An important book is not necessarily a good one. This work by two University of Wisconsin rural sociologists illustrates this point. The importance of the book lies in the pioneering effort to tie the studies in microcosm which constitute the bulk of the book into a general theory of exploitation and internal colonialism. The editors’ failure in this regard will probably not be final since this book should be a waystation on their path toward a unifying social theory applicable to Colombia and its social organization.
There are fourteen chapters, eight of them contributed by the editors. Two of the other papers are prepared by Colombian sociologists; two of the best are by Dale Adams, an agricultural economist; and, finally, two deal with public administration and land titles. Several of the papers have been published previously; editorial additions, though meant to weld the book together, seem rather as non sequiturs at the end of some chapters.
The importance of this book should not be overlooked because of its minor editorial failings. Havens and Flinn have presented here results of their independent investigations of villages, small communities, and urban barrios and drawn a picture of Colombian political and social structure more solidly based in empirical research than any previous effort at synthesis in this area. Their general prognosis that “progress for the mass of the population has been largely illusory,” is borne out by empirical studies, especially those of educational attainment in chapter ten and community power structure in a Bogotá shantytown in chapter six. Only structural change, i.e., revolution, can end this state of affairs, and its possibility depends upon the “relative deprivation” experienced by urban dwellers in whom resides “the greatest potential for structural change.” The editors believe the necessary conditions for structural change have already been established—“rapid rates of urbanization, widespread feelings of relative deprivation and a severe level of anomie.” There remains the absence of leadership and organization. The authors hint that structural change would be prejudicial to North American business interests and thus might not be tolerated: “U.S. intervention is something that Latin governments must cope with.” Recent events in Chile suggest that Havens and Flinn may be unduly pessimistic about the intentions of the United States’ government. In any case more than a few readers will perceive an heroic editorial leap from the micro-studies of communities to conclusions about international politics. None of the empirical studies in chapters three through thirteen would support their hasty conclusions.
The events of mid-1970 also seem curiously different from those which the Havens-Flinn stylized reality might have suggested. ANAPO under Rojas Pinilla offered leadership and organization for structural change. Despite the presumed high levels of anomie in urban Colombia there was little violent action in support of the populist leader.
What induces the Colombian poor to accept the conditions outlined in the empirical studies of this book? Perhaps the editors might well set their next task as the determination of the stability-conditions for Colombia’s low-level political and social equilibrium. Structural stasis deserves analysis just as much as structural change. The excellent empirical work already published by the editors and their collaborators bodes well for even more good work in the future.
