Interview: David Lida, Author of Critically Acclaimed Book About Mexico City ‘First Stop in the New World’

Back in January when I reviewed David Lida’s book First Stop in the New World: Mexico City, the Capital of the 21st Century, I said that it gives a clear-eyed appraisal of life in Mexico City.

Those who are willing to brave the city’s flaws and complications are the beneficiaries of its rich cultural elements and fascinating citizenry, David writes. In making his case, David doesn’t downplay the city’s problems. Rather, he brings them into sharp focus. In doing so, he guides us through a city that is somehow as fascinating as it is terrifying.

While preparing for his upcoming U.S. tour to promote the paperback edition of his book, David took time out to answer some questions.

The full itinerary of his tour, which will run between Sept. 13 through Oct. 9, is posted on his web site.

Although you were initially enchanted with Mexico, you write that it took you four years to work up the courage to visit Mexico City.
To do so, you said, meant casting aside what you call the “propaganda”, which characterizes the city as “a teeming, overpopulated, polluted bedlam…” In First Stop in the New World, you acknowledge that some of these and other problems such as crime exist, but say that the city is nevertheless a rewarding place to live. How would you convince someone to visit Mexico City for the first time?

I don’t know that I would try to convince anyone. I am not in the tourism business. I’d like to think that the book might inspire some people to come. The rest should perhaps stay at home.

In the New York Times last spring, you wrote about living through the swine flu scare. How did that experience change or confirm your perception life in Mexico City?

As much as I love Mexico City – and I hope that my love for the place is evident in my work – I have always considered it a challenging, complex and often difficult place to live. The swine flu experience sort of upped the ante of those perceptions.

Mexico City is thousands of years old, but you describe it as a work in progress. While it seems that you like this aspect of the city, you also note that many of its residents face serious social justice issues, such as racism, sexism and ageism. Also, somewhat paradoxically, you report that Mexican employers often show favoritism toward lighter-skinned foreigners. On a more positive note, however, you report that there has been significant progress in recent years with respect to the acceptance of gays and lesbians. Do you foresee Mexico City becoming a more tolerant place as globalization gains a stronger foothold?

This is a good question, but not an easy one to answer. I would guess that in the foreseeable future, Mexico City is going to remain a very difficult place for the half of the population that struggles with poverty, and a more tolerant place for the rest.

You describe the urban landscape of Mexico City as one that is improvised, with very little planning. This has made the city more idiosyncratic than U.S. cities such as New York, which are increasingly becoming a homogeneous collection of national retail chains such as Starbucks and McDonald’s. But you mention that Wal-Mart is gaining a foothold in Mexico. Would you say this is part of a trend that will make Mexico City seem more like the U.S?

The wealthiest parts of the city are already becoming more like the U.S. Particularly the farther away you get from the centro, in enclaves such as Perisur, Bosques de las Lomas, or Santa Fe, the most prosperous swath of the population tends to get behind the wheels of their cars every time they leave the house, goes shopping at malls at Wal-Mart and so forth. But as I point out in the book, globalization does not even touch at least half of the population – the impoverished half. Starbucks, McDonald’s and Wal-Mart have not made it to their neighborhoods, and probably never will.

It seems Mexico City’s mass transportation system is unable to keep pace with the city’s hyper development. As a result, you say that traffic jams are a regular part of life. Yet, I gather from your book that you don’t own a car. Is it possible to organize your life in Mexico City so most of it isn’t spent sitting in traffic?

I think I am much better off without a car. I save a lot of stress, time, energy and money not having to be behind the wheel during traffic jams or search for parking places. Whatever I spend on taxis I save by not having to pay extortionate valet-parking fees.

I also think I am safer without a car. Many chilangos are assaulted or robbed while behind the wheels, or getting in and out, of their cars.
As far as the question of organizing one’s life, I think it is almost impossible to avoid constant traffic jams if you work regular hours in an office, or have children in school. If you are a freelance like me, it’s a little easier. But no one gets off scot free. Traffic, transit, and anything to do with getting from one place to another is the most challenging and difficult aspect of life in this city.

Throughout your book you make a number of interesting observations about character traits of chilangos (Mexico City’s residents). To do this, it seems like you needed to walk a fine line: generalize about your subjects to some extent, but avoid unfair stereotypes. Was this something you considered when you were writing the book? How did you strike the right balance?

If you think I struck the right balance, I am grateful and relieved. It is always a dangerous and dodgy business to generalize about 20 million people. I tried to deal with what I think are important subjects and issues in Mexico City, and write about them using examples of people who are emblematic of those issues.

You paint a fascinating character portrait of chilangos. Lying, you say, is a common element of the social landscape. For example, you describe a friend who buys more time to enjoy a glass of wine at a sidewalk cafe by calling a business colleague and telling him that she’s running late for their meeting because she is “stuck in traffic.” While “white lies” are often told in the U.S.–and throughout the world– would you say that they are more frequently told by Mexico City residents? If so, how did you adjust to this?

A Mitofsky research study says that seven out of ten Mexicans claim not to be liars. But according to the same study, the same Mexicans admit to telling an average of four lies a day. I am sure there is historical precedence for this, based on the courtly, coded language between the Spaniards and the indigenous during the Colonial period. Today, you adjust by doing your best to learn the code – for example, after a while, you understand that when a Mexican says, “We have to have lunch one day soon,” he is talking about a day sometime after the next millennium. As you imply, it’s not all that different from when someone in New York or Los Angeles says, “Let’s do lunch.” A comparative study of lying in different countries would probably be enlightening, and with that perspective, the Mexican penchant for lying might not seem so severe.

Mexico City residents’ moral conduct with regard to sex seems even murkier. You note the subject of sex often evokes feelings of “pena” or shame for many Mexicans. Yet, you say that male adultery is prevalent and you cite anecdotal evidence that married women are engaging in infidelities as well. In fact, you surmise that the “whiff of sin” that comes with having a liaison with a family friend or married business colleague actually enhances sexual experiences for many Mexicans. Would you say that these conflicting sensibilities represent a combination of sexual attitudes found in Europe and the U.S.–or would you say that they are unique to Mexico?

I believe the idiosyncrasies of Mexican sexuality are the consequence of the attitudes of the country’s most important institutions – the family and the church. Children are taught by their parents that, above all, appearances must be kept up. Yet behind closed doors, much of anything goes. There is a lot of sexual bitterness, subterfuge and hypocrisy that gets passed from generation to generation. Meanwhile, the church indicates that sex should only be suffered for procreation. The good news is that, principally due to the internet, Mexicans under thirty have had more access to information about sex than previous generations. I think younger Mexicans are at least somewhat less hung up than their forebears.