A preliminary version of this article was presented on the panel “The Politics of Nationalism in Twentieth-Ce η tur y Argentina,” at the LASA Congress 2006 in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Many individuals have provided valuable comments on this work. In particular, I would like to thank Professors Daniel James, Alejandro Mejías-López, Patrick Dove, and Jeffrey Gould—who taught a seminar in which this project was born—all from Indiana University. Professor Barbara Weinstein, of New York University, gave me powerful comments and suggestions to make this article interesting for a non-Argentine audience. I am also in debt to Rose Shapiro and Gina Robinson, both of whom did a great job editing different parts of this article, and to Lynn Di Pietro, who carefully translated the quotations from Spanish. Finally, I wish to thank the two anonymous reviewers for The Americas for their suggestions and criticisms.

1. I take this expression from a famous article by Tulio Halpcrín Donghi in an issue that Sur devoted to “national reconstruction.” See Donghi, Tulio H., “La historiografía argentina en la hora de la libertad,” Sur, 237 (1955), pp. 114–121.Google Scholar

2. On the 1973 celebration of Perón’s return to power nearly two decades after his fall, historian Félix Luna recalled this opposition as a historical error. “Between 1945 and 1955,” Luna wrote, “Peronism also left a defined cultural mark. But İt was a mark that could not transcend itself for the simple reason that the culture professionals were on the other side of the official frontier. It was not a question of assigning blame. There was blame on both sides. On the official side, awkwardness and pretensions of imposing a tedious uniformity; on the side of the intelligentsia, excessive sensitivity, rejection of the ‘popular’ and nearsightedness in the face of the process they were living through.” Félix Luna, “La cultura nacional,” Panorama 321 (June 1973), p. 34.

3. I am not implying that there was no political involvement on the part of intellectuals before Peronism. For example, during much of the nineteenth century, many intellectuals were known to be politically committed and many politicians considered themselves intellectuals. Nonetheless, towards the 1930s there was a certain separation between the spheres of thought and action, especially in the intellectual world. And it is precisely in opposition to the political disengagement of the intellectual generation of the 1930s, that in the 1950s (and as a result of Perón 's movement), cultural activity couldn't be considered in any other way than as essentially political. Making culture would be, from then on, making politics.

4. Las Ciento y Una appeared in June of 1953, five months before Contornóos first issue. In fact, this journal’s first and only issue may be considered Contortions preface.

5. For a comparative analysis of the two above-mentioned journals and Contorno, see Bastos, Maria Luisa, “ Contorno, Ciudad, Gaceta Literaria: tres enfoques de una realidad,” Hispamérica 4–5 (1973).Google Scholar For an analysis of the journal Marcha, see Cotelo, Rubén, “Marcha y la Generación del 45,” in Sosnowski, Saúl (ed.), La cultura de un siglo. America latina en sus revistas (Buenos Aires: Alianza, 1999).Google Scholar For an analysis of Sur, see King, John, Sur: A Study of the Argentine Literary Journal and Its Role in the Development of a Culture, 1931–1970 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. Referring to the origin of the journal's name, David Viñas affirmed that “Perhaps I have myself to blame for this, but evidently what we wanted to signal out was what [was] happening around us.” Interview with David Viñas, “Nosotros y ellos. David Viñas habla sobre Contorno” Punto de Vista 13 (November 1981), p. 11.

7. Mangone, Carlos and Warley, Jorge, “La modernización de la crítica. La revista Contorno” Historia de la Literatura Argentina 113 (1983), p. 452.Google Scholar

8. Katra, William, Contorno: Literary Engagement in Post-Peronist Argentina (London and Toronto: Associated University Presses, 1988), p. 120.Google Scholar

9. Altamirano, Carlos, “Estudio preliminar. ¿Qué hacer con las masas?,” in Sarlo, Beatriz (ed.), La batalla de las ideas 1943–1973 (Buenos Aires: Ariel, 2001), p. 27.Google Scholar

10. Sarlo, Beatriz, “Los dos ojos de Contorno” Revista Iberoamericana 125 (1983), p. 805. Although my work is in some way based on this assertion of Sarlo's, I should note that she carried out an analysis that differs from mine in that, in her reading, she grants history, not politics, a leading role. According to her, “both the role of the novelist and the place of literature remain defined in Contorno by history.” Ibid.Google Scholar

11. Contorno appeared for the first time towards the end of the year 1953, under the direction of Ismael Viñas. Its double number 9–10, in April of 1959, brought the journal to a close. By that time (starting with numbers 5–6)., its direction had already passed to the hands of a board. The board of directors during the double numbers 5–6 and 7–8 was formed by Ismael and David Viñas, Noe Jitrik, Adelaida Gigli, Ramón Alcalde, 3nd León Rozitchner. By the numbers 910, without Noe Jitrik, Adolfo Prieto joined the board. Also collaborating in Contorno: were Oscar Masotta, Juan José Sebreli, Carlos Correas, Tulio Halperín Donghi, Francisco J. Solero, Rodolfo Kush, Regina Gibaja, Héctor Miguel Angeli, Ramón Elorde, Fernando Kiernan, Jorge Arrow, Aldo Prior, Ana Goutman, Valentín Fernando, Orlando Suevo, Pagés Larraya, Víctor Aseef, Guillermo Steffen, Rodolfo Pandolfi, Jorge Curi, Julio Gargano, Osiris Troiani, and Ernesto Verón Thirion. The project Contorno involved two editions of the so-called Cuadernos de Contorno. The first Cuaderno was published in July of 1957 and the second in February of 1958.

12. Ultraism was an avant-garde literary movement that took shape in Spain around 1918 and whose creed defied that of modernismo, among whose major figures were, for instance, Rubén Darío and Leopoldo Lugones.

13. Viñas, Ismael, “La traición de los hombres honestos,” Contorno 1 (1953), p. 3.Google Scholar

14. Sebreli would later refer to this influence over some of the members of Contorno by saying: “We identified ourselves with our favorite heroes, the Sartre clan. Masotta argued with me about Merleau-Ponty and Correa argued with me about Genet, but there was no dispute over Simone de Beauvoir, and the three of us, of course, identified ourselves with Sartre.“ Sebreli, Juan J., “La operación Correas,“ in El Ojo Mocho 16 (Summer 2001/2),Google Scholar Dossier. Further, León Rozitchner was familiar with the work of Mearleau-Ponty. It can be concluded that, notwithstanding the specific influences, the journal in general breathed an existentialist atmosphere. For instance, in the short story “El revólver,” dedicated to Sebreli, Correas wrote: “And after that I won’t exist. How rotten! I will be in the way on both sides. I have no place. I would like to vomit. To escape [it all] through the mouth. I would need to unload everything someplace. However, I did get something out of this, fear.” Contorno 3 (1954), p. 12. This fragment is clearly inspired by the Antoine Roquentin of La Nausée.

15. Other publications, for instance sur, reproduced articles from Les Temps modernes long before Contornóos appearance. However, as 1 point out, İt would not be correct to attribute to Sur an existentialist intellectual bent.

16. This influence was explicitly acknowledged by some members of Contorno. See, for instance, Viñas, David, “Les temps modernes et nous,” Les Temps modernes (1981) 420–421.Google Scholar

17. Tulio Halperín Donghi has affirmed, İn his analysis of the Irazusta family, that the Argentine oligarchy was, at least in its inception in the nineteenth century, less a social or political elite than a cultural one. Into the twentieth century, there was no doubt that the oligarchy had already organized politically and could be considered a social sector. However, one must not lose sight of the fact that the intellectual concerns and the place high culture had in this sector were from the beginning what identified it as a class. See Donghi, Tulio H., El revisionismo histórico argentino (México: Siglo XXI, 1970).Google Scholar

18. This expression belongs to Oscar Masotta. See “Sur o el antiperonismo colonialista,” Contorno 7–8 ( 1956), p. 39. Contorno clearly did not represent a colonialist project; nevertheless, it turns out to be quite difficult to separate it from a certain Europeanist cultural dependence.

19. Daughter of Manuel Ocampo and Ramona Aguirre (both were members of two of the most traditional families of Argentina), Victoria Ocampo was unquestionably one of the main characters of the Argentine cultural world. Ocampo was an intellectual, a writer, a liberal, a feminist, and an anti-Peronist who founded and promoted a cultural space without precedent İn Buenos Aires, becoming the hostess and editor of the major intellectuals of Europe. Many of the Argentine writers who gathered around her journal would later become targets of the Contornistas’ incisive darts, among them, Mallea, Borges, Bioy Casares, and Victoria Ocampo herself.

20. The term “Rosism” refers to the Juan Manuel de Rosas Buenos Aires government (1835–1852), which its detractors characterized as a bloody and cruel dictatorship.

21. This term is a slur referring to the anti-Peronists.

22. When I interviewed him, Sebreli confirmed the following characterization: “Peronism was anti-intellectual, explicitly anti-intellectual, anti-cultural, or İn the best of scenarios, indifferent.” (Interview by author. Juan J. Sebreli, 4 August 2005.) Rozitchner, on the other hand, made this judgment much broader: for him, Peronism meant, in addition, “an enormous repression of human relations.” (Interview by author. León Rozitchner, 2 August 2005.) However, it İs commonly heard that within Contorno there was a subgroup formed by Sebreli, Correas and Masotta who leaned toward Peronism. See, for instance, Mangone and Warley, “La modernización de la crítica.” In this study I seek to inquire about this leaning. Regarding the disagreement with the Peronist anti-intellectualist cultural politics, during the Peronist government all of Contorno was anti-Peronist. Likewise, the collaboration of this subgroup with the journal Sur must not be considered as detrimental to the rivalry held between them. Sebreli settled the paradox of collaborating with both publications when he affirmed that “the ‘left’ of Sur will be the ‘right’ of Contorno.” Sebreli, Juan J., “Testimonio,” Historia de la Literatura Argentina 113 (1983), p. 441.Google Scholar However, in all that concerns the rejection of the prevailing anti-nationalist liberal ideology in Sur, all Contorno members were anti-Swr.

23. This fear can be perceived İn several articles. For instance, in issue no. 5–6, the lead Editorial responded to a comment made in the journal Marcha: “That opinion [appearing in Marcha, which had accused Contorno of alternating “praising and damning”] concerned us a little bit. It made us afraid of appearing as low lives or mischievous kids.” Editorial, “Terrorismo y complicidad,” Contorno 5–6 (1955), p. 1.

24. Sebreli, Juan J., “Los martinfìerristas: su riempo y el nuestro,” Contorno 1 (1953), p. 1.Google Scholar

25. Ibid.

26. Ibid.

27. Sebreli refers to this generation as one that has “the heavy brow of a day of work.” He is evidently referring to the modernist movement, one of whose most notable figures in Argentina was Leopoldo Lugones. Sebreli is obviously seeking to develop a contrast between the generations of 1924 and 1890—the former associated with superficiality and the latter with seriousness—not to recover modernism as a literary movement.

28. Prieto, Adolfo, “A propósito de Los ídolos,” Contorno 1 (1953), p. 5.Google Scholar

29. Ibid.

30. Prieto, Adolfo, Borges y la nueva generación (Buenos Aires: Letras Universitarias, 1954), p. 13 and p. 84. This book is imbued with the same spirit found in the pages of Contorno.Google Scholar

31. Ibid., p. 19.

32. Ibid., p. 84.

33. Ibid., p. 88.

34. Ibid.

35. This attitude of “killing the fathers” is what allowed Rodriguez Monegal to speak about parricide. See Monegal, Emir Rodriguez, El juicio de los parricidas (Buenos Aires: Deucalión, 1956).Google Scholar

36. Sanromán, V. (I. Viñas), “Ladrones de bicicletas,” Contorno 1 (1953), p. 6.Google Scholar

37. Born in 1900, Arlt devoted himself to journalism and literature, irritating the greater part of the literary circles with his style and language. Some of his most noteworthy works are El juguete rabioso ( 1926), Los siete locos (1929), and its continuation, Los lanzallamas (1931).

38. Viñas, Ismael, “Una expresión, un signo,” Contorno 2 (1954), p. 2.Google Scholar

39. Arlt, Roberto, Los lanzallamas (Caracas: Biblioteca Ayacucho, 1978), Pròlogo.Google Scholar

40. Reyes, Gabriel Conte (D. Viñas), “La mentira de Arlt,” Contorno 2 (1954), p. 1.Google Scholar

41. Borges believed that “the opinions of a writer are the least important thing he has. Opinions in general are of little value. An opinion or belonging to a political party or what is known as ‘politically committed literature’ can lead us to admirable, mediocre, or contemptible work. Literature is not so straight forward. It doesn’t depend on our opinions. I think literature goes much deeper than our opinions; the latter can change but it wouldn’t make our literature any different, would it?” (“Diàlogo entre Juan José Saer y Jorge Luis Borges,” Crisis 63 [1988], p. 48.) Though this interview is relatively later (1968), I believe it expresses Borges’ conception of literature, one that he had already formulated some time before. For example, “We all respect our art and we would never consent to turning it into an instrument of propaganda.– (Martin Fierro 8–9 [1927], p. 25.) A similar position may be attributed to Victoria Ocampo who, in 1961 wrote: “We know that the writer does not write for the proletariat, the oligarchy, or the bourgeoisie. The writer writes. The painter paints. And it all depends on what he does well or poorly.” (Victoria Ocampo, “A los lectores de Sur,” Sur 268 [1961], p. 6.)

42. Molinari, Marta (D. Viñas), “Roberto Arlt: una autobiografia,” Contorno 2 (1954), p. 8.Google Scholar

43. Ibid.

44. Viñas, Ismael, “Una expresión, un signo,” p. 2.Google Scholar

45. Ibid., p. 3.

46. Solero, Francisco J., “Roberto Arlt y el pecado de todos,” Contorno 2 (1954), p. 7.Google Scholar

47. Kiernan, Fernando, “Roberto Arlt, periodista,” Contorno 2 (1954), p. 10.Google Scholar

48. Cortes, Diego Sánchez (D. Viñas), “Arlt, un escolio,” Contorno 2 (1954), p. 1.Google Scholar

49. See, for instance, Viñas, D., “Nosotros y ellos,” p. 12.Google Scholar

50. Cortés, Sánchez (D. Viñas), “Arlt, un escolio,” p. 12.Google Scholar

51. The probable exception could be Carlos Correas who, much later, would dedicate a book to Roberto Arlt, which was, to a great extent, a critique of the opinions expressed in issue number 2 by Contorno. See Correas, Carlos, Arlt literato (Buenos Aires: Atuel, 1995).Google Scholar

52. Solero, Francisco J., “Roberto Arlt y el pecado de todos,” Contorno 2 ( 1954), p. 7.Google Scholar

53. Molinari (D. Viñas), “Roberto Arlt: una autobiografía,” p. 9.

54. Larra, Raúl, Roberto Arlt. El torturado (Buenos Aires: Quetzal, 1950), p. 108.Google Scholar

55. Ibid., p. 41.

56. Even though they did not call themselves “communists,” the social preoccupation characterizing this group made it possible for them to be regarded as the first progressive writers of the twentieth century. Among others, the members of the group of Boedo were Elias Castelnuovo, Leónidas Barletta, Nicolas Olivari, Roberto Mariano, and Alvaro Yunque.

57. Gorini, Juán José (D. Viñas), “Arlt y los comunistas,” Contorno 2 (1954), p. 8.Google Scholar

58. Ibid.

59. Ibid.

60. Masotta summarized Sur’s engagement as follows: “Sur swore by ‘free thought’, by ‘the West’, the ‘human subject’,” and added: “but, sad but true, the proletariat found itself excluded from the world of these lofty values.” (Masotta, “Suro el antiperonismo colonialista,” p. 45.)

61. Gigli, Adelaida, “Victoria Ocampo: V.O.,” Contorno 3 (1954), p. 1.Google Scholar

62. Ibid., p. 2. From 1935 on Victoria Ocampo published a long series of testimonies which would continue until 1977.

63. Ibid., p. 1.

64. Alcalde, Ramón, “Imperialismo, cultura y literatura nacional,” Contorno 5–6 (1955), p. 58.Google Scholar

65. Rozitchner, León, “Mallea y nuestras vergüenzas,” Contorno 5–6 (1955), p. 31.Google Scholar

66. For instance, the cultural supplement of La Nación, which was directed by Mallea himself.

67. Rozitchner, , “Mallea y nuestras vergüenzas,” p. 31.Google Scholar

68. In a later article, Rozitchner summarizes “the values of the bourgeoisie: ascetic love and respect, family stability, liberty for all, the sanctity of the church, work in the factories at full production, patriotism, good customs, etc.” ( Rozitchner, León, “Experiencia proletaria y experiencia burguesa,” Contorno 7–8 [1956], p. 6.)Google Scholar

69. See Mallea, Eduardo, Historia de una pasión argentina (Buenos Aires: SUR, 1937).Google Scholar

70. Rozitchner, , “Mallea y nuestras vergüenzas,” p. 34.Google Scholar

71. Ibid.

72. The Contornistas did not ignore the fact that they also hailed from the bourgeoisie, although they tended sometimes to underestimate its importance. Rozitchner was, for instance, clearly one of the Contornistas that most emphasized the fact that they not only had to fight an external enemy, the bourgeoisie, but also an inner one: that which was still bourgeois in them. “Between us and the workers, there is an abyss,” Rozitchner wrote, later on pointing out that such abyss was at the same time profound and exciting. (Rozitchner, “Experiencia proletaria,” p. 4.) The Contornistas questioned any literature that, according to them, acclaimed the bourgeois world, and defended a type of literature that, although originating in the bourgeoisie, was destined to question and undermine such a world.

73. The names in brackets are not the only ones to whom the Contornistas attributed these attitudes, but they arc undoubtedly the most emblematic.

74. This group was formed by Masotta, Sebreli, and Correas.

75. Sebreli, “La operación Correas,” Dossier.

76. Viñas, Ismael, “Reflexión sobre Martínez Estrada,” Contorno 4 (1954), p. 2.Google Scholar

77. Ibid.

78. Ibid.

79. Ibid. The impression ofliving at a time when an honest discussion of national reality could take place can be traced in several issues of the journal. In the Editorial of the issue of 1955 they said: “Nonetheless, it seems that the need to face reality is being felt again.” (Editorial, “Terrorismo y complicidad,” p. 1.)

80. Viñas, David, “La historia excluida: ubicación de Martínez Estrada,” Contorno 4 (1954), p. 16.Google Scholar Also Troiani insisted on this guilt: “We feel guilt; we know ourselves to be guilty.” ( Troiani, Osiris , “Examen de conciencia,” Contorno 7–8 [1956], p. 9.)Google Scholar

81. Viñas, David, “La historia excluida,” p. 16.Google Scholar

82. Born in 1895, Martínez Estrada had already become, towards mid century, the most transcendent Argentine essayist. His works include Radiografìa de la pampa (1933), La cabeza de Goliat (1940), and Muerte y transfiguración de Martin Fierro (1948).

83. Once Contorno disappeared, Sebreli devoted a book to the “negative” aspect of Martinez Estrada’s work. See Sebreli, Juan J., Martinez Estrada. Una rebelión inútil (Buenos Aires: Palestra, 1960).Google Scholar

84. Viñas, I., “Reflexión sobre Martínez Estrada,” p. 3.Google Scholar

85. It was clear that the most salient duality when these articles were published was Peronism/anti-Peronism. Nevertheless, the Contornistas’ attempts to achieve a synthesis that could supersede Argentine contradictions went beyond that duality. The brothers Viñas, Sebreli, Kush, and Solero all used a dual logic in their explanations of Argentine history and its present conditions. For Sebreli, see “Celeste y Colorado,” Sur 217–218 (1952); for David Viñas, see “La historia excluida”; for Ismael Viñas, see “Reflexión sobre Martínez Estrada”; for Solero, see “Primera aproximación a Martínez Estrada,” Contorno 4 (1954); and for Kush, see “Inteligencia y barbarie,” Contorno 4 (1954). The intention to supersede these dualities was manifested in the Editorial of the issue that Contorno dedicated to the Argentine novel.

86. Editorial, “Peronismo… ¿y lo otro?,” Contorno 7–8 (1956), p. 1.

87. Barely two months after Perón was overthrown, Sur published its famous issue 237, under the motto “For National Reconstruction.” Almost all its collaborators celebrated the fall of Peronism. The Contornistas mocked Sur’s enthusiasm and harshly criticized its anti-Peronism. Ismael Viñas, for instance, wrote: “The well-known journal issue 237 of Sur is an encyclopedia of smugness; everybody so sure of the Truth; their Truth; my Truth; all of them with a good and clear conscience. All of them were insistent that we should teach the Truth (my Truth, our Truth) to the swindled poor. Nobody has a doubt.” (Ismael Viñas, “Miedos, complejos y malos entendidos,” Contomo 7–8 [1956], p. 13.) Although the Contornistas numbered themselves among those who had suffered “personally the long term of the Peronist process,” they believed that, even under those conditions, it had been possible to think, to speak and to write. For Contorno, the repressed liberties denounced by Sur’s writers during the ten years of Peronism were an excuse to justify their lack of commitment within the political field. On the contrary, the members of Contorno felt they had “fought with little or great effectiveness, successfully, and unsuccessfully to bring out the truth about what was going on İn the country.” Contornistas said they were “individuals who wrote wet after the rains” and thus, they distinguished themselves from Sur’s writers, who they believed were “dry, intact, men of the world.” (Editorial, “Peronismo… ¿y lo otro?,” pp. 1–2.)

88. Editorial, “Peronismo… ¿y lo otro?,” p. 1

89. Sebreli explained this change in his position as follows: “Contorno’s intention was to be against Peronism when Peronism was official. The journal dedicated to Peronism was something different because at that time the Peronists were being persecuted and our position changed. It wasn’t the same when Peronism controlled the state as when Peronism was persecuted […] so when Peronism fell and was converted into the proscribed party, it acquired a certain sympathy at Contorno.” (Interview by author.)

90. Troiani, “Examen de conciencia,” p. 9.

91. Sebreli, Juan J., “Aventura y revolución peronista. Testimonio,” Contorno 7–8 (1956), p. 46.Google Scholar

92. Rozitchner, “Experiencia proletaria,” p. 4.

93. Ibid., p. 3.

94. Ibid., p. 6.

95. Masotta, , “Sur o el antiperonismo colonialista,” p. 45.Google Scholar

96. Viñas, David, “Una generación traicionada. Carta a mis camaradas de Contorno,” Marcha 992 (1959), p. 14.Google Scholar

97. Katra, Contorno. Literary Engagement, p. 119.

98. Pandolfı, Rodolfo, “17 de Octubre, trampa y salida,” Contorno 7–8 (1956), p. 22.Google Scholar

99. Rozitchner, , “Experiencia proletaria,” p. 4.Google Scholar

100. For an analysis on this conflictive relationship see Altamirano, Carlos, “Intelectuales y pueblo,” in Altamirano, La Argentina en el siglo XX (Buenos Aires: Ariel-Universidad de Quilmes, 1999).Google Scholar

101. As Altamarino pointed out, in Stir’s eyes “The decade of Peronism had been a shameful and irrational decade and its contributors wrote, confident that they could rely on the agreement of their readership on this point. They also relied on the idea of Peronism as a totalitarian phenomenon, a mixture of fascism and Rosism constructed ten years before.” (Altamirano, “Estudio preliminar,” p. 20.)

102. Donghi, Tulio Halperín, “Del fascismo al peronismo,” Contorno 7–8 (1956), p. 15.Google Scholar

103. This was the date of the coup d’état by a nationalist faction of the army, led by Farrel. Perón participated in it and was appointed Secretary of the National Labor Office.

104. On October 17, 1945, Perón, who was imprisoned in the Military Hospital by order of the dominant faction of his military peers, was released.

105. Pandolfi, , “17 de Octubre,” p. 26.Google Scholar

106. Sebreli, , “Aventura,” p. 48.Google Scholar

107. Except for Halperín Donghi, the attempt to separate Peronism from fascism should be seen more as a political position adopted by Contorno vis-à-vis their opponents than as a deeply rooted conviction stemming from a serious and reflective analysis. Claiming that Peronism and fascism were different would have implied not sharing the liberal judgement that linked them. Everything seems to suggest that, at some deep level perhaps not consciously recognized at the time (some of them later even wrote about it), many Contornistas believed that Peronism had been a local version of fascism, watered down and attenuated. Sebreli explained his change of position in the following statement: “Later I changed my mind. At that moment I confess that my cultural politics was limited. My political theory was also limited. I read a lot of literature, as 20-year-olds arc prone to do. I read a bit of sociology, but very little political theory. I studied fascism later […] Peronism was trying to be fascist. I applied ideas borrowed from Sartre. The term ‘spirit of seriousness’ is obviously a Satrean term, but it can also be said, though not in the case of German fascism, because of course it was very serious, but in the Italian case there were similar elements. Mussolini sunbathing on the beaches and what do I know, perhaps Italian fascism did not have such a ‘spirit of seriousness,’ and at the same time Peronism incurred ‘a spirit of seriousness,’ by which I mean a mix of transgression and a ‘spirit of seriousness’. The flag and the military parades, total respect, at first by the army, the church, and the institutions, and on the other hand, Evita out of control. It was a mix of both things. In the same way as other arguments that I put forward (one of which is still being used today)—that fascism is a middle-class movement and Peronism is a working class movement—that too is mixed up. But there were working-class supporters of fascism and middle class supporters of Peronism.” Sebreli considered this to be a shared confusion; nobody in Contorno had a clear idea of what fascism really was. I thought that nobody was really clear, not even Ismael, who was the only one who had a political thought at that time (although it wasn’t much), that it was fascism itself that did not have a clear understanding of what fascism was. Fascism was at that time what can be vulgarly referred to as a dictatorship, oppressive, terroristic. The characterization that fascism was basically a movement supported by the masses never entered their minds and İt perturbed even me to see the masses in the street. And that was fascism. But this was not well looked upon because of a lack of understanding—a real political understanding of what fascism was." (Interview by author.)

108. Rozitchner, , “Experiencia proletaria,” p. 3.Google Scholar

109. Pandolfi, , “17 de Octubre,” p. 23.Google Scholar

110. Sebreli, , “Aventura,” p. 49.Google Scholar

111. Ibid.

112. Augusto Timoteo Vandor was one of the main unionist leaders during the Peronist resistance. His attempt to arrive at a “peronismo sin Perón” ended up by infuriating Perón and started a fierce fight for unionist power, from which Perón came out victorious.

113. Sigal, Silvia, Intelectuales y poder en la década del sesenta (Buenos Aires: Punto Sur, 1991), p. 150.Google Scholar

114. See Correspondence of Cooke, J.W., in Gillespie, Richard , J. W. Cooke. El peronismo alternativo (Buenos Aires: Cántaro, 1989).Google Scholar

115. Rozitchner, , “Experiencia proletaria,” p. 4.Google Scholar

116. Ibid., p. 3.

117. Arturo Frondizi presided over the government from 1958 to 1962. Towards 1957, his differences with the radical leader Ricardo Balbín regarding how to link their movement with Peronism provoked a split within the Unión Cívica Radical (UCR), which divided into the UCR del Pueblo, led by Balbín, and the UCR Intransigente, led by Frondizi. Frondizi came to power after celebrating a pact with Perón, by virtue of which, in exchange for the Peronist votes, Frondizi promised to develop a popular program close to that of Peronism.

118. In the first Cuaderno de Contorno, published in 1957, Contorno expressly supported Frondizi’s candidacy.

119. Rozitchner, , “Un paso addante, dos atrás,” Contorno 9–10 (1959), p. 2.Google Scholar

120. Ibid. Rozitchner afterwards denied he had taken part in the Frondizist enthusiasm. Although he recalled that “Frigerİo called on us as a group because they wanted us to join the radicalism movement,” he “felt ambiguous” when he was offered a position as an advisor after Frondizi won and Ismael Viñas was appointed Deputy Director of Culture. He stated bluntly: “I was never a Frondizist.” When faced with the need to explain the use of “nosotros” in his article “Un paso addante, dos atrás,” in which he addresses “the Frondizi betrayal,” Rozitchner declared that he had found himself “drawn into Frondizism by his friends from Contorno, David [Vinas], above all, Ramón [Alcade] and by Ismael [Vinas] but I, at the beginning, was never a Frondizist. When I say this it is as if I am taking responsibility for what they could not say because they were so involved, and well, for that reason we, the ‘we’ to which I belonged—because I am interpreting something that happened İn the group—was out of necessity, but I was the least convinced by their ideas.” (Interview by author.) Sebreli made similar declarations, denying any kind of personal enthusiasm in the Frondizist adventure: “The trio [Masotta, Correas, and he] never supported (were never really behind) Frondizi. Even though we did vote for him, we voted because, who else was there to vote for? Balbín? Were we really going to vote for Balbín? We voted for him but with no illusions, unlike the Viñas brothers, Jitrik, Rozitchner, Alcade, who deluded themselves into being hopeful that they would be the intellectuals of the new country.“ (Interview by author.)

121. See Terán, Oscar, Nuestros años sesentas (Buenos Aires: Punto 1991).Google Scholar

122. The article is called “Orden y Progreso,” which, with certain modifications, would be published in book form a year later. See Viñas, Ismael, Orden y progreso. La era del frondizismo (Buenos Aires: Palestra, 1960).Google Scholar

123. Donghi, Halpcrin, “El espejo de la historia,” Contorno 9–10 (1959), 76–77.Google Scholar

124. The young intellectuals and politicians Alberdi and Echeverría, among others, belonged to this generation.

125. Donghi, Halperin, “El espejo de la historia,” p. 77.Google Scholar

126. Rozitchner, , “Un paso addante, dos atrás,” p. 7.Google Scholar

127. Ibid., p. 8.

128. Term referring to the president Agustín P. Justo (1932–1938).

129. Viñas, Ismael, “Orden y progreso,” Contorno 9–10 (1959), p. 75 Google Scholar

130. Among the circumstances accounting for the conclusion of Contorno, there is one fact that is perhaps not well known: the Contornistas attempted to undergo group psychoanalysis. Although a brief experiment, in 1959 some members of Contorno participated in a group therapy experience, during which they even took drugs, such as LSD, as part of the treatment conducted by the psychoanalyst Fontana. According to one of the participants, “we couldn’t stand [the experience].” In any case, it is a sign of how seriously the group had taken a commitment to the political-intellec-tual attitude and the life experience it implied.

131. Viñas, Ismael, “Orden y progreso,” p. 75 Google Scholar

132. Editorial, , Primera Plana 333 (May, 1969), p. 1.Google Scholar

133. Molina, Ernesto, “El arte en crisis. ¿Muerte o transfiguración?,” Claudia 157 (June, 1970), p. 209.Google Scholar

134. Ibid.

135. “El certificado de validez,” Panorama 329 (September, 1973), p. 50.

136. Ibid.

137. Ibid.

138. Schóo, Ernesto, “Teatro: Ejercitacioncs para la libertad. La alegría fundamental” Panorama 321 (June, 1973), p. 51.Google Scholar

139. Ibid.

140. “Juan Oscar Ponferrada: Teatro nacional para una cultura nacional,” Nuevo Confirmado 399 (August, 1973), p. 50.

141. Ibid.

142. Ibid.

143. Baracchini, Diego, “Psicoanálisis de una heroína,” Claudia 180 (May, 1972), p. 54.Google Scholar

144. “La industria del psicoanálisis: el marketing de la neurosis,” Panorama 211 (May, 1971), p. 26.

145. Ibid., p. 27.

146. Ibid.

147. Viñas, David, “Una generación traicionada,” p. 12.Google Scholar

148. Sebreli, , “Aventura,” p. 45.Google Scholar

149. Beatriz Sarlo has pointed out the following regarding Borges, “It İs evident that Contorno couldn’t read Borges.” ( Sarlo, , “Los dos ojos de Contorno” p. 807.)Google Scholar

150. Rozitchner published Moral burguesa y revolución (1963), Ser judío (1967), Las Malvinas: de la guerra “sucia” a la guerra “limpia” (1985) and Perón, entre la sangre y el tiempo ( 1985), among other works; Sebreli published Martínez Estrada: una rebelión inútil {i960), Buenos Aires: vida cotidiana y alienación (1964), Eva Perón: ¿aventurera o militante? (1966), Mar del Plata: el ocio represivo (1970) and Los deseos imaginarios del peronismo (1983), among other works; David Viñas published Literatura argentina y realidad política ( 1964), Argentina: ejército y oligarquía (1967), Rebeliones populares argentinas: de los montoneros a los anarquistas (1971) and Qtté es el fascismo en Latinoamérica (1977), among other works; Ismael Viñas published Orden y progreso: la era del jrondizismo (1960), El radicalismo (1970), La reacción nacionalista (1971 ), Capitalismo, monopolios y dependencia (1972), and Tierra y clase obrera ( 1973); Prieto published La literatura autobiográfica argentina (1962), El martinfterrismo ( 1967), and Estudios de literatura argentina (1969); Masotta published Sexo y traición en Roberto Arlt (1965), Conciencia y estructura (1969) and La historieta en el mundo moderno (1970); Kush published América profunda (1962), De la mala vida portería (1966), Indios, porteños y dioses (1966) and El pensamiento indígena americano (1970), among other works; Noe Jitrik published Leopoldo Lugones, mito nacional (1960), El escritor argentino: dependencia o libertad (1967) and Echeverría y la realidad nacional (1967).