1. The movement in literary and historical criticism known as new historicism took hold during the late 1970’s – early 1980’s in the United States. New historicism, founded (or at least named by) literary scholar Stephen Greenblatt, sought to challenge and resist the assumptions and goals of traditional historicism. The movement challenged historical views by arguing primarily that history is something that is subjective, and therefore should be viewed as a narrative – as opposed to an adulterated, objective set of precise observations. New historicist critics argue that it is impossible to know exactly what happened at any given point in time as each witness may interpret an event differently. Additionally, proponents of the movement argue that just as history is subjectively recorded, it also is subjectively read and interpreted. Traditional historicism, then, can be viewed as the narrative of past events told by the dominant group or class. Through the telling of a selected historical narrative, a group in power is able to naturalize and justify the system of ideologies that gives it the ability to suppress a subordinate class, and simultaneously causes the subordinate class to subconsciously police and self-suppress themselves through a given system of social norms (which are based in ideologies). New historicism, however, seeks to unearth and understand the separate narratives (or discourses) of past events told by those who are not in a position of power (in terms of class, gender, race, etc.) – i.e. subaltern writers. Also, scholars such as Foucault add to the discussion by arguing that history is not necessarily a system of causes and effects, and that it is not going purposely forward to some known end. Therefore, through revealing opposing discourses and by questioning the objectivity and nature of traditional historicism, new historicist critics attempt to undermine the existing power structure and change the opinions of the people with regard to past events and the impacts of those events.
2. En el cuento “Calma al manejar,” el narrador cuenta la historia de uno de sus experiencias durante el Proceso de Reorganización Nacional (o la Guerra Sucia) en Argentina. Esta etapa en la historia del país estaba llena de la violencia innecesaria, la represión política y social, y el temor. A través del flujo de la historia – el que comienza de una manera bastante tranquila, acelera rápidamente, y luego regresa a un estado de calma – el autor muestra los altibajos emocionales y psicológicos que la gente experimenta en una época de guerra. Se puede argumentar, entonces, que este cuento busca a destacar el poder de la guerra para transformar y distorsionar la gente de ambos lados del conflicto. En la historia este tema es evidente en el adormecimiento al uso de la violencia por Marcelo, el silencio temeroso y aceptación de los testigos, y en la presencia del oler rancio al final de la historia – el que representa la maldad que no puede ser ignorada. Mediante un análisis del cuento a través del lente de nuevo historicismo, es posible entender mejor los impactos emociónales y psicológicos de la Guerra Sucia en las vidas de los ciudadanos, que no son capturados por los textos históricos.