Ricardo Morin The Shared Shadow of History (Template Series) 3rd out of six Each 30″x 22″= 66″h x 66″ overall Watercolor on paper 2005
To the memory we all inherit—capable of bridging distances, yet more often deepening them.
By Ricardo Morin
August 12, 2025, Rochester, NY
*
Across cultures, rituals are both vessels of history and instruments of adaptation. They carry the weight of collective memory while responding to the shifting conditions of the present, negotiating between inherited forms and the realities in which they are practiced.
At a recent wedding within a centuries-old tradition, two family members — a rabbi and a woman — shared officiating duties, blending contemporary adaptations into the ceremony. The shared roles, gestures, and blessings revealed how continuity and innovation can inhabit the same space, weaving together memory and renewal.
Such occasions unfold within atmospheres shaped as much by public discourse as by personal heritage. They demonstrate how ceremonies are never static: they are marked by the echoes of the past, yet reshaped by the urges and hopes of the present.
This interplay between the ceremonial and the political is far from unique. Diasporas across the world have long balanced the preservation of essential forms with the incorporation of new influences. My own ancestry traces to communities that, over generations, retained elements of earlier practices while integrating into new surroundings — a trajectory familiar to many shaped by migration and the pressures of assimilation.
The enduring question, visible in ceremonies from many cultures, is whether customs survive best when they hold firmly to inherited forms or when they adapt to welcome diversity and safeguard the integrity of others. As with many legacies, history will answer in due course.
*
Annotated Bibliography
Anderson, Benedict: Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso, 2006. (In this influential work, Anderson examines how shared cultural narratives and rituals create a sense of belonging across dispersed populations. He explores how communities sustain identity across generations, offering context for understanding the persistence of tradition within diasporas.)
Gerber, Jane S.: The Jews of Spain: A History of the Sephardic Experience. New York: Free Press, 1992. (Gerber traces the history of Sephardic Jewry from medieval Spain through the diaspora, detailing how cultural and religious traditions adapted to new environments. She provides an accessible account of resilience in the face of displacement and persecution.)
Hobsbawm, Eric, and Ranger, Terence eds.: The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. (Hobsbawm and Ranger compile studies on how traditions are often consciously constructed or adapted to serve contemporary needs. Their analysis invites readers to consider how ritual continuity is shaped by changing political and social contexts.)
Sorkin, David: Jewish Emancipation: A History Across Five Centuries. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2019. (Sorkin presents a broad historical account of Jewish emancipation movements in Europe and beyond, showing how shifts in political and cultural climates influenced religious practice and identity formation.)
Todorov, Tzvetan: The Conquest of America: The Question of the Other. New York: Harper & Row, 1984. (Todorov explores how cultures define themselves in relation to the “other,” with attention to encounters between Europe and the Americas. His work illuminates how cross-cultural contact reshapes both identity and tradition.)
Politics (from the Greek politikós, “of, by, or relating to citizens”) is the practice and theory of influencing people at the civic or individual level.
*
By Ricardo Morin
August 10, 2025.
~
From their earliest formulations, constitutional frameworks have been more than foundational legal agreements; they have stood as declarations of political philosophy, and defined how power should be organized, how it should be restrained, and to whom it must be answerable. Contemporary governance, to a large extent, continues those experiments, shaped over centuries of trial and adaptation. Yet these forms can endure in appearance while being emptied of substance. In more than a few States today, constitutions proclaim liberty while they narrow its scope, define rights in ways that exclude, and preserve the interests of a governing elite. Partisanship exploits the perceived limitations and vulnerabilities of others as grounds for exclusion; self-righteousness becomes a tool for domination, silences opposition, and suppresses dissent. The worth of a constitutional framework, therefore, is measured not only by its letter but by the ethical integrity of those who sustain it. Without ethics, politics loses its meaning; without civic virtue, the law ceases to serve peace and becomes an instrument of dominion.
The separation of powers, vigorously defended by Montesquieu, rests on the conviction that liberty survives when power is compelled to check power. This principle is distorted when institutions are subordinated to partisan or personal interests. In recent years, several States have formally preserved an independent judiciary while, in practice, subjected it to appointment processes controlled by the Executive or the ruling party. Such hollowing-out is not merely a technical failure; it reflects a political culture in which ambition, fear, or indifference among citizens permits the disfigurement of the very mechanisms designed to protect them. It also reveals how institutional strength and civic responsibility are bound together in ways that cannot be separated.
Historical constitutions continue to shape how political communities imagine authority. They bequeath principles that, at their best, offer adaptable frameworks for meeting new challenges without renouncing their essential core: that the legitimacy of a Government rests not on the strength of its rulers but on the solidity of the structures that limit them.
Yet these structures endure only when citizens reject duplicity and sectarianism. Divisions of ideology must not harden into exclusive loyalty to one’s own group at the expense of a shared civic framework. They endure only when citizens resist the idolatry of power, because authority loses its legitimacy once it is treated as sacred or unquestionable. And they endure only when citizens repudiate the cult of personality, in which a leader is raised above criticism through image-making, propaganda, and personal loyalty.
The durability of constitutional order, then, does not lie solely in written texts or institutional arrangements. It rests equally on the civic ethic of those who inhabit them. When ambition, fear, or indifference allow citizens to tolerate duplicity or surrender to sectarian loyalty, the limits on power become fragile. Conversely, when vigilance and responsibility prevail, constitutions retain their strength as both shield and compass—guarding against arbitrary rule while orienting political life toward justice and restraint.
True reform is not solely institutional but also internal: a revolution in the individual and collective sphere, in which each person accepts the responsibility to act with integrity, openness, and commitment to the common good, in harmony with oneself and with others. Only through the alignment of institutional structures with civic responsibility can any Constitution preserve its meaning and endure as a safeguard against arbitrary power.
*
Annotated Bibliography
~
Ginsburg, Tom, and Aziz Z. Huq.; How to Save a Constitutional Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2019. (Ginsburg and Aziz examine the legal and institutional pathways through which democracies weaken, from court-packing to the erosion of independent oversight. They draw on comparative examples from the United States, Hungary, and elsewhere to show how constitutional mechanisms can be used to consolidate power while preserving a façade of legality.)
Landau, David: “Abusive Constitutionalism.” UC Davis Law Review 47 (1), 2013: 189–260. (Landaudevelops the concept of “abusive constitutionalism” to describe how incumbents exploit constitutional change to entrench their rule. Uses Latin American and other global cases to illustrate how amendments and reinterpretations weaken checks and balances, alter electoral systems, and undermine judicial independence.)
Levitsky, Steven, and Way, Lucan A.: Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. (Levitsky and Way analyze regimes that preserve the formal institutions of democracy but manipulate them to ensure ruling-party dominance. They introduce the concept of “competitive authoritarianism” as a framework for understanding how constitutional norms are hollowed out while democratic forms are maintained.)
Levitsky, Steven, and Ziblatt, Daniel: How Democracies Die. New York: Crown, 2018. (Levitsky and Ziblatt argue that modern democracies often decline through the gradual decline of norms rather than coups. The book shows how leaders exploit constitutional ambiguities, stack courts, and weaponize law to suppress opposition, eroding both civic trust and institutional integrity.)
Photo 0f Catarina (Kitty) O’Bryan-Erlacher by Ricardo Morin. Kitty is holding the book Steuben Glass: An American Tradition in Crystal by Mary Jean Madigan. This appears to be the revised and expanded edition, as indicated in the lower left corner of the cover
*
For Kitty O’Bryan-Erlacher, whose friendly grace, profound clarity, and genial wit made a brief moment feel like a lasting gift.
Ricardo Morin — Corning, New York, August 2025
In transit to our cousin Shayna’s wedding to Johnny, we passed through Corning, New York, and spent a few unhurried hours browsing the shops along West Market Street. The sky had the muted softness of a Monday unbothered by haste. On a quiet corner, we came upon the Erlacher Steuben Glass Shop—a space luminous with its own kind of luster.
Inside, we found what would become the wedding gift: a round crystal plate titled Vesta Plate (1993) by Peter Drobny (born 1958). It was displayed simply but with taste, as museum art waiting patiently to be understood. Alongside it stood two glass vases—bold and elegant: one translucent ultramarine, the other an opaque, intense lavender. We decided they too should come with us.
The shop, we learned, was founded in 1960. Its steward now is Catarina (“Kitty”) O’Brian-Erlacher, born in 1938—a woman of 87, with a deep well of charm, intellect, and quiet fortitude. Her husband, Mr. Roland (Max) Erlacher (1933, Vienna – July 2022), had arrived from Vienna in 1957 to work for Steuben Glass (founded in 1903 by Frederick Carder). There, in Corning, he met Kitty. Their story became the store’s story—one of craft, beauty, and the steady guardianship of glass as both object and art.
When I first approached Kitty, I mistook her for a fellow client. We began talking easily, without expectation. Art turned into astrology; numerology followed. I was caught in the kind of exchange that slows time—until my husband, David, interrupted, suggesting I was perhaps being too talkative. I teased, calling him “the boss.” Kitty, smiling, said, “You’re very smart.” I replied, “We should aim to be smarter,” and turned the compliment back to her. She graciously demurred.
As it happened, the cost of our three selections (including one from the Vitrix Hot Glass Studio and another from the Corning Museum of Glass) would, in Kitty’s words, “cover the shop’s needs for the entire month of August.” That small admission made our brief encounter feel suddenly momentous. The wrapping of the pieces—particularly the Vesta Plate—proved difficult. The oversized plate resisted all the available box sizes. Instinctively, I offered help and reassembled one of her boxes to fit the plate precisely. Kitty, watching with both amusement and admiration, called it brilliant.
She then brought out a reference book on her husband’s work. The exuberance of his designs, rooted in the lineage of Art Nouveau, seemed to fill the room with light. But when she spoke of him, words failed. Her eyes grew teary, and all she could manage was, “He was the kindest man.” I paused, gave her a long, knowing glance, and offered only silence in return—more interested in cheering her up than inviting grief.
When David and I finally parted from her, I lingered a moment amid the quiet exchange of goodbyes. Then, slowing my pace as we crossed the threshold, I turned and said softly, “God bless you, dear.”
Ricardo Morin The Seventh Watch (Template Series, 5th panel) Watercolor over paper 22” x 30” 2005
Introductory Note
Ricardo Morin is a writer and researcher of the history of thought as a dynamic and evolving practice—a student of unspoken gestures, a language stronger than words, especially when interlocutors no longer listen to each other. Drawing on reflections on the cycles of life and a personal experience approaching the last, he invites readers to consider how quiet vigilance and tenderness can shape a meaningful existence. The Seventh Watch emerges from decades of living attentively, offering a humble testament to dignity through perseverance and care.
71 Years
I’ve lived seventy-one years. That alone still surprises me—not because I ever expected an early end, but because each year has asked more of me than the last. There was no dramatic fall, no single crisis to point to. Just a slow, constant shaping—of the body, of temperament, of the will.
Illness didn’t come in childhood. It arrived later, in my early twenties, during a snowbound winter in Buffalo. I was just beginning to live on my own, full of ambition and unfinished dreams. The diagnosis was mononucleosis—but it wasn’t the name that mattered. It was the way it interrupted momentum, slowed my pace, and revealed something deeper: the lifelong task of learning to live within my own limits.
That was the beginning—not of a medical history, but of a different kind of vigilance. Not directed outward, but inward. A quiet realization took root: that survival, if it was to be meaningful, required not just endurance, but restraint. A way of protecting myself from myself. That discipline wasn’t harsh—it became a kind of devotion. Not to self-denial, but to finding the clarity of a peaceful mind. To living with more care than urgency.
I don’t see illness as noble, but I do see in it a mirror—not for the pain, but for the truth it reflects. What can be tended, what must be relinquished, what deserves attention. I don’t claim wisdom from illness, but I recognize what it’s taught me to let go of: illusion, pride, and the frantic chase after things that do not last—such as the accumulation of wealth or power.
I’ve come to think of it simply as endurance—the kind illness teaches when you stop resisting and begin listening. There’s an ethical arc in this awareness—not born of dogma or belief, but shaped by experience. It bends not toward triumph, but toward tenderness.
This isn’t a story of pathology. It’s a story of attention—of refining the self without hardening it. Of discovering that maturity means knowing when to persist and when to pause. That the quiet act of sustaining one’s life—daily, attentively—is its own form of courage.
I never set out to write a testament. But seventy-one years in, I see the outlines more clearly. And in that, there is dignity.
Yet, dignity is not a reward. It arrives without announcement, without ceremony. It builds slowly—through the daily rituals of rising, of choosing what to carry and what to set down. It does not shield one from sorrow, nor make suffering easier to bear. But it gives the days a certain weight.
I’ve come to cherish that weight—not as a burden, but as proof. Proof that I’ve lived through each season not untouched, but intact. And that, even now, the task is not to escape life’s demands, but to meet them with steadiness.
What I’ve learned isn’t mine alone. Anyone who lives long enough will be asked to reckon with time—not as a thief, but as a sculptor. Illness, especially, teaches us how little control we truly have—yet how much presence we’re still capable of. It humbles and joins us. Not in sameness, but in mutual recognition.
Endurance, I’ve found, is not passive. It’s not about waiting for pain to pass. It is active, quiet, often unseen. It means choosing how to live when choice feels narrow. It means tending to life not with haste, but with attention.
There is no finish line to this work. Just the quiet act of continuing.
So I continue—not because I must, but because life, even in its reduced dimensions, still offers room for meaning. Some days that meaning is faint. Other days it is simply the act of rising, or writing a letter, or remembering the snow. But it is there. And as long as it is, I remain.
Elders and chiefs from the 21 First Nation signatories of the Robinson Huron Treaty at the June 17, 2023, announcement of the proposed settlement. Standing at left: Gimaa Craig Nootchtai (Atikameksheng Anishnawbek); centre: Gimaa Dean Sayers. Photograph by Jenny Lamothe. Courtesy of SooToday / Anishinabek News.
Introduction
The 2023 Robinson Huron Treaty settlement announcement—captured in a widely circulated image of leaders and Elders assembled in solidarity—marks a moment of continuity in Indigenous governance once silenced by colonial displacement. I write not as a member of these communities, nor as a Canadian citizen, but as an observer who engages with testimony and documented evidence. Beneath the natural serenity of Parry Sound lies a wound deepened by continued neglect, one that requires not only recognition but structural change.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s 94 Calls to Action, issued in 2015, outlined a comprehensive plan across justice, health, and education. Nearly a decade later, the Yellowhead Institute reports that only 13 of the 94 have been completed—and none in 2023. This inaction reveals the gap between commitment and execution, showing how reconciliation remains more rhetorical than structural.
It is telling that the tensions between First Nation tribes and Canadian institutions reveal how a country that celebrates cultural diversity can remain in conflict with its Indigenous peoples.
By Ricardo Morin, August 6, 2025; Isabella Island, Parry Sound, Ontario, Canada.
*
The boat across Parry Sound glides over still water, southward to Isabella Island. The surrounding beauty—dense pines, scattered rock formations, and open sky—stands in sharp contrast to what my cousin Marc reveals once we disembark: that beneath this serene northern Ontario landscape lies a persistent story of abuse, erasure, and systemic abandonment. Marc, a seasoned youth justice specialist in Ontario’s legal system, has spent over thirty years advising police departments and courts on indictments involving minors. His experience covers nearly every youth murder case in the province, but his most wrenching insights, he says, do not come from what the law sees—but from what it omits.
This omission is not accidental. The First Nations peoples of this region—the Anishinaabeg, including the Ojibway, Odawa, and Potawatomi—have lived for generations under policies that turned colonial violence into institutional neglect. Residential schools, operated primarily by churches and endorsed by the Canadian government, aimed to assimilate Indigenous children by forcibly removing them from their families and culture. Physical and sexual abuse, malnutrition, and psychological trauma were widespread. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, which published its final report in 2015, called this system “cultural genocide.” Yet despite official acknowledgment, its legacy remains embedded in law enforcement, education, housing, and incarceration.
As Marc recounts, the present-day effects are not merely residual—they are cumulative. Indigenous communities in the Parry Sound district, he explains, are often subjected to outright racist harassment. He described instances where Indigenous people have been kidnapped by white residents, driven miles from their communities, and abandoned in the freezing wilderness—half-dressed, humiliated, and physically endangered; some have died. These are not rare stories. They are carried in silence, in mistrust, in patterns of disappearance and criminalization. “Depression and petty crimes,” Marc continues, “lead Indigenous youth to prison. But it is Indigenous women who suffer most.”
Today, nearly 70 percent of Ontario’s incarcerated female population is Indigenous—a figure that defies proportionality and demands scrutiny. The equivalent male figure is 20 percent, itself shockingly high. What accounts for the extreme overrepresentation of Indigenous women? Neutral data suggest a convergence of risk factors: intergenerational trauma, poverty, lack of access to healthcare, disrupted education, and systemic police bias. Indigenous women are also the most frequent targets of domestic and sexual violence, often left unprotected by a justice system that fails to recognize their vulnerability until it criminalizes their survival. They are far more likely to be imprisoned for crimes rooted in trauma—substance-related offenses, minor thefts, or breaches of conditional release. In these cases, incarceration substitutes for care; silence substitutes for accountability.
Legal frameworks fail to acknowledge this chain of causation. Where the justice system claims impartiality, it often operates as a mechanism of historical amnesia. Political neutrality becomes moral indifference. The courtroom speaks in terms of individual guilt, severed from social context. What justice omits is precisely what history insists upon: that a wound, left untreated, does not heal—it deepens.
Resistance has not been absent. Local First Nations have organized to reclaim land rights, restore language, and establish health services rooted in traditional knowledge. Movements as Idle No More and the work of leaders such as Cindy Blackstock and Tanya Talaga have elevated the national conscience. Yet the machinery of redress moves slowly. Reports are written, apologies are issued, commissions are concluded. Meanwhile, communities remain under-resourced, youth remain vulnerable, and women continue to disappear—sometimes into institutions, sometimes into obscurity.
This essay does not indict any single actor. It seeks to illuminate what institutions routinely fail to see: that harm is not only historical but structured; that healing is not only personal but political; and that justice, without history, risks becoming an empty performance.
The waters of Parry Sound appear peaceful, yet they conceal the contradiction of a nation that pledges reconciliation while leaving it incomplete. Between 2015 and 2023, only 13 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s 94 Calls to Action were implemented—none in the last year. Such inaction does not erase testimony; it amplifies the wound. I cannot claim to speak for First Nations, but I can bear witness to the record, to the words of those who live these realities, and to the silence that persists when promises remain unmet. Healing requires more than acknowledgment; it requires accountability and the structural change that Indigenous voices have long demanded. The role of an outsider, if it has any legitimacy, is not to dictate, but to listen, to learn, and to make visible what is already being said.
Appendix: Sources and Monitoring Data
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Final Report: Volume 5: The Legacy. Montreal & Kingston: McGill‑Queen’s University Press, 2015. (This report includes 94 Calls to Action across justice, education, health, etc.)
[1]. Office of the Correctional Investigator, “Annual Report, 2020–2021.” Ottawa: Office of the Correctional Investigator, 2021. (This report documents that Indigenous women represent over 50% of federally incarcerated women in Canada. It contrasts this alarming rise with the still-high but less sharply increasing incarceration of Indigenous men.)
[2]. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Final Report, Volume 5: The Legacy. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2015. (This volume establishes a historical continuum between residential school trauma and present-day legal inequities. Drawing on survivor testimony, it details the systemic removal of children, cultural suppression, and intergenerational psychological effects.)
[3]. Statistics Canada, “Women in Canada: A Gender-based Statistical Report.” Ottawa: Government of Canada, 2020. (This statistical overview highlights gender-specific incarceration trends and emphasizes the overrepresentation of Indigenous women in custody, often for administrative or non-violent infractions.)
[4]. Public Safety Canada, “Risk Assessment and Indigenous Offenders.” Ottawa: Government of Canada, 2016. (This government report analyzes how standard risk assessment tools disproportionately assign higher security levels to Indigenous offenders—especially women—owing to trauma-linked factors that are misread as criminogenic.)
[5]. Parliamentary Budget Officer, “Costing Restorative Justice Programs.” Ottawa: Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, 2020. (This study notes the disparity in funding and access to restorative justice programs, which shows how Indigenous women receive fewer diversionary options than men or youth and reflects systemic neglect.)
[6]. Department of Justice Canada, “Indigenous Overrepresentation in the Criminal Justice System.” Ottawa: Government of Canada, 2018. (This policy brief provides statistical data on pretrial detention, bail denial, and sentencing outcomes; it underscores administrative causes of Indigenous overrepresentation in prison, particularly among women.)
[7]. Tanya Talaga: Seven Fallen Feathers: Racism, Death, and Hard Truths in a Northern City. Toronto: House of Anansi Press, 2017. (Through the investigation of seven Indigenous youth deaths in Thunder Bay, this book exposes a pattern of institutional failure and systemic racism within policing, education, and the Canadian justice system.)
[8]. Idle No More, “About the Movement.” Saskatoon: Idle No More, 2012–present. https://idlenomore.ca/about-the-movement/. (This official web page traces the origins, aims, and activities of the Idle No More movement, which arose in defense of Indigenous sovereignty and the environment. It emphasizes the vital leadership role of Indigenous women in mobilization and education.)
Ricardo Morin Sonata Series Each 30″x 22″= 60″h x 66″ overall Watercolor on paper 2003
By Ricardo Morin
August 3, 2025
The Whittington chime, though rooted in the specific historical and ecclesiastical context of St. Mary-le-Bow in London, speaks in a language far broader than its origins. Every fifteen minutes, its melody punctuates the passage of time—not with dominance or insistence, but with a sequence of tones that seem to lean toward attentiveness rather than control. It does not call; it invites. Its fourfold phrasing unfolds with the day and carves it gently into intervals of awareness.
The hour does not ask to be heard.
It leans, it yields, it breathes.
In four phrases, time steps into its own shadow—
Not to rule, but to be received.
The first phrase is sparse and anticipatory. It announces nothing—yet it creates space for something to begin. The second phrase, slightly more confident, suggests that the shape of what’s coming may already be present in what has been. The third phrase swells with fullness, as though recognizing that something unspoken has come to form. And the fourth does not repeat or resolve—it releases. A soft culmination, an unforced closure. Nothing more is needed.
Four phrases like footprints.
Not forward, but inward.
The last does not complete the first—
It simply continues without demand.
Time is neither summoned nor announced—it is welcomed in silence. The melody performs a quiet orienting function. It makes no claims, prescribes no doctrine, and excludes no one. It requires attention, not belief. It passes through space and enters those who allow it, and in doing so, it reveals time not as a line to be followed, but as a vessel to be filled.
There is no message, only rhythm.
No doctrine, only form.
Not a path to walk,
But a shape to inhabit.
This surrender—this subtle willingness to listen—is not weakness, nor is it a form of passivity. It is a kind of interior readiness, a posture of faith in what does not insist upon itself. As one hears the chime at a distance—through open window, across an empty street, or at the center of a sleepless night—it becomes clear that regularity is not rigidity. It is a form of grounding, a pulse that reminds us of something more than measurement: the possibility that rhythm itself is a form of remembering.
Some things endure not because they hold us fast—
But because they return.
Each return is a soft petition:
Are you listening now?
To be transformed by time, the vessel must remain open. And openness is not emptiness in the deficient sense, but the fullness of a receptivity that listens before it responds. There are patterns here, but they do not bind. They unfold. Each phrase in the chime allows what came before to echo—faintly, without repetition—and then continues without imitation. It does not search for novelty, nor does it cling to what has passed.
It simply arrives.
An echo does not ask for an answer.
It waits until the shape of silence
Begins to sing it back.
In this way, the melody becomes an offering. And if there is meaning to be found in its intervals, it is not imposed from without. It is disclosed in the act of listening. Each person who hears it becomes part of its form, not by adding to it, but by receiving it. And in receiving, they are also shaped.
Some questions do not seek reply.
They seek a place to rest.
They carry their answers folded within—
Waiting only to be heard.
We often think of arrival as the end of something—as the completion of a search. But perhaps it is not the final step that matters most. Perhaps what matters is the quiet unfolding that prepares us to meet it. The chime does not deliver anything. It accompanies. It affirms that movement can be gentle, that order can serve grace, and that meaning is not attained, but awakened …
Ricardo Morin Triangulation 40 22″ x 30″ Body color, sanguine, sepia and Sumi ink on paper 2008
By Ricardo Morin
August 2, 2025
Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania
*
There are nights when sleep does not bring rest, but fire. Waking comes not from habit, but from the certainty that something must be understood. Not in a romantic sense of inspiration, but from the need to bring coherence to what is felt and remembered. Writing becomes a form of release: a counterweight to fatigue, an effort that both exhausts and restores.
Some days end in hollow silence, especially after confronting old wounds or noting the latent tensions in family history. What begins as scattered, even frantic thought gradually takes shape. A curve appears: from confusion to focus, and from focus to clarity. In that quiet progression, peace returns.
This rhythm is not chosen for comfort. It comes with broken sleep, exposed emotions, and an urgency born not of excess, but of necessity. Circumstances press in. When thought accelerates and the need to give it form becomes insistent, it is not excess but response.
Yet, nothing in this process happens in isolation. Even when no voices are named, no clarity arises without attunement with others—some near, some distant, some unknown. The work does not emerge from a single hand, but from a convergence of attentiveness, reflection, and exchange. Support comes not as authorship or possession, but as atmosphere, influence, and a presence that accompanies.
What is written here is not a record to own, nor a declaration to be remembered. It is a mark—a point of reference, placed not out of fear, but with lucidity. Whether revisited or left behind, it offers a place to return to if the journey darkens again. Nothing more is asked of it. Nothing less is owed.
One cannot assess the Spanish political climate without acknowledging the rise of VOX, a far-right party founded in 2013 by former members of the conservative Partido Popular. Since 2018, VOX has gained traction by opposing regional autonomy, feminist legislation, and immigration, while defending a nationalist agenda that includes the revision—or outright rejection—of Spain’s historical reckoning with Francoism.
It is the symptom of a deeper democratic disillusionment. What resurfaces is not spontaneous historical memory, but a political and cultural framework that reasserts itself when the social agreements binding the present begin to fray. VOX’s references to the Franco regime are rarely doctrinaire or explicit, but they are unmistakable in the party’s rejection of the Democratic Memory Law, its exaltation of national unity as a sacred and untouchable principle, its condemnation of the autonomous state model, and its appeal to a so-called “natural order” that treats hierarchy, the traditional family, and social inequality as if they were objective facts of history.
What is most concerning is not that voices like these exist—they always have—but that they have regained institutional power and cultural legitimacy. Dissatisfaction with the political system, fatigue with ineffective parliamentary politics, and a growing sense of identity displacement feed into a shared national unease. This unease can be felt across a wide spectrum: small business owners who perceive the state as hostile, or young people who find no meaning in a hollow, bureaucratized political language. The grievances vary, but the far right offers a single channel: the emotional simplification of conflict—transforming fear into obedience, and uncertainty into wounded pride.
Within this framework, VOX presents itself as the only political actor with a unified narrative. Its strength does not lie in public policy, but in assertion. It offers no coherent platform of governance, but instead proposes a reactive, exclusionary identity. And here the progressive response often falters. While the institutional left—represented by the PSOE and remnants of Unidas Podemos—relies on rhetorical frames worn down by official discourse, segments of the academic and cultural intelligentsia (particularly university-affiliated think tanks and subsidized editorial circuits) have retreated into a ritualized defense of democracy, without reassessing its principles or renewing the language through which it is explained. Repeating just causes through exhausted formulas turns even the noblest ideas into noise.
Worse still, in the name of pluralism—or out of fear of being labeled sectarian—certain cultural institutions (El País, publishing houses like Taurus, or high-profile forums such as the Círculo de Bellas Artes) have offered platforms to reactionary voices under the pretext of open debate. In doing so, they have helped normalize a discourse that steadily unravels the ethical agreements underpinning democratic life. What is framed as tolerance may, in fact, be a form of structural surrender.
Spain’s history is burdened with wounds that were never fully closed. The political pacts of the Transition, born of necessity, opted for shared silence as the price of institutional stability. That silence allowed for peace, but left the past unresolved. Today, as new efforts—like the Democratic Memory Law—begin to reshape that narrative, fear returns: fear that to acknowledge historical violence might destabilize the present. VOX exploits this fear not with policy, but with symbolic refuge—offering a home to a version of Spain that feels lost.
The responsibility of the intellectual class is not to reassert inherited certainties or rehearse moral slogans. It is to sustain complexity: to resist the lure of simplification, to acknowledge the fatigue of progressive frameworks without falling into cynicism, and to offer new ways of thinking that preserve both rigor and empathy. Because while reactionary discourse gains ground through simplification, critical thought must hold its ground in nuance—even if nuance isn’t viral, even if it doesn’t win applause.
*
Annotated Bibliography
Preston, Paul: The Spanish Holocaust: Inquisition and Extermination in Twentieth-Century Spain. New York: W.W. Norton, 2012. (A comprehensive history of political and ideological violence during and after the Spanish Civil War, this work provides essential background for understanding the roots and continued appeal of Francoist narratives in Spain.)
Snyder, Timothy: On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century. New York: Tim Duggan Books, 2017. (This compact, cautionary text distills key lessons from the collapse of democracies in 20th-century Europe and offers reflections that resonate strongly with contemporary authoritarian rhetoric.)
Stanley, Jason: How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them. New York: Random House, 2018. (An incisive study of fascist techniques and psychological mechanisms, this book helps explain how divisive identity politics and historical denial function in modern ultranationalist movements.)
The recent public defense of media censorship by the current Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission—an appointee from the Trump era—marks a chilling development in the ongoing campaign to recast American institutions in the image of authoritarian grievance. Justified under the pretext of combating “invidious ideology” associated with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), the move signals a deeper ideological purge aimed not at restoring neutrality but at eliminating pluralism itself.
This defense of censorship, framed as a protection against ideological bias, in fact constitutes a stark betrayal of the First Amendment’s foundational commitments. Far from curbing excess, it institutionalizes a selective silencing of voices that challenge the dominant ethno-nationalist narrative increasingly embraced by Trump-aligned cultural warriors. It is not DEI that poses a threat to democratic cohesion, but rather the repressive apparatus now being assembled to discredit and dismantle it.
What is emerging is not policy, but performance—a spectacle of control designed to communicate power rather than to govern justly. In this, the parallels to the reign of Caligula are not accidental. The Roman emperor’s descent into theatrical cruelty and capricious edicts was not merely a symptom of madness but a deliberate assertion of dominance over law, decorum, and truth itself. Under Caligula, the empire was transformed into a stage upon which reality bent to the will of a singular, vindictive ego. Trumpism, in its media strategy and institutional manipulation, follows a similar logic: one that privileges loyalty over legitimacy, and spectacle over substance.
The FCC’s shift from regulatory independence to ideological enforcement exemplifies this logic. Rather than acting as a steward of public trust, the Commission is being repurposed as a gatekeeper of permissible narratives—an arbiter of who may speak and who must be silenced. The language of “protecting viewers” from divisive content serves as a smokescreen for restricting narratives that confront historical injustice, racial inequality, or structural exclusion.
If allowed to continue, such measures risk hollowing out the very idea of a democratic media ecosystem. In its place would emerge a curated domain of sanctioned speech, curated not for truth or civic health, but for the comfort of those in power. The result would not be national unity, but enforced conformity masquerading as patriotism.
This is not a return to law and order; it is a return to imperial whim. The question now is whether American institutions will continue to serve as instruments of democratic accountability, or whether they will become, like the Senate under Caligula, ornamental backdrops to a regime that no longer pretends to tolerate dissent.
To my brother Alberto, whose persistence sustained this reflection and made these pages possible.
*
By Ricardo Morin
July 29, 2025
Abstract
This essay examines the fragmentation of Venezuelan national identity amid a prolonged crisis of State failure. It argues that the collapse of institutional sovereignty, the entrenchment of foreign authoritarian influence, and the marginalization of native citizens from civic and economic life have not only hollowed out the republic but have also fractured the symbolic cohesion necessary for shared civic identity. Through a reasoned analysis of foreign entanglement, cultural displacement, and the moral cost of dispossession, the essay contends that Venezuelan identity has become a contested act of memory and resistance. The argument proceeds not from political activism but from a civic and ethical perspective on national dissolution.
Section I: Losing the Nation: Identity in a Failed State
National identity is not an abstraction. It is a lived sense of coherence that binds individuals to a shared history, a common language, and a civic project. In functional States, this identity is sustained by stable institutions of governance, the continuity of law, and the everyday experience of participation in a protected civic order. When a State collapses—through authoritarian control, institutional decay, and the disfigurement of sovereignty—its people do not merely lose services or rights. They begin to lose their place in the world.
As Michel Agier observes, “when institutions that once guaranteed rights, protection, and civic recognition collapse—such as courts, elections, or access to public services—citizens can become internally exiled: physically present, but stripped of belonging”—of any sense of inclusion.
This disintegration is not caused solely by economic collapse or political repression. It has been compounded by the regime’s calculated alignment with foreign authoritarian powers, which have embedded external interests deep within the nation’s economy and territorial administration. Through negotiated dependencies—whether in extractive industries, infrastructure, surveillance, or military cooperation—the Venezuelan State has relinquished control over strategic industries and assets. In doing so, it has not only compromised national sovereignty; it has reordered the social and cultural hierarchy of belonging.
As Louisa Loveluck has documented, these foreign enclaves operate as “parallel structures of control and privilege,” where loyalty to external powers displaces the traditional role of State industries such as in oil and mining resources (Loveluck, “Foreign Control and Local Collapse in Venezuela’s Border Zones,” The Washington Post, 2019).
According to David Smilde, this delegation of sovereign functions to authoritarian allies has transformed the State apparatus into an instrument of regime survival rather than a vehicle of national representation (Smilde, “The Military and Authoritarian Resilience in Venezuela,” Latin American Politics and Society, 2020).
The result is a deep psychological rupture. Arjun Appadurai describes this condition as a form of “identity disanchoring,” in which cultural detachment renders citizens unable to recognize themselves in their historical present (Modernity at Large, 1996).
When a nation’s institutions no longer reflect its people, and when its future is shaped by foreign imperatives, Venezuelanness becomes less a civic reality and more a memory under siege. What is lost is not only territorial—it is existential. Hannah Arendt warned of this condition with stark clarity: the loss of the right to have rights begins when one no longer belongs to a political community capable of guaranteeing them security (The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951).
Section II: Authoritarian Alliances and Economic Infiltration
Venezuela’s transformation into a failed State has not occurred in isolation. Its authoritarian trajectory has been reinforced by a calculated strategy of international alignment with other regimes operating outside the norms of democratic accountability. These alliances—chiefly with Cuba, Russia, China, Iran, and Turkey—have provided the Maduro regime not only with political legitimacy and technical support, but have also enabled the gradual outsourcing of national functions and resources to foreign control (cf. Ellis 2018, 49–56).
These alliances are transactional: the Venezuelan State forfeits sovereignty in exchange for survival. Chinese loans secured by oil reserves, Russian stakes in energy infrastructure, Cuban intelligence operations embedded in the military and civil apparatus, and Iranian ventures in mining and logistics have together displaced native Venezuelans from critical sectors of the economy (cf. Trinkunas 2015, 3–6; Levitsky and Ziblatt 2018, 197–198).
In parallel, private and informal business networks—often tied to these foreign interests—have taken root in local markets, at times displacing or outperforming historical domestic producers. This economic infiltration has a dual effect. It distorts the allocation of national resources, diverting wealth and opportunity away from the general population toward a narrow class of regime beneficiaries and their foreign patrons (cf. Corrales 2020, 212–215). And it reconfigures the geography of power: entire regions, especially those rich in oil, minerals, or strategic positions, have come under the functional control of external actors or militias under foreign protection (cf. Romero 2021, 88–91).
In such contexts, Venezuelans do not merely feel excluded from their economy; they experience it as something alien—managed, exploited, and secured by those whose loyalties lie elsewhere. The result is a corrosive alienation. A population that once saw itself as a beneficiary of a national project now confronts the reality of an extractive system in which their labor, land, and culture are no longer valued on their own terms. The economy ceases to be a platform for collective progress and becomes a zone of foreign extraction, protected by repression and organized through impunity (cf. Loveluck and Dehghan 2020; López Maya 2022).
In this environment, the question of identity becomes inseparable from the loss of agency. To be Venezuelan under such conditions is to be subordinated within one’s own country.
Section III: Cultural and Social Displacement
The dissolution of identity in a failed State extends beyond political and economic structures; it reaches into the cultural and social fabric of everyday life. In Venezuela, the displacement of native citizens is not always physical—though mass emigration has marked the national experience. The institutions, customs, and even public spaces that once embodied a shared civic identity are being emptied out, repurposed, or replaced by structures that no longer reflect Venezuelan values or priorities [cf. Salas 2019, 45–47].
Public education, for instance—once a source of national pride and social mobility—has been systematically dismantled. In its place, ideological indoctrination and partisan loyalty have become criteria for access and advancement [cf. Human Rights Watch 2021]. The result is not only the degradation of knowledge and opportunity but even the politicization of childhood itself. Similarly, cultural production—formerly diverse, expressive, and regionally vibrant—has withered under censorship, economic collapse, and the withdrawal of public support for the arts [cf. Ávila 2020, 119–124].
What remains is either trivialized as propaganda or silenced altogether. The result is a cultural silence, where shared narratives are undermined and the cultural life of the nation is reduced to slogans and spectacle. Meanwhile, the influx of foreign interests and their social infrastructure—contract workers, commercial complexes, private security, parallel institutions—has introduced new cultural norms and loyalties into local environments, particularly in border areas and resource-rich zones [cf. Rodríguez and Ortega 2023].
These changes are often subtle: signage in unfamiliar languages, imported goods replacing local ones, new patterns of exclusion in access to services or employment. But over time, they alter the character of a place, displacing not only people but the meanings those places once held. This form of displacement is disorienting because it operates within everyday life. It renders Venezuelans strangers in their own markets, their own schools, their own land. It unravels the mutual recognition that makes coexistence possible.
When communities no longer share a common point of reference—whether legal, linguistic, or moral—they lose the cohesion needed to sustain identity as something lived and affirmed. The rupture is not dramatic; it is slow, cumulative, and deeply damaging [cf. Arendt 1951, 302–306]. In such a context, cultural resilience becomes increasingly difficult to sustain. Identity, once reinforced by public participation and pride in collective achievement, begins to retreat into nostalgia or fracture along lines of class, exile, or ideological survival. It becomes reactive rather than generative—something to defend rather than to build.
Section IV: Dignity and the Struggle to Belong
“Venezuela: Freedom in the World 2024” by Freedom House offers updated empirical data and analytical context regarding the decline of political rights and civil liberties in Venezuela, with particular attention to authoritarian consolidation and State control.
At the heart of national identity lies the human need for dignity: the certainty that one’s life is acknowledged, one’s labor valued, and one’s voice able to contribute to a shared future. In today’s Venezuela, that dignity has been systematically undermined. The collapse of institutions, the degradation of public life, and the influence of foreign entanglements distorting the national economy have created a climate in which the average citizen no longer feels seen or protected by their country. This is not merely a political failure, but a fracture in the ethical foundation of the nation. As Emmanuel Levinas warned, “dignity is not a legal category but the response of the face of the other, who calls and obliges us” (Levinas 1982).
When a government no longer rules on behalf of its people, but rather to ensure its own permanence and serve external patrons, civic inclusion becomes conditional. Loyalty is demanded, not earned. Dissent is criminalized, not heard. Citizenship, far from offering protection, becomes a liability. In such a system, dignity is not merely denied—it is redefined through fear, dependency, and silence. Here, Hannah Arendt’s warning comes to pass: “the loss of human rights begins when the right to have rights is lost” (Arendt 1951).
This leaves Venezuelans—both within and beyond the country—suspended between dispossession and resistance. Many continue to fight for what remains: organizing locally, teaching despite educational collapse, feeding neighbors in the absence of public services, safeguarding memory in the face of propaganda. These acts are heroic, but they also respond to abandonment. They attest to the resilience of the people, but also to the void where the State should be.
For those in exile, the loss is often twofold: the loss of a physical home and the loss of a living context. Cultural reference points no longer match daily experience. One’s accent becomes a marker of displacement. The passport becomes a barrier more than a right. And yet, exile can also sharpen awareness of what has been lost—and what must be preserved. Thus, identity persists not through affirmation of a functioning nation, but through refusal to forget one. In the words of Edward Said, “exile is not simply a condition of loss, but a critical way of being in the world” (Said 2000).
Even so, dignity requires more than memory. It requires restoration: of institutions, of justice, of a civic space where Venezuelans may once again participate as equals. Until such restoration is possible, the struggle to belong will continue to define Venezuelan identity—not as a static inheritance, but as a sustained refusal to surrender what remains of the nation’s moral core.
Section V: A Word for the Dispossessed
To speak of dispossession is to name not only what has been taken but also what continues to be denied: the right to shape one’s future within a framework of justice, belonging, and shared meaning. In Venezuela, dispossession has unfolded through a deliberate dismantling of sovereignty—first by internal corruption, then by foreign entanglement. What remains is a scattered people, a fragmented territory, and an identity under immense pressure. As Achille Mbembe has noted, “dispossession acts not only upon bodies but also upon the collective imaginaries that sustain life in common” (Mbembe 2016).
And yet, dispossession is not the end of identity. The absence of a functional State does not erase a nation’s moral memory. The language, traditions, civic values, and aspirations that once shaped Venezuelan life have not vanished: they have been driven underground, carried into exile, or preserved in the hearts of those who remember. “Language is the house of being,” said Heidegger, and where it is kept alive, a form of belonging endures (Heidegger 1959).
The task now is not only to resist, but to rebuild: to articulate a vision of Venezuelanness that rejects both cynicism and forgetfulness.
This cannot be done through nostalgia alone. Nor can it be deferred to future generations without commitment. It begins with the refusal to normalize what is not normal: the foreign occupation of national resources, the criminalization of dissent, the denial of opportunity, the devaluation of citizenship. It continues in the quiet labor of preserving language, history, and dignity wherever that remains possible—whether in classrooms, in exile, or through the written word. And it gains strength through solidarity: among those who stayed, those who left, and those who bear both destinies.
Under these conditions, Venezuelan identity is not a fixed inheritance but an act of resistance. It is the assertion that dignity is not negotiable, and that a people cannot be permanently replaced by alliances of convenience and control. The recovery of the nation will take time and may require forms not yet imagined. But it will depend, above all, on the preservation of civic spirit—one that knows what has been lost and refuses to let it be forgotten.
Epilogue *
As Venezuela’s history unfolds in waves, the struggle between unity and fragmentation, idealism and authority, repeats itself—not only in the corridors of power but also in the private lives of those who live with its consequences. Power, in its many forms, tests the very fabric of the nation, yet the quest for balance remains elusive. Venezuela remains gripped by a profound humanitarian crisis, with millions deprived of basic healthcare and nutrition, according to the “World Report 2024” by Human Rights Watch. [1] The country now has the highest rate of undernourishment in South America, with 66% of its population in need of humanitarian aid and 65% having irreversibly lost their means of livelihood. Despite repeated promises of reform and amnesty, entrenched power structures have prevented meaningful change and perpetuated what is widely regarded as an authoritarian and corrupt regime. External interventions, primarily diplomatic and economic sanctions, have been frequent, yet they have failed to compel any substantive transformation.
Political theory once held that the spread of democracy would secure peace among nations. [2] The ordeal for Venezuelans suggests the converse: peace recedes where democracy is hollowed into the temporality of chaos. Although such theories do not directly address the persistence of autocracies, the Venezuelan case highlights how regimes strengthened by internal control and by strategic autocratic alliances with external powers can withstand both internal unrest and external pressure.
In Venezuela, theoretical insights find concrete expression in how democratic institutions—elections, legislatures, and courts—are repurposed to entrench authoritarian control. Through staged electoral processes, constrained legislatures, and politicized judiciaries, these regimes suppress dissent, manage perception, and deflect external accountability. Legitimacy transforms from a mandate of the people into a mechanism for the endurance of autocratic power.
While the path forward remains uncertain, the crisis is no longer merely political—it is systemic, embedded in the very fabric of Venezuela’s history. The resolution of this crisis requires more than political turnover or external intervention; it requires an acknowledgment of the historical inheritance that has shaped the nation’s mistrust and dysfunction. The foundations of governance have long been built on conflicting forces, and any potential for change begins with an awareness of this legacy. A coordinated strategy that integrates economic support, diplomatic engagement, and grassroots democratic movements may provide short-term relief, but it cannot resolve what is ingrained. True transformation requires a cultural reckoning—an internal shift in consciousness that confronts the very forces that have enabled autocratic rule. Yet without a profound internal unity—a cultural awakening capable of overcoming centuries of inherent contradictions—the possibility of such transformation may remain distant, though not extinguished.
[2] Azar Gat, “The Democratic Peace Theory Reframed,” World Politics (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, Vol. 58, No. 1, October 2005, 73-100.https://www.jstor.org/stable/40060125
Améry, Jean: At the Mind’s Limits: Contemplations by a Survivor on Auschwitz and Its Realities. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1980. (A philosophical and existential reflection on suffering, exile, and the loss of belonging. The essay draws on his idea that there is no greater violence than being stripped of a place in the world to return to, which becomes a moral axis in the Venezuela of the exodus.)
Appadurai, Arjun: Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996. (Appadurai introduces the concept of “identity disanchoring” to describe the cultural unmooring brought about by globalization, which disrupts symbolic continuity between past and present. He is cited to explain the subjective rupture in contexts of cultural loss and displacement.)
Arendt, Hannah: The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1951. (Foundational study on rootlessness, denationalization, and the right to have rights. Her conceptualization of stateless refugees directly informs the argument about the loss of belonging as a form of ontological expulsion.)
Ávila, Rafael: La cultura sitiada: Arte, política y silencio en Venezuela. Caracas: Editorial Alfa, 2020. (Ávila examines how censorship, economic precariousness, and institutional control have drastically reduced independent artistic production in Venezuela. He is cited to support the claim that cultural diversity has been replaced by an expression conditioned by power and subsistence.)
Corrales, Javier: Autocracy Rising: How Venezuela’s Authoritarian Leaders Consolidated Power. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2020. (Corrales explains how regime elites have concentrated economic control through informal networks, enabling foreign-backed oligarchies to displace domestic economic actors. Used to support the claim that foreign patrons and loyalists now dominate Venezuelan resource flows.)
Ellis, R. Evan: Transnational Organized Crime in Latin America and the Caribbean. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2018. (Ellisprovides a comprehensive mapping of how foreign actors—especially from Cuba, Russia, and China—embed themselves in the Venezuelan state. Cited to explain the strategic outsourcing of sovereignty to non-democratic allies.)
Gessen, Masha: Surviving Autocracy. New York: Riverhead Books, 2020. (Though centered on the United States, this book articulates general patterns of autocratic behavior—such as the distortion of language, the hollowing of institutions, and the disorientation of those governed—which also apply to the Venezuelan case.)
Heidegger, Martin: Unterwegs zur Sprache. Pfullingen: Neske, 1959. (Includes the well-known phrase “Language is the house of being,” which is cited to emphasize the relationship between linguistic continuity and existential belonging.)
Human Rights Watch: “Venezuela’s Humanitarian Emergency: Large-Scale UN Response Needed to Address Health and Food Crisis.” New York: Human Rights Watch, 2019. (H.R.W. detailed report linking the collapse of public services with violations of basic rights and national dignity, highlighting how the humanitarian crisis contributes to the dissolution of identity.)
Levinas, Emmanuel: Totalité et infini: Essai sur l’extériorité. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1961. (Levinas’s ethics of alterity, centered on responsibility toward the irreducible other, underlies the essay’s argument for a politics founded on dignity, not on state identity or calculated reciprocity.)
Levitsky, Steven, and Ziblatt, Daniel: How Democracies Die. Nueva York: Crown Publishing Group, 2018. (Levitsky and Ziblatt offer a framework for understanding democratic degradation via institutional capture and foreign alignment. It is referenced to underline the transactional nature of Venezuela’s external alliances.)
López Maya, Margarita: “Economía extractiva y soberanía en disputa: el Arco Minero del Orinoco.” Revista Venezolana de Ciencia Política 45 (2022): 34–49. (López Maya analyzes how mining zones have become semi-autonomous territories controlled by militias and foreign interests, supporting the essay’s argument on geographic alienation and economic fragmentation.)
Loveluck, Louisa: “The Collapse of a Nation: Venezuela’s Descent into Authoritarianism.” The Washington Post, July 2020. (Journalistic synthesis of Venezuela’s structural collapse, including firsthand accounts of economic alienation and the psychological cost of state abandonment.)
Loveluck, Louisa, and Dehghan, Saeed Kamali: “Venezuela Hands Over Control of Key Assets to Foreign Backers.” The Washington Post, 2020. (Loveluck’s and Dehghan’s investigative report documents the privatization and foreign management of strategic Venezuelan sectors. Their report is cited to demonstrate how national industries have been subordinated to external control.)
Mbembe, Achille. Politiques de l’inimitié. Paris: La Découverte, 2016. (Mbembe explores the politics of enmity and the mechanisms of dispossession in late modernity. Quoted to highlight how structural violence targets both material life and the collective imagination.)
Rodríguez, Luis, y Ortega, Daniela: Colonización contemporánea: transformaciones culturales en las zonas extractivas de Venezuela. Mérida: Editorial de la Universidad de los Andes, 2023. (An ethnographic study on the sociocultural effects of foreign investment in mining and border regions, including the introduction of new hierarchies, codes of coexistence, and parallel organizational forms. It is cited to support the argument about the transformation of cultural norms and community loyalties.)
Romero, Carlos A.: “Geopolítica, militarización y relaciones internacionales del chavismo.” Nueva Sociedad 293 (2021): 82–94. (Romero traces how foreign alliances have militarized border zones and reinforced internal authoritarianism. Used to support the claim that power has shifted toward actors whose loyalties lie beyond Venezuela.)
Roth, Kenneth: The Fight for Rights: Human Dignity and the Struggle Against Authoritarianism. New York: W. W. Norton, 2022. (Roth examines the moral and civic foundations of dignity, providing context for the argument that Venezuelan identity must now be preserved through resistance rather than state recognition.)
Said, Edward W.: Reflections on Exile and Other Essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000. (Said explores the experience of exile as an existential and critical condition, beyond mere uprootedness. Cited to support the idea that Venezuelan identity in the diaspora endures not through the affirmation of a functioning nation, but through the refusal to forget.)
Salas, Miguel: Arquitectura y desposesión: Espacios públicos y crisis urbana en Venezuela. Caracas: Editorial Punto Cero, 2019. (Salas examines the transformation of public architecture and space in the context of political and social collapse in Venezuela. Cited to support the idea that shared civic structures are being stripped of their symbolic and communal function.)
Schmitt, Carl: The Concept of the Political. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996. (Theoretical reference on sovereignty, useful for understanding how the Venezuelan regime defines enemies and allies not through legality but through loyalty, thereby reshaping the very meaning of citizenship.)
Shklar, Judith: American Citizenship: The Quest for Inclusion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991. (Shklar examines how political and social exclusion has shaped the meaning of citizenship in the United States. The essay takes up her premise that to be a citizen implies not only legal rights, but effective belonging and recognized dignity.)
Smilde, David: “Participation, Politics, and Culture in Twenty-First Century Venezuela.” Latin American Research Review 52, no. 1 (2017): 157–65. (Analyzes the cultural impact of political polarization and exclusion in Venezuela, and how identity is formed in contested civic spaces.)
Trinkunas, Harold A.: “Venezuela’s Defense Sector and Civil-Military Relations.” Washington: Brookings Institution Working Paper, 2015. (Trinkunas examines the entrenchment of Cuban and Russian influence in the Venezuelan military. Cited to explain the redefinition of sovereignty under foreign advisory presence.)
Observations On Perception 