Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229961269
CITATIONS READS
3 63
3 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Recovering Lost Footprints: The Emergence of Contemporary Indigenous Narratives in Abya Yala Volume
I View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Charles R. Hale on 25 November 2014.
2
3
4
5
CA
6
7
8
9
RE-VISIONING LATIN AMERICAN STUDIES
10
11
12 SONIA E. ALVAREZ
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
13
14 ARTURO ARIAS
15 University of Texas, Austin
16 CHARLES R. HALE
17 University of Texas, Austin
18
19
In the early 1990s, an influential group of northern scholars, foundation
20
representatives and observers of academic trends came to the conclusion that
21
area studies were in crisis.1 Although the critiques and calls for reformulation
22
applied across the board, to a heterogeneous array of area studies fields, they had
23
particular resonance within Latin American studies (LAS). Rooted in disciplinary
24
and institutional developments dating back to the beginning of the 20th century,
25
LAS came into its own in the 1950s, in the context of the Cold War. It rapidly
26
became the largest, most well funded and most prestigious of the area studies fields.
27
For this reason, among others, LAS assumed a central role in the broader debate:
28
should area studies persist in their current form? If not, what successor intellectual
29
and institutional configurations should emerge in their place? Nearly 20 years later,
30
this high-stakes debate has virtually disappeared. By various important measures,
31
LAS is thriving. This article provides what we argue is the principal explanation for
32
this remarkable ongoing vitality of our field.
33
The critiques of area studies that emerged in the 1990s were both timely and
34
salutary. Although we do not endorse them all, we contend that the general call
35
for critical scrutiny helped to push LAS scholars to more clearly define the future
36
37
CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY, Vol. 26, Issue 2, pp. 225246. ISSN 0886-7356, online ISSN 1548-1360. C 2011 by
38 the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1111/j.1548-1360.2011.01097.x
cuan_1097 can2008.cls March 9, 2011 11:48
2 direction and key contributions of the field. Scholars with methodological commit-
3 ments to rational choice analysis and large-n comparison complained that LAS was
4 largely descriptive and atheoretical (see, e.g., Bates 1997a, 1997b). Although we
5 have little patience for the notion of theory underlying this critiqueespecially
6 its inherent need to reduce complex social and historical formations to universally
7 standardized variableswe do agree that some currents within LAS had turned
8 parochial, and that the field needed to open itself more fully to theoretical debates
9 and challenges emanating from other realms. In particular, we contend that LAS
10 has benefited enormously from deepened engagement with feminist theory, crit-
11 ical theories of race and ethnicity, various currents of inter- and postdisciplinary
12 intellectual work associated with cultural studies, and with general epistemological
13 scrutiny, starting with the very idea of Latin America. This last challenge, in turn,
14 converged with an explicitly political critique, which emphasized the Cold War
15 origins and imperial affinities of the field, and argued for an end to the
16 study of geographically delimited and colonially derived areas (Dirlik 1994;
17 Gibson-Graham 2004; Palat 2000; Rafael 1994). All these critiques were influen-
18 tial, in short, because they focused attention on existing methodological problems,
19 often embodying constructive proposals for much-needed change.
20 What the general proclamations of crisis did not take into account, however,
21 was the extent to which creative solutions to these underlying problems were
22 being generated from within the field of LAS itself, albeit often from the margins.
23 Even as it was institutionalized in U.S. universities and research centers during
24 the postwar decades, LAS was always a space of ferment and contestation. Most
25 notably, among LAS scholars there has always been strong, and in some moments
26 even majoritarian, dissent from prevailing U.S. government policies toward the
27 region, especially in relation to Cuba (in the 1960s and 1970s) and Central America
28 (in the 1980s). The same goes for theoretical innovation from within. Efforts were
29 underway within the Latin American Studies Association (LASA) to engage feminist
30 theories and gender politics at least since the mid-1970s, for example, with the
31 creation of the Task Force for Women in Latin American Studies, the forerunner
32 of todays Gender and Feminist Studies Section. Similarly, by the mid-1990s,
33 when the crisis was no more than a few years old, efforts were undertaken to
34 bring cultural studies and related interdisciplinary perspectives more centrally into
35 the flow of intellectual exchange, and to confront the conceptual and political
36 problems associated with the sharp division between Latino/a studies and LAS.
37 As an example, when Jean Franco became the first humanities professor to serve
38 as LASA president in 1989, she directed a concerted effort to attract humanists
226
cuan_1097 can2008.cls March 9, 2011 11:48
2 American city, with a rotating directorate and extremely low administrative costs.
3 RELAJU, like many other such initiatives, embodies many of the transformative
4 ideas laid out here, yet without the need to directly contest a previously dominant
5 institutional and intellectual framework.4
6 Important contestations of LAS always have been simultaneously substan-
7 tive, political, and epistemological, although the particular emphases on these
8 three facets shifted according to context. Challenges to U.S. policies toward Latin
9 America through the 1980s, for example, had a sharp political edge, but otherwise
10 remained largely within established disciplinary boundaries, and often implicitly
11 endorsed the nation-state centered premises of LAS as a field. Subsequent critical
12 interventions departed sharply from these premises, working to frame research
13 topics and analysis from the perspectives of peripheral and marginalized collective
14 actors. In some cases this brought largely new substantive areas into LAS (e.g.,
15 queer studies); in others, it produced a radical shift in conceptual lens (e.g., im-
16 buing the study of indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples with a central focus
17 on political agency and collective self-representation). The political and episte-
18 mological challenges to the field deepened as growing numbers of intellectuals
19 from these marginalized groups acquired academic training and engaged in LAS
20 dialogues, which contributed to a blurring of the traditionally constituted line
21 between political assertion and knowledge production. These challenges focused
22 critical attention on the epistemological underpinnings of LAS in at least three di-
23 mensions: the nation-state centered premises (which fixed the boundaries of Latin
24 America and delimited priority topics within each national space), the North
25 South hierarchy, and the subjectobject dichotomy (which posited that objects of
26 study did not produce knowledge in their own right). By the beginning of the
27 new century, LAS was bristling with multiple lines of innovation, debate, and
28 contestation that these challenges had brought to the fore.
29 This article is an attempt to document the vibrant expansion and transforma-
30 tion of LAS since the 1990s. As part of our responsibilities as elected officials of
31 LASA, each of the three coauthors served as editors of the Forum, the Associations
32 quarterly journalin 200203 (Arias), 200406 (Alvarez and Arias) and 200607
33 (Hale and Arias). In these three periods we made concerted efforts to commission
34 articles that would showcase the topics, problems and debates that were bubbling
35 up from within the LASA membership at large, and of its various issue-oriented
36 constituent organizations. Only later did we realize that through these quarterly
37 efforts to take the pulse of the Association and the field, the contours of an ex-
38 citing new vision of LAS had emerged. These articles highlight five key realms of
228
cuan_1097 can2008.cls March 9, 2011 11:48
2 challenge and reformulation, which we argue are crucial to this new vision of LAS:
3 (1) power-sensitive dialogue among differently positioned intellectuals; (2) efforts
4 to highlight subaltern knowledges and perspectives; (3) engaging Latin America in
5 the North; (4) inter- and postdisciplinary inquiry, including transdisciplinary fields
6 such as feminist, queer, and postcolonial studies; and, finally, (5) research methods
7 that draw on collaborative relations between academic- and civil societybased
8 intellectuals.
9 In the section that immediately follows, we offer a detailed reflection on why
10 LAS needed to be decentered, noting the unhelpful baggage that the field had
11 taken on since its inception and the likely fate of LAS if the status quo had prevailed.
12 Next, we explain what is meant by decentering LAS, filling out an explanation
13 of the five components of our vision. Finally, we briefly consider the concerns,
14 problems and contradictions associated with this vision, and reflect on possible
15 trajectories into the future.
16
17 WHY DECENTER LAS?
18 Although area studies originated in the years following World War II, LAS have
19 their origin in U.S. expansion into the Caribbean basin in the wake of the Cuban
20 SpanishAmerican war. Tulanes Roger Thayer Stone Center for Latin American
21 Studies, the oldest in the country, is emblematic of this history. The center was
22 founded in l924, when Tulane benefactor Samuel Zemurray, the founder and
23 president of the Cuyamel Fruit Company, forerunner of the United Fruit Company
24 of infamous trajectory throughout the Caribbean basin, made a large gift of a library,
25 archaeological artifacts, and an endowment to establish the Department of Middle
26 American Research.5 As part of the same midcentury history of imperial relations
27 between the United States and Latin America, the University of Florida Center for
28 Latin American Studies was founded in 1931, and the Institute of Latin American
29 Studies at the University of Texas at Austin, the countrys largest, in 1940.
30 Area studies became the vogue in U.S. academia in the 1950s and 1960s during
31 the Cold War. Framed by the developmentalist premises from which the notions
32 of underdevelopment and Third World emerged, the term area studies itself is
33 nothing but a general description of many heterogeneous fields of research with
34 a geographic positioning (Latin America, Middle East, Asia, Africa, etc.), often
35 involving the disciplines of history, political science, sociology, anthropology, and
36 foreign languages, in their origin. As Arturo Escobar has argued, developmental-
37 ism transformed the relationship between rich and poor countries, and the worlds
38 understanding of what social transformations were expected from all national
229
cuan_1097 can2008.cls March 9, 2011 11:48
2 combined to transform them into a seemingly endangered species. The strategic and
3 economic forces that had sustained and developed area studies during the second
4 half of the 20th century seemed to vanish all at once. These challenges to the core
5 assumptions that had driven areas studies during the Cold War were compounded
6 by neoliberal educational reforms, a process that reordered universities priorities
7 and their modes of funding, threatening programs unable to demonstrate a positive
8 cost-benefit ratio along the lines of business models, and pushing area studies to
9 fund their activities through donations and external grants.
10 These developments led to a series of questionings of the object of study, from
11 resignifying LAS under conditions of globalization, to expressing the apprehension
12 that established social science theories and methods, as well as the traditional
13 humanities approach to cultural production, had become insufficient to the task.
14 Such questions emerged from the transformations taking place in U.S. academic
15 circles, as many native Latin American scholars migrated to U.S. campuses and
16 as interdisciplinary studies prompted many to challenge the theoretical premises
17 underlying the study of distinct and stable areas, with putatively congruent cultural,
18 linguistic, or geographical identities. It was around this time that poststructural-
19 ism, as a language and meaning-based social theory, made its entry, impacting
20 many theories and fields in both the humanities and social sciences. One of the
21 consequences of this overall process was a number of concerted efforts to revisit
22 the nature of what had come to be known as Latin American Studies.8 These
23 developments prompted many LAS practitioners to deploy alternative means of
24 scholarly knowledge production on Latin America, as well as to transform the
25 knowledge practices through which scholars came to understand their object of
26 study.
27 LAS practitioners must rethink their role in the context of the fluid trans-
28 formations of the early 21st century and reposition themselves in regard to these
29 many complex issues. Ironically, whereas many Latin Americanists have been on
30 the cutting edge in the process of questioning area studies and challenging their
31 basic premises as lapsed, biased, or the heritage of outdated American policy in the
32 developing world, the institutions in which they work continue to define depart-
33 ments and disciplines according to these very premises. Area studies are presently
34 being affected once more by financial retrenchment as a consequence of the collapse
35 of the U.S. and global economy in 2008. Therefore, LAS not only need to rethink
36 their structure and composition so as to better respond to the present context but
37 also have to do so with fewer resources and with the threat of even scarcer ones in
38 the future.
231
cuan_1097 can2008.cls March 9, 2011 11:48
2 calling into question the integrationist logic inherent in liberal conceptions of area
3 studies (Rafael 1994:98). The growing participation of diasporic intellectuals in
4 area studies, he further contends, makes it harder to determine where exactly the
5 home of such scholarship lies and who its privileged practitioners or audiences
6 might be (1994:107). The connection between the Latin American immigrant
7 imaginary and that of multigeneration U.S. Latinas/os within institutionalized
8 Latin American and Latina/o studies formations is further highlighted, and at the
9 same time confounded, by the fact that contemporary diasporic humanities faculty
10 teach, in relative terms, literature, politics, anthropology, ethnography, and areas
11 to those from there who are now permanently here and who constantly have
12 to think themselves in relation to those Others who came here earlier, under
13 considerably different conditions (Farred 2003:130).
14 It is this inexorable confounding of here and there in the Latina/o Americas
15 that has spurred some of the most exciting cross-border, interdisciplinary work
16 in recent decades, a third vital force in the decentering and revitalization of LAS.
17 Transmigration and accelerated flows of people, ideas, and capital across the
18 Americas has forced a reimagining of both Latin America and U.S. Latinas/os.
19 Further incorporating the voices and perspectives of Latina/os in the United States
20 and of other historically marginalized groups in the Latina/o Americas therefore
21 is vital to the enterprise of decentering LAS. Indeed, in (historically belated)
22 recognition that Latin America and the Caribbean stretch well into the North of
23 the Americas, that there is no insideoutside, that borders within and without
24 countries in our hemispheres are increasingly fluid, Latina/o studiesdiaspora
25 studies constitute a set of miradas or epistemologies, which should be a requisite to
26 a genuinely revitalized LAS.
27 But as Jonathan Fox, Pedro Cabran and Frances Aparcio rightly insist, we must
28 be acknowledge the distinctive intellectual genealogies, political trajectories, and
29 bureaucratic moorings of LAS and ChicanaPuerto RicanLatina/o studies at U.S.
30 universities in striving to bridge, rather than merge, the two.12 Many contributors
31 to the Forum urge scholars, activists and practitioners alike to move beyond the
32 binary opposition between Latina/o and LAS and analyze the manifold transborder
33 flows and points of intersection, as well as points of tension, between these fields.
34 Given that the United States is already the fourth largest Spanish-speaking nation in
35 the world and in light of large and growing populations of Portuguese and Haitian
36 Creole speakers and indigenous and Afro-descendent migrants from Latin America,
37 a decentered Latina/o American studies would be uniquely poised to promote
38 innovative, policy-relevant knowledge about transmigrations and diasporas.
237
cuan_1097 can2008.cls March 9, 2011 11:48
2 perceived threat to the comfort zone of the status quo. In important respects,
3 the three expressions of resistance within LAS that we experienced in the early
4 21st century are ongoing reactions to this steady undoing of the comfort zone,
5 which began some three decades ago.
6 Within LASA, and in varying degrees within centers of LAS across the United
7 States, the rise, predominance and alleged take over of cultural studies has
8 become a metaphor for the critics summary of what is wrong and corrosive about
9 the transformation we have described here. It also signaled a resistance of some
10 sectors of the social sciences to reincorporate humanities scholars as equal partners,
11 after the surge of the social sciences in the postwar period that led some scholarly
12 sectors to label the humanities as obsolete.
13 Whereas this attitude might have responded in part to the transformation
14 of the social sciences within the United States, it did not correspond to Latin
15 America, a continent that experienced its richest literary and cultural productivity
16 in the second half of the 20th century. Many of the political events and hidden
17 agendas taking place in the hemisphere during that period seemed to be most aptly
18 framed by literary language, in part because the social sciences were dominated
19 by European and American methodological approaches that could not account for
20 the social events unleashed in Latin America during the 1960s until dependency
21 theory, internal colonialism, and theology of liberation, as well as the pedagogy of
22 the oppressed, and an emerging reflection on popular cultures and on the legacy of
23 Western thinking in a heterogeneous and contradictory continent emerged from
24 within. All these lines of thought were combined with the innovative production of
25 literary and popular culture in the 1960s, including boom literature, street theater,
26 the new cinema, and the nueva cancion movement in popular music, to deliver a new
27 understanding of both symbolic production and social imaginaries on the continent,
28 thus offering an original way of understanding cultural reality that would continue
29 into the 1990s.
30 Criticisms of the cultural studies takeover in more recent times have focused
31 variously on the language of scholarly discourse (described as jargon laden and im-
32 penetrable), the expanded objects of study (incl., e.g., forms of popular culture
33 thought to be inconsequential), and perhaps most important, the explicit renun-
34 ciation of disciplinary norms, boundaries and loyalties in favor of transdisciplinary
35 inquiry. Although all three of these alleged ills are indeed potential problems, and
36 no doubt do occur in specific cases, the idea that they accurately describe or encap-
37 sulate cultural studies or poststructural and postcolonial approaches as a whole is
38 preposterous. To the contrary, as universal characterizations they should be read
240
cuan_1097 can2008.cls March 9, 2011 11:48
2 discussion about this vision as a whole, and about each of the five constituent parts,
3 both from those who endorse with our overall message but disagree with certain
4 details, and those who take fundamental issue with us from the start. Rather
5 than detour or diversion, we view this critique and dissent as an indispensable
6 constituent part of the re-visioning project itself, because it facilitates continued
7 innovation, helps avoid rigid orthodoxies, and puts into practice the key principles
8 of intellectual and political pluralism. We insist only that this pluralist dialogue
9 also be power sensitive, beginning with the acute recognition that the driving
10 force behind this vision is a commitment to address deeply ingrained inequities
11 and exclusions, which are simultaneously intellectual problems and sociopolitical
12 realities. Latin American people should not be seen as objects of study by scholars
13 in imperial nations, but as equal partners in knowledge production accomplished
14 through exchange and interaction. In any case, the vision we put forth in this
15 introduction is primarily inductive: an overall panorama that emerges through
16 distillation and synthesis of some 60 commissioned essays for the LASA Forum. In
17 this sense, it is not a projection of a proposal yet to congeal but, rather, a resolute
18 announcement that, amid the heterogeneity, constant debate, and rough edges that
19 come with the vision itself, we are already here!
20 This article puts forth a pointed hypothesis: that the vitality of our field and
21 our collective ability to move beyond the crisis of the 1990s is directly related
22 to the five-part vision summarized above. This hypothesis is a call for extensive
23 further field testing in the many diverse locations where LAS is practiced: Do
24 these five constituent parts indeed seem to be present in places where LAS is
25 thriving? Are they indeed producing theoretical innovation and analytical insight
26 that would not be possible within preexisting LAS paradigms? We also hope that the
27 argument put forth here will generate further reflection on and analysis of each
28 of these parts, to specify their contributions, and to explore more fully their
29 embedded problems and contradictions. This scrutiny is almost sure to generate
30 calls for further development and modification of the vision, which we heartily
31 welcome.
32
33 ABSTRACT
34 This article explains whycontrary to predications of influential scholars and foun-
35
dation representatives in the 1990sLatin American studies (LAS) entered the new
century vibrant and growing rapidly. We posit five realms of critique and innovation
36
from within which, in interaction with traditional strengths of area studies, account
37 for this vibrancy. Because these critiques challenge many inherited premises of LAS,
38 they have faced considerable resistance; the resulting dialogue has made our field more
243
cuan_1097 can2008.cls March 9, 2011 11:48
2 REFERENCES CITED
3 Alvarez, Sonia E., Claudia de Lima Costa, Veronia Feliu, Rebecca Hester, Norma Klahn, and
4 Millie Thayer, ed.
In press Translocalities/Translocalidades: Feminist Politics of Translation in the
5 Latin/a Americas. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
6 Armony, Ariel
2007 El Incierto Rumbo de LASA. LASA Forum 32(2):1112.
7 Bates, R. H.
8 1997a Area Studies and Political Science: Rupture and Possible Synthesis. Africa
Today 44(2):123131.
9 1997b Area Studies and the Discipline: A Useful Controversy? PS: Political Sci-
10 ence and Politics 30(2):166169.
Bulmer-Thomas, Victor, ed.
11 1997 Thirty Years of Latin American Studies in the United Kingdom 19651995.
12 London: Institute of Latin American Studies.
Costa, Claudia de Lima
13 2006 Lost (and Found?) in Translation: Feminisms in Hemispheric Dialogue.
14 Latino Studies 4:6278.
Davila, Arlene
15 1999 Latinizing Culture: Art, Museums, and the Politics of U.S. Multicultural
16 Encompassment. Cultural Anthropology 14(2):180202.
de la Cadena, Marisol
17 2010 Indigenous Cosmopolitics in the Andes: Conceptual Reflections Beyond
18 Politics. Cultural Anthropology 25(2):334370.
Dirlik, Arif
19 1994 The Postcolonial Aura: Third World Criticism in the Age of Global Cap-
20 italism. Critical Inquiry 20(2):328356.
Drake, Paul W., and Lisa Hilbink
21 2004 Latin American Studies: Theory and Practice. In The Politics of Knowl-
22 edge: Area Studies and the Disciplines. D. Szanton, ed. Pp. 127. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
23 Escobar, Arturo
24 1998 Power and Visibility: Development and the Invention and Management of
the Third World. Cultural Anthropology 3(4):428443.
25 Farred, Grant
26 2003 Crying for Argentina: The Branding and Unbranding of Area Studies.
Nepantla 4(1):121132.
27 Jonathan Fox, Pedro Cabran, and Frances Aparcio
28 2006 Bridging Latin American and Latino Studies: Juntos Pero No Revueltos.
LASA Forum 33(3):XXXX. Q3
29 Gibson-Graham, J. K.
30 2004 Area Studies after Poststructuralism. Environment and Planning D: Soci-
ety and Space 36(3):405419.
31 Green, James
32 XXXX Expanding Brazilian Studies in the U.S. LASA Forum XX(X):XXXX. Q4
Hale, Charles R.
33 2006 Activist Research v. Cultural Critique: Indigenous Land Rights and the
34 Contradictions of Politically Engaged Anthropology. Cultural Anthropology
21(1):96120.
35 Harding, Sandra
36 2005 Negotiating with the Poistivist Legacy: New Social Justice Movements
and a Standpoint Politics of Method. In The Politics of Method in the Human
37 Sciences. G. Steinmetz, ed. Pp. 346366. Durham, NC: Duke University
38 Press.
245
cuan_1097 can2008.cls March 9, 2011 11:48
2 Huber, Evelyn S.
3 2007 What LASA Can Do for Political Science. LASA Forum 32(2):67.
Katzenstein, Peter J.
4 2001 Area and Regional Studies in the United States. PS: Political Science and
5 Politics:789791.
Lesser, Jeffrey
6 2007 Centering the Periphery Non-Latin Americanisms. LASA Forum 38(1):
7 78.
Madrid, Raul
8 2007 A Survey of Political Scientists Views on LASA. LASA Forum 32(2):
9 810.
Mallon, Forencia
10 2005 Interdisciplinarity as Border Crossing. LASA Forum 36(3):1516.
11 Mirsepassi, Ali
2002 Area Studies, Globalization, and the Nation-State in Crisis. Nepantla
12 3:547552.
13 Mirsepassi, Ali, Amrita Basu, and Frederick Stirton Weaver, eds.
2003 Localizing Knowledge in a Globalizing World: Recasting the Area Studies
14 Debate. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
15 Montoya, Michael J.
2007 Bioethnic Conscription: Genes, Race, and Mexicana/o Ethnicity in Dia-
16 betes Research. Cultural Anthropology 22(1):94128.
17 Palat, Ravi Arvind
2000 Beyond Orientalism: Decolonizing Asian Studies. Development and Soci-
18 ety 29(2):105135.
19 Rafael, Vicente L.
1994 The Cultures of Area Studies in the United States. Social Text:91111.
20 Red Latinoamericana de Antropologa Juridica (RELAJU)
21 N.d. Historia. http://www.relaju.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=
article&id=2&Itemid=2, accessed November 21, 2010.
22 Ribeiro, Gustavo Lins
23 2006 World Anthropologies. Cosmopolitics for a New Global Scenario in An-
thropology. Critique of Anthropology 26(4):363386.
24 Stokes, Susan C.
25 2007 What Might LASA do to Meet the Needs and Serve the Interests of
Political Scientists? LASA Forum 32(2):1315.
26 Szanton, David L., ed.
27 2004 The Politics of Knowledge: Area Studies and the Disciplines. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
246
cuan_1097 can2008.cls March 9, 2011 11:48
Queries
247
View publication stats