John Charles Chasteen has written a very good book on caudillismo and nineteenth-century rural politics in the Brazilian-Uruguayan borderlands. The work studies the federalist rebellion led by Gumercindo Saravia against the republican government of Brazil (1893-94) and the Blanco risings headed by his brother Aparicio against the Colorado government in Uruguay (1897 and 1903-4).
Although sensitive to the changing economic conditions in which these conflicts took place, Chasteen challenges the economic-centered explanations of caudillismo. Instead, he argues, these caudillos should be understood as “culture heroes”; that is, charismatic leaders (p. 4). He emphasizes, however, that it is necessary to study the culture of the followers rather than the personal qualities of the leader. Thus, “Aparicio [Saravia] came to embody, in his followers’ imagination, an attractive picture of their own shared identity, drawing on a well-established set of beliefs and images [called] the ‘myth of the patriada.’. . . during the hero’s life this myth conferred upon him what is sometimes called ‘charisma’ ” (p. 133).
One of the benefits of this approach is that it accounts for the attraction these leaders exerted over their followers and includes the gauchos as active political subjects. Even when Chasteen’s research is generally rigorous and respectful of the local culture, however, the effectiveness of this stimulating approach is sometimes threatened by the problem of availability of sources. For this reason, the book presents only a thin and blurry reconstruction of the gauchos’ perceptions of the caudillos. The work is much more successful, by contrast, in dealing with the perceptions of the urban and learned followers of Aparicio.
The study of rural politics in the borderlands, a region where two different languages and various cultural and political traditions meet, is an intelligent choice that allows the author to discuss important issues in nineteenth-century Latin American politics. Thus, chapter 5 provides an excellent treatment of how nations and identities are experienced and shaped in everyday life. Partisan identity is also an important concern. As the author clearly shows, Blanco and Colorado identities were fundamental in the experience of nineteenth-century Uruguayans, to the extent that “one’s party was something to die for.” As such, those identities “could compete with the official national identity for people’s primary loyalty” (p. 141).
Yet although the work successfully recognizes the importance of party identities, it is less convincing in reconstructing them. For example, according to the argument, the “myth of the patriada” was what gave content to the Blanco identity. The myth offered the party a gendered explanation of its history: “Blancos had once been heroic and virile . . . but they had degenerated and become effeminate” because of their long submission to Colorado power (p. 134). To rebel against the Colorados, then, was what Blancos could do to achieve a “moral regeneration.” But if this reconstruction of the Blanco identity allows for the articulation of gender and politics, it fails to explain how other important aspects of the nineteenth-century Uruguayan experience, such as class, region, ethnicity, or religion, worked in the construction of partisan identities.
Finally, two words about the writing. First, thematic chapters alternate with narrative ones; this gives the book an original organization, the main goal of which is to show how certain theoretical issues work in the concrete historical process. Second, Chasteen’s book demonstrates that solid research and a subtle analysis do not conflict with clear and enjoyable prose, which recommends the book for both undergraduate and graduate courses.
