Introduction
Latin American critical thought: theory and practice
Si la libertad
existiera,
sería un verbo.
Si el puño
permaneciera,
sería un mástil.
Si la causa
no feneciera,
sería una esperanza...
A. L. B.*
The resurgence of Lat in American critical thought in the late 1990s and the early twenty-first century has brought
about some discoveries that distinguish it from the sociological
production of the world. It is a scientific framework that has taken on the
features of a new social scientific paradigm. A growing number of authors have
aligned themselves with this perspective, with visions that include
critical readings geared to contributing to transformative social change, in a
Latin American context. Thus, we ask ourselves: What are the
characteristics that distinguish Latin American critical thought and give it
its identity? What are its germinal features and what are its unresolved
matters?
A distinguishing feature of this thought is its belonging to
social sciences, particularly sociology and its traditions of
critical theory, whose roots, as Gramsci said, do not come from
fundamentalist opposition but rather from the acquisition of scientific certainty on
the basis of critical analysis.
In scientific discussion […] To understand and to evaluate
realistically one’s adversary’s position and his
reasons (and sometimes
one’s adversary is the whole of past thought) means precisely to be
liberated
from the prison of ideologies in the bad sense of the word — that
of blind ideological fanaticism. It
means taking up a point of view
that is ‘critical’, which for the purpose of scientific research is the only
fertile one 1.
Here, scientific convergence is not about repeating,
reiterating or translating, but, above all, about re-signifying and reversing the
meaning of science on the basis of a new objectification agreed by
consensus.
This is also a debate on the consensus about social thought,
a debate on the intellectual foundation of hegemony. Latin
American critical thought is resurfacing after the long period that followed
the impasse, or rather the decline, of the ‘Dependency Theory’ of the
1970s and the emergence of the intellectual and ideological
domination of neoliberalism, its political apparatuses and governmental
technologies that prevailed from the 1980s on. This new critical thought
has called into question the hegemonic forms of understanding
the capitalist market, the colonization of power and Eurocentric
assumptions. It has gained strength in line with the development of
democratic political forms. When critical Latin American authors refer to the
previous decline in critical scholarship / literature, thought point
at the role of the genocidal dictatorships in the region. They also find
parallels between their own work and social movements, especially the
peasant, the indigenous and the urban unemployed movements of the
late twentieth century, as well as the landless workers, the
Zapatism and the piqueteros, and class fractions that do not have
a central place in classical theory. Beyond this consensus, authors seem to
differ on the magnitude of the democratic gains in / for the popular
sector and the restitution of rights as sources of expansion / in an
expansive fashion (1990-2010). There are also disagreements about the
‘populist’ character of these democratic gains when the fragility of the
processes of democratization and the close links between these electoral democratic systems and the transnational capitalist market is
considered.
This book, a collection / anthology of critical Latin
American thought, aims to present a sample of the knowledge produced
in the South, in line with international productions, and takes the
Second ISA Forum of Sociology Social Justice and Democratization
to be held at the University of Buenos Aires (2012) as an initial
opportunity for this. It puts together the views and analyses of outstanding
authors from Latin America, recognizing that their work represents
that of a huge number of authors from the region, and also acknowledging the existing language barriers. This collection does not cover the broad range of topics brought about by the re-emergence of critical thought but its outstanding features. With this, we expect to encourage the fluid and symmetrical exchange between peers throughout the world. We also expect to encourage discussions that cover theoretical contents, empirical references as well as epistemological foci.
This is a necessary and urgent dialogue in the context of
the current crises in the core nations, taking into account that the
concentration of power and wealth in both the North and the South makes
them comparable, not so much in their singular aspects as in the
nature of the systemic questions that includes and connects them.
Speaking at this particular moment in history, in which the very
biological existence on the planet is at risk, a question which concerns us (as
the type of questions required by the sociological
imagination do) arises. Is sociology an applied science, a social resource for a
more just and sustainable society? Is the knowledge it produces
transferable to society? Which are the adequate instruments for this transfer? Is it
not the case that we still have many deficiencies and insufficient
knowledge to address fundamental questions? We can see that social
theories have the greatest difficulty to become instruments for change,
and at the same time, we see that critical thought can go through —
travel across — the networks of collective intellect. The Latin American
social phenomenon has as part of its recent experience (2011-2012), university student mobilizations in Chile, Peru, Honduras and Mexico.
We intend to read them as elements that converge with critical
thought, not only as a critique of the system of exclusion but also
as a form of inclusion in critical intellectual activity.
As already noted, the epistemic turn, the paradigm
shift is necessary, but what is at stake is not only its denunciation or
activist content but the alteration in the ways in which scientific
knowledge in the social sciences is produced, as well as the
individual collective intellectual praxis. This is why a mutation in the epistemic
basis of the scientific paradigm is necessary. The transfer of
knowledge (the trickling down from the intellectual elite) seems to have
reached its limit. The social actors become authors, we see them taking
part in national and international meetings, making their
influence felt against institutional barriers, fighting to participate.
This is a new intellectual sovereignty and a renewed creative autonomy.
Thus, we assume that the subordinated / subaltern subjectivity fades
away when the collective self / subject places itself as a form
of inclusion, and each subject is able to create as a singular author,
both diverse from, and in common with others. This participative
sociological imagination has yet to be achieved. The task ahead is to lay
the foundations for a productive force. Critical thought, we
think, is taking steps in this gregarious and plebian direction.
We still do not know whether it will be able to dissolve the matrix of
domination that keeps us from dealing with the crisis as a productive
intellectual force, comparable or equivalent to the religious formation
of / education in the capitalist system.
Here we can quote Aníbal Quijano’s remarks about the lineage
of José Carlos Mariátegui in the seminal pages of Siete
ensayos de interpretación de la realidad peruana [Seven Interpretative Essays
on Peruvian
Reality] (1928) which are still fundamental:
This original theoretical and epistemic subversion can be
recognized as a source for the production of
the Latin American idea of
historical-structural heterogeneity, thus breaking with Cartesianism’s
radical
dualism, which is at the origin of Eurocentrism and the
positivist propensity to reductionism and
evolutionism. And without
this new starting point we would be unable to come to terms with the
new
theoretical and political debate about the nature and
history of the current world power, especially the
lively debate about the
theoretical proposal of coloniality and decoloniality of power in Latin
America
and beyond 2.
The authors in this book, all of them from Latin America,
focus on different topics. However, there is a shared logic that goes
through the entire work: the awareness that sociology in Latin
America is produced between two types of tensions: internal tensions inherited
from coloniality, and external tensions that result from the
global reach of Latin American critical thought/the developments of Latin
American critical thought at the global level. A. Quijano’s
contribution to the critique of development from the point of view of the
heterotopy of the buen vivir (live well), built on the basis of the
experience and knowledge of the Andean World; García Linera’s reflection on the
original multinational state that acknowledges the autonomy of the
indigenous peoples as a nation within the developmentalist state; and
the analysis of Jaime Preciado and Pablo Uc on the role of Cuba in the
context of inter-American relations, and the alliances between it
and some countries of the region in undermining the US government’s
attempts to isolate it and challenging the long-standing Pan-American
power structure are important examples that call attention to the
internal changes experienced by Latin American sociology.
Similarly, internal change has effects and is affected by
external factors that cannot be neglected. First, there is a
tradition that takes in the contributions of some European intellectuals to the
critique of coloniality. This sheds light on the existence of a critical
thought in the North that aims to challenge colonial domination, and is
important to recognize the Other in the building of the social world.
Thus, in the context of what seems to be the crisis of late capitalism
and the concomitant death of the so-called postmodern thought, Eduardo Grüner
offers us a stimulating ‘anachronism’ that keeps the
intellectual legacy of two outstanding thinkers: Jean-Paul Sartre and Pier Paolo
Pasolini, who were able to anticipate current debates in the field of
postcolonial theory and subaltern studies. On the other hand, it is
necessary to bring up to date the debate on culture and democracy in the
context of the changes produced by peripheral globalization. In this
regard, Marilena Chaui’s work is crucial, as she reconstructs the
meaning of the word culture on the basis of different intellectual and
political contexts, explores the relations between culture and
democracy in light of the Brazilian experience and outlines the
connections between democracy and socialism.
On the other hand, in the current scenario, and as a part of
the theoretical challenge facing the Latin American left, it is
worth paying attention to Emir Sader’s remarks about the absence of
strategic thinking in line with the current political challenges for
the region, and the ardent call to produce theory out of the practices
of the region. Regarding this, Rafael Correa’s speech proposes a balance of Social Sciences in Latin America, mapping the Latin American
intellectual heritage, wondering about the meaning of the scientific and social work, and arguing against influences of the
neoliberal hegemonic thought, and in favour of a theory which implies corollaries that enable the improvement of our reality. In order to
address the regional challenges, the intrinsic complexity of the world
system has also to be taken into account. In this vein, Theotonio dos
Santos argues that such complexity calls for economic and political
coordinated action on global issues, rather than the ‘invisible hand’ of the market and the illusion of the law of comparative
advantages in world trade. The search of economic and social justice in
the context of globalization needs shared development strategies located within a scientific framework built at the global level.
Finally, José Vicente Tavares dos Santos presents a typology of the
development of Latin American sociology and calls for a deeper dialogue
with Chinese sociology in the search of a sociology of
transformation. His work focuses on the role of sociology in analyzing processes
of social transformation in Latin America, in the effects of the
globalization of social conflict and in the possibility of an intellectual
dialogue with the Asian giant’s sociology.
The debates presented in this book attempt to contribute to
a new way of thinking from the South, that it should also be
put in the context of broader South-South relations that also
integrate other countries producing original and important reflections in
several continents of what we call the South and what we call the North.
* I f freedom existed, it would be a verb. / If the fist persisted, it would be a flagpole./ If the cause did not expire, it would be a hope. / If fists persisted, they would be flagpoles. / If causes did not expire, they would be hopes. A. L. B
1 G ramsci, Antonio 1971 Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci (London: Lawrence & Wishart) p. 657. It is recommended the translation and edition by Hoare, Quintin & Nowell-Smith, Geoffrey (London: ElectBook, 1999).
2 M ariátegui, José Carlos 2010 La tarea americana (Buenos Aires: CLACSO) p. 21.
