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.
