Despite the great differences among the cultures from which we spring, there is a trait shared by many Hispanic-American writers: the use of a European language, Spanish, transplanted to the Western hemisphere. This fact has marked our literature profoundly and radically. We Hispanic Americans who write in Spanish have attempted from the peoples who live there. These often conflicting tactics can be described as cosmopolitanism and nativism, respectively.
The opposition between cosmopolitanism and nativism has divided the Hispanic-American literary consciousness for generations. For example, the work of one Mexican-American novelist was praised by some Hispanic-American critics for its skillful adaptation of European literary techniques but criticized for its paucity of specifically Mexican-American settings or characters. On the other hand, a characters' daily lives but faulted for its "roughness" of form and language.
Cosmopolitanism is the venturing forth into the public or mainstream culture; nativism, the return to the private or original culture. There are periods in which the outward-oriented sensibility predominates, and others in which tendencies toward self-absorption and introspection prevail. An example of the former was the rich period of the avant-garde between our history, a concern for novelty and experimentation has been followed by a return to origins.
We contemporary Hispanic-American writers who write in Spanish live somewhere between the European tradition and the reality of the Americas. Our roots may be European, but our horizon is the land and history of the Americas. This is the challenge that we confront each day: in order to appreciate the value of In this way, we attempt to reconcile the opposing tendencies of cosmopolitanism and nativism.
What this question is testing
Topic
The author is a Hispanic-American writer (notice the "we") talking about a tug-of-war that has run through Hispanic-American literature for generations.
Framework
Highlight Noteworthy. The author isn't arguing against anyone — they're naming a tension and showing how it plays out across criticism, history, and the writer's own daily life.
Main Point
Here's the simpler version: Hispanic-American writers feel pulled in two directions. One pull is outward — toward the big European and North American literary traditions. The other is inward — toward their own communities, dialects, and everyday lives. The author calls these "cosmopolitanism" and "nativism," and the whole passage is about how writers live with that pull.
P1: Two pulls, named
Paragraph 1 sets up the tug-of-war and gives the two sides names. Cosmopolitanism = facing outward. Nativism = facing inward. Both are attempts to break free of the old dependency on Spain.
P2: How critics react
Notice the critic examples — they always praise one side and blame the other. That shows you the tension isn't just in the writers, it's in how the work gets read.
P3: How history swings back and forth
Sometimes the outward pull wins (the 1918–1930 avant-garde, when European movements were everywhere). Then the pull reverses, and writers come home to their own people and dialects.
Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.