Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T16:23:06.432Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political Science and Latin American Studies: A Discipline in Search of a Region

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2022

John D. Martz
John D. Martz*
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

“For Long it has Been the Conventional Wisdom—Repeated ad nauseum without ever an attempt at careful empirical demonstration—that the quality of Latin American studies is the lowest of all area scholarship. This judgment is clearly false for anthropology, history, and language and literature. How true is it for political science, one of the most maligned of the disciplines?” Thus, the question posed by a leading political scientist during the disciplinary soul-searching which followed in the wake of the Camelot affair. Perhaps none of the disciplines concerned with Latin American studies have been so subjected to self-conscious evaluations and assessments in recent years. While much has represented professional cocktail-gossip and conventioneering punditry, it has generally reflected the less than edifying overview of Merle Kling in the early 1960's. Countless political science graduate students with Latin American interests have read his assessment:

Type
Topical Review
Information
Latin American Research Review , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , Spring 1971 , pp. 73 - 100
Copyright
Copyright © 1971 by the University of Texas Press

References

Notes

1. Kalman H. Silvert, “American Academic Ethics and Social Research Abroad: The Lesson of Project Camelot,” in Irving Louis Horowitz (ed.), The Rise and Fall of Project Camelot: Studies in the Relationship between Social Science and Practical Politics (Cambridge 1967), 98.

2. Merle Kling, “The State of Research on Latin America: Political Science,” in Charles Wagley (ed.), Social Science Research on Latin America (New York, 1964), 168.

3. Rosendo A. Gomez, The Study of Latin American Politics in University Programs in the United States (Tucson, 1967), 4.

4. Ibid., 5.

5. James Bryce, South America; Obserations and Impressions (New York, 1913).

6. Charles Wagley, “Introduction,” in Charles Wagley (ed.), Social Science Research on Latin America (New York, 1964), 4-7.

7. Herman G. James and Paul A. Martin, The Republics of Latin America (New York, 1923).

8. Paul S. Reinsch, “Parliamentary Government in Chile,” The American Political Science Review, 3:1 (1969).

9. See John H. Latané, The United States and Latin America (New York, 1920), and Joseph B. Lockey, Pan-Americanism, Its Beginnings (New York, 1926).

10. William Whatley Pierson, Hispanic-American History: A Syllabus (Chapel Hill, 1926), 3.

11. Kling, in Wagley (ed.), op. cit., 171.

12. See Herman G. James, The Constitutional System of Brazil (Washington, D.C., 1923); Leo S. Rowe, The Federal System of the Argentine Republic (Washington, D.C., 1921); and Graham Stuart, The Governmental System of Peru (Washington, D.C., 1925).

13. Gomez, op. cit., 11.

14. Irving Leonard, “A Survey of Personnel and Activities in Latin American Aspects of the Humanities and Social Sciences at Twenty Universities of the United States,” Notes on Latin American Studies, 1 (April 1943), 45.

15. This statement, emanating from a 1947 panel of Latin American experts meeting under the auspices of the Committee on World Area Research of the Social Science Research Council, was reported in Charles Wagley, Area Research and Training: A Conference Report on the Study of World Areas (New York: SSRC Pamphlet No. 6, 1948), 39.

16. Russell H. Fitzgibbon (ed.), The Constitutions of the Americas (Chicago, 1948).

17. Austin F. MacDonald, Latin American Politics and Government (New York, 1949).

18. Miguel Jorrín, Government of Latin America (New York, 1953).

19. William Whatley Pierson and Federico G. Gil, Latin American Governments (New York, 1957).

20. William S. Stokes, Latin American Politics (New York, 1959); and Harold E. Davis (ed.), Government and Politics in Latin America (New York, 1958).

21. Harry Kantor, Patterns of Politics and Political Systems in Latin America (Chicago, 1969).

22. Rosendo A. Gomez, Government and Politics in Latin America (New York, 1960).

23. Karl M. Schmitt and David D. Burks, Evolution or Chaos: Dynamics of Latin American Government and Politics (New York, 1963).

24. Robert J. Alexander, Today's Latin America (Garden City, 1962); also Alexander, Latin American Politics and Government (New York, 1965).

25. Joseph Maier and Ricahrd W. Weatherhead (eds.), Politics of Change in Latin America (New York, 1964).

26. James L. Busey, Latin America: Political Institutions and Processes (New York, 1964).

27. Martin C. Needler, Latin American Politics in Perspective (Princeton, 1963).

28. Quoted by Sigmund Neumann, “Comparative Politics; A Half-Century Appraisal,” The Journal of Politics, 19:3 (Aug., 1957), 369.

29. Roy C. Macridis, The Study of Comparative Government (New York, 1955), 7-11.

30. Gabriel A. Almond, “Comparative Political Systems,” The Journal of Politics, 18:3 (Aug., 1956), 409.

31. Gomez, op. cit., 17-18.

32. Kling, from Wagley (ed.), op. cit., 189.

33. George I. Blanksten, “Political Groups in Latin America,” The American Political Science Review, 53:1 (March 1959), 126.

34. Gabriel A. Almond and James S. Coleman (eds.), The Politics of the Developing Areas (Princeton, 1960).

35. Seymour M. Lipset, Political Man; The Social Bases of Politics (Garden City, 1960).

36. Lucian W. Pye (ed.), Communications and Political Development (Princeton, 1963); Joseph La Palombara (ed.), Bureaucracy and Political Development (Princeton, 1963); and James S. Coleman (ed.), Education and Political Development (Princeton, 1966).

37. See Lucian W. Pye and Signey Verba (eds.), Political Culture and Political Development (Princeton, 1965); also Joseph La Palombara and Myron Weiner (eds.), Political Parties and Political Development (Princeton, 1966).

38. Lucian W. Pye, “The Non-Western Political Process,” The Journal of Politics, 20:3 (Aug., 1958), 468-86.

39. Edward Shils, Political Development in the New States (The Hague, 1962), 10.

40. Dankwart A. Rustow, “New Horizons for Comparative Politics,” World Politics, 9:4 (July 1957), 546.

41. John D. Martz, “The Place of Latin America in the Study of Comparative Politics,” The Journal of Politics, 28:1 (Feb., 1966), 77.

42. John P. Gillin, “Ethos Components in Modern Latin American Culture,” American Anthropologist, 57 (1955), 488-500.

43. Charles Wagley and Marvin Harris, “A Typology of Latin American Subcultures,” American Anthropologist, 57 (1955), 428-51.

44. Wagley, The Latin American Tradition: Essays on the Unity and the Diversity of Latin American Culture (New York, 1968).

45. Almond, “Comparative Political Systems,” op. cit., 391-409.

46. For a critique of Beer's views, see Young C. Kim, “The Concept of Political Culture in Comparative Politics,” The Journal of Politics, 26:2 (May 1964), 324-31.

47. Gabriel A. Almond and Sidney Verba, The Civic Culture (Princeton, 1963).

48. Gabriel A. Almond and G. Bingham Powell, Jr., Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach (Boston, 1966), cf. pp. 42-73.

49. Published in La Palombara and Weiner (eds.), op. cit.

50. Further explication appears in Lucian W. Pye, Aspecas of Political Development (Boston, 1966), esp. pp. 89-113.

51. Donald R. Matthews and James W. Prothro, Negroes and the New Southern Politics (New York, 1966), 219; also discussions in chs. 9 and 16, pp. 237-65 and 469-83.

52. Francisco José Moreno, Legitimacy and Stability in Latin America: A Study of Chilean Political Culture (New York, 1969). After the completion of this essay, Stanford University Press published Richard R. Fagen's The Transformation of Political Culture in Cuba (1969). Fagen's conception of political culture is broadly similar but by no means identical to earlier treatments in the discipline, and in the context of his study stresses Cuban systemic changes in the areas of education and civic participation.

53. Louis J. Snyder (ed.), The Dynamics of Nationalism (Princeton, 1964).

54. Gerhard Masur, Nationalism in Latin America: Diversity and Unity (New York, 1966).

55. Arthur P. Whitaker and David C. Jordan, Nationalism in Contemporary Latin America (New York, 1966).

56. Kalman H. Silvert, “Introduction: The Strategy of the Study of Nationalism,” in his edited Expectant Peoples: Nationalism and Development (New York, 1963), 3-38.

57. Richard W. Patch, “Peasantry and National Revolution: Bolivia,” and Frank Bonilla, “A National Ideology for Development: Brazil,” both in ibid., pp. 95-126 and 232-64.

58. Samuel H. Beer, Adam B. Ulam, Herbert J. Spiro, Nicholas Wahl, and Harry Eckstein, Patterns of Government: The Major Political Systems of Europe (New York, 1958).

59. Martin C. Needler (ed.), The Political Systems of Latin America (Pirnceton, 1964).

60. Ben G. Burnett and Kenneth F. Johnson (eds.), Political Forces in Latin America: Dimensions in the Quest for Stability (Belmont, 1968).

61. Alexander T. Edelmann, Latin American Government and Politics; The Dynamics of a Revolutionary Society (Homewood, 1965).

62. Charles W. Anderson, Politics and Economic Change in Latin America: the Governing of Restless Nations (Princeton, 1967).

63. Federico G. Gil, The Political System of Chile (Boston, 1966).

64. L. Vincent Padgett, The Mexican Political System (Boston, 1966).

65. Philippe C. Schmitter, “New Strategies for the Comparative Analysis of Latin American Politics,” Latin American Research Review, 4:2 (Summer 1969), 83.

66. Ibid., 103.

67. Richard M. Morse, “The Strange Career of ‘Latin American Studies,‘ ” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 356 (Nov., 1964), 112.

68. Robert E. Scott, “Nation-Building in Latin America,” in Karl W. Deutsch and William J. Foltz (eds.), Nation-Building (New York, 1963), 73-84.

69. Kling, in Wagley (ed.), op. cit., 195.

70. See his memorandum in ibid., 195-96.

71. Samuel P. Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies (New Haven and London, 1968).

72. For comments on the Fitzgibbon studies see Gomez, op. cit., 20. A new version was begun in late 1969 by Profesor Fitzgibbon with the collaboration of Kenneth F. Johnson, who will continue the survey following Fitzgibbon's retirement.

73. See Roger Vekemans and J. L. Segundo, “Essay of a Socio-economic Typology of the Latin American Countries,” in Egbert de Vries and José Medina Echavarría (eds.), Social Aspects of Economic Development in Latin America (Paris: UNESCO, 1963); and Alfred Stepan, “Political Development Theory: the Latin American Experience,” Journal of International Affairs, 20:2 (1966), 223-34.

74. Douglas Chalmers, “Crisis and Change in Latin America,” Journal of International Affairs, 23:1, (1969), 76-89.

75. D. P. Bwy, “Political Instability in Latin America: Cross-Cultural Test of a Causal Model,” Latin American Research Review, 3:2 (Spring 1968), 17-89. Also see comments and criticisms in ibid., 67-87.

76. Kenneth F. Johnson, “Causal Factors in Latin American Political Instability,” The Western Political Quarterly, 27:3 (Sept., 1964), 432-46; Ernest A. Duff and John F. McCamant, “Measuring Social and Political Requirements for System Stability in Latin America,” The American Political Science Review 62:4 (Dec., 1968), 125-44.

77. Peter G. Snow, “A Scalogram Analysis of Political Development,” The American Behavioral Scientist, 9:7 (March 1966), 36.

78. For his fullest statement, see Martin C. Needler, Political Development in Latin America: Instability, Violence and Evolutionary Change (New York, 1968).

79. Schmitter, loc cit.

80. Ralph Braibanti, “Comparative Political Analytics Reconsidered,” The Journal of Politics, 30:1 (Feb., 1968), 25-66.

81. The journals which he listed were The American Political Science Review, The Journal of Politics, Western Political Quarterly, World Politics, and The Political Science Quarterly.

82. Gomez, op. cit.

83. These were The American Political Science Review, The Journal of Politics, Hispanic American Historical Review, Western Political Quarterly, Journal of Inter-American Studies, and World Politics.

84. Peter Ranis, “Trends in Research in Latin American Politics: 1961-1967,” Latin American Research Review, 3:3 (Summer 1968), 71-78. Ranis examined the listings in The American Political Science Review (1961-67), US Department of State, External Research: American Republics (1964-67), Latin American Research Review (Fall 1965 to Fall 1967), The Dissertation Abstracts (1961-67), and Latin American Research Review Supplement, 2:2 (Spring 1967).

85. Charles Andrain and David E. Apter, “Comparative Government: Developing New Nations,” The Journal of Politics, 30:2 (May 1968), 372-417.

86. Ibid., 415.

87. Ibid., 416.

88. Braibanti, op. cit., 49.

89. Dankwart A. Rustow, “Modernization and Comparative Politics: Prospects in Research and Theory,” Comparative Politics, 1:1 (Oct., 1968), 39.

90. Ibid., 51.

91. Joseph La Palombara, “Macrotheories and Microapplications in Comparative Politics: A Widening Chasm,” Comparative Politics, 1:1 (Oct., 1968), 54.

92. Kling, in Wagley (ed.), op. cit., 192-94.

93. Maurice Duverger, Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State, tr. by Barbara and Robert North (New York, 1963), xiii.