forum Latin American Studies Association · 31/10/2010 · Latin American Studies Association IN...

Latin American Studies Association

I N T H I S I S S U E

On the Profession

What LASA Can Do For Political Scientistsby EVELYNE S. HUBER

A Survey of Political Scientists’ Views on LASA by RAÚL MADRID

El incierto rumbo de LASAby ARIEL C. ARMONY

What Might LASA Do to Best Meet the Needs and Serve the Interests of Those in the Political Sciences?by SUSAN C. STOKES

Debates

Immigration Matters

Don’t Panic, We are Hispanic!Migración y resistencia socialby JOSÉ MANUEL VALENZUELA ARCE

Crossing-back Methodologies Transnational Feminist Research on Incest in Mexicoby GLORIA GONZÁLEZ-LÓPEZ

Why the Immigrant Rights Struggle Compels Us to Reconceptualize Both Latin American and Latino/a Studiesby WILLIAM I. ROBINSON

Political Commentary

Situación social y política de México y deOaxaca al final del gobierno de Vicente Fox yprincipios del gobierno de Felipe Calderón.by SALOMÓN NAHMAD

forumS P R I N G 2007 | V O L U M E X X X V I I I | I S S U E 2

1 From the President | by CHARLES R. HALE

4 From the Associate Editor | by ARTURO ARIAS

ON THE PROFESSION

6 What LASA Can Do For Political Scientists | by EVELYNE S. HUBER

8 A Survey of Political Scientists’ Views on LASA | by RAÚL MADRID

11 El incierto rumbo de LASA | by ARIEL C. ARMONY

13 What Might LASA Do to Best Meet the Needs and Serve the Interests of Those inthe Political Sciences? | by SUSAN C. STOKES

DEBATES

Immigration Matters

16 Don’t Panic, We are Hispanic! Migración y resistencia socialby JOSÉ MANUEL VALENZUELA ARCE

19 Crossing-back Methodologies: Transnational Feminist Research on Incest in Mexico | by GLORIA GONZÁLEZ-LÓPEZ

21 Why the Immigrant Rights Struggle Compels Us to Reconceptualize Both Latin American and Latino/a Studies | by WILLIAM I. ROBINSON

POLITICAL COMMENTARY

24 Situación social y política de México y de Oaxaca al final del gobierno de VicenteFox y principios del gobierno de Felipe Calderón. | by SALOMÓN NAHMAD

ON LASA2007

27 Report from the Program Chairs | by NEIL HARVEY and MARÍA SOCORRO TABUENCA

CALLING ALL MEMBERS

28 Elections 2007: Nominating Committee Slate

NEWS FROM LASA

37 LASA Voluntary Support | by SANDY KLINZING

39 LASA Membership Report 2006

Table of Contents

President Charles R. Hale, University of Texas, [email protected]

Vice PresidentEric Hershberg, Simon Fraser [email protected]

Past PresidentSonia E. Alvarez, University of Massachusetts, [email protected]

TreasurerKevin Middlebrook, University of [email protected]

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

For term ending October 2007José Antonio Aguilar Rivera, Centro de Docencia eInvestigación Económica

Elizabeth Jelin, Consejo de Investigaciones Científicas y Tecnológicas

Lynn Stephen, University of Oregon

For term ending April 2009Alcida Rita Ramos, Universidade de BrasíliaGuillermo Delgado, University of California/Santa CruzJosé Rabasa, University of California/Berkeley

Ex OfficioNeil F. Harvey, New Mexico State UniversityMaría Socorro Tabuenca Córdoba,

El Colegio de la Frontera NorteMilagros Pereyra-Rojas, University of PittsburghPhilip Oxhorn, McGill University

FORUM EDITORIAL COMMITTEE

EditorCharles R. Hale, University of Texas, Austin

Associate EditorArturo Arias, University of Redlands

Managing EditorMilagros Pereyra-Rojas, University of Pittsburgh

LASA STAFF

Membership CoordinatorJenna B. Bielewicz, University of Pittsburgh

Congress CoordinatorMaría Cecilia Q. Dancisin, University of Pittsburgh

Communications SpecialistIan Downing, University of Pittsburgh

Assistant Director for Institutional AdvancementSandra Klinzing, University of Pittsburgh

Executive DirectorMilagros Pereyra-Rojas, University of Pittsburgh

Administrative CoordinatorIsrael R. Perlov, University of Pittsburgh

The LASA Forum is published four times a year. It is the official vehicle for conveying news about the LatinAmerican Studies Association to its members. Articlesappearing in the On the Profession and Debates sections of the Forum are commissioned by the Editorial Committeeand deal with selected themes. The Committee welcomesresponses to any material published in the Forum.

Opinions expressed herein are those of individual authorsand do not necessarily reflect the view of the LatinAmerican Studies Association or its officers. Directsubscriptions to the LASA Forum only, without LASAmembership, are $50.00 per year.

ISSN 0890-7218

The LASA Executive Council (EC) recentlybraved Montréal’s sub-zero temperatures toattend our midterm meeting, an intense dayand a half long session dedicated to vitalAssociation issues. Reflecting on the pastnine months that culminated with this mid-term meeting, I am happy to report that themajority of my time and energy as Presidenthas been spent on issues of great intellectual-political substance and challenges crucial toLatin Americanist scholars. When, onoccasion, I do not highlight these substantivedimensions myself, I have learned to relyupon the present EC—a critical, demanding,energetic and highly talented group—tobring them to the fore. Here is a glimpse ofour deliberations, followed by a comment onpluralism and the concerns about“politicization” within our Association.

One topic to which this EC has assignedgreat importance is our commitment to the“Latin Americanization” of LASA. Whileour members surely have a range ofpositions on the meaning of this term, andon the substance of this commitment, mysense is that most would endorse two broadprinciples (and these two certainly formedpart of what I understood as my presidentialmandate). We seek to increase thepercentage of Latin America-based LASAmembers as well as an evolutionary changetoward an Association that more fullyencompasses the study of Latin Americafrom Latin America, thereby moving awayfrom an organizational culture andintellectual frame dominated by scholarsfrom the North. To be sure, this starkcontrast between Southern and Northernperspectives does not always hold, given thegreat heterogeneity that both geographiclocations encompass. Still, the dual principleis a reasonable point of departure, andindeed, it goes to the heart of why many ofus find LASA to be so valuable and vital.

The data show how far we have come fromLASA’s U.S.-centric beginnings, but also,how far we have to go. Currently, roughly30 percent of our members live outside theUnited States, of whom about 20 percent areLatin America-based. We have never had aLatin America-based president. It is onething to reaffirm the principle, but quiteanother to achieve full clarity about the endgoals and the appropriate means to reachthem. What geographic distribution of ourmembership do we seek? What changes inorganizational culture are most important inthis gradual transformation towardbecoming a truly Americas-wide associationwith a U.S. home? What kinds of relationswith our Latin American sister organizationswill best achieve complementarities andmutual support? Our practice of providingtravel funds for significant numbers of LatinAmerica-based Congress participants iscrucial to the overall objective of LatinAmericanization, but how sustainable areour current fund raising strategies as bothgeneral Congress attendance, and the LatinAmerican-based proportion of attendeescontinue to grow? We do not yet have firmanswers to these questions, but I can reportthat the EC has assigned them high priority,and has begun to take action. For example,a subcommittee of the EC will design a briefsurvey to better understand the currentsources of travel funds available to LatinAmerican participants and in May LASAofficials will hold meetings with ourcounterparts in Brazilian social scienceorganizations to discuss these issues in thecontext of both Montréal 2007 and Rio deJaneiro 2009.

Closely related to the need to increase thefunds available for travel grants is the thornyquestion of corporate sponsorship. Giventhat attendance at the Montréal 2007Congress is projected to be greater than thatof Puerto Rico, the fund raising challengewill be exacerbated as well. In order to

reach our benchmark of supporting roughly30 percent of total applications, we will needto raise about $492,000 (25 percent morethan our Puerto Rico goal)—while theamount we currently have in hand is about$257,000. The EC had a long and spiriteddiscussion about socially responsibleinvestment, in relation to management ofLASA reserves and endowment funds, aswell as the possibility of pursuing corporatedonations. Without any attempt to conveythe many complexities, I can report that theEC approved exploratory actions on bothfronts: a more assertive move towardsocially responsible investment of theAssociation’s assets and a primary attempt toattract donations from socially responsiblecorporations. Fully aware that this latterstep is highly controversial, and fullyexpecting it to generate intense andconstructive debate, I am very excited aboutthe initiative. It is an opportunity for LASAto engage critically with the uneven andcontradictory economic conditions in whichwe are all immersed, while also potentiallyfashioning creative new ways to meet ourAssociation’s pressing financial needs. I amalso deeply grateful to life member MichaelConroy, who has volunteered to work withthe Fund Raising Committee and the EC tohelp us navigate this rocky terrain. Moredetails on this initiative will soon beavailable.

Finally, I would like to report briefly on theEC’s deliberations regarding our revitalizedcommission on academic freedom, as well asthe related issue of a petition for LASA toconvene a fact-finding mission to investigatethe impact of social conflict and governmentactions on Oaxacan intellectuals, academics,

1

President’s Reportby CHARLES R. HALE | University of Texas, Austin | [email protected]

lasaforum S P R I N G 2007 : VO L U M E X X X V I I I : I S S U E 2

2

PRESIDENT’S REPORT continued…

and cultural workers. The EC agreed thatLASA should establish a protocol for actionwhen our members’ (or would-be members’)physical integrity or basic intellectualfreedoms are seriously and systematicallycurtailed. Yet closer scrutiny of thisseemingly clear-cut principle revealed awelter of difficult questions and grey areas.What investigative capacities can and shouldsuch a Committee have? Will the protocolhold up over time in the face of what couldbe a long and steadily growing roster ofcases brought forth? How broadly shouldthe principles “physical integrity” and“intellectual freedom” be interpreted? Whois included in the term “intellectuals”? Whatmeasures should be taken to assure thatpartisan affinities do not influence theapplication of procedures that should applyacross the board? We are still one step awayfrom the provisional resolution of these (andother similar) questions, which in turn willallow the CAF to be inaugurated. I havebeen very impressed by how hard the EC hasworked on this task under vice presidentEric Hershberg’s leadership and I amconfident that the results will meet with theapproval of the great majority of LASAmembers. After the CAF discussion, the ECturned to the Oaxaca delegation petition,and voted unanimously (one abstention) forapproval. Efforts are now underway toform a delegation and plan its activities.

In one way or another all three of theseissues resonate with larger questions raisedby the four excellent comments in the “onthe profession” section of this issue. I amgrateful to these four political scientists forhaving taken the time to write their thoughtsand especially appreciate the frank criticismsthey put forth. I invited these four in hopesof hearing from scholars who are highlyrespected in the mainstream of theirdiscipline, but without any illusion that theyare representative of some larger body.Many other LASA political scientists

(including LASA officers, former officers,and previous contributors to the Forum)may not agree with the views espoused, andwe have yet to hear from Latin America-based political scientists on the various issuesraised. It is also important to note that thereis considerable diversity of opinion amongthese four. In any case, these comments helpto begin thinking through a series ofconcerns regarding LASA that havecirculated in less accessible channels forsome time.

As a further contribution to this dialogue, Iwant to reflect briefly on the question ofLASA’s alleged “politicization.” While Iagree with Susan Stokes that this term canoften be a red herring, it is also clear that ithas become a catch-phrase for onesignificant (albeit a minority) current ofdiscontent within LASA. I also feel a specialresponsibility to address this issue because insome members’ perceptions I may beimplicated in the problem. And while theremay be some misapprehension involved inthese perceptions, they are based at leastpartly on positions I have defended withoutambivalence. Take, for example, the OtrosSaberes Initiative. In part this initiative issimply about making space for indigenousand Afro-descendant intellectuals who arewoefully underrepresented in LASA—hardlya controversial goal. Yet, the initiativeattempts to support a different conception ofLatin Americanist scholarship: whereresearch agendas are conceived and carriedout in a horizontal, collaborative dialoguebetween academic and civil society-basedintellectuals, where the latter are apt to bemotivated primarily by socio-political ratherthan academic-professional objectives. Tosome, the Otros Saberes Initiative may wellconfirm the alleged politicization of LASA;to others, it is both a healthy move in itsown right, and a welcome counterweight tothe often unacknowledged politics ofresearch agendas that are defined exclusively

by academics on grounds that are portrayedas strictly objective or professional (andtherefore apolitical). This divergence ofopinions creates an arena in which a seriesof important debates regarding inter-subjectivity in the humanist and socialscience research, the sociology of knowledge,and the political economy of research can bestaged.

I contend that LASA is enriched by thesehealthy debates, as long as one key conditioncan be met. This condition is big tentpluralism, supplemented by a cleardistinction between initiatives taken underLASA’s name, on the one hand, and attemptsto define the official LASA position, on theother. The Otros Saberes Initiative, forexample, employs the rigorous requirementthat research agendas be conceived throughcollaborative means, but without theslightest pretense that such a criterion shouldsomehow become a prescribed norm forLASA members. The same goes,presumably, for initiatives around“nontraditional” knowledge producers orfor efforts to connect LASA with variouspolicy, activist, or grassroots communities.This distinction helps us focus the healthydebate on alleged politicization away fromthe question, “do I like, endorse, or practicethis kind of intellectual work?” toward thequestion “does this kind of intellectual workhave a legitimate place under LASA’s bigtent?” There will be many cases that stillcall for a “no” in response to the latterquestion, and much occasion fordisagreement on where that line should bedrawn, but my strong sense is thatrefocusing the dialogue in this way willencourage mutual tolerance of difference anddraw attention to the high stakes associatedwith drawing a line that essentially says:“no, your approach to research does notbelong.” This argument, in turn, has threedimensions that merit further attention.

3

First, it is hard for the membership not toperceive a given initiative as the officialLASA policy, when it is taken up by thepresident, or even by the EC. Yet this is theway our Association works. Officials areelected with the dual mandate to exercisegood governance and to devote specialenergy to one or two projects to which weare deeply committed. As newly electedofficials circulate on the EC, a new set ofspecial projects emerge. By taking a longterm view, and by trusting our democraticprocedures, these presidential initiatives canbe seen as further affirmations oforganizational pluralism, rather than assuccessive attempts to redefine the characterof LASA.

The second issue involves the composition ofour membership over time. LASA haschanged enormously over the past twodecades (the rise of cultural-literary studiesand the increasing proportion of LatinAmerica-based members are two notabletrends), and with these changes come newdistributions of perspectives on basicquestions like the alleged “politicization.”As a result it may well be that the positionput forth by Ariel Armony once reflected amajority sentiment within the Association,but now represents the views of a minority(the numbers that Raúl Madrid musters andthe vote to relocate to Montréal are twodata points that support this conjecture). Ifthis is the case, then it becomes imperativethat elected officials vigorously defend thisminority perspective, making sure itsproponents have their rightful space andlegitimacy within the Association; at thesame time, they must be encouraged toadapt to new conditions of organizationalpluralism, without the pretension that agiven conception of legitimate professionalpractice should automatically trump otherbeliefs.

Finally, these two previous points beg thequestion of the representative character ofLASA’s elected leadership. Having justcompleted the present cycle of nominations,resulting in a slate to be announced in thisForum, I can affirm full confidence in ourcurrent procedures. Under the ableleadership of Carmen Diana Deere, thenomination committee chose a stellar slate ofcandidates, with diversity on a range ofcriteria that closely reflects the compositionof our membership. A quick glance at pastslates reinforces this assertion: the election ofofficers every 18 months is a plebiscite ofsorts on a range of issues about which LASAmembers feel most strongly. What remains(and what has not always happened to theextent it should) is for our membership toorganize, to vote and to register its viewsthrough all means available. As long as ourinternal democratic practices remain sound,and our pluralist principles are rigorouslydefended, we can look to these debates onissues such as alleged politicization, and tothe ongoing dialogue about where to drawthe boundaries of the big tent, as vital signsof a healthy, vibrant Association thatconstructively engages our own diversity.


4

In this edition of the Forum we feature twoissues of major importance for LASA. Thearticles in the Debates section explore therole of Latin Americans in the United States.They problematize how transnational andtransregional foci characterize research andcurricular interests in Latin America atpresent. The On the Profession sectionexplores the present-day role of politicalscience within the framework ofinterdisciplinarity and the transformation ofknowledge that has taken place in academiain the last ten or so years.

Both debates coincide with the vision of thefuture of the profession as expressed bycenters such as the Reinvention Center, anational entity focusing on education atresearch universities. The juxtaposition ofcontrary discourses in this issue might implyboth a questioning, and a defense, of theboundaries of traditional disciplines, theirpremises and methods, their knowledgesystem, and their values. We assume that alldisciplines have to rethink their roles in thecontext of the fluid transformations of theearly 21st century, reposition themselvesregarding the many complex issues they arefacing, and become more flexible and far-reaching at a moment when dramaticchanges in the world reposition flows ofknowledge.

The first essay in the Debates section is“Don’t Panic, We Are Hispanic!”: Migracióny resistencia social,” by José ManuelValenzuela Arce. In this article, ProfessorValenzuela Arce argues that the enormousnumber of Latinos already living in theUnited States and transforming themselvesinto a virtual majority by mid-century, callsfor an accentuation of transnationalprocesses: “Los desplazamientos al nortejunto con la ofensiva antimigratoria, estándefiniendo inéditas expresionesprotagonizadas por los migrantes, cuyamanifestación más contundente la

observamos durante la primera mitad delaño pasado.” In his understanding, thesefactors require a general rethinking of socialmovements in the United States, analyzedfrom the perspective and characteristics ofLatin American social movements. He seestransnational migrant struggles as the newdefining aspect of globalization. ProfessorValenzuela Arce, a social anthropologist, isSenior Researcher at the Colegio de laFrontera Norte in Tijuana, Mexico.

The second article, “Crossing-backMethodologies: Transnational FeministResearch on Incest in Mexico,” by GloriaGonzález-López, is the personal reflection ofa Mexican citizen who migrated to theUnited States and became an academic there.She returned to Mexico to do research onincest among Mexican families. She notes:“In the fall 2005, I left for Mexico with aromanticized image of transnational feministresearch; a series of disappointments,dilemmas, and unexpected positiveexperiences gradually emerged as soon as Iimmersed myself in the field.” ProfessorGonzález-López goes on to chronicle howher professional and cultural legitimacy weretested by both professionals and potentialinterviewees as she had to cope with identityissues, leading her to explore and promotecreative forms of intellectual and activistsolidarity with community-based agencies.Professor González-López is in theDepartment of Sociology, University ofTexas at Austin.

“Why the Immigrant Rights StruggleCompels Us to Reconceptualize both LatinAmerican and Latino/a Studies,” by WilliamI. Robinson, closes this section. ProfessorRobinson argues that if Latin America is tohave any relevance in this new century, itmust refer to all those peoples who havebecome inextricably bound up over the past515 years within that matrix. This includesthe 40 million people of Latin American

Associate Editor’s Reportby ARTURO ARIAS | University of Redlands | [email protected]

descent in the United States. In his eyes, thehistorical, socioeconomic, political, andcultural forces shaping the reality ofLatinos/as in the United States are the sameones shaping the lives of the 500 millionpeople living south of the border. Thus, toconsider inquiry into the reality of U.S.-based Latino/a populations as “Latino/aStudies” and inquiry into that reality southof the Rio Bravo as “Latin AmericanStudies” seems patently absurd to him. Heconcludes by stating that as the peoples ofLatin America on both sides of the bordertransnationalize their collective struggles, weneed a parallel intellectual andepistemological transnationalization withinthe academy. Professor Robinson is in theDepartment of Sociology of the University ofCalifornia-Santa Barbara.

The On the Profession section begins withEvelyne Huber’s “What LASA Can Do forPolitical Scientists.” Professor Hubermaintains that LASA Congresses are moreexciting than those of APSA because one canfind out “what has happened lately inpolitics and the economy in Latin Americancountries, and what social scientists familiarwith these countries think about the latestdevelopments.” She then proceeds to listwhat LASA can do to enhance thesefunctions of the Congresses. She makes avariety of recommendations, such as moreroundtables, the introduction of cross-regional perspectives, additional resources toprovide seed funds for collaborative researchprojects in the region, and a greater effort tofacilitate networking among scholars. Shealso warns us of pitfalls such as confusingarea studies with cultural studies. ProfessorHuber is Morehead Alumni Professor ofPolitical Science at the University of NorthCarolina, Chapel Hill.

The contribution of Professor Raúl Madridto the On the Profession section is entitled“A Survey of Political Scientists’ Views on

5

LASA.” Madrid argues that “there is asignificant amount of disenchantment amongpolitical scientists with LASA, particularlyregarding what is viewed as efforts by theleadership of LASA to politicize theassociation and marginalize socialscientists.” While “it is not possible to knowto what extent the survey accurately reflectsthe distribution of views among theassociation’s political scientists,” ProfessorMadrid finds significant meaning in thereactions of the respondents. For example,“half of the respondents...complained thatliterature and cultural studies scholarsdominated the association.” Nevertheless,most respondents enjoy the Congresses, andwere impressed with the interdisciplinarynature of LASA’s programs, theheterogeneous composition of themembership, and the higher number ofparticipants from Latin America in recentyears. Professor Madrid is AssociateProfessor of Government at the University ofTexas at Austin.

Ariel C. Armony’s “El incierto rumbo deLASA” argues that since the approval of theStrategic Plan, LASA has become morepoliticized and has drifted “away from itsfounding principles and historical roots as aprofessional association to one movingincreasingly toward partisanship andmethodological narrowness,” because it hasgenerated “a recent tendency to steer theassociation closer to a pressure group thatadvances partisan causes beyond those thatdeal directly with scholarship, academicfreedom, and the right of inquiry.” ProfessorArmony recognizes that this frustrationcomes primarily from political scientists, buthe fears that some of them might withdrawfrom LASA after belonging for many years.Professor Ariel C. Armony is KatzDistinguished Associate Professor ofGovernment and Director of Latin AmericanStudies at Colby College.

In the final article of this section, “WhatMight LASA Do to Best Meet the Needs andServe the Interests of Those in the PoliticalSciences?,” Susan Stokes argues that,whereas the tensions between politicalscientists and LASA are real, they are also“(potentially) productive rather thanorganizationally divisive.” Professor Stokestouches on three sources of tension: “the‘politicization’ of the association, tensionsbetween the academic cultures in which weparticipate, and differences over modes ofpolitical participation of individualscholars.” Regarding the first, she believesthat the real problem is an insufficientparticipation within LASA structures by asubset of members. Professor Stokes believesthat LASA should strive to make this subsetmore engaged with the Association. As to asecond source of tension, Stokes argues thatthe tensions between academic cultures“reflect academic-cultural and linguisticdivisions.” She also points out the differencebetween mainstream political scientists’understanding of reality and that oflanguage-centered scholars, for whom“truth” is subjective and relative. Finally,Professor Stokes states that LASA’smembership covers the entire spectrum, fromthe intensely political to the apolitical, andthat many political scientists prefer tomaintain a critical distance from theirsubjects of study. However, this does notmean a non-willingness to participate. Shecites William LeoGrande’s example as amode of political participation for politicalscientists. Professor Susan Stokes is John S.Saden Professor of Political Science anddirector of the Yale Program on Democracyat Yale University.

The contribution to the PoliticalCommentary section is Salomón Nahmad’s“Situación social y política de México y deOaxaca al final del gobierno de Vicente Foxy principios del gobierno de FelipeCalderón.” Professor Nahmad believes that

Mexico is on the eve of a new socialconfrontation of serious proportions thatcould gravely impact the internationalcommunity. He draws parallels betweenwhat happened in 1907 and what hashappened in 2006-7. He sees the Oaxacaconflict with the Asamblea Popular dePueblos de Oaxaca (APPO) as just the tip ofthe iceberg, a problem that reflects both theconservative forces within the PANbeginning to hegemonize that party andattempting to crush the PRD, at the sametime as surviving PRI forces fight amongthemselves in a vicious struggle to repositionthemselves as viable alternatives to the PAN,in the wake of the destruction of the PRD.Professor Nahmad is Investigador Titular ofthe CIESAS Pacífico Sur in Oaxaca.

ON THE PROFESSION


6

What LASA Can Do For Political Scientistsby EVELYNE S. HUBER | University of North Carolina | [email protected]

When comparing LASA Congresses withother professional meetings of socialscientists, particularly of the APSA, I havebeen saying for a long time that LASACongresses are both more exciting and moreinviting. They are more exciting, becauseone can find out not only what new topicspeople are working on—which is also truefor APSA meetings—but also what hashappened lately in politics and the economyin Latin American countries, and what socialscientists familiar with these countries thinkabout the latest developments. It is simplynot possible for most of us to stay up withpolitical dynamics in a whole number ofLatin American countries on a continuingbasis. Newspapers and newsletters onlyconvey so much information, even if wemake the assumption that professors havethe time to read five newspapers daily.Annual visits to several countries to talk topeople put a severe strain on time andfinancial resources. LASA Congresses offerthe opportunity to partially compensate forthe lack of first-hand information, byallowing scholars to listen to presentationsand to talk with colleagues from South,Central, and North America.

The LASA Congresses are generally alsoinviting, both from the point of view of theintellectual interchange and from the pointof view of socializing. In marked contrast tosome other professional meetings, politicalscientists generally do not come to LASA toscore points, i.e. to prove to others andthemselves how brilliant they are, but toexchange ideas about topics and realproblems they are concerned about. Theycome to learn and to offer their insights andinvite feedback, and the debates centeraround important problems in politics moreso than around problems in political science.The Congresses provide a forum for give andtake about real world problems andintellectual approaches to deal with them.From the social and professional point of

view, they offer opportunities to see oldfriends and acquaintances, and to make newones. For young scholars, they make itpossible to build networks of peers and meetthe more established people in their field.For all of us, they enhance our internationalscholarly networks.

What can LASA do to protect and enhancethese functions of the Congresses? Given thecentrality of the information function, theroundtable format might be used morefrequently. Scholars could be invited tocomment on major events, their causes andimplications (e.g. elections, large-scaleprotests) or significant new approaches toold problems (e.g. second round of reform ofpension systems, judicial reforms, reopeningof human rights cases). These roundtableswould not require full-blown papers, so itshould not be difficult to get scholars toparticipate. This might require relaxing therules concerning limits on participation; i.e.participation in such roundtables should notcount towards the limit.

I would like to emphasize that I amsuggesting that LASA build on successfulexamples of such roundtables—I am notsuggesting something new, just more of thebest from the point of view of politicalscientists. This might require reallocatingsome time slots from traditional panels tosuch roundtables. In a similar vein, I wouldlike to suggest that LASA continue withsessions where major new reports arepresented and debated, such as the UNDPReport on La Democracia en AméricaLatina, or the IDB Report on The Politics ofPolicy.

Another suggestion for the Congresseswould be to broaden the horizon andintroduce a cross-regional perspective. Therehas been much fruitful work done by socialscientists comparing development patterns inLatin America with those of East Asia, or

processes of democratization in LatinAmerica with those in Eastern Europe andEast Asia. There has also been a vigorousdebate about the merits and limitations ofsuch comparisons. Roundtables withleading scholars from different regionsaddressing common topics would bring newperspectives to the discussion. Organizingsuch roundtables would require initiativesfrom the program committee or council toreach out and invite appropriateparticipants.

In order to further enhance LASA’sinformation and networking functionsadditional resources would be required. Iam fully aware of the longstanding efforts tobuild up an endowment and to increase thetravel fund, and I admire and thank all thoseinvolved in this effort. Enabling LatinAmerican colleagues to attend theCongresses is central to the fulfillment of theinformation and networking functions, andsupporting graduate students from Northand South to do the same is vital for thefuture of the Association. Should the stockmarket hit new heights and the LASADevelopment Committee strike gold, itwould be wonderful to add research supportto the core functions of LASA. I amthinking of programs to provide seed fundsfor collaborative research projects and tosupport doctoral dissertation research in theregion. Both of these programs should workon a competitive basis, which in turn wouldrequire the constitution of a selectioncommittee. Such a committee could easilybe appointed by the LASA ExecutiveCouncil, with overlapping terms parallelingthose of EC members.

LASA of course does much more than holdthe Congresses. It publishes LARR, a highquality interdisciplinary journal devoted toresearch, and the LASA Forum. From thepoint of view of a political scientist, theLASA Forum could be made more central to

7

the information function of the Association.For instance, a part of the LASA Forumcould be devoted to commentaries or debateson the kinds of topics mentioned above—problems faced by Latin American actors.These commentaries should by no means beconfined to political scientists, but, rather,could be interdisciplinary, in the best LASAtradition. Anthropologists and sociologistswould have lots to say about large-scalesocial protests and the reopening of humanrights cases, and sociologists and economistscould weigh in on the latest round ofpension reforms just as well as politicalscientists. The idea is to have short analyticpieces on the major social, economic, andpolitical developments that affect variousLatin American countries in similar ordifferent ways.

LASA has also served as an importantadvocacy group. The Association has beenat its best as an advocate where it hasremained inclusive and concentrated onscholarly or professional concerns, and onhuman rights. LASA has been an importantvoice on the North American academic scenefor the value of area studies, that is, the in-depth study of different countries with theirlanguage, history, and culture, in a largerregional and comparative context. From thepoint of view of political scientists, twopitfalls have to be avoided if LASA is tocontinue to be taken seriously on this issue.First, area studies should not be contrastedwith systematic, theoretically informed,comparative research, but, rather, theirsymbiotic relationship should be stressed.Case knowledge acquired under the umbrellaof area studies is a prerequisite for theadvancement of comparative research andsocial science theory, and only theoreticallyinformed comparative knowledge gives usthe tools to understand individual cases intheir whole complexity.

The second pitfall that has to be avoided isto equate area studies with cultural studies.There are different approaches to knowledgeabout countries, their language, history, andculture, and to declare one approach—cultural studies—as superior to all others isto be exclusionary and to disparage theconsiderable accumulated knowledge ofsocial scientists who use other approaches,such as structural and institutionalapproaches. To label structural andinstitutional approaches as alien to or uselessfor studying Latin American realities at best,and as imperialist perspectives at worst, is toignore the long and venerable tradition ofLatin American social science rooted inhistorical materialism and finding one of itsprominent expressions in the dependenciaperspective.

Let me end on a brief note that has nothingto do with a political science perspective inparticular but will benefit political scientistsalong with everybody else. Given theimportance of the networking and socialfunction of the LASA Congresses, it iscrucial to organize these in places wherethere are opportunities to sit with smallgroups and talk outside of panels. Thisalways works better when the outside is anoption (Puerto Rico was great!) and not aswell when the participants are confined toone or two giant hotels in business districtsin cool climates, without the outside, coffeeshops, or small restaurants to retreat to. Ifully realize that there are many variablesthat have to be taken into account in thechoice of a convention site, but I think ithelps to reflect on what participants reallywant to get out of the meetings, and toinspect the sites with an eye on theirsuitability for these purposes.

ON THE PROFESSION


8

A Survey of Political Scientists’ Views on LASA by RAÚL MADRID | University of Texas at Austin | [email protected]

In recent years, I have heard a growingnumber of complaints about LASA fromfellow political scientists. When I was askedto write a short article for the LASA Forumasking me among other things “to reflectproactively on what LASA might do to bestmeet the needs and serve the interests ofthose in [my] discipline,” I decided to surveythe members of the Latin American PoliticalInstitutions Section (LAPIS) to evaluate howsatisfied they were with LASA: what theyliked and did not like

1. I chose to survey a

broad group of political scientists ratherthan simply present my own views, in largepart because it matters much more what thediscipline as a whole thinks of LASA thanwhat I think on a personal level.

As we shall see, this survey found thatamong political scientists there isconsiderable disenchantment with LASA,particularly regarding what is viewed asefforts by the leadership of LASA topoliticize the association and marginalizesocial scientists. Nevertheless, most of thesurvey’s respondents expressed satisfactionwith the association in spite of any criticismsthey might have. I would like to make clearthat I did not try to influence the results ofthis survey in any way, and I have selectedcertain quotes for inclusion below, becausethey are expressive of particular points ofview held by political scientists in theAssociation, not because I necessarily agreewith them. Indeed, while I agree with someof the praise and criticism of LASAexpressed here, I disagree with a significantamount of it as well.

The survey, which I sent to LAPIS membersvia its listserv, contained the followingquestions:

1) In general, are you very satisfied, satisfied,unsatisfied, or very unsatisfied with theway that LASA is run?

2) Please list the three things about LASAthat you like the most:

3) Please list your three main complaintsabout LASA:

4) What do you think LASA can do to betterserve political scientists?

5) What, if anything, should LASA do topromote inter-disciplinary dialogue andscholarship?

I received 31 responses to the survey in all,although some of the respondents did notanswer all of the questions. The survey’srespondents represent only a smallpercentage of the total number of politicalscientists who are members of LASA.Moreover, the survey was not designed toachieve a representative sample. It is notclear whether the members of LAPIS ingeneral, or those who responded to thesurvey in particular, are broadlyrepresentative of all political scientists whobelong to LASA

2. Thus, it is not possible to

know to what extent the survey accuratelyreflects the distribution of views among theAssociation’s political scientists.Nevertheless, the survey should at leastprovide some insights into how a selectgroup of political scientists feel about theassociation.

As Table 1 indicates, 52 percent of therespondents stated that they were satisfiedwith LASA, and another seven percent of therespondents pronounced that they were verysatisfied with the association3. A sizablepercentage of the respondents, however,stated that they were unsatisfied (28 percent)or very unsatisfied (seven percent) withLASA. And another seven percent indicatedthat they were somewhere between satisfiedand unsatisfied.

Half of the respondents cited thepoliticization of LASA as one of their maincomplaints about the association. Thiscomplaint was particularly widespreadamong people who expressed dissatisfactionwith the association. One unsatisfiedpolitical scientist referred to “the ridiculouslengths to which the organization goes tomake a political point that emphasizes theorganization’s irrelevance and extremism.”Another argued that “a certain group ispoliticizing LASA. In the name of politicalcorrectness, standard scholarly criteria arebeing cast aside.” A third complained about“obvious ideological tendencies that theorganizers think all people should share ifonly they were right-thinking.” Even somescholars who stated that they were satisfiedwith LASA complained about thepoliticization of the association. Onesatisfied political scientist, for example,wrote that the organization placed “toomuch emphasis on political resolutions (andyet, LASA has yet to issue a strongresolution condemning Cuba’s lack ofhuman rights).” Another complained aboutthe “politicization of some decisions withinLASA, especially by an agenda that seemssomewhat outdated and heavily focused onCuba.” Some of the respondents alsomentioned the decision to move the nextLASA meeting to Montreal as an example ofthe politicization of the Association.

Half the respondents also complained thatliterature and cultural studies scholarsdominated the Association, and many ofthese respondents maintained that this grouphad deliberately marginalized politicalscientists (and economists) from theorganization. One respondent referred tothe “progressive exclusion of politicalscientists and economists (e.g. [fewer] panelsfor [the] conference).” Another mentioned“the patently obvious and politicized effortsto eliminate political science and especiallyempirical research from the LASA program

9

(we are following economists toward the exitdoor).” This complaint was also made bysome people who were generally satisfiedwith LASA. One satisfied scholar, forexample, stated that “I sense that socialscience is less and less central to theorganization. Economists seem to be nearlyextinct there, and political scientists seem tobe a rare breed these days. I LIKE that wemix it up with the humanities, especiallyhistory, but the marginalization of the socialsciences (probably self-imposed) isdisheartening.” Another wrote:

My main complaint, by far, is that LASA is being increasingly dominated by a subjectivist group whosemethodological/philosophical positionstend to run counter to the more positivistleanings of most political scientists.Pluralism in methods is alwaysadvantageous, but I have heard fromseveral members of the executivecommittee that the LASA leadershipincreasingly views methodologicaldifferences as a zero-sum ‘us versus them’struggle, and that there exists a consciouspolicy of trying to diminish the presenceof positivist social science. I am findingthis growing hegemony a little stifling andfind it is siphoning the resources (‘OtrosSaberes’ project and the panel schedulewhich is according political science adiminishing role).

The respondents also had complaints aboutthe LASA Congresses, although these werefewer in number. Approximately 34 percentof the respondents mentioned somecomplaint about the Congresses, but most ofthese criticisms came from scholars whowere satisfied with LASA and the criticismswere juxtaposed with praise for certainaspects of the meetings. Some respondentscomplained about the absenteeism of papergivers and the limited access to the papersthat are presented. One scholar, for

example, wrote that “the official deadlinefor turning in papers is always too early;consequently, many papers are not turned inat all. Why can’t papers be uploaded onlinea few days before the conference?” A fewscholars complained that political scientistswere not awarded enough panels and/or thatthe conference organizers often addedadditional paper givers to their panels. Inaddition, a variety of respondentscomplained about hotel prices, and the sitesand dates of the meetings. A few peoplecomplained that LASA did not have enoughof a presence outside of the Congresses.One scholar wrote that “Other than theCongress and LARR [and the LASA] Forum,LASA really provides little benefit tomembers.” Others complained about “thelack of clarity about what sections may do”and the need “to strengthen and invigoratethe sections.”

The vast majority of respondents also hadpositive things to say about LASA, however.Most of the respondents seemed to enjoy theCongresses. Indeed, 90 percent of therespondents identified the meetings as one oftheir three favorite things about LASA. Anumber of scholars stated that they liked theinterdisciplinary program, the membership,and the opportunity to network withscholars from different universities andcountries. One satisfied scholar wrote thats/he liked the “high level of participation byscholars based in Latin America. [The] largenumber of humanities scholars is [an]interesting contrast with other (politicalscience conferences) I attend.” Anothersatisfied political scientist wrote “withoutquestion the LASA Convention is at the topof the list [of the things s/he likes most aboutLASA], because of the incredible mix ofpeople, intellectual content, richness andvariety of the panels, usefulness infacilitating regional networking andconnections, and substantive and moralconcerns engaged, all with the ability also to

have fun.” Even dissatisfied scholars, by andlarge, had good things to say about themeeting, characterizing it as fun and praisingit for “the mixture of people from differentfields at the conference” or because it gavethem “the opportunity to interact…withscholars from Latin America and Europeworking on similar topics.”

A number of political scientists also hadpraise for LASA publications, particularlythe Latin American Research Review(LARR)

4. Indeed, 34 percent of the

respondents mentioned these publications asone of the three things about LASA they likethe most. One political scientist, forexample, stated that “LARR has served asan excellent site for publishing research (andreading top level interdisciplinary researchand book reviews) and obviously I hope thecurrent transition will not affect that.”

The Way Forward

The survey respondents offered a variety ofrecommendations, most of which aimed ataddressing their main complaints. Thoseconcerned about the politicization of theorganization urged LASA in the words ofone scholar to “stop the political posing.”Many of these scholars recommended thatLASA focus more on academic and scholarlymatters and avoid expending resources onpolitically charged endeavors. Those whoargued that the social sciences were beingmarginalized recommended that LASAincrease the number of panels and tracksallocated to the social sciences and takeother steps to encourage social scientists toparticipate in the Congresses. Some scholarsalso recommended that LASA overhaul theprocedures for selecting the nominees for keyLASA posts. One scholar argued that LASAshould “have competitive elections. Give usa choice between a politicized slate and amore professional slate and let us choose.”


10

MADRID continued…

Another advocated that “corporatistrepresentation [be] built into the governingstructure such that governing councilrepresentatives came from each discipline tomake sure that the interests of all groups arerepresented and heard.” A third scholarargued that “political scientists need theirown sub-organization within LASA thatproportionally controls and allocatesresources.”

Those who complained about certain aspectsof the annual meetings had a host ofrecommendations to improve them, rangingfrom finding cheaper and more accessiblelocations for the Congresses to makingconference papers accessible on line andlimiting the number of presenters on eachpanel. The respondents were quite dividedabout what, if anything, LASA should do topromote interdisciplinary dialogue andscholarship, however. Some scholars arguedthat LASA is doing quite enough already.Others suggested that LASA mightencourage interdisciplinary panels orresearch projects or solicit moreinterdisciplinary articles in LARR or theLASA Forum.

In considering these recommendations,LASA should also take into account thepreferences of members from the many otherdisciplines that make up the Association. Iwould therefore recommend that LASAcarry out a survey of its entire membershipin order to gauge the overall level ofsatisfaction with the Association and itspolicies in recent years. However, even ifsuch a survey finds that only a minority ofits members are critical of the Associationand its direction, I would neverthelessrecommend that LASA seek to address thesources of the disenchantment of thisminority, lest they begin to leave theorganization en masse.

Several steps might be taken to address someof the complaints of some political scientists.First, I would recommend that LASAdevelop a new procedure for selecting thecandidates for the Executive Council (EC)and the presidency/vice presidency. This iscrucial in order to allow dissident groups tochoose their own candidates and tochallenge the incumbent power holders moreeasily. The current procedure vests toomuch control of the process in theincumbent president by allowing him or herto select the chair of the nominationcommittee who, in turn, chooses themembers of the nomination committee. Thiscommittee then names the candidates whostand in the elections. I would favor asystem in which the LASA membership hadmore input into the selection of candidates,perhaps by allowing members who gathersufficient signatures to run for the EC or thepresidency/vice presidency, or by having theSections play some role in the nomination

process. It might also make sense to changethe electoral system itself, by, for example,allowing more candidates to run for theLASA presidency/vice presidency in the firstround and then holding a runoff between thetop two finishers. Such measures might gofar to restore confidence in the openness andfairness of the system.

Second, I would reinstate the Politics andPublic Policy track. According to the LASAleadership, this track was eliminated in orderto encourage more interdisciplinary panels.Some political scientists, however, viewed itas a move to reduce the number of politicalscience panels at the Congress. Moreover, anumber of political scientists have told methat their research does not fit easily into anyof the current tracks, although there aretracks (such as the Democratization andDemocratic Performance track) that dealwith issues of central interest to thediscipline. Reinstating the Politics and

Table 1A Survey of Political Scientists’ Views on LASA

NUMBER OF PEOPLE PERCENT OF ALL PEOPLEGIVING THIS RESPONSE RESPONDING TO QUESTION*

Degree of Satisfaction with LASAVery satisfied 2 7%Satisfied 15 52%Between satisfied and unsatisfied 2 7%Unsatisfied 8 28%Very unsatisfied 2 7%

Favorite things about LASACongresses 26 90%Publications 10 34%

Main Complaints about LASAPoliticization 15 50%Marginalization of social scientists 15 50%Organization of Congresses 10 34%

* The total number of people responding varied slightly for each question.

11

ON THE PROFESSION

El incierto rumbo de LASAby ARIEL C. ARMONY | Colby College | [email protected]

Public Policy track would be a relativelycostless way to address these concerns, andmight serve as an effective goodwill gesture.

The most difficult issue to address may bethe issue of politicization. Whereas somemembers clearly want LASA to take politicalstands, others believe that LASA should bestrictly a professional organization.Nevertheless, even on this issue acompromise might be found by limiting theorganization’s stances to those issues thatcentrally involve academic freedom and/orparticipation in the association. In order tofind such a compromise, however, we needto have dialogue and we need to have betterinformation on the preferences of all ofLASA’s members.

Endnotes

1 I chose LAPIS both because I have been amember of the Section off and on for the lasthalf dozen years, and because, to myknowledge, it has largest number of politicalscientists within LASA. LAPIS had 281members included on its listserv at the time Icarried out the survey.

2 It may be that people who were dissatisfiedwith LASA were more likely to respond to thesurvey in order to voice their discontent, but itis also possible that people with critical viewsfelt uncomfortable expressing their criticismseven though I promised that I would keep theidentity of the respondents confidential.

3 One of the respondents whom I have classifiedhere as very satisfied actually said s/he wasbetween satisfied and very satisfied.

4 The author of this article (and administrator ofthe survey) was Associate Editor of LARR frommid-2004 until January 2007. It is not clearhow many of the respondents knew this, but itconceivably could have affected their responsesto the survey.

It is important to place this contribution in itsproper context. Along with other politicalscientists, I received an invitation from LASAPresident Charles Hale to write a brief piece forthe Forum on the role of interdisciplinarydialogue and scholarship in Latin Americanstudies and the best ways by which LASA cancontribute to maximize this dialogue and thequality of scholarship.

I interpret Hale’s invitation as a healthyresponse to a growing concern amongmembers of LASA about the gradual drift ofthe Association away from its foundingprinciples and historical roots as a professionalassociation to one moving increasingly towardpartisanship and methodological narrowness.

Frustration with LASA seems to comeprimarily from political scientists. However,disenchantment is evident to me in other socialscience disciplines as well and in sectors of thehumanities. While voices of discontent havebeen louder among a sizable group of memberswith a background of active involvement in theAssociation, my sense is that many membersperceive some problematic trends in LASA.

Recent developments in LASA are significantbecause they can, potentially, alter itsfundamental character. It is important to stressthat these changes have not originated underthe current leadership, but began at least fouryears ago. If the gap between the Association’sleadership and part of the membership deepens,I am afraid that we will witness growingdisaffection, particularly among members whohave devoted significant time to LASA withoutseeking any personal rewards. Unfortunately, apossible outcome of this process could be adecision by some of the very members whohave supported the Association for decades,and nurtured it through thick and thin towithdraw from the Association.

Therefore, I commend Hale for opening thisspace. These are important issues that should

be amply debated. In this spirit, let me focuson two of the most important concerns raisedby some LASA members.

Politicization of the Association

A number of members have expressed theirdisagreement with LASA’s increasing politicalengagement. This concern was primarilytriggered by LASA’s 2003-06 Strategic Plan,which contained several sections calling for anincreased political role of the Association. Apoint of particular concern was the Plan’sproposal “to increase political relations withnew or emerging social actors” [emphasisadded].

Indeed, an important contingent of members,based on the conversations I have had, considerthat LASA has been drifting in the direction ofpolitical partisanship, a trend that threatensLASA’s status as an academic, professionalassociation. No one questions the right of theAssociation to vote and publish resolutions onpressing matters. These formal declarations,which state specific views on public policymatters, are agreed to by a vote at the businessmeeting. This is the accepted procedure. Whatsome members question is a recent tendency tosteer the association closer to a pressure groupthat advances partisan causes beyond those thatdeal directly with scholarship, academicfreedom, and the right of inquiry.

A group of members, most of them politicalscientists, articulated these concerns in a letterdated May 27, 2003 to the LASA president atthe time. They wrote:

“Each member of LASA has countlessopportunities to become engaged politically ifhe or she chooses. Members can join politicalparties, pressure groups, and voluntaryassociations of many kinds to push for the sortsof political changes that they may favor, andthey can join other groups to oppose changes


12

ARMONY continued…

being advocated by others. LASA members caneven join or form associations of other scholarswho might wish to lobby for a politicalposition. But, LASA itself is a pluralisticassociation of scholars and students; it is not apressure group, nor is it a political party.”

If we take seriously the institutional roots ofour association, it is clear that the purpose ofLASA is not to function as a political actor, noteven as a think tank (as the Strategic Planenvisioned as part of LASA’s transformation).The Constitution and By-Laws of LASA,adopted and approved in 1966, state that

“The purposes of the Association are toprovide a professional organization that willfoster the concerns of all scholars interested inLatin American studies and will encouragemore effective training, teaching, and researchin connection with such studies, and willprovide both a forum and an instrument fordealing with matters of common interest to thescholarly professions and to individualsconcerned with Latin American studies.”

The goal of LASA is to serve as a professionalvehicle for scholars and non-scholars alike.The decision to improve mechanisms for theparticipation of social actors outside academia,especially those based in Latin America andrepresenting historically marginalizedpopulations, is very positive. However, such aneffort of incorporation should be framed withinthe professional purposes of the association.

While it is vital to innovate, politicization—expressed as direct involvement in promotingpartisan causes or particular groups—riskssteering LASA away from its roots. In thesedifficult times, professional associations such asLASA must secure their role as a respectedsource of intellectual debate and research.Politicization not only weakens the publicimage of LASA, but it is also potentially self-destructive because it can undermine pluralismwithin the Association.

Preference for Certain Intellectual andMethodological Positions

The Strategic Plan includes remarks concerninga presumed distance that separates someacademic work from historicallyunderrepresented groups. According to thisdocument, the voices of underprivileged groupsare not taken seriously by many LASAmembers, because they are seldom articulatedin abstract theoretical language. This assertionhas been received with substantial concern bymany members. The basis for this concern is asense that LASA might be questioning the workof political scientists, economists, and otherscholars employing positivist methodologicalapproaches, criticizing these approaches forbeing detached from the subaltern. It isdisturbing that the perception exists, and thatthe number of people holding this view seemsto have grown in the last few years.

Some of the recent debates sponsored by theForum suggest a trend toward hegemonicthought. For instance, the emphasis given tosome strains of scholarship, such as politicallyengaged or action-oriented research, seems toconfirm a push to give these approachespreeminence over others. Indeed, one cannothelp noticing that some of the “debates” in theForum present mostly similar perspectives.While the transformation of the Forum into avehicle for stimulating intellectual interactionbetween Congresses is to be applauded, theseare signs that debate on critical topics, such asresearch methodology, is becoming one-dimensional. It may well be the case that this isno fault of the editors, and that they have triedto stimulate contributions from all quarters.Rather, it may be that many political scientistshave chosen to invest their intellectual energieselsewhere because of their flagging interest inthe nature and quality of these debates.

An agenda of “de-centering” Latin Americanstudies should not be pursued at the expense ofthe exclusion of some methodological and

theoretical approaches. There is excellentscholarship, within and outside Latin Americanstudies, that addresses the problem of de-centering social science research. A number ofthese studies employ a combination of“conventional” perspectives that bring newinsights into our understanding of processesthat structure social and political hierarchies.In fact, some of this research has beenpublished by the flagship journal of theAmerican Political Science Association, apublication not known for its predilection forsubaltern-oriented scholarship.

LASA’s Present and Its Future

Our association is in a strong position tocontinue growing in size, scope, and influence.Now that the acrimonious debates about therelevance of area studies are over, the field ofLatin American studies has reemerged withsignificant vitality. The auspicious developmentof research on topics such as subnationalpolitics, citizenship rights, and transnationalflows and movements creates greatopportunities for our field. It is time to recoverthe intellectual leadership that Latin Americanstudies enjoyed during the period of democratictransitions. As an association that promotessound academic scholarship and broad-rangingdebates, LASA can play a key role in helping toincubate new theoretical and empirical ideas,relevant for understanding Latin America andbeyond.

One of the most significant changes of recentyears has been the incorporation to LASA ofnumerous colleagues residing in Latin America.LASA should engage in a continuous search forinnovative ways to make the dialogue betweenNorth and South more fluid and horizontal.The “Otros Saberes” initiative is a promisingcomponent of this agenda because, amongother reasons, it values grassroots knowledge,incorporates “non-scientific” styles ofcommunication, and challenges hierarchical

13

ON THE PROFESSION

ways of validating knowledge. Regrettably, thisinitiative has raised skepticism among manyLASA members, who perceive it as amechanism to implement a political rather thana scholarly agenda.

One may argue that, today, any criticalappraisal that refers to the Strategic Plan isoutdated because the plan was presented to themembership for feedback several years ago anda revised mission statement developed by theplanning group was approved by the membersthemselves. This is a valid point. However,decisions ratified by elections cannot lead to theexclusion or marginalization of members,whether they represent a minority or not. Inaddition, as it happens with any policy, theprocess of implementation opens new areas fordebate and contestation. This is part of thedemocratic process. The problems that I haveoutlined in this contribution remind us thatparticipation is crucial.

It is vital to discuss how LASA can continue toserve its academic mission and develop a broadconsensual agenda that supports values such ashuman rights and rational debate. Finding aproper convergence between innovation andpreservation of the Association’s roots is asignificant challenge. It is thus essential that theleadership of LASA reassure its members thatthis is a professional association, committed tothe principles recognized four decades ago.LASA should open more venues to address thedisenchantment of many of its members. Thisdialogue is a welcomed step. One or morepanels at the Montreal Congress could offer avenue to continue this dialogue. It is crucialthat leaders and membership alike findmechanisms to bridge differences so as to charta promising future for LASA without alienatingor marginalizing anyone.

insufficient participation—a commonproblem in membership organizations. Asubset of members that is highly motivatedto shift the organization in some directioncan do so; and even individual membershave full freedom to get involved inorganizational decision-making. Theproblem, instead, is that many of us careabout LASA but don’t have the time orincentives to make its governance ordecisions a high priority. But it doesn’t takemuch time or initiative to become offendedby a decision which appears, to the relativelyuninvolved (fairly or not), to have beentaken by a small cabal. The point is not toscold most of us who are not deeplyinvolved, but to challenge LASA to findeasier ways for us to participate. The recentshift to email votes on resolutions is a bigstep in the right direction.

Tensions among Academic Cultures

Some of the tensions between politicalscientists and LASA reflect academic-culturaland linguistic divisions. (These divisions arefrequently referred to as “methodological,”but are in fact broader than that termsuggests.) Many (though obviously not all)political scientists who are members ofLASA belong to academic communities inwhich it is assumed that there is a reality“out there” in which the objects of studyreside; that good research means explainingthings causally; and that there is—indeedshould be—a certain separation of researcherfrom object of research. In a more narrowlymethodological sense, many also believe thatquantitative measures and formal models areuseful tools in the process of explanation.These stances would also be held by thetypical economist and by not a fewsociologists. They are not undisputed inpolitical science today. Indeed, there havebeen interesting and productive criticisms ofthem, whether in the form of the perestroika

What Might LASA Do to Best Meet the Needs and Serve the Interests of Those in the Political Sciences?by SUSAN C. STOKES | Yale University | [email protected]

The tensions that have arisen betweenpolitical scientists and LASA are real,interesting, and (potentially) productiverather than organizationally divisive. LASAshould take actions that allow us toproductively explore the important questionsthat the organization faces, and to avoidgetting bogged down in unproductivedebates. Political scientists in LASA shouldrecognize that this is a multi-disciplinaryorganization which will, inevitably, have adifferent character from the disciplinaryorganizations in which we take part. Inthese comments I touch on three sources oftension between political scientists andLASA: the “politicization” of theAssociation; tensions among the academiccultures in which we participate; anddifferences over modes of politicalparticipation of individual scholars.

“Politicization” of LASA

The “politicization” of LASA is a concern ofsome of my political-science colleagues. Yet,phrased in this way, I believe this is a redherring. Most of us would reject the ideathat LASA should never involve itself inpolitical issues. Since its founding in 1966,the Association has dealt with crucialquestions of politics and U.S. policy whichhave had a direct impact on our members orabout which many members felt deeply.Consider the situation—not so unreal—inwhich members of the Association werejailed or tortured because of their research.Surely LASA would have to speak out, as ithas in the past. So the question for most isnot whether the Association should adoptpolitical stances, but which ones? And doour internal rules and procedures producesufficiently democratic and participativeresponses to this question?

My sense is that the problem here is not oneof insufficient internal democracy, but of


14

STOKES continued…

movement in the American Political ScienceAssociation or the reconsideration of thevalue of qualitative research.

1

My impression from reading through theLASA Forum over the past few years is thatthose who control its editorial content arefairly oblivious to the academic culture ofmainstream social science that I’ve justsketched. Arturo Escobar’s account of thehistory of scholarly paradigms informing(and challenging) Latin American studiesgoes from liberalism and Marxism in the1960s and 1970s to “hyphenations of thesetwo paradigms” in the 1970s and 1980s.“In the 1980s and 1990s, a thirdparadigm—post-structuralism, as a languageand meaning-based social theory” arose.“Today, combinations of these threeparadigms are practiced by manyscholars…with one paradigm usuallypredominating in a given discipline or in thework of particular authors.”2

Mainstream political science is written out ofthis condensed history. Missing is anothermajor force that challenged Latin Americanstudies, and area studies more broadly, in the1990s: the challenge of rational choicetheory and of the new institutionalism.These scholarly developments pushed us todiscover general causal relations thatoperated across all regional settings. Tooffer just one example: if presidentialismincreased the probability of militaryintervention, the challenge went, one shouldtherefore study presidentialism (and itsalternatives), as well as coups everywhere inthe world. Not all Latin Americanistpolitical scientists accepted the precepts ofthis challenge; others might agree in theorybut find the trade-offs, in a loss ofunderstanding of processes and historicalcontext, too costly. But the point is thatthese scholarly developments influencedmany of us, buffeted all of us, andquestioned the paradigm of Latin American

studies. We look in vain to recent LASAcommunications for a reflection of, andreflections on, this experience.

Language is a part of culture, and LASAmembers are separated by linguistic dividesas well. Ironically for an association that ismulti-lingual—note that there will be fourofficial conference languages in Montreal—even those of us who share the same nativelanguages use terms that others of us do notunderstand. The problem of technical andjargon-ridden prose in academic writing iswell known and perhaps irresolvable; theproblem that LASA needs to work hard tomitigate is that our jargon-laden prosesometimes infects our organizationalcommunications. The Call for Papers forthe 2007 Congress left many of us scratchingour heads. The word “de-centering,” which appears scattered throughout LASAdocuments in recent years, means little tomost political scientists, especially thoseoutside of political theory (this includes mostof us who are also LASA members). “Re-visioning” is not in the dictionary—does itmean reviewing, re-envisioning, revising? Iknow what a border is, and I know what anorder is, but what is a (b)order?3 Perhapseven many colleagues for whom these termsare more familiar would disagree with oneanother about what was being said. Theexamples are in themselves harmless, butwhen many people read prose that appearseccentric and inscrutable, a feeling ofalienation creeps in.

(Of course, political scientists also oftenwrite in ways that are inscrutable tomembers of other tribes; I hope to avoid the“everyone-has-an-accent-except-me” fallacy.)

It would be unfair to assume that LASA hasbeen univocal in its methodological stances.William Leogrande, in his 2006 MartinDiskin Memorial Lecture, encourages us,perhaps in our scholarship but especially in

the roles of public intellectuals that some ofus may wish to take on, to “speak truth topower.” In so doing, he echoes the view,accepted by many mainstream politicalscientists, that there is a “there out there,”and argues for the political importance ofthis stance:

No knowledge is absolute, of course,and knowledge of complex socialphenomena is always partial andmediated by point of view. But neitheris knowledge entirely relative, as somerecently popular epistemologies in thesocial sciences would have us believe.Truth is not just a point of view.4

Communicating Across Disciplines

LASA is by definition a multi-disciplinaryassociation. The great benefit of LASACongresses is that they allow people who areasking similar questions but from differentdisciplinary perspectives to learn from oneanother. Political scientists, for instance, aretrying to understand why the left has risen topower in many Latin American countriesand what the implications are of this rise.We will benefit greatly from the perspectivesthat anthropologists, sociologists, historians,and literary scholars bring to thesequestions.

For such cross-fertilization to occur, ofcourse, we need to be able to understandeach other; this goes back to the lastcomplaint. We should all strive to makeLASA Congresses jargon-free zones. Notonly do we often not understand the workof our colleagues from other disciplines, ourattitudes toward it tend to vary betweencondescension and disdain. These opinionsare almost invariably the product ofignorance, seasoned with a bit ofdefensiveness. I have two degrees inanthropology, but, if pressed to produce an

15

opinion of current anthropological research,I might fall back on outdated and inaccuratestereotypes about anthropologists and theirmethods. Others’ views of political scienceare similarly ill-informed. The ambitiousamong us might try to immerse ourselves inthe methods and findings of non-proximatedisciplines, but for the rest, some humilityand tolerance would help a multi-disciplinary organization withstand thestresses of increased specialization.

Cross-disciplinary ignorance becomes anorganizational problem when thoseresponsible for Congress programs, whomay be well intentioned but not well versedon recent developments in other disciplines,reconfigure panels and tracks to the pointthat whole sets of members fail to recognizea niche for their work in the program. Idoubt that my political-science colleagueswant a mini-APSA conference lodged withinthe LASA Congress; to limit ourselves tosuch an event would be to miss some realopportunities for cross-fertilization. Theanswer, I believe, is to include on programcommittees people who will pull towardmore traditional disciplinary categories alongwith others who will pull toward more novelconfigurations.

The Activist Researcher and the Public Intellectual

A complaint voiced by some politicalscientists (and perhaps not exclusively bythem) is that they feel that LASA is hectoringthe membership to make politics part of ourpractice of doing research. This is anotheraspect of the “politicization” that many havecomplained about. Some political-sciencecolleagues believe that the official LASAview is that their research is top-down andelitist, biased, and impervious to subalternvoices or perspectives. I don’t believe thatany method popular in today’s humanities or

social sciences holds inherent politicalimplications—is empowering ordisempowering—in and of itself.

It seems obvious that our membership willfall across a broad range, from the apoliticalto the intensely political. Many LASAmembers feel no tug toward politics.Among those of us who do, the tug oftenpulls us in opposite directions. Some arecommitted to introducing politicalconsiderations and efforts for social changeinto all aspects of research. But a thirdoption, one that may be preferable to manypolitical scientists, is to maintain a certainanalytical distance from our subjects ofstudy, without giving up entirely on politicalinvolvement. That is, to become publicintellectuals on a parallel track to our rolesas scholars. Public intellectual is perhapstoo grandiose; again I recommend WilliamLeoGrande’s Diskin lecture, which lays outsimple and helpful steps toward making adifference (developing relationships withorganizations that lobby the U.S.government on relevant policy areas, writingletters to the editor, and the like).

Certainly LASA is an organization largeenough for all types: the apolitical, theactivist, the public intellectual. CharlieHale’s recent reiteration of a big-tentphilosophy for LASA, for instance, and hisrespectfulness toward the minority thatopposed moving the 2007 Congress toMontreal, are welcome signs.5

Endnotes

1 See, for instance, Henry E. Brady and DavidCollier, eds., Rethinking Social Inquiry: DiverseTools, Shared Standards, Rowman andLittlefield, 2004.

2 LASA Forum 37(2), Spring 2006, p. 12.

3 The term (b)order appears twice in LASAForum 37(2):1.

4 LASA Forum 37(3):7.

5 LASA Forum 37(3), Summer 2006, p.1.

DEBATES


16

Immigration Matters

Don’t Panic, We are Hispanic!Migración y resistencia social

by JOSÉ MANUEL VALENZUELA ARCE

El Colegio de la Frontera [email protected]

Los desplazados de la tierra

Para mediados de este siglo, habrá más decien millones de latinos y latinas en EstadosUnidos, cifra similar a la actual población deMéxico. Este escenario implica unaacentuación de los procesos transnacionalesy un importante fortalecimiento de lascomunidades internacionales, además designificativas transformaciones en losámbitos socioculturales latinoamericanos yestadunidenses. Los desplazamientos alnorte junto con la ofensiva antimigratoriaestán definiendo inéditas expresionesprotagonizadas por los migrantes, cuyamanifestación más contundente laobservamos durante la primera mitad delaño pasado. Estos elementos requieren queubiquemos de manera general los escenariosprevisibles de estos movimientos en elcontexto de las condiciones que definen lastrayectorias de vida de los países pobrescaracterizados por el incremento de ladesigualdad social.

Los escenarios globales muestran de maneracontundente las condiciones que conformanel soporte social del proceso migratorio y, enparticular, de los desplazados por el miedo yla pobreza. Entre los pilares que definenestos soportes, tenemos que la mitad de lapoblación mundial sobrevive con menos dedos dólares diarios, al mismo tiempo queuna quinta parte lo hace con menos de undólar al día. Este proceso ocurre al mismotiempo que unos cuantos resultanfavorecidos por un modelo económico queproduce una inmoral concentración de lariqueza. Tan sólo en América Latina, cerca

de la mitad de sus habitantes (226 millones)viven en condiciones de pobreza y hay 95millones de indigentes, al mismo tiempo queen México, 25 personas concentran ingresossuperiores a 25 millones de mexicanos. Enla mayoría de los países latinoamericanoscrecen los niveles de pobreza, así como losniveles de vulnerabilidad social, mientrasque, en el año 2000, la malnutriciónafectaba a 55 millones de latinoamericanos ycaribeños, siendo los países más afectadosHaití, Nicaragua, República Dominicana,Guatemala, Bolivia y Venezuela.

A la información proporcionada, podemosañadir la existencia de bajas tasas decrecimiento económico, que siete de cadanueve empleos se generan en lainformalidad, o que nuestras economías noestán generando los empleos que requiere lapoblación que ingresa al mercado de trabajo.Sólo incorporando este escenario podemosentender el papel central del desplazamientocomo opción disponible para millones delatinoamericanos que han sido expropiadosde la posibilidad de conformar trayectoria devida digna en sus propios países. Por sifuera poco, los bajos salarios y laprecarización laboral se añaden comofactores que inciden en los desplazamientoslatinoamericanos.

Junto a la pobreza y precarización de lapoblación latinoamericana, la violencia y losimaginarios de miedo participan de maneraimportante en la decisión de muchaspersonas que optan por dejar sus lugares deorigen, así, los desplazados del miedo sesuman a los desplazados de la pobreza,conformando los rasgos definitorios de lamigración latinoamericana, africana y, engeneral, de las regiones pobres. En losescenarios latinoamericanos de las últimascuatro décadas, la violencia ha tenido unpapel importante en la decisión de dejar elsitio de origen, abandonar el terruño y losentornos entrañables. Desde hace más de

tres décadas, los desplazamientos derivadosde las violencias han sido conspicuos,especialmente durante los regímenesmilitares en Brasil, Chile, Uruguay yArgentina. De igual forma, durante los añossetenta y ochenta, cientos de miles decentroamericanos se vieron obligadas a salirde sus países huyendo de la violencia y lamuerte generada por los gobiernosdictatoriales de El Salvador, Guatemala y laNicaragua Somosista.

En la actualidad, las formas de violenciapolítica se combinan con otras expresionesde violencia social, como ocurre con elnarcotráfico, propiciando el desplazamientode cerca de 4 millones de colombianos, porseñalar el caso más impactante, aunque enotras comunidades latinoamericanas tambiénse generan múltiples migraciones vinculadasa la violencia del narcotráfico. Estosdesplazamientos generan una de las formasextremas de vulnerabilidad social, donde lagente “se tiene que ir”, muchas veces sinpoder despedirse. En ocasiones, eldesplazamiento forzado confronta peoresescenarios como la desaparición o la muerte.

Los desplazados por motivos económicosconstituyen una importante realidad de losescenarios latinoamericanos. Generalmenteestos migrantes son sobre explotados enotros países latinoamericanos o en EstadosUnidos y en Europa, pues se ven expuestos amayores condiciones de vulnerabilidad,recibiendo pagos inferiores a los queperciben otros trabajadores y viviendo encondiciones de indefensión social y riesgo dedeportación. Pagan impuestos sin recibirservicios sociales y están expuestos alracismo o la discriminación.

En muchos casos, el desplazamiento seinterrumpe por la detención, lo cual acentúalas condiciones de vulnerabilidad de losmigrantes frente a los organismos policíacos,la gendarmería o los agentes migratorios.

17

En otros, el viaje termina con la muerte,como ha ocurrido con cerca de 4,000migrantes que han perdido la vida en lafrontera México-Estados Unidos desde elinicio de la Operación Guardián en 1994 yel incremento del riesgo en el recorrido.

A pesar de las vicisitudes y avatares de lamigración indocumentada, la población deorigen latinoamericano crece en EstadosUnidos, país que necesita de esta fuerza detrabajo pero mantiene un doble juego queincrementa las ganancias de los empleadoresy participa como elemento de presión en elajedrez político, (re)produciendo lavulnerabilidad social y la sobre explotaciónde los migrantes.

Según datos censales estadounidenses, lapoblación latinoamericana en EstadosUnidos representa 12.6 por ciento de lapoblación total de 282.1 millones y, deacuerdo con estimaciones recientes de laOficina del Censo, para mediados delpresente siglo, cerca de la cuarta parte de lapoblación total de Estados Unidos será deorigen “hispano”, lo cual significa más decien millones de personas, cifra similar a lapoblación actual de la República Mexicana(se estima que 420 millones de personasvivirán en Estados Unidos, de los cuales102.6 millones serán de origen hispano).

La vulnerabilidad de los trabajadoresmigrantes incluye tres escenarios que secomplementan. Inicia con condiciones depobreza y carencias que influyen en ladecisión de emigrar (en otros casos son lascondiciones de inseguridad o de riesgo lasque obligan a irse), posteriormente seencuentran los problemas y riesgos delcamino, las agresiones, las incomodidades, y,en ocasiones los ataques físicos o la muerte.Finalmente se encuentra un escenario devulnerabilidad social definido por lacondición indocumentada, la cual implicaaceptar los peores empleos, abusos laborales,

pagos por debajo de lo establecido paratrabajadores con documentos legales,invisibilización social, temor ante el riesgo deser deportado, limitación o inexistencia dederechos ciudadanos, problemas paraasegurar servicios educativos y de salud paralos hijos. A todo esto, se añade lamanipulación de la migración bajo elargumento de que ellos generan losproblemas económicos, el desempleo, lainseguridad o, la división política y culturalde los Estados Unidos. Este es un viejoargumento conservador recuperado porSamuel Huntington, conocido profesor deHarvard. Desde una perspectivaasimilacionista decimonónica, Huntingtonha vuelto a plantear la condición unívoca ymonocultural que sentencia la desapariciónde todas las culturas en una culturadominante, destacando que sólo existe unsueño en la sociedad estadounidense, el“sueño americano”, creado por la poblaciónangloprotestante y que losmexicoamericanos sólo compartirán esesueño si sueñan en inglés.

De cara a los escenarios de pobrezalatinoamericana, el incremento en ladesigualdad en la distribución del ingreso, lano generación de los empleos que requiere lapoblación que ingresa al mercado de trabajo,el fortalecimiento de los imaginarios deriesgo vinculados a la violencia, podemosconsiderar que la pobreza y vulnerabilidadlatinoamericana seguirán presionando paraque muchos latinoamericanos decidan dejarsus lugares de origen, fortaleciendo lacondición de que los 3,100 Kilómetros defrontera común entre México y EstadosUnidos, son también la fronteralatinoamericana de la pobreza y ladesigualdad.

Don’t Panic, We Are Hispanic!

Entre las muchas lecciones que se puedenextraer de las impresionantes movilizacionescontra la ley del congresista republicano F.James Sensenbrenner (propuesta HR4437)que convocaron a millones de personas enlas calles estadunideses, destacan lassiguientes:

En primer lugar, la capacidad expresiva delos inmigrantes que hicieron retroceder demanera coyuntural, los rasgos más agresivosde la ley, especialmente lo referido a lacriminalización de los migrantesindocumentados (cerca de 11 o 12 millones)y de quienes les ayuden de alguna manera,así como la intención de construir el tercermuro fronterizo. Destaca la capacidad deconvocatoria demostrada en lasmanifestaciones, que fueron de enormecontundencia, movilizando a millones depersonas: Más de medio millón en LosÁngeles, 50,000 en Denver, 3,000 enCharlotte, 4,000 en Sacramento, 200,000 enChicago, 30,000 en Milwaukee, 80,000 enAtlanta, 20,000 en Phoenix, 30,000 enWashington, y muchos otros en SanFrancisco, Tucson, Kansas City y otrasciudades. (Véase David Brooks,“Megamarcha en Los Angeles”, La Jornada,Portada, Domingo 26 de Marzo de 2006.)

En segundo lugar se encuentra su integraciónplural que logró la participación de diversossectores que se involucraron comoorganizadores y convocantes, tales comoorganizaciones de paisanos, iglesia católica(el cardenal Roger Mahoney de Los Ángeles,el Padre Luis Ángel Nieto, de la Iglesia de laPlacita Olvera), sindicatos, frentes indígenas(Frente Indígena de OrganizacionesBinacionales (FIOB), MAYAVISION),decenas de miles de jóvenes, estudiantes,comunicadores radiales y espaciosperiodísticos en español, como La Opiniónde Los Angeles. Las movilizaciones


18

VALENZUELA ARCE continued…

también tuvieron el apoyo de artistas y dealgunos políticos como Antonio Villaraigosa,Alcalde de Los Ángeles, o Rob Blagojevich,Gobernador de Illinois. Junto a lapluralidad de organizaciones participantes,vale la pena considerar la transformación del propio perfil de los migrantesindocumentados, que, como ocurre con losmexicanos, que han incrementado el pesourbano, letrado, femenino y con mayorcapacidad de vinculación social a través delos medios de transporte o de los recursosmediáticos y electrónicos.

Es notable la dimensión horizontal de lasredes de organizaciones involucradas en lasmarchas, que no se corresponden con ladimensión vertical de las organizaciones quelideraron movimientos previos, conformadosdesde posiciones etnoclasistas. Estasmovilizaciones ya son consideradas como lasmayores de manifestación latina de lahistoria estadunidense. Resulta necesariodestacar que, pese a los discursos quecriminalizan a los migrantes, no se presentóningún acto violento o delictivo, nienfrentamientos, ni desmanes.

Esta condición fue explícitamente destacadapor los manifestantes, quienes coreaban:“¡No somos criminales ni terroristas!”,“¡Don´t panic, we are hispanic!”, “¡El queno brinque es migra!”, “¡Aquí estamos y nonos vamos y si nos echan nos regresamos!”.

Desde hace varios años, la disputamigratoria se ha sido una pieza importanteen el tablero político electoral como se hapodido observar de manera conspicua con lamanipulación del fenómeno migratorio confines de reelección por parte del exGobernador de California Pete Wilson, o laincorporación de los efectivos de la GuardiaNacional en el patrullaje fronterizo y en ellevantamiento de un nuevo muro de 1125Kilómetros. Al mismo tiempo, lasperspectivas supremacistas actualizan sus

discursos anti-migrantes y grupos comoWhite Power, Metal Militia, Wake upWashington, Ku Klux Klan, Skin Heads,Light up The Border, American BorderPatrol, Ranch Rescue, pierden visibilidadfrente al nuevo protagonismo de LosMinuteman Project, con sus estrategiaspúblicas de reclutamiento de prosélitos paracapturar inmigrantes, y sus actividades devigilancia armada. También en Arizona, elSheriff de Maricopa, Joe Arpaio, junto concerca de trescientos agentes y voluntariosciviles, patrullan la frontera cazandoindocumentados, en una cruzada paraajustar cuentas con los migrantes que cruzanpor lo que el define como su territorio.Justo en este condado ha entrado en vigoruna ley llamada “anticoyotes”, que penalizaa los indocumentados que pagan para queles crucen a Estados Unidos. Producto deesta ley antimigrante, Juan Villa destaca elhecho inédito derivado de esta ley, donde enla cárcel de Maricopa han encarcelado a 350migrantes, quienes enfrentaran juicios debidoa que se auto culparon de haber pagadopara que algún coyote les ayudara a cruzarla frontera.

…y si nos echan, nos regresamos

De manera creciente, la lucha de losmigrantes incorpora aspectos que rompen lacondición referida al estado nacional, comoocurre con la ciudadanía transnacional, elrespeto de los derechos humanosindependientemente de la condiciónmigratoria, la transformación de los marcospolítico-electorales, donde crece el esfuerzopor captar los votos de los paisanos en elexterior, las nuevas adscripciones en marcossocioculturales transnacionales, su pesoeconómico en las comunidades de origen, elpapel creciente de las remesas y la necesidadde romper su condición fetichizada, pues lasremesas no son sólo dinero que cruza lasfronteras, sino un soporte emocional y

socioafectivo conformado desde las redes derelaciones familiares y comunitarias.Finalmente, la lucha de los migrantes seinscribe como parte de la misma luchacontra la vulnerabilidad, la precarización y elempobrecimiento de la gran mayoría de loshabitantes del planeta.

Uno de los aspectos centrales que subyace a las manifestaciones que realizaron losmigrantes y sectores solidarios en 2006,corresponde a la condición límite queconlleva la pérdida del proyecto de vida. Losmigrantes son desplazados por la pobreza ola violencia, desplazados de sus sitios deorigen de donde deben salir buscandooportunidades de vida digna canceladas ensus lugares de origen. Son desplazados en ellugar de destino donde deben habitar enintersticios subrepticios donde se les nieganderechos ciudadanos. La propuesta dereforma migratoria HR4437, conllevaba unnuevo desplazamiento que los regresaría a la situación original de indefensión ypobreza. Por ello desencadenó reaccionesdecididas de quienes han dejado su trabajo yuna parte importante de sus vidas en EstadosUnidos. Al igual que los jóvenes francesesque reaccionaron contra la Ley del primerempleo, los migrantes indocumentadosexpresan la expresión de la vulnerabilidadextrema y la expropiación de la esperanzaproducida por el capitalismo globalcontemporáneo.

19

Crossing-back MethodologiesTransnational Feminist Research on Incest in Mexico

by GLORIA GONZÁLEZ-LÓPEZ

University of Texas at [email protected]

In Fall of 2006, I went back home toimmerse myself in the field to collect mydata as part of my second project as asociologist who studies sexuality withpopulations of Mexican origin. In thistransnational research journey, I went backto Mexico after migrating to the U.S.southwest with a licenciatura en psicologíain hand. I eventually mastered my stillaccented English, completed a Ph.D. insociology, and began to conduct researchwith Mexicans on the U.S. side of lafrontera. Since I came in 1986, I have goneback to Mexico regularly for short visits tomy family. However, this was the first time Iwent back to conduct sexuality research,inspired by feminist and community-basedperspectives and ideologies.

In this ongoing research project, I study thesociology of incest in Mexican society, whilepaying special attention to the sexual andromantic histories of 60 adult women andmen who have experienced sex within thecontext of the family during their childhoodor adolescence. I collected these historiesthrough individual tape-recorded interviewsconducted during the 2005-06 academic yearand Fall 2006. I also interviewedprofessionals who work with thesepopulations, such as activists, attorneys,psychotherapists, and priests. Conductingmy fieldwork in highly industrializedlocations in Mexico (i.e., Ciudad Juárez,Guadalajara, Mexico City and Monterrey), Ihave worked mainly with activists andcommunity organizers, some of whom havebeen my friends for a long time, and whoalso work with these particular populations.

Why incest in Mexican society? Theincestous relationships of the Mexicanimmigrant women and men I interviewed formy previous project touched me deeply. Ioriginally intended to work with Mexicanimmigrants for this project, but theinvisibility of sociological research on thistopic in Mexico became clearly evident as Iadvanced my research, while also listening toa group of activist friends working onrelated issues and concerns in Ciudad Juárez.In our informal conversations, theyhighlighted the urgent need to do this kindof research in Mexico. They keptmotivating me to pursue it for a long time.More than two years have passed since then.Today I reflect about the different lessonsand challenges this project has offered me asa feminist and a sociologist.

In the fall 2005, I left for Mexico with aromanticized image of transnational feministresearch; a series of disappointments,dilemmas, and unexpected positiveexperiences gradually emerged as soon as Iimmersed myself in the field. Going back towork with community-based agencies helpedme reconnect with different regions thathave changed since I have been gone—changes that were not easily perceivedduring my previous short visits. And whilethose changes took place, I also evolved. Iwent back to these different locations(including my hometown of Monterrey)while having to explain myself repeatedly, “Iam from here but I migrated to the UnitedStates 20 years ago.” Some people keptreminding me of something that had been inmy mind all along: “How much do youknow about these issues locally andnationally? Things have changed, for howlong you have been gone? 20 years?! You aredefinitely a gringa.” My professional andcultural legitimacy was tested by someprofessionals and potential interviewees whokept asking me questions designed tomeasure my cultural literacy and

professional expertise. I truly understoodand appreciated their interest in making surethat I was qualified to do research on such asensitive topic in Mexico. While thelegitimacy was tested and finally received theapproval, I became “la investigadora deTexas, who used to be from here.”

Many times I also felt like the representativeof some kind of intellectual maquiladora,some kind of intellectual invader who was inMexico in order to practice some form ofexploitation: interview people, get andorganize the data, and then disappear to goback North. I received complaints fromactivists (who eventually became closefriends) about researchers from Mexico andfrom the United States who have been inMexico to conduct research. Reportedly,these investigators got their projects going,received local support, but they never heardback from them after they finished them.Before I was asked about what I could givein return for their priceless help, I openlytalked to them about what would help themfeel reciprocated for all the support theywere offering me. I told them I identifiedmyself as an intellectual activist, and talkedabout my commitment to challenge anyform of exploitation.

These experiences have invited me to exploreand promote creative forms of intellectualand activist solidarity with these community-based agencies. In the places where I haveconducted my work, I have also offeredseminars and workshops on feminist-informed research dealing with gender andsociety, and feminist psychotherapies, whichI learned more than ten years ago as part ofmy training as a couple and family therapist.These presentations took place at thecommunity-based agencies where I identifiedand interviewed my informants. In thesemeetings, I also had informal conversationsabout other research topics, includinginformal dialogues on my preliminary

IMMIGRATION MATTERScontinued…


20

GONZÁLEZ-LÓPEZ continued…

findings. In these conversations, I becameself-critical and open to others’ criticismwhen my preconceived ideas or training wereperhaps too Western and non-representativeof their own social realities. After all, in thisproject I am also incorporating issuesidentified as crucial by my informants, aswell as by the clinicians and activistsworking with these populations and involvedcommunities.

While I dealt with these issues in somelocations, in others, I experienced theopposite. In some places, I became ladoctora de Austin, “the expert” who wasqualified to give voice to women’s localproblems. At times, I experienced deepdiscomfort after realizing that I had beinginvited to participate at special eventsaddressing the issues affecting womenlocally, while local feminists—who were farmore qualified than me on these topics—hadbeen excluded from these conversations.Through these experiences, I soon learnedabout the many conflicts and internaldivisions historically experienced by activistsand other intellectuals within their local,regional, and national groups. Whilekeeping myself on the margins of sensitive orunresolved tensions, I also kept myself ashumble and respectful as possible, and veryreceptive to all community contacts.

This project also invited me to explore someof the issues and concerns with regard to myown internalized intellectual colonization.“What does a Mexican feminist do in theUnited States, and in Texas, la tierra deBush?!” I was confronted in this manner bysome professionals who eventually becamegood friends. In these conversations, as wellas in my presentations and workshops, Ibecame aware of how hyper-vigilant I havebecome as I monitor myself regardingideologies, theories, and concepts used toarticulate ideas I wanted to share with theseprofessionals and activists. These reflections

never did stop. If I was so progressive, whatwas I doing living in “the land of theenemy”? How have I resolved thiscontradiction? I kept thinking about theways I have been able to learn to explainmyself not only to myself, but also to othersin the United States and to someprofessionals back in Mexico.

As I went through this experience, thesefeminist metholodologies of crossing-backunfolded intellectually stimulatingopportunities for professional and personaldevelopment. In the process, I keptexploring ways to organize and grow fromthese challenges and lessons. In my mind, Ikept going back to the archives ofAnzalduan concepts and theorizing on themultiple dimensions of the borderlands. Mymestiza consciousness, now on the Mexicanside, organized my migration-backexperience. My professional self discoveredthe multiple layers of permanent transitionlacking clear boundaries. The quintessentialstate of consciousness identified as nepantla,that long ago had explained my life as animmigrant, was now experiencing a moremature and much less distressing yet paralleldimension of the very same process. Nomatter on what side of the border I findmyself, Anzaldúa’s quitessential nepantla hadbecome that state of consciousness thatidentified and “normalized” a feeling ofpermanent displacement and a sense of beingalways-in-transition, lacking rigid boundariesand frontiers. The meaningful conversationsI had with some of my beloved chicanafriends as a graduate student and at somepoint as a professor, kept coming back to methorughout the entire process. Being in theborderless inellectual borderlands meantprofessional expansion in an act of “spiritualactivism” or interconnectedness withinformants and professionals, including thehonest and committed activists who havetaught me so much as I conducted my datacollection for a year and a half.

The day before I returned from Mexico Cityto Austin, nostalgia embraced the process ofprofessional awareness and transformation Ihad experienced. I paid a visit toCoyolxauhqui, a soothing reflection of theimage of myself in this process and theiconic reminder of my gratitude to Anzaldúa.As I approached the entrance to the TemploMayor, I heard someone say, “Is that you,Gloria? What are you doing in Mexico?” Achicana friend, a professor who had goneSouth during the summer, greeted me at theentrance to the museum. We were bothsurprised by the coincidence, but theencounter was a good way to wrap up theexperience in a meaningful way; “lacoincidencia fue para cerrar con broche deoro,” as my mother would say. She alsoreminded me of the ways in which myemotional and cultural uprootedness,anguish, and distress, experienced aftermigrating 20 years ago, became well-healedscars, symbolic reminders of the yetuncovered lessons and challenges as afeminist and a sociologist going back andforth to do research. Many are the countlessretos y lecciones of doing research whilecrossing-back, I keep reminding myself, as Imake plans to go back to the field tocontinue nurturing the modest research Iconduct in the Americas without borders, inthe always-changing borderlands.

21

Why the Immigrant Rights Struggle Compels Us to Reconceptualize Both Latin American and Latino/a Studies

by WILLIAM I. ROBINSON

University of California-Santa [email protected]

What is Latin America? Who is a LatinAmerican? To what do “Latin AmericanStudies” and “Latino/a Studies” refer? Towhat ought they refer? These are not newquestions. But they are in my view all themore pressing in light of the transnationalprocesses sweeping the Western Hemisphereand the world as globalization proceeds.These processes compel us to reconceptualizeLatin American as well as Latino/a Studies.Among the most salient of these processes area worldwide upsurge in transnational migration as global capitalism reorganizeseconomies, labor markets, and socialhierarchies in every locale in accordance withits logic of integrated transnationalaccumulation.

We know that Latin America—both thename itself and the reality which is purportedto denote—is itself an invention. If thatinvention is going to have any relevance inthis new century beyond a “colonial matrixof power,” to use Walter Mignolo’s phrase,1 itmust refer to all those peoples who havebecome inextricably bound up over the past515 years within that matrix. This includesthe 40 million people of Latin Americandescent in the United States, some 20 millionof them immigrants. Immigrant communitiesin this country, as elsewhere around theworld, are increasingly transnationalcommunities. The patterns of assimilationinto a particular nation that corresponded toan earlier era in the global system have givenway to ongoing bi- and multi-directionalflows of people and culture, and to the rise oftruly transnational social structures.

“Latin American Studies,” let us recall,emerged in U.S. universities as an object ofCold War “area studies.” The knowledge thatwas supposed to be generated by these “areastudies” would help guide U.S. foreign policyand resolve problems of stability, developmentand integration of these areas into the post-World War II capitalist world order. Whatuse did the powers that be, and their organicintellectuals, have for integrated, world-historic knowledge of Latino/a population inthe United States? “Latino/a Studies”emerged from a very distinct dynamic, that ofstruggles to establish in the North Americanacademy ethnic, racial, diaspora, anti-colonialand multicultural studies in the wake of thecivil rights movement and other popular,national, and radical movements in the UnitedStates and around the world. But much ofLatino/a studies became swept up in a nation-state framework of inquiry and moreparochial and disabling U.S. race/ethnicrelations paradigms.

Today, more than ever, the historical,socioeconomic, political, and cultural forcesand dynamics shaping the reality of Latinos/asin the United States are the same ones thatshape the lives of the 500 million peopleliving south of the Rio Bravo. To considerinquiry into the reality of U.S.-based Latino/apopulations as “Latino/a Studies” and inquiryinto that reality south of the Rio Bravo as“Latin American Studies” is patently absurd.But it is more than that: it is epistemologicallybankrupt and politically disempowering. Itrenders invisible to “Latin American Studies”the 40 million Latinos/as in the United Statesand cuts them off from the larger reality inwhich their lives are grounded at a time whenour struggles and fates are more than evershaped by our engagement with global-levelprocesses and structures.

These Latino/a and other immigrantcommunities took the political stage by stormwith unprecedented mass demonstrations

across the United States that involvedmillions of immigrants and their allies inSpring 2006.2 The immediate trigger was theintroduction in the U.S. Congress of anti-immigrant legislation, but, more broadly, theprotests represented the unleashing of pent-up anger and repudiation of what has beendeepening exploitation and an escalation ofanti-immigrant repression and racism.Dominant groups and the state were terrifiedby the mass mobilizations and theyresponded with a wave of repression,including stepping up raids, deportations,and anti-immigrant hysteria. What is thelarger backdrop to these developments?

The latter decades of the 20th century begana period of massive new migrationsworldwide, generated by the forces ofcapitalist globalization. A low-end estimateby the United Nations placed the number ofimmigrant workers in 2005 at some 200million by the new century, double theamount of 25 years earlier. During the 1980seight million Latin American emigrantsarrived in the United States, nearly equal tothe total figure of European immigrants whoarrived on U.S. shores during the firstdecades of the 20th century, making of LatinAmerica the principal origin of migrationinto the United States. This wave ofoutmigration from socially and economicallydevastated communities in the Hemisphereaccelerated in the 1990s, and in the firstdecade of the new century, as globalizationand neo-liberalism ravaged the region,displacing millions and generating a socialdisaster of unprecedented magnitude.3

The same capitalist globalization that triggersthis mass migration also generates anescalating demand for immigrant labor. Thedivision of the global labor force into citizensand non-citizens, immigrant and nativeworkers, is a major new axis of inequality.The maintenance and strengthening of statecontrols over transnational labor creates the

IMMIGRATION MATTERScontinued…


22

ROBINSON continued…

conditions for “immigrant labor” as adistinct category of labor in relation tocapital, replacing earlier direct colonial andracial caste controls over labor worldwide.Most transnational immigrant workersbecome inserted into segmented labormarkets as low-paid, low-status laborersunder unstable and precarious workconditions without the political or laborrights accorded to citizens. They areracialized to the extent that cultural andphysical markers can be used—orconstructed—to demarcate these workers.Class, race, national borders andtransnational processes all come together togenerate explosive relations of exploitationand oppression, as well as new forms ofresistance.

Repression and xenophobia againstimmigrants from Third World countries, ofcourse, is ingrained in both U.S. and Westernhistory. As indirect mechanisms have replacedcolonialism in the mobilization of racializedlabor pools, states assume a gatekeeperfunction4 to regulate the flow of labor for thecapitalist economy. U.S. immigrationenforcement agencies undertake revolvingdoor practices—opening and shutting the flowof immigration in accordance with the needsof capital accumulation during distinctperiods. Immigrants are sucked up when theirlabor is needed, and then spit out when theybecome superfluous or potentially destabilizingto the system.

But these gatekeeper functions become morecomplex—and contradictory—astransnational capital comes to be increasinglydependent on immigrant labor. Latino/aimmigrant labor became structurallyembedded in the North American economyby the turn of the 21st century. Althoughimmigrant labor sustains U.S. and Canadianagriculture, by the 1990s the majority ofLatino/a immigrants were absorbed byindustry, construction, and services as part of

a general “Latinization” of the economy.Latino/a immigrants have massively swelledthe lower rungs of the U.S. workforce, oftendisplacing African American and white ethniclaborers. They provide much of the labor forhotels, restaurants, construction, janitorialand house cleaning, child care, domesticservice, gardening and landscaping,hairdressing, delivery, meat and poultrypacking, food processing, lightmanufacturing, retail, and so on.

Now more than ever, employers and the statemust sustain a vast exploitable labor poolthat exists under precarious conditions, thatdoes not enjoy the civil, political, and laborrights of citizens, that face language barriersand a hostile cultural and ideologicalenvironment, and that is flexible anddisposable through deportation. It is thecondition of deportable they wish to createor preserve, since that condition assures thestate the ability to super-exploit withimpunity, and to dispose of withoutconsequences, should this labor pool becomeunruly or unnecessary. Hence, a reservearmy of immigrant labor must remain justthat— immigrant labor, and, therefore,undocumented. Sustaining this reserve armyof immigrant labor means creating—andreproducing—the division of workers intoimmigrants and citizens.

This requires contradictory practices on thepart of the state. From the vantage points ofdominant group interests the dilemma is howto deal with the new “barbarians” at Rome’sdoor. This contradictory situation helpsexplain the frightening escalation ofhostilities and repression against Latino/aimmigrants. The system needs Latinoimmigrant labor, yet the presence of thatlabor scares dominant groups and privileged,generally white, strata. Political andeconomic elites fear a rising tide of Latinoimmigrants will lead to a loss of cultural andpolitical control, becoming a source of

counter-hegemony and of instability, asimmigrant labor in Paris showed to be in thelate 2005, uprising in that European capitalagainst racism and marginality.

The preferred solution for capital and itspolitical representatives are “guest worker”programs that would convert immigrantsinto a quasi-indentured labor force, alongsidecampaigns to criminalize Latino/a immigrantsand to militarize their control. The statemust lift national borders for capital, butmust reinforce these same nationalboundaries in its immigrant policies. In itsideological activities, it must generate anationalist hysteria by propagating suchimages as “out of control borders” and“invasions of illegal immigrants,” given thespecial oppression and dehumanizationinvolved in extracting their labor power.

The migrant labor phenomenon will continueto expand along with global capitalism. Justas capitalism has no control over itsimplacable expansion as a system, it cannotdo away in its new globalist stage withtransnational labor. Immigrant labor poolsthat can be super exploited economically,marginalized and disenfranchised politically,driven into the shadows, and deported whennecessary, are the very epitome of capital’snaked domination in the age of globalcapitalism. Therefore, bound up with theimmigrant debate in the United States is theentire political economy of global capitalismin the Western Hemisphere, the same politicaleconomy that is now being sharply contestedthroughout Latin America with the surge inmass popular struggles and the turn to theLeft. The struggle for immigrant rights in theUnited States is, thus, part and parcel of thisresistance to neo-liberalism, intimatelyconnected to the larger Latin American—andworldwide—struggle for social justice.

No wonder protests and boycotts took placethroughout Latin America on May Day 2006

23

in solidarity with Latino immigrants in theUnited States. The immigrant rights groupthat I am involved with, the Los Angeles-based March 25 Coalition, which played akey role in organizing the Spring 2006mobilizations, sent several delegations toMexico in 2006 to show solidarity with thoseprotesting electoral fraud, and with thestruggle in Oaxaca. It is also lobbying LatinAmerican governments and social movementsto brandish as their own the banner of theimmigrant rights struggle in the United States.

As the peoples of Latin America on bothsides of the Rio Bravo transnationalize theircollective struggles we need a parallelintellectual and epistemological

transnationalization in the academy. Thiswould start with acknowledgment that“Latin American Studies” must include thereality of Latino/s in the United States andother transnational processes that go beyondthe geographic map of Latin America, andthat “Latino/a Studies” is but a componentof a more expansive historical andcontemporary domain beyond U.S.race/ethnic and cultural studies. This, ofcourse, is just the beginning. We need todevelop a global perspective across all fieldsand disciplines in the social sciences andhumanities as we rethink what it means tostudy/engage particular regions, peoples,cultures, and histories in the global system.

Endnotes

1 Walter D. Mignolo, The Idea of Latin America,Blackwell, 2005.

2 William I. Robinson, “Aquí Estamos y no NosVamos!: Global Capitalist and the Struggle forImmigrant Rights,” Race and Class. 48(2).

3 On these topics, see William I. Robinson,Global Capitalism and Latin America, JohnsHopkins, forthcoming.

4 Joseph Nevins, Operation Gatekeeper: The Riseof the “Illegal Alien” and the Making of theU.S.-Mexico Boundary. Routledge, 2002.

The Fulbright Program is sponsored by the United States Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs.

FulbrightWhat a

difference amakes

Council for International Exchange of Scholars 3007 Tilden Street, NW, Suite 5LWashington, DC 20008-3009Tel: 202.686.7877 • Fax: 202.362.3442E-mail: [email protected] site: www.cies.org

Fulbright Scholar ProgramGrants for 2008-2009 Now Available

The Fulbright Scholar Program offers research and lecturing opportunities to scholars and other professionals in 21countries in Latin America and the Caribbean in virtually any discipline. Grant lengths range from three to ninemonths.

Grantees include university faculty at any career level, independent scholars and professionals. Bolivia, Ecuador,Mexico, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela offer full-time research options.

Detailed award descriptions, eligibility requirements and online application are available at www.cies.org. ContactCarol Robles with questions at [email protected].

Application deadline is August 1, 2007.

POLITICAL COMMENTARY


24

Situación social y política de México y deOaxaca al final del gobierno de Vicente Fox yprincipios del gobierno de Felipe Calderón.by SALOMÓN NAHMAD | CIESAS Pacífico Sur | [email protected]

Después de 45 años de haber concluido misestudios de antropólogo, he podidoconstatar que, desde el punto de vistahistórico, la vida social de México no hasido una evolución pacífica o contínua. Porel contrario, siempre han existido fuerzasinternas y externas que provocanconfrontaciones debido a las contradiccionesinherentes al dilema de construir un Méxicoincluyente y justo. A pesar de la revoluciónque estalló el 20 de noviembre de 1910, lasdesigualdades, la marginación y la extremapobreza no han logrado superarse. A sólotres años de celebrarse los 100 años de estegran evento revolucionario tengo laimpresión, y casi la sensación, de quenuevamente se dará una confrontación gravey de gran impacto en la sociedad mexicana,con graves consecuencias internacionales.No se trata de realizar profecías. Sinembargo, no cabe duda de que los hechosmás relevantes del año 2006 se asemejan a lasituación de 1907. En aquel año, elGobierno de Porfirio Díaz reprimióviolentamente a los trabajadores de laindustria textil en Orizaba y Río Blanco,Veracruz. Con la misma saña reprimió en lafrontera norte a los trabajadores mineros deCananea, Sonora. Por similares fechas elmismo gobierno reprimió a los mayas delestado de Quintana Roo, que semantuvieron por más de 50 años en guerracon el gobierno federal y con el del estado deYucatán. También los eventos de hoy nosrecuerdan la gran ofensiva contra la tribuyaqui de Sonora y su expulsión hacia ValleNacional, Oaxaca, localizado a más de 3 milkilómetros de distancia de su territorio.

El escenario actual puede parecerseenormemente al de la época de Porfirio Díazdebido a que el supuesto nuevo gobierno“democrático” del presidente Fox postuladopor el Partido Acción Nacional (PAN), quienofreció un cambio de fondo en la vidapolítica y social, sólo logró acrecentar las

confrontaciones y rivalidades sociales.Dicho gobierno panista representó a lasfuerzas más conservadoras y evoca las luchasdel siglo XIX en las cuales similares fuerzasse apoderaron de México y se apoyaron enla jerarquía de la iglesia católica para que,con alianzas internacionales, intentaraninstaurar un gobierno imperial dependientede Austria. Benito Juárez, el primerpresidente indígena de América Latina,derrotó a dichos conservadores en eseentonces. A pesar de las grandes conquistaslogradas por la Revolución de 1910 en lacual los obreros y campesinos mexicanos, ysobre todo los pueblos mesoamericanosoriginarios de este enorme territorio,lograron avances significativos parareivindicar sus derechos sobre la tierra, susderechos laborales y el mantenimiento de lasoberanía nacional sobre los recursosnaturales tales como el petróleo, el rápidoavance de la economía neoliberalglobalizadora erosionó las mismas a partirde los ochentas.

Es por ello que en el año 2006 se volvieron avivir episodios de una época supuestamentesuperada (que para los que en los años 40 y50 del siglo pasado éramos jóvenes, estabanen la conciencia histórica y no en la vidacotidiana). Hoy se vive la represión de losmineros en Michoacán, de los trabajadoresde la educación en Oaxaca, de los pueblosindígenas en Chiapas, en Oaxaca y en otrosestados, y de los campesinos de Atenco en elestado de México. El fraude electoral que secometió en 1910 contra Francisco I. Maderose volvió a repetir, primero contraCuahutemoc Cárdenas, y después contraManuel López Obrador. La entrega depoderes del gobierno de Fox al gobierno deCalderón se tuvo que dar en un contexto dealta violencia y de conflicto nunca antesvisto en la historia moderna de México. Larepresión contra el movimiento popular deOaxaca, evidencia un terrorismo de estado

que refleja no sólo la orientaciónultraconservadora del nuevo gobierno sinoincluso una tendencia de corte fascistadentro del mismo PAN.7

En el nacimiento de dicho partido, noscomenta Jorge Alonso en un artículopróximo a aparecer, “hubo muchosadmiradores de esas formas políticas defascismo, y en no pocos panistas haprevalecido esa tendencia hasta nuestrosdías. Arendt advirtió que las solucionestotalitarias surgían donde parecía imposiblealiviar la miseria económica, política y socialde un modo digno del ser humano”1. En mivida profesional nunca habíamos vivido unaexperiencia como la que se está viviendo eneste momento. El caso de Oaxaca de 2006con el movimiento de la Asamblea Popularde Pueblos de Oaxaca (APPO)3 es, desde mipunto de vista, sólo la punta del iceberg deuna profunda grieta en la sociedad mexicanaque está llevando a una gran polarización.La misma no sólo es extremadamentepeligrosa de por sí, sino que podría estallaren poco tiempo en un gran conflictonacional.

El papel de las fuerzas más retrógradas yconservadoras del México del siglo XIX seestá activando con la movilización de laiglesia y de los grandes capitalistas(banqueros, industriales, inversionistasextranjeros con el apoyo de los EstadosUnidos), quienes están confrontando en elsiglo XXI a las fuerzas que ya hicieroncambiar a México en gran parte del sigloXX. Hoy pretenden el retorno a un sistemade gobierno católico-civil-militar y la entregade los recursos estratégicos a las fuerzasultraconservadoras que se están desquitandopor los cambios que provocó la revoluciónmexicana en el siglo XX. Estas tendencias seexpresan en los hijos de los cristeros y de losneofascistas como Carlos Abascal (hijo delfundador del Sinarquismo mexicano) que

25

hoy gobiernan desde el PAN y desde elmismo gobierno federal.

El caso de Oaxaca es la expresión de esteresurgimiento de las fuerzas conservadorasen contra de las fuerzas progresistas deMéxico. Las demandas de los 16 pueblosindígenas4 de Oaxaca y del magisteriooaxaqueño expresan una lucha por undesarrollo equilibrado y justo que permitaun nivel de vida más igualitario entre loshabitantes del país. Su meta es hacerdesaparecer la pobreza en que viven cerca de15 millones de indígenas en más de 15estados, quienes se sostienen con un ingresodiario de uno ó dos dólares por familia,apoyados por programas gubernamentalesdiseñados por las fuerzas de la caridadpública como el programaOPORTUNIDADES, que no es más que unbarniz para soslayar el conflicto social. Lasevidentes desigualdades han provocado ygenerado movimientos alzados de lapoblación, como el que se está viviendo enOaxaca. El gobierno federal y el estatal sólolo atienden con medidas paliativas y consistemas de control social y de represión.

El conflicto en Oaxaca también tiene suorigen en la rivalidad entre los grupos depoder al interior del PRI, como sucedió enlos años ochenta, cuando el gruponeoconservador encabezado por Miguel dela Madrid y Carlos Salinas de Gortariimpuso agresivamente el modelo neoliberalpor encima de otras tendencias. En Oaxacalos priístas se han enfrentado entre sí a la vezque se han negado a cederle una cuota depoder a las fuerzas progresistas encabezadaspor el magisterio, la fuerza laboral másimportante del estado que se mantiene con elnivel de industrialización más bajo deMéxico. Estas fuerzas priístas estánencabezadas por Pedro Vásquez Colmenares,Heladio Ramírez López, Diódoro CarrascoAltamirano, José Murat Casab y Ulises Ruiz

Ortiz. Ellos han enfrentado entre sí adiversos grupos, y dicha confrontación estápermitiendo que, a nivel nacional, las fuerzasultraconservadoras intenten eliminar alcandidato opositor Gabino CuéMonteagudo, quien fue apoyadooriginalmente por el Partido AcciónNacional (PAN), Convergencia y el Partidode la Revolución Democrática (PRD), yquien perdió supuestamente, como en el casode López Obrador, por un pequeño margende votos. A estos personajes no les interesaresolver el conflicto. Por lo menos tres ex-gobernadores son ahora integrantes delCongreso de la Unión, como diputadosfederales o senadores, y hasta el momentoninguno ha intervenido para buscar unasolución. El ex-candidato Gabino Cué ganóen las elecciones del 2 de julio del 2006 lasenaduría de la república junto con lamayoría de las diputaciones federales al PRI.Hoy, dicho senador se perfila como elcandidato a suceder a Ulises Ruiz, sea por lavía electoral o bien por el revocamiento deeste gobernador.

En los 90 días del actual gobierno federal nose vislumbran nuevos cambios de políticaspúblicas, fuera del fortalecimiento de lasfuerzas policíacas y militares para reprimir ala población inconforme con las condicionesde vida que está viviendo, y que semanifiestan en movimientos socialesamplios. De la misma manera, las fuerzasmás conservadoras del PRI, en alianza con elPAN, mantienen por la fuerza, y en contrade la opinión pública y de la ciudadaníaoaxaqueña, a un gobernador que ha sidoconsiderado un represor. El mismo haviolado los derechos humanos de loshabitantes de Oaxaca, provocando la muertede cerca de 20 opositores y cientos deencarcelados. Hasta finales de febrero,permanecen en la cárcel 64 miembros de laAPPO.

Desde mi punto de vista, esta es la graveconfrontación que hoy se vive en Oaxaca yen gran parte de México. Es una ilusión dedemocracia partidista totalmentemanipulada por las fuerzasultraconservadoras.6

El país entero atraviesa por una situacióninédita desde años atrás. La situación quevivimos en Oaxaca a mi entender es grave, yha fracturado profundamente a la sociedadoaxaqueña,5 de por sí ya quebrantada por elcolonialismo interno, y que hoy se traduceen una disputa por el poder entre las mismasclases dominantes. Éstas han movilizado, sinembargo, a la población más pobre, paraluchar unos contra otros. Esto puedegenerar una incipiente guerra civil, como laque vivimos el segundo semestre del añopasado, y como la que puede suceder el 2 deagosto del 2007 con las elecciones para lacámara de diputados local, y para laspresidencias municipales que se rigen porpartidos políticos. El ambiente que serespira en Oaxaca es mucho más violentoque el de Chiapas en los años noventa con ellevantamiento Zapatista.

No existe una congruencia ideológica entrelos participantes en la contienda electoral yentre quienes han gobernado Oaxaca en losúltimos sexenios, porque cada grupo buscaresolver sus aspiraciones políticas por sucuenta y son capaces de cambiar de partido,como lo hizo Diódoro Carrasco, quien fueragobernador priísta y ahora es diputado delPAN a nivel federal y quien apoyó algobierno de Felipe Calderón.

Lo que distingue este conflicto es que semantiene un acuerdo tácito entre el gobiernodel estado y el gobierno federal tanto paradividir y fracturar al magisterio de la sección22, al crear una nueva sección 59 delSindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de laEducación (SNTE), como para mediatizar a


26

NAHMAD continued…

la APPO,9 al llevarlos a la búsqueda delpoder en la próxima elección del 2 de agostodel presente año2. De esta manera tenemos ala población dividida y confrontada en doscorrientes políticas que al final van ademoler la posición histórica de Oaxacacomo una sociedad liberal y progresistaidentificada con Benito Juárez, paraencausarla en pocos años hacia el PAN, enun proceso de conquista de los gobiernosestatales y municipales. Variasorganizaciones eclesiales de base hanexpresado que se proponen tomar el poderdesde las micro-comunidades hasta losmunicipios y el estado. Esta estrategia hasurtido gran efecto en los estados del nortede México, y hoy avanza apresuradamente ala conquista de los estados más indígenascomo Yucatán, Campeche, Chiapas,Quintana Roo, Oaxaca y Guerrero. Si biense esperaba un cambio democrático quepermitiera a los partidos políticos asumir elpoder, hoy la orientación se perfila más bienhacia el empoderamiento a largo plazo deestas fuerzas ultraconservadoras quegobiernan México.

Marzo de 2007

Endnotes

1 Alonso, Jorge, El nuevo fascismo mexicano,Inédito, 2007.

2 Alonso Criollo, Alberto, “El movimientopopular y el proceso electoral” en noticias,Viernes 26 de enero de 2007, Núm. 10797,Oaxaca, México.

3 Bellinghausen, Hermann, “El movimientopopular de Oaxaca, inexplicable sin lapresencia indígena” en La Jornada, Jueves 17de agosto de 2006, México.

4 Esteva, Gustavo, “Negar la negación” ennoticias, martes 30 de enero de 2007, núm.10801, Oaxaca, México.

5 Gómez Ramírez, Víctor Manuel,“Contradicciones en el movimiento popularoaxaqueño” en noticias, sábado 10 de febrerode 2007, Oaxaca, México.

6 López Bárcenas, Francisco, “Escenarios de laconfrontación política en Oaxaca” en LaJornada, jueves 17 de agosto de 2006. México.

7 Martínez, Víctor Raúl, “El terrorismo deestado” en noticias, sábado 27 de enero de2007, Oaxaca, México.

8 Nahmad, Salomón, “Conflicto de Oaxacapodría irradiar al País” en noticias, Jueves 28de septiembre del 2006, Oaxaca, México.

_________________ “Entre la realidad y laficción” en El Imparcial, Lunes 11 denoviembre de 2006, Oaxaca, México.

_________________ “Grupos de poder enOaxaca y la crisis magisterial 2006” ponenciapresentada en Foro Académico Oaxaca:Ingobernabilidad y las demandas por una nuevasociedad, CIESAS, Septiembre de 2006,México.

9 Vergara, Rosalía; Gil Olmos, José y PedroMatías, “La APPO por dentro” en revistaproceso, no. 1566.

Travel to Latin AmericaBolivia • Colombia • Mexico

Nicaragua • Venezuela

Customized Delegations and Study Tours for: Educators, Religious Groups, Advocacy Organizations,

Alternative Spring/Summer Breaks.

Free trade, militarization, immigration... hear the true story first-hand.

FREE travel fororganizerswith10paidparticipants.

www.witnessforpeace.orgCONTACT Ken Crowley at 202-547-6112

or [email protected]

Witness for Peace is a nonprofit grassroots organization, dedicated to nonviolence and working to change U.S. government

policies and corporate practices in Latin America.

27

ON LASA2007

Report from the Program Chairsby NEIL HARVEY | New Mexico State University, Las Cruces | [email protected]

and MARÍA SOCORRO TABUENCA | El Colegio de la Frontera Norte | [email protected]

Entre el 22 y el 25 de enero nos reunimoscon el staff de LASA en Pittsburgh paraarmar el programa del Congreso. Fue unaexperiencia muy interesante puescombinamos la metodología que utilizaronlas codirectoras del programa anterior, lassugerencias de María Cecilia Dancicin y deMilagros Pereyra, con un método propio quedecidimos sería el que nos ayudaría a avanzarcon mayor efectividad. Durante esos díasestuvimos también en contacto con CharlieHale, Presidente de LASA, para asegurarnosque el programa tuviera la coherencia quebuscábamos. Finalmente, el 25 en la nochetuvimos listo el borrador final.

El 26 por la mañana nos trasladamos aMontréal a la reunión del Comité Ejecutivo.En esa reunión presentamos el programaarmado y algunas cifras importantes como elnúmero de solicitantes al Congreso, elporcentaje de paneles en los diferentescircuitos (tracks), y el índice de rechazo.Recibimos algunas sugerencias del ComitéEjecutivo con respecto a este último punto yvolvimos a nuestras ciudades de origen conla encomienda de hacer algunas de lasrevisiones solicitadas. Una vez hechas lasrevisiones respectivas, nos comunicamos conel Secretariado de LASA a fin de que lamembresía pudiera recibir los avisos deaceptación o de rechazo correspondientes.

Finalmente concluimos acordando que hasido una experiencia de lo más interesante yque agradecemos el apoyo que hasta hoy senos ha brindado.

Information for this area to be provided by Mariace

Target Dates for LASA2007

May 11, 2007 Deadline to submit changes/corrections for Program Book

May 30, 2007 Notification of travel grant requests

June 15, 2007 Pre-registration deadline

June 15, 2007 Deadline for canceling pre-registration without penalty

August 1, 2007 Deadline to submit electronic paper for conference proceedings

CALLING ALL MEMBERS


28

Elections 2007Nominating Committee Slate

The LASA Nominating Committee presentsthe following slate of candidates for vicepresident and members of the ExecutiveCouncil (EC). The winning candidate forvice president will serve in that capacityfrom November 1, 2007 to April 30, 2009and as president from May 1, 2009 untilOctober 31, 2010. The three winningcandidates for EC membership will serve athree-year term beginning November 1, 2007.

Nominees for Vice President:

Edna Acosta-BelénUniversity at Albany, SUNY

John CoatsworthColumbia University

Nominees for Executive Council:

Florence BabbUniversity of Florida

Jonathan HartlynUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Yolanda Martínez-San MiguelUniversity of Pennsylvania

Silvio Torres-SaillantSyracuse University

Teresa ValdesCenter for the Study and Development of Women (CEDEM)

Deborah YasharPrinceton University

The Candidates

Edna Acosta-Belén is Distinguished Professorof Latin American, Caribbean, and U.S.Latino Studies, and Women’s Studies at theUniversity at Albany, SUNY. She is alsoDirector of the Center for Latino, LatinAmerican, and Caribbean Studies (CELAC);a former Chair of the Department of LatinAmerican, Caribbean, and U.S. LatinoStudies; and editor and co-founder of theLatino(a) Research Review, a journal thatfocuses on the transnational connectionsbetween the U.S. Latino(a) populations andtheir Latin American and Caribbeancountries of origin. Dr. Acosta-Belén is aformer President of the Puerto Rican StudiesAssociation (PRSA, 2001-2003) and alsoserved as Vice President (1999-2000) of thisorganization. She was Chair of the LASAXVIII Congress Program Committee inAtlanta (1994) and has co-chaired LASA’sTask Force on Women (1988-1991), LatinoStudies Section (1997-1998), and Genderand Feminist Studies Section (2000-2001).She also served on LASA’s DevelopmentCommittee (1995-97), LASA’s ExecutiveDirector Search Committee, and the PuertoRico Congress Advisory Committee (2005-2006). She received her Ph.D. fromColumbia University. Her specialty areas areHispanic Caribbean and U.S. Latino culturalstudies and literature; and feminist andpostcolonial studies. She has been apostdoctoral fellow at Princeton and YaleUniversities, and a Visiting Professor atCornell University. She has receivednumerous grants and fellowships from theFord Foundation, the National Endowmentfor the Humanities, the U.S. Department ofEducation, the U.S. Information Agency, andthe Southern Fellowship Fund, amongothers. She is serving or has served on theEditorial Boards of the journals Signs,Meridians, The Americas Review, CentroJournal, and Ethnic Explorations. AmongDr. Acosta-Belén’s book publications are:

Puerto Ricans in the United States: AContemporary Portrait (with C.E. Santiago);“Adiós, Borinquen querida”; The PuertoRican Diaspora, Its History, andContributions (with M. Benítez et al.); ThePuerto Rican Woman: Perspectives onCulture, History, and Society, La mujer en lasociedad puertorriqueña; The HispanicExperience in the United States (with B.R.Sjostrom); Researching Women in LatinAmerica and the Caribbean (with C.E. Bose);Women in the Latin American DevelopmentProcess (with C.E. Bose); and The Way ItWas and Other Writings by Jesús Colón(with V. Sánchez Korrol). In addition, shehas over 50 articles published in a variety ofrefereed journals and edited volumes. Apromoter of gender studies, she has been anorganizer and participant in several feministencuentros in Costa Rica, Puerto Rico, andat the University at Albany that haveinvolved scholars and activists from severalother Latin American and Caribbeancountries, the United States, as well as otherregions of the world. She developed and co-directed three major projects funded by theFord Foundation to internationalize women’sstudies with a focus on Latin American andthe Caribbean, Africa, and Eastern Europe,and to incorporate the study of women intothe area and ethnic studies curriculum. Shealso has written extensively about theintersections between area, ethnic, andwomen’s studies and has been a promoter ofa transnational hemispheric approach to thestudy of the Latin American and Caribbeanregions and their (im)migrant Latino(a)populations in the United States. For over adecade, she was part of a team of scholarswho collaborated with the University ofHouston’s Recovering the U.S. HispanicLiterary Heritage. Dr. Acosta-Belén wasborn and raised in Puerto Rico, but has livedin the United States for almost four decades.

29

Acosta-Belén StatementFor many years LASA has been fortunate tochoose the kind of leadership that strives tobe responsive to the multiplicity of interestsand disciplinary and interdisciplinaryapproaches of its diverse membership. Mostrecently, this has included engaging theorganization in a stimulating and promisingprocess of “decentering” the field in order tomake it more attuned to the different oralternative forms of knowledge andexperiences that are being produced in LatinAmerica and the Caribbean, not only bythose privileged to be part of the academy,but also by those learning from a variety oflived experiences and practices. At a timewhen contemporary globalization processescontinue to impinge on and change the livesof many peoples and nations around theglobe—often in unforeseen or unimaginableways—it becomes increasingly difficult (andperhaps even shortsighted) for producers ofknowledge to remain solely within theconfines of their own disciplinary orgeographic area studies training in order toaddress the myriad of challenginginterrelated issues faced by a moreinterdependent human community. As aproduct of interdisciplinary Latin AmericanStudies training, and after many years of myown involvement in what were once fledging(and for a long time considered) “marginal”interdisciplinary fields (e.g., women’s studies,Puerto Rican/Latino Studies), it is now thecase that these, as well as other non-traditional areas, have been contributing tosome of the most stimulating and innovativeknowledge about the populations of ourhemisphere. Thus, I continue to envisionnetworks of scholars and activists poolingtheir perspectives and resources across theconfines of their disciplinary boundaries andsites of knowledge coming together to sharetheir professional expertise and practicalexperiences in addressing some of the newproblems and challenges posed by theprofessed era of globalization. While

globalization is only a new term to refer toprocesses that have been shaping the lives ofpeoples and nations for many centuries, itsimpact is consistently felt in moreimmediate, discernible, and profound ways,and there is an unavoidable convergence ofpressing conditions and issues that fallbeyond the competence or capacity of anysingle discipline or field to address, inseeking and articulating alternative solutionsand policies. Critical environmental andhuman rights issues, unrestrainedmanipulations of labor and capital that oftenexacerbate socioeconomic and genderinequalities, unfettered worldwide migrationflows and population displacements fromdeveloping countries to metropolitan centers,and new modes of social organizing andcollective action are only a few of the themesthat are opening up new opportunities forarea studies scholars to join together andfocus their expertise around specific issuesthat transcend the populations of ourparticular geographic areas of interest andconnect us to a wider global community.What better place than LASA for this sort ofcollaboration, comparative work, andnetworking opportunities to continue beingcultivated and promoted! In more localorganizational terms, I see a need for LASAto intensify its efforts in forging a morewelcoming environment for students byspearheading initiatives that furtherencourage and facilitate their Congressparticipation. Mentoring youngergenerations of engaged scholars and activists,and contributing to their continuouspresence, successful career development, andintegration into the professions, are goalsthat we should continue to pursue moreproactively. Of course, for those of us whohave witnessed the evolution of LASA overthree decades and have been privileged tolearn a great deal from leaders andcolleagues who preceded us, it is ofparamount importance to encourage a newcrop of students to give continuity to the

meaningful work that scholars and activistshave been carrying out since the creation ofthis esteemed organization. A great deal ofthis work has made a difference for theacademy and for the communities of theAmericas, but in the process we also need amore embedded awareness of the mutualinterdependence as knowledge producersand learners that should continue to benurtured among U.S.-based scholars andactivists, and those based in Latin America,the Caribbean or other countries.

John H. Coatsworth recently left HarvardUniversity for Columbia, where he isprofessor of history and international publicaffairs, and director of Columbia’s Institutefor Latin American Studies. He is the authoror editor of seven books and many scholarlyarticles on Latin American economic andinternational history. He is a formerpresident of the American HistoricalAssociation. At Harvard, he served as thefounding Director of the David RockefellerCenter for Latin American Studies from itscreation in 1994 until 2006. He chaired theACLS/SSRC Joint Committee on LatinAmerican Studies from 1985 to 1990. Heserved twice on the LASA Executive Counciland as LASA Treasurer. He is a member ofthe Council on Foreign Relations, the Boardof Directors of the Tinker Foundation, andnumerous professional associations.Coatsworth received his BA degree inHistory from Wesleyan University (1963)and his MA (1967) and Ph.D. (1972)degrees in Economic History from theUniversity of Wisconsin, Madison. Hetaught at the University of Chicago from1969 until he joined the Harvard faculty in1992. His other academic posts haveincluded visiting professorships at El Colegiode México, the Universidad NacionalAutónoma de México, the NationalUniversity of Buenos Aires, the InstitutoTorcuato di Tella in Buenos Aires, and theInstituto Ortega y Gassett in Madrid. He


30

NOMINATING COMMITTEE SLATE continued…

has served on the editorial boards ofnumerous scholarly journals including theAmerican Historical Review, the Journal ofEconomic History, and the HispanicAmerican Historical Review and as well associal science and history journals publishedin Britain, Germany, Mexico, Peru, andSpain. Professor Coatsworth’s most recentbook is The Cambridge Economic Historyof Latin America (2 vols., CambridgeUniversity Press, 2006), edited with VictorBulmer-Thomas and Roberto Cortes Conde.His research and publications have focusedon comparative economic, social, andinternational history of Latin America,especially Mexico, Central America, and theCaribbean. Other recent books include TheUnited States and Central America: TheClients and the Colossus (New York:Twayne, 1994); Latin America and theWorld Economy Since 1800 (Cambridge:Harvard University Press, 1998), edited withAlan M. Taylor; Culturas Encontradas:Cuba y los Estados Unidos edited withRafael Hernández and published jointly bythe David Rockefeller Center and Cuba’sJuan Marinello Center in 2001. ProfessorCoatsworth was awarded the John SimonGuggenheim Foundation Fellowship in1986, served as Senior Fulbright Lecturerthree times (for appointments in Argentinaand Mexico), and has received research andinstitutional grants from public agencies andprivate foundations in the United States andelsewhere. He has also acted as consultantfor program design or review to numerousU.S. universities and private foundations. In2005, he was elected to membership in theAmerican Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Coatsworth StatementLASA plays a vital role in encouragingresearch, teaching, professional development,and civic engagement. Its Congresses bringus together, enrich our understanding of thisvast region in all its diversity, and help tofocus attention on the intellectual and

practical challenges we face as scholars andcitizens. The Congresses, together with theLASA sections, committees, publications,and special projects, also createopportunities for scholarly collaborationwithin and across disciplines and betweenscholars based in the United States and thosewho work in Latin America and elsewhere.These vital activities contribute significantlyto advances in many fields of knowledge andto the professional development ofthousands of teachers and scholars. Aspresident, I would work to expand theLASA endowment devoted to supportingLatin American participation in LASACongresses and other activities. Thedecision to move LASA 2007 to Montreal tomake it possible for Cuban colleagues toattend, exchange ideas, and participate fullyalso demonstrates LASA’s commitment tothe principles of academic freedom and opendebate. LASA should continue to work tolift the intellectual embargo on U.S. scholarsthat limit and distort relations with ourCuban colleagues. LASA’s commitment toacademic freedom and civil liberties isespecially significant now, when a hyper-inflated “war on terror” has begun to erodecivil liberties in the United States and ismaking it more difficult, at times evenimpossible, for foreign students and scholarsto enter the United States. LASA’s principleshave also and quite appropriately led it toexpress solidarity with colleaguesexperiencing persecution wherever they maybe. As president, I would use my experiencedeveloping academic exchange and studyabroad programs with Cuba to help LASA’slongstanding campaign to end restrictions ontravel to Cuba and on the travel of Cubanscholars to the United States. LASA’s vitalitystrengthens area, regional and internationalstudies in all their forms. LASA membersdebate the meanings of these terms and theutility of the diverse perspectives they imply.But we all understand that the ubiquity ofEnglish and the Internet has not yet

suspended the laws of physics. It is stillimpossible to do empirical research (or healpatients or negotiate a treaty) in more thanone place, with its unique language andculture, at a time. Even in fields whereabstract modeling has acquired a well-deserved prestige, testing models (and evenmuch of the inspiration that inspires theirdesign) depends crucially on advances in thekind of knowledge that LASA membersproduce. As president, I would renewefforts to entice more of our colleagues inthe model building and quantitative humansciences to participate in LASA Congresses.Given the significance of the Internet, Iwould work to expand LASA’s electronicpublishing capabilities, focused initially onpapers related to each Congress’s overalltheme. LASA has been a uniquelyconsistent voice of reason on issues of ininter-American relations. Repeated disastersand failures attributable to U.S. policies haveimposed heavy human and material costs onmany Latin American societies. Since LASAis a U.S.-based organization, it seemsreasonable to me that the organization hasmade it a point to express its concernwhenever U.S. policy turned especially uglyor stupid, even when the authors of suchpolicies prove to be predictablyunresponsive. The consolidation ofdemocracy over the past two decades has ledgovernments with priorities better aligned tovoter preferences and pledged to confrontthe region’s notorious inequality and povertywhile restoring economic growth. It wouldbe a tragedy if the United States reverted toCold War policies that treated suchgovernments as potential enemies. Aspresident, I would look for ways that LASA’smembers can be more consistently informedand mobilized to improve the quality of U.S.policymaking toward Latin America.

31

Florence E. Babb is the Vada Allen YeomansProfessor of Women’s Studies at theUniversity of Florida, where she is alsoAffiliate Professor of Anthropology andLatin American Studies. She serves on theAdvisory Council and is Coordinator for theGender Specialization in the Center for LatinAmerican Studies. She studied at TuftsUniversity (BA Anthropology and French)and the State University of New York atBuffalo (MA, PhD Anthropology) and hastaught at Colgate University (1979-1982)and the University of Iowa (1982-2004),where she held joint appointments inAnthropology and Women’s Studies. AtIowa, she served terms as chair of the twodepartments as well as of programs ininternational studies, including LatinAmerican Studies. Babb is the author ofBetween Field and Cooking Pot: ThePolitical Economy of Marketwomen in Peru(1989, second edition 1998) and AfterRevolution: Mapping Gender and CulturalPolitics in Neoliberal Nicaragua (2001),both with University of Texas Press. Herarticles have appeared in many journals,including American Anthropologist, CulturalAnthropology, American Ethnologist,Identities: Global Studies in Culture andPower, Ethnology, Journal of LatinAmerican Anthropology, Latin AmericanResearch Review, and GLQ. She has co-edited special issues of Latin AmericanPerspectives on Gender and Same-Sex Desire(with James Green, 2002) and on Youth,Culture and Politics (with Jon Wolseth, inpreparation) and Critique of Anthropologyon Autonomy in an Age of Globalization:The Vision of June Nash (with LynnStephen, 2005). Babb’s current bookproject, Touring Revolution, FashioningNations, focuses on the cultural impact oftourism in post-revolutionary and post-conflict areas, including Nicaragua, Cuba,Peru, and Mexico. She has served on theeditorial boards of Latin AmericanPerspectives (1992-present) and the Journal

of Latin American Anthropology (1999-2004), and is a past Chair (2000-2001) andProgram Editor of the LASA Section onLesbian and Gay Issues. She won the ElsaChaney Prize for her paper presented at the2001 LASA Congress. She served as amember of the 2006 Martin DiskinMemorial Lecture selection committee. She was a member of the Area AdvisoryCommittee for Latin America: AndeanCountries / Central America, Council forInternational Exchange of Scholars(Fulbright Program) (1992-1994) and of theLatin America Advisory Panel for CIES,Fulbright Senior Scholar Program (1999-2001). She has received research awardsfrom the Fulbright Foundation (1990-1991),the Wenner-Gren Foundation forAnthropological Research (1991-1992), andthe Ford Foundation (2001), and she was aResident Scholar at the RockefellerFoundation’s Bellagio Center in Italy (2003).Babb has served as a member of theCommittee on Minority Issues inAnthropology (2002-2005) and currently sheis President of the Association for FeministAnthropology (2005-2007).

Babb StatementAt a time when Latin America isexperiencing a political sea change, LASA’sbroad membership across the Americas ispoised to play an increasingly important rolein engaged scholarly work. I would behonored to serve on the Executive Councilwith others who are committed to buildingon LASA’s long tradition of research andactivism. Among the areas that I would liketo address through service on the EC areenhancing relations with counterpartassociations at the international level andLatin Americanist sections of disciplinaryorganizations in the Americas. I would liketo see LASA embrace the Americas as awhole, with greater attention to Latinos/asin the United States and transnational,diasporic populations more broadly. I

would wish to see continued emphasis onissues of race, gender, and indigenousidentity, even as we become more cognizantof urbanization and cosmopolitanism.While we must remain critical of the forcesof neoliberalism and globalization, weshould take heart in the social movementsand currents of change that are under way.As a cultural anthropologist who has playedan active part in Latin American Studiesprograms at several universities, I would liketo emphasize accountability to the peopleswho are the subjects of our research andteaching. LASA can be supportive ofprogressive currents through theassociation’s selection of Congress locationsand its efforts to build a strong membershipbase throughout Latin America. We canconsider ways to draw younger membersand those from less-represented areas, and tosupport the work of public intellectualswhose reach extends well beyond theacademy. LASA has an outstanding recordof accomplishment as an association and Iwould welcome the challenge of building onthis strong record.

Jonathan Hartlyn is Professor of PoliticalScience at the University of North Carolinaat Chapel Hill (UNC). He has served asDirector of UNC’s Institute of LatinAmerican Studies and of the Carolina-DukeConsortium in Latin American Studies,which has been a joint NRC Title VI Centersince 1991. He has also served as Chair ofUNC’s Department of Political Science.Born in Peru and reared in Latin America(including pre-revolutionary Cuba andMexico), he received his Ph.D. at YaleUniversity (1981) and taught at VanderbiltUniversity from 1981 to 1988. He is theauthor of The Politics of Coalition Rule inColombia (Cambridge University Press,1988); La política del régimen de coalición:La experiencia del Frente Nacional enColombia, 1993) and of The Struggle forDemocratic Politics in the Dominican


32


Republic (UNC Press, 1998; Spanishtranslation forthcoming 2007). He is the co-author (with Manuel Antonio Garretón,Marcelo Cavarozzi, Peter Cleaves and GaryGereffi) of Latin America in the Twenty FirstCentury: Toward a New Socio-PoliticalMatrix (North-South Center and LynneRienner Press, 2003; América Latina en elsiglo XXI: Hacia una nueva matrizsociopolítica, 2004 and Portuguesetranslation forthcoming 2007). He has co-edited three books: Latin American PoliticalEconomy (with Samuel Morley), 1986; TheUnited States and Latin American in the1990s: Beyond the Cold War (with LarsSchoultz and Augusto Varas), 1992; andDemocracy in Developing Countries: LatinAmerica, 2nd edition (with Larry Diamondand Juan Linz), 1999. He has authored orco-authored articles in journals, including inAsian Journal of Latin American Studies,Comparative Political Studies, CurrentHistory, Estudios Jurídicos, Journal ofDemocracy, Journal of Interamerican Studiesand World Affairs, Latin American ResearchReview, Revista Opinão Pública, and Studiesin Comparative International Development.And, he has contributed chapters tonumerous edited books, includingCambridge History of Latin America;Democracia y Reestructuración Económicaen América Latina; Cambio Político en elCaribe; Democratic Governance and SocialInequality; Miradas Desencadenantes: LosEstudios de Género en la RepúblicaDominicana al Inicio del Tercer Milenio; andElectoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamicsof Unfree Competition. He serves on theeditorial boards of América Latina Hoy,Anuario Social y Político de América Latinay el Caribe, Journal of Latin AmericanStudies, and Latin American Politics andSociety. He is on the Academic AdvisoryComittee of the Washington Office on LatinAmerica (WOLA), the Executive Comittee ofthe Asociación Latinoamericana de CienciaPolítica (ALACIP), and is Chair of the

Comparative Democratization section of theAmerican Political Science Association(2005-2007). He has served as a programreviewer for the Instituto de EstudiosPolíticos y Relaciones Internacionales(IEPRI), Universidad Nacional de Colombia;the Pontificia Universidad Católica Madre yMaestra (Dominican Republic); theDepartmento de Ciencia Política,Universidad de Los Andes (Bogotá,Colombia); and the Center for LatinAmerican and Iberian Studies, VanderbiltUniversity, among others. He has been onthe Advisory Council of LASA’s ColombiaSection, as well as a member of the selectioncomittee for LASA’s Premio Iberoamericano(for the best book published in Spanish orPortuguese). In 2000, he received UNC’sJohnston Award for Teaching Excellence.His current research includes fourcollaborative projects: analyzing the natureof the gap between intentions and outcomesin contemporary constitutional reforms inLatin America; critically examining thequality of electoral processes in LatinAmerica; examining the evolution of citizenevaluation of government institutions,government performance and women inpolitics in the Dominican Republic throughthe use of surveys and other data; andcompleting an edited volume in Spanishapplying the concept of the matriz socio-política to five country case studies in theregion.

Hartlyn StatementI am honored to be nominated to serve onthe Executive Council of LASA. I have beena regular participant at LASA Congressessince 1979. For me, the value of theCongresses lies in the extraordinary mix ofpeople, intellectual content, richness andvariety of the panels, centrality in facilitatingregional networking and connections, andsubstantive and moral concerns engaged, all,crucially, with the ability also to have fun. Iwould bring to LASA a decades-long

commitment to Latin American andCaribbean studies. I would particularly liketo apply myself to finding more ways forLASA to foster interdisciplinary dialogueand collaborative research regionally andinter-regionally as well as within and acrossdisciplinary lines. As a Center Director andboard member, I have helped structureprograms and working groups to encourageinterdisciplinary dialogue, and recognize itsbenefits and challenges. In my research, Idiscovered early on the joys of collaborativescholarship, and I have co-edited threebooks, authored another with fourcolleagues (!), and co-authored numerousarticles. I would seek to bring thiscollaborative spirit to the LASA Council, asit continues to reach out to under-represented disciplines while encouraging anappropriate balance across disciplinaryconcerns. LASA could do more toencourage inter-regional work with Africa,Asia and Eastern Europe; as a first step itcould join with other regional associations toseek foundation support for collaborativeinter-regional projects. I would also like towork with others in further strengtheningLASA as an organization which can bettermeet the needs of all of its current memberswhile reaching out to new members andadvocating for core academic and humanrights values. The establishment of theLASA Sections has been an importantinnovation. It may be appropriate now totake a step back and examine ways in whichLASA as an association can find ways tofacilitate their daily management, invigoratetheir on-going activities, and encouragecross-fertilization across Sections to ensurethey don’t ultimately serve more to fragmentthe association than to strengthen it. Toremain a vigorous association, LASA mustconstantly examine its success inincorporating the Latin American studiescommunity in its broadest sense, includingnot just college and university-basedscholars. Given continuing financial

33

limitations that face many colleagues inLatin America and the Caribbean, LASAmust continue to find ways to facilitate theircontinuing participation in LASA and fostertheir professional development.

Yolanda Martínez-San Miguel, AssociateProfessor of Romance Languages. (B.A.University of Puerto Rico, 1989; M.A.Ph.D., University of California at Berkeley1991, 1996). Martínez-San Miguel wasborn in Santurce, Puerto Rico. Her areas ofresearch and teaching include: ColonialLatin American discourses andcontemporary Caribbean and Latinonarratives; colonial and postcolonial theory,migration and cultural studies. She has beena faculty member at the University of PuertoRico (1996-1997): Princeton University(1997-2000); Rutgers, the State University ofNew Jersey (2000-2003); and the Universityof Pennsylvania (2003-present). ProfessorMartínez-San Miguel is author of twobooks. Saberes americanos: subalternidad yepistemología en los escritos de Sor Juana(Pittsburgh: Instituto Internacional deLiteratura Iberoamericana, 1999) is the firstbook-length analysis of the constitution ofan epistemological subjectivity in the worksof Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz. This criticalreading explores three specific dimensions inthe constitution of a cognitive subject: herfeminine condition, the colonial context inwhich knowledge was produced, and theemergence of a “Creole” perspective duringthe second half of the seventeenth century.Caribe Two Ways: cultura de la migraciónen el Caribe insular hispánico (EdicionesCallejón, 2003) focuses on therepresentation of displacement and thereconfiguration of a contemporaryCaribbean identity in Cuba, the DominicanRepublic, Puerto Rico and Caribbeanenclaves in New York City. This study is anattempt to assess what impact thisdisplacement of the “national” has had onthe reformulation of those subjectivities that

are not “migrating subjects” themselves, butare experiencing both massive emigrationand immigration to and from their places oforigin. Another objective of this project is toidentify some of the most significant culturalmanifestations—such as literature, cinema,graffiti, music, and graphic arts—thatincorporate migration into their definition ofnational and Caribbean identities, to explorethe limits of some of the theoreticalcategories produced within Regional,Migration and Cultural Studies in the UnitedStates. Professor Martínez-San Miguel hasalso edited with Mabel Moraña thecompilation of essays “Nictimene sacrílega:homenaje a Georgina Sabat de Rivers”(México: Iberoamericana and Claustro deSor Juana 2003). She has published articlesin Revista de Crítica LiterariaLatinoamericana, Revista Iberoamericana,Posdata, Nómada, Revista de CienciasSociales, Journal of Caribbean Literatures,Centro Journal, Colonial Latin AmericanReview, and Debate Feminista. Martínez-San Miguel just finished her third bookproject entitled “From Lack to Excess:‘Minor’ Readings of Latin AmericanColonial Discourse.” This book analyzes thenarrative and rhetorical structures of LatinAmerican colonial texts by establishing adialogue with studies on minority discourse,minor literatures, and colonial andpostcolonial theory. The manuscriptincludes analysis of texts by Hernán Cortés,Alvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca, the IncaGarcilaso de la Vega, Carlos de Sigüenza yGóngora and Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz. Sheis working on a fourth book manuscriptentitled “Coloniality of Diasporas:Rethinking Ethnic Minorities in aComparative Context.” This projectproposes a comparative study of Martiniqueand Puerto Rico to explore two cases ofinternal migration between former/actualmetropolis and colonies. Using AníbalQuijano’s notion of the “coloniality ofpower,” Martínez-San Miguel proposes

“coloniality of diasporas” as a theoreticalframework to study literary works by AiméCésaire, Frantz Fanon, Luis Muñoz Marínand Piri Thomas. Honors and Awardsinclude the Ford Foundation Pre-doctoral(1990-1995), Dissertation (1995-1996) andPost-doctoral Fellowships (1999-2000), anda Research Grant for the Bellagio Study andConference Center entitled CollaborativeWriting on Translocal Flows in the Americas(co-authored with Marcial Godoy-Anativia)and sponsored by the RockefellerFoundation and the Program on LatinAmerica and the Caribbean, Social ScienceResearch Council (October 20-27, 2004).

Martínez-San Miguel StatementSince I became a member of LASA in 1991,I have valued the interdisciplinary dialoguespromoted by the association in itspublications and in its Congrsses. Theconceptualization of Latin American culturehas traditionally been a common area ofresearch in the humanities and the socialsciences. In the last twenty years, however,the intersections between these twodisciplines have produced a new generationof scholars who combine the empirical dataof the social sciences with the discursiveanalysis of literary studies, in order toconceptualize cultural productions as part ofa social, cultural, artistic, and politicalcontinuum. Latin American Studies,Migration Studies, Comparative Literature,Spanish, English, History, Anthropology,Sociology, Latino and Cultural Studies haveall been home departments or programs inwhich “culture” is analyzed andreconceptualized from this interdisciplinaryperspective. LASA has been crucial in theconfiguration of an academic communitythat includes scholars based in the UnitedStates and Latin America. Humanisticstudies and research within the United Stateshave been traditionally conceived as anextension of Lucien Goldman’s classicalmodel known as the “sociology of


34


literature,” while in Latin American andCaribbean Studies this interdisciplinarydialogue between the social sciences and thehumanities has been a vital characteristic ofthe most prominent scholarship in the field(Fernando Ortiz, Gilberto Freyre, FrantzFanon, Darcy Ribeiro, Antonio CornejoPolar, Néstor García Canclini, Stuart Hall,Nelly Richard, Beatriz Sarlo, WalterMignolo, among others). This criticaldifference informs not only how researchfields are conceived, but also how scholarsare formed. I am interested in broadeningand fostering the intersections between thesocial sciences and the humanities in thestudy of cultural representation in LatinAmerica and the Caribbean. We shouldaddress how these disciplines areepistemologically constructed in LatinAmerica and the United States. How doLatin American and U.S. Latino critics readeach other? How do their questions andmethodologies overlap or diverge? Thesedisciplinary distinctions are central to howwe approach a field, and how we use itsmethodology in transnational intellectualcontexts. I would like LASA to provide aspace to analyze the implications of howLatin American Cultural Studies isarticulated or imagined in the United Statesvis-à-vis different institutions in LatinAmerica or the Caribbean. If elected toLASA’s Executive Council, I would also liketo foster debates that promote paradigmshifts among disciplines in theconceptualization of Latin Americancultures.

Silvio Torres-Saillant, Associate Professor ofEnglish and Director of the Latino-LatinAmerican Studies Program at SyracuseUniversity, was the founding Director of theCUNY Dominican Studies Institute at CityCollege of the City University of New York,where he served in the Hostos CommunityCollege faculty until 2000. He spentacademic year 2005-2006 at Harvard

University as the Wilbur Marvin VisitingScholar affiliated with the David RockefellerCenter for Latin American Studies. He hassat on the boards of the New York Councilfor the Humanities, the Inter-UniversityProgram for Latino Research, theRecovering the U.S. Hispanic LiteraryHeritage Project, the Dominican-AmericanNational Roundtable, the New York StateCouncil on the Arts, Ollantay Center for theArts, the Latin American Writers Institute,the Mexico, Central America, and CaribbeanCommittee of the Fulbright ScholarsProgram, the MLA Committee on theLiteratures of People of Color in the UnitedStates and Canada, the MLA DelegateAssembly, and the American Social HistoryProject, among others. He has served on theeditorial boards of Callaloo, the Latino (a)Research Review, Brújula/Compass, amongother serial publications. He is AssociateEditor of Latino Studies and was one of theSenior Editors of the Oxford Encyclopediaof Latinos and Latinas in the United States.He is the Guest Editor of the spring 2007issue of Review: Literature and Arts in theAmericas. The author of numerous journalessays, book chapters, and magazine articles,Torres-Saillant has published widely onCaribbean, Dominican, Latino, and LatinAmerican topics, with a focus on culturalhistory, race and ethnicity, diasporic identity,and intellectual history. He has lecturedwidely in the United States and abroad, andin 2005 he was decorated with the Order ofMerit of Duarte, Sanchez y Mella conferredby the government of the DominicanRepublic. He has co-edited the collectionsDesde la Orilla: hacia una nacionalidad sindesalojos (Santo Domingo 2004), TheChallenge of Public Higher Education in theHispanic Caribbean (Princeton 2004), andRecovering the U.S. Hispanic LiteraryHeritage, Vol. 4. (Houston 2002). Withsociologist Ramona Hernández, he co-authored The Dominican Americans(Greenwood 1998). His book-length, single-

author publications include An IntellectualHistory of the Caribbean (Palgrave 2006), Elretorno de las yolas: Ensayos sobre diáspora,democracia y dominicanidad (EdicionesLibrería La Trinitaria/Editora Manatí 1999),and Caribbean Poetics: Toward an Aestheticof West Indian Literature (CambridgeUniversity Press, 1997). A native of theDominican Republic, Torres-Saillant came tothe United States in 1973, subsequentlysettling in the Dominican enclave ofWashington Heights, in northernManhattan, where he participated actively incommunity activism for over fifteen years.

Torres-Saillant StatementA certain view of blackness may affect thestudy of Hispaniola. I once frequented acollege where the Afro-American facultyasserted their primacy over Haiti, and theirLatin American counterparts claimed theDominican Republic. Monolingual training,legacies of fragmentation, and enduringbiases that devalue heritages partition thehemisphere, discouraging our having atolerably well-informed idea of the whole.Brazil may appear off limits to LatinAmericanists unsensitized to the multiplicityof tongues spoken in the region. Indigenousvoices will seldom reach beyond theirimmediate communities if not dignified withtranslation into Spanish or Portuguese. Theeducated in the hemisphere thus depriveourselves of the wisdom of entirecivilizations, cultural prejudice and linguisticlimitations robbing us of it. Equallytroubling, a student may graduate from theUniversity of the West Indies withoutknowing about José Martí, as GeorgeLamming once noted with sadness. Werecognize connection and interdependencebetween populations in Latin America andin U.S. Hispanic settlements while sensingtheir apartness: their seamlessnessinterrupted by migration to an alien land,emergence of minoritized identities, andcultural changes stemming from diminished

35

contact with lands of origin. Pan-hemispheric paradigms typically gainascendancy in the profession due to scholarlydesire and our viewing borderlessness as aninevitable result of the fierce force ofglobalizing, capitalist dynamics. But wehave yet to develop clearly explicablenotions of the precise continuities existingbetween the Latino and Latin Americanexperiences. We lack a coherent discourse tospeak efficiently about the socio-cultural andintellectual link of Caribbean societies withtheir respective diasporas in the UnitedStates. If granted the honor of serving onthe LASA Executive Council, I would hopeto contribute to ongoing efforts to articulateviable ways of tackling the challenge ofseeing the Americas as a difficult totalitywith inter- and intra-regional complexitiesand a perplexing rapport of diasporas andnative lands. I expect my experience as aComparatist, a Caribbeanist, a timid LatinAmericanist, an advocate of Latino Studies,and a student of diasporic formations toserve me in such an endeavor. I envision atime when the numerous culture areas withinour region will become equally visible toscholars. I envision scholars trained torecognize the reality of the phenomena thathave split the hemisphere into distinctgeographies of knowledge with contourstenuous enough to interlace with adjacentgeographies and steady enough to render theinterlacing toilsome.

Teresa Valdes is currently a senior researcherof the Center for the Study and Developmentof Women (CEDEM) in Santiago, Chile. For25 years, she was a researcher and professorat the Latin American Faculty for SocialSciences (FLACSO) in Chile, where she alsohas been Deputy Director (1996-2001) aswell as the founder and coordinator of theGender Studies Area (1993-2006). She isalso a visiting professor at the StanfordUniversity´s Program in Chile (since 1995),teaches at the Alberto Hurtado Jesuit

University (Santiago) and has been a TinkerLarocque Visiting Professor at ColumbiaUniversity (New York, 1986). She studiedSociology at the Catholic University (Chile)and is a Social Sciences Ph.D. candidate atthe Buenos Aires University, Argentina. Ahuman rights activist, imprisoned by thedictatorship, she became a leader of theWomen’s Movement and contributed to thedevelopment of its political agenda—laterinstitutionalized by the first democraticgovernment. Member of the SociologyGroup of the National Council for Scienceand Technology (Chile) and the EditorialCommittee of the Latin American ResearchReview (México), she received in 2003 the“Elena Caffarena” Award given by thegovernment of Chile in the category“Woman Researcher in Science andEducation”. She coordinated the regionalproject “Latin American Women inNumbers” in 19 countries (1990-1995) thatled to the publication of 17 national studiesand a comparative volume (translated toEnglish). For the first time in Latin America,an integral vision of the situation of womencompared to that of men was achieved andmany countries used their volume to preparenational reports to regional forums. Shelater led the regional project “The Index ofFulfilled Commitments” that published a“Social Watch Instrument for Women” in 18countries (1997-2004) and developed genderindicators for the follow-up of the BeijingPlatform for Action and the CairoProgramme of Action (ICPD). She iscurrently part of the international project“Introducing Gender and Sexualities in theAcademic Curricula” (Colegio de México)and the Latin American Center for Sexualityand Human Rights (Brasil). She is currentlypreparing two books of the Index ofFulfilled Commitments project andcoordinating a Social Observatory ofPresident Bachelet’s Commitments withGender and Social Equity. A consultant forinternational organizations (UNDP,

UNIFEM, UNFPA, IADB, World Bank,JICA) and Chilean ministries (Women’sAffairs, Health, Education, Housing), shealso has been member of two nationalgovernmental commissions: the CitizenCouncil for the Strengthening of CivilSociety (Rapporteur, 2000) and theCommission for the Analysis and Proposalson Sexual Education (2004). Author ofVenid, Benditas de mi Padre. LasPobladoras, sus Rutinas y sus Sueños(FLACSO, 1988); De lo social a lo político.La acción de las mujeres latinoamericanas(FLACSO-LOM, 2000); co-author ofMujeres que sueñan: Las organizaciones depobladoras en Chile 1973-1989 with M.Weinstein (FLACSO, 1993); El poder en lapareja, la sexualidad y la reproducción.Mujeres de Santiago with J. Gysling and C.Benavente (FLACSO, 1999); El Indice deCompromiso Cumplido-ICC. Uninstrumento para el control ciudadano de laequidad de género with a group ofresearchers (two volumes for Chile and othercountries and a comparative volume,FLACSO, 2001 and 2005); Puertas adentro.Mujeres, vulnerabilidades y riesgo frente alVIH/SIDA with C. Dides, A. Márquez andK. Barrales (FLACSO–MINSAL (ChileanHealth Ministry), 2006). Editor ofMasculinidad/es. Poder y crisis with J.Olavaria (Ediciones de las Mujeres Nº 24,ISIS Internacional, 1997); Masculinidades yequidad de género en América Latina y elCaribe with J. Olavaria (FLACSO-UNFPA,1998); Familia y vida privada:¿transformaciones, tensiones, resistencias onuevos sentidos? with X. Valdés(FLACSO–CEDEM–UNFPA, 2005).

Valdes StatementI feel committed to pursue the strategyadopted by the actual directive of LASAtoward the strengthening of dialogue andcollaboration among academic researchers inthe Americas regarding Latin America andthe study of its profile, especially in the


36


prevalent moment of great transformationsand political and social opportunities in ourregion. The presence and leadershipcapacity of new actors on the political scenewho emerged from the social processes ofthe last decades, as well as the redefinition ofthe national and regional developmentagendas, summon social scientists to arapprochement and a comprehension that gobeyond simple visions and stereotypes—aconcern that calls for a renewal in thediscussions around leftisms, indigenism,feminism, popular movements andpopulisms as a necessary agenda. I believein the richness of LASA as an academic andpolitical forum able to nurture the role andcommitment of the social sciences with thepossibility to build societies that guaranteethe full validity of human rights and socialand gender justice, in the framework of aglobalization that tightens human bonds aswell as economic and politic dependencies.At the same time, I am deeply interested bythe contribution of LASA to the unfoldingand elaboration of history and memoryprocesses that may further these newunderstandings, together with fortifying awide array of social actors. Finally, I wouldlike to bring closer and invigorate the bondsbetween Latin American academiciansbesides the institutional spaces that are moretraditionally linked to LASA, in order to payattention to the great transformationsundergone by universities as well as to theemergence of new academic spaces andnetworks that seek to attend local needs. Itis also very important that all thecomponents of this praxis be gathered in thebest possible manner by the Latin AmericanResearch Review.

Deborah J. Yashar is Associate Professor ofPolitics and International Affairs andDirector of the Program in Latin AmericanStudies at Princeton University. She is theauthor of various articles and chapters ondemocracy, citizenship, indigenousmovements, collective action, andglobalization. She has also written twobooks: Demanding Democracy: Reform andReaction in Costa Rica and Guatemala(Stanford University Press, 1997); andContesting Citizenship in Latin America:The Rise of Indigenous Movements and thePostliberal Challenge (Cambridge UniversityPress, 2005). The latter received the 2006best book award from the New EnglandCouncil on Latin American Studies(NECLAS) and the 2006 Mattei DoganHonorable Mention, awarded by the Societyfor Comparative Research. She is currentlywriting a book, tentatively entitled Violence,Citizenship, and Security in Post-Authoritarian Latin America, which sets outto explain both the contemporary rise inviolent crime and the uneven record of LatinAmerica’s third wave democracies to securethe rule of law. She is on the editorialboards of Latin American Research Review,World Politics, and Studies in Comparativeand International Development, as well asthe international advisory board for LatinAmerican and Caribbean Ethnic Studies. Asa whole, Yashar’s work addresses broadsocial science debates about Latin Americawhile drawing heavily on work frompolitical science, sociology, economics,history, and anthropology. If elected, shewould bring this commitment tointerdisciplinary conversations to the table.

Yashar StatementProfessor Yashar has been a member ofLASA since 1992, during which time she hasjoined the editorial board of LARR (2006),served on the nominations committee (2003-2004), and participated as a member of theFord-LASA Special Projects FundCommittee (2001). She was also an electedcouncil member (1998-2001) of the NewEngland Council of Latin American Studies.If elected to the LASA council, Yashar wouldadvocate to further expand opportunities fortravel and participation by Latin Americanscholars at LASA; would vote for Congressvenues that are politically accessible andfinancially affordable to our internationalmembership; and would continue to supportthe creation of political task forces toaddress pressing political issues. Yasharwould also support the formation ofresearch task forces to tackle more long-termissues of academic and political interest tothe region; themes would be proposed by theLASA community but examples forconsideration might include internationaltask forces on enduring inequalities;violence; citizenship, mobilization, andrepresentation; the new Latin Americanleft(?); revisiting empire; migration anddiaspora; etc. These research task forceswould be designed to promote academiccollaboration and to sustain agenda-settingscholarly exchange in the 18 monthsbetween LASA Congresses.

Please watch your email inboxes for instructions on how to vote. All voting is electronic.

37

NEWS FROM LASA

LASA Voluntary Supportby SANDY KLINZING

Our biggest news is that LASA has five newLife Members! Our warmest thanks toFlorence Babb, Rosario Espinal, KevinMiddlebrook, Manuel Pastor and MarianneSchmink. Their Life Memberships not onlysignal their commitment to the mission ofthe Association, but also contribute to thepreparation of future scholars throughsupport of the LASA Endowment. Over the years all five have served in severalleadership positions in LASA, generouslycontributing their time to serve as Sectionofficers and/or members of the ExecutiveCouncil. Thank you for your continuingsupport and dedication to the Association!

LASA is working diligently to secure fundingfor the 2007 Congress. Thanks to yoursupport of the Endowment, the Associationis able to fund a substantial number of travelgrants. The remainder of what is required,however, comes from member and friendcontributions to the Travel Fund, the StudentFund, and the new Indigenous and Afro-descendent Fund. A thank-you to all whocontinue to generously support these criticalfunds. (For information on how you too canmake a contribution, please refer to the endof this report.)

We gratefully recognize these donors sinceour last report in the summer, 2006 issue ofthe Forum.

LASA Travel Fund:Ligia AldanaRobert AndolinaArturo AriasCynthia ArnsonGeorge Avelino FilhoDaniel BalderstonJames BassCarlos BatistaLeGrace BensonBerenice BentoMichelle BigenhoKirk BowmanViviane Brachet-MarquezLuiz Roberto CairoGloria Alicia Caudillo FélixDeb CohenRudi Colloredo-MansfeldCarmen Milagros Concepción RodríguezLucia Helena CostiganHéctor Cruz-FelicianoAllan DawsonRut DiamintAriel DorfmanJames DunkerleyRicardo Ffrench-DavisBryan Thomas FroehleClaudia Galindo LaraAna Garcia ChichesterLeo GarofaloDavid GarrettDonald GaylordDaniel GoldsteinCarlos Eduardo Gomes SiqueiraLaura GrahamLuis Eduardo GrunerMatthew GutmannNora HamiltonJohn HammondShareen HertelJose InfanteBillie Jean IsbellJane JaquetteKaren KampwirthTerry KarlMaria Teresa Miceli KerbauyLucille Kerr

Maria LagosErick LangerRamón Larrauri TorroellaFragano LedgisterElizabeth LeedsWilliam LeoGrandeEloise LingerEnid LoganRyan LongAndres MalamudLuciano MartinezDina Maria Martins FerreiraDaniel MatoCynthia McClintockKathryn McKnightTeresa MeadeMariselle MelendezTommie Sue Montgomery-AbrahamsMarietta MorrisseyMercedes Niño-MurciaMary O’ConnorMaria Rosa Olivera-WilliamsCarlos PeredaMilagros Pereyra-RojasEric PerramondThomas PerreaultAlexandra Pita GonzálezJuan PobleteNancy PosteroDaniel PremoMartha ReesGraciela RiquelmeBryan RobertsKenneth RobertsReinaldo RomanEnrique Sacerio-GaríCiro SandovalLinda SeligmannBarbara SjostromRussell SmithDaniela SpenserMarcia StephensonRafael TarragoClark TaylorAngela ThompsonSusana TorresMiren Uriarte


38

Ivani Vassoler-FroelichOscar VazquezHeather WilliamsDerek WilliamsPatrick WilsonAnn Zulawski

LASA Student Fund:Moises ArceArturo AriasKatia BezerraKirk BowmanAurora Camacho De SchmidtCélica Cánovas MarmoManuel Angel Castillo GarcíaCecilia CervantesSerena CosgroveLucia Helena CostiganHéctor Cruz-FelicianoAllan DawsonSusan DeedsCarmen Diana DeereRut DiamintJames DunkerleySuzanne FiederleinMayra FortesBryan Thomas FroehleDavid GarrettJorge Gil-MendietaAndrea GoldsteinCarlos Eduardo Gomes SiqueiraMatthew GutmannNeil HarveyJose InfanteLucille KerrGwen KirkpatrickRamón Larrauri TorroellaFragano LedgisterEloise LingerBernardo LinsEnid LoganRyan LongGustavo Lopez AngelBrian LovemanAntonio Marquet MontielYolanda Martinez-San MiguelIrma Méndez de HoyosTommie Sue Montgomery-AbrahamsMauro Neves JuniorLiisa NorthMaria Rosa Olivera-WilliamsEric PerramondThomas PerreaultRoque PlanasJuan PobleteSusan QuinlanCynthia Radding

Gabriela RamosDierdra ReberMartha ReesKenneth RobertsFernando RosenbergElizabeth RussJoseph ScarpaciVirginia SnodgrassNatalia Sobrevilla PereaMary TacyRafael TarragoVictor Uribe-UranAngel Viera TiradoAlberto VillanuevaIvonne Vizcarra BordiDerek WilliamsColetta YoungersMichele Zebich-Knos

Indigenous and Afro-descendent Fund:Ligia AldanaRobert AndolinaArturo AriasMaria Ines ArratiaThomas BamatJames BassLinda BeloteMario BlaserMerle BowenJefferson BoyerBruce CalderRudi Colloredo-MansfeldStuart DayJonathan FoxLeo GarofaloChris GilbrethJohn GledhillCarlos Eduardo Gomes SiqueiraMatthew GutmannRené Harder HorstRegina HarrisonSarah Hautzinger

Jane HenriciConsuelo HernándezAna Maria KerekesNorma KlahnChuck KleymeyerRamón Larrauri TorroellaFragano LedgisterEnid LoganLois LorentzenTeresa LosadaKathryn McKnightMauro Neves JuniorVivian NewdickLiisa NorthKarl OffenThomas PerreaultNancy PosteroMiguel RamirezJoanne RappaportMartha ReesMariolga ReyesKenneth RobertsIvette Romero-CesareoCiro SandovalArthur SchmidtLinda SeligmannRachel SiederJohn SoluriRonald WaterburyDerek WilliamsPatrick WilsonKristina WirtzStephanie WoodRanald WoodamanKevin Yelvington

General Endowment Fund:Karen AtkisonWerner BaerHelga BaitenmannJames BassKirk BowmanPhilip Brenner

Support at any level is most appreciated. Please see <http://lasa.international.pitt.edu/contribute.html> for information.You may also contact LASA Voluntary Support at 412-648-1907 to learnmore about contributions to the Association and to find out about special opportunities such as Life Memberships and memorial gifts, or to discuss a bequest.

39

NEWS FROM LASA

LASA Membership Report 2006Donald CastroRoberto Cespedes RuffinelliLucia Helena CostiganLaura Del Alizal ArriagaLaura EnriquezElisa FacioBryan Thomas FroehleMaura FuchsHoward HandelmanSarah HautzingerJane HenriciYoshiaki HisamatsuTerry KarlLucille KerrA. Douglas KincaidMasao KinoshitaSayuri KuwabaraRamón Larrauri TorroellaFragano LedgisterEudora LohJames LouckyJohn LoughneyConcepcion Martinez-MaskeMariselle MelendezMilagros Pereyra-RojasEric PerramondPeter RanisBryan RobertsDavid RobinsonSarah SchoellkopfYuriko TakahashiGeorge VickersWilliam Waters

Humanities Endowment Fund:Joseph ArbenaDeb CohenLucia Helena CostiganVerónica De la TorreRicardo Ffrench-DavisWilliam GarnerLaura GrahamNils JacobsenLucille KerrJohn LandreauRamón Larrauri TorroellaLinda Ledford-MillerFragano LedgisterCatherine LugarMarianella MachadoDina Maria Martins FerreiraAna Ramírez BarretoKathleen RossVíctor Zúñiga

Individual Memberships

Total memberships 5613 (22 percent increase over 2005)

New members 1428Renewed from 2005 3116 (68 percent renewal rate) Renewed lapsed members 1069

Member type:Traditional members 2205Student members 970Life Members 67 Joint Members 241

Member residency:U.S. residents 3891 (69 percent of the membership) Latin American residents 825 (15 percent of the membership) Other Non-U.S. residents 896 (16 percent of the membership)

Three-year memberships initiated in 2006 165

Major disciplines represented:Literature 891Political Science 839History 779Anthropology 538Sociology 427Latin American Studies 282Economics 176Cultural Studies 127International Relations 111Education 105

Institutional Memberships

Total memberships 99 (3 percent increase over 2005)New members 8Renewed from 2005 69Renewed lapsed members 22

Institution locationUnited States 82Latin America 6Other Non-U.S. 11

http://lanic.utexas.edu/project/laoap/

Portal to social sciences grey literatur e produced in Latin America by research institutes and non-governmental organizations

Features � Digital full-text � Working documents and newsletters � Research papers and notes � Conference proceedings � Search by organization, author, title, subject � Browse by author, title, subject

Participating Organizations

FLACSO Chile

CIRMA Guatemala

Universidad Torcuato Di Tella

Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales

Instituto de Estudios Peruanos

Centro Iberoamericano de Formación

Inter-American Development Bank

Latin American Open Archives PortalPortal de Archivos Abiertos de América Latina

An Open Archives Initiative-Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH)project of the

Latin Americanist Research Resources Project - LARRPin collaboration with the

Latin American Network Information Center - LANIC

The Latin American Studies Association (LASA) is the largest

professional association in the world for individuals and

institutions engaged in the study of Latin America. With over

5,000 members, twenty-five percent of whom reside outside the

United States, LASA is the one association that brings together

experts on Latin America from all disciplines and diverse

occupational endeavors, across the globe.

LASA’s mission is to foster intellectual discussion, research, and

teaching on Latin America, the Caribbean, and its people

throughout the Americas, promote the interests of its diverse

membership, and encourage civic engagement through network

building and public debate.

416 Bellefield HallUniversity of PittsburghPittsburgh, PA 15260

lasa.international.pitt.edu

Nonprofit Org.US POSTAGE

PAID

Pittsburgh, PAPermit No. 511

forum Latin American Studies Association · 31/10/2010 · Latin American Studies Association IN...

Documents

Transcript of forum Latin American Studies Association · 31/10/2010 · Latin American Studies Association IN...