LIBERAL, POPULAR, AND MULTICULTURAL MODES OF

INCLUSION: TRANSFORMATIONS OF NATIONALISM IN LATIN

AMERICA

Matthias vom Hau Assistant Professor of Comparative Politics

Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals (IBEI) Elisabets 10, Barcelona, 08001, SPAIN

mvomhau@ibei.org

PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE OR CIRCULATE WITHOUT PERMISSION.

Abstract The most widely-used typology in the nationalism literature, the distinction between “inclusionary” civic nationalism and “exclusionary” ethnic nationalism, only provides limited insights for the context of Latin America. In response this paper presents a novel typology to identify major patterns of nationalism in region. This alternative approach puts the spotlight on distinct historical modes of inclusion—or dominant ideas about how national membership should be managed and national unity could be achieved. During the late 19th century liberal nationalism associated the achievement of national unity with the spread of “civilization;” during the early and mid-20th century popular nationalism envisioned assimilation into a homogeneous and culturally distinct national identity; from the late 20th century onwards multicultural forms of nationalism envisioned national unity as realized in the recognition of ethno-cultural difference. These distinct modes of inclusion had major implication for the exercise of citizenship and the organization of social provision. The paper develops and illustrates this typology and its policy implications through a comparative historical analysis of official national discourses in 19th and 20th century Mexico, Peru, and Argentina. Biographical Statement Matthias vom Hau is an assistant professor of comparative politics at the Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals (IBEI). His research interests include nationalism and ethnicity, international development, and education. He is currently completing a book manuscript on transformations of nationalism in 20th century Latin America. His new cross-regional work focuses on indigenous movements and their implications for democratic citizenship and nationhood in Argentina, the Philippines, and South Africa. Acknowledgements I am grateful for the generous support of this research by the Social Science Research Council (SSRC) and the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD). I would like to especially thank James Mahoney, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, José Itzigsohn, and Fulya Apaydin for their detailed comments on the argument developed in this paper.

1

LIBERAL, POPULAR, AND MULTICULTURAL MODES OF INCLUSION:

TRANSFORMATIONS OF NATIONALISM IN LATIN AMERICA

The distinction between civic and ethnic forms of nationalism is central to the

scholarship on nationalism (e.g., Brubaker 1992; Greenfeld 1992; Hobsbawn 1990;

Ignatieff 1993; Kohn 1944; Smith 1986). Civic nationalism portrays the nation as a

political community that is constituted by its territorial and political frame. Ethnic

nationalism conceives the nation as an ethnocultural community that is neither causally

nor conceptually dependent on political territory. The literature on nationalism has an

equally long tradition of critiquing the inherent limitations of the distinction between

civic and ethnic conceptions of nationhood. Scholars have pointed to the ideological

usage of this dichotomy, with the celebration of “inclusionary” civic nationalism and the

demonization of “exclusionary” ethnic nationalism (e.g., Kymlicka 2001). The

distinction also carries major analytical limitations, as the boundary between civic and

ethnic nationalism depends on how culture is defined in the first place (Brubaker 1998).

In this paper I complement these ideological and conceptual critiques with a focus

on the empirical limitations of the ethnic/civic dichotomy. In the context of Latin

America, a region that has long been neglected in the comparative study of nationalism

(Iztigsohn and vom Hau 2006; notable exceptions are Centeno 2002), the typology of

civic and ethnic nationalism only provides limited analytical leverage. As I will argue

through the reminder of the text, during the 19th century political conceptions of

nationhood prevailed in official national ideologies, yet they were fused with extremely

elitist and hierarchical understandings of the national community. Drawing on Comtean

political positivism and social Darwinianism, official national discourses depicted

2

enlightened and benevolent elites as natural leaders and protagonists of national history.

During the mid-20th century most Latin American nationalisms emphasized a shared

culture and language as the bases of national identity and perceived assimilation into this

national culture as a real possibility. This cultural-assimilationist perspective was

complemented by an emphasis on “the people” (as opposed to the “oligarchy”) as the

“true” carriers of national identity. Finally, since the end of the 20th century, official

national discourses have moved away from envisioning the creation of culturally

homogeneous nations. Instead, Latin American nationalisms celebrate ethnocultural

differences within the national imagined community, and seek national unity in the

recognition of diversity.

These historical transformations of nationalism in Latin America provide the

empirical backdrop for moving beyond the mode of critique and develop an alternative

typology of nationalism. Specifically, I distinguish between three major types—liberal,

popular, and multicultural nationalism—in order to capture meaningful variation across

the region (and beyond). At the core of this typology are three distinct historical modes of

inclusion—or dominant ideas about how national membership should be managed and

national unity could be achieved. Liberal nationalism associates the achievement of

national unity with the spread of “civilization;” popular nationalism envisions

assimilation into a homogeneous and culturally distinct national identity; and

multicultural nationalism imagines national unity as realized in the acknowledgement and

celebration of within-nation difference.

The reminder of the paper is organized around this inductive approach to

typology-building. The next sections present a comparative-historical analysis of how

3

similar transformations of official national ideologies unfolded in three Latin American

countries: Mexico, Argentina, and Peru. In many ways, these countries are representative

for the wider region. Mexico and Peru provide a feasible comparison because they exhibit

important similarities with respect to colonial history, economic history, and

demographic composition, yet their postcolonial political development followed radically

different paths. Argentina, as a settler society with a distinct colonial history and

demographic make-up, constitutes a sharp contrast to both Mexico and Peru. Yet, similar

to Peru, in postcolonial Argentina political development was characterized by repeated

transitions from authoritarianism to democracy.

I trace changes and continuities of official national discourse through the

analytical lens of public education. Schools have long been considered as critical in the

production and dissemination of nationalism and state-sponsored memory projects

(Weber 1976), and a large historical literature confirms that from the late 19th century

onwards, public schools became the major nationalizing institution in the region.

Specifically, I use two empirical windows when exploring nationalization at schools. The

first one are school textbooks. Latin American states put major efforts into regulating the

ideological contents of textbooks, and these texts were often the first, and sometimes the

only books students were exposed to. In order to crosscheck the findings from textbook

analysis I examine school ceremonies. School-wide rituals, from flag pledges and public

parades to annual celebrations of major national holidays, imbue particular imageries of

national community with collective meaning and help to connect official visions of

national history to the lived experience of students (Kertzer 1988).

4

Based on the comparative analysis of textbooks and school ceremonies in Mexico,

Argentina, and Peru the second-to-last section develops the distinction between liberal,

popular, and multicultural nationalism into a more general analytical device. The

concluding section discusses the broader applicability of this typology to cases beyond

Mexico, Argentina, and Peru, and to cases beyond Latin America. It also speculates about

possible drivers of the major historical transformation from liberal to popular to

multicultural nationalism, and spells out some of the substantive implications these

distinct modes of inclusion had, including the exercise of citizenship and the organization

of social provision.

Political yet exclusionary and elitist conceptions of nationhood

A comparison of state-sponsored national ideologies in Mexico, Argentina, and

Peru during the late 19th and early 20th century reveals striking similarities in how these

discourses framed criteria of national belonging, identified threats to national unity, and

represented national history.

Civic nationalism?

The late 19th century—a period often described in terms of “oligarchic

domination”—witnessed the consolidation of central state power in the three countries

(Cotler 2005; Knight 2002; Oszlak 1982). State elites came to consider public schools as

a crucial site for modernizing and nationalizing society. In all three countries primary

education became obligatory, free, and secular, and programs, curricula, and textbook

5

approval came under the direct control of the central government (Bertoni 2001;

Contreras 2004;Vaughan 1982).

During this period textbooks published in Mexico, Argentina, and Peru converged

in their emphasis on the political-territorial underpinnings of national membership. In

this view, political institutions reflected popular will and secured its realization, and

therefore appeared as defining features of nationhood. The “Peruvian nation is the

political association of all Peruvians” (Wiesse 1913: 52). The constitution appeared as

the central unifying force, guaranteeing that “all the inhabitants […] have the right and

facility to do what they please” (Sierra 1894: 7). Some textbooks even echoed Renan’s

idea of the nation as a “daily plebiscite” and conceived of the national community as “the

creation of our wills taken together” (Eizaguirre 1895: 20).

Accounts of national history further reinforced such a political understanding of

nationhood. For instance, textbooks focused on the formation of a binding legal order,

which constituted Argentina as a federal republic, while systematically downplaying the

struggles and civil wars between regional strongmen and political elites from Buenos

Aires during the early 19th century (e.g., Fregeiro 1896: 201; Pelliza 1905: 103-106).

Analogously, Peruvian history tended to culminate in the “Republic” as a teleological

ending point. “For more than 300 years Peru had to obey the Incas, then came the

conquest, and it had to obey to the Viceroys for 330 years” (Rosay 1913: 183). It was

independence from Spain that secured democracy and economic dynamism (Fanning

1915: 18). A similar pattern emerged in Mexican textbooks. The liberal constitution

from 1857 appeared as the historical destiny of the nation’s trajectory, securing material

progress and internal peace.

6

Yet, this emphasis on citizenship and territory found in official national

discourses was by no means “inclusive.” Treating late 19th and early 20th century

Mexico, Peru, and Argentina as manifestations of civic nationalism illustrates the

limitations of the civic vs. ethnic framework. As the following paragraphs will illustrate,

civic understandings of nationhood overlapped with the highly exclusionary imageries of

a “civilized nation.”

Envisioning a “civilized nation”

In all three countries textbooks advocated the spread of “civilization” as the main

vehicle for overcoming ethnoracial and political divisions, and celebrated the economic,

scientific, and artistic achievements of the old world (e.g., Martínez 1903: 15). Many of

the main characters that appeared in school texts were children of an upper middle class

background, often portrayed as being enthusiastically immersed in the study of ancient

Greek and Roman cultures (e.g., Ferreyra 1895: 67, 71; Pizzurno 1901: 2, 69, 223-228).

Accordingly, textbooks drew a major distinction between those who were

imagined as part of the “civilized nation,” and those who were not. Textbooks associated

the indigenous population living within the national territory with “barbarism,” posing a

threat to national unity and progress. In Argentina, these “savages of the south” would

control vast territories, stealing Argentine cattle and then selling it across the boarder to

Chile (Pelliza 1905: 112-113). Textbooks celebrated the “Conquest of the Dessert”—

outright extermination campaigns conducted by military leaders against indigenous

people during the second half of the 19th century—as extending “civilization” into the

interior of the country (e.g., Ferreyra 1895: 41, 78). Mexican and Peruvian textbooks

7

advanced similar representations of the indigenous population. Indigenous people

“maintained their superstitions and idolatries from before the conquest” (Sierra 1894: 63),

and the “profound dejection of the indigenous race” appeared as a major obstacle to

national progress (Rodríguez 1900: 145). The remedy would be the systematic

“whitening” of the population with the help of public education and European

immigration.

In Peruvian textbooks, the distinction between “civilization” and “barbarism” also

permeated descriptions of national space. Geography appeared to be connected to racial

differences. Textbooks characterized the nation as composed of “the Coast, the

Mountains, and the Jungle,” and argued that these three geographical areas were “the

origin of ethnic varieties that shape racial types and diverse cultures” (Wiesse 1913: 4).

The Coast emerged as the natural environment of whites and mestizos, and exhibited the

most favorable conditions for economic progress and “civilization,” while the Mountains

and the Jungle, the natural environments of indigenous people, were less suitable for

economic progress and the expansion of a Western lifestyle.

The idea of a “civilized nation” also shaped representations of the past. National

history appeared as an evolutionary process moving along distinct stages towards

“civilization.” In all three countries textbooks consternated the general state of

“barbarism” during the precolonial period. Especially during the “vulgar era” (Lainé

1890: 3) before the onset of Aztec and Inca rule societies situated within the territory of

modern Mexico, Argentina, and Peru “maintained themselves with hunting and devoured

raw meat” (Zárate 1899: 14). Even the Aztecs and Incas—in Mexican and Peruvian

textbooks credited for their achievements as architects and political centralizers (e.g.,

8

Oviedo 1894: 12; Rodríguez 1900: 4)—lacked “civilization,” epitomized by the practice

of human sacrifice. “For four days prisoners of war were sacrificed to the gods, and the

number of these unfortunate victims of this most horrendous fanaticism and evil cult of

the Mexicas rose to 20,000” (Zárate 1899: 62-63). This “infamous holocaust […]

showed the fanaticism of these people and the cruelty of their unrefined and uncivilized

religion!” (Aguirre Cinta 1897: 37) Peruvian textbooks echoed their Mexican

counterparts in treating human sacrifices as the ultimate indicator of Inca “barbarism”

(e.g., Fanning 1915: 31).

It was only Spanish colonialism that brought “progress.” In all three countries,

textbooks equated Spanish colonial rule with the construction of a “civilized nation.”

Despite the atrocities committed by Spanish colonizers, the conquest linked Mexico,

Argentina, and Peru into contact with the Western world and installed the bases for

modern nationhood. Ultimately, the beneficial effects of Spanish colonialism offset its

violence. Textbooks emphasized that the conquest was “a step ahead in the evolution of

Mexico,” because “[t]he Spanish gave their American colonies as much civilization as

Spain had herself” (Sierra 1894 in Vázquez 2000: 128). Spanish colonialism instituted

centralized rule, while the spread of Spanish as the dominant language fostered national

unity. As such, the result of Spanish colonialism was the formation of “a new society

[…], based on the principles of a superior culture” (Rodriguez 1900: 4).

Elite-centeredness

These representations of colonial history also illustrate the elite-centeredness of

textbooks published during this period. Textbook narratives were organized around

9

major political leaders, whether Aztec or Inca rulers, colonial viceroys, or post-

independence presidents. In Argentina, accounts of Spanish colonialism celebrated the

foresight and virtues of Columbus, Juan Díaz de Solís, and Pedro Mendoza (Eizaguirre

1895: 76). In Mexico and Peru, accounts of the Spanish conquest predominantly

concentrated on the actions and character traits of Hernán Cortes and Francisco Pizarro

(e.g., Aguirre Cinta 1897: 65-99). Cortes was of “strong will, courageous beyond any

doubt, ingenious and astute, clear and calm in setbacks, and possessed the gift to seduce

and to lead” (Zárate 1899: 77). As a matter of fact, “[w]ithout the boldness of Hernán

Cortés the country would have never been conquered and submitted to Spanish

government” (Lainé 1890: 3).

Accounts of national independence were equally constructed around elites.

Textbook narratives of Mexican independence centered on Miguel Hidalgo who

successfully initiated the insurgency because “[t]he Indians adored him and would have

followed him to the end of the world” (Sierra 1894: 74). In Argentina and Peru accounts

of national independence were centered on the capacities of General San Martín, who

was “a man of right judgment, of refined sentiments, of pure patriotism, and of honest

character” (Rodríguez 1900: 98; see also Fregeiro 1896: 201). If textbooks mentioned

subordinate sectors, they appeared as obedient subjects, content to follow the orders of

their benevolent leaders.

Evidence on school ceremonies provides additional support for the political-

territorial yet highly elitist understandings of nationhood advanced in state-sponsored

national discourses. In Mexico, Argentina, and Peru the most important annual festivals

were the Fiestas Patrias, which commemorated the wars of independence. Porfirian

10

educational officials provided Mexican public schools with elaborated guidelines of how

to celebrate this event, including the precise order of parades across schoolyards and

towns (Vaughan 1982: 36-38). During the later years of his regime Porfirio Díaz invited

the first cohorts of graduates from provincial public schools to celebrate the Fiestas

Patrias in Mexico City (Beezley 2008: 66-69). Argentine and Peruvian authorities put

similar efforts into orchestrating a standardized model of how schools should celebrate

national independence, detailing, among other things, the decoration of school buildings

and the patriotic ballads to be sung (Lionetti 2007: 217-223; Soifer 2012).

The ideological message of these celebrations was unequivocal. A few “great

men” with exceptional talent secured national independence. In all three countries, school

ceremonies conveyed stark social hierarchies. In Mexico, the main hero figure was

Hidalgo, in Argentina and Peru it was the commemoration of San Martin that dominated

the Fiestas Patrias. Accompanied by martial music, students emulated the insurgent

military forces when marching by the statues erected in the honour of these heroes

(Lionetti 2007: 217-223; Wilson 2001: 333-334).

In sum, this analysis of state-approved textbooks published in late 19th century

Mexico, Argentina, and Peru points to the limitations of the civic/ethnic dichotomy to

understand patterns of nationalism. While textbooks emphasized citizenship and territory

as defining underpinnings of the nation, this political-territorial understanding of the

national community blended with an emphasis on achieving “civilization” through the

actions of benevolent elites. Thus, during the late 19th and early 20th century official

national discourses in Mexico, Argentina, and Peru advanced political yet highly

exclusionary conceptions of nationhood.

11

Cultural-assimilationist and class-based conceptions of nationhood

Over the course of the 20th century official national discourses in Mexico,

Argentina, and Peru changed dramatically. Official conceptions of nationhood began to

move away from an overt emphasis on citizenship and territory and converged in their

increasing focus on language, religion, and shared traditions as basis of national identity.

As such, cultural sameness began to constitute the main underpinning of national

belonging, and assimilation into a homogeneous culture became envisioned as the key to

achieve national unity and progress. State-sponsored national ideologies also changed

whom they assigned agency in national history and how they envisioned internal

cleavages and hierarchies within the nation. A new focus on peasants and workers as

“true” national subjects replaced the previous elite-centeredness. Moreover, state-

sponsored memory discourses put a greater emphasis on class conflict and global

economic dynamics as the main drivers of national history.

Ethnic nationalism?

In Mexico, this ideological shift unfolded during the 1920s and 1930s, in the

aftermath of the Mexican Revolution (1910-1920), when the postrevolutionary regime

sought to consolidate power within the context of highly mobilized subordinate sectors

(Knight 2002; Hamilton 1982). The new postrevolutionary state authorities made the

reregulation of educational content one of their top priorities and introduced a new

curriculum grounded in the ideas of “socialist education,” a program that envisioned

12

schools as the primary mechanism for controlled popular mobilization (Rockwell 2007;

Vaughan 1997).

During this period cultural definitions of nationhood gained prevalence in state-

approved textbooks, and an homogeneous national culture appeared as the basis of

Mexican identity. The underpinning of this shared culture was mestizaje, the process of

biological and cultural mixing initiated under Spanish rule. “The three centuries of

Spanish domination were enough for a new race to emerge within the territory of New

Spain, previously inhabited by indigenous people, a result of the mixing between

conquerors and conquered. This race that inherited the language, religions, and customs

from the Spanish and the sense of resistance and stoicism from indigenous people, is the

one that constitutes the Mexican nation today” (Bonilla 1925: 83-84). Thus, textbooks

envisioned mestizaje, and not the spread of civilization as the main process involved in

creating national unity.

In Argentina, a comparable ideological change developed against the backdrop of

intensified subordinate mobilization and declining oligarchic power, and the almost

complete demographic reorganization of the country due to mass migration from Europe

and the Middle East (Devoto 2003). Around 1910 textbooks increasingly emphasized

Argentine identity as grounded in a Hispanic national culture. The nation appeared to be

constituted by those “who share the same language, have the same traditions, come from

the same ancestors, [and] pay homage to the same heroes” (de Bedogni 1910: 15; see also

Levene 1912: 50). In particular, language emerged as a critical identity marker.

Textbooks celebrated the “majestic eloquence” of Castellano—the version of Spanish

spoken in Argentina—as an “inexhaustible treasure of beauty, thought, and culture” and

13

the “best expression” of national character (Bunge 1910: 450). The figure of the gaucho

exemplified the existence of Argentina as a cultural community. Of Spanish descent, and

making his living as a cattle herder in the pampa, the gaucho “ran free and rebellious like

his horse” (Levene 1912: 21). Even before “the nation came into political existence, […]

the gaucho already serenaded at the fatherland without even knowing it. He loved

freedom and set the stage for national independence” (Bunge 1910: 155). Thus, the

gaucho was already Argentine before national emancipation and allowed the projection

of a shared national culture backwards into the colonial period.

Comparable changes in official national discourses only unfolded much later in

Peru. Between the 1930s and 1950s, Peruvian school texts continued to advance a

political understanding of national community, combined with the vision of Peru

becoming a “civilized nation.” Only during the 1960s and 1970s textbooks began to

emphasize the cultural underpinnings of Peruvian identity. Similar to Mexico and

Argentina, these changes unfolded within the context of massive subordinate

mobilization and the decline of oligarchic domination (Cotler 2005). Under the military

government of General Juan Alvarado Velasco (1968-1975) a new generation of

textbooks celebrated the rural and the indigenous, effectively turning previous projections

of Peru as a society shaped by European influences on its head. The art forms, cognitive

scripts and normative orientations found among the rural indigenous population appeared

to be critical ingredients of an “authentic” Peruvian culture. Textbooks introduced

students to stories and legends of pre-Hispanic origins (Amigo 1976; Paseo 1976), and

provided detailed descriptions of the music and dances prominent among Andean

communities (Fichas 1974b: 44.3).

14

Again, the analytical leverage provided by the civic/ethnic dichotomy remain

limited. At a first glance, the dramatic changes of state-sponsored national ideologies in

Mexico, Argentina, and Peru might indicate a shift from civic to ethnic conceptions of

nationhood. Official national discourses emphasized language, religion, and shared

traditions as the defining features of the nation. Yet, the insights derived from such an

analytical framing are ultimately limited. The emerging emphasis on cultural sameness,

and the backward projection of a national culture into the colonial or precolonial period

did not preclude an assimilationist perspective of national integration.

Assimilation into a “homogeneous nation”

In postrevolutionary Mexico the notion of mestizaje departed from explicit

references to the spread of “civilization.” Yet, becoming mestizo meant speaking

Spanish and adopting a “modern” urban life style. Being indigenous meant to not fully

belong to the national community. Only with the assimilation of the indigenous

population into a homogeneous mestizo nation national unity would be achieved. Thus,

textbooks viewed mestizaje as both a historical process initiated during the colonial

period and an idealized projection removed from contemporary lived experience (e.g.,

Cadena 1921: 131-133; Teja Zabre 1935: 189). The ultimate goal remained the

assimilation of the indigenous population into a mestizo nation in order to overcome

persistence of cultural and linguistic differences.

In Argentina between the 1910 and the 1940s European migration appeared as a

mixed blessing for the construction of a “homogeneous nation.” Migrants were critical

for national economic progress in such a sparsely populated country. “They will be

15

producers of riches and […] thereby increase our well-being.” (Ruiz López 1937: 140).

At the same time, textbooks lamented the lack of national attachments found among

migrants, viewing their assimilation into a Hispanic national culture as the only viable

path towards unity and progress. “This fatherland, generous to the foreigner, demands

the forgetting of all the other fatherlands in exchange for its provisions” (Blomberg 1940:

224).

Thus, in all three cases, the increased emphasis on a shared culture and

homogeneous national identity went along with the possibility and desirability of

assimilating internal others, whether they were indigenous people or European migrants.

This assimilationist perspective is distinct from the differentialist orientation that

characterizes ethnic nationalism, where projections of shared blood ties and decent tend

to foreclose the option of assimilation (Brubaker 1992).

Agency of “the masses”

Analyzing conceptions of nationhood in Mexico, Argentina, and Peru through the

lens of the ethnic/civic dichotomy also foregoes another major change. In all three cases

the focus on elite agency in shaping the trajectory of the nation was complemented by an

increased emphasis on “the masses” as historical national subjects.

During the 1930s and 1940s the imagery of Mexico as a mestizo nation converged

with an emphasis on popular classes as driving forces of national history. In a historical

process driven by “domestic disputes” between “the poor and the rich” (Chávez Orozco

1938: 39) subordinate classes were assigned agency. “Against the orders of Moctezuma,

the masses rose up and launched a massive attack against the Spanish” (de la Cerda 1943:

16

131). Subordinate sectors also appeared as a crucial actors in the independence struggles

and the Mexican Revolution. “The people, who felt their oppression […] that created the

Dictatorship [of Diaz], began with reclaiming their rights in a peaceful manner, but

exasperated by the […] dictatorship, they had to act in a violent form,” (Romero Flores

1939: 347). Thus, during the 1930s textbooks began to assign agency to popular sectors

in shaping Mexican history.

By contrast, the “oligarchy” constituted the main internal other. Transcending

particular historical epochs, large landowners, merchants, military leaders, and religious

authorities appeared to be responsible for undermining Mexico’s progress. The Aztec

Empire was ruled by a “nobility” composed of “priests and warriors,” a “closed cast the

plebeians could not enter into” (Chávez Orozco 1938: 103, 113). For the colonial period

textbooks identified “merchants, in their majority Spaniards,” endowed with “enormous

privileges” as the worst exploiters (Castro Cancio 1935: 105). After independence from

Spain, criollo merchants and large landowners represented one of the main barriers to

national progress (de la Cerda 1943: 243).

Hidalgo continued to occupy a prominent place in narratives of national

independence. Yet, he was seen as responding to a “strong popular impulse” and

providing “a politically, socially, and militarily oriented plan” when “enormous masses

of people” began to “follow their instincts to fight for their freedom and economic

improvement, tired of so much misery and tyranny” (Castro Cancio 1935: 145).

Textbooks were also highly critical of the final outcome of independence. In the end,

“the Revolution of Independence was crushed […] It were the criollos of the dominant

classes, the great landowners and higher clergy who contributed to carry out the

17

Independence as a purely political project of separation from Spain.” (Teja Zabre: 1935:

139). Only the revolutionary struggles between 1910 and 1917 secured Mexico’s full

political and economic independence. Textbooks embraced the image of the Mexican

Revolution as “a revolution of the exploited poor against the opulent exploiters” (Castro

Cancio 1935: 250).

School ceremonies equally incorporated transformed conceptions of nationhood.

During the 1930s schools began to celebrate the Day of the Revolution, and Emilio

Zapata emerged as a major national hero. Class-based understandings of nationhood also

began to infuse commemorations of national independence and the wars against the

United States and France. Most prominently, the meanings associated with the Cinco de

Mayo and the Fiestas Patrias festivities at Mexican schools shifted: The historical

narrative conveyed by the latter became more concerned with Morelos (as a

“proletarian”) than Hidalgo (as a priest), while the Cinco de Mayo celebrations

increasingly focused on the contributions of “the people” to the struggles against foreign

invaders (Vaughan 1997: 66, 94-95).

In Argentina comparable changes unfolded during the 1940s and 1950s when

Juan Domingo Perón (1946-1955) ascended to power and built a highly personalistic

movement grounded in a coalition with organized labor. During historical Peronism

class-based understandings of national history and identity increasingly complemented

cultural understandings of nationhood. A new set of Peronist textbooks emphasized the

agency of subordinate sectors. In the “New Argentina,” workers and peasants appeared

in opposition to the “oligarchy,” composed of economic and political elites that had ruled

the country for centuries. Stonemasons, car mechanics, and carpenters populated

18

Peronist textbooks, breaking with the exclusive focus on upper class life found in

previous texts (de García 1954: 17).

Official national discourses also emphasized the agency of popular sectors in

national history. For instance, textbooks emphasized the importance of popular classes in

the defense of Buenos Aires against the “English invasion” in 1806 (de García 1954: 19).

“[A]lmost without arms, but with courage and enthusiasm, [they] were the true heroes of

the reconquest” (de García 1954: 20). Peronist texts also associated the Argentine

success in the wars of independence against Spain with the “brave and heroic gauchos

[who] strolled around the mountains and caused despair among the hostile troops with

their surprising attacks” (de García 1954: 85). Central figures from the established

pantheon of national heroes became associated with popular agency. Textbooks

envisioned San Martín as “a man of the people” who “always served his country” (de

Palacio 1952: 124), and stressed the “humble origins” of Sarmiento (de Palacio 1952:

124, 108; see also de García 1954: 90). Thus, state-sponsored accounts of transformative

historical episodes moved away from an exclusive focus on enlightened political

leadership and emphasized the critical role played by subordinate classes.1

Yet, in the “New Argentina,” conceived of as “socially just, economically free,

and politically sovereign” (Raggi 1953: 93). Struggles between elites and the

dispossessed masses were a reality of the past. Instead, in a context where everybody,

“even the most humble Argentines [,] benefit from the riches of the country,” (de García

1 This focus on popular agency stood in tension with the identification of a charismatic leader and his wife as the embodiment of the nation. Peronist textbooks engaged in a full-fledged personality cult centered on Juan Domingo Perón and his wife Eva (Evita) Perón. Perón appeared as “the conductor” (de García 1954: 5), “the first worker of the Republic” (de Palacio 1952: 111) and “the authentic Argentine” (Raggi 1953: 33), Evita as the “Spiritual Mother” of Argentina (de Palacio 1952: 38).

19

1954: x), social peace would prevail. Textbooks portrayed Argentina as a “land where

workers are happy” (Raggi 1953: 2), and where therefore class conflict had given way to

social harmony.

The transformed national ideology advanced by Perón also manifested itself in

school ceremonies. Similar to postrevolutionary Mexico, educational officials made sure

that these celebrations conveyed a more popular image of San Martín and emphasized

subordinate agency in the struggles for independence. Moreover, schools were central to

the celebrations of May Day and the Seventeenth of October, the two major political

rituals of the Peronist regime. State authorities appropriated the tradition of May Day to

celebrate Argentina as a nation of workers (and Perón as the “first worker”), while the

Seventeenth of October commemorated the rise of Peronism, equating the events of

October 17, 1945 with the uprising of “the people” on May 25, 1810 in Buenos Aires, an

event that initiated the independence wars. On both dates students would parade around

the major squares of towns and cities in military formations and sing patriotic songs

(Plotkin 2002: 42-45, 59-82).

In Peru popular agency gained prevalence on official national discourses under

Velasco during the 1970s. A new generation of primary school texts portrayed “the

people”—conceived of as “workers, peasants, and the middle sectors” (Fichas 1974b:

5.5)—as constituting the core of the national community. Visual representations focused

on children whose parents worked as carpenters, farmers, or small shopkeepers (e.g.,

Amigo 1976; Paseo 1976). It was the “oligarchy” that emerged as the most important

internal other. These “Peruvian capitalists” and “large landowners” appeared to “enrich

20

themselves” and to invest their profits abroad (Fichas 1974b: 5.3, 5.5, 16.2) by

“exploiting the majority of Peruvians” (Fichas 1974a: 31.4).

This focus on popular sectors had important implications for the representation of

Spanish colonialism. Textbooks also emphasized that Spanish authorities faced

considerable resistance from below. “The Peruvians always fought against the Spanish”

(Fichas 1974a:31.3), they “rose up against the abuse Spanish authorities committed

against indigenous people” (Venciendo 1976: 111). The highlands were the geographical

epicenter of popular insurgency. Textbooks thus maintained the well-established division

of Peru into “Coast, Highlands, and Jungle; the characteristic triptych of our geography”

(Venciendo 1976: 52), while moving away from the imagery of the highlands as the locus

of “barbarism” and instead celebrating the region as the cradle of the nation and a symbol

of “stirred up rebelliousness” against foreign invaders (Venciendo 1976: 52; Paseo 1976).

Túpac Amaru emerged as the “Peruvian precursor” of national independence

(e.g., Venciendo 1976: 112-115; Amigo 1976). “General San Martín declared the

Independence of Peru, but the Peruvian people had already fought for many years to be

free. The first great revolution that took place in America against Spain was orchestrated

by Jose Gabriel Condorcanqui Túpac Amaru [italics in text]” (Peruanito 1974: 155). He

was credited for channeling the “state of consistent rebellion” against Spanish colonial

rule found among popular classes into a major insurgency (Fichas 1974b: 15.2).

A glance beyond textbooks is equally indicative of a major change in official

memory discourse. The military government also promoted a new understanding of

national identity and history via patriotic rituals. School activities accompanying the

Fiestas Patrias put greater emphasis on Túpac Amaru, and Velasco’s widely broadcasted

21

Address to the Nation on July 28 became increasingly popular in tone. In these annual

speeches he depicted the “marginalized majorities” as the “true” Peruvians, opposed to

“the national oligarchies,” who, in tandem with “foreign powers,” were responsible for

the lack of national progress. Schools were also made to celebrate the anniversary of the

nationalization of the oil industry—the Day of National Dignity—as a new national

holiday to showcase Velasco’s efforts in securing Peru’s economic independence

(Sánchez 2002: 127-128; Wilson 2001: 330).

Nationalism and the celebration of ethnocultural difference

For much of the 20th century cultural-assimilationist and class-based

understandings of nationhood persisted in the official national ideologies of the three

countries—despite sometimes major political changes. In Mexico, Cardenas’ successors

abandoned the principles of “socialist education,” following a general move toward the

right of the postrevolutionary regime. Yet, many of the previous textbooks and festivity

guidelines remained in use (Vázquez 2000: 246). During the 1960s, under the presidency

of Adolfo López Mateos, the so-called Free-Text program started distributing a single set

of mandatory texts to students. These texts continued to fully identify Mexico with the

Aztec Empire and represented Spanish colonialism as marked by oppression and

exploitation. While the free texts softened their tone compared to the textbooks from the

1930s and 1940s, accounts of the precolonial period, Spanish colonialism, and national

independence remained organized around class conflict and global economic dynamics as

the ultimate causes for Mexico’s victories and defeats (Vázquez 2000: 256-257, 281-

283).

22

In Argentina, the 1955 a military coup ousted Perón from government. The new

educational authorities were quick to remove Peronist textbooks and abolish Peronist

political rituals. The texts published during the subsequent decades depicted Peronism as

the “second tyranny” (Romero et al. 2004: 43, 49-64, 94-95, 168-169). At the same time,

representations of national history largely resembled those found in Peronist narratives.

Textbooks continued to stress the agency of the “people,” especially in the struggles

against Spanish rule and the independence wars. Similar patterns can be found in Peru. In

1975 a dissident group of from within the military removed Velasco from power, and

soon thereafter the educational reform initiated under his government stalled. Many of

the textbooks published during the 1960s regained state approval and were used together

with the texts published under Velasco, as schools did not witness textbook removal

efforts comparable to Argentina in 1955 (Portocarrero and Oliart 1989: 89-93).

It was only during the late 20th century that another major transformation of

nationalism unfolded in the three countries. Subordinate movements emerged that

challenged popular nationalism and the assimilationist stance of official nationalisms. In

Mexico, the 1980s and 1990s witnessed an increased mobilization of the indigenous

population, who demanded the recognition of their cultural distinctiveness within the

Mexican nation, with the Zapatistas being the best known but by no means the only group

to make these claims (Gutiérrez 1999; Mattiace 1997). In Argentina, indigenous groups

and immigrant communities from neighboring Andean countries started to articulate

demands for cultural recognition (Escolar 2001; Isla 2002). Similarly, Peru experienced

the growing mobilization of local indigenous movements that demanded a voice in local

23

politics, signaling the reappearance of ethnicity as a key category in the country’s

political and cultural life (Garcia 2005; Yashar 2005).

These alternative national narratives eventually found its way into state-sponsored

national discourses. In Mexico, for instance, textbooks witnessed another round of

substantial change, when the idea of a homogeneous mestizo nation gave way to the

imagery of a multiethnic Mexico (Gutiérrez 1999: 72-89). In Argentina, changes in

official national ideology were closely entwined with democratization in 1983, when

state-approved textbooks began to problematize questions about the national “we” and

celebrated the recognition of cultural differences (Romero et al. 2004). Moreover, from

the 1990s onwards, state-approved textbooks and school ceremonies began to focus on

the lost Malvinas/Falklands War (1982) with the United Kingdom as a new focal point of

official war commemoration (Benwell and Dodds 2011). During the same time period in

Peru, state-sponsored nationalism depicted the country as a multicultural nation and

emphasized the recognition of cultural differences as integral part of the national project

(García 2005).

Discussion and concluding remarks

The comparative-historical analysis of in Mexico, Argentina, and Peru presented

in this paper provides the basic building blocks for developing a novel typology of

transformations of nationalism. At a first glance, the established civic/ethnic dichotomy

provides certain comparative insights for the three countries. During the late 19th and

early 20th century official national discourses promoted a political understanding of the

nation and emphasized the public institutions of state and civil society, most importantly

24

the Constitution, as major identity markers. Attachments to the nation were based on the

commitment to a shared set of political practices and values, and had to be reinforced by

carefully calibrated civic rituals. Analogously, national discourses in Mexico, Argentina,

and Peru also showed important traits of ethnic nationalism. During the mid-20th official

national ideologies articulated a cultural understanding of the national community

grounded in a common language, religion, and tradition. Cultural sameness, and not

shared rights and territory, constituted the main underpinning of national belonging.

Yet the analytical leverage provided by the distinction between civic and ethnic

nationalism ultimately remains limited. Based on an analysis of school textbooks and

school ceremonies this paper has illustrated that late 19th century national ideologies not

only evoked Enlightment ideas of popular sovereignty and individual citizenship, they

were also deeply infused with Comtean political positivism and adopted late 19th century

racial thinking with its emphasis on biology, eugenics, and social Darwinianism.

Achieving “order and progress” appeared as the most promising recipe to secure the

national progress and unity. Official national discourses depicted enlightened and

benevolent elites as the natural leaders of these states and portrayed them as the

protagonists of national history. Their actions were critical to propel the respective

national community from “barbarism” to “civilization.” Excluded were those who did not

match the image of a “civilized nation.” As a matter of fact, official national ideologies in

these three countries recreated the ethnoracial hierarchies from the colonial period and

conceived of only small segments of the population, wealthy, white, and literate, as fully

included nationals. Thus, late 19th century nationalism in Mexico, Argentina, and Peru

25

fused a political-territorial understanding of the nation with highly exclusionary and

elitist imageries of national belonging.

Similarly, the concept of ethnic nationalism does not capture important discursive

traits found in 20th century state ideologies. This paper has shown that official national

discourses highlighted the cultural bases of national identity in Mexico, Argentina, and

Peru, yet they did not employ imageries of shared ethnic decent or common blood ties.

Even when imagined as cultural communities, assimilation into these nations remained a

possibility. In other words, these national discourses recognized the diverse racial or

ethnic origins of the nation, but intended to blend those differences into a homogeneous

national present.

This cultural-assimilationist vision for achieving national unity was

complemented by an emphasis on “the people” as the “true” carriers of Mexican,

Argentinean, and Peruvian identity and protagonists of national history. The main

cleavage was between the “masses” and the “oligarchy,” the latter marked as not fully

belonging to the national community. Thus, in all three cases 20th century nationalisms

combined a cultural understanding of the nation with class-based ideas about national

membership.

Based on these patterns I argue that a different typology is more suitable for

tracing the similarities and differences among national discourses in Mexico, Argentina,

and Peru: the distinction between liberal and popular nationalism. As summarized in

Table 1 this typology traces these forms of nationalism along three dimensions:

membership criteria—tracking what the defining features of the national community are;

modes of incorporation—distinguishing projections about how to achieve national unity;

26

and symbolic universe—pinpointing the key actors and main cleavages within the

imagined community.

Based on this distinction it is possible to identify two main variations among

national discourses. Liberal nationalism conceives of the nation as a community

grounded in its political and economic institutions, and its territorial boundaries. This

political conception is complemented by the idea that national unity can only be

accomplished through the move from “barbarism” to “civilization” and the creation of a

“civilized” nation. By contrast, popular national discourses emphasize criteria like

language, religion or shared traditions as key identity markers. Becoming a

“homogeneous” nation is realized in the assimilation of the resident population into a

peculiar national culture. Finally, liberal nationalism advances an elitist image of the

nation organized around the agency of enlightened leaders, while popular nationalism

emphasizes that subordinate sectors embody the authentic national community and

therefore are legitimate historical agents.

I employ the label “liberal” because in the context of Latin American

historiography, the term is widely used to describe the dominant political and ideological

project in the region during the mid- to late nineteenth century (e.g., Brading 1973;

Gootenberg 1993; Hale 1968; Halperín Donghi 1987). Distinct from the contemporary

use of the word in the United States, and also distinct from the classical liberalism

associated with theorists such as Adam Smith, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill, the

form of liberalism present in nineteenth century Latin America was strongly influenced

by the philosophical positivism of Auguste Comte (e.g., Mahoney 2001; Eastwood 2004).

As such, this ideology was marked by the tension between individual rights and

27

freedoms, and the inherent value assigned to natural social hierarchies. Latin American

liberalism supported the idea that all people are equally capable of reason and progress,

while also embracing Darwin’s theory of natural selection and depicting lower classes as

biologically incapable of governing themselves.

The term “popular” is also grounded in common characterizations of modern

Latin American history. This type of nationalism occurred in the context of broader

economic and sociopolitical change during the early and mid-20th century, precisely

when previously marginalized sectors mobilized for their political and symbolic

inclusion, and when both fascism and communism gained increasing prominence as

global ideological models. Scholars often describe this epoch as “populism” or “populist

period” (e.g., Cotler 2005; Jansen 2011; Stein 1980), defined by political and ideological

projects evoking the idea of a national people in opposition to an elite (e.g., de Ipola

1979; Zabaleta 1997).

The distinction between liberal and popular nationalism should be more broadly

applicable. A cursory review of the literature on nationalism in Latin America reveals

comparable patterns of nationalism in similar cases. In late 19th and early 20th century

Ecuador and Venezuela, official national discourses were similarly concerned with the

creation of a “civilized nation.” For example, textbook representations of Spanish

colonialism found in Ecuador and Venezuela (Harwich Vallenilla 1991; Luna Tamayo

2001) were structured around the activities and outlooks of Spanish conquerors and

indigenous rulers. During the 1930s and 1940s in Brazil official national discourses

combined a class-based understanding of the national community with the celebration of

28

the nation as a “racial democracy,” projecting a homogeneous national identity based on

centuries of racial and cultural mixing (Luykx 1998; Marx 1998; Nava 1998).

The analytical leverage provided by the distinction between liberal and popular

conceptions of nationhood is not limited to Latin America. For instance, Turkey during

the 1950s comes closest to resemble popular conceptions of nationhood. Official

national discourses blended a strong emphasis on a unitary Turkish identity with a class-

based perspective. Accounts of national history also moved away from the sole focus on

benevolent elites and became more centered on the historical agency of popular sectors

(Mardin 1999; Poulton 1997).

And finally, moving forward in time, the distinction between liberal and popular

nationalism also provides a grid to develop a framework for understanding contemporary

patterns of nationalism in Mexico, Argentina, and Peru. During the last two decades

subordinate movements emerged that challenged popular nationalism and its

assimilationist stance, and state-sponsored national discourses eventually began to

emphasize ethnocultural diversity as an integral part of the national project. Analytically,

these national discourses might be best described as manifestations of multiculturalist

nationalism, a form of national discourse that defines itself against the homogenizing

tendencies of popular nationalism. Multiculturalist nationalism again treats citizenship as

the basic underpinning of the national community, while it envisions national unity to be

achieved through the recognition of cultural and ethnic differences within the nation.

The striking similarities in how official national ideologies in Mexico, Argentina,

and Peru changed in their representation of the nation over the course of the 20th century

points to global transformations of nationalism. Perhaps the most intriguing global

29

approach to nationalism is offered by world polity theory (Meyer et al. 1997; Lechner

and Boli 2005). In this theoretical perspective, transformations of nationalism are

associated with changes and innovations in a supranational “world culture” that provides

local actors with a template for legitimate action (Meyer 1999). In my estimation, world

polity theory is particularly strong when establishing the global context for the transition

from liberal to popular nationalism in Mexico, Peru, and Argentina. No scholar would

seriously question that the global diffusion of popular nationalism during the inter-war

period had enormous implications for local discourses. After World War I, when

organized labor emerged as a major political force (Silver 2003), templates of nationhood

increasingly emphasized “the people” as bearers of sovereignty and national culture

(Goswami 2002). These variants became global models when organized political actors

in the periphery emulated these currents of nationalism in their quest for legitimacy.

Yet, local transformations in Mexico, Peru, and Argentina are not simply

reflections of global trends. An emphasis too narrowly on global shifts in national

discourses directs attention away from the major differences found in Mexico, Argentina,

and Peru. States and social movements did not just copy or replicate global models of

nationhood. Instead, these actors reshaped global templates and infused them with

different meanings when advancing their particular visions of national history and

identity (Goswami 2002). Moreover, an emphasis on global diffusion alone cannot

account for variations in the timing and extent of ideological change. If we take seriously

the contestedness of nationalism, the importance of domestic politics becomes obvious. I

suggest that changing political configurations—whether brought about by subordinate

mobilization, regime change, or revolution—raised new questions about national

30

inclusion and historical agency, and made previously established framings of nationhood

more difficult to sustain. In other words, shifts in the balance of power between state

elites and social movements constitute a likely context for changes in the contents of

official discourses (Wimmer 2002). Depending on the strengths and strategies of those

actors, new alliance structures result in the adoption of alternative national narratives as

state-sponsored ideologies.

In sum, the distinction between liberal, popular, and multicultural nationalism

yields insights beyond the context of late 19th century and early 20th century Mexico,

Argentina, and Peru. More research is warranted to explore the applicability of this

typology in other contexts, but the typology developed here establishes an alternative

approach to the civic/ethnic dichotomy dominant in the literature. A first possible

extension of this research would be to explore the struggles over conceptions of

nationhood and compare official national discourses with the framings advanced by

social movements and other oppositional forces in 20th century Mexico, Argentina, and

Peru, including organized labor, militant Catholics, and regional elites, and later

indigenous movements. The comparative-historical analysis presented in this paper

provides a starting point to link shifts in official national ideologies to the politics of

nationhood and domestic struggles over the meanings of national identity between states

and state-challenging forces.

31

Appendix: Textbooks Aguirre Cinta, Rafael. 1897. Lecciones de historia general de México. Mexico City:

Sociedad de Ediciones y Librería Franco-América. Blomberg, Hector Pedro. 1940. El Surco: libro de lectura. Buenos Aires: Ángel

Estrada. Bonilla, José María. 1925. La Evolución del Pueblo Mexicana: Elementos de Historia

Patria. 2nd Edition. Mexico City: Herrero Hermanos Sucesores. —. 1930. La Evolución del Pueblo Mexicana: Elementos de Historia Patria. 3rd

Edition. Mexico City: Herrero Hermanos Sucesores. Bunge, Carlos. 1910. Nuestra patria: libro de lectura para la educación nacional.

Buenos Aires: Ángel Estrada. Cadena, Longinos. 1921. Elementos de historia general y de historia patria. Mexico

City: Herrero Hermanos Sucesores. Castro Cancio, Jorge. 1935. Historia patria (4o. año). Mexico City: Editorial Patria. Chavez Orozco, Luis. 1949 [1938]. Historia patria (3er año). Mexico City: Editorial

Patria. de Bedogni, Emma. 1910. Alegre despertar: libro de lectura para el cuarto grado.

Buenos Aires: Aquilino Fernandez. de Bourguet, Lola. 1932. Agua Mansa: texto de lectura para tercer grado. Buenos

Aires: Independencia. de García, Luisa F. 1954. Patria Justa: Libro de lectura para tercer grado. Buenos

Aires: Kapelusz. de la Cerda Silva, Roberto. 1943. Breve historia de México. Mexico City: El Nacional. de Millan, Adelina. 1936. Canto al trabajo. Textto de lectura para cuarto grado.

Buenos Aires: Kapelusz. de Palacio, Ángela. 1952. La Argentina de Perón. Buenos Aires: Luis Lasserre. Eizaguirre, José Manuel. 1895. La Patria. Buenos Aires: Angel Estrada. Enciclopedias Coquito. 196x Fanal: para el primer año de educación primaria. Lima:

Colección Coquito. Fanning, Teresa G. de. 1915. Lecciones de Historia del Peru. Lima: Sanmarti y Ca. Ferreyra, Andres. 1895. El Nene: Método de lectura. Buenos Aires: Angel Estrada. Fesquet, Alberto, and P. O. Tolosa. 1935. Proa: Libro de lectura para cuarto grado.

Buenos Aires: Ángel Estrada. Fregeiro, C. L. 1896. Lecciones de historia argentina. Buenos Aires: G Mendesky. Lainé, Ramón. 1890. Catecismo de historia general de Méjico. Mexico City: Tipografía

"La Providencia". Levene, Ricardo. 1912. Cómo se ama a la patria. Buenos Aires: Crespillo. Lucio, G. 1935. Simiente. Libro cuarto para escuelas rurales. Mexico City: Secretaría

de la Educación Pública. Macias, José. 1933. Arco Iris: texto de lectura corriente. Buenos Aires: Ángel Estrada. Martínez, Benigno. 1903. Curso elemental de historia argentina. Buenos Aires: Angel

Estrada. Ministerio de Educación. 1974a. Fichas de ciencias histórico-sociales. Cuarto grado,

educación básico regular. Lima: Ministerio de Educación. —. 1974b. Fichas de ciencias histórico-sociales. Segundo grado, educación básico

regular. Lima: Ministerio de Educación.

32

—. 1976a. Amigo: libro de lectura (primer grado). Lima: Ministerio de Educación. —. 1976b. Paseo: de lecturas e imagenes (segundo grado). Lima: Ministerio de

Educación. Oviedo, Aurelio. 1894. Nuevo catecismo de historia de México. Mexico City: Gallegos

Hermanos Sucesor. Pasarelli, Vincente. 1937. Historia Argentina. Para tercero y cuarto grados. Buenos

Aires: Crespillo. Payno, Manuel. 1902. Compendio de la historia de México. Mexico City: Herrero

Hermanos. Pelliza, Mariano A. 1892. Historia argentina al alcance de los ninos. Buenos Aires:

Alsina. —. 1905. El Argentino: Texto de lectura. Buenos Aires: Angel Estrada. Pizzurno, Pablo. 1901. El libro del escolar. Buenos Aires: Aquilino Fernandez. —. 1931. Prosigue: Libro segundo de lectura corriente. Buenos Aires: Cabaut. Pons Muzzo, Gustavo. 1961. Historia del Perú: el Perú contemporaneo. Lima:

Editorial Universo. —. 1962. Historia del Perú: dedicada a los alumnos del segundo año de secundaria.

Lima: Editorial Universo. Raggi, Angela. 1952. Pueblo felíz: libro de lectura para segundo grado. Buenos Aires:

Luis Lasserre. Rodriguez, Pedro Manuel. 1900. Nociones generales de la historia del Peru: Para las

escuelas y colegios de la Republica. Lima: Librería Científica y Casa Editora Galland.

Rojas Portilla, Teodoro, Alberto Faggioni Mallea, Carlos La Torre Balza, and Rolando Cortijo Bustíos. 1960. Enciclopedia Venciendo: quinto año. Lima: Antonio Lulli.

—. 1962. Enciclopedia Venciendo: el primer año. Lima: Antonio Lulli. —. 1976. Enciclopedia Venciendo: quinto año. Lima. Romero Flores, Jesús. 1939. Historia de la civilización mexicana. Mexico City:

Ediciones Aguilas. Romero Peralta, Guillermo, Ruben Romero Mendez, Leopoldo Díaz Montenegro, Telma

Salinas García, Pedro Coronado Arrascue, and Isaias Bisbal. 1964. Peruanito: enciclopedia escolar para el quinto año de primaria. Lima: Educación Renovada.

Rosay, Emilio. 1913. Mi Primera Historia del Peru. Lima: Librería Francesa Cientifica Galland y Casa Editora E. Rosay.

Ruiz López, Rafael. 1937. Caminito de luz: libro de lectura para tercer grado. Buenos Aires: Kapelusz.

Salinas García, Telmo, Leopoldo Díaz Montenegro, Luz Valcarcel, Guillermo Romero Peralta, Ruben Romero Mendez, and Antonio Bisbal. 1974. Peruanito. Tercer grado. Lima: Enrique Miranda.

Sierra, Justo. 1922 [1894]. Historia patria. Mexico City: Secretaria de Educación Pública.

Talavera, Luis Guillermo. 1979. Educación Cívica. Lima: Editorial Colegio Militar Leoncio Prado.

33

Teja Zabre, Alfonso. 1935. Breve historia de México. Texto para escuelas rurales y primarias. Mexico City: Talleres Gráficos de la Nación.

Velázquez Andrade, Manuel. 193x. Fermin. Mexico City. Wiesse, Carlos. 1913. Elementos de Instrucción Moral y Civica. Lima: E. Rosay. Zárate, Julio. 1899. Compendio de historia general de México. Mexico City: Libería de

la Vda. De Ch. Bouret. References (incomplete) Akman, Ayan. 2004. "Modernist nationalism: statism and national identity in Turkey."

Nationalities Papers 32:23-51. Apple, Michael W. 1989. "Regulating the text: The socio-historical roots of state

control." Educational Policy 3:107-123. —. 1992. "The Text and Cultural Politics." Education Researcher 21:4-19. Brading, David A. 1973. “Creole Nationalism and Mexican Liberalism.” Journal of

Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 15 (2): 139-90. Brubaker, Rogers. 1992. Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press. —. 1998. "Myths and Misconceptions in the Study of Nationalism." Pp. 272-306 in The

State of the Nation: Ernest Gellner and the Theory of Nationalism, edited by John A. Hall. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Collier, David, and Ruth Berins Collier. 1991. Shaping the Political Arena. Critical Junctures, the Labor Movement, and Regime Dynamics in Latin America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Cotler, Julio. 2005 [1978]. Clases, estado y nación en el Perú. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos (IEP).

de Ipola, Emilio. 1979. “Populismo e Ideología.” Revista Mexicana De Sociología 41(3).

Devoto, Fernando. 2003. Historia de la Inmigración en la Argentina. Buenos Aires: Editorial Sudamericana.

Eastwood, Jonathan. 2004. "Positivism and Nationalism in 19th Century France and Mexico." Journal of Historical Sociology 17:331-357.

Escolar, Diego. 2001. “‘Emerging’ Indigenous Identities on the Argentine-Chilean Border: Subjectivity and the Crisis of Sovereignty among the Andean Population of the San Juan Province.” CIBR Working Papers in Border Studies, CIBR/WP01-4. Centre for International Borders Research (CIBR), Queen’s University, Belfast.

García, María Elena. 2005. Making Indigenous Citizens: Identities, Education, and Multicultural Development in Peru. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Gootenberg, Paul. Imagining Development: Economic Ideas in Peru’s “Fictitious Prosperity” of Guano, 1840-1880. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Greenfeld, Liah. 1992. Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity. Cambridge. Mass: Harvard University Press.

Gutiérrez, Natividad. 1999. Nationalist Myths and Ethnic Identities: Indigenous Intellectuals and the Mexican State. Lincoln: University of Nebraska

34

PressHalperín Donghi, Tulio. 1993. The Contemporary History of Latin America. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Hale, Charles A. 1968. Mexican Liberalism in the Age of Mora, 1821-1853. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Halperín Donghi, Tulio. 1987. “Liberalismo argentino y liberalismo mexicano: dos destinos divergentes.” Pp. 141-165 in T. Halperin Donghi, El Espejo de la Historia: Problemas argentinos y perspectivas latinoamericanas. Buenos Aires: Editorial Sudamericana.

Hamilton, Nora. 1982. The Limits of State Autonomy: Post-revolutionary Mexico. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Harwich Vallenilla, Nikita. 1991. "Imaginario colectivo e identidad nacional: tres etapas en la enseñanza de la historia de Venezuela." Revista de historia de América 111:113-134.

Hobsbawn, Eric J. 1990. Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Ignatieff, Michael. 1993. Blood and Belonging: Journeys into the New Nationalism. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Knight, Alan. 2002. "The Weight of the State in Modern Mexico." Pp. 212-253 in Studies in the Formation of the Nation-State in Latin America, edited by James Dunkerley. London: Institute of Latin American Studies.

Isla, Alejandro. 2002. Los Usos Políticas de la Identidad. Indigenismo y Estado. Buenos Aires: Editorial de las Ciencias.

Kohn, Hans. 1944. The Idea of Nationalism. New York: Macmillan.Lamberti, Marjorie. 1992. "Elementary School Teachers and the Struggle against Social Democracy in Wilhelmine Germany." History of Education Quarterly 32:73-97.

Kymlicka, Will. 2001. Politics in the Vernacular: Nationalism, Multiculturalism, and Citizenship. New York: Oxford University Press.Luna Tamayo, Milton. 2001. "La moral y la identidad de los ecuatorianos en los textos escolares de inicios del siglo xx." Pp. 127-142 in Los manuales escolares como fuente para la historia de la educaciòn en Amèrica Latina, edited by Gabriela Ossenbach and Miguel Somoza. Madrid: Universidad Nacional de Educaciòn a Distancia.

Luykx, Aurolyn. 1998. The Citizen Factory: Schooling and Cultural Production in Bolivia. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Mahoney, James. 2001. The Legacies of Liberalism: Path Dependence and Political Regimes in Central America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

—. 2003. "Long-Run Development and the Legacy of Colonialism in Spanish America." American Journal of Sociology 109: 50-106.

Mardin, Serif. 1999. Religion, Society, and Modernity in Turkey. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.Marx, Anthony. 1998. Making Race and Nation: A Comparison of South Africa, the United States, and Brazil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mattiace, Shannan. 1997. "'Zapata Vive!': The EZLN, Indigenous Politics, and the Autonomy Movement in Mexico." Journal of Latin American Anthropology 3:32-71.

35

Nava, Carmen. 1998. "Lessons in Patriotism and Good Citizenship: National Identity and Nationalism in Public Schools during the Vargas Administration, 1937-1945." Luso-Brazilian Review 35:39-63.

Oszlak, Oscar. 1982. La formación del estado argentino. Buenos Aires: Editorial de Belgrano.

Poulton, Hugh. 1997. Top Hat, Grey Wolf, and Crescent: Turkish Nationalism and the Turkish Republic. New York: New York University Press.

Romero, Luis Alberto, Luciano de Privitellio, Silvina Quintero, and Hilda Sabato. 2004. La Argentina en la escuela: La idea de Nación en los textos escolares. Buenos Aires: Siglo Veintiuno.

Smith, Anthony. 1986. The Ethnic Origins of Nations. Oxford: Blackwell. Stein, Steve. 1980. Populism in Peru: The Emergence of the Masses and the Politics of

Social Control. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press. vom Hau, Matthias. 2007. “Contested Inclusion: A Comparative Study of Nationalism

in Mexico, Argentina, and Peru.” Ph.D. Thesis, Brown University, Department of Sociology.

Zabaleta, Marta. 1997. “Ideology and Populism in Latin America: A Gendered Overview.” Ideologues and Ideologies in Latin America, Ed. Will Fowler. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

36

Table 1 Liberal, Popular, and Multicultural Nationalism

Liberal Nationalism

Popular

Nationalism

Multicultural Nationalism

Membership Criteria

(What is the basis of national identity?)

Political

institutions; Territory

Culture

Culture; political

institutions

Modes of

Incorporation (How to achieve national unity?)

“Civilization”

Assimilation

Recognition of

difference

Symbolic Universe

(Who are the main actors/ What are the

main internal divisions?)

Elites;

Civilization vs. Barbarism

Popular sectors;

Masses vs. Oligarchy

Culturally diverse

groupings