Portal de revistas electrónicas de la UAM (Univ. Autónoma de Madrid)
Not a member yet
14423 research outputs found
Sort by
The politics of the Anthropocene: temporality, ecology and indigeneity
No full textLa noción de Antropoceno se ha convertido en un telón de fondo instrumental sobre el que la teoría social posfundacional y la investigación política enmarcan la acción política, de un modo que desafía la certidumbre moderna y, en cierto modo paradójicamente, el antropocentrismo, en un contexto de drásticos cambios ecológicos. Pero ¿cuál es exactamente la promesa teórica del Antropoceno? Este artículo trata de explorar lo que el concepto puede ofrecer a las ciencias sociales críticas y, a la inversa, cómo estos enfoques críticos definen y sitúan la adopción analítica y política del Antropoceno, a través de un prisma crítica. El artículo traza una genealogía de la conceptualización de Antropoceno basada en la ciencia y en la descripción discontinua, buscando explorar una conceptualización ontológica continua. Asimismo, analiza cómo las nociones de relacionalidad ecológica y de agencia no humana desplegadas en esta última se asemejan estrechamente a ciertas propuestas ligadas al pensamiento y la política indígenas. Basándose en estudios indígenas críticos, el documento formula una crítica de cómo las perspectivas relacionales pretenden englobar ontologías y políticas alternativas dentro de una marco antropocénico que no solo es universalizante, sino que también coopta la posibilidad de un compromiso genuino con la diferencia y las resistencias.The notion of the Anthropocene has become an instrumental backdrop against which post-foundational social theory and political research frame political action in a way that defies modern certainty and, somewhat paradoxically, anthropocentrism, under conditions of drastic ecological changes. But what exactly is the theoretical promise of the Anthropocene? This paper seeks to explore what the concept can offer to critical social science and, conversely, how these critical approaches define and locate the analytical and the political purchase of the Anthropocene, through the critical lens of Indigenous scholarship. The paper genealogically retraces the transition from a science-led, discontinuous-descriptive to a continuous-ontological conceptualization of the Anthropocene. It then unpacks how the notions of ecological relationality and non-human agency deployed in the latter closely parallel certain lines of argumentation in Indigenous thought and politics. Drawing on critical Indigenous studies, the paper formulates a critique of how relational perspectives enfold alternative ontologies and politics within an overarching Anthropocene ontology that is not only problematically universalizing, but also replaces the genuine engagement with differences and resistance
On Vasari’s sources and the origins of Renaissance historiography in Florence: Lorenzo Ghiberti’s Commentarii and the ms. Magliabechiano XVII, 17
No full textEn las Vidas de los más excelentes pintores, escultores y arquitectos de Vasari, la biografía de Filippo Brunelleschi se sitúa enfáticamente entre las de Masaccio y Donatello, formando un grupo tripartito de un pintor, un arquitecto y un escultor que se ha convertido en canónico en nuestra comprensión del arte florentino de la primera mitad del siglo XV. Originalmente, la biografía de Brunelleschi surgió de su conexión con la vida de Lorenzo Ghiberti, en particular en torno al concurso para la asignación de las obras de la segunda puerta del Baptisterio y de la Cúpula. El cotejo de las fuentes escritas de que dispuso Vasari permite reconstruir en términos filológicos los orígenes del esquema historiográfico que subyace en las Vidas de los pintores y aporta una nueva visión de la relación de las Vidas de Vasari con el llamado Anonimo Magliabechiano y los Commentarii de Lorenzo Ghiberti.In Vasari’s Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects, the biography of Filippo Brunelleschi is emphatically placed between those of Masaccio and Donatello, forming a three parts group of a painter, an architect and a sculptor which has become canonical in our understanding of Florentine art in the first half of the Fifteenth Century. Originally, Brunelleschi’s biography stemmed from its connection with Lorenzo Ghiberti’s life, in particular around the competition for the assignment of the works of the second gate of the Baptistery and of the Cupola. The collation of the written sources available to Vasari allows a reconstruction in philological terms of the origins of the historiographical scheme which underlies the Lives of the Painters and provides a new view of the relation of Vasari’s Lives with the so called Anonimo Magliabechiano and with Ghiberti’s Commentarii
On building thresholds: In conversation with Stavros Stavrides
No full textThis interview with architect and activist Prof. Stavros Stavrides reflects on the concept of the threshold as a spatial, political, and epistemic condition for emancipation. Drawing on anthropology, political philosophy, and radical architectural practice, Stavrides articulates the threshold as an in-between space that enables encounter, commoning, and the preservation of difference without enclosure. Through analysis of Latin American social movements, feminist struggles, housing cooperatives, and indigenous forms of self-management, the conversation situates architecture within broader fields of resistance and collective imagination. The interview further addresses debates on democracy, language, and education, foregrounding porosity and inclusion versus ghettoization and exclusionary logics. Ultimately, the threshold is proposed as a critical tool for rethinking common space, collaboration, and architectural practice as open-ended, transformative processes rooted in shared struggle and mutual responsibility.
Key words: commons, thresholds, knowledge, activism, democracy, space, collective practices.This interview with architect and activist Prof. Stavros Stavrides reflects on the concept of the threshold as a spatial, political, and epistemic condition for emancipation. Drawing on anthropology, political philosophy, and radical architectural practice, Stavrides articulates the threshold as an in-between space that enables encounter, commoning, and the preservation of difference without enclosure. Through analysis of Latin American social movements, feminist struggles, housing cooperatives, and indigenous forms of self-management, the conversation situates architecture within broader fields of resistance and collective imagination. The interview further addresses debates on democracy, language, and education, foregrounding porosity and inclusion versus ghettoization and exclusionary logics. Ultimately, the threshold is proposed as a critical tool for rethinking common space, collaboration, and architectural practice as open-ended, transformative processes rooted in shared struggle and mutual responsibility
The anthropocentric fault line of the Anthropocene: speciesism as International Relations’ blind spot
No full textEl diagnóstico de este artículo es el siguiente: el especismo es la prueba de que el Antropoceno ha sido pensado desde una gramática antropocéntrica, la cual invisibiliza a distintos niveles las necesidades, el dolor y la agencia no humana en las Relaciones Internacionales (RRII). Con el fin de consolidar una lucha efectiva contra este punto ciego, propongo un marco posthumanimalista que permita reorientar las políticas hacia una justicia multiespecie.
Metodológicamente, este texto se compone de cuatro movimientos principales. Primero, una genealogía situada de las fronteras dialécticas humano-animal, asumida por Aristóteles, René Descartes e Immanuel Kant, además del desplazamiento que introduce Jeremy Bentham al incluir la sintiencia como consideración moral; esta genealogía, anclada a la modernidad euroatlántica, se pone en tensión con ontologías críticas como el Buen Vivir (Acosta) o los derechos de la naturaleza (Viaene). En segundo lugar, se deconstruyen dichas fronteras mediante Jacques Derrida (la subjetividad humana a merced de la mirada del gato) y Cary Wolfe (contenido enfrentado a metodología en los animal studies). En tercer lugar, se sigue la propuesta revolucionaria de Rosi Braidotti: un monismo de la inmanencia, de inspiración spinozista, que revela un giro zoecéntrico y posthumanimalista apoyado en los devenires animal, tierra y máquina. Por último, el artículo operativiza estos recursos mediante las figuras conceptuales de Donna Haraway (cíborg y especies de compañía) y el enfoque de Katherine Hayles sobre la información encarnada y la cognición distribuida, así como a través de la ética del cuidado de María Puig de la Bellacasa y su traducción a la seguridad de Cameron Harrington.
En diálogo con propuestas de RRII en el Antropoceno (Chandler, Rothe y Müller) y con resistencias situadas como las se dan en el río Samaná y los peces bocachico (Arias-Henao), se esboza una agenda para unas RRII posthumanimalistas: que permiten una soberanía zoecéntrica con representación de ensamblajes socioecológicos, una seguridad del cuidado orientada a la resiliencia de sistemas multiespecie y un desarrollo entendido como simbiosis regenerativa, medido por el bienestar multiespecie, la integridad ecosistémica y el sufrimiento evitado, más allá de la acumulación de capital.The Anthropocene has been widely misconceived through an anthropocentric lens that consequently naturalises human sovereignty and renders non-human others ethically negligible within International Relations (IR). This article inquires into the grammar that misreads the planetary condition and advances a posthumanimalist framework oriented towards multispecies justice. The goal is to move away from hegemonic standpoints on this matter and to sketch institutional designs, metrics and decision-making apparatuses that can register this political transfiguration.
The argument unfolds in four main steps. It begins with a situated critical genealogy of the semantic and symbolic construction of the dialectical hierarchy human-animal that has constituted the current psychological understanding of otherness. Rather than claiming universal validity, this genealogy is anchored in European modernity and its philosophical canon. Invoking Aristotelian hylomorphism, Cartesian dualism, and Kantian dignity, this article delves into the human as the only bearer of reason, sovereignty, as well as autonomy, relegating the animal to a mere resource or indirect duty. On the other hand, Bentham’s philosophical hedonistic turn brings back the animal to the realm of morality by recognising its sentience, which in return helps reframe the question from can they (think, speak)? to can they suffer?. This criterion, while opening the door to multispecies accountability, remains insufficient. At this point, non-Western ontologies appear, revealing counter-narratives to the extractive interests of the Global North and its unethical, albeit hegemonic, bond with nature.
Building on this, Jacques Derrida’s intimate scene with a cat’s gaze destabilises the self-assured human subject and highlights that experiences such as nudity only exist within the sphere of human conceptuality. Thus, we could argue that emotions linked to these supposedly human-only experiences such as shame, loyalty or distrust could be subject to their own deconstruction. Furthermore, attending to the animot, Derrida reveals how the semantic erasure of animals under a single category enacts a regime of non-criminal sacrifice towards it. This deconstruction is political, not just an abstract psychological crisis. It extends to the very foundations of the liberal subject in IR and urges us to question the power relations that have historically silenced subaltern and non-human subjectivities. In addition, following Cary Wolfe, the article shows how the humanist framework permeates animal studies, blurring the distinction between content and method: it is urgent that the scholar keeps in mind at all times that only by the inclusion of animals in one’s investigation does not guarantee the dismantling of humanistic methodologies if the subject producing knowledge remains unquestioned. Together, these contributions unsettle the anthropocentric subject at the heart of IR and prepare the ground for an ontological reframing.
The third movement grounds itself in this deconstructive moment by introducing Rosi Braidotti’s metaphysics of immanence, wherein human and non-human entities coexist as modes of a single substance that disintegrates hierarchical difference. These bodies are affectable and driven by their conatus and modulated by their varying potential; no transcendental outside stabilises a hierarchy of worth. This article highlights how Braidotti’s triad of becomings (becoming-animal, becoming-earth, and becoming-machine) reconfigures subjectivity as a relational, posthumanimal node within wider socio-eco-technical assemblages. Nonetheless, this ontological shift is solidified by an affirmative ethos that centres human and non-human will and power on the political affirmation of we want and we will, moving beyond the melancholy of ecological apocalypse.
Subsequently, this theoretical foreground needs to be operationalised in order to enact the posthumanimalist formulation in the specific domains of IR. Haraway’s cyborg and companion species are not to be misunderstood as techno-fetishes; instead, they must be described as a figurative persona that reminds us that we are no less than carbon-silicon assemblages mediated by normativity. It privileges situated affinities over essential exclusivity and reframes our understanding of how we relate to other non-human animals and technologies: not as sovereign masters or pure victims, but as co-constituted companions within dense networks of obligation. The companion species figure further challenges the one-way narrative of dominance and control, recasting human-animal relations as reciprocal disciplining and co-authorship. Crucially, this framework moves from theory to situated resistance. We examine the case of the Las Mesas communities in Colombia and the alliance with the bocachico fish against hydroelectric extractivism.
In parallel, Hayles serves as a methodological compass that guides the posthumanimal across the cybernetic spaces that we all inhabit. First, by insisting on the embodiment of information, she prevents it from being treated as if it floated freely, prior to any sort of material support. Distinguishing body (repeatable historical model) from embodiment (situated, performative and non-replicable) impedes data-fetish fantasies and keeps medium and context in view. Secondly, her account of distributed cognition sheds light on the ever-spreading processes of decision, planning, and action, refusing to treat them as standalone phenomena and instead understanding them as co-produced by human and non-human actants, dissected into several sites and devices. This shift from Man-measure-of-all-things to Data-measure-of-all-things requires, the article argues, an explicit politics of care to avoid reproducing new forms of extractivism. Here, Maria Puig de la Bellacasa’s material-semiotic ethics of care is mobilised to insist that care is never neutral kindness but a thick, compromised practice that sustains life in worlds that may nonetheless be objectionable.
On this basis, Cameron Harrington’s proposal of a security of care is brought into IR debates on the Anthropocene. Instead of securitas being the complete absence of care, he proposes a paradigm shift towards the ongoing, incomplete labour of maintaining vulnerable assemblages within liveable thresholds. In line with this paper’s overall arguments, the security of care is able to juxtapose these developments with alternative ontologies that understand human flourishing as inseparable from ecological integrity and legal recognition of non-human agency. Moreover, these perspectives do not merely expand the list of candidates to participate; they contest the Euro-Atlantic genealogy of nature and development that underpins mainstream IR.
This methodological design contributes both ontologically and ethically, distilling the implications of this posthumanimalist framework for three core IR domains: sovereignty, security and development. Sovereignty becomes zoecentric, reorganising established hierarchies into shared stewardship over socio-eco-technical systems, including forms of legal and political representation for ecosystems themselves. Security shifts from state-centric defence’s anarchic billiard-ball metaphor towards the protection of interdependent human-animal-machine-environment systems. Lastly, development transforms into regenerative symbiosis instead of linear growth, with success measured in terms of multispecies well-being, avoided suffering and ecosystem integrity, in resonance with Buen Vivir’s critique of extractivist accumulation.
The content of this text advocates an affirmative ethics, not a naïve optimism, to which human animals and non-human ones merge metaphorically together into one life. Ethical accountability has to be fairly distributed among the members of the infinite, and always-potential, array of human-animal-machine assemblages to make sure that responsibility is precisely mapped, rather than taking abstract actors alone. In the Anthropocene, the web of life is entangled in immanent systems from which it is inseparable. A posthumanimalist IR abandons romanticisation of nature and demonisation of technology, instead it puts at the centre of its task the designing of an architecture that aligns institutions, metrics and technologies to the superior interests of those entanglements and thus prepares the ground for a genuinely more-than-human Earth
Cracks in the growth imperative: post-growth openings in UN Development and Human Rights discourse
No full textEste artículo analiza la evolución del discurso en torno al derecho al desarrollo en el contexto del Antropoceno, con el objetivo de identificar cómo, desde los márgenes y de manera incipiente, se empieza a cuestionar la centralidad del crecimiento económico ilimitado en el sistema internacional de protección de los derechos humanos de Naciones Unidas. Para ello, se parte de una perspectiva inspirada en enfoques críticos, que permite problematizar los supuestos sobre los que se ha construido la asociación entre desarrollo y crecimiento económico ilimitado, según la cual el crecimiento económico era la condición sine qua non para el desarrollo económico y social, sin tener en cuenta los impactos ambientales asociados ni la idea de unos límites materiales al mismo. Por tanto, desde una perspectiva metodológica, el artículo se apoya en un análisis histórico-discursivo que combina una genealogía del concepto de desarrollo y su vínculo con el crecimiento económico, con la revisión de los marcos normativos relativos al derecho al desarrollo y la lucha contra la pobreza, incluyendo informes recientes elaborados por relatores especiales de la ONU.
Para abordar ese objetivo, el artículo se organiza en dos partes principales. Por un lado, se examina la genealogía del crecimiento económico como imperativo central en la política internacional y su progresivo cuestionamiento desde enfoques críticos, especialmente en el contexto del Antropoceno. Por otro lado, se analiza el derecho al desarrollo como instrumento normativo vinculado históricamente al crecimiento económico ilimitado, explorando sus tensiones y resignificaciones en un contexto de superación de varios límites planetarios. Asimismo, se estudian dos informes recientes de relatores especiales de la ONU que evidencian fisuras en la asociación entre desarrollo y crecimiento, abriendo espacio a discursos postcrecentistas centrados en la redistribución, el bienestar y la sostenibilidad planetaria. Estas fisuras, aunque muy incipientes, abren espacio a la posibilidad de transitar hacia concepciones postcrecentistas, que puedan dar respuesta a algunos de los desafíos de justicia global e intergeneracional que plantea el Antropoceno.In recent decades, the global ecological crisis has transcended the confines of environmental sciences to become a central concern across multiple disciplines, including International Relations (IR). The notion of the Anthropocene —albeit contested— has highlighted the extent to which human activity, particularly under the dynamics of globalized capitalism, is destabilizing planetary life-support systems. This article examines how the Anthropocene challenges foundational categories of international order, focusing especially on the long-standing imperative of economic growth, and explores the emergence of post-growth imaginaries within global governance and its slow penetration in the United Nations (UN) discourse. While growth continues to dominate both policy agendas and academic debates, its hegemony is increasingly contested, with significant cracks emerging in areas such as the right to development and poverty eradication debates within the UN. By analyzing these discursive shifts, the article situates the growth paradigm within a broader historical and epistemological framework shaped by Western modernity, while also tracing the emergence of counter-narratives that emphasize ecological limits and justice imperatives.
Methodologically, the article employs a historical-discursive approach that combines a genealogical reconstruction of the concept of development with a critical analysis of UN instruments, including reports by Special Rapporteurs on the human rights to development and extreme poverty. It draws primarily on post-development and post-growth literatures, as well as critiques coming from the Global South such as Samir Amin’s proposal of delinking and the Latin American Pacto Ecosocial del Sur. These perspectives share the premise that international norms are not neutral or universal but historically contingent constructions reflecting epistemologies rooted in modernity and coloniality, which have long prioritized accumulation and instrumental rationality while marginalizing ecological considerations and non-Western knowledges.
The analysis begins by examining the historical consolidation of economic growth as a central political objective in the post-World War II order. Institutions such as the UN and the OECD were crucial in embedding growth into the normative structures of global governance, naturalizing its identification with progress and modernity. This linkage did not emerge spontaneously but was the result of deliberate efforts to reconstruct the international order around productivity, modernization, and integration of recently decolonized states into capitalist circuits. From a critical perspective, this historical development reflects an ontological orientation that reduced development to material accumulation and systematically externalized its ecological and social costs. This explains the resilience of the growth imperative in both IR theory, international law and global governance, even as the contradictions associated with this paradigm have become increasingly evident in the Anthropocene.
The article then turns to the right to development, formally articulated in the 1986 UN Declaration as a response to Global South demands in the postcolonial context. Initially conceived as an instrument of equity and empowerment, this right was rapidly associated with economic growth as its necessary foundation, a framing that reinforced the hegemony of the growth paradigm while masking its contradictions. Nevertheless, discursive openings have emerged over time. The inclusion of multidimensional conceptions of development—emphasizing equity, participation, and sustainability—suggests a gradual redefinition, albeit one that remains constrained by the institutional inertia of growth-centered models. These debates are also reflected in the ambivalence of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which simultaneously incorporates ecological sustainability and social justice but ultimately reaffirms growth as the main driver of progress. In this sense, the right to development constitutes both a site of continuity and contestation: while deeply tied to the growth paradigm, it has also provided an institutional space for critical reinterpretations that resonate with post-growth perspectives.
The final part of the analysis examines recent reports produced by UN Special Rapporteurs on the right to development and on extreme poverty, which reflect a growing recognition of the ecological limits to growth. These documents explicitly challenge the orthodoxy of “growth first, redistribution later” by articulating alternatives centered on human rights, equity, and sustainability. They also incorporate elements from post-growth thought, such as the emphasis on degrowth, steady-state economics, and well-being economies, while stressing the need to reconcile social rights with ecological limits. Although these contributions remain marginal in the institutional landscape of the UN, their significance lies in the way they create discursive fissures that question the inevitability of growth as the foundation of international order and global development. The emergence of these cracks, however limited, demonstrates that the hegemonic paradigm is not impermeable and that alternative imaginaries are gaining visibility within highly institutionalized frameworks.
From this analysis, four main findings emerge. First, the growth paradigm, while resilient, is increasingly vulnerable to criticism, particularly within human rights mechanisms of the UN. Second, the right to development, historically linked to economic expansion, is being reinterpreted in more multidimensional terms that prioritize sustainability and equity alongside growth. Third, post-growth discourses, though marginal, have begun to filter into institutional debates, creating a space for normative transformation. And fourth, Southern perspectives play a crucial role in articulating alternatives to the extractive logic of global capitalism. These perspectives include Amin’s proposal of delinking, which calls for a sovereign and autonomous reorientation of development trajectories, and the Pacto Ecosocial del Sur, which articulates an ecosocial vision rooted in justice, sustainability, and sovereignty. Both frameworks highlight that the persistence of global inequality is structurally linked to the dependence of the Global South on Northern accumulation processes, and that addressing the ecological crisis requires challenging these asymmetries.
The broader contribution of the article lies in demonstrating that the growth imperative —frequently treated as natural and inevitable— is in fact historically constructed and increasingly subject to contestation. Moreover, it shows that even within institutionalized settings such as the UN, which have historically reinforced the growth-development nexus, new possibilities for reimagining the right to development are emerging. These possibilities remain fragile, and their realization is uncertain, but they demonstrate that growth is no longer the uncontested foundation of international norms. This has important implications for IR as a discipline, as the Anthropocene reveals the inadequacy of conventional analytical frameworks and compels the field to engage with perspectives long excluded from mainstream debates, including degrowth, Southern ecosocial proposals, and environmental justice frameworks.
In conclusion, the Anthropocene destabilizes not only the ecological bases of development but also the intellectual and institutional foundations of global governance. It demonstrates that the hegemony of growth, while enduring, is no longer unassailable. Reports by UN special rapporteurs and debates around the Sustainable Development Goals indicate that post-growth perspectives, while marginal, are beginning to exert some influence on normative discourses. This evolution raises pressing questions for IR: whether the discipline and international institutions can decouple justice from growth and imagine forms of development that are ecologically grounded, relational, and oriented toward the sustainability of life. Although the emergence of such paradigms remains uncertain, the cracks in the growth consensus represent a critical juncture in the evolution of global development discourse. The capacity of international governance to integrate ecological constraints, recognize the structural inequalities of global capitalism, and engage seriously with Southern epistemologies will determine whether these discursive openings remain peripheral or catalyze a deeper reconfiguration of international thought
La defensa de la pintura como arte liberal en los Discursos apologéticos (1626) de Juan de Butrón: dimensiones teórico-filosóficas, religiosas y económico-sociales
No full textJuan de Butrón’s Discursos apologéticos en que se defiende la ingenuidad del arte de la pintura (1626) constitutes the first Spanish treatise focused exclusively on painting. This article examines the arguments Butrón deploys to defend the liberality of painting, articulating the analysis into three complementary dimensions. First, the theoretical-philosophical foundation is analyzed, where Butrón draws on the classical and scholastic tradition of liberal arts, demonstrating that the canonical limitation to seven disciplines was not absolute and establishing parallels with medicine and jurisprudence. Second, the religious and iconographic dimension is studied, where the author provides theological grounding for the value of images in the context of the Counter-Reformation. Third, the socio-economic and political implications are examined, centered on claims for tax exemption and noble recognition. The study demonstrates that in seventeenth-century Spain, the defense of painting\u27s liberality constituted a complex phenomenon with multiple ramifications that, starting from theoretical questions, led to practical consequences regarding the social valuation of painting and its practitioners. Juan de Butrón es una figura fundamental dentro de la literatura artística española del Siglo de Oro, en particular en relación con la cuestión que en ella tuvo mayor relevancia: la defensa de la liberalidad, la nobleza y la ingenuidad de la pintura. Es por ello que esta investigación aborda un estudio pormenorizado del personaje desde el punto de vista teórico de su obra, a través del análisis de sus principales contribuciones a la tratadística artística del momento y al fenómeno de la liberalidad de la pintura desde el punto de vista teórico-filosófico, religioso, económico-social, académico y político
Nuevas aproximaciones y reflexiones en torno al majismo
No full textThe majismo was a fully established social phenomenon by 1750. The adoption of the characteristic "maja" dress—composed of a doublet, a basquiña, a mantilla, and other accessories—was common among women of working-class background. However, some aristocratic women resorted to dressing "as a maja" on specific occasions, with the aim of generating sympathy among the people. This article proposes a journey that begins with the concept of the National Costume and ends with the widespread use of the basquiña and mantilla among common-class women. Throughout this study, we ask the following question: To what extent was the maja dress a social and political instrument used by the Crown and the nobility?El majismo fue un fenómeno social que estaba plenamente asentado hacia 1750. La adopción del vestido de maja compuesto por jubón, basquiña y mantilla, además de otros accesorios, eran utilizados por las damas de índole popular. Sin embargo, algunas aristócratas en momentos puntuales se vistieron “de maja” con el objetivo de simpatizar con el pueblo. A través del presente artículo haremos un recorrido desde el Traje Nacional hasta la llegada del vestido con basquiña y mantilla usado por todas las mujeres de origen popular. En este estudio nos preguntamos ¿Hasta qué punto el vestido de maja fue un instrumento social y político utilizado por la corona y la nobleza?  
Caribbean Cities under the Influence of Neoliberalism: Ecological and Social Tensions in the Narrative of Rita Indiana
No full textLas novelas de Rita Indiana exploran una nueva influencia en la identidad caribeña contemporánea. Este artículo elabora una lectura ecocrítica de la obra de Rita Indiana para analizar cómo la crisis ecológica no solo afecta al territorio insular caribeño, sino también a la cultura, a la interacción social, a los desplazamientos, al bienestar y a la identidad misma, la cual continúa configurándose en medio de tensiones ecológicas y sociales bajo la influencia del neoliberalismo.Rita Indiana’s novels reveal a new influence on contemporary Caribbean identity. This article presents an ecocritical reading of Rita Indiana’s work to analyze how the ecological crisis not only affects the Caribbean territory but also its culture, social interactions, migration, well-being, and identity itself, which continues to be shaped amid ecological and social tensions under the influence of neoliberalism