INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed, a definite method of “sectioning” the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed. University Micrdrilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 8410380 dos Anjos, Erly Euzebio THE INFLUENCE OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIOLOGY AND RURAL SOCIOLOGY IN BRAZIL, 1920’S-1960’S The Ohio State University Ph.D. 1984 University Microfilms International300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 Copyright 1984 by dos Anjos, Erly Euzebio All Rights Reserved THE INFLUENCE OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIOLOGY AND RURAL SOCIOLOGY IN BRAZIL, 1920,s-1960,s DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University BY Erly Euzebio dos Anjos, B.A., M.A, The Ohio State University 1984 Reading Committee: William L. Flinn Roscoe Hinkle David O. Hansen Donald W. Thomas Adviser Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology © C opyright by Erly Euzebio dos Anjos 1984 To Bill Flinn for indispensable personal support and for allowing me to question, err and exercise creativity. ALSO To my children Derek and Stephanie, for their irrefutable love and affection. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS As a Brazilian from the one of the "less-developed" countries, I have always been skeptical about the political intentions of assistance to my country from developed societies, and in particular from the United States. Born in 1944, I am from the generation that was taught to view the United States as a model of the most technologically advanced society — democratic, honest, generous, and free, "good guys" in the Hollywood movies that I saw and in the novels, biograDhies, and history books that I read. Brazilians, such as Sam Carioca in the Disney cartoons, were not. My generation was raised with an inferiority complex in relation to "American ideals:" we were corrupted (by nature), untrustworthy, lazy ("ai que preguica," says Macunaima*), too emotional, subjective, family-bound, selfish and impatient with unfamiliar conditions. Macunaima is the protagonist of Mario de Andrade's book (Macunaima, in Paulo Eugenio Cupolo, 1928). Mario de Andrade was one of the main writers of the Modernist movement in Brazilian literature and arts in the 1920's. In Macunaima he critically evaluates Brazilian society, its racial mixture, its history and its problems of national identity. "Ai que preguica" roughly translated means: "Oh, what laziness," in reference to Brazilians' indifferent attitudes toward work and productivity. My favorite joke about Brazil concerns God's reply to a question as to why He created Brazil with an ideal climate, free of volcanoes and seasonal storms—indeed, a paradise. God said, "Don't worry about it — just wait and see what kind of people I'm going to put there." Most Brazilians, ashamed of their cultural heritage, turned their attention to and learned to admire the European and then the American "ideals." The notion that "equality," "property" and "liberty" in the United States are equally shared by all were especially idealized parts of American culture. My eldest brother, who encouraged me and provided support for me to study in the United States, (in 1966) gave me the following advice: "You are going to a country where a President states: 'Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.'" This was a year after the Brazilian military had ousted the populist, democratic, nationalist, anti- American, and anti-imperialistic government of Goulart. After this coup d'etat, my closest friends were jailed for participation in subversive activities. Others disappeared. I was hesitant to go to a country that had been involved in combating leftist ideas and activities in Brazil. My brother, a U.S. admirer, firmly believed that coming to the United States was a chance no one could afford to miss. Kennedy's words sounded like universal truth to me and made me ashamed once more of being a Brazilian — an underachiever. I never stopped, however, being skeptical of the United States. Kennedy's "Alliance for Progress" fit nicely with Brazilian and Latin American desires to overcome the causes of underdevelopment through rapid industrialization. Brazilian President Kubistcheck, elected to replace Vargas, wanted to make 50 years of progress in five years — so the slogan went. American businessmen established multinational companies in Brazil. Diplomats and scholars went to Brazil to "help the people help themselves." The self- help approach was a powerful tool to defuse collective grass-roots movements that instilled class-consciousness. It was congruent with American ideals: independence, self-reliance, achievement, individualism, freedom from tradition, and equal opportunity to all in spite of race, sex or creed. It was a powerful package for Brazil, a country with an inferiority complex about self- determination. My skepticism had an opportunity for expression in a seminar about Brazilian society at the University of Florida. The class was taught by Professor T. Lynn Smith, a sociologist widely known for his professional dedication and his studies of Brazil even before I was born. Professor Smith was explaining about Brazilians' inability to produce reliable statistics or quantifiable data and about the generally poor conditions for scientific research. Naively, I asked why North Americans had become so interested in studying Brazil and other Latin American countries after the Second World War if the statistics were bad? What, I asked, were the relationships between the United States' alliance with these countries and the interest of U.S. scholars in studying them?" Professor Smith was surprised at these questions. I was puzzled and afraid I had committed a heresy by asking such questions. My North American colleagues showed disapproval and made me feel that these questions were not suitable for the seminar. I was sure I had been petulant to my professor and unsure of the meaning and the importance of my questions. Although the idea for this study began in Professor Smith's seminar, it took shape while I was attending graduate school at The Ohio State University. On one side of the river, at the Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, I was exposed to a critical assessment of rural sociology; while on the other side, to the challenges of understanding sociological theory — perhaps for the first time. Professor William L. Flinn, my adviser, is credited with introducing me to the general criticism of that subdiscipline, and Professor Roscoe Hinkle, to general sociology. The opportunity of working on a project about sociology in Brazil with Professor David O. Hansen helped me to "bridge" the two intellectual concerns and to organize my thoughts in this study. I wish to also acknowledge Professor Donald W. Thomas and Larry Brown to my committee. Without the intellectual guidance, unfaltering support and extraordinary personal stimulation of Bill Flinn — first through correspondence (while I was in Brazil) and then on a daily basis — this research would not have been completed. Few students, I am sure, have had the chance to experience such open, supportive and non-directive orientation from an adviser as I have, and I am forever grateful for that. My only hope is that I can share Bill's unique guidance and approach with others, as a professor in my country. I am also grateful to the CNPq and MEC (respectively, the National Council for Research and the Ministry of Education of Brasilia, Brazil) for financial support. The Department of Social Sciences at the Federal University of Espirito Santo in Vitoria, Brazil, where I am employed, has also been instrumental in helping me to conclude my studies, Roberto Belling’s comments and discussion of my very first draft (1981), helped to set the tone for the socio-historical analysis. Celso Perota’s criticisms, suggestions and particularly James Roy Dosxey's orientation and constant encouragement, have contributed to the successful accomplishment of this project. Many friends and relatives from Brazil gave me personal and emotional support.