United States studies in Latin American history, since their emergence as a distinct body of literature in the early years of the twentieth century, have been much more tradition-bound than their counterparts in United States and European history. More descriptive than analytical, they concentrated on diplomatic, military, political, and institutional history. They were legalistic and elitist in their approach, a reflection in part of their subject matter. But many other factors accounted for their traditionalism. Narration and description seemed justifiable first steps in a field practically devoid of serious scholarly attention. The dearth of research aids and the accessibility of certain types of source materials influenced the nature of the work undertaken. Less tangible factors were also present. It was easy to justify studies about former Spanish territories later incorporated into the United States since, after all, such studies were really a part of “American” history, and a “romantic” part at that. A case could also be made for the study of Spain and her empire in the new world. Once Europe's greatest military power and master of a world-wide empire, Catholic, aristocratic Spain subsequently became the rival of England, source of the dominant liberal, protestant culture of the United States. Moreover, as the United States itself began to acquire overseas colonies, was it not important to assess more objectively the Spanish experience with empire? But what was the importance of studying the dismal and chaotic post-independence history of Spain's former colonies in America? Perhaps concerned about the reception of their work in an area many people considered marginal, United States historians of Latin America produced impeccable scholarship on themes of proven acceptability. Working largely in isolation from United States social scientists, unlike their colleagues in United States history, they remained remote from the fascinating tools and concepts being developed in other disciplines. Moreover, although many first-rate scholars contributed works of solid worth and enduring value, the field as a whole seems to have failed to attract the most imaginative and original minds.

During the past decade—more precisely during the last five to seven years—the increased use of urban guerrilla warfare and terrorism have characterized the activities of many revolutionary groups in the less developed world. High-lighted by the olympic assassinations of 1972, this phenomenon has also been evident in various African and Asian states. It is in Latin America, however, that the change from the traditional rural base for guerrilla operations to an urban environment has been most pronounced. The years from 1962 to 1967 saw many Latin American insurgents copying the Cuban revolutionary model, with its emphasis on rural guerrilla operations and the peasantry as the ultimate motive force, but recent years have seen an equally strong pull toward either purely urban insurgency or a more balanced strategy according equal importance to both rural and urban activities. In either case, the identifiable shift away from a totally rural guerrilla strategy for most Latin American revolutionary groups seems an established fact.

Although written a decade apart, these quotations reflect recent research focusing on the inter-relationship, or lack thereof, between the functional and genetic aspects of the Latin American militaries and their roles in the development process. Generally, the literature has attempted to interweave the military with its role as a subsystem in the larger political system, or it has centered upon the sociopolitical origins or institutional life style of the military establishment. Problematics confronting social scientists have concerned the rationale for military intervention in the political process, the motivational aspects and the divergent variables reflecting the possibilities for the future. The term “military intervention” as used by most social scientists gives a false impression, for it implies that the military operates from outside the political system, when in fact it is recognized as a principal subsystem in most Latin American nations. Throughout this article, therefore, the term ‘military intervention’ is intended to connote an active involvement in the political process by the military establishment functioning from within the overall political system.

One of the most incompletely developed areas of the social sciences in the study of Latin America is the field of public administration. As the focus of external studies of Latin America, public administration suffers from a paucity of attention, and internally in Latin America, the subject has lagged behind other branches of political science in development.

Many social scientists working today in Latin American studies are skeptical, if not hostile, to the notion of incorporating psychological theory and methodology in their research. Some contend that studies of individual personality formation, while perhaps inherently fascinating and certainly of professional interest to the psychologist, contribute little to our greater understanding of Latin American society. Social behavior and social systems, others argue, are wholly explainable in terms of structural-materialist-power factors. Consequently, there is no need for a social psychological approach. Still others view this type of orientation as essentially conservative, an effort to attribute Latin American problems (for example, underdevelopment) to the existence of a “Latin American mind” or a “Latin American personality” (through generally pejorative categories, such as the inability to exert onself).