This article reveals the emergence of the idea of development in the sociological study of Latin America in the United States as a specific product of history. We show how in the 1960s, it was the result of interaction between the economic, political, military, and scientific fields generated by the mobilization of resources based on their respective rules. We criticize the idea that sociology had clearly-defined goals during this period. Our research demonstrates, for instance, how the research conducted on Latin America during that period was rooted in “topical tropism”. Our investigation is based on the analysis of empirical data including institutional information, journal articles and historical archives.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
In sociology, Modernization theory emerged from diversified theoretical currents that attempt to explain the inequalities between nations by looking at systemic social factors. Modernization theory views cultural referents as delays in the transformation of societies that are anchored in their traditions. Very popular among policy makers until the end of the 1960s, this evolutionary theoretical framework significantly marked the relations between the United States and Latin America. During these years, functionalism and Weberian sociology contributed to thinking about the reduction of inequalities between nations as well as topics within Modernization theory. The fields associated with Modernization theory are: means of communication, cultural reception of technology, the fight against corruption, and state reform, in addition to more micro-sociological subjects such as attitudes toward human reproduction.
Hereafter, these organizations viewed as a whole are referred to as ‘funding institutions.’
An investigation of the history of sociological theories and concepts would ideally complement our work, but for practical reasons, this paper is limited to the topography that made the idea possible. Should the reader be interested in reading a critical assessment of 1960s-era theories about Latin America, we suggest Cardoso and Faletto 1978, and Frank 1966.
We gathered information from the lists of various centers, research institutes, and Latin American studies programs on the history of approximately 30 organizational units devoted to Latin American knowledge. The information obtained from the organizations’ websites allowed us to create profiles based on historical information, disciplinary orientations, and working objectives.
We analyzed the most extensive list of research conducted on Latin America available, sampling the listings published in the “Current Research Inventory” section of the Latin American Research Review (LARR) journal between 1965 and 1967. Established in 1965, LARR became the official journal for of the Latin American Studies Association (LASA) at its creation in 1966. LARR is dedicated to the study of Latin America from the diverse perspectives of human sciences, including political science, sociology, and history. The study of this sample allowed us to establish the quantity, importance, and origin of the funding of work on Latin America at the end of the 1960s.
We examined the disciplinary affiliations, departmental and national origin of all the authors of published articles in the Journal of Inter-American Studies (IAS) between 1959 and 1969. To this end, we concentrated our study on the contributors’ biographies in the journal’s quarterly periodicals. The journal published scientific articles from a broad variety of American and international researchers writing from political science, humanities, social science, geography, legal and journalism perspectives. The journal is now known as Latin American Politics and Society.
It is important to note that the NDEA program is only partially aimed at Latin American studies. LARR notes that in 1968, only one-eighth of the 240 grants from the NDEA program to students in higher studies were attributed to Latin American studies.
In the case of the Carnegie Foundation, these changes imply variation in the definition of scientific priorities between each presidential mandate. For instance, Charles Dollard, president of the Carnegie Foundation between 1948 and 1955, preferred quantitative and objective social sciences, while John W. Gardner, president between 1955 and 1967, was more interested in human behaviour. Thus, it is difficult to conclude that the Carnegie Foundation’s agenda for social sciences was oriented primarily by the requirements of foreign policies (Ludden 2000).
See Hispania, Vol. 44, No 1.1
Although Cuba’s radicalization originally signalled a certain rebirth for Latin American studies, the country is in fact minimally studied. This could be explained by the researchers’ lack of access to the island.
We consulted the archives of the Carnegie Corporation of New York located in the Columbia University library. From these archives, we established a list of projects on Latin America funded by this foundation during the 1945–1970 period. This information covers the foundations’ funding recipients, project participants, as well as project duration and countries studied. These documented sources are valuable signposts that enabled us to carefully calibrate the transformation in Latin American studies during the Cold War in the United States of America, with emphasis on the place occupied by sociology.
We thoroughly studied the data in the Notes and News section of the quarterly journal Hispania from 1951 to 1969. Established in 1917, Hispania is the official journal of the Association for American Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese Language (AATSP).
For further reading on the theoretical failings of Modernization theory, consult Frank 1966.
The Truman Doctrine was created in 1947 by then-President of the United States Harry S. Truman. This doctrine established the political foundation for the US position on the Communist Party and the USSR. It attempted to limit the number of countries that adopted communism by supplying military and technical assistance as well as financial support to ‘free countries.’
Atkinson, R. C., & Blanpied, W. A. (2008). Research universities: core of the US science and technology system. Technology in Society, 30(1), 30–48.
Berger, M. T. (1995). Under northern eyes: Latin American studies and US Hegemony in the Americas, 1898–1990. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Berger, M. T. (1997). The reconquest of Central America: Latin American studies and the transition to democracy, 1979–1990. Latin American Perspectives, 24(1), 7–72.
Bernard, J. (1965). To the editor. The American Sociologist, 1(1), 24–25.
Bernard, J. (1967). Conflict as research and research as conflict. In I. L. Horowitz (Ed.), The rise and fall of project Camelot (pp. 128–152). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Braibanti, R. (1968). Comparative political analytics reconsidered. Journal of Politics, 30(1), 25–65.
Cardoso, F. H., & Faletto, E. (1978). Dependency and development in Latin America. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Clayton, L. A. (1977). A comment on ‘Latin American studies’. Latin American Research Review, 12(2), 243–247.
Cline, H. F. (1966). The Latin American Studies Association: a summary survey with appendix. Latin American Research Review, 2(1), 57–79.
Coser, L. A. (1966). Some social functions of violence. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 364, 8–18.
Coser, L. A. (1969). Letter to a young sociologist. Sociological Inquiry, 39(2), 131–137.
Cutright, P., Hout, M., & Johnson, D. R. (1976). Structural determinants of fertility in Latin America: 1800–1970. American Sociological Review, 41(3), 511–527.
Cuzan, A. G. (1994). The Latin American Studies Association vs. the United States: the verdict of history. Academic Questions, 7(3), 40–56.
Dillon Soares, G. A. (1976). Latin American studies in the United States: a critique and a proposal. Latin American Research Review, 11(2), 51–69.
Drake, P. W., & Hilbink, L. (2004). Latin American studies: Theory and practice. In D. Szanton (Ed.), The politics of knowledge: Area studies and the disciplines (pp. 34–73). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Eisenstadt, S. N. (1964a). Institutionalization and change. American Sociological Review, 29(2), 235–247.
Eisenstadt, S. N. (1964b). Modernization and conditions of sustained growth. World Politics, 16(4), 576–594.
Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering development. The making and unmaking of the third world. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Evans, P., & Stephens, J. D. (1988). Studying development since the sixties. Theory and Society, 17(5), 713–745.
Frank, A. G. (1966). The development of underdevelopment. Monthly Review, 18, 17–31.
Galtung, J. (1967). After Camelot. In I. L. Horowitz (Ed.), The rise and fall of project Camelot. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Galtung, J. (1971). A structural theory of imperialism. Journal of Peace Research, 8(1), 81–117.
Gilman, N. (2003). Mandarins of the future: Modernization theory in Cold War America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Graham, H. D., & Diamond, N. (1997). The rise of American research universities: Elites and challengers in the postwar era. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hall, P. A., & Tarrow, S. (2001). Globalization and area studies. In P. O'Meara, H. D. Mehlinger, & R. Ma Newman (Eds.), Changing perspectives on international education (pp. 96–100). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Hanke, L. (1967). Studying Latin America the views of an ‘Old Christian’. Journal of Inter-American Studies, 9(1), 43–64.
Horowitz, I. L. (1966). The life and death of project Camelot. American Psychologist, 21(5), 445–454.
Horowitz, I. L. (1967). Social science and public policy: an examination of the political foundations of modern research. International Studies Quarterly, 11(1), 32–62.
Iutaka, S. (1965). Social stratification research in Latin America. Latin American Research Review, 1(1), 7–34.
Leys, C. (1996). The rise and fall of development theory. London: James Currey.
Lockman, Z. (2004). Contending visions of the Middle East. The history and politics of orientalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ludden, D. (2000). Area studies in the age of globalization. Frontiers. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 6, 1–22.
Martz, J. D. (1971). Political Science and Latin American studies: a discipline in search of a region. Latin American Research Review, 6(1), 73–99.
Needler, M. C., & Walker, T. W. (1971). The current status of Latin American studies programs. Latin American Research Review, 6(1), 119–139.
Petras, J. (2000). Overseas education: dispelling official myths in Latin America. Frontiers. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 6, 73–81.
Price, D. H. (2003). Subtle means and enticing carrots. The impact of funding on American Cold War Anthropology. Critique of Anthropology, 23(4), 373–401.
Ratliff, W. (1989). Latin American studies: up from radicalism? Academic Questions, 3(1), 60–74.
Reid Martz, M. J. (1980). Studying Latin American Political Parties: dimensions past and present. Journal of Latin American Studies, 12(1), 139–167.
Rist, G. (1997). The history of development: From western origins to global faith. London: Zed Books.
Sadowski-Smith, C., & Fox, C. F. (2004). Theorizing the hemisphere Inter-Americas work at the intersection of American, Canadian, and Latin American studies. Comparative American Studies, 2(1), 5–38.
Salvatore, R. D. (2003). Imágenes de un imperio. Buenos Aires: Editorial Sudamericana.
Schuurman, F. J. (2000). Paradigms lost, paradigms regained? development studies in the twenty-first century. Third World Quarterly, 21(1), 7–20.
Simpson, C. (Ed.). (1998). Universities and empire: Money and politics in the social sciences during the cold war. New York City: New Press.
So, A. Y. (1990). Social change and development: Modernization, dependency, and world-systems theories (vol. 178). Newbury Park: Sage Publications, Inc.
Sumner, A. (2006). What is development studies? Development in Practice, 16(6), 644–650.
Valenzuela, J. S., & Valenzuela, A. (1978). Modernization and dependency: alternative perspectives in the study of Latin American underdevelopment. Comparative Politics, 10(4), 535–557.
Woodford Bray, M. (2004). Latin American studies in the twenty-first century. Latin American Perspectives, 31(1), 23–38.
The author would like to thank Neil McLaughlin and Lawrence T. Nichols for their comments. Any errors or omissions, of course, are the author’s sole responsibility.
About this article
Cite this article
della Faille, D. Sociology on Latin America in the 1960s: Developmentalism, Imperialism, and Topical Tropism. Am Soc 44, 155–176 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-013-9177-6
- Latin America
- United States