The Interruption Of Everyday Life In Argentina

The interruption of everyday life in Argentina

The short story "The house taken" written by Julio Cortázar in 1946, underlines the effects of the Peronist movement and reflects the interpretive power that Cortázar possesses. The National Community of Argentina was weak during this period in history because citizens had polarized in favor or against the increase of Perón. Through the use of metaphors, Cortázar suggested that the forces of Peronism expel the upper class of society and destabilize social classes.

To begin with, the central idea of the story is to show the movement in Argentina when the working class displaced the upper class and took its power. The most obvious metaphor in the story is the use of the old house to represent the city of Argentina. In this metaphor, the owners of the house represent the oligarchy in their luxurious mansion that is taken by an anonymous invader. This ambiguous invader represents the forces of Peronism and the reaction to retire instead of facing it. The detail that the invader did not take the whole house in one time, represents that the revolution of Peronism occurred for a long time. The forces described as "sounds" that take the rooms of the house, represent the advance of barbarism until the owners retire on the other side of the house. The forces that take the house symbolize the migrants and the poor who come from outside the city, further referring to the mobilizations in the Plaza de Mayo on the seventeenth and eighteen of October.

In Daniel James’s article, “Mass Protest, Peronism, and The Argentine Working Class,” workers’ mobilizations were explained to give a theoretical framework of this historical event. This article analyzes the interpretation that Peronism is something violent and strange, while analyzing the need to destroy a symbol such as the Plaza de Mayo, to challenge authority and make a statement. Daniel James argues that the purpose of mobilizations were more to gain increased wages and benefits for workers, but stressing the investment of the cultural hierarchy and the representation of the political community. So, with this historical context, it is possible to interpret this story as a reaction to Peronism in Argentina.

In addition to the metaphors such as the house, the owners, and the anonymous forces that I already explained, there are many more than Cortázar uses to promote his interpretation of Peronism. Since the house was occupied by the ancestors before, this detail means traditional and more important Argentina the disorder that comes with a new political movement. The reference to Rodriguez Pena reflects a sumptuous politician, and that is why there is a portrait of him in the luxury house. Another metaphor that I observe is the ability Irene has with your fabric. I see a comparison to the ability of poets and writers during the Peronato who, like Irene, created beautiful artifacts that do not disappear with this movement. The land in the air of Buenos Aires described can be a metaphor for the entrance of the poor in the city now. The story says that the city is clean, "but that owes the inhabitants and not to anything else," in other words, the upper class maintains the cleaning of the city.

Then in the story, when the forces occupied one side of the house, the owners made that they lost some of their things. This means that the upper class began to lose its privileges with the increase in Perón, and finally it would not be possible to have the highest position. With this realization, the upper class feared Peronism and this fear caused them to retire by the house. The narrator says that "you can live without thinking," but that is not a good way to live. It is obvious that this is a critic of reaction to Peronism. I think this symbolizes that the upper class lost their ability to think because they were consumed by judging Peronism, and therefore could not get rid of the thought that were superior. When the brothers were displaced from their home, they were on the street like poor people. This is a metaphor because the upper class used their houses and luxurious things to be different from the other classes, but in reality, when they did not have those things, they were exactly like the poorest class.

At most of this story it seems against Peronism and underlines the destruction it caused, there are also criticisms of the upper class that Cortázar includes. The characters in the story, Irene and his brother live a daily life and only clean, cook, read and Irene Teje. I think his way of living is a critic of their lives too comfortable and isolated from reality. Also, the owners do not have to make a living because “silver from the fields arrived and the money increased,” reflecting their position in the upper class and therefore, their insecurity with the increase in the working class.

To conclude, Cortázar’s opinion about Peronism is not clear, but that is the brilliance of his writing. His power to be a famous writer affects how we interpret the historical events that passed during the Peronato. When we read this story we can see that there were complications between the beliefs of the Peronists and the anti-Peronists, in other words that Peronism was not something black or white. The use of metaphors in this story is so important for the purpose because it is an ambiguous message, and also the metaphors serve to give us images and representations of the words that Cortázar illuminates us.