El Porfiriato

In this brief but comprehensive survey of Porfirian historiography, Mauricio Tenorio Trillo and Aurora Gómez Galvarriato deftly define the landmark historical studies on this period and the development of more detailed and nuanced histories on a plethora of topics relevant to the Porfiriato, including land tenure, industry, commerce, political centralization, and many others. In order to create this composite view of what is known about this comparatively understudied period, the authors have compiled a veritable treasure trove of crucial studies on the period and have identified important emerging scholarly trends.It would be impossible for a journal-length review to comprehensively summarize the breadth of materials that the authors canvass in what amounts to a 114-page critical review that covers the standard works of Porfirian historiography (Daniel Cosío Ville gas, Edmundo O’Gorman, and Moisés González Navarro, to name just a few) and more recent scholarship. The authors skillfully take the measure of the current state of knowledge in the field in the chapter “Mapa de lo sabido.” They argue that the basic assumptions held by most scholars and reflected in most introductory texts (for example, that the Porfiriato was a period of political and economic centralization or that Mexico’s government did little to or nothing to protect domestic industries against foreign competition) are simply not borne out by the emerging, more detailed research. Although the Porfiriato is understood as a period of national consolidation of all parts of life, a fuller appreciation is derived from extensive regional studies that challenge or at least more sharply focus generally held assumptions about this period. These long-held assumptions may not be entirely discarded, but they have too-long served to define rather than begin the conversation. As historians examine the Porfirian experience of individual regions, cities, social classes, industries, and other more specific instances, the reality of the matter is much more nuanced and the “progress” of Porfirian ideals more uneven than had been previously imagined. As the authors themselves put it “sugerimos, no hay master dixit que valga” (p. 98).The second chapter, “Lo por saber,” notes that despite the vast amount of source material held in publicly accessible archives and substantial privately held resources, the “Mapa de lo sabido” is disproportionately small and surprisingly lacking in detail. Beyond simply adding more empirical data to the debate, the authors suggest that a more useful general understanding of the period may also develop, offering several salient comparisons of studies of the Porfiriato to those of contemporary phases in other nation-states (the Belle Epoque and the Gilded Age) and to notable intellectual constructs such as Frederick Jackson Turner’s frontier thesis, Benedict Anderson’s imagined community, and Antonio Gramsci’s cultural hegemony. A more composite reading of extant and emerging research may well create a new starting point in Porfirian studies and challenge researchers to develop a more complex understanding of this understudied but rapidly developing period.This work will be useful to specialists in modern Mexican history as well as to those interested in a detailed historiography of individual topics in the Porfiriato. The comprehensive bibliography itself will make this a valuable reference work for some time to come. This impressive essay provides a useful snapshot of the current state of knowledge and inquiry in the field and suggests how scholars may aid its progress in future scholarship

Aesthetics · Archaeology · Art · Economics · Epistemology · Historiography · Humanities · Nothing · Order (exchange) · Period (music) · Political science · Politics · Scholarship · Treasure · Historical Studies in Latin America · History · Law · Mexican Socioeconomic and Environmental Dynamics · Philosophy · Political Dynamics in Latin America