Pointers for readings (Week 3) - UBC Blogs

10 downloads 48 Views 63KB Size Report
Argentinian historian Tulio Halperín-‐Donghi is a bit long and quite densely ... In class, we will add a third important factor (not covered by Halperín Donghi):.
Hello  everyone,     I  hope  you  are  having  a  great  weekend.     Here  are  some  pointers  about  this  week’s  readings.     For  the  next  two  sessions,  we  will  focus  on  the  period  that  followed  the   independence  of  Latin  American  countries  from  Spain  and  Portugal,  that  is,  roughly   from  the  1820s  to  the  1900s.  We  will  pay  particular  attention  to  the  processes  of   state  formation  and  how  the  position  of  Latin  America  in  the  international  system   influenced  those  trajectories.     On  Tuesday,  we  will  cover  most  of  the  historical  material.  The  reading  by  the   Argentinian  historian  Tulio  Halperín-­‐Donghi  is  a  bit  long  and  quite  densely  packed,   so  I  recommend  that  you  follow  these  instructions  as  you  tackle  the  chapter.  Read   quickly  over  the  details  about  each  country,  don’t  waste  too  much  time  trying  to   pick  up  the  specifics.  I  am  more  interested  in  you  noticing  two  things:       (1) the  ways  in  which  Latin  American  economies  evolved  during  this  period;     (2) how  social  relations  were  transformed  (or  not)  by  the  Wars  of  Independence   in  the  early  19th  century.       In  class,  we  will  add  a  third  important  factor  (not  covered  by  Halperín  Donghi):   (3)  the  collapse  of  political  authority  during  the  Wars  of  Independence  and  the   centrifugal  tendencies  that  pushed  politics  away  from  the  national  centers  and  into   the  provinces,  strengthening  local  strongmen,  caudillos,  warlords,  and  oligarchs.     Since  the  chapter  does  not  have  clear  sections,  here  is  a  roadmap  about  how  to  read   it  more  efficiently:     1. The  first  few  pages  are  about  the  transformation  of  Latin  American   economies,  especially  international  trade,  after  the  Independence  Wars.   SKIM  THIS  SECTION,  BUT  notice  the  role  of  the  British  during  the  first   half  of  the  19th  century.  There  is  a  lot  of  detail  about  how  the  different   productive  sectors  evolved  during  the  period  (mining,  cattle-­‐raising,   agriculture,  urban  crafts,  etc.).  As  you  read,  try  to  relate  this  to  Lange,   Mahoney  &  Vom  Hau’s  argument  about  the  “great  reversal”  in  the   economic  paths  of  Spanish  American  countries.  Here  we  see  the  take-­‐off   of  certain  countries  (Argentina,  Uruguay,  Chile)  and  the  stagnation  of   others.   2. Read  carefully  from  p.  321  to  p.  329.  This  is  where  Halperín  Donghi   explains  the  transformations  in  social  relations  during  the  period.  Pay  close   attention  to  the  ideological  and  juridical  tensions  guiding  these   transformations,  as  well  as  the  constant  requirements  to  obtain  labour.   3. From  p.  329  to  the  end,  Halperín  Donghi  covers  the  years  between  the  1850s   to  the  1870s,  and  refers  to  them  as  the  “transition  period”.  You  will  also  

notice  here  how  different  countries  begin  to  grow  faster  than  others  and  we   begin  to  see  the  wide  disparities  that  will  continue  all  the  way  to  the  present.   Note  Halperín  Donghi’s  remarks  about  military  conflict  in  the  region   from  p.  334  onwards.  

  On  Tuesday,  we  will  tackle  another  classical  work  in  historical  sociology:  Centeno’s   piece  on  “Blood  and  Debt”.    We  will  work  through  the  argument  and  the  use  of   evidence  in  class,  but  make  sure  that  you  understand  how  the  theory  works.  In   particular,  try  to  reflect  on  four  points:     1) What  is  the  causal  logic  of  the  argument?  That  is  to  say:  How  exactly  is  it   hypothesized  that  war  contributes  to  the  formation  of  strong  state   institutions?   2) In  what  ways  do  the  Latin  American  cases  challenge  the  “bellicist”   theory  of  state  formation  crafted  around  the  European  experience?   Why  is  it  that  warfare  didn’t  seem  to  have  the  same  effects  in  Latin   America  as  in  Europe?   3) Are  you  convinced  by  Centeno’s  use  of  evidence?   4) What  are  the  similarities  between  Lange,  Mahoney  and  Vom  Hau’s   argument  with  Centeno’s  theory?  Would  they  generally  agree  or   disagree  with  one  another?  On  which  points?     The  book  assigned  for  those  of  you  planning  to  submit  the  book  review  this   week  is  Centeno’s  Blood  and  Debt,  where  he  presents  a  full-­‐blown  theory  of  state   formation  in  Latin  America,  based  on  these  original  insights.     I  look  forward  to  our  discussion!     Best,   a.