Theories of the state are multiplying at precisely the time antistate sentiment, globally, seems also to be increasing. This paradox and contradiction must be in the forefront of any consideration of this Ford Foundation-sponsored anthology of writings by, mainly, Latin American authors on the state and politics in Latin America.
The title is suggestive of the book’s main thrust, but, as with all collections, this one is sometimes unfocused and uneven. Norbert Lechner’s excellent introduction emphasizes the absence of historical political theory in Latin America of the stature that sets the tone of an entire society or defines its developmental model (a la Hegel or Pareto, for example), and calls also for recognition of the independence of the political variable. He and other contributors employ some of the rhetoric of Marxian analysis; but they also emphasize the multiple social and political divisions of society (Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Guillermo O’Donnell), the phenomenon of class cooperation as well as class conflict (Adam Przeworski), and the autonomy of the Latin America state systems from any simplistic and overly rigid class analysis (Oscar Landi, Fernando Rojas). Ernesto Laclau similarly criticizes the “hyperdeterminism” of some Marxian analysis, and calls, à la Gramsci or Poulantzas, for greater attention to political factors and what has come to be called the “relative autonomy of the state.”
Sergio Zermeño argues that the late-developing nations of Latin America require independent analysis and particularly urges attention to the interventionist state and its relation to societal and corporate groups. Edelberto Torres Rivas urges rejection of Eurocentrism and the developmental theories derived from it, arguing that the African, Asian, and Latin American experiences are in many ways unique and particularly criticizing Marxian historiography for elevating an exceptional experience into a universal one. Other authors suggest, somewhat uncomfortably, that only a despotic state historically could rule such fragmented and chaotic national territories; that the Latin American state systems should be examined in terms of their own often pyramidal and pillared formations; that the Latin American state is a product of multiple dimensions; and that the state systems are different in all the Latin American countries and therefore require a theory that is cognizant of such variety and is neither ahistorical nor asociological.
This book is a major addition to the literature. It should be read and understood in the context of an emerging Latin American political sociology strongly concerned with development and dependency and often cast in Marxian terms. In that context, this collection is especially refreshing because it often goes in directions contrary to the prevailing orthodoxies and suggests new directions for thought and research. Editor Lechner’s introduction and epilog are to be particularly commended for their thoughtful commentaries on the literature and suggestions for further study on the role of the state, the state and change, and state-society relations.
The book, however, has major flaws. Frequently the rigidly Marxist-Leninist interpretations the authors criticize are replaced by a new form of unthinking Trotskyist populism. There is too much faddish name-drop ping (currently Gramsci, Habermas, Poulantzas). The sociological “establishment” (CEDES, FLASCO, CEPAL, CEBRAP) is too strongly represented. And, as often in the past, the Latin American intellectuals who contribute to this volume are prone to ape and emulate the current European intellectual culture, now strongly anti–Marxist-Leninist and anti-Soviet; but following this continental trend as they have so many earlier ones means the Latin Americans often ignore their own realities. Hence we still await, after nearly twenty years of Ford Foundation and other efforts to nurture Latin American sociology and political science, a political sociology of development that is genuinely Latin American and not so much based on imported foreign models.
