• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Northeastern Political Science Association Understanding Latin American Politics: Analytic Models & Intellectual Traditions Author(s): John D. Martz and David J. Myers Source: Polity, Vol. 16, No. 2 (Winter, 1983), pp. 214-241 Published by: Palgrave Macmillan Journals Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3234605 . Accessed: 19/08/2011 13:13 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Palgrave Macmillan Journals and Northeastern Political Science Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Polity. http://www.jstor.org UnderstandingLatin AmericanPolitics: Analytic Models& Intellectual Traditions JohnD. Martz& David J. Myers The PennsylvaniaState University Corporatism, liberal developmentalism, and dependencia are the major approaches to the study of Latin American politics one is likely to encounter in recent and current scholarship. The proponents of each urge its adoption to the exclusion of others. Professors Martz and Myers argue that this inclination produces generalizations that not only misrepresent the reality of Latin American politics but also fail to convey the rich diversity of its intellectual tradition in which monism, liberal pluralism, and Marxism have long coexisted, even mingled. John D. Martz is Professor and Head of the Department of Political Science at the Pennsylvania State University. David J. Myers is Asso- ciate Professor of Political Science at the same university. The immenselyvariegated tapestry of Latin Americanpolitics and soci- ety is woven from many intellectualand philosophicalstrands. The col- oring is alternatinglydramatic and subtle, the textures richly diverse. Those who would view, absorb,and interpretthe total fabric have been similarlydiverse in theirperceptions and interpretationsof these images. Effortsto generalizeabout the warp and woof of Latin Americanpoli- tics have produceda host of analyticschools and approaches,which in turn have rested upon disparateconstructs of reality. Grantedan in- creasinglevel of conceptualand theoreticalsophistication in recent and contemporaryscholarship, there is also a proclivityfor advocatesof one approachto eschew the contributionsof those whose outlook is differ- ent. One of the evident challengesnow facing scholars and studentsis the necessityof probingmore deeply, attemptingto advancethe state of John D. Martz& David J. Myers 215 the art throughincorporation of tenets drawnfrom the presentplurality of approaches. To do so requiresa recognitionof the rich diversityof Latin Ameri- can intellectualtraditions, formulated and articulatedacross four cen- turies.Those who elaborate"modem" analytic constructs without taking accountof the legacy of past patternsof thoughtwill but encouragegen- eralizationsand theoreticalframeworks that become often incompleteor distortedreflections of reality.In assessingthe study of Latin American politics, we would contend that, as Stepanhas pointedout, three broad intellectualcurrents inform and shape contemporaryscholarship.' For the sake of conveniencethey can be termedmonist or organicist,liberal pluralist,and marxist,although we must caution that generalrubrics of this nature have a somewhatlimited heuristicvalue. With each current the impact of political philosophy and the intellectualheritage of the Latin Americanexperience is paramount.Central to our explorationis the assumptionthat such philosophicaland experientialfactors consti- tute a dimensionwhich is crucialto an understandingof diverseanalytic approaches. We would insist that at the core of all such theorizinglie fundamental issues concerningthe individual,his place in society, and the role of the state in overseeingthe conduct of public affairs.Either consciouslyor unknowingly,those who would delineatea frameworkfor Latin Ameri- can politics are engaged in theorizingabout central and universalcon- cepts. The legacy of politicalthought, from classicaltimes to the present, must retain our attention.Thus, before undertakingan assessmentof contemporarymodes of analysis, it is incumbentupon us to trace the roots of the three distinctintellectual traditions, for these impingeupon and help to clarify the diversityof contemporarytheorizing. Moreover, the incorporationof these traditionsis to engage in the time-honored recognitionof the pervasiveimpact of ideas. With Johnson,we believe that "politicaltheory, at least where Latin America is concerned,is a body of prescriptivebeliefs about how the body politic and the governmentought to function,what should be the optimal preferredset of relationshipsbetween man and the State, and what values and goals ought to be organicallycentral to the system."2 1. Alfred Stepan, The State and Society: Peru in Comparative Perspective (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978), pp. xi-xv, 3-7. 2. Kenneth C. Johnson, "Latin American Political Thought: Some Literary Foundation," in Ben Burnett and Kenneth C. Johnson, eds., Political Forces in Latin America: Dimensions of the Quest for Stability (Belmont, Mass.: Wads- worth PublishingCompany, 1968), p. 479. 216 UnderstandingLatin American Politics In additionto the prescriptive,it is also importantto includenormative elements as applied to society. This insistence upon the relevance of philosophy and humanisticconcerns is mirroredthroughout the Latin Americanexperience. Our agenda, then, must begin with an inquiry into the intellectual underpinningsthat have emergedwith the unfoldingof history.This will provide the context within which the three major traditionsand their correspondingmodes of analyzingLatin Americanpolitics may be re- viewed. It will become evidentas we proceed,that althoughthe assump- tions on which each of the three traditionsis based may have dominated at a given time in a particularcountry, all three have enduredin Latin Americanpolitical culture. Moreover,important elements of each can be identifiedin the frameworksand abstractionsof modernscholarship. As we suggest later, the three distinctivemodes of conceptualization which characterizecontemporary literature are broadly parallel to the overarchingintellectual traditions. This need not necessarily,or inevita- bly, follow but it does happen to be the case with referenceto Latin America. Perhaps more importantis our belief that analytic models must incorporateelements from all three intellectualtraditions. To do otherwise,as has been the practicein recent years, is to producetheo- reticalframeworks of an exclusionarycharacter which deny the fullness of the Latin American experience. In short, the sharpeningof con- temporarytheorizing requires an appreciationof the continuingpresence of all three traditions.It mandatesa broadeningof perspectives. Our immediatetask, then, is to identifythe philosophicalroots of the analytic models describedin the subsequentsection. This will lead in turn to a further considerationof the relationshipbetween traditions and models,suggesting the wisdomof broaderand more inclusivethink- ing to guide futureresearch. I. Intellectualand PhilosophicalRoots Monism The monist or organicist tradition, chronologicallythe oldest of the three, stressedthe distinctiveIberic-Latin legacy emanatingfrom south- ern Europe.Roman law and governance,the Thomistictradition, feudal- ism and the system of medievalguilds, the prolongedstruggle to expel the Moors-all were elementsin the developmentof monism.Assump- tions about the governingof man were reified in absolutistcentraliza- tion, the unificationof social groupings,and a militantlynarrow spiritual outlook. Running through this traditionwas the vision of an organic John D. Martz& David J. Myers 217 political community,the componentsof which were to harmonizethe quest for man's self-fulfillment. Iberianmonism, subsequently transferred to Latin America,had in a sense branchedoff from the mainstreamof Westernintellectual thought before the Enlightenmentand prior to the writings of major social- contract theorists. It was most vividly expoundedin sixteenth-century Spain, the cradle of the Counter-Reformation.Among the more influ- ential and characteristicexpressions of Catholic reaction against the dissidencedividing Christianity were the Councilof Trent (1545-1563) and the foundingof the Society of Jesus (1536). The formerwas pro- moted indefatigablyby CharlesI in the great offensiveto adopt mea- sures tighteningthe solidarityof Catholicismand defendingits articles of faith. The Society of Jesus, approved by papal bull in September 1540, conceivedof its role as a militantconsecration to God and to ab- solute submission,except in the case of sin, to the Pope. Memberswere subject to unquestioningobedience-"as if they were cadaversthat let themselvesbe moved hither and yon and dealt with at will."3 This traditioncould be traced back to Aristotle;carried through the Roman extension from naturalto human law; elaboratedwith Augus- tine's "Cityof Man"as one of law; and furtherrefined by the profundity of Aquinas.The Thomistrevival in Spainwas boundedby considerations of morality and law. The Dominican Francisco de Vitoria, while re- specting royal absolutismand

Load more

  29

Copy Link