Print this page

by Harry Cleaver

     When earthquakes, floods, droughts and volcanic eruptions strike where
we live, they are usually considered instances of crisis and unmitigated 
natural disaster.  Yet, recently I have had opportunities to witness how the
meaning of crisis depends entirely on one's point of view.

     The opportunities have come during two visits to Mexico City.  The first 
visit was a month or so after the major earthquake of 1985 that brought 
widely reported death and destruction.  The second was a follow-up visit 
seven months later.  During the days and weeks following the quake, 
television and newsmagazine images of the anquished search for survivors,
of mountainous rubble and of tent cities of the homeless had fully prepared
me to find a flattened city and prostrate population.

     Instead, I found a city with quite localized destruction and one in which 
at least part of the population was anything but prostrate.  In dozens of the 
poorer barrios of Mexico City, the movement of the earth sparked 
movements of people using the devastation in property and the cracks 
opened in the structures of political power to break through oppressive 
social relations and to improve their lives.

* * * 

     When the Chinese write "crisis", they use two characters, one of which
means "danger" and one "opportunity".  This expression points beyond the 
riskiness most people usually associate with crises to the new possibilities 
inherent in any moment of dramatic change.  The situation in Mexico City 
has shown just how perceptive this linguistic formulation really is.  Not
only were the dangers created by the quake extremely complex, but so too 
were the new opportunities created.

     Less obvious than the physical hazards of the quake, but no less real,
were the economic and political risks created by this sudden disruption of
social order.  For the government, the earthquake was one more unexpected
crisis superimposed on the foreign debt crisis and on the social tension 
created by austerity policies aimed at generating foreign exchange to repay
the debt.  Between the onset of the debt crisis in the summer of 1982 and
the quake in September of 1985, neither government officials nor outside 
commentators ever knew whether the next devaluation or price increase 
would be met with acceptance or with massive social upheaval.  In this 
atmosphere the quake posed the immediate danger of overloading the 
government's already taut managerial resources, rendering it unable to cope
with an increasingly frustrated and angry populace.  This is just what 
happened.

     For many poor people in Mexico City, the immediate physical dangers of
the earthquake were also quickly superceded by complex legal and 
economic dangers.  Although the media focused on the photogenic collapse 
of major highrise buildings, far more extensive, though harder to see, were
the dangerous structural cracks in thousands of buildings, especially 
residential houses and apartment buildings.  This kind of damage left the
buildings standing but made them too dangerous to inhabit.  The majority of
people sheltered in tents and shanties had fled such damaged, but still 
standing housing.

     When landlords and lawyers arrived on the scene the very day of the 
quake, the people in the community quickly realized that the greatest threat 
to them would come from these owners trying to take advantage of the 
situation by tearing down their homes and rebuilding more expensive, 
higher rent properties from which the former tenants would be excluded.  
This possibility loomed ominously because a great deal of the housing, 
especially that of the poor, had been regulated by rent control laws since  
at  least 1948.  As a result, thousands of families had been paying extremely
low rents and for years landlords had made no contribution to the 
maintenance of the buildings.  Demolition and rebuilding would allow such
landlords to escape rent control by turning their former tenants out into the 
streets --permanently.

     Anticipating such actions, thousands of tenants organized themselves
and marched on the presidential palace demanding government 
expropriation of the damaged properties and their eventual sale to their 
current tenants.  By taking the initiative while the governemnt was still
paralysed, they successfully forced the seizure of some 7,000 properties. 
Although an even larger number of damaged homes remained 
unexpropriated, the popular mobilization and the potential for further 
government action undoubtedly prevented the eviction of many otherwise 
unprotected tenants.  With remarkable acuity these militant poor had 
converted an eminent danger into a promising opportunity.

     How was this possible?  After three years of failure to resist austerity, 
how could the poor successfully push their case in this period of intensified 
crisis?  The answer is two-fold: first, the earthquake caused a breakdown in 
both the administrative capacities and the authority of the government, 
second, the ability of these people to organize themselves grew out of a long 
history of autonomous struggle.

     The breakdown of governmental authority is the easiest to understand. 
Many of the modern highrise buildings that collapsed were government 
office buildings and the destruction of both locales and records brought 
sizable sections of the bureaucracy to a standstill.  Among those sections
were the Ministries of Programming and Budget, the Treasury and 
Telecommunications.  Furthermore, the destruction of highrises in central
Mexico City involved the collapse of dominant symbols of the 
government's only claim to legitimacy --the centralized "modernization" 
bought with oil revenues, borrowed capital and continued poverty.  The 
collapse of these symbols struck to the heart of the State's confidence in
itself and in its policies.

     While the government was still immobilized in shock, many 
communities moved into action.  One of those, near the center of Mexico 
City, which over the years had developed a pratice, and indeed a reputation, 
for successful autonomous self-organization and militancy, is called Tepito 
.

*   *   *

     A relatively small community by Mexico City standards, Tepito has only
about 125,000 residents in a city of some  million.  An old, stable 
community, Tepito's people have lived there for generations with little 
influx, or outflux, of resident population.  There is little influx, except 
 by marriage, because there is little room in this densely packed community. 
There is little outflux because people like it there.  They like the way they 
live and are proud of their own history of community struggle which they 
trace all the way back to the days of the Spanish Conquest.

     To me this sense of history was intriguing but sounded at first like so 
much "invented tradition".  Colorful but unlikely.  It was only later, during 
a visit to the Museo Archeologico that I discovered evidence that their claims 
are perhaps not so exagerated.  There, on a wall in the Museum, is a large,
transparent map of Pre-Columbian Mexico City superimposed on a modern 
map of the city.  It is striking that Tepito stands today very close to the 
 same ground as an ancient Aztec community called Tepiton.  Perhaps there is 
more continuity in community traditions in Tepito than those outside want to 
admit.

     However ancient its roots, Tepito survives today both within and 
underneath the official economy.  On the surface, the work of many of its
residents make Tepito the second largest producer of shoes in Mexico.  
They also produce clothing, stereo records, and many other goods.  
Complementing this artisanal production are a wide variety of service 
activities such as restaurants, auto repair and retailing.  Underground, 
Tepito's residents make their living by smuggling and bootlegging.  The 
community's enormous open air market is known throughout Mexico City 
as a source of FAYUCA, cheap foreign goods smuggled in to avoid high 
tariffs.  Under the counter of many an open air stall selling shoes is often a 
well illustrated catalog of hi-fi equipment available for home delivery.  Less 
well known, but freely discussed by many, are the bootleg producers who 
sew American and European designer labels on Mexican jeans, who repair 
old Mexican irons and then glue General Electric face plates on them, or 
who fill empty Parisian perfume bottles with cheap substitutes.

     What is fascinating about this economy is not its underground 
component --fairly common everywhere these days-- but how little work it 
takes many people to make a living in it, and how much free time they have
carved out to build a community around other kinds of activities.  Although
there are exceptions, such as shoe makers working long hours for outside 
capitalists at very low piece wages, the majority of the population seems
able to earn enough income to live, more or less the way they would like,
with as little as two to four hours of work a day on the average.  These 
incredibly short working hours are affirmed by residents who explain that
they are able to achieve this freedom from work partly by having all 
members of the family work (but only for a while) in the family workshop 
or street stall, and partly by choosing the lower income and free time that 
 is produced by this pattern of life.

     Combine such short hours with the kind of low earnings you might 
expect in a Mexican barrio and you get some idea of the relatively low 
"standard of living" which predominates in Tepito. (Again there are 
exceptions, such as smugglers who have made fortunes plying their trade.) 
It would seem an ideal verification of every conservative suspicion of the
backward qualities of those in the underdeveloped Third World.  They are 
poor because they want to be, because they won't work!

     But "standard of living" is a slippery concept to say the least, however 
measured to the last peso by economists.  What experience in the Third 
World has shown, and what the people in Tepito realize, is that hard work
in the search for development via high personal income brings profitable 
results for only the successfull few and nothing but exhausted and wasted
lives for the majority.

     Instead, a great many Tepitenos (1) have chosen a very different 
approach to life and to development.  By minimizing their work time they 
limit their  individual earnings but they also create considerable quantities of 
disposable time both for enjoying life together and for self-organization and 
collective struggle for community-wide improvement.  This is done quite 
consciously, with pride in choosing a life style based on doing things 
together rather than on possessing things individually.  For many in the 
community these are simply the values of the traditional Mexican peasant 
community, transplanted to the city.  Traditional values they consciously
counterpose to those of modern Mexican capitalism.

     While the Mexican economy as a whole has been plunged ever deeper 
into crisis during the last few years, two very interesting  things have 
happened in Tepito.  First, the underground economy has prospered as the 
official economy has stagnated.  The daily devaluations that have driven up
the price of legally imported goods have made Tepito's less expensive 
smuggled ones more attractive to consumers.  Second, according to one 
social scientist who has been keeping track of such things, over this same
period the number of street parties in Tepito has increased seven-fold.

     This multiplication of street parties is symptomatic of a thriving and 
 in some ways joyous community life.  In Tepito life is very communal, not 
only in the sense of community self-organization, but also in the more basic 
sense that people spend a great deal of their time in the streets or in their 
VECINDADES: a unique housing arrangement with large central courtyards 
surrounded by small individual habitations.  Homes are small not only 
because people cannot afford more space but also by choice.  While they 
may sleep, work or make love in their small homes, they spend even more 
time socializing, cooking and eating together in the courtyards.  There too
the children play, protected by the old who sit watch at the entrances which 
lead from the VECINDADES to the street.

     We need not romanticize (the community is by no means free of poverty
or crime) to recognize how people have chosen a life rich with social 
interaction over one less poor in individual material wealth.  Tepitenos enjoy 
telling stories of those "new rich" who have moved out to larger 
accommodations in wealthier middle class neighborhoods only to return not
long after, starved for the community spirit they left behind.

     One of the most important results of Tepito's approach to development
has been its ability not only to defend its community integrity but to 
elaborate its own autonomous plans for self-development.  The most 
important instance of defense was its ability to thwart government plans for 
its "renewal".  When Candelaria de los Patos, a similar community not far
away, was "renewed" the people of Tepito watched carefully.  They saw its
inhabitants swept away, scattered throughout the city; some even took 
refuge in Tepito.  They then saw, rising from the bulldozed ruins of that
community, a giant modern housing development: Nonoalco Tlatelolco, 
whose high rise apartments were quickly filled by members of Mexico's 
middle class.  From this experience the Tepitenos concluded, correctly, that 
urban renewal meant the destruction of poor communities and their 
replacement with middle class ones --a familiar experience throughout North
America.(2)  So, when the government turned to Tepito and said, "OK, its 
your turn", they resisted, fiercely and with imagination.

     From the history I was told, how they resisted governmental pressures
was creative and resourceful.  Drawing on the technical help of some young
architects and urban planners from the Universidad Autonoma 
Metropolitana, they elaborated their own community development plan, 
submitted it in an international competition sponsored by UNESCO, and 
won!  The resulting publicity and legitimacy made it impossible for the 
government to move in and evict them.

     The proof and vindication of the wisdom of the people of Tepito came
with the earthquake when highrise after highrise collapsed in nearby 
Tlatelolco.  Thirty-six of the fifty-five apartment buildings were destroyed 
or rendered uninhabitable.  Thousands were killed or left multilated and lost 
everything.  At the same time, the older buildings in Tepito received much
less damage and only five people were killed in the whole community.

     Today the plan's physical model covers the whole wall of one 
community center.  In the wake of the earthquake, the original architects,
now professionals, are redrafting the detailed plans for several 
representative parts of the community, in consultation with the residents.

     The government, of course, fiercely opposes this kind of autonomy.  
The hegemonic PRI (Partido Revolucionario Institucional) and its state, 
which have ruled Mexico for the last 50 years, can not passively tolerate
such challange.  They have tried for years to crush or subvert this 
autonomous self-organization, sometimes with violence, sometimes with 
cooptation.  The people of Tepito are well aware of these efforts.  What is
remarkable is how they have successfully defeated the threat.

     Besides collective physical resistance to the threat of violence, the  
most striking defense mechanism of Tepito is its chosen form of self-
organization: informality and decentralization.  Aware of the PRI's efforts 
 to coopt what it cannot crush, Tepito not only has an incredibly diverse set of 
organizations but most are organized in a way that avoids cooptable power
structures.  Tepito is living proof that the absence of a strong organization 
does not necessarily mean the absence of strong organization.  Every 
imaginable group, it seems, has organized itself in Tepito.  Artisans (e.g. , 
several different groups of shoemakers, auto repairers, clothing makers and
bootleggers) have organized themselves along "industrial lines"; merchants
have organized their own distribution and financial services by trade and by 
section of the community; in the streets lined with their stalls, the merchants 
have also organized their own police to fight shoplifting by those from 
outside the community; the inhabitants of the VECINDADES have created 
their own active groups and then linked up with other VECINDAD groups; 
artists have organized Tepito-Arte Aca, one of the longest lived artist 
organizations in the city of Mexico; those interested in rebuilding have 
organized architects and a community paper IL NERO (short for EL 
COMPANERO) (3) which has been published steadily for at least the last 
14 years; and so on. 

     In all these cases organization is informal; there are no written rules, no 
presidents, no vice-presidents and no treasurers.  In Tepito people speak of 
"leaders" rather than of heads of organizations.  "Leaders", they say, are
those who can get the things done that people want done.  Leaders change,
but the mechanisms of change are informal, the focus of discussion just 
shifts from some individuals to others.  There is, in short, no hierarchy that 
can be bought off by the PRI, only individuals working together.  Any 
decision that would seriously affect the community, or any section of it, has 
to be made through complex discussion and negotiation among the gamut of 
organizations with some interest in the matter.  It is not only an effective 
defence mechanism, it is also an incredibly democratic, participatory form
of organization.

     The looseness of these diverse organizations, both in their internal
workings and in their interactions would seem to imply great inefficiencies, 
tremendous lag times between the perception of a problem and its solution. 
The typical costs of democracy.  And in truth this kind of organization does 
require a lot of time commitment, particularly considering that the different 
organizations cut across the community in many ways and a given 
individual is likely to take part in several different groups.  But, as we  
have just seen, life in Tepito is organized in just such a way as to make time
available for this complex political life.  The extraordinary amount of time 
devoted to such public life is reminiscent of many periods of popular 
revolutionary upheaval when large numbers of ordinary men and women set 
aside unnecessary work to seize time for their own participation in the 
creation of a new political order.

     Moreover, recent history has shown that far from being inefficient, this 
form of organization has allowed the people of Tepito to move quickly and
effectively to help themselves in an emergency and to deal with a much 
more inefficient, partially paralysed government.  Almost as soon as the 
aftershocks had ended, the Tepitenos had assessed the potential dangers 
posed by their landlords and moved to take preventive action.  First, they
built their shacks and pitched their tents immediately in front of  their 
houses, where they could defend them, refusing government and relief 
agency suggestions to congregate in parks and parking lots, or even to leave 
the city.  Second, in many of the hardest hit streets they set up block 
organizations to coordinate relief and self-protection from street thugs and 
from government goons trying to intimidate them and to take control.  
Third, within a week of the earthquake, they had met with representatives of 
over 150 other communities and autonomous organizations to form a Self-
Help Network to facilitate the circulation of information, talents and 
resources (La Red Intercultural de Accion Autonoma).(4)

     Using such methods, the people of Tepito successfully mounted their 
offensive to demand expropriation of damaged properties.  Today, 
everywhere you walk in Tepito you see the large red on white signs hanging
from doorways announcing that the property belongs to the federal 
government.  The next step, in which the Tepitenos are now involved, is 
forcing the government to sell the properties to them at low prices and to
either help them rebuild or to leave them alone while they rebuld on their
own.

     Some people of Tepito quickly demonstrated their ability and willingness 
to rebuild by themselves.  Early on, they began to tear down unsafe 
buildings by hand --carefully preserving the building materials for later
reconstruction.  They have also forced the government to allow them to 
legally construct other things they need, such as toilets.

     With some 50,000 people abruptly thrown into the streets by the 
earthquake, the government was forced to face the unpleasant realities of
Mexico City's grossly deficient sewage situation.  Even before the 
earthquake, it was estimated that some four million people were without 
flush toilets in the city.  The results are notorious, a degree of public
unhealthiness of staggering proportions.  Mexico City, it is said, is one of 
the few cities in the world where you can get salmonella and amoebic 
dysentery from breathing the air.

     Despite this situation, the Mexican government had apparently 
steadfastly refused to sanction the independent building of low tech, non-
flush toilets by individuals and groups desirous of changing the situation. 
  

As a result of the earthquake and the sudden, obvious increase in the 
number of people living and defecating in the streets, the paralyzed 
government was forced to allow such alternative technological solutions as
could be constructed by the people themselves.  In support of such 
activities, newspapers such as EL DIA have begun to publish technically 
detailed and easy to follow instructions for composting laterines.  Here 
again, the poor of Mexico City were able to utilize the earthquake crisis to 
take the initiative, this time in the struggle over sewage and public health.

     Despite these successful initiatives, the rebuilding needed in Tepito,  and 
elsewhere in Mexico, is vast and beyond the financial and skill resources
available to all who need help.  Therefore, along with facilitating and 
coordinating the circulation of available resources, the Self-Help Network
of community organizations has directed part of its efforts to gaining access 
to some of the hundreds of millions of dollars of reconstruction aid which
has been offered to Mexico by a variety of international agencies (e.g., the 
World Bank, various countries' Red Crosses, various church groups, 
Oxfam, and so on.)

     The Network moved quickly to train community representatives to 
prepare proposals for reconstruction projects that could be submitted 
directly to foreign aid groups, bypassing the corrupt Mexican government 
agencies.  Some of these projects have been for the physical reconstruction
of housing, others have been longer range projects for the creation of 
workshops and community services.

     In each case initiative and control remains in the hands of the local
neighborhood (or village group for communities outside of Mexico City) 
with the Network providing skills and communications.  While I was in 
Mexico I visited a number of projects organized and financed in this 
manner.  In each case the projects had been carried out by the local groups
who were proud to show what they could do for themselves, using foreign 
aid but without giving up their own creativity and autonomy.  

     Given the Mexican government's propensities for centralized control and 
for contracting out work to private enterprise without consulting local 
groups, considerable conflict has arisen in the barrios of Mexico City over
State directed reconstruction.  At first, many people, tired of living in the 
streets, welcomed the help.  But then, as they observed the type of 
buildings being constructed, they became angry and rebelled, blocking 
further work.  As already indicated, the people in Tepito and in many other
communities, have clear ideas about how they want their community 
structured, including the style and architecture of their habitations.  Again 
and again the government and its contractors have ignored or opposed their
wishes, minimizing costs and constructing vertical apartment buildings 
without the traditional VECINDAD organization around a central courtyard. 
As a result, there have been many pitched battles with the government over
the concrete details of reconstruction.

*  *  *

Danger and opportunity.  The people of Tepito have proven themselves far 
more capable than the government both of responding to the dangers and of
seizing the opportunities created by the earthquake.  If the debt crisis, and 
now the collapse of oil prices, have thrown Mexican "development" into 
question as a viable path to social improvement, the earthquake crisis has
brought into view a long existent but rarely recognized alternative.  That
alternative lies in the ability and willingness of the people of Tepito, as  well 
as those in many other barrios, to assert a different set of values: those  of 
autonomy, self-activity, and the subordination of work to social needs.  It  is 
also embodied in their ability, as against governmental paralysis, to design 
and implement their own projects, thus elaborating those values in concrete
practice.  Time and again, the people of Tepito are acting to meet their own 
needs and then presenting the government with a FAIT ACCOMPLI to be 
legalized ex-post.

     Given the way they are organized, and their values and attitudes so 
antithetical to those of official Mexican capitalism, it is unlikely the 
government can coopt the people of Tepito.  They would have to be 
crushed, and made over into something quite different from what they are 
today.  Fortunately, the continuation of economic crisis in Mexico serves to 
preoccupy the government and forces it to stretch its resources of control. 
  

Simultaneously, like the earthquake, it creates more opportunities for the
Mexican people to elaborate their own autonomy against official 
development plans and to take control over their own lives.

     For those of us outside of Mexico, the people of Tepito have an 
important lesson to teach, not only about the uses of an earthquake, but 
about the use of crisis more generally.  Every crisis involves change and
contains opportunities for movement in new directions.  Crises are not to be 
feared or "solved"; they should rather be embraced and their opportunities
explored.  We should always be ready to take advantage of any crack or 
rupture in the structure sof power which confine us.  Only those who 
benefit from these structures should fear such cracks.  For the rest of us,
they are openings through which we may gain access to more freedom.

____________________________________________________________
(*) This article was published in:  VISA VERSA (Quebec) 
December/January 1987, MIDNIGHT NOTES  (US) No. 9, May 1988,  
WILDCAT (Germany) Winter 1988, and COMMONSENSE (Scotland) 
No. 9, 1989.
(1) ASCII text note: "Tepitenos" is spelled with a tilda over the "n".
(2) For a discussion of the state's use of "urban renewal" for poltical 
control, see MIDNIGHT NOTES #4, SPACE NOTES, "Spatial 
Deconcentration in D.C.".
(3) ASCII text note: "NERO" and "COMPANERO" are both spelled with a 
tilda over the "n". 
(4) ASCII text note: there is an accent over the "o" in Accion.    

ADDENDUM:

Articles on Tepito, or by people connected with Tepito, about things 
concerning Tepito available (at the cost of reproduction and mailing) from
the Texas Archives of Autonomist Marxism, Department of Economics, 
University of Texas, Austin, Texas, 78712-1173.  The Texas Archives can 
be reached via e-mail at: hmcleave@mundo.eco.utexas.edu (Harry Cleaver) 
or ecbq137@utxvm.cc.utexas.edu (Conrad Herold)

(What follows are the materials available as of August 29, 1988.)

(Note: these materials are NOT available as e-texts, but only as photocopies.  
Copies are $.10/page for larger than normal, i.e., "lpp" and $.06/page for
regular 8.5" X 11". You can estimate the cost of mailing by taking an 
envelop containing the expected number of pages to the postoffice and 
having it weighed.)

Most of the articles are in EL GALLO ILLUSTRADO which was a weekly 
supplement to EL DIA, edited by Gustavo Esteva.  

Asociacion Latinoamericana de Organizaciones de Promocion  "La Difcil 
Construccion de la Autonomia," EL GALLO ILLUSTRADO, #1327, 29 de 
Noviembre de 1987, pp. 2-3.  (2 lpp)

Bugnicourt, J.; J.-J. Guibbert y M. Pacheco "El Despertar de las 
Pobladores," EL GALLO ILLUSTRADO, #1339, 21 febrero de 1988, pp. 
11-12.  (2 lpp)

Centro de Estudios Tepenos, "La Reconstruccion de Barrio de Tepito," EL 
GALLO ILLUSTRADO, #1285, 8 Febrero 1987, pp. 6-7.  (2 lpp)

El Gallo editorial, "A un ano de distancia: El Riesgo de Colonizar la 
Autonomia," EL GALLO ILLUSTRADO, 1270, 26 Octobre 1986, pp. 2-3.  
(2 lpp)

El Gallo editorial, "Vivir con Autonomia," EL GALLO ILLUSTRADO, 
#1265, 21 Septiembre 1986, p. 2.  (1 lpp)

Esteva, Gustavo " C0La Hora de la iniciativa Social?"  typescript. (date 
unknown)  (23pp)

Esteva, Gustavo "Cocinar la Autonom 94a, " EL GALLO ILLUSTRADO, 
#1276, 7 Diciembre 1986, pp. 8-9.  (2 lpp)

Esteva, Gustavo "Comunicacion: contracultura: Aportes para un debate," 
COMICACON Y CULTURA, No. 13, Marzo 1985, pp.125-143.  (10pp)

Esteva, Gustavo "El desencuentro de la autonomia con la institucion," EL 
GALLO ILLUSTRADO, #1281, 11 Enero 1987,  pp. 4-7.  (4 lpp)

Esteva, Gustavo "La regeneracion de nuestros suenos," EL GALLO 
ILLUSTRADO, #1269, 19 Octobre 1986, p. 3.  (1 lpp)

Esteva, Gustavo "Los 'Tradifas' O el Fin de la Marginacion," EL 
TRIMESTRE ECONOMICO, Vol. L(2), N 9Cm. 198, Abril-Junio de 1983, 
pp. 733-769.  (19pp)

Esteva, Gustavo "Recetas contra la nostalgia: Las mundanzas de Tepito," 
EL GALLO ILLUSTRADO, #1264, domingo 14 de septiembre de 1986,  
pp.3-7.  (5 lpp) 

Esteva, Gustavo "Regenerating People's Space," in ALTERNATIVES  
XII, 1987, pp.125-152.  (28pp)

Esteva, Gustavo  "Regeneracion de la Autonomia," EL GALLO 
ILLUSTRADO, 3 Nov. 1985.  (3pp)

Esteva, Gustavo  "Del terre-moto a la con-mocion," EL GALLO 
ILLUSTRADO, No. 12, 10 Nov. 1985, pp. 11-13.  (3 lpp)

Esteva, Gustavo  "From Earthquake to Social Quake," typescript, 1985 (?) 
(13pp)

Esteva, Gustavo  "Mexico's State and Political Regime as seen from the 
Perspectives of Grass Roots Movements," typescript.  (date unknown)  
(49pp)

Equipo CIDAP "El Estudio de la Coyuntura Barrial," EL GALLO 
ILLUSTRADO, #1339, 21 febrero de 1988, pp. 10-11.  (2 lpp)

Hernandez, Alfonso "Carnalismo Chilango," EL GALLO ILLUSTRADO, 
#1324, 8 de Noviembre de 1987, pp. 11-13.  (3 lpp)

Hernandez, Alfonso "El Obstinado Barrio," EL GALLO ILLUSTRADO, 
#1353, 12 de Junio de 1988, pp. 14-15.  (2 lpp)

Lacalmette, Philippe "Tepito, barrio convivial," EL GALLO 
ILLUSTRADO, #1264, domingo 14 de septiembre de 1986,  pp.13-14.  (2 
lpp)

Manrique, Daniel "Mis Suenos guajiros," (I) EL GALLO ILLUSTRADO, 
#1294, 12 Abril 1987, pp. 2-10.  (II) #1295, 19 Abril 1987, pp. 2-13. (III)
#1296, 26 Abril 1987, pp. 13-16.  (25 lpp)

Manrique, Daniel "Un fonazo pa Tepito,"  EL GALLO ILLUSTRADO, 
#1264, domingo 14 de septiembre de 1986,  pp. 8-10.  (3 lpp)

Manrique, Daniel "Una Conversacion con Daniel Manrique de Tepito Arte 
Ac 87," EL GALLO ILLUSTRADO, #1282, 18 Enero 1987, pp. 4-6.  (3 lpp)

Manrique, Daniel  "Mexico al filo del siglo XXI La Revoculcion oi Tepito,
el sismo y los nuevos desafios de la ciuda de Mexico," EL GALLO 
ILLUSTRADO, No. 1221, 17 Nov. 1985, pp. 15-19.  (5 lpp)

Manrique, Daniel,  Alfonso Hernandez y Carlos Plascencia  "Arquitectura, 
sociedad y cultura en Tepito," EL GALLO ILLUSTRADO, No. 1231, 26 
enero 1986, pp. 8-9.  (2 lpp)

Manrique, Daniel "Bardas, paredes, muros y murales," EL GALLO 
ILLUSTRADO, No. 1238, 16 marzo 1986, pp. 11-15.

McKnight, John L. "Regenerating Community," SOCIAL POLICY, V. 17, 
N. 3, Winter 1987, pp. 54-58.  (5pp)

Molina, Humberto; J.-J. Guibbert y Enrique Low Murtra 
"Autoconstruccion y Participacion," EL GALLO ILLUSTRADO, #1339, 
21 febrero de 1988, pp. 8-9.  (2 lpp)

Molina, Humberto "Bases para la Proteccion de los Barrios Populares," EL 
GALLO ILLUSTRADO, #1339, 21 febrero de 1988, p. 13.  (1 lpp)

Promocion del Desarrollo Popular, " Anos desde Promocion del 
Desarrollo Popular," EL GALLO ILLUSTRADO, #1298, 10 Mayo 1987, 
pp. 6-8.  (3 lpp)

Promocion del Desarrollo Popular, "Los Organizasiones no 
gubernamentales en M 8Exico," EL GALLO ILLUSTRADO, #1294, 12 Abril 
1987, pp. 6-10.  (5 lpp)

Red Intercultural de Accion Autonoma  "Dos Anos Despu 8Es: lecciones de un
teremoto" [three articles] "En la hora del Rescate," "Del terremoto a la con-
mocion," "El Renacimiento de la Esperanza," EL GALLO ILLUSTRADO, 
#1317,  de Septiembre de 1987, pp. 3-9.  (7 lpp)

Red Intercultural de Accion Autonoma  [three articles] "Las Memorias de 
Malena," "El Estilo de las Repuestas," and "Lecciones y Alternativas," EL
GALLO ILLUSTRADO, #1318, 27 de Septiembre de 1987, pp. 2-10.  (9 
lpp)

Robert, Jean "La autonomia no es una robinsonada o Los verdaderos 
enemigos de Tepito," EL GALLO ILLUSTRADO, #1264, domingo 14 de 
septiembre de 1986,  pp.1-16.  (16 lpp)

Ruiz, Monica Navarro, "Cuando las Mujeres Agarran la Onda," EL GALLO 
ILLUSTRADO, #1322, 25 de Octubre de 1987, pp. 2-3.  (2 lpp)

Schteingart, Martha  "Las Politicas de Auto-construccion en Am 8Erica 
Latina," EL GALLO ILLUSTRADO, #1324, 8 de Noviembre de 1987, pp. 
4-7.  (4 lpp)

"Una Nueva Red de Creacion Technologia," EL GALLO ILLUSTRADO, 
#1283, 25 Enero 1987, pp. 8-9.  (2 lpp)