James William Park. Latin American Underdevelopment: 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 modification" with the increasing profes‐ tion and diversification, 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 modernization theory. 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 Alliance for Progress. (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 different politico-intellec‐ them to the emergence in the 1960s of conflicting 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 fident 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 influence 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 specifically, 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 beneficial impact on and contemporary explanations for 'underdevel‐ U.S. perspectives, influencing official 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 official concerns and tinue to serve, primarily to complement inter- commentary as Park's approach implies (particu‐ American power relations and elite efforts 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 flict of interest between the governments and by racism 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 effort 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 significantly 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.