James William Park. Latin American : A History of Perspectives in the United States, 1870-1965. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1995. xii + 274 pp. $37.50, cloth, ISBN 978-0-8071-1969-3.

Reviewed by Mark T. Berger

Published on H-LatAm (December, 1995)

Since the 1960s, a decade during which Latin mate, race and the Black Legend, "underwent American Studies underwent dramatic consolida‐ some modifcation" with the increasing profes‐ tion and diversifcation, a growing number of sionalization of the study of Latin America by the works of political and intellectual history have 1920s and the relative undermining of North emerged which focus on theories of Latin Ameri‐ American self-regard brought on by the Depres‐ can development in the context of the overall dy‐ sion of the 1930s. However, it was only following namics of inter-American relations.1 This trend the end of the Second World War that what Park has been paralleled by an interest in the role of calls the "traditional interpretation" was super‐ perceptions and values in the formulation and ex‐ seded by "more-complex analyses" (Park, 1995, p. ecution of U.S. policy in the Americas, the study of 4). U.S. attitudes toward Latin America, and an ex‐ Park provides a very useful overview of shift‐ plicit focus on the cultural aspects of inter-Ameri‐ ing U.S. perspectives towards Latin American 'un‐ can relations.2 A recent study by James William derdevelopment' from 1870 to the 1960s, and of Park, a San Diego Community College historian, the cultural antecedents of . can be located at the crossroads of these trends. At the same time, this review questions the book's His new book is an examination of North Ameri‐ analytical framework and the interpretation of can perspectives on 'underdevelopment' in Latin some of the key events and trends in inter-Ameri‐ America between 1870 and 1965. Park makes can relations such as the . (I clear at the outset that he seeks "to identify the should note at the outset that I am the author of a salient interpretations of Latin American under‐ new book which covers somewhat similar terrain, development, trace their evolution and relate but does so from a very diferent politico-intellec‐ them to the emergence in the 1960s of conficting tual position). A major weakness of Park's book is theories of development" (Park, 1995, p. 6). Park its overarching assumption that greater contact seeks to catalogue what he argues is a "consistent between North and South, and more information and enduring pattern" of North American "dis‐ about Latin America can, or should, lead to in‐ dain toward the peoples and cultures of Latin creased understanding and sympathy throughout America" which fowed from "(i)gnorance, misin‐ the Americas. For example, at the end of his book formation, an ethnocentric perspective, and racial he suggests that, ethnocentrism has "hindered a bias". This pattern of disdain, which explained the fair-minded assessment of the peoples and cul‐ lack of 'progress' in Latin America in terms of cli‐ tures of Latin America" for many years, but is con‐ H-Net Reviews fdent that the "gradual spread" of a "multi-cultur‐ avoid the power relations which have shaped the al perspective" from the 1960s onwards "may fur‐ history of inter-American relations and the way in ther constrain the ethnocentric infuence of U.S. which North American knowledge about 'under‐ attitudes toward foreign cultures" (Park, 1995. p. development' in Latin America has been constant‐ 236). More specifcally, his analysis of the profes‐ ly reproduced in the context of unequal power re‐ sionalization of the study of Latin America clearly lations. There is little or no exploration in Park's assumes that the appearance of a growing num‐ work of the way in which the various historical ber of 'specialists' has had a benefcial impact on and contemporary explanations for 'underdevel‐ U.S. perspectives, infuencing ofcial and popular opment' in Latin America serve not so much as commentary on Latin America to become, in his factual observations but as elements in a wider words, more "balanced" and helping North Ameri‐ series of discourses via which 'Latin America' is cans pay more attention to what he calls "the managed.4 In contrast to Park's analysis which Latin American point of view" (Park, 1995, p. 4). sees the history of U.S. perspectives on 'underde‐ The rise and growth of the professional study of velopment' in Latin America as a history of the Latin America has certainly been part of a wider uneven, but gradual, increase in knowledge and increase in the quantity and sophistication of 'in‐ understanding this review starts from the formation' about Latin America. However, the premise that the dominant North American per‐ professional study of Latin America has never spectives on Latin America have served, and con‐ been as autonomous from ofcial concerns and tinue to serve, primarily to complement inter- commentary as Park's approach implies (particu‐ American power relations and elite eforts to larly up to the 1960s which is the period covered manage the disruptive and uneven process of cap‐ in his book) and Latin American studies as a italist development in the Americas. Having estab‐ whole remains embedded in the projection of U.S. lished Park's overall perspective and the key ele‐ power in the Americas. Nevertheless, Park es‐ ments of my critique, the following review article chews the "more-complex issue" of the relation‐ will be devoted to a more detailed summary and ship between North American "perceptions" of evaluation of 'Latin American Underdevelop‐ Latin America and "the formulation of U.S. policy" ment'. (Park, 1995, p. 4), implying that it is possible to I) 'Backwardness' in Latin America: Race Cli‐ talk about U.S. perspectives on 'underdevelop‐ mate, and the Hispanic Legacy 1870-1921 ment' in Latin America without engaging with the Taking the U.S. controversy over the annexa‐ "complex" relationship between North American tion of the Dominican Republic as his starting perspectives and U.S. power.3 point, Park emphasized the "absence of solid in‐ In a wider sense his book rests on the as‐ formation" and the way in which "scanty knowl‐ sumption that there need not be any serious con‐ edge" was fltered through "distortions imposed fict of interest between the governments and by and ethnocentrism" (Park, 1995. pp. peoples of the U.S. and of Latin America, and that 23-24). Before 1870, and for many years after, the the Americas as a whole can 'develop' in the con‐ "common portrait" of Latin America which em‐ text of existing inter-American power relations. anated from North America rested on the Black This liberal Pan American conception of 'progress' Legend and the image of a "slothful, priest-ridden and an avoidance of the whole question of power population of inferior, mixed breeds perpetuating relations puts serious limits on the overall analy‐ the nonproductive ways of the colonial era and sis which is ofered. It is very hard for this review‐ stagnating in tropical languor amid undeveloped er to see how any efort to understand U.S. per‐ abundance" (Park, 1995. pp. 32-33). By the begin‐ spectives on 'development' in Latin America, can

2 H-Net Reviews ning of the twentieth century, the U.S. image of points in particular to the University of California Latin America, fowed from an "intellectual con‐ (Berkeley) and the University of Pennsylvania, text" which rested on a "prideful awareness of ter‐ while mentioning that William R. Shepherd (Co‐ ritorial and economic expansion together with lumbia University), Edward Gaylord Bourne and rising nationalism, Anglo-Saxon 'racial' pride, So‐ Hiram Bingham (Yale), William S. Robertson (Uni‐ cial Darwinism, and a sense of mission and des‐ versity of Illinois) and Leo S. Rowe (University of tiny" (Park, 1995. p. 46). The U.S. was clearly a ris‐ Pennsylvania) were all pioneers in the teaching of ing "world power" by 1900, at the same time as courses on Latin American history and politics. Latin America was seen to be trapped in a condi‐ Park argues that the "practical consequences" of tion of "turbulent backwardness"; however, in the the "professionalization" of the study of Latin context of limited U.S. "expertise" on Latin Ameri‐ America was that over time "much of the misin‐ ca, there appeared to be "little concern over this formation" that characterized North American great disparity", and Latin American 'backward‐ "commentary" on the region was eventually chal‐ ness' was generally perceived in North America as lenged, but what he regards as a "corrective if "it were the natural order of things". He goes on process" took "decades" to produce results. Fur‐ to note that the dramatic increase in the projec‐ thermore, professional Latin American specialists tion of U.S. power in Latin America between the themselves often manifested the "long-standing turn of the century and the beginning of the 1920s and deeply engrained prejudices of the larger cul‐ encouraged considerable increase in "informa‐ ture", and, according to Park, "even when" they tion"; however, the "information" was of a poor were "on the right track they often failed to ad‐ quality and the perspectives on 'development' did dress the nonacademic audience" (Park, 1995. pp. not alter signifcantly between the turn of the cen‐ 71-72). More broadly Park argues that between tury and the 1920s (Park, 1995. pp. 62-63).5 Park's 1870 and 1921 the powerful "negative" and "dis‐ analysis fails to draw out the possibility of a con‐ torted perceptions" of the region which emanated nection between "greater hemispheric intrusion" from North America had not altered substantially, on the part of the U.S. and the continuation and while a "corps of regional specialists", with the even strengthening of negative North American necessary linguistic training, to study Latin Amer‐ perceptions of the region. The way in which the ican history and culture, and "an empathy for its U.S. was efectively operating as a colonial power peoples" based on "extended residence there", in the Caribbean and beyond in the context of a had not yet emerged. However, he was confdent global era of colonialism and racial explanations that a move in the direction of the "ordered, schol‐ for human 'backwardness' and 'progress' is signif‐ arly study of Latin America" had been embarked icant. Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence upon, even if the infuence of increased scholar‐ (the history of the last 500 years in the Americas, ship and information on North American "public for example) to suggest that increased contact be‐ perceptions was not yet evident" (Park, 1995. pp. tween cultures can lead, among other things, to 98-99). increased confict and heightened conceptions of Here, again, Park assumes that increased U.S. superiority and inferiority rather than greater co‐ involvement in Latin America (and the emer‐ operation, empathy and understanding.6 gence of the professional study of Latin America) After the turn of the century, against the back‐ should, or ought to, lead to greater U.S. informa‐ drop of U.S. expansion into Latin America, and in tion about and understanding of the region. How‐ the context of increased "popular interest" in the ever, it can be argued that any and all knowledge region, Park notes that the basis for the "formal produced in the context of both U.S. politico-mili‐ study" of Latin America was established. He tary and economic expansion into Latin America,

3 H-Net Reviews and the related trend towards the professionaliza‐ collection of dependencies. Rowe's career trajecto‐ tion of the study of Latin America, in the period ry fowed from and worked in direct complicity up to 1921 (and after), was produced in the con‐ with U.S. politico-military and economic infuence text of power relations that precluded a North in the region. And Rowe's perspective on Latin American discovery of an authentic 'Latin Ameri‐ America, like wider North American perspectives ca' which existed beneath the many layers of dis‐ on the region in this period cannot easily be sepa‐ dain and prejudice. A key aspect of the very con‐ rated from government policy and the projection stitution of the professional study of Latin Ameri‐ of U.S. power into Latin America in the frst two ca was the development of strong links between decades of the twentieth century.7 academics, private foundations and the State De‐ II) The Coming of : The partment or another branch of the U.S. govern‐ Great Depression, the Good Neighbor Policy and ment, at the very time when U.S. politico-military the Second World War 1921-1945 and economic expansion into Latin America was Although the dominant explanations for Latin on the increase. Many early Latin American spe‐ America's 'underdevelopment' continued to rest cialists emerged from, and/or spent at least part of on race, climate and the Hispanic legacy into the their career in, government service. A Latin 1920s, Park emphasizes that it was in this decade American specialist who exemplifed the close re‐ that these approaches were frst seriously chal‐ lationship between the academy, the government lenged by scientists, intellectuals and radical jour‐ and private foundations in this period was Leo S. nalists. At the same time, he argues that more sig‐ Rowe, Professor of Political Science at the Univer‐ nifcantly still, there was an increased "fow of in‐ sity of Pennsylvania. Rowe, who Park cites in formation" on Latin America which was "more passing as a pioneer in the teaching of Latin evenhanded", of a higher quality and "more re‐ American history and politics, was well connected fective of the Latin American point of view". Fur‐ in government circles and was very sympathetic thermore, U.S. policy in the region in the 1920s with U.S. policy in Latin America. He served as the was the subject of much more debate than previ‐ Director General of the Pan-American Union from ously and an increased number of North Ameri‐ 1920 until 1946 (the Pan American Union was the can commentators called for "greater understand‐ direct organizational predecessor to the Organiza‐ ing" of the region's "problems", while pointing to tion of American States, which was founded in the need for more "tolerance". Park goes on to 1948) and as President of the American Academy note that a growing number of reprints and trans‐ of Political and for almost thirty lations of Latin American articles began to turn years (1902 to 1930). Rowe's most well known up in U.S. newspapers and journals, emphasizing book was The United States and Porto Rico, which that this refected a "trend toward more-balanced grew out of his work for the U.S. government in reporting". He argues further that the higher pro‐ Puerto Rico at the beginning of the century. In it fle given to "the Latin American perspective" by he characterized U.S. expansion into the circum- the 1920s facilitated "a more balanced and in‐ Caribbean as "inevitable", and the countries there formed public opinion" in North America (Park, as "natural economic dependencies" of the United 1995. pp. 100-101, 108-111).8 At the same time, he States, emphasizing that the North American em‐ takes the view that there was "more continuity brace had the potential to provide the region with than discontinuity" in U.S. descriptions of and pre‐ a level of "prosperity" which it had not known scriptions for Latin America (Park, 1995. pp. since the mid-1800s. He also argued that the U.S. 113-115). The rise of scientifc racism in this peri‐ could learn from the European colonial powers in od reinforced more popular conceptions of race, order to deal more efectively with its growing

4 H-Net Reviews and "racial factors" remained crucial to the domi‐ tary", which had become, by the end of the 1930s, nant perspective which assumed "that the inferi‐ "a fascination for all things Latin American". This ority of the great bulk of Latin America's popula‐ was apparent in the growing popularity of Latin tion--Indians, Negroes, and mixed races--was a American dance, fashion and music along with major" and "lasting obstacle to progress" (Park, movies which pursued "Latin American themes" 1995. pp. 118-119). However, a small, but growing not to mention, the increase in tourism, cultural "countercurrent against scientifc racism" gained exchanges and "an explosion of information" in greater currency by the 1930s under the leader‐ which overwhelmingly negative Latin American ship of cultural anthropologists such as Franz stereotypes (which had been a standard of Holly‐ Boas, not to mention infuential academics and wood flm-making) were increasingly superseded journalists such as John Dewey and Walter Lipp‐ by more deferential and culturally-sensitive mann (Park, 1995. pp. 122-123). More generally, stereotypes. Park also notes the increase in col‐ Park draws attention to the emergence in the lege- and university-level courses on Latin Ameri‐ 1920s of an increasingly technical interest in solu‐ ca and the growing role of professional Latin tions to Latin America's 'problems' (he points to Americanists. He observes that, by the 1920s the the advisory work of Edwin Walter Kemmerer, an "formal study" of Latin America, an important ele‐ from Princeton University, who ad‐ ment in the "ultimate shaping" of North American vised fve Andean governments on economic poli‐ "attitudes", was proceeding at a steady, but "grad‐ cy between the early 1920s and the early 1930s) ual pace". And Park concludes that a "small but and emphasizes that the increasingly thorough growing corps of regional specialists" had ap‐ examination of issues such as foreign investment peared by the 1930s, and a number of them were and land reform was indicative of a shift away active in eforts to "inform public opinion". In his from the "highly generalized views" of earlier discussion of the 1930s Park draws particular at‐ decades towards "specialization" and "more-com‐ tention to Herbert E. Bolton, president of the plex analysis". Nevertheless, at the beginning of American Historical Association in 1932, and his the 1930s, the North American public was still in‐ eforts to publicise and popularise his ideas about diferent to, and disdainful of, Latin America, and the "common history" of the Americas. Park notes race, climate, and the Hispanic legacy, were still that during the 1920s and 1930s at which time the most regularly deployed explanations for Bolton was head of the history department at the Latin American 'underdevelopment' (Park, 1995. University of California, Berkeley, he produced pp. 127, 130-131). numerous books, while the number of graduate As Park notes, the Great Depression and the students who did Latin American history topics onset of World War II were central to shifts in U.S. under his supervision numbered in the "hun‐ policy toward Latin America and the re-defnition dreds". According to Park, Bolton's various of inter-American relations. In this context the achievements "all had lasting and widespread in‐ Good Neighbor policy "brought unprecedented" fuence among Latin American historians, not U.S. "attention" to the region and worked to "fash‐ only on perceptions of the Spanish borderlands ion a more cooperative hemispheric relationship". but also in acceptance of his thesis that the Ameri‐ Although, according to Park, race, culture and cli‐ cas share a common historical experience" (Park, mate remained major factors in North American 1995. pp. 112-113, 130-132, 140-143). explanations of Latin American 'underdevelop‐ It can be argued that Park overstates the sig‐ ment', this period was also characterized by the nifcance of Bolton and the long term importance "remarkably tolerant, even benevolent, tone" of a of his work as a result of his assumption that pro‐ growing amount of North American "commen‐ fessional Latin Americanists were involved in a

5 H-Net Reviews cumulative, and an almost inherently progressive, supervised 350 master's degrees and 105 doctor‐ process of knowledge production. Bolton's case ates, and ffty-four of the latter did their work in for a unitary and comparative approach to the Latin American history, while over forty of them history of the Americas--which emphasized the pursued academic careers), produced a large hemisphere's common colonial origins, the ongo‐ number of books, and wrote numerous articles ing transplantation of culture from , the for scholarly and popular journals, Bolton was exploitation and marginalization of the indige‐ not regarded, even by some of his contempo‐ nous peoples, the plundering of the natural re‐ raries, as a particularly gifted historian. While sources, the emergence of, and competition be‐ Berkeley emerged, under Bolton's guidance, as an tween, new nations, and what was believed to be institutional focus for a nascent Latin American a shared and ongoing struggle for political stabili‐ studies profession, Bolton was perceived as a ty and economic progress--ultimately had a very "mass producer" of PhDs, and many of his stu‐ limited impact. Although Bolton's call for Pan dents found it hard to get academic jobs, particu‐ American history was favorably received in many larly at the important eastern and northern uni‐ quarters, and meshed well with the Good Neigh‐ versities. Although Bolton's contribution to the bor policy, interest in the unitary and/or compara‐ historical profession was acknowledged with his tive study of the history of the Americas implied election to the post of president of the American by what became know as the Bolton Theory faded Historical Association in the early 1930s, Berke‐ after 1945. Bolton's failure to generate much ley's re-emergence as a major national center for scholarly research on the unitary/comparative Latin American research in the 1960s, owed little history of the Americas was a result of the contin‐ to Bolton and a great deal to the politico-economic ued strength of the conventional demarcation be‐ dynamics of the . Berkeley's earlier Latin tween the study of U.S. history and the study of American reputation appears to have often gone Latin American history. At the same time, Bolton unnoticed and unmentioned by a new generation focused primarily on the colonial history of the of Latin American specialists, many of whom per‐ Americas. And as the independence era in North ceived Bolton as something of an "embarrass‐ American and Latin American history gained im‐ ment".10 In the early 1960s, Richard Morse ar‐ portance for U.S. historians, Bolton's signifcance gued that Latin American studies prior to World declined. After 1945 the colonial history of North War II was "a faintly ridiculous tail to a politico- America was important because of its signifcance commercial kite".11 to the U.S. rise to "national greatness" rather than Even though there was a wide variety of ef‐ because of its possible similarities to colonial forts aimed at the overall "promotion" of the re‐ Latin America.9 As Park himself subsequently gion by the 1930s and early 1940s, Park empha‐ makes clear the post-1945 study of Latin America sizes that specialists lamented that throughout rested increasingly on the systematic codifcation this period the vast majority of North Americans of an analytical framework which departed dra‐ "remained pitifully ignorant of the region" insofar matically from notions of a common history and as the Latin American "craze" had "promoted the emphasized the historic and contemporary difer‐ superfcial, highlighted the romantic and distort‐ ences between North America and Latin America, ed the real". At the same time, Park emphasizes assuming that the U.S. was 'developed' and Latin that the realities of the Depression had generated America was 'underdeveloped'. a growing amount of economic research and anal‐ Furthermore, while Bolton, as Park notes, su‐ ysis of Latin America, some of it quite critical of pervised a large number of post-graduates (over the role of the U.S. government and U.S.-based the course of his thirty-three years at Berkeley, he corporations. It is in this trend that Park fnds the

6 H-Net Reviews partial origins of dependency theory. He outlines America in key policy-making positions within the the work of Carleton Beals, Margaret Alexander State Department, had a favorable though indirect Marsh, Melvin M. Knight and Frank Tannnen‐ impact on shaping public opinion about Latin baum in the 1930s as key commentators in the America". Park is also enthusiastic about the promulgation of a more radical and economic-ori‐ "dozens of cultural exchange programs" which ented perspective. Park concludes that up to the were "sponsored by the Rockefeller and Carnegie 1920s, the idea that foreign capital played a part foundations and the Pan American Union" and by in the 'underdevelopment' of Latin America had the government itself. He praises the "youthful en‐ been the preserve of a "leftist minority"; however, ergy and prior experience" of Nelson A. Rocke‐ by the 1930s this perspective had "gained general feller, who was appointed director of the Ofce of respectability" (Park, 1995 pp. 130, 147-151). The the Coordinator of Inter-American Afairs [CIAA] overall importance of the progressive and/or radi‐ when it was set up by the U.S. government in cal studies of U.S. economic imperialism in Latin 1940. Park emphasizes that Rockefeller and his or‐ America, which began to appear by the late 1920s ganization "proved efective in combating Nazi and challenged the representation of U.S. hegemo‐ penetration of the hemisphere and in promoting ny as a civilizing mission should not be overesti‐ Pan American solidarity by improving dissemina‐ mated.12 At the height of the New Deal and the tion of information through the mass media net‐ Good Neighbor Policy some progressive ideas works in the Americas". The CIAA also "stimulat‐ were partially incorporated into U.S. foreign poli‐ ed" the professional study of Latin America and cy and into the dominant professional discourses distributed funding to academics engaged in feld on Latin America, but this occurred in a way work in the region (Park, 1995. pp. 143-144). which clearly defused their more radical political Absent from this account, as in his analysis of implications. Furthermore, as Park does makes the professionalization of the foreign service, is clear, the emergence of a focus on the economic any indication of the unequal character of inter- aspects of 'development', and a radical critique of American power relations and any critical consid‐ the maldistribution of the control of economic re‐ eration of the politico-economic and military im‐ sources in the region, did not mean that climatic peratives driving both U.S. policy and the growing explanations and the less frequent, but still infu‐ number of academics who worked directly or in‐ ential, Black Legend lost their salience for North directly with the government before and after the American commentators seeking to explain Latin outbreak of World War II. One of the ostensible American underdevelopment, while 'race' also goals of the Good Neighbor Policy after 1933, persisted as a "common explanation" (Park, 1995. which was eventually taken up by the Ofce of pp. 157-161). the Coordinator of Inter-American Afairs in 1940, Nevertheless, in Park's view, although alter‐ was to generate an environment of appreciation ations to North American perspectives on Latin and respect for Hispanic American culture. To this America "were indeed slow in coming" the end the CIAA began to work with the State Depart‐ 1930-1945 era saw signifcant professional growth ment's Division of Cultural Relations through a in Latin American studies and in the diplomatic Joint Committee on Cultural Relations. By the end corp accredited to the region. He notes that the of 1941 hundreds of seminars on inter-American "(r)eorganization of the foreign service in 1924 relations inspired and funded by this Joint Com‐ and subsequent salary improvements led to pro‐ mittee on Cultural Relations had been held across fessionalization and a consequent improvement North America, while Pan Americanism was prop‐ in reporting from the region" at the same time as agated in the school system. A whole range of or‐ "the placement of personnel sympathetic to Latin ganizations were enlisted to form links with simi‐

7 H-Net Reviews lar organizations in Latin America and promote work on the Maya exerted considerable infuence Pan Americanism.13 By the time the CIAA ap‐ on anthropology and Latin American studies be‐ peared, if not well before, the emphasis was clear‐ fore and after the Second World War.15 His ap‐ ly on using Pan American cultural relations as a proach emphasized a tradition-modernity di‐ conduit for the transmission of North American chotomy and a liberal evolutionary conception of infuence rather than anything resembling mutu‐ 'progress'. This emphasis was central to modern‐ al cultural appreciation. In the 1930s and early ization theory as it emerged after World War II 1940s, the dominant perspectives on Latin Ameri‐ and continued to dominate the study of Latin ca, and Pan Americanism more generally, rested America until the 1960s and beyond. on self-serving assumptions about the comple‐ III) The Discovery of Development: The Cold mentarity of U.S. ideals and U.S. interests and War, Modernization Theory and the Alliance for about the existence of a relative harmony of inter‐ Progress 1945-1965 est between U.S. goals and Latin American aspira‐ In the immediate post-war years the degree of tions. U.S. "interest" in its southern neighbors faded pre‐ Ultimately, according to Park, the "explosion cipitously and did not really recover, as Park of information on Latin America" in this period notes, until the end of the 1950s by which time the was "still error-ridden" and "superfcial"; howev‐ concept of 'underdevelopment' had become frm‐ er, a number of young academics, such as Robert ly established in inter-American (and internation‐ Redfeld, who would rise to considerable promi‐ al) political and economic discourse. At the same nence in the profession after 1945, increasingly time, apart from "the climatic factor", the "tradi‐ countered "traditional interpretations", while a tional explanations" for Latin America's 'failure' growing focus on the economic dimension of to 'develop' remained alive; however, they in‐ Latin America's 'problems' fowed "naturally" out creasingly emerged as complementary to the of the experience of the Depression (Park, 1995. "new 'modernization theory'" which ofered far pp. 164-166). Park adopts a descriptive and uncrit‐ more systematic and "complex explanations" and ical view of Redfeld's career and the infuence of prescriptions based on particular readings of his work on the emergence of classical modern‐ North American history. In this context defni‐ ization theory after World War II. What is not em‐ tions of 'development' were increasingly ground‐ phasized is that Redfeld's particular career trajec‐ ed in economics, while emphasizing that the 'po‐ tory and modernization theory more generally (of litical' and the 'social' would line up "behind the which his books were key texts) was grounded in locomotive of ". By the end of the the tight linkage between academics and govern‐ 1950s, as Park notes, modernization theory had ment which had been central to Latin American spread far beyond the academy and pervaded studies since its inception, but became more public discourse on 'development'. According to marked during the Second World War. Redfeld, Park, modernization theory represented an at‐ an anthropologist at the University of Chicago, tempt to provide a "more-ordered" perspective emerged as an important Latin American studies based on "increasingly complex" and "multi-disci‐ fgure by the late 1930s, serving as chairman of plinary views"; however, the shift it represented the Joint Committee on Latin American Studies, was less "real" than frst appearances suggested. which was set up in 1940 under the auspices of He emphasizes that modernization theory as it the American Council of Learned Societies and emerged after 1945 reinforced "existing atti‐ the Social Science Research Council, with direct tudes", insofar as it continued to regard the cul‐ links to the Ofce of the Coordinator of Inter- tures and institutions of Latin America with dis‐ American Afairs under .14 His

8 H-Net Reviews dain, emphasizing, furthermore, that Latin Ameri‐ Max F. Millikan (Park, 1995. pp. 184, 199, 219). can cultural practices had to be "discarded" for However, at no point is Rostow's career, or his the region to evolve towards modernity. As Park work located in the wider context of the Cold War notes, by the early 1960s the idea that the "devel‐ and the projection of U.S. power in Latin America opment" of Latin America could only come about and beyond. Surely, any attempt to come to grips through a process of complete, but evolutionary, with Rostow's book The Stages of Economic "transformation" and strict emulation of the U.S. Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto, a classic "model" had become predominant and many statement of modernization theory in the 1950s North Americans had also become convinced that and early 1960s, and its overall signifcance in re‐ the 'development' of the region necessitated a dra‐ lation to U.S. perspectives towards Latin America matic increase in North American "participation". requires more attention to the details of Rostow's By 1960, Park concludes, the U.S. perceived a ris‐ career and the international power relations of ing "threat" to its regional "interests" and was also the Cold War.17 All that is said of Rostow is that possessed of "a gnawing sense of some measure of he was an economic historian at Massachusetts responsibility" for Latin America's 'underdevelop‐ Institute of Technology. Park does not even men‐ ment'. In this context U.S. policy shifted toward an tion that Rostow, who served in the research and efort to meet nationalist and radical "challenges analysis branch of the Ofce of Strategic Services to its hemispheric hegemony" head-on "while ex‐ (OSS) during World War II, continued to work pressing a characteristic sense of optimism and with the government in the 1950s and was a close world mission" (Park, 1995. pp. 167, 201-203). advisor to President Kennedy and President John‐ While Park's discussion provides general cov‐ son. Nor does Park mention his role as a major erage of the 1945 to 1960 period, and emphasizes and infuential advocate of the shift in U.S. foreign the ethnocentric North American antecedents of policy in the late 1950s, away from containing the modernization theory and the Alliance for with direct military force, towards Progress, his analysis fails to draw out the shifting taking the initiative in the so-called '' and dramatically unequal inter-American power via the increased use of U.S. economic and mili‐ relations and the way in which the vicissitudes of tary aid as part of an ambitious strategy of eco‐ the Cold War shaped the changes to, or the re‐ nomic development and nation-building (and working of, U.S. perspectives towards Latin Amer‐ counter-insurgency).18 This strategy was embod‐ ica. He points to the way Latin America remained ied in the Alliance for Progress and the Kennedy a low priority in Washington in the 1950s because administration, in which Rostow served as deputy the region appeared to be relatively stable in rela‐ assistant to the President for National Security Af‐ tion to U.S. concerns about a global 'communist fairs, built on the state-led reformism of the Good threat'. However, once he has established the gen‐ Neighbor era and sought to breathe new life into eral Cold War context, he often ignores the role of Republican-style Cold War globalism. the Cold War even though a direct and specifc In his last chapter, Park concludes that the Al‐ discussion of Cold War imperatives, at various liance for Progress (ostensibly a 100 billion dollar, points, would have illuminated and contextual‐ decade-long, program of land and economic re‐ ized his discussion of particular commentators form, aimed at bringing about annual growth and trends.16 To take just one example, he draws rates of at least 2.5 percent, greater agricultural attention to Rostow's infuential output, illiteracy eradication, trade diversifca‐ work of modernization theory, The Stages of Eco‐ tion, and improvements in housing and income nomic Growth at two diferent points, as well as distribution) was one of "many casualties" of the to one of his earlier books, jointly authored with 1960s. According to Park, the Alliance for Progress

9 H-Net Reviews emerged as U.S. policy "largely because" it meshed between the interests of the governments and with a theory which was "widely accepted in the people of Latin America, and the interests of the academic world" and also "popularized among government and people of the United States. From the educated public" at the sametime as its "inher‐ their perspective the earlier problems that had ent optimism" coincided with both the "mood" of developed between Latin America and Washing‐ the early 1960s and the "traditional" North Ameri‐ ton had grown out of the shortcomings of previ‐ can "sense of mission". However, by the ous policies, a shortage of information and U.S. mid-1960s, although classical modernization theo‐ failure to pay sufcient attention to the region. As ry continued to underpin North American analy‐ with Park's overall analysis, inter-American prob‐ sis of Latin America, "it was less and less ex‐ lems are explained in terms of a lack of 'under‐ pressed with the high idealism of a few years ear‐ standing' between North and South caused and lier" at the same time as the anti-communist mili‐ compounded by diferent cultural backgrounds, tary element of the Alliance for Progress became irrational stereotypes and a shortage of informa‐ increasingly important. From Park's point of view tion.20 This can be seen as an exceptionally san‐ the Alliance's "putative failure" did not fow so guine assessment which glosses over the unequal much from changes in Latin America as it did relations of power, the disruptive efects of capi‐ from "momentous cultural and political" develop‐ talist development and the profound contradic‐ ments in North America "which sharply curtailed tions which characterize inter-American relations the liberal agenda" and "reduced the public's al‐ and were refected in the Alliance for Progress. ready notoriously short attention span for things For example, one of the overarching, but usually Latin American". More broadly, Park attributes unstated, goals of the Alliance was the protection the failure of the Alliance to "many factors" in‐ of inter-American arrangements conducive to cluding "excessively ambitious" objectives, "the North American investments and trading inter‐ distraction of war in Vietnam, the fading of the ests. At the same time many of the Alliance's re‐ Cuban 'threat', balance of payment problems and forms endangered U.S. investments, while trade the decline of liberal reformism as the decade ad‐ diversifcation threatened the U.S.-based transna‐ vanced". In Park's view, the "smug confdence" of tionals' monopoly in primary agricultural prod‐ the Kennedy years had inspired a perspective on ucts and mineral extraction. Furthermore, any 'development' in Latin America which found the signifcant land reform threatened the interests of origin of the region's "problems" to be internal powerful land-based elites often allied to U.S. po‐ and the solution to be external in origin, but the litical and economic interests. These contradic‐ "turbulent" 1960s undermined that "confdence" tions were apparent in the way that Kennedy's re‐ and the rising political opposition increasingly formist rhetoric went hand in hand with Wash‐ found the roots of Latin American 'underdevelop‐ ington's ever-deepening commitment to aiding ment' in an "exploitative" inter-American politico- military and police eforts to quash peasant-based economic system centred on the U.S. (Park, 1995. rebellions. From the very beginning, U.S.-based pp. 204-205, 211, 219-221, 224-227). transnationals and the landed oligarchies at‐ Overall Park's analysis of the Alliance for tempted to preserve the status quo and prevent Progress follows an established pattern which any meaningful change. Although high rates of views the Alliance as a basically sound policy ini‐ economic growth in many Latin American coun‐ tiative and locates its failure in the weaknesses of tries had been achieved by the late 1960s, they the implementation process and the wider con‐ had served primarily to increase social inequality, text of the weakening of U.S. commitment.19 This while the middle class moved to side with the rul‐ approach is premised on the overall compatibility ing political and socio-economic elite as politics,

10 H-Net Reviews instead of evolving towards democracy, moved America was difcult because of the growing further towards authoritarianism and military power and articulation of "the Latin American dictatorship (not coincidentally there were six‐ view" and because dependency and moderniza‐ teen military coups within eight years of the tion theorists "were driven by ideology" (Park, launch of the Alliance for Progress). Already by 1995. pp. 228-234, 236). First of all, I cannot imag‐ the time of Kennedy's assassination, the reformist ine any theory or perspective that is outside of element in the Alliance had been sidelined in politics or "ideology", as this latter observation favour of a more straightforward approach of implies. Park's book is itself clearly "driven" by military and economic aid to any regime which liberal assumptions about political and social was committed to the status quo.21 change which are linked to modernization theory. IV) Post-Kennedy Liberalism: The Develop‐ Furthermore, as with his attempt to chart the ment Debate and the Domestication of Dependen‐ shifts in inter-American relations and U.S. percep‐ cy Theory tions of Latin America, Park's brief analysis of the competing theories development which had Ultimately, the optimism and missionary zeal emerged by the 1960s, neglects the power rela‐ of the Alliance for Progress, according to Park, tions which shaped the debate in important ways "sprang from an interpretation of Latin American at the same time as he provides a somewhat sim‐ underdevelopment that is yet today expressed as plistic analysis of dependency theory. For exam‐ a major voice in the ongoing debate in academic ple, at a minimum he could have distinguished circles on hemispheric development and that between the reformist strands which are seen to rests on a perspective with very deep roots in the have originated with Raul Prebisch and the ECLA American past" (Park, 1995, p. 1). At the same in the 1950s on the one hand and the more revo‐ time, by the second half of the 1960s, the weak‐ lutionary strands, associated with Andre Gunder nesses of the major Cold War theories of develop‐ Frank and others, which frst appeared in the ment, and of the Alliance for Progress, had also 1960s and are generally regarded as classical de‐ encouraged the appearance of a theory of under‐ pendency theory. At the same time, while there development "antithetical" to modernization theo‐ are clearly various resonances and linkages be‐ ry. In Park's view the struggle between dependen‐ tween dependency theory of the 1960s and the cy theory and liberal developmentalism was a theories of economic imperialism which emerged "confict" between a re-emergent "economic inter‐ in the 1930s, the link is not necessarily straightfor‐ pretation" which originated in the 1930s, but had ward. Park's heavy emphasis on continuity here, been marginalised by the "prosperity" of the as with his emphasis on the cultural continuity post-1945 era, and a revised "cultural interpreta‐ between modernization theory and earlier ethno‐ tion" with an even longer genealogy. He goes on to centric perspectives, somewhat obscures the dy‐ suggest that the development debate of the 1960s namic reconfguring of older perspectives which "reinforced the growing awareness of the inordi‐ occurred during the Cold War. nate complexity of Latin American underdevelop‐ ment" and for this reason the "collapse" of the Park, in my view, also overstates the chal‐ "consensus" around a "culturally based and ethno‐ lenge which dependency theory represented to centric" modernization theory, which had the liberal consensus underpinning moderniza‐ reached a peak by the beginning of the 1960s, tion theory. He argues that the late 1960s saw a should be regarded favourably. He also argues break down of "consensus" and it was not until that achieving a new theoretical "consensus" on the beginning of the 1990s that there was a re- development and underdevelopment in Latin emergence of a "general concordance of views on development" (centred on a neo-liberal model)

11 H-Net Reviews amongst government leaders, policy-makers and tinued to rest on the view that there was no fun‐ the general public in the U.S.; however, it is not damental confict of interest between U.S. objec‐ clear whether he sees this consensus extending to tives in Latin America and the aspirations of the the academy (Park, 1995. p. 234). This emphasis people who lived there. And while most radicals on a breakdown of consensus in the 1960s, as a re‐ advocated revolutionary change, or at least radi‐ sult in part of the growing infuence of dependen‐ cal reform, liberal narratives continued to be cy theory, is a common observation.22 However, based on considerable optimism about the possi‐ it can be argued that this exaggerates the politico- bility of improving North-South relations within theoretical power of dependency theory in North the existing inter-American framework. America and beyond, and takes an ahistorical per‐ Conclusion: Pan American Progress spective on the trajectory which theories of de‐ As we have seen Park's book is about U.S. per‐ pendency followed in the 1960s, 1970s and after. spectives on 'underdevelopment' in Latin America Despite the radical challenges and the political up to and including the Alliance for Progress and turmoil, liberalism clearly remained dominant he is preoccupied with charting the cultural an‐ within and outside the Latin American studies tecedents of modernization theory. I have tried to profession. The theoretical and political changes argue that his overall analysis is seriously weak‐ within the North American study of Latin Ameri‐ ened by his assumption that the growing involve‐ ca since the 1960s occurred in the context of pow‐ ment of the U.S. in Latin America, and the in‐ er relations that worked to domesticate radical creased contact and information should, or did, theory and politics to liberal academic structures, gradually lead to increased understanding. I have professional organizations and discourses. Even also emphasized that his analysis throughout fails when the lack of political and theoretical consen‐ to address possible conficts of interest between sus appeared to be particularly acute, such as the the government and people of the U.S. and Latin late 1960s or the early 1980s, the institutional America. This points to an unwillingness to ac‐ power relations and the dominant professional knowledge the important role that power rela‐ and policy discourses provided the context for the tions play in shaping 'ethnocentric' North Ameri‐ domestication and containment of theoretical and can perspectives on Latin America. Nor does his political dissent. While a crucial site for the do‐ analysis take into account that 'enthnocentrism' mestication of dependency theory was the Latin without power, is quite diferent from 'ethnocen‐ American studies profession the domestication trism' with power whereby the historic North process was also intimately linked to shifts in U.S. American disdain towards Latin America which foreign policy and the trend to neo-liberal eco‐ he charts is translated into policies and actions nomics and electoral politics which was a key that have signifcant efects. At the same time, characteristic of inter-American political economy Park's failure to address the question of power re‐ by the second half of the 1980s.23 The difusion of sults in an analysis of the development debate of radical ideas into the dominant professional dis‐ the 1960s which treats dependency theory as a courses was part of the wider reinvention of liber‐ virtual equal competitor with modernization the‐ alism. In the 1960s and 1970s, in the context of the ory and overstates the scale of the dependency emergence of dependency theory, liberals revised challenge to liberal theories of development. Fur‐ modernization theory to give it a more critical thermore, despite his cultural critique of modern‐ edge. They also began to adopt elements of depen‐ ization theory, there is a tendency towards an dency analysis. However, unlike the radical re‐ ahistorical perspective which reads too much con‐ liance on a confict model of inter-American rela‐ tinuity into US perspectives on Latin America, tions, the dominant professional discourses con‐

12 H-Net Reviews while his overall analysis, like most elite visions bal Kay, Latin American Theories of Development of a regional or universal capitalist modernity, and Underdevelopment [London: Routledge, tends to obscure the historically disruptive efects 1989]. David Lehmann, Democracy and Develop‐ of uneven capitalist development. Modernization ment in Latin America: Economics, Politics and theory and the Alliance for Progress of the 1960s, Religion in the Post-war Period [Philadelphia: and neo-liberalism and Pan-American eforts at Temple University Press, 1990]. Carlos Ramirez- economic integration in the 1980s and 1990s, have Faria, The Origins of Economic Inequality Be‐ been aimed less at Pan American progress and tween Nations: A Critique of Western Theories of more at managing capitalist development in the Development and Underdevelopment [London: interests of regionalized and internationalized Unwin Hyman, 1991]. Robert A. Packenham, The elites. The Alliance for Progress coincided in the Dependency Movement: Scholarship and Politics 1960s with both increased rates of economic in Development Studies [Cambridge: Harvard Uni‐ growth and dramatic increases in social and eco‐ versity Press, 1992]. Arturo Escobar, Encountering nomic inequality, while the liberalization of trade Development: The Making and Unmaking of the and investment in the 1980s and 1990s, has been Third World [Princeton: Princeton University paralleled by the concentration of incomes, high Press, 1995]. Mark T. Berger, Under Northern rates of underemployment and unemployment, Eyes: Latin American Studies and U.S. Hegemony widespread poverty and the marginalization of in the Americas 1898-1960 [Bloomington: Indiana large numbers of rural and urban poor through‐ University Press, 1995]. out the Americas. 2. See John J. Johnson, Latin America in Cari‐ References cature [Austin: University of Press, 1980]. 1. Irving Louis Horowitz, ed., The Rise and George Black: The Good Neighbor: How the Unit‐ Fall of Project Camelot: Studies in the Relationship ed States Wrote the History of Central America between Social Science and Practical Politics and the Caribbean [: Pantheon, 1988]. [Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technolo‐ Lester D. Langley, America and the Americas: The gy Press, 1967]. Susanne Jonas Bodenheimer, The United States in the Western Hemisphere [Athens: Ideology of Developmentalism: The American Par‐ University of Georgia Press, 1989]. John J. John‐ adigm-Surrogate for Latin American Studies son, A Hemisphere Apart: The Foundations of [Berkeley, Sage Publications, 1971]. Robert A. United States Policy Toward Latin America [Balti‐ Packenham, Liberal America and the Third more: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990]. J. Va‐ World: Political Development Ideas in Foreign Aid lerie Fifer, United States' Perceptions of Latin and Social Science [Princeton: Princeton Universi‐ America, 1850-1930: A 'New West' South of Capri‐ ty Press, 1973]. Irving Louis Horowitz, Beyond corn? [Manchester: Manchester University Press, Empire and Revolution: Militarization and Consol‐ 1991]. Fredrick B. Pike, The United States and idation in the Third World [New York: Oxford Uni‐ Latin America: Myths and Stereotypes of Civliza‐ versity Press, 1982]. Ronaldo Munck, Politics and tion and Nature [Austin: University of Texas Press, Dependency in the Third World: The Case of Latin 1992]. Helen Delpar, The Enormous Vogue of America [London: Zed Press, 1984]. Peter F. Klarin Things Mexican: Cultural Relations Between the and Thomas J. Bossert, eds., Promise of Develop‐ United States and Mexico 1920-1935 [Tuscaloosa: ment: Theories of Change in Latin America [Boul‐ University of Alabama Press, 1992]. John A. Brit‐ der: Westview Press, 1986]. Jorge Larrain, Theo‐ ton, Revolution and Ideology: The Image of the ries of Development: , Colonialism and Mexican Revolution in the United States Dependency [London: Polity Press, 1989]. Cristo‐

13 H-Net Reviews

1910-1960 [Lexington: University Press of Ken‐ ing to Park, the infuence of the Black Legend was tucky, 1994]. especially "pervasive" in the frst two decades of 3. The absence of any conception of power re‐ the twentieth century. A particular acute example lations in Park's account is apparent when he em‐ of this was a book by G. L. Morrill, a Protestant phasizes that the ignorant, racist and ethnocentric minister. See G. L. Morrill, Rotten Republics: A attitudes which underpinned US perspectives to‐ Tropical Tramp in Central America [Chicago: wards Latin America "should not be taken as 1916]. As Park points out the "harsh judgements" uniquely" North American, "for they were quite emanating from the North in this period were universal". This point is reiterated in his conclu‐ also being made by infuential Latin Americans, sion where he argues that "it must be kept in and their observations were often deployed by mind that ethnocentrism is not unique to Ameri‐ North Americans. The most famous example of can culture; the Latin American interpretation of this literature is probably Latin America: Its Rise life in the United States is also burdened with its and Progress by Francisco Garcma Caldersn own ethnocentric limitations" (Park, 1995, pp. 4, which was was widely cited in North America. See 236-237). Francisco Garcma Caldersn, Latin America: Its Rise and Progress [London: 1913] (Park, 1995. pp. 4. Arturo Escobar, "Culture, Economics and 75-92). Politics in Latin American Social Movements The‐ ory and Research" in Arturo Escobar and Sonia E. 6. Another important factor shaping US policy Alvarez, eds., The Making of Social Movements in and perspectives towards Latin America in nega‐ Latin America: Identity, Strategy and Democracy tive fashion in the early twentieth century, as [Boulder: Westview Press, 1992]. p. 62. Fredrick Pike has shown, was the perceptions and policies towards native peoples in North America. 5. Park highlights the continued infuence and Fredrick B. Pike, The United States and Latin codifcation of the climatic explanation for Latin America: Myths and Stereotypes of Civlization American 'backwardness' into the 1920s, as re‐ and Nature [Austin: University of Texas Press, fected in the work of the Yale academic Ellsworth 1992]. Huntington. See Ellsworth Huntington Civilization and Climate [New Haven: Press, 7. Leo S. Rowe, The United States and Porto 1915]. Even more than climatic explanations, Rico: With Special Reference to the Problems Aris‐ 'race' and 'racial mixing' continued to be "widely ing Out of Our Contact with the Spanish-American accepted" explanations for the 'backwardness' of Civilization [New York: Longman's Green, 1904]. Latin America. Again, as Park points out, the writ‐ pp. vii, xi-xiv, 10-13, 17-19, 261. Mark T. Berger, ings of infuential North American exponents of Under Northern Eyes: Latin American Studies and scientifc racism worked to legitimate racial ex‐ U.S. Hegemony in the Americas 1898-1990 [Bloom‐ planations for 'underdevelopment' in Latin Amer‐ ington: Indiana University Press, 1995]. pp. 34-35. ica. Two well-known books which explicitly point‐ 8. For example, in Park's view, the heated de‐ ed to Latin America to highlight the "evils of mis‐ bate over Mexican policy in the 1920s "was more cegenation" were Albert Galloway Keller, Colo‐ balanced and ofered a clearer exposition of the nization: A Study of the Founding of New Societies Mexican point of view than ever before". He [Boston: 1908 and. Madison Grant, The Passing of pointed to the work of three well known radical the Great Race [New York: 1916]. Apart from cli‐ journalists, Frank Tannenbaum, Ernest Gruening mate and race, the hispanic legacy also continued and Carleton Beals and the way in which their to be deployed to account for the "purported work emphasized that the main objectives of the backwardness" of Latin America. In fact, accord‐ Mexican revolution were "just and humane", that

14 H-Net Reviews

Mexico was starting to realize those objectives Sternsher, Consensus, Confict and American His‐ and that this should take place without US. inter‐ torians [Bloomington: Indiana University Press, ference (Park, 1995. pp. 109-110). 1975]. pp. 1-4. David W. Noble, "The Reconstruc‐ 9. Ian Tyrrell, "American Exceptionalism in an tion of Progress: Charles Beard, Richard Hofs‐ Age of International History" The American His‐ tadter and Postwar Historical Thought" in Lary torical Review vol. 96. no. 4. 1991. pp. 1039-1040. May, ed., Recasting America: Culture and Politics in the Age of Cold War [Chicago: University of 10. Robert A. McCaughey, International Stud‐ Chicago Press, 1989]. pp. 61-62. The progressive ies and Academic Enterprise: A Chapter in the En‐ discourses took on new signifcance with the closure of American Learning [New York: Colum‐ emergence of the so-called neo-progressives (the bia University Press, 1984]. pp. 89-95, 105. See New Left) in the 1960s. Peter Novick, That Noble Herbert Eugene Bolton, "The Epic of Greater Dream: The "Objectivity Question" and the Ameri‐ America" American Historical Review vol. 38. no. can Historical Profession [Cambridge: Cambridge 3. 1933. See John F. Bannon, Herbert Eugene University Press, 1988]. p. 332. For an analysis of Bolton: The Historian and the Man 1870-1953 Beard and the progressives which emphasizes [Tuscon: University of Arizona Press, 1978]. David that their impact was limited in the 1930s and J. Weber, "Turner, the Boltonians and the Border‐ that their long term signifcance is to be found in lands" American Historical Review vol. 91. no. 1. the rise of New Left historiography in the 1960s, 1986. Albert L. Hurtado, "Herbert E. Bolton, see Ian Tyrrell, The Absent Marx: Class Analysis Racism and American History" Pacifc Historical and Liberal History in Twentieth Century Ameri‐ Review vol. 62. no. 2. 1993. Lewis Hanke, ed., Do ca [Westport: Greenwood Press, 1986]. pp. 15-70. the Americas Have a Common History?: A Cri‐ tique of the Bolton Theory [New York: Alfred A. 13. By the end of the 1930s Pan Americanism Knopf, 1964]. Mark T. Berger, Under Northern was generally understood in North America as Eyes: Latin American Studies and U.S. Hegemony "the cooperative activity of the American states in in the Americas 1898-1990 [Bloomington: Indiana the political, economic or cultural spheres". Dex‐ University Press, 1995]. pp. 52-54, 266-268. ter Perkins, "Bringing the Monroe Doctrine up to Date" Foreign Afairs vol. 20. no. 2. 1942. p. 261. 11. Richard M. Morse, "The Strange Career of 'Latin American Studies'" The Annals of the Amer‐ 14. Frank A. Ninkovich, The Diplomacy of ican Academy of Political and Social Science vol. Ideas: US Foreign Policy and Cultural Relations 356. November 1964. p. 111. 1938-1950 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981]. pp. 40-42, 194. 12. After 1945 some North American histori‐ ans represented the entire frst half of the twenti‐ 15. Paul Sullivan, Unfnished Conversations: eth century as an era in which progressive histori‐ Mayas and Foreigners Between Two Wars [New ography and progressivism more generally rose to York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1989]. pp. 156-159. considerable infuence and even predominance in 16. The way in which the Cold War permeated North America. However, historians writing in every aspect of the North American study of, and the Cold War era tended to overstate the scale of commentary on, Latin America is drawn out nice‐ the progressive infuence between World War I ly in Richard R. Fagen, "Latin America and the and World War II. The 'overstated' view can be Cold War: Oh For the Good Old Days?" LASA Fo‐ found in Gene Wise, American Historical Explana‐ rum vol. 26. no. 3. 1995. pp. 5-7. tions: A Strategy for Grounded Inquiry [Minneap‐ 17. Walt Whitman Rostow, The Stages of Eco‐ olis: University of Minnesota Press, second re‐ nomic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto vised edition 1980, frst published 1973]. Bernard [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960]. A

15 H-Net Reviews second edition appeared in the early 1970s. For Knopf, 1970]. Jerome I. Levinson, "After the Al‐ this addition Rostow added a new appendix and a liance for Progress: Implications for Inter-Ameri‐ new preface in which he argued that the events of can Relations" in Douglas A. Chalmers, ed., Chang‐ the past ten years, the responses to his book, as ing Latin America: New Interpretations of Its Poli‐ well as the expansion of knowledge about the past tics and Society [New York: Academy of Political had vindicated his conceptual framework. See Science, , 1972]. Federico Gil, Walt Whitman Rostow, The Stages of Economic Latin American-United States Relations [New Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto [Cam‐ York: Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich, 1971]. pp. bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971]. See 238-250, 267-281. Martin C. Needler, The United also the third edition, which appeared in the con‐ States and the Latin American Revolution [Berke‐ text of the end of the Cold War. Walt Whitman ley: University of California Press, revised edition, Rostow, The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non- 1977; frst published 1972]. pp. 53-54, 112. Communist Manifesto [Cambridge: Cambridge 20. The existence of "pervasive, serious and University Press,1990]. persistent misunderstanding" between Latin 18. Richard A. Melanson, Writing History and America and the US was central to Milton Eisen‐ Making Policy: The Cold War, Vietnam and Revi‐ hower's well-known book, which was frst pub‐ sionism [New York: University Press of America, lished in the early 1960s. See Milton S. Eisenhow‐ 1983]. pp. 41-42. See Walt Whitman Rostow, er, The Wine is Bitter: The United States and Latin "Counterinsurgency As Insurance For Freedom: America [Garden City: Doubleday, 1963]. pp. 6, 45. Address to the Graduating Class at the U.S. Army More recently, Robert Pastor has argued that the Special Warfare School" (Fort Bragg, June, 1961) in reason for friction between Nicaragua and the US Ralph A. Austen, ed., Modern Imperialism: West‐ in the 1980s was rooted in culture, ideology and ern Overseas Expansion and Its Aftermath, psychology. He argued that these non-structural 1776-1965 [Lexington: D. C. Heath, 1969]. pp. diferences could be overcome, and the US could 165-170. still be a basically positive force in the region 19. For example Harvey Perlof, a former US without a fundamental altering of the character ofcial, characterized the Alliance as a "truly mag‐ of political and economic development in Central nifcent concept" which was "carried out in a half- America or the terms of the region's relations hearted way with a weak, underfnanced, and with the United States. Pastor argued that the poorly designed mechanism". Harvey S. Perlof, "mistrust" between Washington and its "friends"-- Alliance for Progress: A Social Invention in the which was the result of "diferent histories", atti‐ Making [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University tudes and "interests"--had "undermined their Press, 1969]. p. ix. Also see Herbert K. May, Prob‐ common objectives". In particular, Pastor con‐ lems and Prospects of the Alliance for Progress: A cluded that the "roots" of the Nicaraguan revolu‐ Critical Examination [New York: Praeger, 1968]. tion's "radicalization" could be found in the Robert J. Alexander, Today's Latin America [Gar‐ "minds" of both the Washington policy-makers den City: Anchor Books, second revised edition, and the Sandinistas, insofar as the "diferent his‐ 1968; frst published 1962]. Jerome Levinson and tories" and "deep suspicions" caused each side to Juan de Onis, The Alliance that Lost Its Way: A see "defensive actions as provocative ones". In his Critical Report on the Alliance for Progress [Chica‐ view Washington and Managua each formulated go: Quadrangle Books, 1970]. George C. Lodge, En‐ policies, based on diferent "psychological bag‐ gines of Change: United States Interests and Revo‐ gage", that "consistently evoked the worst in the lution in Latin America [New York: Alfred A. other". Robert A. Pastor, Condemned to Repeti‐ tion: The United States and Nicaragua [Princeton:

16 H-Net Reviews

Princeton University Press, 1987]. pp. xi., 6-7, [London: Verso, 1990]. pp. 31, 34-35, 40. Also see 14-15. Mark T. Berger, Under Northern Eyes: Latin Amer‐ 21. Mark T. Berger, Under Northern Eyes: ican Studies and U.S. Hegemony in the Americas Latin American Studies and U.S. Hegemony in the 1898-1960 [Bloomington: Indiana University Americas 1898-1990 [Bloomington: Indiana Uni‐ Press, 1995]. pp. 106-121, 193-198. versity Press, 1995]. pp. 88-89. [22]. For example, in 1978, the Harvard Latin American specialist Jorge I. Dommnguez lament‐ ed that the "state" of the professional literature on inter-American relations was "not well", and "for the purposes of facilitating the study of national public or private policies toward international af‐ fairs", the "degree of scholarly consensus" was "grossly insufcient". Jorge I. Dominguez, "Con‐ sensus and Divergence: The State of the Literature on Inter-American Relations in the 1970s" Latin American Research Review vol. 13. no. 1. 1978. p. 113. [22]. Dependency theory's demise can also be traced to its failure as revolutionary prophecy and the end of the US war in Southeast . The rise of the Newly Industrializing Countries in Latin America (Mexico and Brazil), and East Asia (South Korea and Taiwan), and the rise of OPEC, also helped to undermine the subordinate image of Third World nations, and contributed to the fading of radical dependency theory's luster. By the late 1970s, the North American and Western European emphasis on the corruption and au‐ thoritarianism of many 'Third World' govern‐ ments helped to shift the burden of explanation for underdevelopment back onto the elites and states of Latin America and beyond. There are in‐ numerable eforts to generate a taxonomy of radi‐ cal development theories. For example Petras and Morley distinguish between at least four strands of radical development theory which built on clas‐ sical dependency theory: the state and class ap‐ proach (with which Morley and Petras identify), the modes of production approach, world-system theory and neo-dependency theory. James Petras and Morris Morley, US Hegemony Under Siege: Class, Politics and Development in Latin America

17 H-Net Reviews

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/h-latam

Citation: Mark T. Berger. Review of Park, James William. Latin American Underdevelopment: A History of Perspectives in the United States, 1870-1965. H-LatAm, H-Net Reviews. December, 1995.

URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=231

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

18