Shining Path Exchange In recent months, readers of this magazine have been treated to an increasingly common specta- cle on the Left-published letters which seem to "cross the line" between legitimate, passionate statements of political beliefs and virtual assassinations of character. The exchange of letters began with the publication of Carol Andreas' letter (July/August 1993), in which she takes issue with NACLA author Virginia Vargas' depiction of Marfa Elena Moyano and explains why Shining Path felt obliged to assassinate the grass- roots women's leader. After a brief reply by Vargas, and a letter from Peter Waterman criticizing Shining Path's world view and methods, the exchange ended with the publica- tion of Robin Kirk's enraged per- sonal attack on Andreas, in which Kirk extends the logic of Andreas' letter to its most extreme conclu- sions. I am left to wonder why NACLA decided to publish An- dreas' letter in the first place, and, given that initial decision, if the publication of Kirk's response served any reasonable purpose. I would assume that in the course of putting together a magazine, edi- tors must frequently make deci- sions about the suitability of arti- cles and letters for publication. They constantly draw lines on the basis of "appropriateness." We tend to speak as if these lines are objec- tively determined when in fact, they are often quite flexible and rarely the subject of public discus- sion. This lack of discussion can lead readers to be skeptical about the balance of letters included for publication. Why, for example, did NACLA decide that one letter mer- ited three replies? Readers may well assume that the letters section Readers are invited to address letters to The Editors, NACLA Report on the Americas, 475 Riverside Drive, Suite 454, New York, NY 10115 is a mere extension of editorial pol- icy, as it seems to be in, for in- stance, the New York Times. The letter writers themselves are engaging difficult issues in a partic- ularly polarized moment in West- ern history. Passion manifest as frustration is hardly surprising. I am glad that NACLA does not adhere to so-called "canons of scholarly objectivity," which would preclude the publication of this impassioned exchange. However, letters akin to Andreas' denuncia- tion of a woman unable to defend herself, and the harsh moral indig- nation of Kirk's reply, can too easi- ly mute healthy argument, create enemies, and reinforce hardened positions. We are part of a society which is quick to answer the ques- tion, "What do you know?" but which hesitates to respond to the more important and process-orient- ed question, "What have you learned?" Many of us came of age during the 1960s, when the women's movement began promoting the slogan, "the personal is political." Today, "the personal" is too fre- quently expressed as righteous moralism. This tendency has seeped into debates among those of us on the Left. Too often, rather than taking on the more challeng- ing task of critiquing ideas and the ways ideas impact community his- Continued on page 54 LETTERS CONTINUED FROM PAGE 2 tory, we choose the easier path of attacking the person who espouses the idea. I strongly urge the editors to carefully consider the criteria by which letters such as Andreas' and Kirk's merit the forum of such a respected magazine as NACLA Report on the Americas. Such con- siderations should be informed by a broader and open discussion of how NACLA can best serve the interests of its readership. Impa- tience, self-indulgent hostility, and meanness, to the extent that they find space within our work, betray our claims to represent an alterna- tive to the competitive and violent ruling ethic which has trampled on Latin American interests for far too long. Robert Zuber World Order Models Project New York, NY
