Introduction
In the midst of numerous scandals and arrogant discourses from the so-called “Transformation” governments, it may seem pointless to delve into recent irresponsible and grandiloquent statements. However, the case of Paco Ignacio Taibo, director of the Fondo de Cultura Económica (FCE), cannot be overlooked. The FCE is a state-owned publishing house, still funded by taxpayers today.
Taibo’s Controversial Statements
Among other controversies, Taibo suggested that the “25 para el 25” collection favors male writers due to their significance during the “Boom” era, implying that including more female writers would be enforcing a “quota.”
His statements not only reveal an androcentric bias but also demonstrate a lack of understanding regarding the substantial contributions made by Latin American female writers excluded from the “Boom.” This oversight explains the exclusion of authors like Elena Garro or the neglect of poets such as Cristina Peri-Rossi and Gioconda Belli, whose transgressive poetry has been recognized for its originality and creative quality.
Questionable Selection Criteria
Taibo’s recent literary selections for the Hispanic American literature catalog have raised eyebrows. These works, contrary to expectations, do not represent the best of the chosen authors or showcase their literary diversity and excellence. Questions arise regarding the advisory committee involved in this new “Cuatroteísta Canon” and the criteria used for its creation.
- Why were certain works, like Cartucho de Campobello or Miguel Littin’s Relato de un Náufrago, excluded from the list? These omissions question the selection process.
- Why were prominent female Mexican writers like Juana Dueñas and Carlos Dávila chosen over others such as Rosario Arredondo or Elena Garro? This selection raises doubts about the established criteria.
Government’s Cultural Policy and Budget Concerns
Taibo’s statements also highlight the government’s cultural policy issues. The insistence on “making history” while neglecting the cultural budget and lack of proven strategies to promote reading is concerning. The announced massive book distribution, reminiscent of past failed projects during the Echeverría and López Portillo administrations, further raises questions about the initiative’s feasibility.
Moreover, the official nostalgia for the 1960s and 1970s leads to questioning why austerity measures apply to health, violence prevention, and culture but not to the whims of a functionary who treats the state publishing house as his personal library. The president’s decision to maintain Taibo in his position and propose a “Women’s Library” instead of critiquing his catalog, while ignoring the existing excellent collections recognizing prominent female writers and their works, is puzzling.
The Fondo de Cultura Económica’s Significance
The Fondo de Cultura Económica is not just any publishing house; it was established in 1946 with an innovative educational and cultural purpose, looking towards the future. Disregarding its original spirit of fostering plurality and creativity in collections, along with the dedication to books that made the FCE a renowned institution, is yet another blow to Mexico’s cultural landscape.
