FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Struggle at Teotihuacan

Teotihuacan was Central Mexico’s capital long before the Mexica, and then Spaniards, colonized the Anahuac; before the Distrito Federal, the Ángel de la Independencia, or Bellas Artes; o’, much longer before.

Most people have heard of Teotihuacan’s Pyramid of the Sun, a testament to its global cultural reach and its enduring presence, another grotesque ode to collective strength. Teotihuacan’s infamy, a byproduct of ethnocentrism, savagely reduces Teotihuacan to a place for human sacrifices and decapitations during rituals and dedications. The self-righteousness of this discourse revolves around the notion that somehow we are civilized and do not practice such barbarities. Of course, this requires us disregarding every American President bombing at least one new country during their tenure.

If not discussed in these terms, then Teotihuacan acquires mystic and spiritual connotations. On any given visit you will see people dressed in white at the top of the pyramid with their arms out wide to accept the “positive energy”; also demonstrative of finding healing in authoritarian architecture, the dark side of ethno-centric beliefs about past civilizations’ shamanistic capabilities.

Rather, Teotihuacan should be understood in a much more expansive manner for what it tells us archaeologically about pre-Hispanic social organization, and therefore about humanity. It represents an attempt at a society with class and ethnic differentiation based on power asymmetry. This is key to understand. Teotihuacan, from archaeological evidence, is an empirical case of societal stagnation and collapse due to the tensions produced by class and ethnic conflict. Not because people are incapable of getting along or some other reactionary canard, but rather because power asymmetry is impossible to maintain over the long run. We can call this civilizational time. Over the course of a civilization, it either rectifies whatever power asymmetries it possesses or eventually collapses from the contradictions and inefficiencies those power asymmetries produce.

As explained by Linda R. Manzanilla, archaeologist at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, published “Cooperation and tensions in multiethnic corporate societies using Teotihuacan, Central Mexico, as a case study”, Teotihuacan was a multi-ethnic city which reached a population of 100,000, and a principal migration hub in pre-Hispanic Mexico from around the first century of the Common Era (CE) to 550 CE. By 320 CE Teotihuacan had a periphery made up of segregated ethnic neighborhoods, such as “Tlailotlacan or the Oaxaca barrio in the southwest, the Merchants’ Barrio populated by people from the Gulf Coast in the east, and a small group from Michoacán in the west” (1; all numbers in parentheses are page numbers of article cited in the hyperlink). The core of the city was made up of “Teotihuacan’s intermediate elites” who fostered conspicuous consumption leading to a concentration of “specialized craftsmen from different regions” (1).

The corporate forces of society, as Manzanilla describes in the case of Teotihuacan, are “based on consensus building and an economic reliance on basic production”, while a congruent and detrimental set of “exclusionary arrangements were based on personal networks and more ostentatious expressions of inequalities and wealth” (5). The tension between the excluded periphery and the core “posed a threat to the corporate organization of the Teotihuacan state”, while also being the “most dynamic process…an independent source of social and economic power for the city” (2).

These points taken together demonstrate both a class struggle and an ethnic struggle occurring in Teotihuacan. When the tensions produced by these struggles became too great to bear (i.e. basic needs no longer met and consensus no longer achieved), they led to a moment of revolt, as in 550 CE when the “major ritual and administrative buildings along the Street of the Dead were set on fire” (5). The failure of this revolt “against the ruling elite” led to the dominance and solidifying of the exclusionary organizational model (5).

Therefore, we have a homogenous ethnic elite and intermediate elite exploiting an ethnically heterogeneous lower class. That ethnically heterogeneous lower class revolts, their revolt fails, and a much more punitive social organization becomes dominant, one that privileges homogenous ethnic relations to support a totalizing hierarchy. This system did not have an internal dynamic and became stagnant, slowly becoming just another ruins studied by archaeologists in the present. Teotihuacan then should be seen as an object lesson about the dangers of hierarchy and exploitation for civilization survival.

The conditions for class struggle are in the production of surplus. Once there is surplus, there can be exploitation. When processes of rationalization for distribution of resources based on the mandates of elites become instituted, as happened beginning in Meso-America with the Olmec civilization from 1500 BCE to 400 BCE, the result is an exploitative division of labor, along with the concentration of control over the surplus. In Teotihuacan, this division of labor and solidification of the class structure was quite advanced and a principal arena of struggle. Without any fundamental way to resolve these class tensions the society eventually collapsed under the weight of its contradictions.

Further, this case clearly demonstrates that ethnic differentiation has a long history, one that goes beyond European colonialism and the modern-day racist social structure, which are not the first iterations of the politics of the Other. In a multi-ethnic corporate society, ethnicity is a fundamental arena of struggle, because it is based on a power asymmetries between ethnic groups and hierarchizing them, a historical process of institutionalizing oppression and exclusion. Maintenance of this order revolves around a constant series of physical violence, passive-aggressive coercion, and cooptation. Just as with class tensions, at some point this situation is resolved (i.e. equality achieved) or there is a revolt which fundamentally alters the social system.

Teotihuacan shows how ethnicity and class are intertwined, a congruence between the reproduction of the logic dictating who is and who is not a laborer and who is and who is not a Teotihuacano. As such, pluriethnic class struggle is the anti-thesis to the ethnically homogenous authoritarian class forces in a society. Plurality is dangerous, because it is based on empathy and solidarity, the recognition of universal humanity and the just cause of resolving concrete inequalities. To cite an oft quoted line of Noam Chomsky’s, “In this possibly terminal phase of human existence, democracy and freedom are more than just ideals to be valued – they may be essential to survival.”

In fact, it has always been so.

More articles by:

Andrew Smolski is a writer and sociologist.

Weekend Edition
November 16, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Jonah Raskin
A California Jew in a Time of Anti-Semitism
Andrew Levine
Whither the Melting Pot?
Joshua Frank
Climate Change and Wildfires: The New Western Travesty
Nick Pemberton
The Revolution’s Here, Please Excuse Me While I Laugh
T.J. Coles
Israel Cannot Use Violent Self-Defense While Occupying Gaza
Rob Urie
Nuclear Weapons are a Nightmare Made in America
Paul Street
Barack von Obamenburg, Herr Donald, and Big Capitalist Hypocrisy: On How Fascism Happens
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Fire is Sweeping Our Very Streets Today
Aidan O'Brien
Ireland’s New President, Other European Fools and the Abyss 
Pete Dolack
“Winners” in Amazon Sweepstakes Sure to be the Losers
Richard Eskow
Amazon, Go Home! Billions for Working People, But Not One Cent For Tribute
Ramzy Baroud
In Breach of Human Rights, Netanyahu Supports the Death Penalty against Palestinians
Brian Terrell
Ending the War in Yemen- Congressional Resolution is Not Enough!
John Laforge
Woolsey Fire Burns Toxic Santa Susana Reactor Site
Ralph Nader
The War Over Words: Republicans Easily Defeat the Democrats
M. G. Piety
Reading Plato in the Time of the Oligarchs
Rafael Correa
Ecuador’s Soft Coup and Political Persecution
Brian Cloughley
Aid Projects Can Work, But Not “Head-Smacking Stupid Ones”
David Swanson
A Tale of Two Marines
Robert Fantina
Democrats and the Mid-Term Elections
Joseph Flatley
The Fascist Creep: How Conspiracy Theories and an Unhinged President Created an Anti-Semitic Terrorist
Joseph Natoli
Twitter: Fast Track to the Id
William Hawes
Baselines for Activism: Brecht’s Stance, the New Science, and Planting Seeds
Bob Wing
Toward Racial Justice and a Third Reconstruction
Ron Jacobs
Hunter S. Thompson: Chronicling the Republic’s Fall
Oscar Gonzalez
Stan Lee and a Barrio Kid
Jack Rasmus
Election 2018 and the Unraveling of America
Sam Pizzigati
The Democrats Won Big, But Will They Go Bold?
Yves Engler
Canada and Saudi Arabia: Friends or Enemies?
Cesar Chelala
Can El Paso be a Model for Healing?
Mike Ferner
The Tragically Misnamed Paris Peace Conference
Barry Lando
Trump’s Enablers: Appalling Parallels
Ariel Dorfman
The Boy Who Taught Me About War and Peace
Binoy Kampmark
The Disgruntled Former Prime Minister
Faisal Khan
Is Dubai Really a Destination of Choice?
Arnold August
The Importance of Néstor García Iturbe, Cuban Intellectual
James Munson
An Indecisive War To End All Wars, I Mean the Midterm Elections
Nyla Ali Khan
Women as Repositories of Communal Values and Cultural Traditions
Dan Bacher
Judge Orders Moratorium on Offshore Fracking in Federal Waters off California
Christopher Brauchli
When Depravity Wins
Robby Sherwin
Here’s an Idea
Susan Block
Cucks, Cuckolding and Campaign Management
Louis Proyect
The Mafia and the Class Struggle (Part Two)
David Yearsley
Smoke on the Water: Jazz in San Francisco
Elliot Sperber
All of Those Bezos
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail