APA Newsletters

Spring 2001
Volume 00, Number 2

Newsletter on Hispanic/Latino Issues in Philosophy

Articles

Previous Article | Index | Next Article

Latin American Area Studies and Latino Ethnic Studies: From Civilizing Mission to the Barbarian's Revenge *

Agustin Lao-Montes
University of Massachusetts, Amherst

The post World War II period was marked by the emergence of the U.S. as a hegemon in the capitalist world-economy, as well as by a widespread wave of nationalist struggles for juridico-political decolonization. The building of world hegemony involved a restructuring of the systemic frameworks for capital accumulation (Aglietta, Arrighi), the creation of transtatal institutions (like the United Nations and NATO) to establish political command, as well as the organization of a discursive apparatus (including structures of knowledge) promoting an ideological terrain facilitating U.S. (and western) intellectual and moral leadership. This latter component, that we can call cultural and epistemic hegemony, entailed prioritizing governmental and corporate investment in the production of knowledge with the result of a substantial growth in the size, scale, and reach of the U.S. university system. This institutional leap was tied to the consolidation of scientism as the dominant discourse of progress, in archeologies of knowledge where the scientistic will of positive knowledge (Wallerstein et al, 1996), was entangled with the imperial will to control and dominate (Said 1986). In short, the structures of knowledge of the post 1945 period were characterized by a significant quantitative growth, an escalating globalization of western academic conventions and institutional forms, a consolidation of the division of cultures of scholarship between the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities, and the solidification of disciplinary boundaries by means of specialization and professionalization (Lee; Wallerstein, 1991).

In this context, Area Studies emerged primarily within the field of the social sciences with the manifest geo-political objectives of producing useful research of world regions (like Latin America and Asia) that were now seen as fertile ground for capitalist exploitation (and "development"), and in light of the movements for decolonization, especially during the period of the cold war, could potentially represent a thread to western capitalism. But the project of Area Studies also involved a will to globalize western values, knowledge, and institutions, by means of a new narrative of the civilizing mission that was embodied in modernization theories and developmentalist discourse. A child of U.S. hegemony, Area Studies was an offspring of a correspondence of concerns from three dominant institutions: the imperial state, big corporate foundations (like Ford and Rockefeller), and research universities. Born from this particular intersection of powers, knowledge, and interests, U.S. post-war and cold war Area Studies, were an explicit device of imperial hegemony global in the specific sense of intellectual and moral leadership. For manifest geo-political reasons, Latin America was a priority since the inception of Area Studies, thus setting the stage for large-scale well-financed U.S. based Latinamericanism.

Latin American Area Studies was conceived as an interdisciplinary field to be practiced by teams of researchers mostly from the social sciences (political scientists, historians, economists, anthropologists) who were to maintain their primary loyalty to their disciplines. But the disciplinary knowledge (in the double Foucauldian sense of disciplined and disciplinarian) of Latin American Area Studies also had the unintended consequences (Wallerstein, 1997) of opening a space to challenge disciplinarity itself. For the historical social sciences, the novelty that was to combine nomothetic and ideographic conventions by studying the history of "people without history" (Wolf), and trying to decipher the laws of motion of allegedly traditional societies, presented anomalies and challenges. An important "solution" to these epistemic and political dilemmas of the western structures of knowledge was the rise of modernization theory as a device of developmentalist discourse (Escobar 1995). In the imagination of Latin American Area Studies the vast territory to the South of the Rio Grande (the new frontier) was represented as the past of the United States, which was supposed to be the future of Latin America. A new modality of imperial/colonial discourse translated the colonized subject from the savage or the native into the underdeveloped. But, this evidently power-ridden and ideologically-based enterprise enabled the creation, organization, and institutionalization, of a large-scale knowledge-producing apparatus on Latin American histories, societies, politics, cultures, and languages, promoting academic institutions and think-tanks, both in core countries (United States, England, France, and Germany), and in Latin America and the Caribbean (especially in Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, and Chile). This knowledge industry partly facilitated the transformation of the cultures of scholarship and the university system in Latin America where the social science gained more prominence in since the 1960s with the organization of regional institutions such as the Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO).

Meanwhile, in the United States a critical strand of Latinamericanism grew in exchange with Latin American radical intellectual and political cultures that grew in the aftermath of the Cuban revolution. Intellectually, the most influential contribution from Latin America was what is commonly known as dependency theory, as a challenge to modernization theory, which articulated the new language of the civilizing mission of a geo-cultural other that now was called the third world (instead of the oriental or the tropics). More than a single theory dependentismo was a perspective from the 1950s and 1970s of Latin American Social Scientists to trying to articulate new theoretical terms of discussion and an intellectual and political space, to explain and explore solutions to the historical and structural foundations of the condition of political, economic, and cultural inequality of Latin America in the capitalist world-economy. Hence, since the foundation of U.S.-based Latin American Studies Association in 1964, there was a fractured between the official latinamericanism in the the knowledge industry of Latin American Area Studies and the critical brand of latinamericanism which worked in collaboration dependency theories and Latin American marxisms. However, the critiques and challenges performed by this radical U.S. latinamericanists remained within the general discursive and organizational terms of the westerns structures of knowledge and in particular the historical social sciences.

Reflecting on this experience, New York-Puerto Rican political scientist Frank Bonilla, in "Brother can you paradigm?" an article in which he intents to address from a Latino perspective the call of the Gulbenkian Foundation for a "Reconstruction of the Social Sciences", argues that when he organized "Structures of Dependency," a 1973 seminar at Stanford University that reunited Latin American dependency theorists with U.S. latino scholars, the project of Latin American Area Studies was in a deep crisis. As he observes, the crisis of Latin American Area Studies coincides with the emergence of ethnic and racial studies in the world-historical conjuncture of "revolution in the world-system" (Wallerstein, 1997) of the late 60s and early 70s. I will revisit Bonilla's argument later in this paper, but now I want to highlight that there was in the project of "Structures of Dependency" an attempt to link the emerging Latino Studies (especially Chicano and Puerto Rican critical social scientists) with Latin American dependency theories. However, some of the same critiques of elitism and lack of recognition of the knowledge produced by racialized minorities and working-class communities that the movements for Chicano Studies and Puerto Rican Studies were making to U.S. university-based knowledge, were also made to Latin American dependency theorists, who the claimed were framing their problematics more in terms of imperialist domination and the need for national-based critical theory and revolutionary agency, without problematizing the questions of the authority of academic knowledge and/or recognizing subaltern knowledge.

At this juncture post-war and cold war Area Studies was under attack from various fronts, from within the mainstream academy it was criticized for diluting the disciplines because of lacking a clear epistemological object and using a loose comparative method. In addition, after the heyday of U.S. hegemony and the cold war there was not the same urgency for area research. Finally, Area Studies were under fire from the movements for decolonization in the periphery and for democratization in the core, which criticized it for being another version of cultural imperialism and scientific colonialism. In spite of the merits of these last criticisms, Area Studies played a significant role in carving roads for multidisciplinary knowledge, developing "non-western" regions as legitimate objects (but not subjects) of inquiry, and promoting regionally based research agendas

What we call Latino Studies today, is an evolution from the the intellectual, institutional, and political spaces opened by the Chicano and Puerto Rican movements in the late 60s and early 70s. Chicano-Riqueno radicalism, for the most had a third-worldist transformative vision where national liberation implied the construction of politicized identities by retrieving memories of resistance; and decolonizing U.S. institutions by combating built-in ethnoracial and class inequality, and by promoting Latino power and self-representation. Late 60s Chicano and Puerto Rican revolutionary nationalisms emerged in exchange with booming anti-colonial movements and theories in the so-called third-world, and was informed by the understanding of Chicanos and Amer-Ricans as "conquered minorities" and colonial subjects. This colonial model was the dominant paradigm of the first programs of Chicano and Puerto Rican Studies. In general, ethnic and racial studies, as well as women studies (and later gay and lesbian studies) were the product of synergized struggles (of students and academics, community organizers, and activists of all sorts) to open and democratize universities. The demands of access for the excluded (working-class, racialized minorities), the democratization of university governance, the collectivization of the production of knowledge, the creation of a participatory pedagogical process, and the transformation of curricula to include the histories and cultures of oppressed peoples, gave shape in the context of higher education to the politics of decentralization, collective leadership, and local power that inspired the new social movements with a radical democratic ethos. This early moment of what we now call Latino Studies was also characterized by a search for an organic relationship between the university and subaltern communities, an active relationship between theory and practice, and an assertive campaing for the decolonization of knowledge. The critique of knowledge was threefold: first of the negative and stereotypical representations of Latinos in the U.S. academy and mass culture, second of the capitalist and colonialist character of U.S. university-based knowledge, and third of the marginalization and erasure of the histories and experiences of colonized peoples and subaltern minorities from the dominant vehicles of representation.

As U.S. urban expressions of the world-historical conjuncture of antisystemic movements, Chicano-Riqueno radicalism had a "third-worldist" transformative vision (influenced by the Black Power Movement) where "national liberation" meant the construction of new identities by retrieving memories of resistance, and challenging institutionalized racism with the creation of new institutions and opening their own niches within the old ones. This "American" strand of 60s radical nationalism was clearly influenced by anti-colonial struggles in the periphery of the modern world-system, and therefore was informed by the understanding of Mexican-Americans (politically re-named as Chicanos) and Puerto Ricans as "conquered minorities" and as colonized peoples. This colonial model was (implicitly or explicitly) the dominant paradigm guiding the foundation of the first ethnic studies departments which can now be classified under the category of Latino Studies. However, the intertwined but distinct histories of Chicano and Puerto Rican Studies had diverse origins and trajectories. Indeed, few of the early programs advanced the notion of "latino" (or what in the rhetoric of the times was the less politically sound one of "Hispanic") as a category of self-definition. Among the exceptions to the ethnonational norm, there were the San Francisco State University Deparment of "La Raza Studies" created after the 1968-9 student strike, and the Wayne State University Department of Chicano-Riqueno Studies. In the conjuncture of the 60s, the idea of "latinidad" was subordinated to ethnonational forms of identification, as a rather loose signifier of geo-historical belonging and pan-national solidarity.

Perhaps the most dynamic actors of the Chicano and U.S. Puerto Rican movements of the late 60s and early 70s were young students from high schools and universities. Their activism was predicated in a strategy of seizure of social space where the university was to be changed from being an alien place, to be a source of material, intellectual, and cultural resouces for "the community". The demands for "open admissions", the democratization of university governace, the colectivization of the production of knowledge, and the creation of a participatory pedagogical process; gave content in the context of higher education to the politics of decentralization, collective leadership, and local power that inspired the minority urban social movements for community empowerment. This will of building bridges between subaltern communities and the university, or more exactly to open spaces for racialized working-class minorities within U.S. institutions of higher education, was central to the ethos of the movement for Chicano and Puerto Rican Studies. The moment of "revolution in the world-system" allowed for the inclusion of this radical political agendas within a number of U.S. universities. The number of "minority" students in college increased substantially, and remedial programs were created to facilitate their admissions and financial aid, and (ideally) compensate for the incompetence of a socially and racially stratified public school system. A considerable number of departments and programs in Chicano studies were created (mostly in California) and Puerto Rican Studies (primarily in New York City). These sites becames significant contested terrains, not only in the struggles for university reform, but also among contending fractions within the ethnonational groupings.

The political crusades for Chicano Studies were roughly two year older than their Niuyo Rican counterpart. The first Chicano Studies Department was established in California Sate University at Los Angeles in 1968, and the first Puerto Rican Studies Department at City College of the City University of New York in 1970. As mentioned before both were offspring of the tail end of the 60s anti-systemic movement, and as such articulated the ideologies of Boricua and Chicano power. The very notion of Chicano and the rhetoric of Chicanismo was a reaction against the dominant Mexican-American middle-class interest-group politics of civil rights and "assimilation". In this tenor, Chicano student and community activists, and the new professors, conceived the programs as ethnonational enclaves within the universities, to facilitate a decolonizing style of research and teaching, that will help forge emancipated cultural identities by socializing a cadre of radical nationalists. The programs were also seen as means for making college resources available to extramural Chicano communities, and as forums for organizing and ideological exchange. This politically ambitious (and perhaps romantic) set of expectations was widely shared (in spite of the vast ideological, political, and personal schisms that were present since the very begining) because of the favorable global conjuncture and in light of the overwhelmingly unifying discourse of Chicano unity. After the decline of the 60s anti-systemic movement and the corresponding upswing in conservative power, the limitations of radical change within the U.S. capitalist university became more apparent, and the effects of the fragmentation of the movement in the programs was more deeply felt.

The profoundly politicized agenda of the early efforts for Chicano Studies combined with the scarcity of individuals with knowledge and experience in higher education institutions, allowed for the main emphasis to be on access and a maximalist program of democratization without clear and concrete ideas on how and into what they were to change the university system. As one of the protagonists of the movement reflects today, even within their own turf "the plan [of Santa Barbara] did not define Chicano Studies in terms substantive enough to constitute an authentically alternative curriculum," adding that "Chicano Studies" was broadly defined as simply curricula on the "Chicano experience with an overriding emphasis on the cultural aspects of that experience." This is symptomatic of a cultural nationalism (which as a norm co-existed in a contradictory fashion with revolutionary nationalism) that ascribed primordial unity to a Chicano community where class, gender, sexual, and spatio-temporal differences were secondary, if recognized at all. Paradoxically, an anthropological (largely implicit) notion of culture, and a sociological (and in many instances instrumental) understanding of cultural politics favored a social science orientation to Chicano Studies. Indeed, most of the early scholars on Chicano Studies were trained within the historical social sciences, and developed an academic double consciousness, on the one hand initiating careers in Chicano Studies, and on the other opening professional caucuses and doing research on "Chicano reality" within the traditional departments. This was consistent with the tendency within the early articulations of Chicano Studies of privileging interdisciplinary social science research. The only discussions that suggested a deeper questioning of conventional archeologies of knowledge was on the part of marxists social scientist who opposed marxism to the disciplines. To my knowledge, the discussion of the "two cultures" (i.e. the modern division between the culture of the humanities and the culture of the sciences) was virtually untouched. The nascent generation of cultural critics will not mature an interrogation of disciplinary boundaries between the humanities and the sciences (i.e. the two cultures) until the mid 1980s. The "subjugated knowledges" (primarily gender and sexuality) remained forgotten within the historical discourses of "la raza" until their self-emancipation in the 1980s. Until then, the dominant episteme assumed a transparent (and instrumental) relationship between knowledge and power (based on a realist notion of truth, and a populist understanding of the relationship between theory and practice), in which the organic unity between an essentialized Chicano community and the authentic research and teaching conducted by indigenous programs of Chicano Studies, will raise historical and political consciousness, hence promoting radical change and progress. The changes proved to be more modest and difficult, but the programs left institutional marks, and opened spaces that were to serve as significant loci for intellectual and political struggles.

As in the case of Chicano Studies, the histories of Puerto Rican Studies still need to be written. This within itself is a sign of the early age and small size of the U.S. Puerto Rican intelligentsia. But is also an indication of a relative lack of self-reflexivity, partly because of a celebratory attitude that is consistent with the ethnonationalist premises of the field, as well as an example of the relative small output of intellectual production of a generation of scholars who is still dedicating much of its energy to survive in a hostile institutional environment. Like in the case of the Chicanos, the struggle for Puerto Rican Studies was as a principal component of a movement were educational activists were key agents. Given that in the 1960s most U.S. Puerto Ricans were still concentrated in New York City, is logical that Puerto Rican Studies began in the City University of New York, from where its spread to the State University of New York, and to public (and some private like Yale and Princeton) universities in New Jersey and Conneticut. By 1973 seventeen CUNY colleges had Puerto Rican Studies Departments or programs offering some 155 courses and rolling well over 6,000 students. A proposal had been circulating since 1971 to establish a research "Center for Puerto Rican Studies." This "Centro," which is today the biggest research institution for "Latino Studies" in the United States, began to operate in 1973. The institutionalization of the "Centro" was taken as a triumph of a coalition of student activists (mostly organized in the Puerto Rican Student Union), young scholars (many from the newly created programs in Puerto Rican Studies), socialist and nationalist fighters, and community leaders (mostly from social service agencies) who understood Puerto Rican Studies to be a central ingredient of their struggle for community empowerment and for Puerto Rican liberation. In the words of the leaders of the Centro "a variety of sheltered spaces were won where creative experiments of academic management, instruction, group study, and the organization of research and its dissemination have taken place." In its most intellectually mature manifestations, the movement for Puerto Rican Studies included "a critique of academic free enterprise and scientism... and demands for reforming the governance structure of the university system," and the "test of new relations in producing and sharing knowledge (by means of) the cultivation of working lines form the university to other sites were Puerto Ricans resist the pressure of class and and national subordination." Nonetheless, these critiques did not necessarily translate into effective proposals for university reform.

An important illustration of the theoretical and political tensions within the early Puerto Rican Studies can be seen in the differences (intellectual and political) developed between the Centro and the Puerto Rican Studies programs at CUNY. The Centro had an explicitly marxist framework of analysis that oscillated between an area studies guided tendency toward interdisciplinary social science empiricist research, and a more "dialectical" interpretation of the relationship between world-historical political-economy and culture (mediated by class and nation). Perhaps, it is in this sophisticated an creative marxist discourse within the Centro that we can find the first example of a critique of the dominant structures of knowledge within Latino Studies. In contrast, many of the faculty in the programs were trained in education and the social services, were more focus in teaching and organizing, and were less theoretically inclined. This does not negate the existence of scholars and important scholarship in the Puerto Rican Studies Departements, but partly explains how a division of labor was consolidated, as well as a differential allocation of academic status, that ended creating tensions and resentiments between the Centro "researchers" and the departamental "teachers/activists." This sort of division, together with the lack of resources, and the imperatives of academic survival, contributed to the consolidation of a "common sense" where Puerto Rican Studies was seen (as explained for Chicano Studies before) primarily as a site for the production of non-idelogical decolonized "usefull knowledge" of the "national reality" (in the island and its diaspora), as a condition for change and progress. However, the epistemological critique of the structures of knowledge did not advanced that much, and most of the research followed the respective disciplinary conventions of "normal social science". Along with the downswing of the movements, the differences in the Puerto Ricans Studies professional stratum exacerbated, competition increased, the logic of institutionalization and professionalization took over, and the programs incompletely integrated as sort of marginal sectors within the university system. In the 1980s, a new political and intellectual generation of U.S. Puerto Ricans (as well as "insular" Puerto Ricans who finished graduate school and stayed in the U.S.) began to inject new ideas and perspectives to Puerto Rican Studies.

These movements and their political and intellectual agendas transformed U.S. knowledge industries by creating programs of research and instruction, recruiting students and faculty from sectors who were barely present in academic institutions, effecting some change in the curricula and personnel of the disciplines, and opening the debate on standpoint epistemologies and the politics of recognition and representation that were to characterize the culture wars of the 1980s and 1990s. They also contributed to the framing of U.S. history and social realities beyond the optic of the nation-state as the primary unit of analysis, by developing a transnational approach to the histories and politics of their communities. In spite of these achievements, the early project and the practice of ethnic studies also had serious shortcomings: it's definition of peoplehood highlighted race and class and marginalized gender, and sexuality, and it's critique of the structures of knowledge did not articulate a full-fleshed epistemological and methodological alternative to disciplinary knowledge that could transcends the divides between the sciences and the humanities, and that could coin new discursive categories and terms of intellectual discourse. To some extent early Latino Studies can be characterized as new political wines in old epistemological bottles. Once the high wave of antisystemic movement enter into a downswing in the 1970s, the maximalist hopes for the relationship between theory and practice, and university and community were frustrated; the political, ideological, and intellectual contradictions within Latino Studies exacerbated; and a trend toward marginal professionalization and institutionalization gained strength. The revolutionary aura of ethnic studies was gone along with the theory of internal colonialism, giving place to a new contested terrain within Latino Studies that it won't be possible to map here, but in which one of the main debates was to be between the critique of power and knowledge from feminist, queer, and cultural studies perspectives from within Latino Studies, against both Marxist social science and policy-oriented empiricist outlooks.

The most recent period of historical capitalism (since the middle of the 1970s) include a higher density in the circulation of peoples accompanied by an intensification of the play of differences. The diversification and dispersion of populations of Latin American descent from South to North and within the continental territory of the United States, together with the increasing interrogation of the master discourses of national identity, correspond to the emergence of new modes of cultural and racial identification. The idea of latinidad as the basis fo a new "pan-ethnic" transnational identity, together with the demographic diversification, and cultural hybridization of U.S. populations of Latin American descent had created the conditions for the emergence of Latino Studies and the possibility of transforming of Puerto Rican and Chicano Studies into Latino. By the second half of the decade of 1980s, the volume and diversity of the population of Latin American and Hispanic Caribbean descent had grown and dispersed through different regions of the continental U.S. To respond to the needs and demands of the new immigrants, Puerto Rican and Chicano Studies programs began to diversify their curricula and to hire more professors of other Latin American/Caribbean national backgrounds (like Cubans, Dominicans, and Central Americans). The philosophical character and organizational form that these changes took depended on the particular conditions (geographical, institutional, political, intellectual) within which these programs were situated.

The present crisis and restructuring of the structures of knowledge at a global scale frames a contradictory set of scenarios for Latino and Latin American Studies. It is hard to identify general patterns but we can use the image of a revolving door to illustrate how Chicano and Puerto Rican Studies are struggling to survive budgetary austerity and endemic academic hostility (especially in public universities), at the same time that Latino studies are in vogue, and different sorts of fusions between Latino and Latin American Studies are rehearsed (especially in research universities). The rise of Latino Studies have two distinct sources that unwittingly coincide in their effects. On one end the current trend in Latino Studies is a result of cultural struggles (educational, art, media) for diversification and democratization of public culture and specifically of university-based knowledge, and of a new wave of student politics inspired by identity politics. On the other end, Latino Studies is an expression of an increasing commodification of race and ethnicity as cultural capital for neo-liberal minded knowledge industries competing in the academic market. That is to say, a deeper corporatization and globalization of U.S. knowledge-oriented institutions (universities, foundations, think-tanks) is also an important force facilitating the fusion of Latino Ethnic Studies and Latin American Area Studies. The next section will focus on the different paradigms: trends, formations, and narratives, of Latino Studies in the United States.

Latin American and Latino Studies: Contested Terrains/Competing Paradigms

As we have seen Latin American Area Studies and Latino Ethnic Studies have distinct and even opposing genealogies (Caban), given their different timing in the histories of the modern world-system (rise v decline of U.S. hegemony), enabling agencies (powerful institutions v antisystemic movements), as well as their main political goals (modernization and crisis management v democratization of the university system) and epistemological projects (interdisciplinary research with a comparative method v decolonization of knowledge production and pedagogy). However, since very early in their formation as fields of interdiscipline both of them became contested terrains for a diversity of intellectual and political claims. A critical brand of Latin American Studies, with both U.S. and Latin American expressions and influences, challenged the officialdom within the area. On the other hand, after the downswing in the wave of antisystemic movements and the consequent institutionalization and professionalization of Latino Studies, the field was partly transformed into a marginal academic sector struggling to survive neo-conservative attacks and neo-liberal budgetary retrenchments. A full consideration of the rich diversity of this process in both areas will require a sort of detailed examination of institutional and sub-regional histories that is beyond the possibilities of this essay. However, to get a general picture, I will map-out some of the most important problems under discussion in both Latin American and Latino Studies in order to assess the current epistemological and political arenas.

To draw a general picture of Latin American and Latino Studies in the U.S. is useful to distinguish four sub-national regions: Southwest, Northeast, Midwest, and Southeast. In these regions Latino Studies developed differentially in light of: specific histories and locations within the U.S./Latin America-Caribbean imperial contact zone (1846-8 Mexican American War in the Southwest, 1898 War in the Northeast, 1959 Cuban Revolution in the Southeast), distinctive patterns of migration (timing and composition of immigration), differential modes of incorporation and community-making (class formations, social movements, leadership), and specific academic histories (intellectual, institutional, political). I am also arguing that these historical modes of migration constituted specific translocal forms of articulation between these regions of the United States and given countries and regions in Latin America and the Caribbean. These articulations organized social fields of action beyond the confines of nation-states. These are transnational contact zones which will affect the conformation of social movements and the advocacy for particular types of programs of Latino/Latin American Studies in each of these regions, as we shall see.

Indeed, these regions are more relevant for understanding the main actors, key populations, and principal themes of research for Latino Studies, but they also affected the configuration of Latin American Studies. For instance, it is no accident that the most important Center for Caribbean Studies in the U.S. is at the University of Florida at Gainsville while the main Center for the Study U.S.-Mexico Relations is at the University of California at San Diego, and the only independent PhD program in Latin American Studies, which concentrates in Mexico, is at the University of Texas at Austin. But, after the relative decline of Area Studies and the rising claims of the excluded to carve spaces in the university system in the 1960s-70s, it was the Latino Studies movement that created these regional academic niches. In fact, as we have seen, until the 1980s-90s most of what now is call Latino Studies, was known as Chicano Studies in the Southwest and Puerto Rican (and Black and Puerto Rican) Studies in the Northeast. But, in the late 1980s and 1990s, in light of the growth, diversification, and dispersion of migrations from Latin America and the Caribbean to the U.S., we witnessed the emergence of smaller scale movements advocating for both Latino Studies as well as for the organization of nationally-defined programs such as the Institute for Dominican Studies at the City University of New York and the Center for Cuban Studies at Florida International University.

1) The Southwest: The Southwest is the world-historical region which consolidated with the constitution of the U.S. as an imperial nation-space after the Mexican-American War of 1848. The primacy of the study of Mexico in the project of Latin American Area Studies didn't involved the inclusion of the southwest in that intellectual map. The formulation of the nation-state as the unit of analysis of the social sciences, the instrumentalist character of modernization theory, and the assimilationism of the dominant cultural politics in the U.S. acted together to marginalize Mexican-Americans from academic research and curricula. This justifies the fights for Chicano Studies of the new social movements of the 1960s. Nonetheless, the nationalism of Aztlan, also raised the banner of being a "people without borders" ("Somos un Pueblo Sin Fronteras"). From there on the metaphor of the "border" as a space of multiple encounters in opposition to dominant nationalisms became a theoretical and political keystone of Chicano Studies. The notion of the border, will later be appropriated by post-structuralism (French, American, and British) to speak about fluidity and diversity in the "play of differences", as well as by some arguments for the contextual and contigent character of knowledge. However, Chicano theorists developed the concept of the border as an analytical category to comprehend the systematic links beyond North and South in the Americas, and the arbitrary nature of the divisions among disciplines and between areas of knowledge (e.g., the sciences and the humanities). Consequently, Chicano critics played a leading role in the rise of cultural studies in the 1980s. For them, the border was material not only in its discursivity, but also in the arbitrary line that divide Mexico from the U.S. For them the border was an embodiment of imperial conquest and persistent colonial inequality. Thus, Chicano intellectuals challenged the project of cultural studies, since its inception, to recognize its predecesors in the programs created by the movements of those excluded from the academy, and to relate their cultural and textual analysis to the larger historical and structural frameworks within wich they ocurred. Chicana feminists, also questioned the universal category of womanhood that founded (implicitly or explicitly) women studies.

On the other hand, in the 1980s the Central American wars provoked massive migrations ( mostly of Guatemalans and Salvadorans) to the west coast. This resulted in a recomposition of the Latin American population of the region. This was accompanied with a dispersion of other Caribbean and Latin American diasporas in the United States (like Puerto Rican and Cuban), and a significant increase of migrations from the south to all regions of the country. The new demographics, summed to the production and circulation of discourses of U.S. latinidad since the 1960s and the new emphasis on pan-ethnic coalitional politics, promoted the use of the language of Latino Studies. Institutionally most of the exisiting departments, programs, and research centers, kept the name of Chicano but others began to be called Chicano/Latino. However, a number of newly created programs (mostly in the 1990s) began to be named as Latino Studies, this especially in private universities. In so far as foundations began to give money for Latino Studies, and new educational constituents to advocate for it, the organizational landscape in the West Coast began to change. However, most of what "passes" as Latino Studies, is still research and curriculum largely based on the Mexican-American experience. To close this part is important to observe that the institutionalization Chicano Studies and the profesionalization of Mexican-American intellectuals exacerbated the nature of Chicano and Mexican-American Studies as a highly contested arena. The Association of Chicano Studies amalgamate thousands of scholars from hundreds of Mexican-American Studies. Several disciplines (in both the Humanities and the Social Sciences) and institutions count with Mexican and Chicano Caucuses and Task Forces. This illustrates a situation in which contending projects of Chicano/Latino Studies articulate distinct epistemological outlooks, political proposals, and organizational solutions. A fundamental division is between those who ascribe to working within the historical social sciences doing disciplinary and inter-disciplinary work, against others who advocate for a cultural studies perspective. An important example is that of the division between the social scientists (mostly marxists) and the Chicano Cultural Studies advocates at the Ethnic Studies Program at the University of California at Berkeley (the first and still the most influential Ph.D. program in Ethnic Studies). Furthermore, those who defend a Chicano/Latino Cultural Studies can be divided between those who are more close to the culturalist variants of the field (mostly literary critics), and others (mostly social historians) who are trying to craft a social science approach as an alternative in-between (and beyond) the two cultures (humanities and sciences). This divisions also relate to different political projects like the debate on the relationship between a politics primarily based on recognition/represenration of identity/difference, and a politics mostly founded on class and national liberation.

2) The Northeast: In this region what today is known as Latino Studies is generally derived from the Departments and Programs of Puerto Rican Studies (PRS). Until the 1980s, these were concentrated in the City University of New York (where there are PRS in 17 University Centers), the State University of New York (SUNY-Buffalo had the first M.A. program in American Studies with a concentration in PRS), and some places in Conneticut (Storrs) and New Jersey (Rutgers). In the 1980s, the populations of Latin American/Caribbean descent considerably diversified and multiplied in the area. The tremendous growth and the arrival to political maturity of immigrants from the Dominican Republic account for the rise of Dominican Studies which consolidated in the establishment of the first (and still the only) research institution focused on Dominicans in the U.S., the Institute of Dominican Studies affiliated with the City College of the City University of New York. This was also a by-product of the inclusion of courses in Dominican Studies in PRS curriculum, as a result of student advocacy, the emergence of a Dominican intelligentsia in the U.S., as well as because of solidarity from the faculty and students of PRS programs. The first tendency in the PRS programs was to integrate the concerns of "other Latinos" (predominantly Dominican) in the curriculum and in the hiring priorities and virtually transform themselves (many times and for many people reluctantly) into Puerto Rican/Latino Studies. The fact that in the Northeast, Latino mostly mean Hispanic Caribbean descent, reflects the existence of a world-historical region that articulates the Caribbean with the United States. In the Northeast, there has been less epistemological evaluation and debate than in the Southwest, and in harmony with this, in some places academic politics largely degenerated into turf fights and an excess of professional competition. Hence, when the austerity policies and cutbacks (at the federal, state, and municipal levels) began in the late 1970s (and exacerbated in the 80s and the 90s) punched the programs, many of them were compelled to consolidate with Latin American Area Studies (like City College) to be able to survive. In the 1990s this converged with militant movements in private universities (like Cornell, Columbia, and Princeton) to develop Latino Studies programs. Ironically, when the programs were shrinking and struggling to survive in public universities, a combination of student activism, with the search of the symbolic capital given by latinidad (i.e. the commodification of race and ethnicity), to serve as a tool to compete with other knowledge-industries, moved leading private universities in the Northeast to give some minimal resources to start programs in Latino Studies. Now, Latino Studies is becoming a profitable enterprise with potential for funding, given that more students are looking to specialize on it, many intellectuals (including many Latinamericanists) are developing it as an area of scholarship, and a growing number of academics are considering it as a source of employment. In light of this scenario several private colleges in the area are developing programs in Latino Studies, even though most of them don't have departmental status and the appointments are housed in one of the traditional disciplines. The intellectual output of Latino Studies in the Northeast is just emerging, and most of the publications are from within in the traditional academic disciplines. There are more publications in the field of literature (both literary criticism, as well as poetry, drama, and narrative), but there are also studies formulated in terms of the historical social sciences. The few attempts to criticize the dominant structures of knowledge (and create new paradigms of knowledge) are coming from Latino scholars (most of them social scientists) working within the field of cultural studies. The earlier (during the 60s) intentions of radical transformation of the modes of production, disseminaton, evaluation, and uses of knowledge, need to be reserrected. Also, the organic connections between university and communities, and between theory and practice need to revitalize.

3) The Midwest: This is the only region of the U.S. in which there has always been a mixed populations of Latin American/Caribbean descent. That explains the founding in the 60s, of the only program in Chicano-Riqueno Studies, at Wayne State University in Detroit. Chicago is exemplary of how ethnoracial politics in the United States motivates ethnonational groupings of the same world-historical region (i.e. Latin America) to close ranks in order to gain political power and fight discrimination and inequality. Since the 1950s, Puerto Ricans and Mexican-Americans had engaged in a dialectics of collaboration and competition which had produced a Latino new ethnicity in the city of Chicago. Visibility and recognition in the university settings had been one of the claims for fuller citizenship of the movements organized by this ethnonational groupigns. Their struggles had achieved the creation of Latino Studies Departments in public ( like University of Illinois at Chicago) and private universities (like DePaul University). The most eloquent example of the flourishing of Latino Studies in the Midwest is the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor where a top administrator recently said that they were attempting for that university to be for Latino Studies, what Harvard is for Africana Studies. What is interesting is not only the rising trend of Latino Studies in the Midwest, but also the debate between those who defend the combination between Latino and Latin America against those who believe that they should be separate and distinct. This divide which correspond to the traditional distinction between Area Studies and Ethnic Studies - and their respecting specialists, Latinamericanists vs Americanists - is increasingly questioned by scholars who argue that the borders between North and South are increasingly blurring. Hence, if the colonial condition of Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans, and the Bi-national existence of Mexican-Americans revelaled the problematic nature of the national and regional borders between North and South, the development of Latino Studies in the Midwest offers the opportunity to build upon these realities and reflections to organize an integrated field of Latin American/Latino Studies that could have implications for the re-definition of American Studies and Latin American/Caribbean Studies into a larger field of Pan-American Studies, as proposed by academicians at University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, City University of New York (Center for Puerto Rican Studies), Duke University, and University of California at Berkeley and Santa Cruz.

4) The Southeast: The most significant place for Latino Studies in this region is the state of Florida. Miami is now the main world city of a Caribbean urban network, a cultural and economic borderland between the U.S. and Latin America, and a key site for Cuban dwelling and traveling. Cuban-Americans are the only "Latino" group in the United States who collectively have enough political and economic power to be the dominant "ethnicity" in a single city and to exercise substantial influence in a given state. Cubans have been in the U.S. (mostly in New York City but also in Florida) since the early 1900's. The post-revolution (after 1959) migrations concentrated in Miami, and by the 1970s the city was re-populated as a Cuban enclave. A fair percentage of the new Cuban immigrant came from the ruling classes and the upper middle stratum. This endowed many of them with the cultural capital and economic wealth that together with the enormous financial aid of the anti-communist programs designated for Cuban exilees, explain the rapid progress of the Cuban community in the U.S. Also, the system of class and racial inequality which existed in pre-revolutionary Cuba had it repercusions in the social divisions of wealth and power of Cubans in the U.S. In this sense most Cubans in positions of political, economic, and academic power in the U.S. are light-skin and come from the upper classes. Thus, the emergence of Latino Studies in the Southeast have a different political genealogy and character from the rest of the country. Cuban nationalism and political power had also promoted the persistence of the separation of Cuban from Latin American Studies. The predominant political conservatism had also affected the organization of the fields of knowledge, so that we observe a sharper distinction between the humanities and the social sciences in the dominant versions of Cuban-American Studies. However, there are significants expressions of dissidence, mostly of Cuban scholars (like Gustavo Perez-Firmat and Antonio Benitez-Rojo) who live outside of the Miami circle but whose intellectual production is having to most influence in Cuban-American Studies. Also, the most recent migrations and the increase of travel (human and intellectual) from Cuba is significantly changing the political culture of Cuban-Americans in general, and the cultural economy of Miami in particular. This increasing cross-fertilizations between Cuba and the global Cuban diaspora is influencing culture and politics in both ends, and pressuring Cuban/Latino Studies to take a more critical identity. The Center for Cuban-American Studies of Florida International University, the only of its kind, is oriented to the performance of a social science type of empirical research of the "Cuban community", defined in terms of a liberal agenda for guiding policy with useful knowledge. The conversion of Miami into a Latin American and Caribbean world city with a growing prescence of immigrants from several countries and locales of the South (like Puerto Ricans, Nicaraguans, Brazilians) indicates that Cuban hegemony is downhill, and that is most likely that we can expect more claims for Latino Studies in the Southeast. If we observe demographic changes in the state of Florida, we will notice more diversity in people of Latin American and Caribbean descent, as exemplified by the booming of the Puerto Rican population in Orlando. Looking at the region from a different angle, the University of Florida at Gainsville have one of the three (with Berkeley and Austin) biggest and most important programs in Latin American Studies. Its particularity is that is the only one that specializes in the Caribbean, a sub-region that is largely neglected in the U.S. university system. However, this program has nothing to do with U.S. Latino Studies. Its main orientation is social science (especially history and anthropology and it had played no significant role in the current epistemological and political debates in the status and role of area studies in the current crisis of the structures of knowledge.

In analyzing Latino Studies' main intellectual contributions and epistemological challenges, what is more significant is that the field emerged as an explicit effort from below (working-class racialized communities) to open-up and democratize/decolonize university-based relations of knowledge-production, governance, and pedagogy. As we have seen, this agenda did not acquired its full potential because of the political limitations manifested in the exhaustion of the antisystemic movements in the 1970s-80s, and in light of the epistemological shortcomings of a critique of knowledge in early Latino Studies that did not advanced far beyond addressing the question of exclusion (by criteria of race and class), denouncing negative representations of colonial subject-peoples, and criticizing dominant science as ideological, utilitarian, and disempowering to subaltern subjects. This incipient critique of the dominant structures of knowledge was important but the lack of a more fundamental analysis and fleshed-out alternative led the emerging area to lean toward a social science method and object, and even to disciplinary production of knowledge. Eventually, the seed that was planted by the insurrection of excluded knowledges (African-American, Asian-American, Latino, Native-American, Women, Gay & Lesbian) in the 1960s-70s was replanted and cultivated by the movement for Cultural Studies in the 1980s.

Latina/o studies and its scholars played an important role in the movements and in the institutionalization of Cultural Studies (Grossberg, Hall). For instance, Latino Studies prepared the ground for Cultural Studies by articulating a notion of culture as constitutive (and constituted by) power, and by claiming a space for transforming the structures and institutions of academic knowledge from the standpoint of the excluded and marginalized in social structures of power. But this links knowledge and power evolved into a more systematic and fundamental critical assessment of the dominant structures of knowledge with Cultural Studies' centering of the question of technoculture (Aronowitz), as well as of the arguments for standpoint epistemologies (Alcoff), and for a trans(post)disciplinary reorganization of theoretical practice and research activity, this also entailing a transgression of conventional boundaries between cultures of scholarship (sciences and humanities). But the relationship between Latino and Cultural Studies is a rather complex one in which reciprocal influences are combined with mutual challenges.

Chicana/o intellectuals and activists coined notions such as "border" and the "politics of location" that became central in the rhetoric of Cultural Studies. Both notions were key to a new strand of intellectual labor that accentuated not only ethnonational/racial and class oppression and redress, but also engage in a deconstruction of Chicanidad/Latinidad from the perspective of those excluded and marginalized (e.g., women, gay and lesbian) from the dominant narratives of Chicano/Latino peoplehood. On the other hand, the concept of internal colonialism (Blauner, Barrera) that served crucial in the revolutionary nationalism (Acuña) of the early Chicano movement, was replaced by the notion of borderland (Anzaldua) that was more appealing for an intellectual and political moment focused on the play of differences, translocal connections, and hybrid states of being and definitions of self. But for Chicana/os borders and borderlands are not simply as in some versions of post-structuralism, discursive spaces and theoretical metaphors to deconstruct master narratives and signify the multiple mediations of identity/difference, but it is also a material geographic imposition at the two shores of the Rio Grande, with concrete politico-economic and existential effects on the conditions of life and death of people of Mexican descent. The tensions between Chicana/o and Cultural Studies are more clearly revealed in the concept of the politics of location developed by Chicana Feminists to conceptualize the multiplicity of subject positions (class, gender, sexuality, race, ethnic, generation) embodied by individual subjects as a complex (and somehow contradictory) grid of domination and subordination, and to theorize this locus of enunciation as an epistemological location. Hence, here the critique of the eurocentric particularistic character of western universalism, is extended to all forms of knowledge including those produced within Latino, Women, Gay and Lesbian, and Cultural Studies. The question remains, as we shall see, is there (or should we look for) a criteria of universalism and objectivism, or there can only be localized and situated partial knowledges?

In the case of Puerto Rican Studies, arguably the most important contributions to the emerging constellations of knowledge are, first the attempt to center the enduring colonial relation of U.S.-Puerto Rico, and second, given the translocal nature of the colonial condition of Puerto Ricans, to clearly frame the project of Latino Studies (and by implication American Studies, Cultural Studies, and Latin American Studies) beyond the nation-state and within global, regional, and imperial frameworks. In spite of the theorerical and political limitations of the 1970s theory of internal colonialism, the persistence of the colonial status of Puerto Rico, and the everyday lived experience of colonial situations by U.S. Puerto Ricans, make the question of coloniality an imperative for Puerto Rican Studies. Thus, Puerto Rican Studies in the sense of a movement (mainly located in the U.S. but always in exchange with the Puerto Rican archipelago) for opening and transforming a university system biased with an imperial gaze, undoubtly raises the problem of the importance of empire in U.S. academic discourse. But interestingly and ironically, Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans had been noticeably absent from the current boom of studies on colonial discourse and post-colonial theory. I cannot fully take this issue here, but is pertinent to mention that this is symptomatic on the one hand of certain loud lacks in mainstream post-colonial theory, particularly the lack of discussion of the U.S. empire and its colonial subjects, but in the other hand is also a product of a relative stagnation (until recently and with important exceptions) of the theoretical and political treatments of the question of coloniality in Puerto Rican Studies. Concerning the structures of knowledge the main problem under discussion in this paper, Puerto Rican Studies need to explore, beyond the general pleas for inclusion, decolonization of academic representations and research, and democratization of university governance and pedagogy, formulated in the 1970s-80s, in order to theorize from the standpoint of the long-term history of Puerto Rican colonialism a more fundamental and systematic critique of the coloniality of knowledge.

In short, Post-Colonial Studies and Cultural Studies present challenges (both from outside and from within) to Latino Studies, that push the field toward more developed and fundamental analysis of its epistemological underpinnings and implications. Thus, since the mid 1980s, the newly defined field of Latino Studies emerged as a contested terrain between advocates of Ethnic Studies (mostly old guard social scientists, including marxists) defending empirical social-historical research and a go-back to the community populism; against proponents of Latina/o Cultural Studies (many newcomers from the humanities) practicing a combination of textual readings, socio-historical analysis, and ethnographic-based local knowledge. The latter, in exchange with currents in postmodern and postcolonial theories, developed the epistemological critique of the western structures of knowledge as predicated on a concept of the knowing subject as sovereign, abstract, disembodied, all-rational, self-righteously moral, and omnipotent. The argument is that this subject of western science and instrumental rationality is by definition an ideal representation of a white, male, heterosexual, capitalist imperial gaze, and as such an epistemic premise for the exclusion of women, homosexuals, "lesser races", natives, and subaltern classes, from the production of legitimated knowledge. Hence, the need to criticize the modes of legitimation and mechanisms of reproduction of the authority of western knowledge, to replace them with a decolonized epistemology based on a conception of subjects as embodied, gendered and eroticized, colonized/racialized, and therefore inscribed in power relations. This more fundamental critical stance on the epistemic principles of western knowledge involve a challenge to the hegemony (and to the alleged value-free objectivity) of science, as well as breaking the division between the sciences and the humanities, and among the individual disciplines. This kind of critical discouse became an explicit agenda for the new voices in Latina/o Cultural Studies (Alarcon, Aparicio, Sandoval, Flores, Saldivar).

In these new intellectual scenarios of Latino Studies, nation and ethnicity, though still important, are no more the only (and in some cases not even the main) locations from where to enunciate a position of knowledge. The question of identity has been deconstructed and complexified in a way that no single marker of identification is necessarily dominant, at the same time that the question of peoplehood had been conceived beyond the nation. To a large extent, and arguably in most of the analysis informing curriculum and instruction in Latino Studies, national identities take priority over Latino pan-ethnicity, but the field had also experienced a contestation of nationality as the main marker of identification, and developed more the implications of its always transnational outlook for transcending the nation-state as the main unit of analysis and principal terrain for political and cultural struggles, thus privileging the local, the world-regional, and the global. The relative decline of nationalism in Latino discourse facilitated for "race" and racism to rise as primary categories of analysis in Latino Studies (e.g., the specificity of Afro-Latino experience and oppression is surfacing as an important matter of theoretical and political debate). The growth of critical racial studies and critical legal studies as areas for Latino scholarship opened yet another intellectual space for the interpretation of latino identities as racialized modes of affiliation and subjectivity. However, even though Latino Studies always involved interpretations of latinidad (or chicanidad, puertorriquenidad, ect.) as racialized categories, for the most, it does not analyze latinidad as a racial formation (or racial formations within latinidad), and consequently Latino Studies had not articulated (with very important exceptions) a serious critique of the racial substratum of western thought and the racial logics of western philosophy as it has been done in African and African-American Studies, and in Post-Colonial Theory.

On the other end, Latin American Studies is now also a more contradictory arena of intellectual and political debate. In addition to the old guard of latinamericanists from modernization theory and language studies, and the old cadre of Marxist social scientists, there are also new voices and paradigms in Latin American Area Studies. I can't do minimal justice to the variety of these new approaches in this article, but will highlight some which are central for the issues at stake here. The first is an attempt from within social sciences disciplines (especially anthropology and history) to develop a critical perspective on hemispheric, national, and local relations of power in the Americas. This entails an interpretation of imperialism that is not only geo-political and economic, but also involves relationships of transculturation and unequal cultural exchange between North and South (Pratt, Joseph et al). This tendency to take the Americas (instead of the sub-hemispheric region and the nation-state) as the immediate unit of geo-historical analysis is also gaining momentum within the field of American Studies as exemplified by the last few meetings of the American Studies Association and in a developing dialogue and publications on new fields such as Americas' Cultural Studies and Subaltern Studies in the Americas that combine critical approaches in both Latino and Latin American Studies (Kaplan and Pease, Belnap and Fernandez, Saldivar). The second is an effort to organize a Latin American Subaltern Studies Group (analogous to the South Asian Subaltern Studies Group) by U.S. based academics (both North Americans and Latin Americans). This latter group composed mostly by scholars of literary studies and radical historians, articulates more of a political than an epistemological challenge, and oppose their project for the empowerment of Latin American subalterns (ethnoracial, gender/sexual, class) to the intellectual project of a Latin American Cultural Studies which has been maturing in semi-peripheral metropolitan centers (like Mexico City, Buenos Aires, Santiago de Chile, and Montevideo). This southern perspective in Latin American Cultural Studies articulates a critique of both modern and post-modern structures of knowledge in core capitalist centers from the standpoint of what some of the critics call peripheral post-modernism (Garcia-Canclini, Sarlo). The distinctive mark of this sector is their "post-modern" analysis of post-developmentalist neo-liberal Latin America, arguing for a breakdown of the master narratives of nationalism and world-regional revolution, and by means of an exchange with European and U.S.
post-modern theories, but also taking critical distancefrom theories from the core from a Latin American perspective (Richards). Finally, there is another group of Latinamericanists, most of them Latino and Latin Americans, from both the U.S. as well as from Latin America and the Caribbean, who contend in favor of a Latin/o American subalternism from the epistemological and political standpoint of a critique of coloniality within a world-systemic perspective.

* This is a section of a larger work entitled "Latin/o Americanisms: epistemological and political challenges." It has been edited by the editor of the Newsletter with the permission of the author.

Bibliography

Acuña, Rodolfo F. Occupied America: The Chicano Struggle for Liberation Canfield, 1972.

Aglietta, Michel A Theory of Capitalist Regulation: The U.S. Experience. New Left Books, 1979.

Alcoff, Linda Martí and Potter, Elizabeth eds. Feminist Epistemologies . Routledge, 1993.

Anzaldúa, Gloria Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza. Spinsters, 1987.

Aronowitz, Stanley, Roll over Beethoven: The Return of Cultural Strife.Wesleyan, 1993.

Arrighi, Giovanni, The Long Twentieth Century:Money, Power, and the Origins of Our Times. Verso, 1994.

Barrera, Mari, Race and Class in the Southwest: A theory of Racial Inequality, University of Notre Dame, 1979.

Belnap, Jeffrey and Fernandez, Raul, Ed., Jose Marti's "Our America" From National to Hemispheric Cultural Studies Duke University, 1998.

Blauner, Robert. Racial Oppression in America, Harper & Row, 1972.

Caban, Pedro "The New Synthesis of Latin American and Latino Studies", pp. 195-216 in Bonilla, et al., Ed., Borderless Borders: U.S. Latinos, Latin Americans, and the Paradox of Interdependence, Temple University, 1998.

Escobar, Arturo. Encountering Development: The Making of the Third World, Princeton University, 1995.

Fernandez-Retamar, Roberto. Caliban and Other Essays, University of Minnesota, 1989.

Garcia-Canclini, Nestor. Culturas Hibridas: Estrategias para entrar y salir de la modernidad , Grijalbo, 1990.

Hall, Stuart "Cultural Studies and its theoretical legacies", pp. 277-294 in Grossberg, L. et al., Ed., Cultural Studies. Routledge, 1992.

Joseph, G., Legrand C., and Salvatore, R., Ed., Close Encounters of Empire: Writing the Cultural History of U.S.-Latin American Relations, Duke University, 1998.

Kaplan, Amy and Pease, Donald, Ed., Cultures of United States Imperialism, Duke University, 1993.

Lee, Richard "Structures of Knowledge", pp. 178-208 in Hopkins, Terence and Wallerstein, Immanuel, Ed., The Age of Transition: Trajectory of the World-System 1945-2025. Zed, 1996.

Pratt, Mary Louise, Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation Routledge, 1992.

Said, Edward W. Orientalism, Vintage, 1979.

Said, Edward "Orientalism reconsidered", pp. 210-229 in Barker, et. Al., Ed., Literature, Politics, and Theory, Methuen, 1986.

Said, Edward W. Culture and Imperialism, Alfred A. Knopf, 1993.

Sarlo, Beatriz "Aestthetics and Post-Politics: From Fujimori to the Gulf War", pp. 180-93 Boundary 2 Vol. 20, No. 3, 1993.

Sarlo, Beatriz , Escenas de la vida posmoderna. Espasa Calpe, 1994.

Saldivar, José David The Dialectics of Our America. Duke University, 1991.

Saldivar, José David "The Limits of Cultural Studies" pp 188-203 in The American Literary History Reader, Gordon Hunter, Ed., Oxford University, 1995.

Saldivar, José David, Border Matters: Remapping American Cultural Studies. University of California, 1997.

Snow, C.P. The Two Cultures: And a Second Look, Cambridge University, 1965.

Wallerstein, Immanuel. Unthinking Social Science, Polity 1991.

Wallerstein, et al., Abrir las Ciencias Sociales Siglo XXI, 1996.

Wallerstein, Immanuel "The Unintended Consequences of Cold War Area Studies", pp. 195-231 in The Cold War and the University New Press, 1997.

Wolf, Eric. Europe and the People Without History, University of California, 1982.

Previous Article | Index | Next Article

APA Newsletters

Spring 2001 Volume 00, Number 2

Spring 2001
Volume 00, Number 2