Social Science in Latin America

8/3/2019 Social Science in Latin America

1/37

Social sciences in Latin America (19302003)

Les sciences sociales en Amerique latine (19302003)

Social sciences in Latin America: a comparativeSocial sciences in Latin America: a comparativeperspective Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexicoperspective Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexicoand Uruguayand Uruguay

Thematic overview

From the comparative analysis of modern social sciences in the five

countries analyzed, we clearly see that, much like what happened in

other areas of the world, including Europe, Latin American social

sciences, too, went through their process of institutional consolida-

tion during the second part of the 20th century. We also see, in theemphasis on the various themes and contents approached, a signifi-

cant relationship between this process and the sociopolitical context,

not only in each country, but also in the whole region and the world,

even though the formats differ from country to country.

Our comparative analysis shows that there are widespread simila-

rities in processes of institutionalization occurring in different Latin

American and European countries. This finding, which is in agree-

ment with sociological and historical analyses of the emergence anddevelopment of social sciences in the West, does not prevent us

from stating, at the same time, that such a relationship has not had

uniform effects on social sciences activities in all countries at every

period. On the contrary, different impacts can be seen, even totally

opposing impacts, depending on the country and the period in ques-

tion. Therefore, we should avoid the simplistic views that have often

dominated the discussion on the politicization of social sciences in

Latin America.

Social Science Information & 2005 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New

Delhi), 0539-0184

DOI: 10.1177/0539018405053297 Vol 44(2 & 3), pp. 557593; 053297


2/37

The sociopolitical context of the development of social sciences

Following the three-phase periodization adopted in this study, we

can see that, in the first step, which we have called the foundationalphase, in cases such as Chile, Uruguay and Brazil, social sciences

developed in a basically democratic context, without being ham-

pered by the growing social and political tensions produced by the

mounting crisis of the development model, usually called import

replacement, and the resulting context of growing social mobiliza-

tion. The dispute over development projects undoubtedly marked

the pathways of social sciences in these countries, but in a frame-

work of significant political liberties.In the case of Argentina, on the other hand, we find the paradox

that the crucial thrust of affirmation of the social sciences took place

in a context not only of depletion of the import replacement

model, but also in the dictatorial framework of the so-called Liber-

ating Revolution that removed Juan Pero n from power. The unique

feature of this period was that the dictatorship made a relatively

neutral pact with scientists and granted a very significant autonomy

to the Universidad de Buenos Aires. This was the time when JoseLuis Romero, a socialist historian, was the university president and

Gino Germani exerted an influence on sociology.

In the case of Mexico, we find a clearly different format. Since

the time of Ca rdenas administration and in several forms, a highly

verticalized political system and an authoritarian context were

established: in fact, virtually a single-party regime, a strong state

and a society with little mobilization or exercise of citizenship, but

in which the government nevertheless systematically supported thedevelopment of social sciences with public funds. This support went

first to anthropology, and then to sociology and the other social

sciences.

If we focus on the three largest countries, we can see that, in the

foundational phase, the development of social sciences became a

reality, in many cases achieving outstanding levels under clearly dis-

tinct political formats. In all of them, the interaction with the politi-

cal framework was significant, but the diversity of influences and

interaction with social sciences precludes our making simplifications.

In the second stage of the period considered here (military dicta-

torships, except for Mexico), we also find various formats of inter-

action depending on the country. In the case of Chile, Uruguay

and Argentina, the policy of the military governments was strongly

558 Social Science Information Vol 44 nos 2 & 3


3/37

repressive regarding pre-existing centers and organizations related

to social sciences, but this opened up room for the development

or consolidation in some instances of the so-called independent

centers, which were successful as a way of preserving and develop-ing the scientific level. This was an extremely paradoxical situation.

Very significant and systematic, foreign financial support was given

to research in these centers, with the result that, in these three

countries, social sciences and social scientists managed to preserve

and in many instances increase their productivity and contribute

to the original scientific knowledge existing in their countries.

Political restrictions reduced the subjects that could be studied, but

there is broad consensus that, contrary to what could be a plausiblea priori hypothesis, the overall balance was broadly positive.

A different format was found in Brazil under the strongly author-

itarian regimes. The early Brazilian dictatorship (1964) undoubtedly

imposed restrictions on the subjects that could be approached and

removed many professors from public universities, but at the same

time it set in the framework of its strategy of conservative develop-

mentism a policy of clearly supporting growth of social sciences in

the several federal universities. Through support and increased fund-ing for graduate programs, in particular, the government enabled

the most qualified social science academic institutions of Latin

America to establish and consolidate themselves. These academic

institutions were located in several regions of Brazil, counterbalan-

cing the traditional dominance of the Sa o PauloRio de Janeiro

axis. At the same time, some significant independent centers were

set up, but they had less relative weight than was the case in Chile,

Argentina and Uruguay.In the second phase, which we call post-foundational, the case of

Mexico once again presents significant format differences. Given

that Mexico had virtually a single-party political system and strong

social control, it did not go through a stage of military coups. The

opposite was true in this period: there was a slow move towards

greater democratization and increased citizen mobilization, but this

coexisted with a certain crisis in the existing social sciences model.

Although they underwent considerable expansion from the quanti-

tative point of view particularly with the establishment of the

new university social science centers all over the country they

were affected by increasing ideologization and a relative weakening

of research, in the strict sense of the term. Unlike the other countries

considered here, in the case of Mexico there was no development of

Garreton et al. Social sciences in Latin America 559


4/37

the so-called independent social science centers based on foreign

funding.

The importance, for the social sciences in Mexico, of the massive

immigration of qualified social scientists fleeing the dictatorshipsin the Southern Cone area in this period should be underlined.

This was undoubtedly an unpredicted positive impact of the political

interference in that area. In a way, this was a repetition of the late

1930s, when many Spanish intellectuals fleeing Franquism came to

Mexico.

In the first stage of this phase, which we call political-institutional

normalization, we find that, on the whole, the macro political and

institutional context became more democratic in all countries, creat-ing an atmosphere of greater academic freedom, enabling the return

of many social scientists from exile, increasing academic cooperation

agreements with institutions in Europe and the USA, etc. However,

this does not mean that a systemic improvement took place in the

social sciences in all countries, either in the university or in the

private context, or in the independent centers, although in general

certain basic quality levels remained.

Each country is different, depending on the aspect analyzed. If welook at the independent centers, we find that almost all of them

experienced a steep fall in the scientific role they played, due either

to the migration of their staff to universities or government, or to

their transformation into consulting companies as a way to mitigate

the dramatic decrease in foreign funds that occurred at the time of

military dictatorships.

In some countries, like Chile and to a lesser extent Argentina and

Brazil, there was a strong displacement of qualified social scientistsfrom academia towards new government organizations after the

dictatorship period. In many of these cases, this weakened the

mechanisms for reproducing new generations of social scientists in

universities and research centers.

On the other hand, almost every country saw a strong expansion

of the number of students in the social sciences, which was followed

to the same extent by increased budgets in public universities. This

generated a massification and a trend towards lower quality in

many public universities, for example in Mexico and in Argentina,

where there were no entry quotas. A different situation was found

in Brazil and Chile, where there was selection and a maximum

quota, although higher education social science programs continued

to be free, which was not the case in Chile.



5/37

One specific process in this historical period is noteworthy in

the countries considered here: the expansion of educators and

researchers from European and North American academic organi-

zations began in the region, sometimes frequently providing turnkeypackages. There was an increase in horizontal agreements, too.

Those processes unexpectedly produced a political opening in the

local development of social sciences. However, the strong influence

of the political context expressed itself in various types of relation-

ships between social scientists and political activity itself.

The journey through the social sciences in Latin America was

always strongly linked to the analysis of either small or large con-

crete problems, depending on the period and country, as well as tothe will of social scientists to act upon such processes. This almost

always led to a greater relative influence in academia of the ideo-

logical levels of discourse, as well as to a trend towards an important

relationship either supportive or oppositional, depending on the

case between the work of the social sciences and their promoters,

and politics, parties and government.

The fact that society and politics in most countries had undergone

a strong crisis gave a visibly more dramatic character in LatinAmerica to what, with different shades, had in fact been a constant

in some modern Western social sciences since their emergence. But

this did not happen at the expense of the consolidation of their char-

acter as social sciences having the ability to perform theoretical-

empirical analysis that was different from that found in philosophy

of history and more or less scholarly essayism.

We have seen that, depending on the country and the period, this

almost constant involvement with the sociopolitical context couldbe found, to a greater or lesser extent, in the quality of the final scien-

tific product of social sciences, with some of the paradoxes we have

mentioned earlier. Within this general framework, however, empiri-

cal evidence has shown that this relationship was expressed in a large

variety of modes and styles.

In the founding phase and in the next social scientists tended to

practice their profession basically in an academic environment, and

their relationship with politics was primarily one of opposition to

and criticism of government policies; their opposition would often

also carry over to social or party movements with which they were

personally linked. Such a format was encouraged depending on

the country both by currents of Marxist inspiration and by those

linked to progressive Christian humanism.



6/37

In the dictatorial period, the political opposition style was differ-

ent due to repression, but from a profile with a very strong emphasis

on the technical-scientific character of the work; some schools, and

in particular the independent centers, in every way actually becamestrong analytical and ethical benchmarks in the fight against author-

itarianism, and they were thus recognized by citizens and the poli-

tical elites in the transition phases. A few eloquent examples will

suffice, such as the Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales

(FLACSO, Latin American School of Social Sciences) in Chile, the

Centro Brasileiro de Ana lise e Planejamento (CEBRAP, Brazilian

Center for Analysis and Planning) and the Centro de Estudos

de Cultura Contemporanea (CEDEC, Center for ContemporaryCulture Studies) in Brazil, the Centro de Investigaciones sobre la

Sociedad, el Estado y la Administracio n (CISEA, Center for

Research on Society, the State and Public Administration) and the

Centro de Estudios de Estado y Sociedad (CEDES, Center for the

Study of the State and Society) in Argentina, the Centro Inter-

disciplinario de Estudios sobre el Desarrollo en Uruguay (CIEDUR,

Interdisciplinary Center for Studies on Development in Uruguay)

and the Centro de Informaciones y Estudios de Uruguay (CIESU,Studies and Information Center of Uruguay) in Uruguay.

In the post-dictatorial contexts, there was a strong shift in the

recurrent connection between social scientists and politics. A signifi-

cant number of the most qualified social scientists those who had

frequently played an active role in the transition held important

positions or acted as consultants to governments in the democratic

phase. The change in position and orientation did not alter the

direct relationship with political action, however. The transitionfrom the point of view of society and frequently from the point of

view of the opposition to the point of view of government adminis-

tration or techno-bureaucracy took more or less time, depending on

the orientation of each scientist and government; but the important

factor is that this active involvement of many high-level social scien-

tists with politics was constant. From a long list of cases, it is enough

to mention the two most emblematic and well known: Fernando

Henrique Cardoso and Ricardo Lagos. Both were outstanding

academics and left-wing political activists; both suffered the effects

of dictatorship; and both later became ministers and presidents.

But the simple list of the sociologists and political scientists who

became part of government in Chile, Argentina and Brazil is so



7/37

long that it would be virtually impossible to reproduce it here, and

this does not include economists, anthropologists and others.

This context is undoubtedly very different from the one in which

social scientists in Mexico lived, where the PRI-ist regime main-tained a delicate dialectic between academic autonomy, direct or

semi-direct repression in particular cases and a policy of co-optation

through several government and cultural mechanisms. But in Mexico,

too, the significant relationship between politics and social sciences

was a constant in the periods studied.

Special mention should be made of the remarkable impact of

social sciences in Latin America in the regional and world political

and ideological context, particularly since the 1960s. The heydayof the Cold War, the impact of the Cuban revolution with the Bay

of Pigs invasion and the missile crisis, the appeal of the development

models that, at the time, were known as the centrally planned econ-

omy, the US launch of the Alliance for Progress, but also strong

destabilizing actions, the proliferation of leftist guerrilla movements

and the expansion of the so-called post-conciliar Church, are all

processes and ideologies that provided a unique context for the rela-

tionship between social sciences and politics in the 1960s and 1970s.In some cases, this was not an obstacle to the consolidation of high-

level scientific analysis. In others, the effect was the opposite, with

an over-ideologization of intellectual activity and impoverishment

of the dominant scientific level for long periods of time.

Pre-history of institutionalized social sciences in Latin America

Before the complete institutionalization and professionalization of

the social sciences, there were already different forms of systematic

work and thinking in these areas. Our different national cases

exhibit diverse forms of linkage between these antecedents and the

type of work later institutionalized. We will consider three loci of

approach to social topics during this period, which we have called

pre-history: the academic chairs 1, political thought and literary

criticism and, finally, independent research and activities of public

servants.

By the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th,

chairs of sociology or social science had been established in all



8/37

the countries included in our study. Their establishment was the

starting point of a process of institutionalization or even partial

institutionalization, as we see the recognition of the social sciences

as areas of knowledge to be included in the academic system. Thenew programs were part of professional fields such as law or philo-

sophy. Later on they were included in fields such as economics or

education. The first chair to be established was that of sociology,

created in the School of Philosophy and Letters of the Universidad

de Buenos Aires in 1898.

These programs represented only one of the forms in which the

study of society was conducted at the time. There were at least

two others, which were influential in the development of the socialdisciplines.

The second approach, then, adopted even before the creation of

special academic chairs, was present in the interpretations and pro-

posals of politicians and thinkers and as well in literary works intent

on reflecting social problems. It had been present for centuries, but

at the end of the 19th century it became connected with more

systematic ways of handling social analysis such as positivism,

socialism, and the concern for social issues, often linked to theChurchs social encyclical documents, especially Rerum novarum.

In the 19th century in Chile, first Lastarria and later Letelier tried

to ground their proposals in positivist thought. Although they

were academics, they did not establish chairs formally defined as

sociology or social sciences. In 1897, in Argentina, the journal La

Montana, which defined itself as a revolutionary socialist journal,

included a permanent section entitled Estudios sociolo gicos,

which had a prominent role in the publication. Between 1920 and1940, elites and counter-elites on both the right and the left emerged

in Brazil. Even among the military, these currents of thought elicited

committed responses. The relationship between political life and

social sciences was such that it caused the writer Mario de Andrade

to quip that sociology is the art of rapidly saving Brazil.

Beyond the academic chairs and the politico-cultural interpreta-

tions, a third approach needs to be taken into account. Independent

students and state technicians conducted studies with rich empirical

content on specific aspects of social life. In Uruguay, this type

of activity gave rise to a significant volume of anthropological

studies. These studies began quite early, as was the case with the

work of Antonio Diaz, born in Spain, who was active during the



9/37

19th century. During the 20th century, a good number of scholars

carried on this tradition of independent study. A century ago, in

Argentina, Juan Bialet Masse wrote a comprehensive review of the

condition of the working class as part of a vast governmentalenquiry oriented towards the development of a labor code.

Let us now return to our three approaches to the study of society.

In Argentina, the chair created in the School of Philosophy and

Letters interrupted its activities, to be re-opened in 1905. In 1912,

another chair was created in the Humanities School of the Universi-

dad Nacional de la Plata. The process of chair creation moved to the

interior of the country, where chairs were created in the universities

of Co rdoba and Litoral. In Buenos Aires, a chair was created in theSchool of Law early in the 20th century, while several schools of eco-

nomic sciences engaged in the process of chair creation. A firm step

towards institutionalization was taken by the Universidad Nacional

del Litoral, where a doctoral program in political science was estab-

lished. In fact, the program was oriented towards the study of

branches of law, such as public law and international law, rather

than towards political science as such. It is to be noted that the law

schools tended to call themselves schools of law and social scienceswithout actually engaging in any activities corresponding to the

social sciences. In 1940 we see the culmination of this process of

partial institutionalization, when an Institute of Sociology was

established in the School of Philosophy and Letters.

In Chile there was a delay even in the establishment of chairs.

Valentin Letelier, a devotee of social analysis, did not commit

himself to proposing the creation of a sociology chair, although he

occupied positions of power in the academic world, as a memberof the Directive Council of the School of Law and President of the

University. There was a strong resistance to sociology. Another

important intellectual, the Puerto Rican Eugenio Mara de Hostos,

who worked in Chile, failed in his hope of renewing the study of

law through the influence of sociology. In 1940, Chile already had

50 chairs in different schools. In Brazil, the creation of chairs was a

late phenomenon, but it covered the whole country. In 1933, a

chair of sociology was established in the Escola Livre de Sociologia

e Poltica (Free School of Sociology and Politics). But sociology

had gained a public image that earned the inclusion of the discipline

in the curriculum of the Military School. This late character and the

peculiar process of institutionalization that Brazil underwent made

the Escola the beginning of a condition of full institutionalization.



10/37

In Uruguay the creation of a chair of sociology became a public

issue, as it was created by an Act of Parliament in 1913, thus satisfy-

ing a requirement for the creation of university chairs. It was later re-

established by presidential decree and located in the School of Law.As Ernesto Campagna points out, in Uruguay sociology will be

influenced by its relationship to different areas of the study of law,

while in Argentina it was linked to history and in Brazil it will be

autonomous. These different linkages have been decisive, in regard

to both the process of professionalization and the ability to subsist

in the teeth of political change.

Let us make it clear that the activity of most of the chairs was con-

centrated on offering courses devoted to the ordered presentation oftheoretical approaches, without conducting research, especially

research on specific aspects of social life.

At some point in time, other disciplines taught at the university

level or at the level of tertiary institutions training professors

became the source of influential orientations in the social sciences,

filling the void left by the disciplinary chairs. History played this

role in Uruguay, while Chilean structuralist economics became a

powerful intellectual force even beyond the national borders.The second type of approach mentioned above, based on political

thought and literary creation, was present from the beginnings of

national society and the state. We will examine this way of taking

social life into account, but we will look only at relatively recent

times. Already by the end of the 19th century, after a long period

of prominence in Brazil of the Bachelors trained in Coimbra

and later in the country itself, intellectuals emerged who competed

with the former professionals.With the appearance of the generation of 1870, intellectuals

started taking collective positions, vying for moral leadership of

the nation and trying to create a new image of the country and its

future. They confronted social processes such as the repression of

the Canutos and created a literature of anger. The children of the

new urban bourgeoisie began entering the centers of higher educa-

tion. They took up the great challenge of constructing the nation

by means of the state. Thus, the sociological approach inspired a

series of works related to the pedagogical reform of Minister

Botelho de Magalha es, an Army man who introduced the teach-

ing of sociology in the Military School. Finally, during the period



11/37

192045, the final defeat of the Bachelors allowed the expansion

of a form of social sciences avant la lettre that opened the way for full

institutionalization.

Around the middle of the 19th century, some distinguishedUruguayan intellectuals came to the social sciences as part of their

concern for the development of new ways of understanding politics

and social action. From the last part of the 1960s until the 1970s,

Carlos Quijano, a respected figure, director of the journal Marcha,

was recognized as a teacher and inspirer.

These militant activities could collide with the limitations of the

chairs conservatism. At the beginning of the century, the doctoral

thesis of Alfredo L. Palacios, later the first elected socialist parlia-mentarian in the Americas, on the situation of the working class

was rejected by the Law School of the Universidad Nacional de

Buenos Aires.

We will now examine the third type of approach, based on the

activity of independent researchers and technicians linked to the

state. This approach is especially interesting for the development

of empirical social sciences. Among the practitioners we find a com-

bination of theoretical concerns and fieldwork. Beyond the directcontact with social reality present in fieldwork, the importance of

this approach resides in the adoption of a style of work for which

the question of verification was central. Two variants can be distin-

guished in these works. One is work linked to public institutions in

need of reports for the tasks they have to assume. The other corre-

sponds to studies by independent researchers. A notable example

of the first variety is the report on the situation of the Argentine

workers in the interior of the country, authored by Juan BialetMasse in 1904. Bialet Masse was an immigrant from Catalonia,

who had distinguished himself in different disciplines, public posts

and entrepreneurial activities. His report was based on a prodigious

field study commissioned by the Minister of the Interior, who was

trying to draw up a labor code. The same ministerial commit-

ment gave rise to a series of other reports on different areas of the

country and types of labor. Decades later, an inspector from the

Labor Office, L. Niklison, wrote detailed reports on the labor situa-

tion in different areas of the country. An independent scholar,

J.B. Ambrosetti, devoted many years to the study of the situation

of the laborers engaged in the production of yerba mate.



12/37

In Chile, a priest, Guillermo Viviani, and an independent anti-

Catholic thinker, Agustn Venturino, produced works of sociologi-

cal synthesis that came closer to the construction of a disciplinary

field than most attempts originating in the formal chairs.Uruguayan anthropology is an outstanding case of prolonged and

intense research organized by academic institutions. We have

mentioned the Spanish researcher Das, who was followed by such

founding figures as Eduardo Acevedo Daz, a prominent politician

who occupied government positions, and Jose Figueira. These

researchers were already active during the 1890s. Around the 1960s,

authors such as A.R. Castellanos and E.F. Campal produced

research and works on rural Uruguay, whereas there were no aca-demic courses or programs in the field of anthropology.

In Brazil, many research projects and studies originated in a state

institution, the Council for the Protection of Aboriginal Peoples.

Only afterwards did academic institutions become the locus for

this kind of work.

We can include, in this third type of pioneering activity, different

from academic work and from political thought and action, the con-

tributions coming from structuralist economics. This powerful intel-lectual current was developed in Chile by economists of different

nationalities working with the Comisio n Econo mica para Ame rica

Latina (CEPAL, Economic Commission for Latin America), who

later became influential throughout Latin America, providing

central inspiration for researchers in most of our countries.

Coming back to our three types of approach now, we see that

behind these three types of intellectual activity were strong currents

coming from mother disciplines of European or American origin.There have been also important direct linkages. We will not present

here an analysis of the theories inspiring the three types of activities

we have presented. We will simply mention some cases of great

significance.

A first major influence to be taken into account is positivism. In

both its Comtean version and its Saintsimonean form, it was pre-

dominant since the 19th century. In some cases, as in Brazil, it

acted as a forceful inspiration for the process of national organiza-

tion. Anti-positivist orientations appeared quite soon; Cousins

philosophy of the spirit and the German reconstruction of the

spirit of the peoples were the most common. In fact, diverse

idealistic approaches appeared and operated as powerful obstacles



13/37

to empirical research. It is to be noted that the encyclopedic con-

structionism of the positivists was ultimately another obstacle to

empirical studies. Socialism and several variants of Marxism were

widely used approaches to social interpretation and research. TheAmerican influence appeared at the beginning of the 20th century

through the work of Ward. In later decades, Durkheim and other

contemporary authors were incorporated into the curriculum,

although theoretically inspired empirical research had a very limited

role.

This rapid list of contacts and influences is merely an indication of

the enduring presence of external links. One early expression of these

links was the presence of foreign scientists in our countries. In 1830,the Chilean government hired the French naturalist Claudio Gay

with a view to organizing an ethnological section in the National

Museum, based on data-gathering expeditions. In Brazil, contacts

with foreign social scientists took the form of missions, such as

the French and the American ones, which played a decisive role in

the establishment and institutionalization of social disciplines.

A final example corresponds to institutional contacts established

in Argentina by a historian-sociologist who headed the Institute ofSociology in the School of Philosophy and Letters at the Universi-

dad de Buenos Aires around 1940. A. Povin a tried to create a Pan

American Institute of Sociology, in connection with American

sociologists and the Institut International de Sociologie. The project

failed, but it was an interesting antecedent of later contacts with

international professional organizations.

After this review of diverse types of activities representing antece-

dents in the process of disciplinary construction, we will attempt toassess the extent to which these activities effectively functioned as

the basis for the institutionalized and professionalized disciplines.

In this respect, there are marked differences between the countries

we will examine, which present different patterns of continuity,

historical breaks or change.

At one extreme is Brazil, which shows a pattern similar to that of

Mexico. In Brazil we find a process of accumulation of knowledge

and of organizational continuity. At the other extreme, Chile and

Argentina attained full institutionalization and professionalization

of the disciplines we are examining, and in particular sociology,

through a break with preceding forms. Uruguay occupies an inter-

mediate position. There we find cases of social scientists trained



14/37

during the previous period who also participated in the new institu-

tional condition. They were not always the generators of the new

forms, but they were incorporated into the new style of work and

broadened their previous intellectual style. Aldo Solari and CarlosReal de Azua are two outstanding examples of this development.

As we indicated above, there were differences between countries in

terms of the degree to which the initial forms of the discipline

included a linkage between reflections about society and fieldwork.

Such a connection was paramount in Mexico and almost non-

existent in Argentina. This characteristic strongly conditioned the

development of our disciplines.

Roberto Cardoso de Oliveira has presented an evolutionaryschema of the periods through which Brazilian anthropology

evolved. For him, a first stage, the heroic stage, functioned as the

basis for the emergence and consolidation of charismatic figures

typical of the second stage and who acted as originators of the third

stage of bureaucratic organization and institutionalization. Besides

the way in which the stages are defined, Cardoso de Oliveiras

schema of the transition between stages offers special interest. For

instance in Argentine, in sociology and even in anthropology,there is a lack of connection with the work conducted during the

heroic stage. The work by Bialet Masse was absent in the institu-

tionalization phase. It is also important that the early official

academic version of sociology (known in Latin America as socio-

loga de ca tedra, or chair sociology, cf. note 1) did not pay

attention to studies based on fieldwork. If some interest in such

work was expressed, as happened with one of the chair sociologists,

E. Quesada, students and readers were warned to be very careful inhandling such material, which had not been produced according to a

systematic approach and was therefore liable to be embroiled in

political processes. The lack of connection comes from afar. More

than once, political writers made contributions to the understanding

of social life of which the chair professors were incapable.

We can ask if some of these forerunners might not represent more

than a historical reference and are capable of serving as classics, pro-

viding a guide for the activity of contemporary social scientists. We

can also ask if the construction of the social sciences is richer and

more effective when it follows a pattern of continuity or when

there is a revolutionary break with the past.

The study of the situation of full institutionalization and profes-

sionalization takes these questions as points of reference.



15/37

Institutionalization, internationalization and professionalization of

social sciences

Although the processes of institutionalization, internationalizationand professionalization of the social sciences in Latin America in

the period analyzed obey different national standards, the cross-

sectional analysis shows significant transnational commonalities.

The first commonality results from the fact that, at the time, the

first institutions linked to social sciences, whether or not universities,

were founded in the 1930s, in Mexico, Brazil and Argentina, where

important political and social changes were taking place.

The post-revolutionary radicalization in Mexico under Ca rdenasinfluenced the ideological conflicts in the first decade of the Instituto

de Investigaciones Sociolo gicas (Institute for Sociological Research)

(19309), but from the 1940s this institute, with the establishment

by Mendieta and Nun es of the Revista Mexicana de Sociologa,

as well as with the foundation of the Colegio de Me xico (1940)

became decisive for the institutionalization of social sciences and

history.

In Brazil, the foundation of the Escola Livre de Sociologia ePoltica (ELSP, Free School of Sociology and Politics) and the Uni-

versidade de Sao Paulo (USP) between 1933 and 1934 was the Sa o

Paulo state elites answer to the 1930 revolution that had removed

it from national power. In the same year, the Sociedade Paulista

de Sociologia was created. In Rio de Janeiro, the Universidade do

Distrito Federal, established in 1935, provided the institutional

foundations for the development of social sciences, but it was

closed by the government under Catholic pressure. These new insti-tutions received missions of foreign professors from France, the

USA and Germany, but the new Faculdade Nacional de Filosofia

(FNF, National School of Philosophy) of the Universidade do

Brasil recruited its foreign professors under a new orientation. In

the federal capital city, the Church turned its Instituto Cato lico de

Estudos Superiores (Catholic Institute of Higher Studies) (1932)

into the Faculdade de Filosofia das Faculdades Cato licas (Philoso-

phy Department of the Catholic Schools) (1940) to found, in 1946,

the first Pontificia Universidade Cato lica (PUC, Pontifical Catholic

University).

In Argentina, while national universities were dominated by

chair sociology, a group of liberal and socialist intellectuals

founded the Colegio Libre de Estudios Superiores (Free College of



16/37

Higher Studies) at the time the Radical Party occupied the presi-

dency of the Republic (191630); it was overthrown, in 1930, by

the Uriburu coup, which restored the traditional oligarchies to

power. In the Peronist period (194352) the new school outsidethe university environment became an alternative space for debate

and establishment of political and university staff who would later

join the Universidad de Buenos Aires.

At the same time anthropology, too, found institutional support

in the three countries. Mexico established the first Latin American

institution for education in anthropology: the Escuela Nacional de

Antropologa e Historia (National School of Anthropology and

History) (1934) and the Instituto Nacional Indigenista (NationalInstitute of Aboriginal Studies) (1948). In Brazil, the National

Museum was at the time devoted particularly to natural sciences

and physical anthropology, although many foreign anthropologists

were carrying out research missions. However, it was at the Escola

Livre de Sociologia e Poltica, in Sa o Paulo, that some foreign pro-

fessors, from the Chicago School, with a background in community

studies taught the first Brazilian ethno-sociologists, while at the

Indian Museum in Rio de Janeiro it was only in 1955 that thefirst further education courses in anthropology were initiated. In

Argentina, under European influence, particularly German and

Belgian, starting in 1932, seven centers were established with inter-

national contacts, the most active being the La Plata with its

Anthropological Museum and the Tucuman Center.

The second commonality is found in the 195060 decade, when

the three countries saw the beginning of a process of actual institu-

tionalization of sociology as a discipline through teaching andresearch.

In Mexico, the Colegio de Me xico established the Centro de

Estudios Histo ricos e de Estudios Sociales (Center for Historical

and Social Studies) (1943), whose founder, J.M. Echavarra, also

played a strategic role in Latin American social sciences by trans-

lating the classic works of European sociology (Weber, Simmel,

Pareto), published by the Fondo de Cultura Economica. In 1951

the Universidad Nacional Auto noma de Me xico (National Autono-

mous University of Mexico) founded the Escuela Nacional de

Ciencias Polticas e Sociales (National School of Political and

Social Sciences). A few years later, under the direction of Pablo

Gonza lez Casanova, the latter would become the first graduate pro-

gram at the School of Sociology at FLACSO-Chile.



17/37

In Argentina, although the chairs of sociology had been in exis-

tence since the late 19th century in the capital city and several

other provincial cities, the Instituto de Sociologa at the Universidad

de Buenos Aires was founded in 1947, with the R. Levene chair,which was already linked to G. Germani. In 1950, the Revista

and the Sociedad Argentina de Sociologa were established. With

deperonization, the Department of Sociology was founded, the

Institute was restructured, and the sociology program was organized

(1957). Anthropology, in turn, established its program in 1958, but

political sciences implemented theirs only in 1968, under the influ-

ence of public law. However, there had been the publication of the

Revista Argentina de Ciencia Pol tica (191028) and the establish-ment of the Associacio n Argentina de Ciencia Poltica, in 1957,

linked to the International Political Science Association. Alterna-

tively, the Universidad Nacional del Litoral was the only national

institution which, since 1969, granted doctoral degrees in political

sciences and diplomacy.

Two important private research centers were established at this

time: the Instituto de Desarrollo Econo mico (Economic Develop-

ment Institute) (1958) and the Centro de Sociologa Comparada(Comparative Sociology Center) (1963), as well as the two journals

associated with them: Desarrollo Economico (1958) and the Revista

Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (1965), which included social

scientists of the region on their editorial boards. In addition, two

publishing houses were important for the legitimization of social

sciences in Argentina: Paido s, with its Biblioteca de Psicologia

Social y Sociologa, and Eudeba, linked to the Universidad de

Buenos Aires (UBA).In Brazil, it was in the 195060 decade that the institutionalization

of sociology in education and research actually started, with the

completion of doctoral studies by Floresta n Fernandes and his assis-

tants at the Universidade de Sao Paulo, establishing around his

Sociology I chair the renowned Sa o Paulo School of Sociology.

In 1949, away from the Rio de JaneiroSa o Paulo axis, the Instituto

Joaquim Nabuco was established by Gilberto Freyre. In the state of

Bahia, important research projects on race relations in Brazil were

developed in the framework of an international agreement with

Columbia University and UNESCO, with the participation of

researchers from Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo. In Rio de Janeiro,

other institutions were established in this field: the Instituto de

Direito Publico e Ciencia Poltica (Institute of Public Law and



18/37

Political Sciences) at the Fundaca o Getulio Vargas (1954) and the

Instituto Brasileiro de Econo mia, Sociologa e Poltica (Brazilian

Institute of Economy, Sociology and Politics) (1953), which would

later become the Instituto Superior de Estudos Brasileiros (HigherInstitute for Brazilian Studies), in 1955. In Minas Gerais state, start-

ing in the 1950s, the School of Economic Sciences, with sociology

and public administration programs and its own system of grants

for the best students, produced successive generations of social

scientists, some of whom went on to pursue graduate studies in

sociology at FLACSO-Chile. In the same decade, the first program

in sociology and politics was organized at the PUC-RJ and at the

Instituto de Ciencias Sociais in the Universidade do Brasil, both in1958. In 1960, the education of anthropologists that had first

begun at the Indian Museum was resumed, now with specialization

programs in anthropological theory and research, at the National

Museum, under the joint direction of Roberto Cardoso de Oliveira

and Luis de Castro Faria, who laid the foundations of cultural

and social anthropology in Rio de Janeiro and other regions of

Brazil. This institutionalization process also generated its scientific

societies: the Sociedade Brasileira de Sociologia (1954) and theSociedade Brasileira de Antropologia (1955).

In the same period, publishing production expanded strongly,

with collections that became a reference for the education of

historians and social scientists: a highlight of the period was the

Brasiliana collection, published in Sao Paulo by the Companhia

Editora Nacional. The latter, together with Jose Olympio in Rio

de Janeiro and the Globo publishing house in Porto Alegre, con-

trolled 61 percent of the publishing market. In addition, the firstscientific journals in social sciences appeared: Revista Sociologia

(ELSP, 1939); Boletim Ciencia e Tropico (IJN/PE, 1952); Cadernos

do Nosso Tempo (IBESP/RJ, 1953); Revista Antropologica (USP,

1953); Revista de Direito Publico e Ciencia Poltica (Fundaca o

Getulio Vargas/RJ, 1956); Revista Brasileira de Estudos Pol ticos

(Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, 1957); Bulletin America

Latina (CLAPCS/RJ, 1958); and Revista de Educacao e Ciencias

Sociais (Instituto Nacional de Estudos Pedago gicos/RJ, 1958).

In Chile, by comparison with Argentina and Brazil, the chair

sociology or sociological essayism phase was a less relevant intel-

lectual movement for the construction of sociology as a discipline.

The first generations of professional sociologists did not see them-

selves as being as closely connected with these forerunners, unlike



19/37

the case in the other countries. There was a stronger disciplinary

tradition in economics, but the institutionalization of scientific

sociology started with Hamuy, after his return from graduate

study in the USA, at the School of Philosophy and Educationwhen he took over the Sociology Institute (1952). The latter replaced

the Centro de Investigaciones Sociolo gicas (Center for Sociological

Research) (1946). Later, in 1962, chair sociology took over the

Institute again, and sociology as a discipline in universities re-

emerged only in the 1970s. Anthropology, in turn, would become

institutionalized a decade later, with the establishment of the Insti-

tuto de Investigaciones Sociolo gicas and the Instituto de Estudios

Antropolo gicos. It should be pointed out that FLACSO, CEPALand the Universidad Cato lica de Chile established, in 1958, the

School and Institute of Sociology at the School of Economics.

In Uruguay, although social sciences were established later than

in the other countries, they were part of the institutionalization pro-

cess in the Southern Cone area. The founding period extended from

1958 to 1973, but the most prestigious disciplines, before the estab-

lishment of sociology, were history and economics. At that time, the

Instituto de Profesores Artigas (Artigas Teachers Institute) was themost important institution for the education of secondary level

history teachers, and several historians who played a precursor role

recognized by the generation of social scientists were graduates of

this institute.

At the Universidad de la Republica, the Institute of History (1954)

of the School of Humanities and Sciences and the Instituto de

Economa (1963), linked to the School of Economic Sciences, both

preceded modern social sciences. Although chair sociology hadstarted in the 1930s (Prando), it was Isaac Ganon who implemented

the Instituto de Ciencias Sociales at the School of Law, in which

Aldo Solari, as his successor in possession of an international repu-

tation, would be the main professor. The key year for modern social

sciences was 1969, with the competition of young sociologists who

had graduated from FLACSO and the Ecole des Hautes Etudes

en Sciences Sociales, in Paris. The latter organizations would

strongly expand their research and education activities with the

establishment of the bachelors degree in sociology (1970). This pro-

cess was interrupted at the university by the military dictatorship,

and the emerging social sciences had to seek shelter in private

centers. The restructuring and consolidation of social sciences in

Uruguay would take place only after 1985.



20/37

It is extremely important to stress the connection between institu-

tionalization and internationalization. Although in these national

institutionalization processes there were many and varied inter-

national influences in the education of professors in the institutionalmodels of organization of education and research, resulting from the

educational missions, from research exchanges and action by orga-

nizations (UNESCO) and international foundations (Ford Founda-

tion), the national dynamics of the social sciences were linked

domestically to different and unique institutional and political-

cultural contexts.

It should be pointed out that in international terms the institu-

tionalization of social sciences was at the same time convergentand autonomous in different countries and that UNESCO played

a coordinating role by allowing the revival of sociology after the

Second World War to ensure its promotion in various third world

countries: in 1949 the International Sociology Association was

established, which then founded the Newsletter and the International

Social Sciences Journal (1959), as well as the International Social

Sciences Council. There was also a significant international move-

ment of economists and social scientists among several LatinAmerican countries resulting from exchange processes that were

either voluntary or forced by political reasons.

In the 195060 decade, social sciences were undergoing rapid

expansion and institutionalization in Latin America. The first

specialized international associations started to be organized in

Argentina: in 1950, the Latin American Sociology Association met

in Co rdoba, convoked by Alfredo Povin a and Tecera del Franco.

In 1951 the first Latin American Sociology Conference was held inBuenos Aires. In 1960 Gino Germani founded the Asociacio n

Argentina de Sociologa and in 1962 the Argentinian and Latin

American Sociology Seminars were held in Buenos Aires with the

participation of Gino Germani, Jorge Graciarena, Torcuato di

Tella, Norberto Bustamante and foreign guests Costa Pinto e

Manuel Die gues, Jr (Brazil), Aldo Solari (Uruguay), Pablo Gonza lez

Casanova (Mexico) and Jose Augustin Silva Michelena (Venezuela).

One of the modes of the internationalization of sociology, from

1958, was through graduate study abroad by successive generations

of Latin American sociologists, who graduated from the first Escuela

de Sociologa of FLACSO-Chile, where some professors, particu-

larly Europeans (Peter Heinz, Lucien Brams, Johan Galtung, etc.)

left their theoretical-methodological mark on young sociologists



21/37

coming from various countries in Latin America and the Caribbean

(Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Uruguay, Peru, etc.). Later, the educa-

tion profile diversified with the establishment of the Escuela de

Economa y Administracio n Publica (School of Economy andPublic Administration). Additionally, in 1960 the FLACSO signed

exchange agreements with the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes

(fifth section, now the EHESS) in Paris, the University of North

Carolina and the University of Chicago (National Opinion Research

Center). In Rio de Janeiro, also connected to UNESCO, the Centro

Latinoamericano de Pesquisas em Ciencias Sociais (CLAPCS, Latin

American Center for Social Science Research) was founded in 1957,

the latter publishing the journal America Latina, which was the firstsocial sciences journal with a Latin American vocation published in

Brazil.

The first international research was conducted in 1956 between

France and Chile, in a cooperative effort between the Instituto de

Sociologa in Chile and the Centre dEtudes Sociologiques in

Paris. It was a comparative research on workers awareness in

two Chilean companies (Lota and Huachipato), with the participa-

tion of Alain Touraine, Jean-Daniel Reynaud and Lucien Brams.Torcuato di Tella participated in the data analysis phase, after

having pursued his graduate studies in the UK and the USA.

Research results were published in Chile (di Tella et al., 1967) and

France (Touraine et al., 1966).

As part of the internationalized institutionalization processes

inspired by the models of European universities linked to the Catho-

lic Church and usually controlled by the Jesuit order, mention

should be made of the role played by Catholic universities in theinstitutionalization of social sciences in Brazil, Chile and Argentina,

through the establishment of sociology programs. In 1958, as

already mentioned, the Sociology and Politics program was founded

at the PUC-RJ by the Jesuit Father Fernando Bastos DAvila; in

1959, in Argentina, the sociology program was established at the

Universidad Cato lica, and in Chile the Escuela de Sociologa, with

a predominantly foreign faculty from Belgium, the Netherlands

and France who, with Organization of American States grants,

sent Chileans to study abroad. The first fellows of the Catholic

university, Jose Sulbrandt and Raul Urzua, with the support of

Father Roger Vekemans, were sent to the University of California

at Berkeley. The Schools director was Hernan Godoy who, when

control of the Sociology Institute at the Universidad de Chile was



22/37

taken over by chair sociologists, migrated to the Universidad

Cato lica.

In Uruguay, Chile, Brazil and Argentina, inspired by the metho-

dology and research of the French Dominican priest Lebret, severalgroups of young Catholic professionals formed and started doing

research, and making diagnoses and development plans. Some

were the forerunners of education and research centers like the Equi-

pos del Bien Comun (Common Good Teams), created in Uruguay

by Juan Pablo Terra, who later organized the Centro Latino-

americano de Economa Humana (Latin American Center for

Human Economy), which became an alternative education space

during the dictatorship. Some were linked to parties inspired byEuropean Christian Democracy in those countries: in Uruguay

(Juan Pablo Terra), in Chile (Jacques Chonchol), in Brazil (Plnio

Arruda Sampaio) and in Argentina (organized through the Liga

de los Estudiantes Humanistas). The last, also under the influence

of Jacques Maritain, strongly organized at the UBA School of

Engineering and were persecuted under Pero n (some were forced

into exile in Uruguay), and others would join the Christian social

wing of Peronism.Another significant moment of internationalization of social

sciences in Latin America, particularly in Brazil, took place during

the governments of Eduardo Frei and Salvador Allende in Chile.

There, an intellectually and politically stimulating environment

emerged in a conjuncture of social change. Such a situation and

the influence of several international organizations installed in

the country also created a helpful and congenial atmosphere for

Brazilian exiles and, more generally, for exiles from many LatinAmerican countries. The presence of a significant group of social

scientists in Santiago at CEPAL, particularly at the Instituto

Latinoamericano de Planificacio n Econo mica y Social (ILPES,

Latin American Institute for Economic and Social Planning) and

FLACSO, and in other institutions, was highly relevant for greater

integration between Latin American social sciences which, after

Allendes overthrow, saw its axis move to Mexico. ILPES, where

Jose Medina Echavarra and Oscar Sunkel were directors, was the

institution at which Enzo Faletto and Fernando Henrique Cardoso

wrote the papers that are at the origin of the theory of dependency in

one of its best known variants, found in the intense Latin American

debate. We should ask whether this work would have been generated



23/37

and debated in a situation different from the one provided by the

Chilean context of that time.

A new strategy for the expansion of social sciences in Latin

America and the Caribbean was the foundation, in 1967, of theConsejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales (CLACSO, Latin

American Social Sciences Council): the idea of CLACSO emerged

at the Conference on Compared Sociology organized in Buenos

Aires, in 1964, by the Instituto di Tella, which was directed by

Enrique Oteiza. In October 1966 the first meeting of centers and

research institutes in social sciences was held in Caracas, but no

agreement on a formal organization was reached. Finally,

CLACSO was founded in Bogota , with the participation of centersfrom 10 Latin American countries, at the Universidad de los Andes.

Economist Aldo Ferrer from the Centro de Investigacio n y

Docencia Econo micas (CIDE, Center for Economic Research) was

chosen to be the first general secretary of CLACSO. Brazilians

who were part of foundation were He lio Jaguaribe (Instituto de

Pesquisas Sociais da Sociedade Brasileira de Instruca o-RJ), Isaac

Kerstenetzky (Instituto de Economia at the Fundacao Getulio

Vargas-RJ) and Julio Barbosa (Political Sciences Department atthe Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais). The USP was not repre-

sented at the foundation of CLACSO.

CLACSO, which was based in Buenos Aires, had two important

leaders in its early phase: Aldo Ferrer, who traveled Latin America

to discuss the CLACSO proposal and who became its first general

secretary, and Enrique Oteiza, his successor, who had been director

of the Instituto di Tella. The members of the first CLACSO steering

committees were Gino Germani and Enrique Oteiza (Argentina),Raul Prebisch (Chile), Enrique Iglesias (Uruguay), He lio Jaguaribe

and Julio Barbosa (Brazil), Luis Lander (Venezuela), Orlando Fals

Borda and Luiz Ratinoff (Colombia), Victor Urquidi and Rodolfo

Stavenhagen (Mexico) and Jose Matos Mar (Peru). In 1970

Fernando H. Cardoso entered the committee along with He lio

Jaguaribe; in 1972, Ricardo Lagos entered, representing Chile, and

Edelberto Torres Rivas representing Central America. In 1974,

Cardoso was replaced by Juarez Branda o Lopes.

CLACSO played a federating and strategic role in connecting

research centers in Latin America: by gathering together the main

centers (increasing in number from 35 to over 100), it made them

part of a federation and made them feel they were part of one. It

became the transnational forum for defining the expansion policy



24/37

of the field and a kind of invisible college where decisions on the

scientific policy of social sciences were made, independently of the

national states. In addition to the general secretary, who co-

ordinated CLACSO activities, there was a steering committee thatcollectively defined the lines of political action to be taken by the

council. The committees hard core was comprised of representatives

from affiliated centers in the main countries in which the most

prestigious social scientists were found.

In thematic terms, it is interesting to follow the progress of the

working groups that were progressively organized around 15

themes, defined according to the actual demand for research or for

an induced policy approved by the steering committee. The themesdealt with by the groups ranged from urban studies, rural develop-

ment, science and technology to society and dependence. In the

1980s, the number of working groups doubled, including more com-

prehensive themes: population and development and theory of

the state and politics. CLASCOs efforts in the graduate field

should be underlined. Considering the regional needs, a traveling

Advanced Latin American Course on Rural Sociology was con-

ducted between 1974 and 1982. This program graduated 81 studentsin Asuncio n (1974/5), Quito (1976/7), San Jose (1978/9) and Santo

Domingo (1980/2). There was, however, a second, more ambitious

program involving 48 top-level sociologists, political scientists

and anthropologists from various countries, distributed into five

working groups, whose aim was to form a critical mass and set up

doctoral programs that would be based in Santiago, Buenos Aires,

Rio de Janeiro and Sa o Paulo. These programs were not imple-

mented for strictly political reasons arising from the military coupin Chile, although they had already obtained the financial support

of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the

Social Sciences Division of UNESCO for grants and visiting

professors.

In the development of Brazilian social sciences, it seems important

to restore the importance of their Latin American location as one

of the modes of internationalization. The importance of the

French mission and the presence of American and German sociolo-

gists in the establishment of social sciences at the USP is undeniable,

but it does not seem reasonable to disregard the internationalization

produced by the exchange among Latin American countries them-

selves in the 1950s through 1970s, as well as the role played by uni-

versities, international and transnational organizations, specialized



25/37

journals and publishing companies in the region. After 1964, with

the military coup in Brazil, the financial aid provided by the Ford

Foundation became strategic in supporting the establishment and

institutionalization of social sciences and also in contributing tothe research conducted by Brazilianists. It is true that, after the foun-

dation of the Associaca o Nacional de Po s-graduaca o e Pesquisa em

Ciencias Sociais (ANPOCS, National Association of Graduate

Studies and Research in Social Sciences) in Brazil in 1977, the

latter would play a linking and federating role in the Brazilian

graduate and research programs in social sciences by integrating

researchers in research groups, which would result in the centers

being less interested in joining CLACSO.The period 19702000 would be a time of institutionalization and

professionalization of social sciences in Latin America, starting with

the expansion of graduate programs, particularly in Brazil, during

the military dictatorship, with the 1968 University Law. In 1994

the numbers of graduate courses in Latin America were as follows:

specialization (2707), masters (4437) and doctorate (1417). In the

distribution among the different countries, in 1994, 71 percent of

masters and doctoral programs were in Brazil and Mexico, 23 per-cent in Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Peru and Venezuela, and 6 per-

cent in the remaining countries. In terms of qualification of the

faculty in the period 19924, the distribution is different: Brazil

comes first, with 55.2% of MScs and 22.4 percent of PhDs, while

Mexico has 28.7 percent and 3.5 percent, respectively, Argentina

26.3 percent and 12.0 percent and Chile 18.3 percent and 12.5 per-

cent.

Let us now look at the links between the labor market and profes-sionals at the different levels generated through the institutionaliza-

tion process. The encounter of qualified workers with university

degrees and a labor market that offered them an occupation enabled

the professionalization of disciplines.

As we have already seen, the degree of specialization varied in the

first stages, which is important in characterizing professionals grad-

uating from universities. While in Brazil the social sciences degree

persisted for a long time, in the other countries, from the outset,

degrees were granted in specific disciplines. Universities first pro-

duced specialized professionals. Then they added a second level of

differentiation by introducing masters and doctoral programs,

which represented a stratified supply in the labor market. While in

Brazil higher education was present early on, in the other countries



26/37

it became widespread only in the last decade. It is interesting to note

that a study conducted in Brazil showed that having a PhD only

marginally improves academic salaries.

For a long time professionals with better qualifications studied inthe central countries and, as we saw in the section on internationa-

lization, a central mode of connection with central countries has

been precisely the generation of highly qualified professionals

abroad or in joint programs in each country. Another difference

that can be seen in the university faculty divides those specially pre-

pared for teaching, those educated for research and those educated

to do applied work.

By generating a mass of professionals, universities at the sametime generate the labor market to employ these professionals, since

in all periods universities have, almost invariably, been the main

employer of new graduates. It is precisely in this field, the labor

market, that important changes took place as the period under

analysis progressed. Thus in Brazil the percentage of graduates

working in the university system decreased over the years.

A first extension of the professional world took place with the

establishment of institutions such as the Consejo Nacional de Inves-tigaciones Cientficas y Te cnicas (CONICET, National Council for

Scientific Research and Technology) in Argentina, the Conselho

Nacional de Pesquisa (CNPq, National Research Council) in

Brazil and the Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales (ISSUNAM,

Social Sciences Research Institute) in Mexico, which funded

research activities: the profession of social scientist researcher was

constituted, with a greater or lesser connection with universities

and education in the different countries.Another early extension of the labor market was generated by

demand on the part of the state. In Mexico, the beginning of institu-

tional research took place through a state institution: more speci-

fically, this institution was based on the personal contact of one

researcher, Gamio, with the president, Carranza.

State agencies linked to general programs, such as planning, or

special areas, such as health, education, urban development, rural

development and employment, started using graduates from social

science programs. This type of occupation was sometimes com-

patible with teaching responsibilities at universities or tertiary insti-

tutes. In addition, application of the disciplines generated interesting

products from the standpoint of research.



27/37

We are dealing here with a very important feature of the labor

market for these professions: the fact that low salaries frequently

led to multiple jobs. For a long time, Brazil managed to maintain

a higher education system able to provide professionals with jobspaying acceptable salaries, while in the other countries in the

region this situation was infrequent. In Argentina, the average

portion of university professors working full-time was 14 percent,

although in the School of Sciences this figure was around 80 percent.

Furthermore, the existence of a market for some well-paid occu-

pations gave rise to a strong dualism when professionals managed

to find work in research institutes with foreign funding or worked

in public agencies in positions that were also funded by foreignresources. This stratification of the marketplace did not always

correspond to the differences in qualification.

The existence of different labor market demands is linked to

differences between teaching organizations. In Chile, after institutio-

nalization came a process of differentiation between lines of profes-

sional education, depending on the institution. While the University

of Chile emphasized the education of professionals that would be

able to conduct empirical studies, the Catholic University privilegedtheoretical orientations and social intervention by their graduates,

and FLACSO focused on disciplinary graduate programs.

Almost since the beginning of the institutionalization, private

companies provided jobs. In some cases professionals themselves

organized companies that took over new activities having some con-

nection with their education. We are referring to market research

and polling companies. These activities occupied students and

young graduates, who worked making surveys, and more experi-enced graduates working as analysts. Some leaders in this area

were professional social scientists who went on to achieve visibility

on television and in the press as well as value in the marketplace.

Another increasingly important area in the labor market, for

social sciences in the different periods, has been activities in special

purpose organizations, and particularly in so-called NGOs. These

organizations are present in varied areas of the life of our countries,

linked to the environment, rural development or work programs for

disadvantaged sectors. Generally speaking, they do not pay high

salaries, but their activities appeal to young graduates with a sense

of social responsibility. In addition, international Latin American

institutions such as FLACSO have a long history, being present in

several countries in the region and devoted to teaching and research.



28/37

Added to these work opportunities for social scientists with

limited qualification were those that provide jobs for high-level pro-

fessionals. This was the case of the private research centers, usually

funded by foreign foundations or projects basically in response tothe military coups in Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Uruguay. These

centers, among which we could mention at random a few like the

Centro Brasileiro de Ana lise e Planejamento (CEBRAP, Brazilian

Center for Analysis and Planning) in Brazil, the Centro de Investiga-

cio n y Estudios de Planificacio n (CIEPLAN, Center for Research

and Planning Studies) in Chile, the Centro de Estudios de Estado

y Sociedad (CEDES, Center for the Study of the State and Society)

in Argentina and the Centro de Informaciones y Estudios deUruguay (CIESU, Studies and Information Center of Uruguay),

in Uruguay, grew up in times of repression and discrimination in

the universities and remained, although with a lower level of activity,

after the re-establishment of constitutional governments. It should

be pointed out that some, such as the Common Good Teams in

Uruguay, were pre-existing centers with explicit ideological

orientations.

This brings us to a point of great interest for analyzing the pro-fessionalization and development of the labor market. The above-

mentioned centers emerged amid a violent interruption of the

regular operation of the labor market, which shows that the

market expansion we have been discussing here was not a linear pro-

cess. The vicissitudes of national economies affected this market, as

did the dominant policies which, in the case of developmentist or

populist policies, generated jobs for social science professionals or,

in the case of neo-liberalism, destroyed them. Military coups andrepressive policies had a double effect on this market. On the one

hand, they displaced, exiled and even killed many professionals

working at universities and for the state. At the same time, however,

they destroyed public and private institutions in which social sciences

professionals worked. Paradoxically, in many cases the repression

generated an environment that enabled, by reaction, the establish-

ment of institutions that gathered social scientists and enabled

them to carry out research projects and, in some cases, even teaching

activities. The role of foreign funding was decisive in this area,

although there were centers that persisted without this kind of

support.

At the same time, the dictatorship period, which was followed by

a time of strong militancy, represented a quantitative and qualitative



29/37

change in the search for participation on the part of professionals.

New approaches to politics included contacts with popular sectors

to which social scientists could make contributions. In most cases,

no financial compensation was given in exchange, but there werealso cases of professionalization in political activity where a back-

ground in social sciences was desirable. After these organizational

experiments and the attempts to combine analytical-theoretical

concerns with militant and academic interests, the profile of social

scientists more interested in their connection with profitable profes-

sional activities gained ground.

The most complete expression of the professionalization process is

underway in several of our countries. Professional organizationshave been established in Argentina and Brazil with the goal of

making a professional degree mandatory for performing activities

related to social sciences.

If we think about the pre-history of the disciplines, with their

chairs in the hands of lawyers and the absence of social scientists,

the current situation stands out for the presence of social science

graduates with different degrees and qualifications in a highly differ-

entiated labor market. The progress of the professionalizationprocess has been remarkable.

Orientations, themes and perspectives

Our basic hypothesis is that the sociopolitical processes of the region

have constituted the main object of social sciences and molded their

work. Furthermore, social sciences have contributed to defining themeaning of these historical processes and have influenced their

dynamics and, in part, their outcome.

In spite of the diversity of theoretical directions and contents of

the social sciences in the region, we can make a certain type of

cross-sectional analysis, based on the periodization that organized

the different national cases in this special issue:

(1) the original phase of the disciplines, whose birth usually

coincides with academic-political projects;

(2) the period of rupture due to the crisis of the previous models

and, especially, the presence of authoritarian regimes (Brazil

1964, Argentina 1966 and 1976, Chile 1973, Uruguay 1973);



30/37

(3) a phase associated with the processes of political democratiza-

tion and the resurgence and/or consolidation of alternative

approaches (since the mid-1980s).

In all events, we will concentrate only on what is common to the

region, and from a general perspective this does not take into

account the particular practices of each one of the disciplines,

since, as we have said, despite similarities, there is not an absolute

correspondence between the different periods of institutionalization

in the various national cases. Brazil, for example, whose founding

phase began in the middle of the 1930s and whose moment of rup-

ture went from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s, marked a counter-point in relation to the other cases. To this chronological angle

must be added cultural attributes and specific political processes

that left their mark on social-scientific academic production, parti-

cularly in the last period, with the resurgence of ethnography and

the structural approach to indigenismo and multiculturalism. In

the cases of Argentina and Chile, there seems to be more correspon-

dence between the foundational phase of the social sciences and

chronological periods since their foundation in the 1950s, whichoccurred somewhat later in Uruguay. Nevertheless, the moments

of rupture and re-foundation differ remarkably, which means that

the subjects or themes such as development, dictatorships, societal

change and regional integration were not approached simul-

taneously. In the case of Mexico, like Brazil, the foundational pro-

cess started earlier, with three main events occurring at different

moments. These were the arrival of Jose Medina Echavarra, the

creation of the Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales (Institute ofSocial Research) of the Universidad Nacional Auto noma de

Me xico (ISSUNAM) and the Colegio de Me xico, founded by

Spanish civil war exiles at the beginning of the 1940s. But there is

also an important difference between the Mexican case and the

other three cases concerning other periods. Unlike the South

American countries, Mexico never experienced a military dictator-

ship, but the hardening of the Partido Revolucionario Institucional

regime since 1968, the crucial presence of South American exiles flee-

ing military dictatorships and the maintenance of academic freedom

generated a situation, from the point of view of orientations and

perspectives, that did not differ significantly from that which existed

in the other countries. Thus there was first of all the survival and

radicalization of what we will call the scientific-critical model (with



31/37

Marxism as the predominant orientation). Later that was accom-

panied or somewhat replaced by self-criticism stemming from the

reappraisal of political democracy, and finally a diversification of

social sciences dealing with a variety of specific topics without aunique paradigm. These three important orientations existed at

different times in all the other cases.

Content and themes in the original phase can be schematically

synthesized by two major perspectives or models of social sciences,

whose presence will be modified by the particularities of each coun-

try according to its own moments of institutionalization. We there-

fore cannot force this pattern onto all the activities of social sciences

or their cultivators. Both perspectives or models have in common,unlike what will come later, their foundation on big paradigms.

On the one hand, there is what has been called the scientific-

professional perspective or model, characterized by the predomi-

nance of the structural-functionalist approach, usually accompanied

by the use of quantitative techniques of collecting and measuring

empirical data. Here the scientific approach was defined according

to the standards of development of the disciplines in the USA and

reflected a preoccupation with aspects of society that could beclassed under the concepts of development or modernization,

with the predominance of sociology. Some of the main subjects

were the future of development and the ways to achieve it, agrarian

structure and reform, urban marginality and social integration, or

the formulation and the design of sectorial state policies, among

others. The classic works of Gino Germani (1964) and CEPAL/

ECLA (1965) can be remembered as representative of this period,

beyond identification with any particular country and, in the lattercase, without strict allegiance to any model.

The second model has been called scientific-critical and was

generally linked to the resurgence of academic Marxism. Some

countries espoused a variety close to structural Marxist analysis,

showing the decisive influence of Althusser and Poulantzas, which

in the works of Marta Harnecke became more of a manual of

vulgarization. Here the predominant discipline was political econ-

omy, characterized by the perspective of a single science of society

emphasizing comprehensive and global analysis. Central to the pre-

occupations of this model were problems derived from dependent

capitalism or roads to socialism, and such issues as class struc-

ture and struggle, and political processes and ideology. In other

countries, in addition to what has already been said, another linkage



32/37

with Marxism or Marxian studies was established, closer to the

classic texts. For this variety, the central concern was the study of

the forms of penetration and development of capital, and of the

emergence of social classes and agents from the soil of capital.Many of the practitioners of this approach conducted surveys and

research somewhat similar to the model of the recently institutiona-

lized social sciences. Without a doubt, the emblematic work of this

period, although it did not have Marxist connotations properly

speaking, was Cardoso and Faletto (1969).

In both models, the central axis was the theorization and inv

Social Science in Latin America

Documents

Transcript of Social Science in Latin America