Maid – Process

Mexico City (PROCESS) – Those who participate in the AMLO marches foreshadow their social belonging as a simple organization of assembly. “We are aesthetically superior,” says a young man from Monterrey, who makes it clear without waiting for a reply, “because you are dirty, ragged, ugly.” The first is on May 30, a year and five months after the election of the government. They wave flags on their cars and chant slogans: “No to communism, abortion, pedophilia.” They demand the resignation of the president and say they are tired of the so-called “Mozism,” a phrase that provokes ridicule because the lack of spelling masks the emptiness of thought (so far, the above doctrine has no satisfactory definition). But what is noteworthy is not its unintentional humorous nature, but the way it shows a sense of social belonging in the order in which it appears: a business leader (Gilberto Lozano) goes to ask about the American soldiers on November 12, 2019.the coup d’état of the 7th Military District of Escobedo in Nuevo León; the call on the President of the Republic on April 5 by the same person from Monterrey to “overthrow the causes of reason and the destruction of freedom”; the use of verbal violence involving the forcible removal of the President has become the norm: some former candidates conduct independent self-filtered conversations in which they outline a plan for a coup d’état that includes “quickly convincing” the magistrates who review the presidential decision on protection, proposing anti-Obrador alliances in each constituency and driving out to protest, as Vox did in Spain; the possible political discourse of a faction that has never needed a political discourse, that has no demands other than complaints, and that still confuses politics with personal grievances has been rehearsed. But there is one slogan A green cardboard sign on the window of a Cruze Chevrolet (June 11) seems to sum up the sense of belonging as a rally: “I want a place where the maid is no longer my authority.” The first reaction to such an outburst is to understand that consent to the status quo of the old regime is not only the obedience of corporate executives, gold attached to public surnames, heterosexual, white bureaucrats, that is, the obedience of the children of privilege. . The protesters are certainly not the owners of billing companies, shell companies, or people who deserve tax cuts. I think, at least most people will not protest against measures against corruption and money laundering, although they do think that the “disappearance of dominance” of organized crime may lead to the confiscation of things they have never earned. First, they are the bottom children at the door of fantasy promises: to be close to the rich can glimpse my wealthy future, that the country that has disappeared is the uninterrupted and conflict-free country I experienced before that geological era. , called “polarization”. You long for “a place”, as the scrawled sign says, to go out and protest, because it is nothing more than a dream you never had. In any case, the protesters are not those who dominate, but those who agreed to a promise of obedience that has never been fulfilled. This debt cannot be settled in a country, but in a place that lacks definition and reinforces the mythical characteristics of the good life that comes from being an entrepreneur, learning English and computers, working 15-hour days, submitting, obeying and obeying the rules. Personal progress.

For this reason, a large part of the participants was angry at a fictional character: the dictator, the “communist”, the “irresponsible man”. Class hatred against the maids is possible because the protesters’ enthusiastic enslavement as employees in offices or debt-ridden businesses has not brought results beyond self-perpetuating peace. Now the so-called “neoliberalism” enslaves them without warning them that it will fail. Their loyalty has never been rewarded; the invisible hand of the market has never really worked. They focus their hatred for their own credulity on a dimension that puts them in a certain hierarchical superiority: the maids’ bosses.

Perhaps it all started with their misunderstanding that voting is like hiring an employee rather than electing a legitimate authority. They believe that political power is useful to them, an idea that is very common among corporate owners, as has been the case since Germanism. Therefore, they believe the legend – the evidence of the real power – that the representatives are servants. As the original and never completed idea of ​​Jonathan Swift’s satire, Instructions to Servants (1745), congressmen, judges, and magistrates were nothing more than butlers, cooks, footmen, coachmen, waiters, housekeepers, doormen, chambermaids, maids, cleaning ladies, milkmaids, nannies, laundresses, housekeepers, and governesses. Since power was money, everyone else was a manager. What mattered, then, was not his honesty or social intelligence but his “manners,” that is, whether he looked good, like the butler with the clothes hanging by the front door. And, whatever the choice, if you did not follow instructions, you could be fired. References to maids have been around since the beginning of this era of change in Mexico. It all started with the movie Rome Proposed by Alfonso Cuarón (2018), and continues with the inclusion of domestic workers in social security and credit. Hernán Gómez recorded the reaction of the “bosses” in a television program broadcast on the now defunct Canal Once:

– I want a salary so that you can put everything in the bag – says the employer – They give you everything, even the clothes you give them.

– How much trust do you have in him? – The journalist asks. – I take precautions: everything is locked. I will not open the door to the devil. – Another woman says, we gave him everything: food, shelter and shampoo. Now they want us to pay their salaries before the holidays. I do not agree. The imaginary “place” without conflicts is the myth of the family, where nothing is political, everything is private, and the employees of the house are “like part of it”, that is, they are considered but never included. That “place” is outside the valence of history and suffering. Sentimentality replaces justice: we love her, we treat her almost like a relative, we can even provide her with sexual fantasies, let her use and discard. “Similarity” replaces unequal rights with emotional compensation, which is still considered as mercy. Thus, the maid issue metaphorically represents the fact that López Obrador assumed the presidency, which strains the issue of the country living “as if” it were dominated by the privileged.

Privilege is measured by the invisibility of its beneficiaries. Individual attitudes tend to be generalized denials: “I earned everything I have through my own efforts, not through government handouts,” “I never believed that people with dark skin were at a disadvantage because of their dark skin, but if we started paying attention to that, we would all discriminate. “They call me ‘güerita’ in the market.” An almost unconscious uncertainty is found in the parade of the self, with no demands unless the president-elect “steps down.” Symbolically, the coordinates of privilege have shifted—at least in terms of the illegitimacy of illicit wealth—and it seems to pose a threat to the “status” it occupies. What if I don’t deserve it? What if I do have an advantage over others because of the school I went to, my last name, my skin color, my zip code? What if it’s not my talent and cunning? Defensiveness and purely emotional reactions to the uncertainty of the illusion that one no longer has a place.