der to undermine distinctions of the prevalent ôusö versus ôthemö mentality in U.S. society (80, 3).
In an analysis of surface and conceptual metaphors, Anzaldua maintains the foundations of racism are laid. She finds that such metaphors and messages are the root cause of the destructive forces of identity formations that limit cultural and self expression. Anzaldua (1999) maintains that the new Chicano mythos must include an image of self that is a ôvague and undetermined place created by the emotional residue of an unnatural boundaryö; one that is not confined by physical or geographical dimensions but also one that is enlarged by including psychological, sexual, and spiritual borderlands (3). Anzaldua (1999) contends that primarily white notions of these dimensions of self are limiting to ôothersö who are not considered part of mainstream culture and society. These rigidly defined conceptions are imposed on others by whites in ways that create an inferior versus superior vision of self. Those who conform to the white vision are ôgoodö, while those conforming to another vision are ôbadö. As Anzaldua (1999) claims, ôthose in power, the whites and those who align themselves with whitesö undermine and devalue those ôwho cross overàthe confines of the ænormalÆàthe perverse, the queer, the troublesome, the mongrel, the mulatto, the half-breedö (34).
We see that AnzalduaÆs theories help to explain the historically marginalization of non-white cultures and races in American society through institutionalization of negative images of ôother.ö Anzaldua also maintains that within Chicano culture, notions of male and female roles and patriarchal dominance also posit negative images of self within the same culture. The split between the genders, and thus the power differentiation between them, is represented in the serpent and the eagle metaphors of Indian culture, but also
...