Introduction

What role does Latin America play in the field of world history? This is an important question to ask as we move into an ever-more-globalized world. In the past two decades, world history courses have proliferated in many U.S. universities, and world history has slowly begun to emerge as a viable research field. Although Latin America plays a part in this globalizing vision, its place within the field remains problematic.The essays that follow examine the place of Latin America in world history from three different perspectives: how the region is written into world history textbooks, how it fits into world history research, and how it should be taught in world history courses. The authors ask what a more thorough incorporation of material on Latin America will mean for the field; all areas need to be considered very carefully, for each aspect affects the others.Jeremy Adelman’s essay develops these themes from a historiographical perspective, especially the role Latin American historiography in defining the region’s relationship with in world history. Adelman shows how Latin American historians (typically from elite backgrounds) from the beginning considered regional history in relationship to the “Western” world. While they first viewed Europe as the fount of Latin American civilization, by the second half of the twentieth century Europe had been transformed into the source of the region’s problems. Adelman has coauthored a world history text, and so he is able to delve concretely into the problems of writing world history from a Latin Americanist perspective. In doing so, he shows how Latin America has made its own history and has not just been an appendage of another region, even when it was under colonial rule. He takes Steve J. Stern’s approach (from Stern’s important 1988 American Historical Review essay) as an example.1 Adelman, following Stern, argues that subalterns’ particular and varied strategies of accommodation and resistance significantly affected colonial rule and provided an important interplay between Western Europe and Latin America. In this processual relationship, Latin Americans exerted considerable agency.Susan Besse, in a somewhat different vein, is concerned with how Latin America is represented in world history textbooks and what that means for understanding the region’s history. One is struck by the failure of most textbooks to discuss Latin America in any profound way. She blames this, in part, on the genesis of these texts (written by Europeanists and often evolving out of Western Civ textbooks). World history texts have, however, slowly evolved from what I would call “Rise of the West plus” texts (in other words, texts that have as their core Western Europe and then include the rest of the world as add-ons). One can now find a few that genuinely examine all regions of the world on a more equal footing. These more innovative texts are based not on the linear and European notion of progress, but rather on interactions between societies over time.2 Besse asserts that Europeans in most texts still are the actors, while Latin America’s populations, native and otherwise, are the acted-upon. She disputes this Eurocentric interpretation, pointing to the Haitian Revolution as a case where the effects of subalterns’ actions on the course of European (and world) history are ignored or dismissed by scholars and textbook authors. She argues that the texts, when they reach the twentieth century, leave Latin America out of much of the story and that there are new ways to elaborate on the connections between Latin America and the rest of the world. She sees the analysis of women’s roles and shifting gender relations as a particularly promising lens through which to examine these issues.Lauren Benton’s essay focuses on the frequently held view that Latin Amer-ican history is “atypical,” due to its early history of colonialism and independence and its idiosyncratic labor systems, culture, and ecology. Benton sees transnational approaches that tackle the issue of narrative differently as a means of overcoming the tendency to see Latin America as outside the common currents of world history. She addresses the research agenda within world history for Latin America and the subsequent problems of placing it within the larger context, arguing that only a transnational approach can provide an appropriate framework.Micol Seigel’s essay highlights how regions outside of “the West” are conceived and how to teach against such inaccurate or pejorative perceptions (which are held by textbook writers and students alike). She addresses the use of narrative in world history texts, arguing for a shift from today’s world history to a transnational history that would incorporating new methods and perspectives informed by subaltern studies and postmodernism. She reminds us that students’ ignorance about Latin America is actually a structured ignorance, in which Latin America (as well as other exotic places) is seen as the site of odd or unusual events. These visions are filtered through a popular culture that routinely reproduces the teleological narrative of a triumphant Western/Christian culture led by heroic white males. (The recent film adaptation of Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings trilogy, especially The Return of the King, is only the latest installment in this remarkably durable leitmotif.) To counteract such seemingly intractable assumptions, she suggests foregrounding the transnational/global ramifications of Latin American history and culture, rather than how historical events “outside” Latin America have acted upon the region.There are many common threads among all of these stimulating essays. The authors agree that Latin America has been largely shortchanged within the context of world history: in textbooks, in the classroom, and in research agendas. The ghosts of Western Civ loom large over this history of neglect, since, perhaps more than any other region (with the possible exception of Africa), Latin America has been widely seen as victimized by Western Europe and the United States. World history texts—often written by Europeanist scholars or originating as books that tell the story of the effect of Western Europe on the world—routinely reproduce the Latin America’s marginality or simply introduce a bit more information on the region without changing the overall narrative. Only some very recent texts make a more serious effort to address this problem, principally by proposing multiple narratives to replace a single grand narrative, a trend one hopes will continue.The problem, however, is systemic within world history, and my suspicion is that things will not change soon. First of all, the structure of the textbook industry makes substantive change very difficult and slow. The majority of the most popular texts still proceed from the old Western European paradigm, and the commercial presses (having invested considerable resources in them) are hardly eager for drastic changes. Publishers prefer to amend their old texts and issue new editions rather than run the risk of bringing out new texts. In addition, the Western European paradigm is one that, I suspect, is comfortable to many college teachers, since most world history teachers are not Latin Americanists (though it is becoming more typical for Latin Americanist job descriptions to require world history as a teaching area).World history is also usually a service course that is not conceived of as a research field. There is little recompense for scholars to do much research or reading in this field, and instead they concentrate on their own regional specialty. The institutional setting also matters. Where instructors teach many courses per semester, it is difficult to do much reading on specific regions above and beyond the assigned texts. Professors in community colleges, certain liberal arts colleges, and large state universities often face high course loads and large class sizes; under such circumstances, it easiest simply to follow the assigned texts without doing much reading on unknown regions or histories.3Another problem is the way in which world history texts are written. Authors try to present, in a small space, complex processes that can be compared over various societies. This is, of course, the power of world history; at its best, it contextualizes on a grand scale. But as a result, Latin America’s particularities are often glossed over, since they make Latin America less comparable to other regions. A tension always exists between writing about general patterns and offering the “telling example” that illustrates the general principle but might deviate slightly in its details. In other words, world history textbook authors usually begin with the general and present illustrative examples, rather than presenting specific cases and drawing general principles from them: a deductive, rather than inductive, presentation, if you will. This washes out different and subtle interpretations, one reason why Seigel would opt for a transnational, rather than a world historical, approach.How, then, can one teach the specific (and, in particular, Latin America) within this context? The forum essays provide some suggestions and possibilities. All suggest, in one way or another, that the specific should lead to the general rather than vice versa. Besse contends that a gendered world history—and in particular, one that reflects recent scholarly shifts away from seeing feminism and gendered social change as originating in Western Europe and radiating to the rest of the globe—has considerable potential to engage both the specific and the general. Highly critical of world history as currently constituted, Seigel shows how a transnational historical approach to jazz might situate Latin America within global historical processes. But she also acknowledges that this teaching strategy runs counter to the structure of existing textbooks.Another problem in world history texts is that authors do not always understand Latin America’s issues completely and in all their complexities. This problem, of course, is not limited to writing on Latin America, given that textbook authors cannot possibly attend to all the historiographical discussions of all regions they discuss.4 Indeed, this is the principal argument of those who oppose the rise and spread of world history. Some of the subtleties inevitably escape the nonexpert. I remember consulting with a colleague who is a China specialist concerning a comparative topic when I was writing part of Experiencing World History.5 Although I had read some books on the subject, our discussion revealed a whole other universe of possibilities that I had not considered from my Latin Americanist perspective. I wonder how many other issues in other world regions I had not understood perfectly in my endeavor to gain the larger comparative perspective?6 As Latin Americanists read world history texts, the lack of full understanding of other parts of the world at times becomes painfully obvious.One more comment on points not raised in these essays: I suspect that Latin Americanists in the United States are, at present, much more concerned with the question of world history than are historians in Latin America. The most influential contribution of Latin American scholars to the project of world history was the development of dependency theory; however, the “de-pendistas” were primarily sociologists. Today few Latin American history departments teach “Historia Universal,” except in the old Eurocentric tradition. Most Spanish-language world history texts are produced in Spain, where the Eurocentric versions of history still predominate. Moreover, research on world history, if embryonic in North America, is virtually nonexistent in Latin America. Most Latin American historians specialize in their own national histories and do research in their own countries or, at best, in neighboring ones. Few make research ventures outside the region or have access to the relevant bibliographies. Finally, scholarly communities in much of Latin America have little interest in “provincializing Europe,” to cite Dipesh Chakrabarty’s phrase. That is partly because Western Europe—whether Iberia in the case of more conservative scholars or France in the case of more left-leaning intellectuals—serves as a crucial countervailing reference to the threat of intellectual and cultural “Americanization.”7 U.S.-based historians have begun to think about this much more precisely, because so much history of the world is written in English and because the subject appears increasingly relevant as the United States projects its power and culture (for better and worse) around the globe. At the same time, ironically, world history instructors are becoming ever more critical of the narrative of the West Triumphant.What can we learn from all of this? First of all, these essays are a good starting point for examining the roles that Latin America plays (and doesn’t play) in world history. The position of Latin America in world history texts remains problematic, although the situation is improving. The position of Latin America in the world history classroom is also problematic, due both to its perception as “atypical” with respect to general world historical processes and due to instructor’s shallow knowledge of the region. Micol Seigel’s essay provides explicit suggestions to counteract these problems; the other essays, if more implicitly, do so as well. Research on Latin America’s role in world history is in its infancy. This research is simultaneously complicated and nurtured by the increasing rejection, both in the United States and Latin America, of grand narratives or, as Susan Besse critically calls it, “big history.” In the meantime, what follows are some thought-provoking essays that I hope will stimulate debate and make us more conscious of both the potential and the problems of placing Latin America within a world historical context

Latin Americans · Political science · Colonialism, slavery, and trade · History · Law

• Teaching history on the border

  Julio Noboa•International Journal of…•2013

  Add to list

• Globalizing the History of Disease, Medicine, and Public Health in Latin America

  Michael Espinosa, Mariola Espinosa•Isis•2013

  Add to list

• Between the National and the Universal

  Regina Horta Duarte•Isis•2013

  Add to list

• Burying the White Gods

  Camilla Townsend•The American Historical Review•2003

  Add to list