This debate intends to explore what we have so far learned about the Cuban approach to socialism and development through an analysis of its contradictions.

Classmates post

1. I think that these two films perfectly capture the constant divide between those in power and the citizens they govern. There is always a level of disconnect between any government and its people, and this is displayed using the contrasting point of views of Che Guevara: a major political figure, and Sergio: the average Cuban man. Che saw what needed to be done and took action; he was a philosophical and well educated man, and he was very passionate about the need for a new government in Cuba. Sergio on the other hand did not care as much. Even Elena said at one point that she didn’t think Sergio was for or against the revolution, he appeared to be indifferent either way. I think that Sergio likely represents the mindset that a lot of Cubans held during the revolution. Che (and Castro) emphasized the need for change, and the cries of the people for help and so on. Realistically, there would have absolutely been a lot of people actively speaking out for change, and others who were very against the revolution, but there also would have been a group of people in between (like Sergio) who were somewhat indifferent. I should note, there is an important distinction between being indifferent and not caring. I would not go as far as to say that Sergio did not care about what was going on around him, but I do think that he had a different perspective than most. How I understood it is that Sergio ultimately saw Cuba in one light: an underdeveloped country. I think that he was doubtful that there would be change regardless of who was in power. To me, Sergio conveyed a feeling of hopelessness, a feeling that Cuba would be frozen in time as this underdeveloped country.

I can identify with both Che and Sergio as they both represent very common mindsets that one can have towards their home. Che is an optimist; he sees the potential in the people of Cuban and has a sense of pride for his country. He is motivated to make his home a better place for everyone. Sergio is a pessimist; he thinks that the revolution will not bring any change and that they people who believe so are fools. I think that politicians usually tend to be optimistic because they have big plans and they think they know how to make their country/town/province better. The average citizen might be less inclined to be optimistic towards their situation because they are the ones living through these problems. Sergio is living in underdeveloped Cuba and having to see and deal with the day to day issues, whereas Che is able to see what is happening but he does not have the same level of real experience that Sergio has.

2. I think both "memories of underdevelopment" and "Che, a new man" were similar in many ways and different in some. Both films seemed to focus mainly on the beginning and duration of what it is like to live during the time of a revolution. In the film "memories of underdevelopment", Sergio was not so much a revolutionary, but he was not opposed to change. This is where the films were dissimilar. In "Che, a new man", Che was most definitely a revolutionary.

In the film starring Sergio revolution was portrayed as un-organized, at one point in the film it said that there was no accountability in this revolutionary change. The film did not seem to go into much detail of the revolution as a whole, but instead how the revolutionary change affected Sergio. The revolutionary change showed Sergio's friends, family and wife leaving because they were against revolution. Another interesting part in the movie that represented revolutionary change was when Sergio was accused of raping a woman, which he claimed was consensual. During the trial, Sergio said it was now "him versus the people." (memories of underdevelopment). I recall coming across that statement in one of the earlier readings. I find it interesting because in the western learning of socialism/communism (at least for me), studies seem to emphasis that the leader/state does not care about the people. In "Che, a new man" there is more of a sense of urgency for change in the revolution. The film also better portrays revolutionary change as being "for the people.". Not only does Che help his own country succeed in a revolution, he also helps Africa once Cuba is finished with the revolution. I think this film does a great job of displaying how important change is for many people. Che seemed to wholly appreciate the revolution while Sergio was not for or against it. As I remember from an early reading, "if you are not for the revolution, then you are against it.". I think that is shown when Sergio loses his apartment. 

"Memories of underdevelopment" does not directly reflect the challenge of participating in radical social reform (in my opinion). It is more clear in "Che, a new man". In this film parents are seen offering their children to aid the revolution in war efforts, it does not show how hard it is on the families, but as we can imagine it is pretty difficult. A lot of the children were teens or young adults. What made it more difficult is that they had no military training yet they were up against real militaries with real training. I believe it mentioned at one point they were "outnumbered 9 to 1" (Che, a new man). I think individuals can be transformed by social transformation in the sense that it gives liberty and power to the people and they realize that. It may help them to strive for greater individual life goals.

3.

Revolution is to me,  emancipatory action. However, the perceptions associated with revolution are as variable as the actors who seek to uphold any given revolutionary cause. Che Guvera’s brand of optimistic international communism illuminates contradictory perceptions of the Cuban revolution when contrasted with Sergio’s experience of alienation. More succinctly, revolution is wonderful for the beneficiaries of its social utility as an emancipatory project , though revolution is not without the potential for estrangement along socio-economic lines. As was the experience of the Sergio character in the film “Memories of Development” (1968.)

Whether revolution is an exercise in collective emancipation, or undue tyranny over societies institutions likely relates to two factors:

An individual's social dominance orientation 

An individual's socio-economic status 

Che’s formative years were categorized by a sense of duty to the poor, an affinity for collectivist literature and a middle-class lifestyle, which contrasts starkly with the “decadent” bourgeois upbringing and status enjoyed by Sergio. It is notable that these features of Che Guevera’s biographical information and life history strongly imply a low “social dominance orientation”, or the psychological predisposition toward the notion that no element of society is inherently superior to any other; while what can be gleaned of Sergio is much the opposite, strongly suggesting a high “social dominance orientation”. 

Social dominance orientation or “SDO” is a measure of how invested an individual is in hierarchy attenuation.(Pratto, F.  et, al. 1994) For example: social workers have been shown to correspond to a Likert scale measurement of SDO of 1, while police officers often score near -or at- the upper limit of 8. Furthermore, high SDO scores have been shown to be strongly correlated with conservative political views. (Shibley, 2006) 

I argue that Sergio maintains a well to do economic status in addition to an attitude of intellectual elitism which precipitates his sense of alienation. The supposition of innate group hierarchy suggests Sergio could be characterized as having a somewhat high SDO, or a belief system constituted by the notion that certain individuals or groups are innately superior to other individuals or groups. I believe this factor at least partially explains the disparate perceptions of revolution within Cuba and elsewhere. While socioeconomic differences are perhaps the most obvious factor related to perceptions of revolution, I believe individuals who correspond to a high to degree of hierarchy attenuating behavior (High social dominance orientation) will hold predominantly negative associations regarding communism and its revolutionary pretext, while those with a low SDO will maintain a more positive view of said revolution, as with Che Guvera’s infectious optimism toward the Cuban revolutionary project. 

Cheers, 

Tay                                                                                                                           References 

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741-763.

Sibley, Chris G.; Robertson, Andrew; Wilson, Marc S. (2006). "Social Dominance Orientation and Right-Wing Authoritarianism: Additive and Interactive Effects". Political Psychology. 27 (5): 755–68. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2006.00531.x. JSTOR 3792537.

less