tromp por el constante

apoyo y motivación. Este estudio no hubiese sido posible sin sus conexiones y conocimiento de

la educación superior en México. Su consejo, experticia extensa y maravillosa ayuda me ayudó a

crecer y aprender mucho del proceso. Este estudio tampoco hubiese sido posible sin el apoyo de

mi supervisor local en México, el Dr. Gunther Dietz. El apoyo del Dr. Dietz y su buena voluntad

de conectarme con la Universidad Veracruzana Intercultural, Sede Regional Totonacapan fue de

mucha ayuda y una fuente de confort mientras estuve dentro del país. También quisiera

agradecerle a la segunda lectora de mi tesis, la Dra. Courtney Vegelin por su apoyo y entusiasmo

de ayudarme y darme consejos.

Mi experiencia en México fue una increíble oportunidad de aprendizaje y también para mi

desarrollo personal. Mucha individuos de la comunidad local hizo que esto fuera posible. Quiero

agradecerle a la administración y los profesores en la UVI-Totonacapan, donde fue el estudio.

Este estudio no hubiese sido posible si ellos no hubiesen estado tan dispuestos a abrirme sus

aulas y sus hogares. Los profesores de la UVI me recibieron muy amablemente y siempre

estuvieron dispuestos a conversar conmigo y responder mis preguntas. Felizmente me conectaron

con muchos de los participantes en mi estudio. Su opinión, hospitalidad, y simpatía hicieron que

esta experiencia fuera increíble. Especialmente, quiero agradecerle a la Dra. Daisy Bernal por

enseñarme la región del Totonacapan y por compartir su conocimiento y sabiduría conmigo,

tratándome como una colega y por convertirse en una gran amiga.

Estoy increíblemente agradecida con todos los estudiantes de la UVI-Totonacapan. Además de

ser participantes de mi estudio, los estudiantes me trataron como una amiga. Los estudiantes me

trataron con mucha amabilidad y me enseñaron sus comunidades y hogares abiertamente y me

abrieron sus corazones. Les agradezco por participar, aprender conmigo y por enseñarme tanto.

Vivir en un pueblo pequeño en la parte rural de Veracruz, México fue intimidante y hubiese sido

mucho más difícil si no hubiese encontrado a la familia con la que estuve viviendo. Ellos me

invitaron a compartir sus comidas, sus aventuras y sus celebraciones, haciéndome sentir segura y

como en casa durante mi estadía completa. Ellos siempre estuvieron ahí para explicarme las

diferencias culturales y enseñarme como lavar mi ropa a mano. Además, me llevaron varias

veces a la lejana estación de bus. Estaré para siempre agradecida por su hospitalidad durante las

10 semanas.

Por supuesto, también quiero agradecerle, a mi familia y a mi gente querida, en especial a Amy y

Joe Taylor y a mi pareja, Antonio Belmar, por responder cada llamada de teléfono, apoyarme

durante los momentos difíciles, y ayudarme en cada paso del camino. Estoy extremadamente

agradecida por su constante apoyo.

Gracias a todos.

Rachel Taylor

Julio, 2018

Table of Contents

LIST OF ACRONYMS.................................................................................................................................................. 1

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 2

1.1 RESEARCH AIM AND RELEVANCE ................................................................................................................ 3 1.2 RESEARCH QUESTION AND SUB-QUESTIONS ............................................................................................... 5 1.3 CHAPTER OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................... 5

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK........................................................................................................................ 6

2.1 IDENTITY .............................................................................................................................................................. 6 Cultural/Ethnic/Indigenous Identity ..................................................................................................................... 7

2.2 CURRICULUM: ENACTMENT-INTERPRETATION-TRANSLATION IN CONTEXT ...................................................... 11 Context ................................................................................................................................................................ 12

2.3 CONCEPTUAL SCHEME ....................................................................................................................................... 13 2.4 OPERATIONALIZATION ....................................................................................................................................... 15

3. RESEARCH DESIGN........................................................................................................................................ 21

3.1 METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH .......................................................................................................................... 21 3.2 ANTHROPOLOGICAL EDUCATION PERSPECTIVE ................................................................................................. 21 3.3 RESEARCH LOCATION ........................................................................................................................................ 22 3.4 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................................................. 25

Semi-Structured Interviews ................................................................................................................................ 25 Student Observations: Classroom, Community, and Visual .............................................................................. 26 Document Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 27

3.5 SAMPLING CRITERIA AND STRATEGIES .............................................................................................................. 27 3.6 DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................................ 28 3.7 LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................................................................................... 31 3.8 ETHICS AND ETHICAL REFLECTION .................................................................................................................... 32 3.9 METHODOLOGICAL REFLECTION........................................................................................................................ 34

4. CONTEXT AND HISTORY: MEXICO............................................................................................................ 37

4.1 INDIGENOUS HISTORY ........................................................................................................................................ 37 4.2 EDUCATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 38 4.3 INDIGENOUS EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................... 39 4.4 EDUCATION AND THE 1990’S ............................................................................................................................. 41

5. CONTEXT AND HISTORY: VERACRUZ AND TOTONACAPAN ............................................................. 43

5.1 REGIONAL HISTORY ........................................................................................................................................... 45 5.2 UNIVERSIDAD INTERCULTURAL VERACRUZANA................................................................................................ 46

External and Situated Contexts .......................................................................................................................... 46

6. CURRICULUM: CULTURAL IDENTITY ...................................................................................................... 52

6.1 CURRICULUM: COMMUNITY IDENTITY ............................................................................................................... 52 6.2 CURRICULUM: INDIGENOUS IDENTITY ............................................................................................................... 55

7. STUDENT DEFINITION OF IDENTITY ........................................................................................................ 57

8. RE-NEGOTIATION OF IDENTITY AMONGST STUDENTS ....................................................................... 61

9. INTERPRETATION AND TRANSLATION ................................................................................................... 64

9.1 ENACTMENT—INTERPRETATION—TRANSLATION............................................................................................. 64 9.2 GAPS BETWEEN INTERPRETATION AND TRANSLATION ...................................................................................... 65

10. NEGOTIATING BETWEEN TWO WORLDS ............................................................................................ 70

11. CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................................. 72

11.1 THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTION ......................................................................................................................... 73 11.2 CONCEPTUAL REFLECTION............................................................................................................................... 74 11.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POLICY AND PRACTICE ............................................................................................ 76

LITERATURE LIST .................................................................................................................................................... 79

ANNEX A .................................................................................................................................................................... 85

ANNEX B .................................................................................................................................................................... 89

ANNEX C .................................................................................................................................................................... 92

Taylor 1

List of Acronyms

Acronym Term Translation (if needed)

CNTE Coordinadora Nacional de

Trabajadores de la

Educación

National Coordination of

Education Workers

GCIBE Coordinación General de

Educación Intercultural y

Bilingüe (CGEIB)

General Coordination for

Intercultural and Bilingual

Education

LGID Licenciatura en Gestión

Intercultural para el

Desarrollo

Bachelor’s in Intercultural

Management for

Development

LDEPLUJ Licenciatura en Derecho con

enfoque de Pluralismo

Jurídico

Bachelor’s in Law with a

focus on Legal Pluralism

PRI Partido Revolucionario

Institucional

Institutional Revolutionary

Party

SNTE Sindicato Nacional de

Trabajadores de la Educación

National Union of Education

Workers

UVI Universidad Intercultural

Veracruzana

Intercultural University of

Veracruz

Taylor 2

1. Introduction

“The living conditions of the indigenous peoples have historically

been below the national standards, which implies high indexes of

marginalization manifested in different areas: educational, social,

economic, cultural and health. It has been seen that the

deterioration of indigenous cultures has been due largely to

exogenous processes supported by one-dimensional discourses:

from Conquest and Colonization to the structuring and expansion of

the nation-state and globalization.” -Universidad Veracruzana

Intercultural (2007)1

Globally indigenous students tend to have higher drop-out rates, are under-represented in higher

education, and have fewer graduates in professional careers (Jacob et al., 2015, 6). In the case of

Mexico, scholars often cite the causes of these statistics as the historical assimilation education

policies (Jacob et al., 2015, 6), the low quality and under-funding of indigenous schools, higher

poverty levels among indigenous peoples, the neglect of indigenous languages both in and out of

schools, and the rural location of many indigenous communities (Hernandez-Zavala et al., 2006,

3). In Mexico, the average student from an indigenous region typically completes three years of

schooling while students from non-indigenous regions complete eight year and indigenous

students have much lower test scores in Spanish due to having an indigenous language as their

first language, not Spanish (Hernandez-Zavala et al., 2006, 3). All of these different barriers to

education, as well as the curriculums themselves, can impact students’ self-perception and identity

negotiation as they grow up. Typically, indigenous knowledge is not included in mainstream

education systems which can be damaging to indigenous students’ understanding and identity

formation surrounding their culture and practice (Jacob et al., 2015, 6).

Mexico is a unique case in Latin America with regards to its intercultural education

university program which is mainly due to its history of indigenous rebellion and the San Andres

Agreements in 1996. The above quote comes from the curriculum of one of these universities. The

Universidad Veracruzana Intercultural (UVI) is the intercultural university for the state of

Veracruz. This university attempts to broaden the discourse within and around indigenous cultures,

languages, and knowledges, aiming to empower and value indigenous peoples and communities

1 Plan de Estudios, LGID: 13

Taylor 3

in Mexico. My research focuses on the students of the UVI and how they enact the curriculum and

what identity negotiation processes take place within the students as they conduct this enactment.

1.1 Research Aim and Relevance

The aforementioned past exclusion of indigenous knowledge and assimilation programs through

curriculum are part of the reason the General Coordination for Intercultural and Bilingual

Education2 (GCIBE) and the intercultural university program were created in Mexico. The creation

of the intercultural university program and subsequently the UVI in Veracruz has been applauded

as providing empowering and accessible higher education to indigenous students (Fierro and Rojo

Pons, 2012: 118). How this program has been translated from the national level to the local level,

and education policy translation in general, has been covered extensively by scholars3. Dietz and

Mateos Cortés (2012, 2016, 2017) in particular, focus on how national ideas and policies are

translated and enacted on the local level at the UVI, particularly focusing on teachers and the role

they play as actors in the university. On the global and national levels, there is an understanding

of intercultural education as important to open the minds of the majority group to different and

diverse cultures, peoples, and knowledges, it is not based on the needs of the minority (Dietz and

Mateos Cortés, 2017, 30). On the contrary, on the local level in Mexico, indigenous groups view

intercultural education as addressing their needs, being a tool for empowerment, recognition, and

community building (De la Peña, 2006, 282). These differences between national policy and local

practice appear in a variety of ways, such as in local curriculum, in teacher enactment of the

curriculum in daily practice, but also in how students enact, interpret, and translate the curriculum.

While significant research has been conducted on local curriculum translation and teacher

enactment of curriculums and the impacts of this, there is an academic gap in the research on

student enactment of curriculum, particularly when looking at student enactment of an intercultural

curriculum.

In addition to this academic gap regarding students’ curricular enactment, there is also a

gap around identity negotiation. Research on the impacts of intercultural and multicultural

2 Website: http://eib.sep.gob.mx 3 See: Curiel Landa (2017), Dietz and Mateos Cortés (2012, 2016, 2017), Fierro and Rojo Pons (2012), Schmal

(2014), and Schmelkes (2003, 2008).

Taylor 4

education on identity does indeed exist, however; the majority of this research is conducted in the

Global North (Dietz and Mateos Cortés 2017: 30). Ideas of multicultural education are not new,

much of the Global North is also moving in this direction (Dietz and Mateos Cortés 2017: 30),

however; the meaning placed on multiculturalism is often very different from the meaning used

by indigenous groups. As Dietz and Mateos Cortés (2017) explain, “an urgency to develop an

intercultural education is perceived [by education policy makers] as well, but not based on the

minorities’ identity needs, but on the apparent inability of the majority society to meet the new

challenges posed by the heterogeneity of students, by the growing socio-cultural complexity” (30).

Therefore, much of the identity negotiation research surrounding intercultural education has been

focused on an education system which emphasizes teaching majority students about other cultures,

discrimination, and racism. Meanwhile, in Mexico, intercultural education represents overcoming

historical discrimination and empowering indigenous knowledges, languages, and practices. This

is a completely different meaning which may have different impacts on indigenous students

identity than that of the system being used in Europe and its impacts on European students.

Beyond this scholarly gap, there is societal value to understanding student enactment of

intercultural curricula and their identity negotiation processes. The indigenous experience in

Mexico, from colonialism through present day is similar to indigenous experiences throughout

Latin America. The intercultural university system in Mexico is the first of its kind in the country,

therefore it holds great potential for the local indigenous communities, the national community, as

well as indigenous communities across Latin America who have faced similar struggles. Latin

American countries are beginning to shift towards intercultural and bilingual education systems

and could use Mexico as a resource for the process. Therefore, it is valuable to understand the

identity negotiation processes students undergo as they enact, interpret, and translate the unique

intercultural curriculum, particularly if this model is going to be replicated in other countries.

Understanding the impact of the intercultural university on students and their identity negotiations

is also beneficial to future Mexican education policy, in order to create stronger and more relevant

policies and curricula.

My research steps into these academic and societal gaps and conversations regarding

student identity negotiation, policy enactment, and intercultural education by focusing on the

students themselves. In many of the same ways that teachers enact, interpret, and translate

curriculums, students do the same. Thus, the question arises, how do students negotiate their

Taylor 5

identity while enacting this intercultural program which seeks to empower their cultural identity?

This is the phenomenon I seek to understand and the gap I seek to fill in the academic and societal

conversation; how students are negotiating their identities as they interact with the curriculum, in

the context of the Totonacapan region and the UVI.

1.2 Research Question and Sub-Questions

How do students at the Universidad Veracruzana Intercultural (UVI), Sede Regional

Totonacapan, negotiate their cultural identity while enacting the university’s curriculum?

Sub-Questions:

• How do these identity negotiations differ within the student: internally, externally, and

nationally?

• How does the UVI curriculum present cultural identity?

• What aspects of the students’ identity’s does the UVI curriculum emphasize?

• How do students themselves define the concept of identity?

• Which identity interpretations emerge in the negotiations as a result of students’ enactment

of the UVI curriculum?

• What identity translations emerge in the negotiations as a result of students’ enactment of

the UVI curriculum?

1.3 Chapter Overview

Following this introduction, I will discuss the theoretical basis for this research as well as the

conceptual scheme that the research is based on. In the research design chapter, I will thoroughly

explain the theoretical background for the research design, the methodology used, and reflect on

the methods and ethics of the research. Additionally, I will discuss how the data analysis was

conducted. In the empirical discussion I will discuss the main themes that emerged from the data

in relation to the main research question and sub-questions. This will lead to the conclusion which

will include a discussion of the main research question, suggestions for further research, and a

theoretical reflection.

Taylor 6

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1 Identity

I studied the process of student identity negotiation as they interacted with the curriculum at the

UVI. First and foremost, it was important to determine how I am defining identity, which is an

ongoing scholarly debate. The main debate is around whether identity is something determined by

others or something people decide for themselves. The issue here is whether identity needs to be

attached to a group or an official recognition or whether it can be something individuals decide.

Taylor (1994) claims that identity is based on what separates people from other groups. Hall (1996)

agrees with this, emphasizing that identity is “the product of marking difference and exclusion”

and as such is something constructed based on othering and differences (4). However, Hall (1996),

takes this further and argues that identity is a blend of both an individual’s personal decision and

the label determined by others. On the other hand, Apple (2001) contends that identity is related

to membership in a particular group. I strongly agree with Jacob et al.’s (2015) definition, a

combination of all of the prior definitions stating; “identity is an ongoing process to identify

selfhood and exclude others. Moreover, identity is dynamic and multiple constructed rather than

permanent and individual. Finally, the process of recognition and misrecognition is based on power

and exclusion” (383). This definition encompasses the most important aspect of identity; it is not

fixed. Identity is constantly developing, changing, and being negotiated. Additionally, identity is

both a process of defining oneself as an individual and defining oneself as a member of a particular

group which excludes others.

“Power and exclusion” (383) are also important to consider when thinking about

marginalized groups and their histories of forced assimilation or exclusion. Throughout history

marginalized groups have been identified (and mis-identified) and excluded by those in power,

therefore it is important to recognize that identity cannot be a label completely determined by

others, this gives too much power to majority groups. Instead, I agree with Dilg (1999), that

identity is a process of self-determination and self-recognition, an internal process whereby a

person affiliates themselves with a specific group (22). While society does label people with

identities and those may impact how people self-identify, ultimately each person constructs and

determines their own identity. It is important to acknowledge that even if identity is a self-

determined process, it can still evolve and be negotiated.

Taylor 7

Hall (1997) explains the discursive approach to identity, which I used in my research. This

approach emphasizes that identity is an ongoing and ever-changing process (Apple 2001), one

which students at the UVI are constantly negotiating; inwardly, outwardly, and within their own

community. This discursive approach ties students’ identity negotiation to their educational

experience at the UVI because Hall (1997) argues that the approach focuses on, “how the

knowledge which a particular discourse produces connects with power, regulates conducts, makes

up or constructs identities and subjectivities” (6). The intercultural educational discourse occurring

at the UVI differs from the mainstream primary and secondary education systems in Mexico. As

Hall (1997) further argues, “identities are constructed within, not outside, discourse, we need to

understand them as produced in specific historical and institutional sites within specific discursive

formations and practices” (4). Therefore, the institutional discourse within the UVI, the

knowledges being taught and produced, may cause students to re-negotiate their identities,

particularly their cultural identities because of the emphasis on empowering indigenous

knowledge. This approach allows for examination of identity negotiation processes and focuses

on the impact knowledge and discourse can have on identity negotiation.

Cultural/Ethnic/Indigenous Identity

The next important debate around identity, for this research, is how to define cultural, ethnic, and

indigenous identity, whether or not they are all the same, and who gets to define these and label

themselves as such. The first piece is cultural identity; Green (1994) defines cultural identity by

stating that it, “gives the individual a sense of common past and of a shared destiny” (7). However,

Weaver (2001) argues that identity cannot simply be cultural, instead it is always a mix of “race,

class, education, region, religion, and gender” (240). Re (2013) agrees that identity cannot be

cultural, instead arguing that identity is an abstract and subjective idea while culture is something

concrete (36). Re (2013) argues that both are their own processes, however; they are related in

that, “culture and identity are linked processes but with different reproduction and transformation”

(37). Jacob et al. (2015) disagrees with Weaver (2001) and Re (2013), instead stating that cultural

identity is a broad category under which aspects such as indigenous identity can fall. Weaver

(2001) and Re (2013) make valid arguments that identity is so much more than just cultural and

that it is something abstract, however; when using the definition of identity as a way of defining

Taylor 8

oneself against other groups, cultural identity can be a subsection of identity. Meaning, a person

can self-identify or self-affiliate with a group based on its cultural practices. This is where the

following aspect of cultural identity becomes important; the idea that a person can have multiple

cultural identities. Oetting and Beauvais (1991) explain that a person can identify with a specific

culture and this identification does not lessen identifying with any number of other cultures (cited

in: Weaver, 2001: 249). Beyond cultural identity, a person can have multiple aspects of their

identity and none of those aspects take away from the other.

In addition to cultural identity, there is a debate surrounding ethnic identity. It is important

to recognize that neither cultural nor ethnic identity are something assigned based on physical

appearance, instead both are self-determined (Weaver, 2001, 250). Beyond physical appearance, I

argue that cultural and ethnic identity are not based on one’s ability to speak the language, one’s

practicing of the traditions, customs, or religion. Instead, cultural and ethnic identity are based on

one’s self-identification as such. This is particularly poignant when thinking about indigenous

groups because their cultural identities, knowledges, languages, etc. have been minimized and

destroyed over decades. As a result, there exist people who may not look like the assumed image

of a particular culture or may not speak that culture’s language due to the domination of the

majority culture, but still identify with that culture.

Jacob et al. (2015) uses the terms ethnic and cultural identity as somewhat interchangeable

and cites Phinney (1992: 156) to define ethnic identity as, “part of an individual’s self-concept that

derives from his or her knowledge of membership in a social group (or groups) together with the

value and emotional significance attached to that membership” (384). The connection between

cultural and ethnic identity is understandable, often times these groups overlap in terms of religion,

traditions, language, and so on (ibid.: 384). Phinney (1990) gives a nice overview of the debate

surrounding the definition of ethnic identity, pointing out that some scholars agree with Jacobs et

al. (2015) that ethnic identity is the cultural aspect of identity (500)4. However, many scholars do

not agree, instead pointing to a variety of aspects which make up ethnic identity. According to

Phinney (1990):

4 Phinney (1990) cites Rogler, Cooney, & Ortiz, 1980 as scholars who define ethnic identity through culture (500).

Taylor 9

“Some writers considered self-identification the key aspect; others

emphasized feelings of belonging and commitment (Singh, 1977;

Ting-Toomey, 1981; Tzuriel & Klein, 1977), the sense of shared

values and attitudes (White & Burke, 1987, p. 311), or attitudes

toward one's group (e.g., Parham & Helms, 1981; Teske & Nelson,

1973)” (500).

Nagel (1994) argues that ethnicity is made up of smaller aspects such as, “language, religion,

culture, appearance, ancestry, or regionality” (153). Here Nagel (1994) is arguing instead that

culture and even identity, both self-defined and defined by others instead make up ethnicity.

Ethnicity is a combination of these shared aspects and self-identification as part of a group.

In addition to cultural and ethnic identity, indigenous identity is also an important piece of

this debate. First and foremost, I agree with Weaver (2001) that it is misrepresentative to “assume

that all indigenous people experience a Native cultural identity in the same way just because they

were born into a native community” (243). This is important in my research because even if

students identify as indigenous, or I classify them as such, this does not automatically indicate that

this identity means the same to each participant and that they have lived the same experiences.

Identity is still a personal experience, process, and while it includes a feeling of belonging to a

particular group, indigenous groups cannot be assumed to be the same and each person within

these groups is not either.

Jacob et al. (2015) argues that indigenous identity is “a kind of cultural identity and would

be reflected in the values, belief, and worldviews of indigenous people” (384). Meanwhile, Weaver

(2001) defines indigenous identity as a process of self-identification, community identification,

and external identification. Weaver (2001) argues that “there is some level of choice involved in

accepting a Native identity” (244). Due to the nature of many indigenous practices, Weaver (2001)

argues that indigenous identity is also community driven, “connected to a sense of peoplehood

inseparably linked to sacred traditions, traditional homelands, and a shared history as indigenous

people” (245). Ultimately, Weaver (2001) and Jacob et al. (2015) agree on this breakdown of

indigenous identity because Jacob et al. (2015) separates indigenous identity into three sub-

categories: individual, community, and external identity (385). Individual identity points to self-

perception, however; this self-perception may be impacted by external factors, including

Taylor 10

education, life experiences, gender, race, and so on (ibid.: 385). Community identity is a perception

of belonging to a particular group; typically, the group has its own cultural practices, traditions,

and shared history (ibid.: 386). Community identity can also be understood to be the collective

identity of a group. Finally, external identity is the identity one portrays outwardly or is often

defined by, oftentimes this is the aspect of identity that can be exclusive to outsiders and create a

sense of belonging (ibid.: 387).

Identity is a complex debate with scholars debating on its meaning and subsets over many

years. Ultimately identity is a multi-layered intersection of self-identification, feelings of

belonging and othering, culture, ethnicity, language, religion, and much more. For the purposes of

my research, I focused on indigenous identity as a subset of cultural identity, agreeing with Nagel

(1994) that ethnicity is also constructed, but is different from identity. In order to better focus on

indigenous identity, I used Jacob et al.’s (2015) sub-categories: individual, community, and

external; however, I also added national identity as a sub-category. These sub-categories were the

markers of which interview and focus group questions were based on throughout the research.

Due to the history of indigenous peoples in Mexico I felt it was crucial to include national

identity as a component of indigenous identity. Up until the 1990s the national policy in Mexico

towards indigenous peoples was one of assimilation. Indigenous identity was supposed to be

forgotten and indigenous peoples were expected to assimilate into the national Mexican identity

(Re 2013). The 1990s and subsequent decades have changed this stance and programs like the

intercultural university program have begun to recognize and empower indigenous identity and

knowledge. Therefore, the relationship between indigenous identity and national identity was

extremely important to include. Re (2013) explains that national identity has existed since

civilizations began to draw territorial lines and differentiate themselves (50). National identity and

nationalism are concepts that have been thoroughly discussed by a myriad of scholars. Gutiérrez

and Núñez (1998), while discussing national identity in Mexico, define it as, “the identification

that citizens in the nation-state make of themselves” (82). Continuing, they argue that national

identity is backed by institutional support from the nation and the borders that create the nation

(83), in this sense Gutiérrez and Núñez (1998) seem to argue that national identity is mainly

something geographical that is then supported by the government. They go on to state that this

national identity unifies people within the country and creates a united set of beliefs and loyalties

(83). Gall (2004) states that national identity is “constituted by the definition of the collective I,

Taylor 11

the national we…in front of other nation-states as well as inside” (234). These concepts of national

identity point to a feeling of belonging to the larger nation state, with a national rhetoric that is

created by the institution of the state itself.

2.2 Curriculum: Enactment-Interpretation-Translation in Context

Many scholars write about policy enactment in education; what this looks like, what influences

enactment, and whether policy enactment is a process or a moment. Enactment is an important

piece of my research because I am taking this scholarly discussion around enactment and applying

it to the students at the UVI. First, it is important to understand the debate around enactment,

interpretation, and translation. The main divide among scholars is whether policy enactment

includes interpretation and translation, or whether interpretation and translation are something

done separately but simultaneously to enactment. Braun et al. (2011) argue that enactment includes

interpretation and translation, stating, “policy enactment involves creative processes of

interpretation and translation, that is, the recontextualization” (586). The argument here is that the

entire process of enactment includes interpretation of the policy, translation of the policy, and the

end product is a recontextualization of said policy—in the context of the school it is enacted in.

However, Ball, Maguire, and Braun (2012) phrase their discussion by placing enactment and

interpretation next to each other, as separate processes (10). The authors state, “…different

individuals and groups of actors interpret and enact policy in specific contexts…” (11). This

example shows how Ball et al. (2012) actually places enactment and interpretation side by side

instead of together in one process.

It is also key to recognize that much of the scholarly debate around policy enactment

focuses on the school or the teacher enactment-interpretation-translation process. In fact, Ball et

al. (2012) views students as the “copers and defenders who are at the receiving end of policy in

classrooms and corridors” (8). This argument ignores the possibility students have to go through

their own process of enactment-interpretation-translation of the curriculum they are being

presented. Granted, because this curriculum has already been adopted from policy and further

adopted by the teachers themselves, it may already be an enacted-interpreted-translated curriculum

that students are experiencing; but, students are still key actors who continue this process even

further.

Taylor 12

Based on the scholarly discussion surrounding policy enactment, for this research I define

enactment as the interaction with the curriculum. This can mean, attending class, participating in

class, work produced, activities, attending field trips, etc. Interpretation is the spoken discourse of

the students, how they verbally interpret and adopt the curriculum after enacting it. Translation is

understood to be practice, how students put the enacted and interpreted curriculum into practice in

their daily lives. However, this is not to argue that the process is a one-directional flow and

translation can only come after interpretation, all three pieces can occur simultaneously or out of

order, other than the moment of first enactment of the curriculum by the students. This will be

discussed further in the theoretical reflection (Section 11.1) of the conclusion.

Context

The previous discussion regarding enactment-interpretation-translation needs to be understood

through the lens of context. Braun et al. (2011) argue the importance of context in enactment

research. Due to the the diverse realities that policies are enacted in, the contextual lens allows

understanding of the impact context has on the enacted policy. This point is crucial to my research

because the intercultural education policy is being enacted in the unique context of Mexico,

Veracruz, and even the Totonacapan region—each of these layers bring a different contextual lens

to the enactment of the curriculum. Braun et al. (2011) break context into four dimensions: situated,

professional, material, and external (588), which will be discussed further in Section 5.2.

This contextual lens for studying national intercultural education policy and the role of

outside entities in the UVI helped me understand how the university arrived at the curriculum that

is currently being enacted. Additionally, Braun et al. (2011) discuss how policy discourse plays

out in visual representations within schools. These visual representations, such as curriculums,

school policy and handbooks, and even posters on the walls of the institutions can represent the

interpretation and translation of policy discourses, or as Braun et al. (2011) state, they are “carriers

of discourse” (598). These textual and visual representations can create a common understanding

among participants in the university (students, teachers, and administrators) of what the university

and learning environment should look like. These “carriers of discourse” create the standards,

goals, and ideals for the university. Textual and visual representations of these standards provide

a window into how the curriculum is being enacted within the institution.

Taylor 13

Braun et al. (2011) mainly focus on “carriers of discourse” that originate from an

institutional level. However, student coursework and presentations can also represent the discourse

students have around the concept of intercultural education, the curriculum, and the broader

policies behind this curriculum. Students’ coursework is their own interaction with the curriculum

and a form of enactment; it can be understood as a visual representation of how students think of

their indigenous identity in relation to (and interaction with) the curriculum. Examining students’

work will be beneficial to reaching the pragmatic dimension of the theory, how students interact

with the curriculum.

2.3 Conceptual Scheme

Based on the previous theory, the conceptual schemes for this research are as follows:

Rachel Taylor (2018) based on Hall (1997) and Braun et al. (2011)

Taylor 14

Rachel Taylor (2018) based on Jacob et al. (2015) and Weaver (2001)

The first conceptual scheme represents the fluidity of the student identity negotiation and re-

negotiation process. This scheme demonstrates the continuum of identity and the important

aspects that make-up the negotiation process. Student cultural identity negotiation is not just based

on context; therefore, it was important to me to demonstrate the role curriculum and culture play

in the identity continuum, along with context. Curriculum meaning the UVI’s particular

curriculum and culture meaning the culture the students are raised in—whether that be their home,

community, or nationally. The students’ own culture that they identify with plays a role in their

subsequent identity negotiation process when they encounter and enact the UVI curriculum.

The arrows between the boxes represent the students’ interpretation of the curriculum. The

idea is that students enact the curriculum and then interpret it together with their own context,

cultural background, and identity. The two arrows leaving the diagram (one pointing up and one

pointing down) represent the translation of this interpretation, by the students. This entire process

is the process of identity negotiation (and re-negotiation), represented by the circle around the

Taylor 15

diagram. The identity continuum concept is based on Hall’s (1997) discursive approach to identity,

seeing it as something continuous and fluid (See: Section 2.1).

The second conceptual scheme demonstrates the fluidity of the different contexts or worlds

that the students negotiate their identities through. The levels included here represent a blend of

different scholar’s identity theories as discussed in Section 2.1. The framework uses a modified

representation of Jacob et al.’s (2015) sub-categories of indigenous identity: individual,

community, and external (385). The scheme modifies these sub-categories to include Weaver’s

(2001) understanding of the sub-categories of indigenous identity as well. Additionally, I take the

sub-categories the scholars use for indigenous identity and apply them to cultural identity because

not every student I interviewed self-identified as indigenous, therefore, I focused on overall

cultural identity using the individual, community, and external levels. I added the level of the UVI

because this serves as another context that students negotiate their identities within and another

context that they must move between.

The student is located at the center of the framework with their current context of the UVI

being the first ring because it is currently the context they are operating in on a daily basis and the

context that I interviewed and observed them in. Following this is their community context and

their national context. While Jacob et al. (2015) and Weaver (2001) do not include national as a

sub-category, I decided to change external to national because of the political and historical context

of Mexico. National identity and the national context are extremely important for indigenous

groups in Mexico, therefore it was important to include this as another level that students negotiate

their identities in. I was able to gather limited observations of the students in the community level,

but national was not a level I was able to observe the students in. However, it is still an important

aspect of their identity that cannot be forgotten. Additionally, I included the arrow in the scheme

because many students discussed their feelings of having to move amongst these different levels

or worlds, with different aspects of their cultural identity emerging based on the context. The arrow

represents this movement among levels as well as the fluidity of both the students’ identity and

their negotiations.

2.4 Operationalization

Taylor 16

The operationalization of the research question and major concepts can be seen in the table below.

The three main concepts for this research are intercultural education, curricular enactment (by

students), and identity. These concepts can then be broken into further dimensions and variables,

as seen below. The operationalization follows the anthropological education approach, flowing

from the definition of intercultural education, to the context it is being enacted in by the students,

to their interpretations and translations of this curriculum. Throughout the enactment,

interpretation, and translation process, identity negotiation is occurring. The operationalization of

curricular enactment uses Ball, et al.’s (2012) analysis through the lens of context as well as Braun

et al.’s (2011) analysis of enactment, interpretation, and translation. The dimensions and variables

used to operationalize identity stem from Weaver (2001) and Jacob, et al.’s (2015) sub-categories

of indigenous identity and my earlier discussion regarding cultural identity.

Concept Dimension Variable Indicators/

Questions

Education Intercultural

Education

Presence of

intercultural

education style

Diverse and inclusive

curriculum

(includes community

and community

service)

Region specific

curriculum (built by

community)

Local teachers

Context: UVI

institution definition

of intercultural

education emerges

“Post-indigenismo”

discourse

San Andres

Agreements

Taylor 17

from context Local indigenous

population and

history

UVI history

Curriculum

(students)

Enactment Interaction with the

curriculum

Attending and

participating in class,

assignments,

attending events, etc.

Interpretation Spoken Discourse Incorporation of UVI

curriculum discourse

around cultural

identity (or rejection

of this discourse)

Spoken belief in

traditional indigenous

culture: language,

dress, values,

knowledges, etc.

Translation Practice Incorporation of UVI

curriculum discourse

around cultural

identity into daily

practice (or rejection

of this)

Re-valuing of

traditional indigenous

culture through

Taylor 18

practice

Incorporation of

traditional culture

through language,

dress, use of

knowledge, use of

customs/practices,

etc. in daily practice

Identity

Identity Negotiation Internally Adoption (or

rejection) of

mainstream culture

values, and norms

Learning of Spanish,

rejection of

indigenous language

(or the opposite)

Increased (or

decreased) interest in

and learning about

indigenous culture

Externally Participation (or

rejection of

participation) in

indigenous

community rituals,

events, and traditions

Taylor 19

Learning of non-

indigenous religious

practices, cultural

norms, and traditions

Type of clothing used

(traditional culture or

non-cultural)

Speaking of Spanish

or speaking of

indigenous language

Nationally Outward portrayals of

belonging to a

national group

Exclusion or

inclusion of non-

national group

Cultural Identity Indigenous Identity Self-identification as

belonging to an

indigenous group

Community

identification of

belonging, by the

individual and by the

community

(including: cultural

practices, traditions,

shared history)

Taylor 20

Outward portrayals of

culture, traditions,

practices, etc. in

community and

known areas

Outward portrayals

(or lack thereof) of

culture, traditions,

practices, etc.

nationally—

irrespective of

location

Taylor 21

3. Research Design

3.1 Methodological Approach

The methodological approach for my research design was as follows: anthropological education

perspective is the overarching umbrella. The context of Veracruz (and more specifically, the

Totonacapan region) were the smaller umbrella under which intercultural education is examined.

Using pragmatic hermeneutics, I examined how the specific institution of UVI in Veracruz (with

its own context as well) puts intercultural education into practice at the Totonacapan campus. This

required examining the syntactic (Dietz and Mateos Cortés, 2012, 420) dimension: the university

institution, particularly curriculum enactment. Using pragmatic hermeneutics, I also examined

how students take the context of the UVI and their interactions with the curriculum and put it into

practice with their own identity negotiations. This required looking at the semantic dimension

(Dietz and Mateos Cortés, 2012, 420): the students; how they negotiated and practiced their

identities and what identity formation processes occurred as a result of these curricular

interactions. Finally, I looked at the pragmatic dimension: the interaction between the institution

and the students, how the institution put the curriculum into practice and subsequently how

students interacted with this curriculum.

3.2 Anthropological Education Perspective

In order to analyze the intercultural curriculum at the UVI and subsequently how students negotiate

their identity as they interact with the curriculum, I used the anthropological education perspective.

The perspective presented by Dietz and Mateos Cortés (2012) is based on the theory of Vertovec

(2007) who argues that anthropological theory regarding multiculturalism needs to mimic the

approach taken to studying migration (969). Meaning, the study of multiculturalism needs to

include, “a range of contextual constraints, historical trajectories, group variables, institutionalized

practices and possible paths of individual or collective action” (969). Dietz and Mateos Cortés

(2012) take this postulation and use the anthropological education perspective to analyze

intercultural education (412). Vertovec’s (2007) anthropological theory is necessary to analyze

intercultural education because this style of education does not exist in a vacuum, especially not

Taylor 22

in Mexico. Intercultural education is embedded in its context, the very curriculum arises from the

context its being taught in. Therefore, the anthropological education perspective is important

because it allowed me to examine how the students’ negotiation processes have emerged from

their surrounding contexts and the impact these contexts have on the daily interactions between

the students and the curriculum. The anthropological perspective includes examining both

contextual factors as well as institutional dynamics and history; all of which are valuable

influencers of the shape and implementation of intercultural education, which the students then

interact with.

In order to take this research from the conceptual level of intercultural education to the

practiced level of identity negotiation, I used anthropological hermeneutics which allow for the

transition from the conceptual level to the daily practice, or cultural praxis (Dietz and Mateos

Cortés, 2012, 418). Using pragmatic hermeneutics, I can separate the definition of intercultural

education as it is understood in this context and the discourse surrounding it, from the actual

implementation and how the curriculum appears in practice. Pragmatic hermeneutics is related to,

but different from, cultural hermeneutics which is also a part of the methodology of my research.

Cultural hermeneutics is focused on understanding not just what is on the surface, but everything

underneath that makes up a person, curriculum, policy, society, etc. (Berger 1986: 151). Berger

(1986) argues, “cultural hermeneutics should be used in all types of humanistic inquiry, aiming to

a total comprehension of culture and civilization” (151). The idea here is that a culture, a

civilization, or even a person cannot be fully understood without understanding the full present

and historical context of their being. Therefore, cultural hermeneutics is important to this research

to contextualize the research, but the research also needs pragmatic hermeneutics in order to

analyze the gaps between the definition of intercultural education (within its context) and the actual

implementation and daily practice.

Using this complete theoretical approach will allow me to examine both the conceptual

discourse, including its origins and context, as well as the daily practice, the lived experiences that

occur in the implementation of the conceptual discourse of education. Specifically, I focus on the

lived experience of identity negotiation among students.

3.3 Research Location

Taylor 23

My research took place at the UVI’s regional Totonacapan campus in Espinal, Veracruz. The

administrative center of the UVI is located in Xalapa, Veracruz, the state capital. Espinal is located

approximately 170 kilometers Northwest of Xalapa. Both Espinal and Xalapa can be seen on the

map below. This maps also shows the locations of the three other regional campuses located around

the state: Grandes Montanas, Huasteca, and Selvas. These three campuses are located in

predominately Nahuatl regions of Veracruz. Totonacapan is the only campus located in a

predominately Totonaco region.5

The municipality of Espinal has a population of approximately 26,000 people6. The town

itself is the municipal head of the county of Espinal. The municipality is considered to be the

entrance to the sierra region of the Totonacapan. The town sits evenly between both the coast and

the mountains, making it ideal for the UVI campus because it can be easily reached by all students

in the Totonacapan region.

5 More context and history of the research location can be found in Chapters 4 and 5. 6 According to the municipal report produced by the Veracruz state government (http://www.veracruz.gob.mx/wp-

content/uploads/sites/2/2015/05/Espinal.pdf)

Taylor 24

Source: www.uv.mx/cuo/universidad-veracruzana-intercultural-uvi

This location was chosen mainly due to its accessibility through known gatekeepers. I chose

Mexico because of its indigenous population, which has been very politicized throughout Mexican

history, particularly in the Mexican education system. I thought this would make for a more

interesting research context when looking at an educational program that exists because of the

outcome of past conflicts between indigenous groups and the Mexican government, the San

Andres Agreements. Additionally, I chose Mexico because my thesis supervisor, Dr. Rosanne

Tromp has conducted research there in the past and had several connections to different

gatekeepers. She put me in contact with Dr. Gunther Dietz, a title researcher for the Instituto de

Investigaciones en Educación (Institute of Research in Education) of the Universidad Veracruzana

in Xalapa. Dr. Dietz was my local supervisor for this research. He suggested the Totonacapan

campus, contacted the campus director, and introduced me to the key professors and administration

of the broader UVI and Totonacapan campus. Dr. Dietz also set up my presentation to the general

UVI leadership in order to gain permission and access to the Totonacapan campus. He suggested

Taylor 25

this campus because it is the only campus that has both the LGID program and a law program. The

law program is new as of 2017 and a bit of a pioneer program for the university. Therefore, because

the Totonacapan campus has a wider variety of students and an innovative program for the UVI,

we agreed this would be the best campus for my research.

3.4 Methodology

The methodology for this research follows the previously discussed, Anthropological Education

Perspective by separating the research into three aspects in order to address the semantic,

pragmatic, and syntactic features of the students’ interactions with the intercultural curriculum.

The main research methods, explained in the following sub-sections, included semi-structured in-

depth interviews, student observations, and document analysis. This methodology is the most

appropriate to answer my research questions because it allowed me to understand how students

themselves negotiate their identity through their interactions with the curriculum. Taking the

research from the conceptual level of the curriculum to its enactment and the real interactions of

students with this curriculum in daily practice. By using a variety of methods, I allowed for

triangulation (Sumner 2008) of the data, ensuring less chance of bias. The unit of analysis for this

research was current students attending the Universidad Intercultural Veracruzana at the Regional

Totonacapan campus.

Semi-Structured Interviews7

The semantic piece of the research focused mainly on the students and how they negotiate their

identity. Students do not begin university as blank slates, in terms of their identity; therefore, their

time at the university can be thought of a process of shaping and re-shaping their identities as they

enact the curriculum and put their identity into practice. In order to study identity negotiation, I

conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with current students as well as two graduated

students. Semi-structured interviews allowed me the opportunity to discuss personal, community,

external, and national identity negotiation in relation to the UVI, but also keep the interviews

7 The interview questions can be found in Annex C.

Taylor 26

relatively open beyond these main topics. Identity is not something that can be addressed in a few

questions, therefore the in-depth nature of the interviews allowed participants to think through

their own identity and formulate their answers throughout the interview.

The interviews provided insight into how students’ identity changed throughout their time

at the UVI. Particularly, the interviews gave me a better understanding of how students have

negotiated their identity in the university setting as they have learned more about Totonaco culture,

language, and world views. Particularly while surrounded by both Totonaco and non-Totonaco

students and taught by a variety of local and non-local teachers.

I asked students questions about what the word identity means to them, how they

understand their own identity, they represent themselves externally and in their community, and

their feelings on national identity. Additionally, I asked students about why they chose to attend

the UVI, how they feel about their experience, and what classes they have enjoyed the most.

Student Observations: Classroom, Community, and Visual8

Student observations both during classes and during school activities allowed me to address the

pragmatic aspect of the theory. These observations displayed the interactions between students and

the curriculum. While students’ responses in the interviews were valuable to reveal their

interpretation of the curriculum, I also wanted to observe first-hand how the students interact with

the curriculum in practice, beyond their discourse surrounding the program. These observations of

students showed levels of engagement with the subjects and activities, how students practice their

identities in the university setting, how knowledgeable both students and teachers are on the

subjects, and what the curriculum actually looks like in practice. Observing the students in practice

in this way allowed me to understand how they translate their interpretations of the curriculum into

their daily practices.

Student observations included in the classroom, visiting students in the communities where

they were completing weeklong fieldwork research, accompanying second semester students on a

fieldtrip, observing student presentations of their final research projects at a meeting of all four

8 A list of classes observed and dates can be found in Annex B.

Taylor 27

campuses, observing student collaboration events with local and visiting actors, and observing

student presentations upon their return from fieldwork.

I examined students’ coursework because the focus of my research was on students’

enactment of the curriculum rather than on teachers’ enactment. Rather than studying how teachers

teach the curriculum, I examined how students interact with it. Whether that be in the classroom,

presenting their projects, or interacting in the communities during their own research projects. Due

to this, I did not interview teachers directly, however; I did obtain their permission to conduct in-

classroom observations.

Another method I used to examine the students in daily practice was to conduct

observations of the visual representations on campus of the intercultural curriculum. This included

murals around the campus, posters, and student work hanging on the walls. These can be seen as

visual representations of students’ interaction with the curriculum and their expressions of identity

in response to this curriculum. For example, most of the murals around the campus were created

and painted by students, these murals all reflect the curriculum being taught at the university.

Therefore, these murals gave me the opportunity to analyze how students take the enacted

curriculum, interpret it, and create their own work and translations of the curriculum.

Document Analysis

The main method I used to study the syntactic aspect, the institution, was in-depth document

analysis of the UVI’s curriculum. This document analysis provided an understanding of the

enacted curriculum that students are interacting with as well as how indigenous knowledges and

identities are being represented in the curriculum. This analysis provided the background to

understanding students’ negotiations with the curriculum as well as the classroom interactions and

visual representations. I focused on what aspects of “the indigenous” the university emphasizes,

what aspects are excluded, how indigenous knowledge is addressed, and what it means to be

indigenous in the curriculum.

3.5 Sampling Criteria and Strategies

Taylor 28

For my research I used a non-probability purposive sampling strategy. I used a non-random sample

of the student population in order to conduct interviews and classroom observations. I had intended

on doing a stratified sampling method where students would be representative of the year of study

and gender breakdown of the total number of students at the university. However, this was not

possible because I did not have enough time to establish report with the students. Therefore, with

the short period of time I had to interview students who were immediately willing to be

interviewed, regardless of representativeness of year and gender. Additionally, professors

recommended students to interview that they felt would be talkative and open, willing to be

interviewed, and that the teachers knew well. This made the interviews easier because the students

trusted their professors who were introducing me. Therefore, the sampling criteria became

purposive based on characteristics of availability and openness to being interviewed. There was

no age limit for participants, however; the age minimum was eighteen years old; allowing for

informed consent.

3.6 Data Analysis

The data analysis process was a process of narrowing down from open coding to selective coding.

First, I transcribed all of my interviews and typed up all the field notes from my observations.

Then, using the Atlas.ti software I analyzed these transcriptions, notes, and the following

documents from the UVI: Internal Regulation of the UVI, Bachelor’s in Intercultural Management

for Development Plan of Study, and Bachelor’s in Law with a focus on Legal Pluralism Plan of

Study.

I began the coding process for the interviews and field notes by using open coding. I began

with no pre-determined codes or themes, instead coding quotes and fragments that were relevant

to my main research question as well as my sub-questions. As I went on I found that I often used

the same codes for several quotes. Next, I looked at an overview of the codes I had created, how

often each was repeated, and began grouping and relating the codes into bigger themes, a process

of axial coding. Using the network feature of Atlas.ti, I created webs of the codes to see the

relationships between them and to develop the main themes of the data. The following is an

example of one of these networks which emphasizes the connections I found between the UVI

curriculum and indigenous identity:

Taylor 29

Rachel Taylor (2018)

I then went through the transcripts a second time using selective coding. For this phase I

specifically looked for quotes which related to the codes and themes I had already created on my

first round of analysis. This allowed me to focus in on the data that specifically fits in with the

main themes.

I used a different process for the document analysis and coding for the regulation and plan

of study documents. I analyzed these documents after completing my coding of the interviews and

field notes. These documents had a lot of information that is not relevant or pertinent to my specific

research questions and the themes I had already extracted. Therefore, in order to keep this analysis

focused I solely did selective coding on the documents; meaning, I coded based on the core themes

from the earlier data and the important codes already determined by the interviews. This method

leaves some potential for bias because I could have missed other themes and variable by not

analyzing the documents with open coding. However, I determined it was more important to

analyze the documents through the lens of what the students found important about the curriculum.

The following codes were determined from the interviews, field notes, and three documents I

analyzed:

Taylor 30

Code # of times came up

Identity: Indigenous 95

UVI building identity 80

Identity: Language 60

Identity: Community 50

Connection of UVI to “Indigenousness” 45

Discrimination 45

Identity in Practice 37

Teaching language and culture 37

UVI Curriculum 37

Mexican Identity 31

Defining Identity 29

Changing identity (based on space) 29

Loss of indigenous culture 29

Reason for going to UVI 28

Discovering/Rediscovering at UVI 16

Pride in Identity 15

Identity: Clothing 13

Culture and Customs 12

Identity: Family 12

Concept of Interculturality 9

Identity levels/interfaces 9

Identity: Student 6

Identity: Values 5

Marichuy 4

Identity: Food 3

Political Aspect of Curriculum 3

Veracruzano Identity 3

Migration 2

Taylor 31

Defining Indigenousness 1

3.7 Limitations

One of the limitations to my research was the suspicion by the administration and professors at the

university of me and my research. While I had a local gatekeeper, who had given me access and

introduced me to the administration of the particular regional campus I focused on, once he was

gone the administration was much more closed towards me and very reluctant to allow me access

to the classes and students. This limited how many classes I was able to observe and the variety of

subjects I observed. I was mainly limited to the female professors because I received the majority

of pushback from male professors. Due to the fact that campus administration did not formally

introduce me to the professors or students many professors were skeptical of my purposes and the

intentions of my research and not willing to allow me in their classes. The second to last week of

my fieldwork a group of biology students visited from a state university to learn about the region

and dialogue with the UVI students. I was present during this dialogue and the outside students

were pushing UVI students to share their raw data collection on medicinal plants with the biology

students. Both UVI students and professors reacted strongly to this by explaining that the

knowledge belongs to the community and that the UVI does not exist to export this community

knowledge to outsiders. This was a moment of personal realization as to why the administration

and professors were so skeptical towards me at the beginning of my research. They have had

multiple experiences like the one I have just described, where they have their knowledge extracted

by outsiders and receive nothing in return or even have a negative impact in return. Therefore, I

think their skepticism of me was understandable and has motivated me to ensure I do not make the

same mistakes as past visitors to their community.

Another limitation was holding focus groups with the students. I initially planned on having

both interviews and focus groups with students. However, upon arrival I realized that this was not

feasible because the students had classes scheduled for the entire day and typically traveled to their

communities immediately after school as well as on the weekends. Therefore, I was not able to

schedule focus groups. However, the observations of the students in the classrooms gave me

Taylor 32

insight into how the students interact amongst each other and what the group dynamics looked

like.

A speculative limitation that I cannot be sure about is the possibility that students’

responses during the interviews were what they thought I wanted to hear, especially if they thought

that I represented the university in any way. I always explained that I was independent of the UVI,

however; I was warned by my local supervisor and the campus administration and professors that

this often occurs with the students. My hope that this potential response bias is counteracted by

my observations of the students inside the classroom and in the communities, but it is still a

potential limitation.

An interesting aspect to this research, which I cannot be sure whether or not it was a

limitation, was the interview language together with the local context. All of the interviews were

conducted in Spanish, only a few of the students interviewed spoke Totonaco; however, most had

grown up in the Totonacapan region and the indigenous culture of the region. This means that

there could be potentially cultural limitations to the interviews, both in my questions and the

participants answers. There could have been cultural context clues that I missed or answers that I

did not fully understand due to the culture gap between us. I attempted to avoid this limitation by

first getting to know the region, the Totonaco culture, and the students, prior to beginning the

interviews. My hope is that because the students knew me and I knew them to a certain extent

some of these cultural gaps and different context were avoided.

3.8 Ethics and Ethical Reflection

The ethics of this research and my own position of power were something I was aware of and

worked to ensure did not interfere with the research, participants’ responses, participants’ safety,

or have a negative impact on the larger community. The biggest consideration I made was of my

position of power, especially with regards to the risk of exploitation of participants (Morris 2015).

Morris (2015) explains this nicely by stating, “there is a real danger that researchers end up

reproducing ‘the colonial established authority of Western epistemologies’ (Chilisa, 2005: 675)

whilst ‘silencing’ indigenous ethics (Tikly and Bond, 2013; Louw and Delport, 2006)” (213).

Being white, from the United States, and at the Master’s level of education I may have more power

in what I write and how I represent the voices of the participants. I want to make sure not to take

Taylor 33

away power or agency in what I write and especially to not tokenize participants or their beliefs in

any way. I tried to maintain my own awareness of accurately raising their voices and opinions and

not imposing any of my own beliefs or assumptions onto the participants or the research.

In order to obtain voluntary participation in the interviews, I first approached students

regarding the possibility of an interview, asking them if they were willing and comfortable with

participating. We would subsequently set a time to complete the interview. When it came to

classroom observations, voluntary participation was much more difficult to achieve. After

obtaining access to the university through my local gatekeeper and being introduced and given

permission by the campus coordinator, I then approached professors individually for permission

to enter their classes for observation. With each teacher I fully explained the project and my intent

to maintain student anonymity. Upon entering each class for the first time I would introduce myself

to the students, explain the project, explain the confidentiality involved in my observations, and

ask the groups’ permission to be present. There is a chance that this method of gaining voluntary

participation is biased because each student did not individually agree to being observed.

Prior to participating in the interviews, I made sure participants gave verbal informed

consent. This included explaining the goals of the research, how I planned on using the

information, explaining voluntary participation, how I maintain participants’ anonymity, and the

ability to end participation at any time during the research. I made sure that my participants were

fully informed about what it meant to consent, both to the interview and to the recording of the

interview. Again, for the observations it was difficult to obtain informed consent beyond a verbal

confirmation from the entire class.

Safety in participation and confidentiality go together for this research. Due to the nature

of the research there was no potential for physical, emotional, or social harm to the participants

(Guillemin and Gillam, 2004: 272). Prior to beginning interviews I explained that the students did

not have to answer any questions they were not comfortable with. Additionally, the questions

themselves revolved around the students’ experiences with the UVI curriculum, how they identify

themselves, how they negotiate this identity in different spaces, and their thoughts on

discrimination in Mexico. Due to the topic itself not being sensitive, there was no known safety

risk to students’ participation, however; to be sure that students were not putting themselves at risk

by participating I took steps to maintain their confidentiality. This included transferring field notes

Taylor 34

to my password protected laptop, blacking out names in my field notes, and assigning numbers to

each student to avoid using their names.

3.9 Methodological Reflection

Replication and transferability in qualitative research is quite difficult, especially in this case where

the research was completed in the university setting which is constantly evolving and changing; in

terms of professors, administration, curriculum, and even the program. If someone was to return

to the UVI in five years they may find a different curriculum and new professors with different

teaching methods which could completely change the findings of this research. However, the

actual methodology of this research can be repeated to an extent. In order to achieve external

reliability, I have included the base questions from the interviews in Annex C. Since the interviews

were semi-structured each interview varied to some extent based on participants responses.

However, the base questions were the same and can be replicated. Additionally, coding and data

analysis itself is a subjective process, therefore in order to maintain reliability I have included

extensive explanation about the coding and analysis process so that this can be replicated.

Transferability (external validity) is a weakness of the research because it is difficult to

know how well this research will hold in other contexts. Student identity negotiation depends a lot

on their context, their teachers, and the student community. As a result, the students at another

intercultural university may have completely different views of their own identity and negotiate

this differently within the university. For example, when students from other campuses of the same

university came to visit I noticed that these students interacted with one another completely in

Nahuatl and gave their presentations in Nahuatl, something not a single student at the Totonacapan

campus did in Totonaco. Therefore, the findings of this research might be completely different if

I had been at one of the other campuses or a different intercultural university. However, specific

lessons and findings from this research could potentially apply in other contexts of student identity

negotiation, which will be discussed further in the findings chapter.

By using a variety of methods to obtain data I intended to achieve credibility. This

triangulation of data sources afforded me a more detailed understanding of the reality of the

participants. In order to create trust between myself and the participants I first observed them

during their classes; introducing myself, participating fully, answering their questions, and always

Taylor 35

being present around campus. I made sure to always arrive on time and keep any promises I made

about being present. This allowed the students to feel more comfortable and get to know me on a

personal level. Additionally, I accepted any invitation the students extended to me in order to get

to know them and their realities of life better. For example, one student invited me to spend the

weekend at her home. While this was an opportunity for observation it was mainly an opportunity

to better understand her context and the weekend lives of many of the students. It also created a

bond of trust between the student and myself which helped during our subsequent interview. In

general, I tried to see as much of the region as I could, attend cultural events, and learn about the

history of the area. I wanted to fully understand the context of my participants so that my research

portrays a realistic picture of the students’ experiences and lessens my own subjectivity.

My subjectivity in the research process is always present. As an outsider to this region,

culture, and country I am going to have both sub-conscious and conscious biases that will impact

this research; beyond my privilege as an outsider from the United States and a Masters student

which is the general subjectivity that I carry with me always. In this research, I went in with

expectations that could have influenced the research process. For example, I went into this research

with assumptions about the agency (or lack thereof) this participant population has, overly-

sympathetic, and already admiring these alternative education systems. Even though I am aware

of this, I have my doubts that it is possible to ever fully set one’s subjectivity and bias to the side

in both the research and analysis process. However, with this awareness I made sure to keep my

questions as neutral as possible and in the following discussion I attempt to accurately present the

participants realities as best as I can and maintain objectivity in order to avoid smothering the

participants voices.

I am mostly concerned with my subjectivity with regards to participant observations.

Ultimately what I take away from these observations, how I interpret participant actions, is based

on the meaning I assign to them. However, I hope that by interviewing the participants directly I

lessened my subjectivity and bias. Additionally, my subjectivity arises in the interview questions

themselves. During some of the first interviews where I was learning how to ask the questions and

what made good questions, there were questions that had my assumed subjective opinion in them.

I adjusted these in later interviews; however, it was difficult to completely keep my subjectivity

out of the interviews.

Taylor 36

Ontological and educative authenticity are aspects of the research I attempted to include in

the research process. I presented the preliminary results of the research to both the students and a

group of administrators. During these meetings I asked for feedback and had discussions with the

participants and administration about the research, hopefully allowing for all actors to gain a better

understanding of each other’s realities. Educative authenticity was difficult to achieve without

focus groups; however, I hope that through the presentation and subsequent discussions actors

were able to learn from each other and the research. Due to time restrictions I used a non-

probability purposive sampling strategy, as a result a weakness of my research is that it may not

be a fair representation of all students at the UVI. However, my goal was that by interviewing

students from all five groups and ages, I would gather a variety of different viewpoints from the

students. While this is not perfectly fair representation of the students, it was not feasible to conduct

the stratified sampling method I had intended.

Taylor 37

4. Context and History: Mexico

4.1 Indigenous History

According to the World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples there are 12.7 million

indigenous peoples in Mexico. There are over 62 indigenous languages spoken in Mexico,

however; the determination of indigenous in the national census relies on both knowledge of an

indigenous language and self-identification. This is due to the fact that the number of indigenous

peoples who speak an indigenous language is extremely low. Most of Mexico’s indigenous

populations live in the Southern to Southern-Central regions, with the top five states for indigenous

populations and indigenous language speakers being: Oaxaca, Chiapas, Veracruz, Puebla, and

Yucatán (Minority Rights Group International 2018).

The state of Chiapas, one of the top five states with highest indigenous populations, has

had a particularly tumultuous history. Chiapas was the center of the Zapatista rebellion in the

1990’s. This rebellion stems from the Mexican Revolution of the early 1900’s. This revolution led

to the Mexican Constitution of 1917, which recognized indigenous rights—particularly to self-

government and land ownership (Carrigan 1995: 72). However, in the years since that constitution,

many indigenous peoples felt that this aspect of the constitution was not upheld by the government.

This led to the creation of the Zapatista movement, Carrigan (1995) explains this movement, “The

neo-Zapatista Indians want what no Mexican leader since President Lazaro Cardenas, in the

mid1930s, has been prepared to give Mexico's Indians: land, liberty, justice and respect” (73). In

Chiapas at the time of the Zapatista rebellion, there was massive poverty among the indigenous

communities, the state had the worst education system in the country, poor health care, and little

to no infrastructure (Carrigan 1995: 75-76). Due to the fact that Chiapas had no industry other than

agricultural and cattle ranching, economic power was held by the landowners, most of which were

Mestizo supporters of the Institutional Revolutionary political party (PRI). The inability to own

land, perpetuated by the ruling political party in the state, combined with the lack of basic services,

led to continuous extreme poverty in the state and the creation of the Zapatista movement in

response (Carrigan 1995: 76). The rebellion came to an end in 1996 when an agreement was

reached between the Zapatista’s and the Mexican government. However; the peace agreement, the

Acuerdos de Paz de San Andrés Larráinzar, or the San Andres agreement, was not brought before

Taylor 38

congress until 2001 (Peña, 2006, 288-289). The demands in this agreement emphasized the rights

of the indigenous peoples as citizens of Mexico. The agreements also included the right to

intercultural education in order to respect the diverse cultures, knowledges, and practices that exist

across Mexico (Peña, 2006, 289).

Since the 1990s and the San Andres agreement the Mexican government has taken several

steps to increase human rights protections for indigenous peoples. However, indigenous peoples

continue to be less educated, over-represented in Mexican prison populations, victims of land

grabs, and have experienced ever increasing loss of autonomy (World Directory of Minorities and

Indigenous Peoples). In spite of these significant challenges faced by indigenous communities,

Mexico had its first indigenous candidate running for president in the July 2018 election. Maria de

Jesus Patricio Martinez Marichuy is the selected representative of the National Indigenous Council

(CNI). The council, made up of 1,480 indigenous members from across Mexico, came together

after consulting each members’ respective community to select Marichuy in May of 2017. While

Marichuy did not obtain enough signatures in order to be an official candidate, the fact that the

indigenous population put forward its first candidate in presidential elections is representative of

the gains the population has made.

4.2 Education9

Education in Mexico consists of four phases: pre-school, primary school (first-sixth grade),

secondary school (seventh-ninth grade), and bachillerato or preparatory school (tenth-twelfth

grade). Primary school consists of three options for programs: federal, indigenous, and community

courses; students continue with these programs throughout their three years in secondary school.

In more remote and underfunded regions of Mexico there exist “telesecundarias” or long-distance

learning programs. At these school’s students learn via videos of lessons, which allows the school

to hire less teachers and increase the number of students per class. These institutions are much

more common in poor rural regions. Many of the “indigenous” primary schools are also bilingual,

meaning students are taught mainly in the local indigenous language with Spanish slowly being

phased in. Ideally this is to support students coming from monolingual households who potentially

9 See: Mexican Secretary for Public Education publication:

www.sep.gob.mx/work/models/sep1/Resource/1447/1/images/sistemaedumex09_01.pdf.

Taylor 39

do not speak any Spanish prior to entering primary school. Bilingual programs end after primary

school.

Students finish general secondary school at the age of 16, following this there are three

options for bachillerato or preparatory school. These include: general high school (general

preparation for university), technological high school (preparation for vocational careers and

higher education), and vocational professional school (professional certificates in specific

technical fields).

4.3 Indigenous Education

Education in Mexico has been highly politicized for many generations. Teachers unions in

particular have historically been a political force in the country. The two main teachers’ unions are

the National Union of Education Workers (SNTE) and the National Coordination of Education

Workers (CNTE). SNTE is the older of the two organizations and is considered the largest union

in Latin America. Additionally, this union has been associated with the PRI political party (Reinke

2004: 487). CNTE was formed in 1979, primarily as an objection towards the nationalized

assimilation-focused education system in the country and the treatment of rural schools and

students. At its formation, this union focused on empowering communities, teachers, parents, and

students to have a say in the education system, particularly the curriculums (Reinke 2004: 488).

CNTE has been associated with several political parties which have formed out of their

disagreement with PRI (Hecock 2014: 77). The connection of the teachers’ unions to the political

parties demonstrates just one aspect of the ways in which education in Mexico is politicized with

teachers in particular acting as political actors.

The formation of CNTE in 1979 coincided with an important time in education history in

Mexico, however; this history goes back to the Mexican Revolution of 1910. During this

revolution one of the main demands of peasants, farmers, and indigenous peoples was the creation

of free and universal education at the primary school level (Reinke 2004: 485). The revolution

marks the beginning of opening education to everyone in the country, but it also marks the

beginning of decades of creating nationalism through the public education system. Reinke (2004)

explains this and the indigenous reaction further, “The emphasis on nation-building through

acculturation and assimilation that has been evident in modern education programs has historically

Taylor 40

raised concerns for indigenous cultures and practices” (486). The idea of the Mexican government

was to use primary school curriculums as a way to emphasize Spanish as the main and dominant

language and to create a national mono-culture of “Mexicanism,” effectively stamping out

minority cultures of indigenous groups around the country. Reinke (2004) quotes Modiano

(1973:1) to explain this phenomenon: “Indians, speaking fifty major indigenous languages,

comprise slightly over 10 percent of Mexico’s population…They [national leaders] see in formal

schooling the means for incorporating the Indian minorities into the national life” (486).

More than emphasizing the government intent to create a single national culture and

identity through the education system, this quote also points to the locus of decision making with

regards to education in Mexico. Indigenous communities and their leaders were continuously

excluded from education decision making and curriculum creation. The 1910 revolution brought

many positives with its creation of free public education, but one of the difficulties was the

government control of that education (Reinke 2004: 485). Reinke (2004) explains, “The existence

of local schools was a mixed blessing for communities; for while schools were prized for the

prestige associated with them, local communities had to struggle against appropriation of control

over the form of education imparted” (486). Indigenous communities had to give up control of

how their children were being educated and yield to this national curriculum which often excluded

the teaching of indigenous history, language, culture, worldview, and practices.

Beyond the assimilation curriculum of public schools, indigenous groups have also been

highly affected by the government’s treatment of rural schools. In rural areas of Mexico, which

also tend to be highly populated by indigenous communities, there is often a shortage of teachers,

teachers with low levels of education, and a lack of materials—both funding and physical materials

(Reinke 2004: 486). Additionally, the government typically sends its newest teachers to rural

schools and often teachers that do not speak the indigenous language of that community (ibid.:

486). Therefore, while on paper it appears that the Mexican government has a bilingual, pluri-

cultural education system which looks to “unify and integrate” indigenous peoples, in reality these

communities experience unequal levels of quality of education and have been taught an

assimilationist national curriculum which ignores and weakens their local knowledges, cultures,

and traditions (ibid.:487). Indigenous education continues to be politicized today, however; the

San Andres agreements did bring about significant changes to some of the issues discussed here.

Taylor 41

4.4 Education and the 1990’s

“Mexico is a multicultural nation based originally upon its

indigenous peoples. The law will protect and promote the

development of their languages, cultures, practices, customs,

resources and specific forms of social organization.” (Peña, 2006,

287)

This text comes from the 1991 Mexican constitution which was amended and passed as a result of

the ratification of the International Labor Organization’s (ILO) Convention 169. This convention

fully recognized indigenous peoples as citizens with complete rights and moved away from the

historical assimilation discourse surrounding indigenous identity (Peña, 2006, 287). Past policies

had focused on building a united national identity and erasing any practices, traditions, or

languages that did not fit into this identity (Dietz and Mateos Cortés, 2017, 29). The national shift

towards intercultural and bilingual education in Mexico began after this adaptation of the ILO’s

Convention 169. The shift was further solidified with the creation of the General Coordination for

Intercultural and Bilingual Education (GCIBE) in 2001, which was done in response to the

Zapatista indigenous revolution and the subsequent peace agreements signed between the

government and the group.

The intercultural university program was developed by the GCIBE in 2005 in an attempt

to meet the demands from the San Andres agreements as well as increasing demands for

intercultural education from global actors. The creation of the GCIBE was historic for Mexico,

“for the first time proposed intercultural education for the entire population and culturally

appropriate education for Indigenous people at all educational levels” (Fierro and Rojo Pons, 2012:

107).

The intercultural university program defines intercultural education as appreciating and

recognizing diversity as valuable to the broader nation as well as fostering increased understanding

between cultures (Fierro and Rojo Pons, 2012: 113). As a result, the university program seeks to

bring indigenous knowledges into conversation with majority group knowledges and to increase

value of and respect towards these knowledges. On a more technical level the program seeks to

develop indigenous communities by providing accessible higher education. The universities do

Taylor 42

not accept students based on academic criteria, but instead focus on gender and indigenous quotas

(Fierro and Rojo Pons 2012, 118). Additionally, the program emphasizes including the community

in curriculum building and as teachers and administrators in the schools, which allows for the

needs of the students to be reflected in their curriculums and programs of study.

Taylor 43

5. Context and History: Veracruz and Totonacapan

Veracruz holds the third largest indigenous population out of 31 states in Mexico (OECD, 2010:

3). The indigenous groups which make up Veracruz are as follows: Náhuatl, Otomí, Tepehua,

Huasteco, Totonaca, Popoluca, Mazateco, Chinanteco, Zapoteco, Zoque, and Tzotzil (Schmal

2014). Due to this diversity of populations there are a variety of indigenous languages, practices,

and traditions throughout the state. Veracruz is predominantly an agricultural state economically,

producing sugar cane, oranges, mangoes, coffee, bananas, corn, beans, and much more. The state

also has some oil and gas mining. Education-wise, Veracruz is behind the national averages,

including number of years of schooling, higher education enrollment, secondary education

completion, and low-test scores. These are most likely due to a lack of funding, state-wide poverty,

lack of infrastructure, and a low-skilled population. (OECD, 2010: 4).

The Totonaco region, known as the Totonacapan, is comprised of fifteen municipalities

and seven different dialects of the Totonaco language. There are two main “micro-regions” within

Totonacapan, the sierra or high region and the low region or coast (Garcia Ramos, 2007: 29).

Espinal is located directly in between the coast and the mountains, providing central access to all

students from the region. There are notable differences between these micro-regions, beyond the

language variations. Garcia Ramos (2007) notes that the sierra is marked by “serious

marginalization” while the coast “co-exists with commerce, the petroleum industry, cattle raising,

and precariously commercialized traditional agriculture work” (29).

According to a 2011 regional study conducted by the government of Veracruz, the region

is made up of 679, 218 people (8). According to this same report, 18.8% of the population ages

three and older speak an indigenous language and 12.1% of the population who speaks an

indigenous language does not speak Spanish (9). The three municipalities with the highest

percentages of indigenous language speakers are: Filomento Mata (97.3%), Mecatlan (94.1%), and

Chumatlan (91.3%) (9). All three of these municipalities are located in the sierra micro-region and

are represented amongst the students at the Totonacapan campus. A 2013 report from the state

government, “Programas Regionales Veracruzanas” found that over twenty different indigenous

languages are spoken in the region but the most popular is Totonaco (20).

Taylor 44

Source: Secretaria de Finanzas y Planeación, 2013

The regional average number of years of schooling attended in Totonacapan is 6.4 years,

meaning that the average student in the region finish primary school and then leave school during

their first year of secondary (Gobierno del Estado de Veracruz, 2011: 15). As a whole the region

has eight universities which provide bachelor’s and master’s degrees (Gobierno del Estado de

Veracruz, 2013: 29). The majority of these universities are located in Poza Rica, the largest city in

the region.

Currently, the main economic activity in the region is industrial, particularly mining and

fracking of petroleum and gas. However, this mainly takes place around Poza Rica and along the

coast. In the municipality of Espinal the main industry is agricultural, the main products being

corn, oranges, and limes. Further into the mountains of the region the main agricultural products

are corn and coffee (Secretaria de Finanzas y Planeación, 2013: 47). Upon talking to local farmers

in different communities I found that most grow corn mainly to sell the dried leaves locally, which

are used to make tamales and in a variety of other local foods. These farmers then consume the

Taylor 45

corn themselves as corn is an important part of their daily diet. One farmer stated that they can

make more money from the corn leaves than the corn itself.

There is also a large service industry in the region, particularly around the city of Papantla,

which has been designated as a “Pueblo Mágico” by the Mexican government. The town is close

to the Totonaco ruins of El Tajin which is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, is where the famous

dance of the Voladores (flyers) originated and holds an annual festival during the Spring Equinox

which draws thousands of tourists. As a result, service work around Papantla and Poza Rica is

another major economic sector (Secretaria de Finanzas y Planeación, 2013: 48).

5.1 Regional History

The word Totonacapan means “place of the Totonacos” (Melgarejo Vivanco, 1943: 49). The word

Totonaco, according to Melgarejo Vivanco, means three hearts (toto= heart, nacu= three), because

the region had three principle centers (49). The Totonacos were conquered by the Nahuatl’s, as a

result a lot of the names in the region come from Nahuatl and the Totonaco names have been lost,

along with a lot of the historical information (49). The arqueological site of el Tajin is thought to

have been the “ceremonial center and capital” of the region, reaching its height in 600-900 A.D.

(Garcia Ramos, 2007: 35-36). The word “tajin” means thunder. In the cosmovision of the

Totonacos there was a principle god, Qolo Aktsin (Old Thunder) and 12 T’ajinin (thunders), lesser

beings that are related to natural phenomenon’s such as rain, lightening, hurricanes, etc. (ibid. 35).

The site was completely abandoned by 1230 A.D. (ibid. 36), with the cause still unknown. The

Totonacos were dominated by the Mexica’s twice, first from 1440-1469 and again from 1502-

1520 (Palerm and Kelly, 1952: 22). Prior to the arrival of the Spanish, the Totonacos were trading

goods and food between the two micro-regions as well as with other indigenous groups such as

the Mixteca, Cholula, and Huasteca (Palerm and Kelly, 1952: 293-312). Hernan Cortes arrived in

the region in 1519, through the coastal town of Cempoala and by 1522 was in complete control of

the region (Chenaut, 2002: 53). However, there were parts of the region that the Totonacos

retreated to, particularly high in the sierra mountains where the Spanish did not reach. As a result,

these Totonacos did not experience the “acculturation process” as strongly as those along the coast

(ibid. 53). This is an interesting fact because today that same part of the region has the highest

percentages of Totonaco speakers, particularly monolingual speakers. Following the conquest, the

Taylor 46

Spanish immediately began evangelizing in the Totonaco region, beginning with Fray Andres de

Olmos (Palerm and Kelly 1952: 31).

5.2 Universidad Intercultural Veracruzana

The Universidad Veracruzana Intercultural (UVI) was created in 2005 as a direct result of the

aforementioned agreement signed by the GCIBE and the Secretary of Public Education. In 2007

the President of the UV created the administration of the UVI which was subsequently ratified by

the University General Counsel in 2008 (Universidad Veracruzana, 2016: 5). This administration

is completely dependent on the Academic Secretary which is part of the UV administrative body.

This is the only intercultural university in the country that is connected to a state university, the

twelve others are all independent institutions. The four campus locations were strategically chosen

to provide access to higher education in areas with the highest rates of socioeconomic

marginalization, under-development levels, and indigenous populations (Dietz, 2008: 359).

In order to fully understand the curriculum, I conducted background research into two of

the four dimensions of the university’s context (Ball et al., 2012, 21), mainly focusing on the

situated, and external, and material contexts. I touched on the professional aspect by talking to

teachers, however; completing official interviews with teachers to get the best understanding of

teacher culture was not feasible for the time period and did not relate directly to students’ identity

negotiation. The material context reflects the material abilities of the institution, including the

budget, ability to employ staff, infrastructure of the school, and so on. I did not explicitly research

material context, due to lack of access to financial data on the school and the time constraints of

the research.

External and Situated Contexts

To understand the situated context of the Totonacapan campus I researched the history of the

university; how it was formed and out of what policies it arose. This also relates to the external

context; the outside entities which play a role in the creation of the UVI and its current program

and curriculum. This external context is difficult to fully grasp because while there are formal

agreements between the UV and the UVI, much of the role of the state university in the UVI is

Taylor 47

unspoken and political. The same goes for the role of global and national entities, much of this

role is not explicitly written on paper. However, it is important to understand this context because

these outside entities play an important role in the UVI, impacting the curriculum which is enacted

on the campus.

The first external entity that impacts the UVI curriculum comes from the global discourse

surrounding intercultural education. The strongest global actor pushing for intercultural education

is UNESCO (2006), which published “Guidelines for Intercultural Education” in 2006 in response

to several conferences and declarations calling for more inclusive and culturally aware education.

In the report UNESCO (2006) acknowledges that its role as an international actor is to “guide

educational policy worldwide” (8) and states that the purpose of intercultural education and

UNESCO’s (2006) support for this education is to strengthen democracy on a global scale (18).

Throughout the guidelines UNESCO (2006) emphasizes the role of intercultural education as vital

to protecting cultural diversity and heritage (16), openness to diverse educational needs (17), and

creating citizens who can “participate fully in the larger society” (17). The guidelines also

emphasize the need for community driven curriculum, context-specific language of instruction,

emphasis on the histories and knowledges of minority or marginalized groups, and active

participation of students, parents, teachers, administrators, and the community in the learning

process. These guidelines are intended for intercultural schools where both the majority and

minority group are present, therefore they also recognize the importance of teaching both majority

and minority knowledges and histories so as to create better understanding and harmony between

diverse groups of students. While these guidelines were made after the creation of the GCIBE in

Mexico, they are still influential in Mexican education policy.

The second external entity which impacts the UVI is the national discourse surrounding

intercultural education. As I stated earlier, the GCIBE intercultural university program arose out

of the demands of the government, indigenous groups, teachers unions, parents, and students. The

GCIBE’s university program does differ from international discourse in one important way, the

inclusion of non-indigenous students. While the GCIBE and the intercultural university program

explicitly state that the goal of the program is not to segregate indigenous students in separate

universities, it seems as though the system is inherently set up to do just this. The universities are

mainly attended by indigenous students, partially due to quotas, but also due to their locations in

rural indigenous communities. This is also affected by the program of study, which emphasizes

Taylor 48

creating individuals who will return to their communities and develop those communities further;

intellectually, economically, and culturally (Schmelkes, 2008).

The UVI did not directly develop out of this program, instead, it emerged from the existing

state university. While this creates many differences between the UVI and other intercultural

universities (particularly in funding and teacher salary), the UVI has many of the same principles

as fellow intercultural universities. What is important to notice about the mission and vision of the

UVI is that they do not reference diversity, knowledge of other cultures, creating positive relations

between indigenous and majority groups, or the broader world. The mission statement for the

program emphasizes its focus on developing the Veracruz region, stating, “the collective

construction of knowledges oriented towards improving quality of life in the Veracruz intercultural

regions.”10 UNESCO’s (2006) guidelines as well as the GCIBE both include aspects of the broader

world and communication between diverse groups. The lack of these factors in the university’s

program and mission point to the level of agency and distance the UVI has from the global and

national discourses surrounding intercultural education.

Dietz (2017) points to this disconnect between the dialogue being used by organizations

like the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the GCIBE

surrounding intercultural education, which emphasize intercultural education for the entire

population, not just indigenous students (34). Dietz (2017) recognizes the difference between this

goal and the targeting that occurs by the UVI towards indigenous students (36). This potentially

occurs because of the different understandings of the purpose of intercultural education. On the

global level there is an understanding of intercultural education as important to open the minds of

the majority group to different and diverse cultures, peoples, and knowledges, it is not based on

the needs of the minority (Dietz, 2017: 30). On the contrary, on the local level in Mexico,

indigenous groups view intercultural education as addressing their needs, being a tool for

empowerment, recognition, and community building. This helps to explain why on the local level

intercultural education is being transformed into education for indigenous marginalized groups

and not for the majority.

The final, and perhaps most important entity to examine is the role the UV plays in the

UVI. The General Counsel together with the Academic Secretary have “maximum authority” (H.

10 Website translation done by Rachel Taylor, for original text see: www.uv.mx/uvi/mision-vision-y-objetivos

Taylor 49

Universidad Veracruzana, 2016: 8). The director of the entire UVI is appointed and removed by

the president of the UV. Within the UV, the organizational structure is as follows: the academic

secretary works directly under the rectory (president’s office). The director of the UVI works

directly under this academic secretary. The structure can be seen in the following diagram from

the UV’s manual of organization:

Source: www.uv.mx/orgmet/files/2012/12/dtorUVI.pdf

The UVI has some autonomy below its director, the director and administration design and present

the program and subsequent changes and updates to the academic secretary and the academic

counsel. The counsel serves as a support and consultation organization to assure the UVI achieves

its stated functions. Therefore, while the UVI has a degree of autonomy, there is regular oversight

by the UV. For example, at every major event I attended at the Totonacapan campus the Vice-

Chancellor of the Poza Rica-Tuxpan region of the UV (the region Totonacapan falls under) always

attended or had another authority attend and speak. While this is more of a visual presence than a

legal presence, the idea here was to make the connection and oversight clear between UVI and

UV. The Vice-Chancellor for each region where one of the UVI campuses is located always

presides over that Regional Consultative Intercultural Council. Also on this counsel are the UVI

Taylor 50

director, the coordinator of the regional UVI campus, and several other representatives of students,

professors, alumni, federal institutions present in the region, civil organizations in the region, local

teachers, and local social actors (ibid. 9). This Regional Consultative Intercultural Council is

representative of how the entire UVI is run, ultimately the UV is there to oversee the university,

but the university also prioritizes the voices of the professors, students, and local community.

One example of the UV’s power over the UVI is an example I was told by several

professors from the Totonacapan campus, including the former professors that was involved. In

2010 several professors from the Totonacapan campus, along with students and local community

members decided to create a community monetary system. Using their own money this group

created and printed the Tumin as an alternative to the Mexican peso. Ideally, this alternative

monetary system would be backed by local goods and allow people, in a region where money is

short, to have a stable return for their goods which they can use to purchase other goods. However,

the program was quickly denounced by the Bank of Mexico and investigated by the Mexican

government (Junta de Buen Gobierno, 2014: 11). As a result of the national attention on the Tumin,

according to this professor, there was pressure from the UV on the UVI to fire the professor who

started the project and UVI sided with their overseeing entity. This is an example of the political

influence the UV has over UVI, influence which is not written in the legal documents or

institutional manuals which exist between the two organizations. While there are numerous

benefits to UVI’s connection to UV, at the same time, this connection keeps the UVI in line with

much of the state governments and subsequently the state university’s rhetoric.

All four UVI campuses offer one degree in Intercultural Management for Development

(LGID), with specialties in language, communication, sustainability, law, and health. The purpose

of this degree, according to UVI’s website11, is to train students in management processes which

they can then use to develop the indigenous regions of the country. The program emphasizes “the

value, use, visibility, and vitality of national languages, cultural heritage, ancestral knowledges

(with particular focus on healthcare in opposition to the hegemonic health system), the exercise of

human rights, and the construction of a peaceful culture.”

11 Website translation done by Rachel Taylor, for original text see: https://www.uv.mx/uvi/licenciatura-en-

gestion-intercultural-para-el-desarrollo/

Taylor 51

The Totonacapan campus is the first UVI campus to have a second bachelor’s degree

program in Law with a focus on Legal Pluralism. According to the UVI website12, the program

seeks to train students in “customary and indigenous law as well as general normative principles

from a human rights perspective.” The program also seeks to contribute to the “recognition and

exercise of cultural, linguistic, and collective rights and the normative systems of indigenous

peoples.” The program looks to train lawyers who will be able to defend the rights of indigenous

peoples in Mexico with an understanding of their cultures, languages, practices, and own

traditional laws. Additionally, there is a reoccurring issue in many indigenous communities where

monolingual Totonaco speakers do not have access to legal counsel who speaks their language and

do not have interpreters in the courtroom. This program also attempts to address these issues of

access to justice.

The Totonacapan regional campus was created on the 26th of September, 2005 in Espinal,

but the LGID bachelor’s program began in 2007. The campus currently has sixty-four students

total, fifty-three in the LGID program and eleven in the law program.

12 Website translation done by Rachel Taylor, for original text see: https://www.uv.mx/uvi/licenciatura-en-

derecho-con-enfoque-de-pluralismo-juridico/

Taylor 52

6. Curriculum: Cultural Identity

In order to address my sub-question, “how does the UVI curriculum present cultural identity?” I

have broken the answer into the following two sections: Curriculum: Community Identity and

Curriculum: Indigenous Identity. I focused on cultural identity of the students as a whole, but

found through the data that cultural identity is broken into an emphasis on community and

indigenous identity. The main ways in which both the curriculum and the student interviews

address cultural identity is through an emphasis on community and indigeneity, which are related,

but need to be addressed separately in order to fully understand each aspect.

6.1 Curriculum: Community Identity

The first theme which emerged from the data was the curricular emphasis on community and

community identity. Due to the fact that several students emphasized identity as stemming from

the community, it became an important theme when it also emerged in the document analysis.

Throughout the Bachelor’s in International Management for Development (LGID) curriculum, the

Bachelor’s in Law with a focus on Legal Pluralism (LDEPLUJ) curriculum, and the Internal

Regulation of the UVI there are a myriad of references to community: the importance of the

community, the knowledge of the community, connection with the community, and so on. As

stated in the theoretical framework chapter, I am mainly using the definition of identity which

includes defining oneself as a member of a group. This group has boundaries and in the case of

the Totonacapan region, each community has boundaries, customs, cultures, and knowledges

which can make that community a group that an individual identifies with. Additionally, using

Weaver (2001) and Jacob et al.’s (2015) definitions of indigenous identity means including

community as a part of identifying as indigenous. Therefore, it was important to understand if this

aspect of indigenous identity was encouraged by the UVI curriculum that students interact with;

which based on my data analysis, it was. For example, in the LGID study plan, the following quote

is used from Georges Balandier, “the community is the nucleus of reproduction of the ties of

solidarity and identity of its members” (25). The document also states, “By integrating into the

capitalist system of relations, the members of the ethnicity maintained some form of community

Taylor 53

of relations, of reproduction of the social self, which allowed for a continuity of the process of

development of its distinct cultural identity from the base of its real cultural tradition” (26), when

explaining the concept ethnic groups and the development of their identities. In both cases, the

document is referring to the community as a place where cultural identity can be built, particularly

(in the case of the second quote), indigenous identity. The incorporation of community here shows

the value UVI places on community as both a form of identity and a building block of indigenous

identity.

Another example of the emphasis on community can be seen under the “Ethical-Political

Framework” which states the ethical and political principles that the LGID program follows. One

of these principles is, “Permanent construction of the community, linked to the re-conformation

of identities, consensus building, and conflict management” (65). This quote is important because

it presents the idea that the re-building of identities links directly to the building of the community.

This connection is one of the ways that the UVI presents cultural identity through its curriculum,

in the form of community identity.

This curricular emphasis on community identity and its connection to cultural identity can be

further seen with the “vinculación comunitaria,” or community linkage, which is part of the

curriculum. For example, the LGID curriculum proposes, “an inter-dependence between the

professors, the research, and the links and collaboration with the intercultural communities of the

region” (57). This inter-dependence can be seen through the kinds of research projects students

carry out as well as the field trips and events held. For example, I observed a second semester

LGID field trip to a community in the region to observe and research the community’s traditional

carnaval celebration. During this outing students were asked to observe how the community carries

out its traditions, particularly in terms of community organization and why they still practice these

traditions. During my interviews with the students they confirmed that this connection with the

communities was a method through which they understood their own identity as a member of a

community. One student who graduated in 2017 and self-identifies as Totonaco stated, “through

this community bonding, one becomes aware of many things, of several realities…the community

links served for me to re-discover myself, to recognize myself as a subject that lives in a

community and recognize myself as a carrier of my language who can accomplish actions for the

benefit of my community.” This student’s comments demonstrate the emphasis the curriculum

Taylor 54

places on community and cultural identity and how these experiences with the community can lead

students to re-negotiate their own identities, which will be discussed in depth in a later section.

Beyond these links of community and identity, the UVI documents make numerous references

to creating students who will return to support and develop their own communities and who value

the knowledges of their communities. This can be interpreted as a form of cultural-community

identity in translation (practice). These references provide insight into the kinds of students the

UVI is hoping to create and how ties to cultural and community identity are to be used. For

example, when discussing the profile of a graduate of the LGID program, the curriculum states,

“A graduate of the of the LGID will be a professional with the capacities, abilities, and attitudes

that allow him or her to perform several crucial functions for the positive development of programs

and initiatives arising from the intercultural communities and regions themselves” (70). The goal

of the bachelor’s program is to create individuals who will support the development of their

communities and regions by supporting the initiatives these communities already have; a valuing

and re-valuing of the knowledges and needs of the communities.

The UVI presents cultural identity as inextricably linked to community, particularly indigenous

communities or “original towns”. The UVI curricular discourse surrounding community is one of

valuing the culture, knowledge, and traditions of indigenous communities. In practice, according

to the curriculum, this means conducting fieldwork and research in the communities; valuing their

knowledges; preserving their traditions; and returning to these communities upon graduating to

continue this process of developing and valuing. This can be further seen in the LDEPLUJ

curriculum which states, “In these regions the UVI supports the integral formation of indigenous

and non-indigenous students…It uses an intercultural approach which recognizes, values, and

promotes cultures, languages, and knowledges of the communities” (85).

The UVI curricular emphasis on community was also confirmed by students themselves when

discussing how they felt about the program and their experiences during the interviews. One

student who graduated in 2017 stated, “the education program, at least the management one, seems

to me to help strengthen youth identity. Beyond strengthening your identity, it empowers, it

empowers and makes it so that instead of migrating, youth stay in their communities and carry out

processes; processes of territorial defense, agricultural, and health.” This comment points to the

emphasis the program places on community, building one’s own community, and the relationship

between community and identity.

Taylor 55

6.2 Curriculum: Indigenous Identity

The second way cultural identity was emphasized by the UVI documents and students was through

a focus on indigenous identity. The LGID curriculum, the LDEPLUJ curriculum, and the Internal

Regulation of the UVI do not specifically discuss an emphasis on indigenous identity, in the same

way that these documents do not specifically discuss an emphasis on community identity.

However, they have a noted emphasis on “indigenousness” and a lot of the aspects that make up

indigenous identity. Thinking of indigenous identity as Jacob et al. (2015) and Weaver (2001)

define it, means an identity which consists of self-identification, community identification, and

external identification. This also means a connection to traditions, values, beliefs, and “traditional

homelands” (Weaver 2001: 245). I have already discussed the curricular emphasis on community

identification. The curriculum does not specifically emphasize self-identification, but, it does

emphasize external identification of the values, knowledges, traditions, and rights of the groups of

people from the intercultural regions of Mexico, specifically, Veracruz. These references are what

I use to answer the sub-question of how the UVI curriculum presents cultural identity.

The focus on valuing indigenous cultures, knowledges, traditions, and beliefs is present

throughout all of the UVI documents and can be interpreted as the method through which the

university highlights indigenous identity. For example, the LGID study plan states that the goal of

the Languages orientation is to: “contribute to the strengthening, the valuing, the use, the

development, and the sustainability of the languages and cultures of the intercultural regions of

Veracruz” (68). The focus here is on the lingual and cultural aspects of the indigenous identities

in the region and revitalizing these. During numerous interviews students stated language and

cultural practices as the reason they identified or did not identify as indigenous; therefore, this

curricular emphasis on valuing indigenous languages, cultures, and knowledges can be understood

to be a curricular focus on building indigenous identity in the intercultural regions of Veracruz.

The curriculum is certainly understood this way by the students, who use this same language to

justify and explain their own indigenous identities.

Secondly, the curriculum repeatedly references “recognizing, valuing, and promoting the

cultures, languages, and knowledges of the communities” (LDEPLUJ curriculum: 85). The LGID

curriculum states that it looks to “contribute to strengthening the processes of resignification and

Taylor 56

appreciation of indigenous cultures” (28). The courses and events that I observed consistently

emphasized learning about the Totonaco culture, including the language, world views and history,

social and political organization, and the legal systems. Furthermore, the students are required to

carry out a research project in the indigenous communities of the region, the majority of which are

Totonaco. These different curricular experiences provide a connection for students between their

own backgrounds from communities in the region, the customs and cultures they practice in their

own homes, and the languages they speak or have heard their relatives speaking. Further, these

curricular experiences connect the students’ backgrounds to the indigenous Totonaco identity.

The curricular emphasis on cultural identity through community and indigenous identity is

important because it serves as the basis for what the students are enacting, interpreting, and

translating. In order to answer my main research question of how students negotiate their cultural

identity while enacting the curriculum, it was crucial to determine that the curriculum focuses on

cultural identity and subsequently can play a role in how students understand and interpret their

own cultural identities.

Taylor 57

7. Student Definition of Identity

The next important sub-question and theme of my research is how students themselves define the

concept of identity. I have addressed how the curriculum presents cultural identity, but it is equally

important to look at how students themselves view identity. The students’ understanding of

identity demonstrates whether they see identity through the lens of cultural, indigenous, and

community—similar to the curriculum, or whether they understand identity differently.

The following network of codes from the interviews demonstrates the aspects that students

determined make up and are associated with the term “identity”.

Rachel Taylor (2018)

This network demonstrates the important pieces of identity that students included when defining

the term. It is important to note that many students discussed the culture and customs the they

follow as what gives them an identity. Based on the earlier discussion of what makes cultural and

subsequently indigenous identity, the inclusion of culture and customs as part of identity points to

the students understanding identity as something cultural. This then relates to the theme of cultural

identity being emphasized by the UVI curriculum. Therefore, the students’ interpretation of

identity with the cultural could be derived from their enactment of the curriculum.

Throughout the interviews I found that many students defined identity as the aspects of who

they are that make them unique. Many explained that this could mean their culture, their belonging

Taylor 58

to a particular group, the language they speak, the community they come from, the dress they wear,

and so on. Some examples of these definitions follow:

• “identity is a peculiarity that you share with others but at the same time gives you meaning,

gives meaning to your being” (Male, 8th semester student)

• “For me, identity is what makes someone, what I am, what forms my way of thinking, my

culture, my traditions, even my way of expressing myself” (Female, 8th semester student)

• “Something that identifies you from your own culture, something that you feel identifies

you, that you say, ‘that’s me, I belong to this place’” (Female, 8th semester student)

• “I see it as all the elements that make me a part of certain groups and at the same time

intervene in my personhood and make me how I am” (Male, 2nd semester student)

• “Identity is the culture that gives you an identity. For example, when you identify with

something, for example a Totonaco, that gives you the identity of being Totonaco.”

(Female, 2nd semester student)

• “The characteristics that define someone. For example, belonging to the Totonaco culture”

(Female, 4th semester student)

• “What defines you, not as a person, as part of something. For example, Totonaca, you say,

‘well my identity is my language’ because when you hear me speak you say, ‘oh she’s from

such and such place.’ Or if you see someone dressed a certain way you say, ‘oh she’s from

such and such place,’ that is what gives you identity. You don’t need to know me or hear

me speak for a long time to know more or less what I belong to.” (Female, 2nd semester

student)

Through these examples it becomes clear that not only do students define identity as what defines

them, what makes them different, and what gives them belonging to a particular group; they also

consistently use the identity of Totonaco as an example. This was the most common example given

when I asked students to define the word “identity” in the interviews. This points to an echoing of

the curricular emphasis on cultural identity and indigenous communities. Additionally, these

quotes demonstrate how students interpret culture and customs as a part of the term identity.

Students mainly understood identity as being indigenous or mestizo, not as being a student,

a member of a family, a member of a religion, etc. There were a few students who mentioned their

Taylor 59

values as making up their identity or being a student; however, the majority defined their identity

through being indigenous or not. Out of the twenty-seven students I interviewed, twenty-two self-

identified as indigenous (twenty-one Totonaco and one Nahuatl). Two students considered that

they might be Totonaco but were not sure and three students said that they are not indigenous at

all. When defining their indigenous identity, students mainly defined it as coming from the

community where they were born. Students would comment that they could not speak Totonaco

and some even stated that their parents cannot speak Totonaco; however, they still identify as

indigenous because they were born in an indigenous community. In addition to language students

would state that they do not wear the clothing and do not partake in the traditional Totonaco

customs or religion but they still identify as indigenous due to their community. For example, one

self-identifying indigenous student explained:

I have encountered some people who say that we are not Totonacos

because we do not speak the language. But if your mom is Totonaca

and uses the traditional clothing and speaks the language, why not?

That’s how I see it. For example, with nationality, you have it

because of your blood or the territory you are born in. I think it is

the same with indigenousness…If your mom is indigenous, by blood

you are indigenous too. Or if you were born in the Totonacapan you

are also indigenous. (Female, 4th semester)

Many students agreed with this student, stating that the simple act of belonging to the community,

an indigenous community, made them indigenous. They felt they did not have to speak the

language and wear the traditional clothing in order to consider themselves Totonaco. However, in

contrast to this, other students saw identity as something that needs to also be practiced, it cannot

just be given based on place of birth. One student stated:

I don’t know whether to identify myself as Totonaco because to start,

I don’t even speak the language. It’s something very strong, it isn’t

something to say that just because I live here I identify as such. I

was born here, but I don’t have—I don’t use the traditional dress, I

Taylor 60

don’t have much of what I could self-name myself with and say that

I am 100% Totonaca because I don’t think I have even half of what

that word means. But, I have my roots, my grandparents were

speakers… (Female, 4th semester)

This student sees indigenous identity as much more than blood, instead, to her, it is practice—it is

language, clothing, and traditions. This student is one of the two students who was unsure of

whether or not she is indigenous, because of this she is in the minority. The majority of the students

self-identified as indigenous and saw it as more than just practicing aspects like language and

dress. The majority of students saw indigenous identity as stemming from the community they

were born in and their family members. This points to an understanding of identity where the

importance is not placed on the practice of that identity but on where the identity comes from, the

importance is on the relationships and feeling of belonging to a community.

Some students also explained what their indigenous identity looks like or how it manifests

in practice. One self-identifying indigenous student stated that her indigenous identity in practice

is to “interact with indigenous peoples, interact more with them, to be in constant contact with

them so that you feel identified” (Female, 2nd semester LDEPLUJ student). Other students stated

similar feelings, that their identity is built when they participate in their own communities and

when they interact with other Totonacos. One student went so far as to say that it is not necessary

to wear the traditional dress to practice the Totonaco identity. Instead, this student explained, it is

in the practice of the traditions that one manifests the Totonaco identity.

Both in how students define identity and how they understand identity in practice it is clear

that students associate identity as something inherently cultural and community based. By cultural

I particularly mean indigenous, since so many students used their own Totonaco cultural as what

gives them their identity. This is important because it relates directly back to the aspects of identity

that the curriculum emphasizes, the curriculum that students are enacting on a daily basis. This

shows that based on the data, students are interpreting the curriculum in the same way it is being

presented to them. To know how students are interpreting the meaning of identity itself helps to

further understand how students negotiate that identity while enacting this curriculum.

Taylor 61

8. Re-Negotiation of Identity Amongst Students

Reflecting on cultural identity presence in the UVI curriculum and student interpretation of the

meaning of identity based on this curriculum; the main research question can now be addressed.

In order to answer the question, how do students negotiate their identities, I focused on the quotes

where students discussed how the curriculum impacted, changed, or built their identity and feelings

of discovering or re-discovering their identity because of the UVI. From this data, a major theme

emerged: student re-negotiation of their cultural identity.

The majority of the students reflected on how they had re-discovered their indigenous,

community-based cultural identity while at the university. This re-discovering of indigenous

identity paired with the curricular emphasis on indigenous identity also relates to students further

developing pride in their indigenous identity. Pride in their indigenous identity contradicts the past

experiences of discrimination, expressed by the students, and subsequent loss of or occulting of

Totonaco culture—either in students themselves or in their family members (including past

generations). The use of the term “re-discovery” by the students and the subsequent re-negotiation

also relate to the repeated language in the curriculum of “re-valuing” and “re-knowing” the

knowledges, traditions, customs, and languages of the intercultural communities in Veracruz.

Students repeatedly described how the curriculum at the UVI led them to re-discover

themselves and recognize their identity as an indigenous person. For example, one self-identifying

indigenous student stated, “It [the UVI] has helped me a lot to recognize—to recognize my roots,

my identity…You go on recognizing yourself through the educational experiences…and you

beginning realizing” (graduated LGID 2017). Another student claimed that the UVI helped her

find her identity, explaining,

When you are in a school, they ‘castellanize’ you, they put other

cultures in you, and well, you forget your own if no one tells you.

The system is focused on learning only one thing and you are

seriously leaving something behind. So, for me here [UVI] is where

I re-found my culture…where I found my identity. Even though I

already had it, I didn’t know it existed. (Female, 4th semester

student)

Taylor 62

Many students expressed these same sentiments, feelings that they had always had their indigenous

identity, but did not know it. A sixth semester LGID student said, “I believe that the UVI helped

me to re-claim the part of me that I had lost, that was lost along the way.” It was at the UVI that

many students realized and began to value this identity and culture that they are a part of. The UVI

professors also expressed this sentiment. When reflecting on the students, one professor discussed

how he finds it valiant when the students who come in denying their Totonaco identity or language

ability then open up and embrace and re-discover that part of their identity. The LGID curriculum

states a similar idea as this professor, with the goal of, “Contributing to the visibility, appreciation,

and self-appreciation of the cultures, their knowledges, their languages, and their ways of

generating and sharing knowledge” (69). The university has self-appreciation of cultural identity

as a goal of the program and based on the students spoken interpretations in the interviews, many

students are doing just this.

The re-discovery and valuing of their indigenous identities among students seems to lead

to a re-negotiation of their entire identity to include and value the indigenous aspect. For example,

a second semester student discussed how prior to attending the UVI her family did not celebrate

Day of the Dead and did not uphold any traditional Totonaco customs even though her mother was

raised with this culture. Since starting at the UVI she goes home and discusses what she learns

with her family. As a whole they have started re-practicing traditions such as Day of the Dead by

creating an altar, preparing the food, saying the prayers, and so on. This is one example of a student

re-negotiating her identity in practice due to her enactment of the UVI curriculum.

This re-negotiation also takes place in the form of goals and thoughts for the students’

future. For example, one sixth semester student stated, “some want to live in modernity, they want

to forget, they want to migrate—honestly, sometimes that has fallen into my perspective,

sometimes I spoke contemptuously about certain things but now I speak with more respect because

you have to value this.” This student has changed not only his thoughts for the future with regards

to migrating, but also the way he speaks regarding indigenousness. Another student had a similar

experience with regards to migration, he explained,

At the beginning what I wanted was to get out (of my community),

many of the kids at the UVI say the same. What we wanted at the

Taylor 63

beginning was to migrate, leave the community, get to know other

places, work in the cities…we de-valued the community and little by

little my thoughts changed with the experiences of the teachers, the

classes, and the activities. (2017 LGID graduate)

This student’s statement reflects the student’s interpretation of the curriculum he is enacting and

demonstrates how he has re-negotiated his values and beliefs as a result of this process.

Changing their hopes and goals for the future; the way they think about the community and

being indigenous; the way they speak about the identity—all of these actions are ways the students

begin to re-negotiate their identity while at the UVI, beyond just self-identifying. Repeatedly

throughout the interviews the students demonstrated that they have interpreted the curriculum very

similarly to the way it is presented to them. Therefore, while enacting the curriculum, the students’

interpretations have led to a re-negotiation of their cultural identity in many of the ways the

curriculum desires them to.

Taylor 64

9. Interpretation and Translation

Based on the data, the students’ interpretations of the definition of identity mirror the UVI

curriculum. This leads to the next set of sub-questions: what identity interpretations (discourses)

and translations (practices) emerge in the negotiations as a result of the students’ enactment of

the curriculum? Thinking about the main research question of how the students negotiate their

cultural identity and based on the data I would argue that they have not negotiated this aspect of

their identity prior to entering the UVI. Instead, students are re-negotiating their entire identity

with what they have learned and experienced through the UVI curriculum. Therefore, much of the

negotiation process is occurring as a result of the enactment of the curriculum, therefore; it is

important to understand how students interpret and translate the curriculum. It is difficult to know

the interpretations and translations that emerge in the students internally and nationally beyond

what the students told me in the interviews, however; external negotiation is something I could

observe through the students’ discourse during interviews and classroom observations,

communities, and field trips. This data collection revealed that the students’ spoken discourse

during the interviews points to a congruent interpretation, but my observations showed some gaps

between these interpretations and the translation into practice.

9.1 Enactment—Interpretation—Translation

Prior to discussing these gaps between interpretation and translation, I want to first address the

students’ process of enactment, interpretation, and translation. Thinking back to the theoretical

section on policy enactment, I discussed the debate amongst academics regarding whether or not

interpretation and translation are part of the enactment process or something that occur

adjacently. Based on my data I found that enactment is something separate from interpretation

and translation and that all three of these make up the identity negotiation process of the

students.

In every interview I asked students why they chose to attend the UVI, the majority of

students stated that they had plans to attend another university or study something else but due to

some circumstance they ended up at the UVI. Most often these circumstances were financial,

lack of information about university deadlines, or not passing the entrance exam for the

Taylor 65

university they wanted. One student who graduated from the UVI in 2012 explained,

“Unfortunately many of those who entered the university did so for one of two reasons, first

because they didn’t have an option to study anywhere else and second because they could not

pass the other universities exams.” These comments demonstrate that students are generally not

attending the UVI because they believe in the mission or already have a strong sense of their

cultural identity and want to further that. Instead, the interviews showed that students are just

looking to attend a university and due to whatever circumstances, they end up at the UVI.

Due to this data, the students first point of enactment of the curriculum comes when they

begin classes at the university. One student said, “From the beginning I didn’t know, I didn’t

know what I was studying, I was just sitting here…”. Therefore, students do not enter the

university interpreting the curriculum, instead they first enter and enact the curriculum and

subsequently begin to interpret and translate this curriculum.

9.2 Gaps Between Interpretation and Translation

During the interviews students, as I stated earlier, the majority of students self-identified

as indigenous or Totonaco and expressed interest in maintaining the language and revitalizing the

traditional dress, food, and customs. This language directly mimics the language of the curriculum,

which repeatedly emphasizes the loss of culture, language, legal systems, and health practices in

the indigenous communities in Veracruz and the goal of revaluing and revitalizing these practices

and knowledges of the communities. For example, one eighth semester LGID student stated, “It is

very important that we represent a characteristic of our culture. For example, the clothing, the

language, the customs, and sometimes even the food.” This student is expressing the importance

of putting her cultural identity into practice. However, when I asked her if she practices these

aspects she said that no one in her family speaks the language or wears the clothing, but sometimes

they take part in the traditional celebrations. This is an example of a student adopting the

institution’s curricular discourse surrounding indigenous cultural identity with the goal of

preserving and empowering, but not translating this discourse into her daily practice. In other

words, the student interprets the curriculum the way the curriculum is intended to be interpreted,

based on my analysis of the curriculum itself, however; the student does not translate the

curriculum in the same way she interprets it. Another student, a second semester LGID student,

Taylor 66

self-identified as indigenous and stated that after graduating she wants to work in her community,

she said, “to return to recuperate all that has been lost, for example, the language and the clothing,

all of that. I don’t see people that wear the traditional dress anymore, instead it’s another type of

clothing, I think I would like that.” This student expresses a strong value for the traditional dress

and the culture that is being lost in her community which she wants to revitalize, however; she

does not wear the traditional clothing herself. Additionally, during the Totonaco language classes

she often would not attend and did not show a lot of interest in learning the language. While this

is my own understanding of her actions, it is important to note because it strongly contrasts the

interpretation she gave during the interview. I saw this repeatedly where during interviews students

mirrored the professors and the curriculum with their interpretation surrounding cultural identity

and how strongly they value this identity, but there was a gap between this and the translation into

practice of that identity.

Another important example was a group phenomenon I observed amongst the eighth

semester LGID class, the last semester of the program. Four students completed their research on

the loss of traditional diets, the displacement of traditional foods for processed foods, and the links

between food and identity. I had already interviewed one of these students who completed his

research in his own community. The student had talked about the loss of Totonaco culture through

the loss of food and how he thinks this should be maintained and people should be encouraged to

grow their own food and maintain the traditional diet. However, on the same day that I observed

the students present their projects, the class had cooperated to buy food to make their lunch

together. The ingredients they chose included packaged white bread, brand name cheese, ham,

canned jalapeños, mayonnaise, and Coca-Cola to drink. The professor asked the students why they

chose to eat this if they had just presented on the loss of their own ancestral diets and the

importance of food autonomy and sovereignty. The students did not have an answer to this

question, it appeared as though it had never occurred to them to change their own practices. This

is a striking example of the gap that exists between interpretation and translation among the

students. Many have adopted the curricular discourse of the UVI, but few have translated this

discourse into their identity in practice.

While I did not conduct research on the institutional level, data based on informal

observation suggested that this gap exists on that level as well. Amongst administrators and

professors there is a lot of discourse regarding the importance of the Totonaco language and the

Taylor 67

cultural identity attached to it, yet I rarely heard Totonaco being spoken amongst them. The

coordinator is from the Totonacapan region, he is also the teacher of the Totonaco language class

and a fluent speaker himself. Yet, he does not incorporate Totonaco into the campus life and could

only be heard speaking the language when teaching class. I asked one student her thoughts on the

program’s influence on students valuing of their cultural identity and she responded by saying, “I

think the program has the intention [of helping to recognize and value]. It is in the discourse, but

I think it is still lacking a little bit to make that recognition and revaluing happen. There would

have to be more activities that implement the revaluing” (6th semester, LGID). Another student

expressed a similar sentiment, saying that he does not feel the university has reaffirmed his cultural

identity because they only get a couple hours of Totonaco classes each week for one semester and

nothing more. This second semester LGID student explained that he would like to see more

Totonaco classes and cultural workshops for students who want to learn more and to get students

more excited about practicing the culture. These students point to an institutional gap between

interpretation and translation of the curriculum, which could potentially be part of the reason the

same gap exists in the students. The students may be reflecting what they are experiencing; being

told in the classroom that their indigenous identity is important, but not seeing this in practice.

This theme is difficult to address for a myriad of reasons. One being that it is hard to know

how much respondent bias could have occurred in the interviews. It is possible that students told

me what they thought I wanted to hear about their valuing of their indigenous identity. For

example, one student explained that he never feels like he needs to change or hide his indigenous

identity when in certain situations, he stated, “I don’t need to change it because that would be

giving embarrassment to where I come from and to who I am…My attitude it to be proud of myself

and demonstrate that before society” (4th semester LGID). I was specifically told by two professors

and a student to interview this student because when he entered the UVI he stated that he did not

speak Totonaco and did not identify as Totonaco. However, after his first year he began opening

up, reclaiming his indigenous identity, and speaking Totonaco, according to others. When asked

about this in the interview the students stated that he has always had pride in his identity and has

never felt the need to hide it. These discrepancies make it hard to understand why the gaps between

student interpretation and translation exist, because discourse can be manipulated, changed, and

forgotten.

Taylor 68

Another aspect which makes this topic delicate is the idea of the modern indigenous person.

This is the idea that a person can dress in modern day clothing, no longer practice traditional

customs, eat processed food, etc. and still self-identify as indigenous and be indigenous.

Potentially, the translation of cultural identity that I am looking for in students does not exist

because cultural practice is not what makes their identity. Therefore, what I am defining as gaps

between student interpretation and translation could just be the difference between how I interpret

identity in practice, particularly indigenous identity, and how the students do. However, in the

curriculum and in the interviews the interpretation specifically pointed towards these traditional

practices; clothing, language, customs, medicine, legal systems, food, etc. Students themselves

talked about preserving the dress, the language, and the medicinal practices. Therefore, while it is

not necessary for students to put a certain way of being indigenous into practice, the argument I

am making is that their translation of the curriculum does not match their own interpretation of it.

On the other hand, it is possible that for some students their translation does match their

interpretation because they identify as indigenous but to them that means coming from the

community or having family that is Totonaco. To these students, as I discussed earlier, being

Totonaco is not just speaking the language and wearing the clothes, therefore to them it may not

be important to put those aspects into practice. One student explained this very nicely:

Honestly, I could consider myself as an indigenous person because

I come from an indigenous place, but I don’t practice it sometimes.

I don’t speak the language, I don’t dress like indigenous people so I

say to myself, ‘Am I or am I not indigenous?’ But, from my heart…I

would say yes, we are all indigenous because we are from the same

earth of the Totonacapan and part of the Totonacapan mountains,

so it is an indigenous town, we are all indigenous towns. (6th

semester LGID)

This is an example of a student who recognizes that he does not practice his indigenous identity in

the (sometimes) expected ways, but he defines indigenous identity as coming from an indigenous

town. Therefore, the practice of this indigenous identity may simply be being born in an indigenous

community.

Taylor 69

The theme of the gap between interpretation and translation came up a lot throughout the

research and is something I struggled to understand without including my own bias and

expectations. I did not want to put an expectation of an ideal indigenous person onto the students

and their translations but I also wanted to be able to notice and discuss these gaps. Thinking back

to the sub-question of what identity negotiations emerge in the students, it became clear that it

depends on the individual, a case-by-case basis whether or not students’ interpretations and

translations align with regards to their cultural identities. However, even though this may be an

individual occurrence, bigger questions still arose from this observed phenomenon.

Taylor 70

10. Negotiating Between Two Worlds

Both the third and fourth themes, student identity re-negotiation and gaps between interpretation

and translation, contribute to answering the main research question, how students negotiate their

cultural identity in interaction with the university’s curriculum. While I have already discussed the

many ways students negotiate their identities, I want to now take a look at two of the bigger

questions that came out of this research. Why does this re-negotiation occur, and why do the gaps

between interpretation and translation exist? Both of these questions call for much deeper

investigation in the future, but I would like to theorize based on the collected data. I began to

answer the difficulties surrounding the gaps between interpretation and translation in the previous

section, but that was related to the technicalities of definition and what it means to be indigenous.

Here, I want to discuss these gaps based on the finding that there was a difference between student

discourse surrounding indigenous identity and student practice of this identity.

Many students spoke about feeling like they are being pulled between two worlds, a

modern or capitalist world and a traditional or indigenous world. Students commented that they

feel the university curriculum affirms the traditional world, the traditional Totonaco identity, but

that they are not able to jump fully into this world. Instead they are stuck with one foot in each

world, negotiating their identity between the two. One student explained how he has had to develop

the ability to move seamlessly between these two worlds, in each moment his brain must analyze

the situation and determine which version of himself is going to emerge. This sixth semester LGID

student stated, “It seems like they are two identities but in the end it’s just one…It’s a person who

can move and play in two spaces.” This student is stating that it is not necessarily a gap between

interpretation and translation, instead it is a shift between two worlds where the practice changes

depending on the situation. However, I observed these students in the indigenous world. I observed

them in the university and in the indigenous communities where they did their research and found

that their interpretation and translation did not align within this same world.

There are many possibilities to explain this gap, but I think much of it has to do with

students’ experiences prior to entering the UVI. The majority of students stated they felt that there

is a lot of discrimination against indigenous people in Mexico. As a result, many feel that they or

their parents, or their grandparents lost parts of their indigenous identity in order to protect

themselves from this discrimination. One student stated,

Taylor 71

Due to a social condition that many of the communities where we

are from have lived through, for a long time being Totonaco was

reason for discrimination. I think that even reached our

generations—I think that it is most present in this latest stage of the

last generation, which is that many people do not speak the

language anymore, or no longer wear the tradition clothing. They

even don’t practice the traditions that there were before, that

existed. (8th semester LGID student)

This student eloquently explains how discrimination against indigenous communities in Mexico

has led to a loss of the practice of indigenous culture and subsequently a loss of the culture itself.

This is a clear path that many of the UVI students have lived. They expressed that they have grown

up in the assimilation world, in schools where their Totonaco identity was not valued or was

completely forgotten.

A student from another UVI campus stated (during the meeting of students) that there is an

“undeclared war” against indigenous peoples in Mexico. And so, many of the students at the UVI

grew up in this undeclared war against their languages, knowledges, customs, food, dress, etc. This

led to either not knowing about or a denial of indigenous identity in many students. Then, they

arrived at the UVI, which is the exact opposite environment from their previous schooling. In this

university environment, with a curriculum which emphasizes cultural identity and pushes to

empower indigenous identity, the students have begun to re-negotiate their own identities. They

have begun to re-value and recognize their indigenousness. However, while many have reached

the point of adopting the curricular discourse of the UVI as their own, many have not been able to

fully translate it congruently. As a result, the negotiation that is happening in the students is

actually a negotiation happening between their own interpretation and their own translation. This

is an assertion that needs further research in the future, to fully understand how students identified

before entering the UVI and how they practiced that identity in comparison to their interpretation

and translation during and after their time at the UVI.

Taylor 72

11. Conclusion

Reflecting back on the sub-questions answered by this research, the first question addressed was:

how do these identity negotiations differ within the student: internally, externally, and nationally?

This was answered through the observation that students often presented gaps in the fluidity of

their identity. Meaning, in interviews students would express an identity, but under observation,

they would externally present a different identity, or inconsistencies. I was not able to fully observe

how the students expressed their identity nationally, however; when asked, many students

discussed feeling the need to hide their indigenous identity when outside of their community. The

second sub-question was: what aspects of the students’ identity’s does the UVI curriculum

emphasize? This research found that the UVI curriculum emphasizes cultural identity, particularly

through focusing on community and indigenous identity. The third question: how does the UVI

curriculum present cultural identity? This question overlaps with the second sub-question, the data

showed that the UVI curriculum presents cultural identity mainly as being community and

indigenous based. This was observed through the inclusion of Totonaco rituals, language, and

practices as well as the curricular emphasis on engaging with the local Totonaco communities. The

fourth question: how do students themselves define the concept of identity? The data demonstrated

that students’ own definitions of identity emphasize cultural identity, mirroring the university

curriculum’s presentation of identity. Students often defined identity through the lens of their

indigenousness or their connection to their community. However, there seemed to be a gap

between these interpretations and the translations into practice, which related to the last two sub-

questions. The fifth and sixth sub-questions were: which identity interpretations emerge in the

negotiations as a result of students’ enactment of the UVI curriculum? What identity translations

emerge in the negotiations as a result of students’ enactment of the UVI curriculum? The research

found that students’ identity interpretations often matched the UVI curriculum they were enacting.

Meaning, they defined identity and often their own identity, through a cultural—community and

indigenous—lens. The majority of students identified as indigenous, viewing this as an important

aspect of their identity. This interpretation of their own identity directly reflected the UVI

curriculum they were enacting. Additionally, many students emphasized the importance of

maintaining and revitalizing the Totonaco culture and language. However, the translations that

emerged in the identity negotiations were often not congruent with the students’ interpretations.

Taylor 73

This appeared in students’ daily practice, with my observations revealing that often the students

do not practice their indigenous and community identity in the ways that they stated in their

interviews. For example, through speaking the language with each other or wearing the clothing.

Each of these sub-questions contributes to the main research question, how do students at

the Universidad Veracruzana Intercultural (UVI), Sede Regional Totonacapan, negotiate their

cultural identity while enacting the university’s curriculum? The findings of the research reveal

that the curricular emphasis on Totonaco identity and community identity pushes students to re-

negotiate their own identities as they enact the curriculum throughout the four years. Students

demonstrated this process of negotiation and re-negotiation through their interpretations of their

enactment of the curriculum. However, this process was not present through their translations. As

a result, this research found that students go through a process of re-negotiation which

encompasses the enactment, interpretation, and translation of the curriculum. The re-negotiation

is a process of the students re-defining their own identity in more cultural, community-related, and

indigenous terms and of of re-valuing: their indigenous or communal ties, indigenous language,

ancestral knowledges, and customs. Students begin to do this through their interpretations of their

enactment, but many have not reached the point of translating this into their daily practice.

11.1 Theoretical Contribution

The theoretical contribution of this research lies in my findings regarding enactment theory.

Enactment theory has mainly been researched in the context of policy to curriculum and teacher

enactment, however; there is much less research regarding enactment by students. This research

applied enactment theory to students in the deeply contextualized situation of an intercultural

university in rural Veracruz, Mexico. As a result, I found that for this case, Ball et al.’s (2012)

argument of enactment and interpretation occurring side by side applies here over that of Braun et

al.’s (2011) of interpretation being a part of the enactment process. I found that in the context of

the Totonacapan UVI, students simply need to go to school and many ended up at the UVI only

due to its location, cost, accessibility, etc. Many of the students were just looking for a university

and did not start to engage with the curricular discourse of the UVI until they were already there,

leading to enactment, interpretation, and translation all occurring side by side. Braun et al. (2011)

conducted their research in the United Kingdom. It may be that in a global North country like the

Taylor 74

U.K. students are able to choose their university based on their past engagement with similar types

of schooling or causes. These students, as Braun et al. (2011) might argue, may then go through a

process where interpretation and translation are a part of their enactment, but this was not the case

for the UVI students in Mexico.

Additionally, as I stated, most enactment theory looks at enactment through schools and

teachers, not students. Therefore, it may be that Braun et al. (2011) came to their conclusion

because teachers do go through an enactment process which encapsulates interpretation and

translation in order to transmit curriculum to the students. However, students are not enacting

policy discourse until the moment they step into the classroom, especially if they did not even want

to attend that particular university in the first place. Therefore, for UVI students, enactment comes

first, followed by interpretation and translation. This theoretical contribution to enactment theory

is very specific to the student experience of the Mexico context. More research would need to be

done to see if this theory can be applied in other Global South countries, or in other indigenously

populated regions.

11.2 Conceptual Reflection

Prior to arriving in Veracruz and conducting my research I had created the following conceptual

scheme for this research:

Taylor 75

Rachel Taylor (2018) based on Jacob et al. (2015) and Braun et al. (2011)

I created this framework to emphasize how all of the research is grounded in the context of the

location. All four sub-categories of student cultural identity are present, each of these categories

interacts with UVI curriculum and each student enacts that curriculum. Initially, I chose to label

the center as student indigenous identity because the aim of the research was to understand how

students negotiate this particular aspect of their identity. I made the change to cultural identity after

conducting the interviews and analyzing the data because I found that most students defined their

identities through the lens of cultural identity and not every student interviewed self-identified as

indigenous. Since I am using Jacob et al.’s (2015) theory of indigenous identity being a sub-set of

cultural identity it was logical to focus on the broader cultural identity of the students, this way I

could analyze student cultural identity negotiation of both the students who self-identify as

indigenous and those who do not. This also fit with the curriculum of the university and my

research aims of understanding how the students negotiate their cultural identities based on their

interactions with the curriculum.

The new conceptual scheme, presented in Section 2.3, is impacted by the theoretical

framework and the findings of the research. In my research, I found that identity is much more

fluid than I presented it in the original conceptual framework. Particularly the interactions between

Con

text C

on

text

Taylor 76

identity and context. I noticed in the students that the re-negotiation of their identity occurs as they

interact with a new context, the UVI. Additionally, the new conceptual scheme reflects more of

the movement that occurs between the different levels and worlds of identity that the students

expressed they move through. In this original scheme the individual, community, national, and

external aspects of identity appear to be separate from context. In reality, these different levels

make up the students’ different contexts; contexts which students expressed they have to be able

to move fluidly through. Therefore, I removed context from the outside of the scheme and

incorporated it into the fluid levels surrounding the student and their cultural identity negotiation.

11.3 Recommendations for Policy and Practice

Based on the findings of this research regarding student re-negotiation of cultural identities while

enacting the UVI curriculum and the subsequent gaps between students’ spoken interpretation and

acted translation, there are recommendations to be made for Mexican education policy. These

findings imply that the empowerment of indigenous identities in Mexico would need to be

incorporated into primary and secondary school curricula with emphasis on indigenous

knowledges, cultures, languages, and ultimately, students’ cultural identities. While currently

indigenous primary schools exist in predominantly indigenous regions, this is a curriculum change

that would need to incorporated into the national curriculum for all types of primary and secondary

schools. This is due to several reasons. Primarily, not all indigenous students attend indigenous

primary schools, they are present in a variety of schools around the country. Therefore, this would

reach these students no matter where they live and what school they attend. Additionally, due to

the high numbers of students I interviewed stating the discrimination they have witnessed or

experienced, a curriculum which values indigenous peoples and their cultures and knowledges

could also be beneficial to educating the population regarding indigenous groups and decreasing

discrimination. This curriculum would need to be inclusive of all views and created together with

indigenous leaders from around the country. The purpose of including an accurate, valuing, and

empowering curriculum regarding indigenous history, culture, and knowledges would be so that

indigenous students grow up valuing their culture and do not have to go through a re-negotiation

and a re-valuing when they enter a university like the UVI. A curriculum like this would take a lot

of work and collaboration on behalf of the Mexican government’s education department; however,

Taylor 77

the GCIBE already exists and has implemented the intercultural university project. Therefore,

there is hope this project could be used as a model for a similar project at the primary and secondary

school level.

A curricular change at the primary and secondary level would be very beneficial, but it is

not enough. The UVI has its intercultural curriculum and yet students still have this gap between

their interpretation and translation into their daily practice. This points to a need for broader

societal change to occur in order for indigenous peoples to feel safe and empowered in the practice

of their cultural identities. A need this broad is difficult to translate into a specific policy, however;

one small aspect that could begin to address the societal shift and relates to my education policy

recommendation is a new understanding of interculturality. In Mexico intercultural education is

aimed at indigenous students, with the university program’s origins in providing access to higher

education for rural and indigenous students. The intercultural university program seeks to bring

indigenous knowledges into conversation with majority group knowledges and to increase value

of and respect towards these knowledges. While the GCIBE and the intercultural university

program explicitly state that the goal of the program is not to segregate indigenous students in

separate universities, it seems as though the system is inherently set up to do just this. The

universities are mainly attended by indigenous students, partially due to quotas, but also due to

their locations in rural indigenous communities. This is also affected by the program of study,

which emphasizes creating individuals who will return to their communities and develop those

communities further; intellectually, economically, and culturally (Schmelkes, 2008). This

inherently excludes students from non-indigenous communities and as a result the intercultural

values of empowering indigenous knowledges and creating conversation between the groups are

not met.

The lack of non-indigenous students could lead the broader population to understand

intercultural education as being for indigenous students, not majority group students (Dietz, 2016).

This puts the burden to be understanding, multiculturally fluent, and open to different cultures on

indigenous students, as though this program is a new strategy (replacing assimilation) to prepare

indigenous students to eventually integrate into the mainstream national identity. Indigenous

groups would disagree with this statement, arguing that it is empowering for students to learn about

their own history, to value their native languages, and live out their culture on a daily basis (De la

Peña, 2006, 282). This may be accurate, but it is important to also incorporate this education system

Taylor 78

into mainstream schooling. A re-defining of what interculturality means to go beyond just being

for indigenous peoples and instead serving the entire population and the subsequent

implementation of that in the education system, could ideally create a mentality shift in the

Mexican society. A mentality shift would mean a more open and less assimilationist society in

which indigenous peoples feel their knowledges, cultures, and languages are valued by everyone

and incorporated into the mainstream consciousness.

Taylor 79

Literature List

Apple, Michael W. (1993). Serious editor’s introduction to race, identity, and reproduction in

education. In Race, identity, and reproduction in education, ed. C. McCarthy and W.

Crichlow, vii–ix. New York: Routledge.

Apple, Michael W. (2001). Educating the “Right” way: Markets, standards, god, and inequality.

New York: Routledge Falmer.

Apple, Michael W. (2004). Ideology and curriculum, 2nd ed. London: Routledge Falmer.

Ball, S., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). Doing enactments research. How schools do policy:

policy enactments in secondary schools, 1-18. New York: Routledge.

Ball, S., Maguire, M., Braun A., & Hoskins, K. (2011). Policy subjects and policy actors in

schools: some necessary but insufficient analyses. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural

Politics of Education, 32:4, 611-624. DOI: 10.1080/01596306.2011.601564.

Begmann, M. (2010). On concept and paradigms in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed

Methods Research 4(3): 171-175.

Bello, Alvaro M. and Rangel, Marta. (2002). “La equidad y la exclusión de los pueblos indígenas

y afrodescendientes en América Latina y el Caribe.” In Revista de la CEPAL, No. 76, pp.

39-54.

Berger, Adriana. (1986). “Cultural Hermeneutics: The Concept of Imagination in the

Phenomenological Approaches of Henry Corbin and Mircea Eliade.” The Journal of

Religion, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 141–156. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1202584.

Braun, A., Ball, S., & Maguire, M. (2011). Policy enactments in schools introduction: towards a

toolbox for theory and research. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of

Education,32(4), 581-583. DOI: 10.1080/01596306.2011.601554.

Braun, A., Ball, S., Maguire, M., & Hoskins, K. (2011) Taking context seriously: towards

explaining policy enactments in the secondary school. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural

Politics of Education, 32(4), 585-596. DOI: 10.1080/01596306.2011.601555

Carrigan, Ana. (1995). Chiapas: The First Post-Modern Revolution, 19 Fletcher F. World Aff.

71.

Castellanos, Laura and Schwietert Collazo, Julie. (2017). “The Feminist Indigenous Candidate

Running for President of Mexico.” Vice, Vice Mexico, 14 Nov. 2017,

www.vice.com/en_us/article/9kqbqd/the-feminist-indigenous-candidate-running-for-

president-of-mexico.

Taylor 80

Chenaut, Victoria. "Los Totonacas De Veracruz: Población, Cultura Y Sociedad". Secretaria De

Educacion De Veracruz,

www.sev.gob.mx/servicios/publicaciones/colec_veracruzsigloXXI/AtlasPatrimonioC

ultural/02TOTONACAS.pdf.

Chilisa, B. (2005). Educational research within postcolonial Africa: A critique of HIV/AIDS

research in Botswana. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 18(6):

659–684.

Cross, William E. (1991). Shades of black: Diversity in African-American identity. Philadelphia:

Temple University Press.

Curiel Landa, Rafael. Universidad Veracruzana, Universidad Veracruzana Intercultural, 11

December 2017, https://www.uv.mx/uvi/.

De la Peña, G. (2006). A new Mexican nationalism? Indigenous rights, constitutional reform and

the conflicting meanings of multiculturalism*. Nations and Nationalism, 12: 279–302.

DOI:10.1111/j.1469-8129.2006.00241.x

Dietz, G. (2004). From Indigenismo to Zapatismo: The struggle for indigenous rights in

twentieth century Mexico. In: Grey Postero N and Zamosc L (eds) The Struggle for

Indian Rights in Latin America. Brighton: Sussex Academic Press, pp.32–80.

Dietz, G. (2009). Los actores indígenas ante la “interculturalización” de la educación superior en

México: ¿empoderamiento o neoindigenismo? En: Revista Latinoamericana de

Educación Inclusiva, Vol. 3, N° 2, pp. 55-75. Santiago de Chile: Universidad Central de

Chile; (cfr. http://www.uv.mx/iie/files/2013/01/Articulo-RLEI.pdf).

Dietz, G. (2016). La interculturalidad educativa y la necesidad de una evaluación inductiva y

contextualizada. En: Gaceta de la Política Nacional de Evaluación Educativa en México,

año 2 no. 5, pp. 79-84. Ciudad de México: Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la

Educación, cfr. http://www.inee.edu.mx/index.php/blog-de-la-gaceta/593-de-puno-y-

letra/2398-la-interculturalidad-educativa-y-la-necesidad-de-una-evaluacion-

inductiva-y-contextualizada.

Dietz, G. and Mateos Cortés, L.S. (2011). ‘Indigenising’ or ‘interculturalizing’ universities in

México? towards an ethnography of diversity discourses and practices inside the

Universidad veracruzana intercultural. Learning and Teaching: The International Journal

of Higher Education in the Social Sciences 4, no. 1: 4–21. Wolverhampton: University of

Wolverhampton; (cfr. http://www.uv.mx/iie/files/2013/01/Articulo-LATISS.pdf).

Dietz, G. and Mateos Cortés, L.S. (2012). The need for comparison in intercultural education.

En: Intercultural Education, Vol. 23 N° 5, pp. 411-424. Bruselas: International

Association for Intercultural Education (IAIE);

(cfr. http://www.uv.mx/iie/files/2013/01/Articulo-IE-comparison.pdf).

Taylor 81

Dietz, G. and Mateos Cortés, L.S. (2016). How Intercultural is an “Intercultural University”?

Some lessons from Veracruz, México. En: Revista Lusófona de Educação, Vol. 31, pp.

125-143. Lisboa, Portugal: Universidade Lusófona de Humanidades e Tecnologia

(articulo-RevLus-entrevista Boaventura).

Dietz, G. and Mateos Cortés, L.S. (2017). Local Resignifications of Transnational Discourses in

Intercultural Higher Education: the case of the Universidad Veracruzana Intercultural in

Mexico. En: Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, Vol. 16 no. 1, pp. 28-50. London,

Reino Unido: SAGE, cfr. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022216633679

Dilg, Mary. (1999). Race and culture in the classroom: Teaching and learning through

multicultural education. New York: Teachers College Press.

EP-Nuffic. (2015). “The Mexican Education System Described and Compared with the Dutch

System.” Jan. 2015, www.nuffic.nl/en/publications/find-a-publication/education-

system-mexico.pdf.

Fierro Evans, MA. C. and Rojo Pons, F. (2012). An Intercultural Education for Mexico: Career

and Contributions of Sylvia Schmelkes. Curriculum Inquiry, 42: 103–125.

DOI:10.1111/j.1467-873X.2011.00577.x

Gall, Olivia. (2004). Identidad, exclusión y racismo: reflexiones teóricas y sobre México

(Identity, Exclusion and Racism: Theoretical Considerations). In Revista Mexicana de

Sociología, Vol. 66, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 2004), pp. 221-259.

García Ramos, Crescencio. (2007). Diccionario: Totonaco-Español, Español-Totonaco. 1st ed.,

Secretaria De Educación De Veracruz.

Gobierno del Estado de Veracruz. (2011). Estudios Regionales Para La Planeación: Región

Totonaca 2011. Available at: www.veracruz.gob.mx/wp-

content/uploads/sites/2/2012/01/tf07-er-07-totonaca-reg.pdf.

Green, Michael K. (1995). Issues in Native American identity. New York: Peter Lang.

Guillemin, M. & Gillam, L. (2004). ‘Ethics, Reflexivity, and “Ethically Important Moments” in

Research,’ Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (2), 261-280.

Gutiérrez, Natividad and Núñez, Rosamaría. (1998). Arquetipos y estereotipos en la construcción

de la identidad nacional de México. Revista Mexicana de Sociología, Vol. 60, No. 1 (Jan.

- Mar., 1998), pp. 81-90.

Hall, S. (1996). Introduction: Who needs “Identity”? In Questions of cultural identity, ed. Stuart

Hall and P. DuGay, 1–17. London: Sage.

Taylor 82

Hall, S. (1997). “The Work of Representation,” in Representation: Culturations and Signifying

Practices, ed. S. Hall (London: Sage Publications). 13-74.

Hamel, Rainer Enrique. (2013). Multilingual education in Latin America. In Chapelle, Carol A.

(ed.). The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Hecock, R. Douglas. (2014) "Democratization, Education Reform, and the Mexican Teachers’

Union." Latin American Research Review, vol. 49 no. 1, pp. 62-82. Project

MUSE, DOI:10.1353/lar.2014.0008

Hernandez-Zavala, M., Patrinos, H.A., Sakellariou, C., Shapiro, J. (2006). Quality of schooling

and quality of schools for indigenous students in Guatemala, Mexico and Peru.

Unpublished manuscript, World Bank.

Jacob, W.J. & Cheng, Sheng & Porter, Maureen. (2015). Indigenous Education: Language,

Culture, and Identity. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-017-9355-1.

Johnston, Josée. (2000). “Pedagogical Guerrillas, Armed Democrats, and Revolutionary

Counterpublics: Examining Paradox in the Zapatista Unprising in Chiapas Mexico.”

Theory and Society, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 463–505. JSTOR, JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/3108584.

Junta de Buen Gobierno. (2014). Aceptamos Tumin: Mercado Alternativo, Economia Solidaria Y

Autogestion. 1st ed., CONACYT y Intersaberes. Xalapa, Ver.

López, Francesca A., Julian Vasquez Heilig, and Jacqueline Schram. (2013). A story within a

story: Culturally responsive schooling and American Indian and Alaska Native

achievement in the National Indian Education Study. American Journal of Education

119(4): 513–538.

Maguire, M., Hoskins, K., Ball, S., & Braun A. (2011). Policy discourses in school texts.

Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32:4, 597-609. DOI:

10.1080/01596306.2011.601556.

Mateos Cortés, L.S. (2009). The transnational migration of the discourse of interculturality:

Towards a comparative analysis of its appropriation by academic and political actors in

the state of Veracruz – the Universidad Veracruzana Intercultural and the secretary of

education. Intercultural Education 20, no. 1: 27–37.

May, Stephen, and Sheila Aikman. (2003). Indigenous education: Addressing current issues and

developments. Comparative Education 39(2): 139–145.

Melgarejo Vivanco, Jose Luis. (1943). Totonacapan. Talleres Graficos Del Estado. Xalapa,

Veracruz.

Taylor 83

México, Secretaria de Educación Publica, Dirección General de Acreditación, Incorporación y

Revalidación . “La Estructura Del Sistema Educativo Mexicano.”.

www.sep.gob.mx/work/models/sep1/Resource/1447/1/images/sistemaedumex09_01.p

df.

Minority Rights Group International. “Mexico- Indigenous Peoples.” Minority Rights Group

International, 2018, minorityrights.org/minorities/indigenous-peoples-4/.

Morris, N. (2015). ‘Providing ethical guidance for collaborative research in developing

countries,’ Research Ethics, 11(4) 211-235.

Nagel, Joane. (1994). “Constructing Ethnicity: Creating and Recreating Ethnic Identity and

Culture.” In Social Problems, Vol. 41, No. 1, February 1994, pp. 152-176.

OECD (2010). Higher Education in Regional and City Development: State of Veracruz, Mexico,

Higher Education in Regional and City Development, OECD Publishing.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264089013-en.

Oetting, E.R. and Beauvais, F. (1991). Orthogonal Cultural Identification Theory: The Cultural

Identification of Minority Adolescents," The International Journal of the Ad-dictions 25,

nos. 5A-6A: 655-85.

Palerm, A., and I. Kelly. (1952). The Tajin Totonac. Washington, DC, United States: Bureau of

American Ethnography.

Phinney, Jean S. (1990). “Ethnic Identity in Adolescents and Adults: Review of Research.” In

Psychological Bulletin, Volume 108(3), November 1990, pp. 499–514.

Re, Arianna. (2013). “Universidades Interculturales En México. Reflexiones Sobre Identidades a

Partir De Un Trabajo De Campo En Espinal, Veracruz.” Universität de Barcelona.

Reinke, Leanne. (2004). “Globalisation and Local Indigenous Education in

Mexico.” International Review of Education 50.5–6: 483–496. International Review of

Education. Web.

Robertson, Susan L. & Dale, Roger (2015). Towards a ‘critical cultural political economy’

account of the globalising of education, Globalisation, Societies and Education, 13:1,

149-170.

Schmal, John P. (2014). “The Indigenous Veracruz.” Somos Primos, Somos Primos,

www.somosprimos.com/schmal/veracruzindigenous.htm.

Schmelkes, S. (2003). Educación superior intercultural: el caso de México. In: Paper presented

at the Encuentro Internacional Intercambio de Experiencias Educativas. Guadalajara:

UdG-UACI and ANUIES

Taylor 84

Schmelkes, Sylvia (2008). ‘Las universidades interculturales en México: ¿Una contribución a la

equidad en educación superior?’, paper presented at the First Conference on Ethnicity,

Race, and Indigenous Peoples in Latin America and the Caribbean, University of

California at San Diego.

Secretaria de Finanzas y Planeación. (2013). Programas Regionales Veracruzanos: Programa

Región Totonaca 2013-2016. Gobierno del Estado de Veracruz. Available at:

www.veracruz.gob.mx/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/04/tf07-pr-totonaca.pdf.

Singh, P., Heimans, S., Glasswell, K. (2014). Policy Enactment, context and performativity:

ontological politics and researching Australian National Partnership policies. Journal of

Education Policy. 29:6, 826-844, DOI:10.1080/02680939.2014.891763.

Sumner, A., & Tribe, A. (2008). International development studies: Theories and methods in

research and practice Los Angeles, CA: Sage, Chapter 5: 99-127.

Taylor, C. (1994). The politics of recognition. In Multiculturalism: A critical reader, ed. D.T.

Goldberg, 75–106. Oxford: Blackwell.

UNESCO, Intercultural Education Guidelines (2006)

Universidad Veracruzana. (2016). Legislación Universitaria: Reglamento Interno de la

Universidad Veracruzana Intercultural. H. Consejo Universitario General.

www.uv.mx/legislacion/files/2016/12/Reglamento-Interno-de-la-UVI.pdf.

Vertovec, Steven. (2007). Introduction: New directions in the anthropology

of migration and multiculturalism, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30:6, 961-978, DOI:

10.1080/01419870701599416

Weaver, Hilary N. (2001). Indigenous identity: What is it and who really has it? The American

Indian Quarterly 25(2): 240–255.

Taylor 85

Annex A

Quotes in Spanish:

1. “La comunidad indígena, en tanto espacio delimitado física y simbólicamente, es

concebida por Georges Balandier como una ‘sociedad a escala reducida con fronteras

concretas’. ‘La comunidad es el núcleo de reproducción de los lazos de solidaridad e

identidad de sus miembros, al mismo tiempo que estructura los limites de las posiciones y

conflictos internos por el poder’” (Plan de Estudios, LGID: 25)

2. “Al integrarse al sistema de relaciones sociales de producción capitalista, los miembros de

la etnia mantuvieron alguna comunidad de relaciones de reproducción del ser social (en

torno a las relaciones de producción y/o filiación) que permitieron una continuidad en el

proceso de desarrollo de su identidad cultural distintiva, desde la base de su tradición

cultural real” (Plan de Estudios, LGID: 26)

3. Marco ético-político de la DUV Intercultural: “Los principios que abraza la LGID en el

plano ético y político son los siguientes:

a. Permanente construcción de la comunidad, vinculada a la reconformación de

identidades, fabricación de consensos y manejo de conflictos” (Plan de Estudios,

LGID: 65)

4. “Se plantea una inter-dependencia entre la docencia, la investigación y la vinculación y

colaboración con las comunidades de las regiones interculturales” (Plan de Estudios,

LGID: 57)

5. “Además a través de la vinculación este comunitaria, uno se va dando cuenta de muchas

cosas, de varias realidades, pero yo les decía en algún momento a mis maestros, es que la

vinculación comunitaria a mi me servía como para redescubrirme y para reconocerme

como un sujeto que vive en un comunidad y reconocerme a mi como alguien portador de

mi lengua y que puedo realizar ciertas acciones para el beneficio de mi comunidad.” (Male,

Graduated LGID in 2017)

6. “El(la) egresado(a) de la licenciatura GID será un(a) profesionista con las capacidades,

habilidades y actitudes que le permitirán desempeñar varias funciones cruciales para el

buen desarrollo de programas e iniciativas surgidas de las propias comunidades y regiones

interculturales” (Plan de Estudios, LGID: 70)

7. “En estas regiones la UVI apoya la formación integral de estudiantes indígenas y no

indígenas, e impulsa el desarrollo con sustentabilidad de sus poblaciones y la solución de

sus problemas, mediante el diálogo permanente con actores locales. Utiliza un enfoque

intercultural que reconoce, valora y promueve culturas, lenguas y saberes de las

comunidades.” (Plan de Estudios, LGID: 85)

8. “Pero el programa educativo tiene al menos el de gestión, me parece que si ayuda fortalecer

la identidad juvenil y además que ayuda fortalecer su identidad, empodera, si la empodera

y hace que los jóvenes en vez de migrar, pues permanezcan es sus comunidades y realizan

procesos. Procesos de defensa del territorio, cuestiones agrícolas, cuestiones de salud, etc.”

(Male, Graduated LGID in 2017)

9. “Contribuir al fortalecimiento, la valoración, el uso, el desarrollo y la sustentabilidad de

las lenguas y culturas de las regiones interculturales de Veracruz” (Plan de Estudios, LGID:

68)

10. “Utiliza un enfoque intercultural que reconoce, valora y promueve culturas, lenguas y

saberes de las comunidades” (Plan de Estudios, LDEPLUJ: 85)

Taylor 86

11. “La Licenciatura en Gestión Intercultural para el Desarrollo busca contribuir a fortalecer

los procesos de resignificación y valoración de las culturas indígenas” (Plan de Estudios,

LGID: 28)

12. “identidad es como el ser el…algo que te identifica que te—una particularidad que

compartes con otros pero que al mismo tiempo te da un sentido. Le da un sentido o un

significado a tu ser.” (Male, 8th semester student)

13. “Para mi, la identidad es lo que hace a uno, lo que soy yo, lo que forma parte de mi forma

de pensar, mi cultura, mis tradiciones, mi—a veces hasta la forma de expresarme muestra

a veces creo que mi identidad.” (Female, 8th semester student)

14. “Como algo que te identifica de tu propia cultura como algo que tu te sientes que te

identifica, que dices, ‘esto soy yo, pertenezco a este lugar o pertenezco a este sitio.’”

(Female, 8th semester LGID student)

15. “Yo lo veo así como todos los elementos que me hacen formar parte de ciertos grupos y

que al mismo tiempo intervienen en mi persona y hacen que yo sea como soy.” (Male, 2nd

semester student)

16. “Mira por ejemplo, la identidad es la cultura te da un identidad. Cuando tu te identificas

por ejemplo con alguien, por ejemplo un totonaco, te hace tener la identidad de un

totonaco.” (Female, 2nd semester student)

17. “Pues, como características que nos identifican a uno. Por ejemplo, pertenecer a la cultura

totonaca.” (Female, 4th semester LGID student)

18. “Identidad. Lo que te identifica, no como persona, como parte de algo. Por ejemplo,

totonaca, dices, ‘bueno a lo mejor mi identidad es mi lengua’ por que cuando tu me

escuchas hablar dices, ‘ah es de tal lugar.’ O si la ves vestida de alguna manera dices, ‘ah

es de tal lugar,’ eso es lo que a lo mejor te da identidad. No necesitas conocerme ni

escucharme hablar tanto tiempo para saber mas o menos a que pertenezco.” (Female, 2nd

semester LGID student

19. “Me ha tocado alguna gente que dice que no son totonacos porque no hablan la lengua.

Pero si su mama es totonaca y usa el vestido y lo habla entonces por qué no? Yo así lo veo.

Como por ejemplo la nacionalidad, la tienes por sangre o por el territorio en el que naces.

Creo que es lo mismo con lo indígena. Así lo veo yo. Ósea, si tu mama es indígena tú por

sangre también eres indígena. O si naciste en el totonacapan también eres indígena”

(Female, 4th semester LGID student)

20. “Pues, no se si identificarme como totonaca por que para empezar ni siquiera hablo

totonaco. Es algo muy fuerte, no es algo para decir que por vivir aquí me identifico.

También nací aquí y pero pues no tengo, no uso el traje, no tengo mucho de lo que podría

yo auto-nombrarme y decir que si soy 100% totonaca por que creo que no tengo ni la mitad

de lo que esa palabra significa. Pero, tengo raíces, mis abuelos eran hablantes entonces si

muchas como de esas cosas” (Female, 4th semester LGID student)

21. “Convivir con las personas indígenas, convivir más con ellos, interactuar con ellos, estar

en contacto constante con ellos para que una forma se sienta identificada.” (Female, 2nd

semester LDEPLUJ student)

22. “Me ha ayudado bastante a reconocerme a....a reconocer mis raíces, mi identidad…Y te

vas reconociendo a través de las experiencias educativas que te dan los maestros y a través

de las experiencias de los maestros y este pues como que te vas dando cuento.” (Male,

Graduated LGID 2017)

Taylor 87

23. “Encontrarte con tu identidad por que cuando estas en una escuela… Aparte de que te

castellanizan, aparte de que te meten otras culturas, pues, olvidas la tuya pues si nadie te

dice. Pues que el sistema está enfocado en aprender una sola cosa y no sé qué y tu pues en

serio estas dejando atrás. Bueno para mí fue reencontrar mi cultura…Aquí fue donde yo

encontró mi identidad. Aunque yo ya tenia, pero yo no sabía de su existencia.” (Female,

4th LGID semester student)

24. “Yo creo que a mí si la UVI me ayudo a reivindicar esa parte que había perdido que estaba

medio extraviada en el camino.” (Male, 6th semester LGID student)

25. “Contribuir a la visibilidad, valorización y autovaloración de las culturas, de sus saberes,

de sus lenguas y sus formas de generar y compartir conocimientos” (Plan de Estudios,

LGID: 69)

26. “hay otros que ya quieren vivir en la modernización ya quieren olvidarse- ya quieren

migrar, no y la verdad a mi si a veces me ha caído en mi perspectiva, a veces me como que

hablaba despectivamente de ciertas cosas pero ahorita lo hablo con poquito mas respecto

de que hay que valorar esto por que va acabar.” (Male, 6th semester LGID student)

27. “Por que al principio yo lo que quería era salirme de, y muchos de los chavos de la UVI

dicen lo mismo. Lo que queríamos en un primer momento es migrar, salir del pueblo,

conocer a otros lugares y trabajar en la ciudades…Y pues de alguna u otra forma también

desvalorizábamos esa parte de lo comunitario y bueno este pues poco a poco fue cambiando

mi pensamiento también con las experiencias de los maestros, las clases, y algunas

actividades” (Male, Graudated LGID 2017)

28. “Desafortunadamente muchos de los que en ese entonces entramos a la universidad culpo

dos gestiones, uno por que no tuvieron otra opción en donde estudiar y la segunda por

que no pasaron las exámenes en otras universidades” (Male, Graduated LGID 2012)

29. “Desde el principio no sabia no sabia ni que estaba estudiando, solo estaba sentado aquí

así como ahorita…” (Male, 4th semester LGID student)

30. “Entonces si es muy importante que nosotros representemos un rasgo de nuestra cultura,

por ejemplo, la vestimenta, la lengua, las costumbres, a veces hasta la comida.” (Female,

8th semester LGID)

31. “Pues yo si como trabajar con mi propia comunidad este volver a recuperar todo lo aquello

que ya se perdió como por ejemplo la lengua la vestimenta, todo eso. Bueno yo ya no veo

personas que que aportan el traje si no pues ya, otra tipo de vestimenta, pero si creo que

me gustaría.” (Female, 2nd semester LGID)

32. “Yo creo que si tiene la intención. En el discurso esta. Pero yo creo que todavía le falta un

poquito que pues que se haga este reconocimiento y esta revalorización porque tendría que

haber más, mas este... actividades que implementen esta revalorización (Female, 6th

semester LGID)

33. “No tengo por que cambiarlo por que ahí seria a dar vergüenza a de donde vengo y a quien

soy y eso no es el, eso no es la actitud. La actitud es estar orgulloso de si mismo y

demostrarlo ante la sociedad.” (Male, 4th semester LGID)

34. “Pero sinceramente yo me podría considerar una persona indígena por que vengo de un

lugar indígena pero no lo llevo a practicar a veces, yo no hablo la lengua, yo no me visto

como las personas indígenas entonces digo como yo seré o no seré indígena? Pero desde

mi corazón como que de los pueblos totonacos diría si, todos somos indígenas por que

somos de la misma tierra totonacapan y parte de la sierra totonacapan, entonces es un

pueblo indígena, todos somos pueblos indígenas” (Male, 6th semester LGID)

Taylor 88

35. “Y pareciera que son dos identidades pero a final de cuenta es una nada más. Es una nada

más. Es Luis no son dos. Es una persona pero que se puede mover y puede jugar como en

dos espacios, pero sin perder también como el hilo conductor que nos ha llevado a estar

en esto.” (Male, 6th semester LGID student)

36. “Por una condición eh social que han vivido las comunidades de donde somos entonces ser

totonaco por mucho tiempo fue motivo de discriminación y eso creo llego hasta nuestras

generaciones y creo que se presenta más en esta última etapa en la última generación que

es la que muchos ya no hablan la lengua o ya no portan la vestimenta incluso ya no realizan

todas las tradiciones que antes habían, que existían.” (Male, 8th semester LGID)

Taylor 89

Annex B Interview and Respondent List:

Date Location Respondent

Characteristics

Semester Method

1 7/2/18 UVI campus,

Espinal

Male 8th semester

(LGID)

Semi-Structured

Interview

2 9/2/18 UVI campus,

Espinal

Female 2nd semester

(LGID)

Semi-Structured

Group Interview

3 9/2/18 UVI campus,

Espinal

Female 2nd semester

(LGID)

Semi-Structured

Group Interview

4 9/2/18 UVI campus,

Espinal

Female 2nd semester

(LGID)

Semi-Structured

Group Interview

5 13/2/18 Casa de Cultura,

Poza Rica

Male Graduated 2012

(LGID)

Semi-Structured

Interview

6 15/2/18 UVI campus,

Espinal

Female 8th semester

(LGID)

Semi-Structured

Interview

7 15/2/18 UVI campus,

Espinal

Female 8th semester

(LGID)

Semi-Structured

Interview

8 16/2/18 UVI campus,

Espinal

Male 2nd semester

(LGID)

Semi-Structured

Interview

9 5/3/18 UVI campus,

Espinal

Female 2nd semester

(LDEPLUJ)

Semi-Structured

Group Interview

10 5/3/18 UVI campus,

Espinal

Female 2nd semester

(LDEPLUJ)

Semi-Structured

Group Interview

11 5/3/18 UVI campus,

Espinal

Female 2nd Semester

(LDEPLUJ)

Semi-Structured

Group Interview

12 5/3/18 UVI campus,

Espinal

Male 2nd semester

(LDEPLUJ)

Semi-Structured

Group Interview

13 5/3/18 UVI campus,

Espinal

Male 2nd semester

(LDEPLUJ)

Semi-Structured

Group Interview

14 5/3/18 UVI campus,

Espinal

Male 6th semester

(LGID)

Semi-Structured

Interview

15 7/3/18 UVI campus,

Espinal

Female 2nd semester

(LGID)

Semi-Structured

Interview

16 8/3/18 UVI campus,

Espinal

Female 6th semester

(LGID)

Semi-Structured

Interview

17 8/3/18 UVI campus,

Espinal

Female 6th semester

(LGID)

Semi-Structured

Interview

18 8/3/18 UVI campus,

Espinal

Male 6th semester

(LGID)

Semi-Structured

Interview

19 8/3/18 UVI campus,

Espinal

Male 2nd semester

(LGID)

Semi-Structured

Interview

20 8/3/18 UVI campus,

Espinal

Female 4th semester

(LGID)

Semi-Structured

Interview

Taylor 90

21 8/3/18 UVI campus,

Espinal

Female 2nd semester

(LGID)

Semi-Structured

Interview

22 9/3/18 UVI campus,

Espinal

Female 4th semester

(LGID)

Semi-Structured

Interview

23 9/3/18 UVI campus,

Espinal

Male 4th semester

(LGID)

Semi-Structured

Interview

24 9/3/18 UVI campus,

Espinal

Female 4th semester

(LGID)

Semi-Structured

Group Interview

25 9/3/18 UVI campus,

Espinal

Female 4th semester

(LGID)

Semi-Structured

Group Interview

26 9/3/18 UVI campus,

Espinal

Female 4th semester

(LGID)

Semi-Structured

Group Interview

27 11/3/18 Paleteria,

Papantla

Male Graduated 2017

(LGID)

Semi-Structured

Interview

Observation List:

Class/Activity Date Semester Method Location

1 Local Language: Totonaco 6/2/18 2nd (LGID) Observation UVI, Espinal

2 Social and Participatory

Organization 8/2/18 2nd (LGID) Observation UVI, Espinal

3 Language Orientation 8/2/18 4th (LGID) Observation UVI, Espinal

4 Social and Participatory

Organization 9/2/18 2nd (LGID) Observation UVI, Espinal

5 Cosmo-visions 9/2/18 2nd (LGID) Observation UVI, Espinal

6 Fieldtrip 12/2/18 2nd (LGID) Observation

Solteros de Juan

Rosa

7 Language Orientation 15/2/18 4th (LGID) Observation UVI, Espinal

8 Legal Pluralism 15/2/18

2nd

(LDEPLUJ) Observation UVI, Espinal

9 Social and Participatory

Organization 16/2/18 2nd (LGID) Observation UVI, Espinal

10 8th semester class 19/2/18 8th (LGID) Observation UVI, Espinal

11 Health Orientation 20/2/18 4th (LGID) Observation UVI, Espinal

12 Local Language: Totonaco 20/2/18 2nd (LGID) Observation UVI, Espinal

13 Student Meeting Day 1 28/2/18 All Observation UVI, Espinal

14 Student Meeting Day 2 1/3/18 All Observation UVI, Espinal

15 Student Meeting Day 3 2/3/18 All Observation UVI, Espinal

16 Language Orientation 6/3/18 4th (LGID) Observation UVI, Espinal

17 Local Language: Totonaco 6/3/18 2nd (LGID) Observation UVI, Espinal

18 Local Language: Totonaco 7/3/18 2nd (LGID) Observation UVI, Espinal

19 Student Fieldwork 12/3/18 6th (LGID) Observation Sabaneta, Veracruz

20 Student Fieldwork 13/3/18 4th (LGID) Observation Jopala, Veracruz

Taylor 91

21 Student presentations at

Center for Indigenous Arts 14/3/18 4th (LGID) Observation

Center for

Indigenous Arts,

Tajin

22 Student Fieldwork 15/3/18

2nd

(LDEPLUJ) Observation

Rancho Alegre,

Veracruz

23 Learning Community

Presentations 22/3/18 All Observation UVI, Espinal

Taylor 92

Annex C

Interview Questions: While the interviews were semi-structured, I did have a basic list of questions

that I began each interview with. However, I allowed room for conversation to flow and new

questions to emerge based on the participants answers.

1. Where are you from?

2. Why did you decide to attend the UVI?

3. What class has been your favorite? Why?

4. What do you think of the UVI curriculum?

5. Do you speak Totonaco? If yes, how did you learn?

6. What is your research project? How did you choose it?

7. What are your post-graduation plans? Did those plans change since starting at the UVI?

8. What do you think of when I say the word identity?

9. How would you define your own identity?

10. Do you feel pride in your identity?

11. Do you identify with a Mexican identity?

12. Do you think indigenous identity and Mexican identity are different?

13. Do you feel like your identity has changed while you have been at the UVI?

14. Do you feel like the UVI affirms or negates your identity in any way?

15. How do you manifest your identity? Do you feel like there is discrimination in Mexico?