Week Two discussion

The Caminata Nocturna article reminded me of the old adage, "before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes." Well, the tourists who frequent the attraction get to walk five miles in the shoes of an illegal immigrant crossing into the United States. However, like several of you have pointed out, this form of entertainment has elicited less than enthusiastic reactions. Taken straight from the article: "It has been interpreted badly by some," says Mr. Martin. "It is misunderstood. This is so my neighbors prosper, so that no one else is forced to go."

This is a familiar argument to me. I live in New Mexico, so Native American gaming rights, for example, is often debated and defended in a similar fashion (not to mention immigration is a hot-button issue in itself there). After all, it's supposed to be entertainment, right? Paying customers willingly choose to go to these events, and many kindle their social consciences; entertainment and cultural insights aren't mutually exclusive.

In terms of performative space, Caminata Nocturna offers a unique experience. There are actors who portray characters (border agents, the 'pollero'), yet the audience is actively involved; nobody is sitting comfortably in a theater passively watching the show. Such direct involvement demands attention and discourse that will ultimately contribute to a growing body of knowledge on what illegal immigration means to the participants. By literally immersing the audience in the spectacle, entertainment such as this raises several issues: Given that the owner admitted that his desire is to discourage others from illegally immigrating, can a production such as this be unbiased? Does active audience participation catalyze stronger reactions than passive audience participation?