Why would you want to increase and perpetuate this cultural differentiation between the “West” and “ethnic” (manifest, among other things, by the project to preserve indigenous traditions and authenticity)? A possible explanation for this development of the cultural border between the population and indigenous groups is that elites want to keep this border to ensure that natives do not become a population that could compete with their power. This process of separation or maintaining a social distance is also present in relations between elites and lower social classes. In the latter case, social separation is useful for elites, because, of course, members of the lower classes can climb up and compete with them. Indeed, as we have seen, many studies, particularly in social psychology, indicate that when one group perceives another as its competitor for desired property, the image it will build from the other group is normally negative. Thus, people in the popular classes who claim to modernize and imitate higher classes are devalued (often indirectly, being ridiculed, for example) by elites. We have seen, with the example of “popular” art exhibitions in museums (not organized the intellectual elites of the capital) that cultural events in the popular classes are valued if they have a “traditional” character, their artistic forms are watched with a condescending smile and they are interesting in that they are “naive”, “coloured” or “funny”. All these actions are demonstrations of remote remote control, maintaining the border. However, this assumption does not seem valid to us in relation to elites and Indians, because the real contact between these two groups is extremely rare and the Indians who could compete with the elites is very few (contrary to the situation in other Latin American countries such as Bolivia or Guatemala). Moreover, their cultural, economic and social capital is far from allowing them to threaten the power of the elites. On the other hand, other factors help explain the construction of the authentic Indian as a well-separated being of “us”. First of all, it should be recalled that this construction of a genuine freeze Indian is a way of grasp, understanding a diversity and alterity that could once frighten (about fear caused by the native in the past, see for example Taussig, 2002). In addition, the very complex diversity that exists for individuals (due to increased exchanges) is simplified by building generic ethnic and projecting on this generic object of a set of known and positive representations. In a country that now presents itself as very diverse and “multicultural” these images all make it a good way to reduce the complexity of social reality. In addition, these images are positive and correspond to “politically correct” and international standards. These Other people are in their communities of origin, they are good and, in the bottom, we understand their beliefs, they correspond to our deep beliefs, for example, spirituality and love for nature that would be intrinsic to any human being. The value of diversity is more easily accepted when it is based on an indisputable and prior unification. Furthermore, alterity is not only simplified and made “nice”, but in some cases and implicitly inferior to non-natives (the “Western”), because the idea that indigenous cultures should not “contaminate” implies their weakness (compared to other social groups, among which elites should be included) because they would not be strong enough to support external influences. Another aspect that contributes to the construction of an authentic and idealized Indian is that in the current system, where power almost no longer depends on ethnic or cultural identity labelling, elites can afford to brag these other identities without threatening their access to resources and power (provided that these other identities are an object to defined outlines, i.e., they remain “authentic”). Thus, the valuation of the natives enables us to fulfill the duty of egalitarism and recognition of diversity, and it is all the more easily acceptable because it is about boasting the qualities of a distant, almost mythical, other good that is no economic or political threat. The value of diversity has become a “politically correct” speech, which “must be” constantly reproduced. It is associated with causes that are undeniable in the population, such as (international) combating discrimination and against trends such as racism, totalitarianism, colonialism, xenophobia, etc. There is the idea that it would be necessary to highlight the difference in order to avoid the slippage of the past. Since exclusion messages were based on a supposed inferiority of the excluded and since the ideal was to reduce these differences, now it is believed that the contrary should be done, i.e., emphasizing the qualities of the excluded, to the point that they are higher than the “Western culture” (considered to be higher in the past). Speeches for recognition and respect for difference become speeches for diversity and even further for differentiation. The promotion of difference in turn leads to the promotion of borders (to preserve such a difference). This difference is, as we have seen, a set of cultural forms that determine an ideal difference. Thus, elites reproduce speeches of diversity valuation because, through this socially approved, recently institutionalized and now undeniable, they build an image (an Ethnic Other) according to their own values that serve them to strengthen and disseminate them. As we explained, the Indian valuation is related to the idea that this distant Other is an example for self-transformation. This Other presents itself as an ideal to which we should all go (the transcendental sense of change), a model supposedly elsewhere, but which is actually a construction that is in line with the values of the elites. The elites, recalls Coenen-Huther (op. cit.) depend on their ability to forge an ideology that they will use to legitimize. Indigenist speeches are in fact the cause of such legitimization. The promotion of indianity becomes the promotion of the ideals of the “white” population, and the speech of the value of diversity is in fact the dissemination of the values of the population, which in fact amounts to imposing a cultural model. This dissemination is all the more effective because it is realized through the reproduction of an apparently altruistic and “good cause” (to bring justice to the oppressed in the country’s history, to end discrimination, to protect minorities…). In addition, through this process, the native becomes a receptacle that somehow objectives the values of the elites, i.e. those “other cultures” become living and “real” examples that would confirm the validity and universality of these values. This is particularly evident in New Age or Environmental Speeches. The statements of this kind of speech use references to indigenous cultures as examples that would confirm their ideas, while they do not show any certain knowledge of the examples mentioned. By embodying the values of elites, ethnic groups become the “proof” that the so-called values would be universal, which would also confirm the idea that the thinking of elites is “correct” thought.