Womack’s ZAPATA 1

Womack’s Zapata and the Mexican Revolution

Womack (1968) presents a commendable and complex portrait of the contributing factors

and conditions preceding the Mexican Revolution, creating a well-rounded narrative examining

political and agrarian transformations on local and national levels. However, his examination of

the Mexican Revolution in an international context proves to be somewhat lacking when

contrasted with his thorough inspection of the state of Morelos and its inhabitants. He

approaches his analysis of the Mexican Revolution with a structural conception of contributive

factors in social, political, and economic sectors. He (1968: 10) introduces his analysis of the

Revolution with the line: “. . . the Mexican Revolution happened because the high politicians of

the country openly failed to agree on who should rule when President Porfirio Díaz died.” With

this clear-cut and immediate opening, he launches into an account of substandard political

leadership in the face of increasingly global economic development further exacerbating

preexisting socioeconomic disparities and social stratifications dating back to Spanish

colonialism.

Pointing (Womack, 1968: 10) to a political trend of belief in natural law and the nation’s

dependence on politician (termed científico) control and the resultant científico profit, Womack

sets the background for civilian oppression and increasingly dramatic levels of social

stratification. Womack (1968: 11) cites Díaz’s three decades of political maneuvering—

including intentional goals of maintaining unstable political and financial relationships, as well

as constant involvement with politicking—resulting in a centralized government almost

completely dependent on Díaz. Needless to say, the necessity of finding a successor in his old

age concurrently ushered in a certainty that the subsequent leader would be met with a

Amy Leary
 Womack’s ZAPATA 2

debilitating imbalance of central government. However, Womack does not present the causes

behind the Mexican Revolution as strictly reactionary movements to the inferior leadership of

Díaz and the subsequent disinterested leadership of Pablo Escandón. Indeed, Womack examines

the transformation of the planters’ production role in the face of an increasingly capitalist system

of trade and imprudent reforms—as well as general disinterest on Escandón’s part—resulting in

a strained consolidation of power in the planters’ hands. Initially mentioning (Womack 1968:

43) the transformation of Morelos’ previously coexisting economic enterprises and communities

into country towns controlled by landowners, Womack describes a steady increase of

government repression through implemented administrative procedures as well as more informal

landowner domination over peasants. He provides (Womack 1968: 44) a vivid portrait of

exploitation of all who failed to fall under the category of landowner. In addition, Womack

(1968) details the government’s intentional disregard for peasants’ rights in the following

excerpt:

. . . It was Escandón’s responsibility as a good científico planter to establish the practice of oppression as

policy. The villagers were already weak, their leaders and advocates jailed or driven into hiding . . . and

Escandón proceeded without hesitation. The state government’s refusal to do justice became a clear rule

(P. 52).

Womack (1968) presents the transformation of the political landscape and newly imposed

restrictions for peasants as an environmental background necessary in shaping the character of

Emiliano Zapata. Womack (1968: 6) cites Zapata’s childhood witnessing of patriarchal

humiliation, as well as a lifetime of observing increasingly repressive governmental impositions

regarding the peasant’s way of life and means of compensation. When Womack (1968) begins

to focus on the development of Zapata as a revolutionary hero and figure, the narrative begins to

Amy Leary
 Womack’s ZAPATA 3

shift. At this point, Womack loses a little of his authority regarding revolution analysis because

it is at this point where the figure of Zapata becomes more central to the account than the

surrounding sociopolitical environment of Mexico. Of course, this shift in focus does not

discredit Womack’s research. On the contrary, the shift in concentration merely indicates his

emphasis on the individual in his analytical approach to revolutions. In addition, the figure of

Zapata, highly evocative even to this day, is cloaked in myth and fable. Such a culturally

integral figure cannot help but represent a larger message—in this case, a larger movement.

Despite his immense research, Womack (1968) cannot completely separate reality from cultural

representation, and although he strays from examination of the revolution in a broader context,

Zapata can be perceived as the historical representation of many.

Not surprisingly, given the immediate indication of Womack’s selected title, ZAPATA

and the Mexican Revolution places a significant emphasis on Zapata’s charismatic leadership and

the ensuing possibility for social change as a direct result of Zapata’s magnetic personality.

Beginning his narrative (Womack 1968: 3-7) with a prologue reimagining the election of

Emiliano Zapata for the village representative council and concluding his analysis (Womack

1968: 371-386) with an epilogue detailing the enduring influence and inspiration of Zapata’s

memory, Womack makes his central focus regarding the Mexican Revolution profoundly clear:

the Mexican Revolution was a movement made possible because of the leadership of an

individual. True, Womack provides a thorough background of sociopolitical conditions that

made such a revolutionary figure possible. Nevertheless, the author’s dedicated concentration on

Zapata as a revolutionary figure faintly echoes another author’s emphasis on the power and

influence of the individual.

Amy Leary
 Womack’s ZAPATA 4

Weber (2003: 33) cites a charismatic individual as the typical, initial motivation behind a

revolution—a leader who inspires a following, challenges the instated political authority and

eventually leads to a governmental downfall. However, Weber (2003:33) is very quick to point

out that a magnetic personality does not equal automatic authority in a revolutionary sense,

explaining that enduring authority comes only if the leader and his or her supporters become

integrated into political institutions. In laymen’s terms, a leader cannot continually motivate if

he or she is not in some way involved in the political sphere. Womack’s portrait of Zapata

supports Weber’s belief in the necessity of a leader’s political involvement. Although Womack

cites (2003: 100) the wide variation of opinions and legends regarding Zapata, including the

legend of Zapata the Savage and bandit, Womack (2003: 7) also immediately introduces Zapata

in the prologue as the elected leader of Morelos. Zapata’s influence only grows from this point,

and although Zapata never hid his contempt for politicians in Mexico City (Womack: 205), that

does not eliminate his influence and the attempts of political leaders to gain his support and

cooperation (Womack: 105-108).

In examining the revolutionary theory specifically applied to the Mexican Revolution,

Goldfrank (2003: 214) approaches the Mexican Revolution with a structural analysis of

conditions that, only when combined, provide a sufficient explanation of revolutionary causes.

Goldfrank (2003) states:

. . . Four conditions appear to be necessary and sufficient, although as these conditions interact and overlap

with one another, it is difficult to say exactly where one leaves off and another begins. For any particular

national society, they are: (1) a tolerant or permissive world context; (2) a severe political crisis paralyzing

the administrative and coercive capacities of the state; (3) widespread rural rebellion; and (4) dissident elite

political movements (214).

Amy Leary
 Womack’s ZAPATA 5

Womack’s (1968) evaluation of the Mexican Revolution provides a plethora of details regarding

previously mentioned political crises and rural rebellions, as well as mentioning the divisions

among elites. He also attempts to make no concrete distinction among causes, instead presenting

political events and, echoing Goldfrank’s (2003: 214) insistence that the above conditions

overlap to a point of indistinctness regarding where one condition ends and the next begins.

However, his rather localized focus on the Mexican Revolution prevents him from

adequately examining the Revolution in an international context. In fact, one of Womack’s

greatest strengths in his book also proves to be one of the weak points of his investigation. More

specifically, his immense dedication to detail regarding the Morelos and Zapata’s influential rise

in the sociopolitical sphere concurrently produces a cursory examination of the Mexican

Revolution in relation to global commercial and political trends. Although Womack (1968: 11)

does mention an increase in international demand for products such as sugar, this mention proves

to be about the extent of his examination of world context that contributed to the movements

behind the Mexican Revolution. True, Womack (1968) makes several mentions of strained U.S.-

Mexico relations, but they all seem to be more of a reaction to the revolutionary movements in

Mexico instead of contributing factors behind the movements. According to Goldfrank (2003),

the reason revolutions in “third world” developing countries differ from previous revolutions in

Europe remains the condition that the developing countries were politically and economically

dependent on other countries—a dependency nonexistent prior to the days of colonialism. In his

neglecting of the influence of the international arena on Mexico’s policies and trading systems,

Womack (1968) is essentially overlooking a fundamental impetus behind the Mexican

Revolution.

Amy Leary
 Womack’s ZAPATA 6

Of course, a book titled Zapata and the Mexican Revolution will undoubtedly place a

great amount of focus on Emiliano Zapata as a historical revolutionary figure, and it would be

unmerited to criticize a work for failing to cover the entirety of a historical movement. Womack

(1968) reaches an estimable medium between meticulously researched academic analysis and a

comprehensible writing style—academic in scope, but accessible in language and passion.

Womack’s (1986) dedication to providing an elucidation of the Mexican Revolution, as

well as creating a portrait of peasants’ suffering, permeates every page, and his sympathy to the

peasants enduring institutionalized oppression never wavers. Although his examination of the

Mexican Revolution eventually steers toward a biography of Emiliano Zapata, he provides

empirical evidence that helps to create a solid background regarding political and economic

reforms, as well as social and cultural transformations occurring in Mexico prior to the

Revolution. His focus on Emiliano Zapata as a historical figure and cultural symbol supports

Weber’s (2003) views on the efficacy of charismatic leadership, and additionally provides a

representation of the masses in a more intimate context. Womack’s (1986) analysis of the

Mexican Revolution contains many fundamental approaches of structural analysis similar to the

theory presented by Goldfrank (2003), focusing especially on political crises, rural rebellions,

and dissident political elite opinion. However, Womack (1968) examines the Mexican

Revolution with a fairly internal scope; save for a few mentions of international economic

conditions and capitalism in an increasingly globalized world, he examines Mexico’s

sociopolitical conditions with a rather isolationist viewpoint. Overall, Womack (1968) has

provided extensive research regarding the Mexican Revolution. Although his approach toward

analysis of the individual over the structural proves to create a weaker end product, he has

Amy Leary
 Womack’s ZAPATA 7

nevertheless given an inestimably important foundation of data and information for future

historical analysts.

References

Goldfrank, Walter L. “The Mexican Revolution.” Pp. 213-223 in Revolutions: Theoretical,

Comparative, and Historical Studies, edited by Jack A. Goldstone. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.

Weber, Max. 2003. “Charisma, Bureaucracy, and Revolution.” Pp. 33-36 in Revolutions:

Theoretical, Comparative, and Historical Studies, edited by Jack A. Goldstone. Belmont,

CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.

Womack, John, Jr. 1968. Zapata and the Mexican Revolution. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

Amy Leary