Final Report Summary - STATEBGLATAMERICA (A Comparative History of the State Building process in Latin America (1820-1870))
Our conception of the Latin American state and the process of its construction during the nineteenth century have been reformulated by the results of our investigation. We now envision this state as a “camp of forces” [Bourdieu], in which diverse social actors (and individuals) act in a crisscross pattern, disputing the control over the camp. This “camp of forces”, however, can only be apprehended in its process of development, in its evolution, given that except for the exceptional cases of “absolute” totalitarian states, these disputes for the control of the camp do not allow for phases of stability that can last very long.
Representing the exact opposite of the “apparatus” that is habitually used to describe it. This conception is a reification of the state, viewing it as a device, as a thing, as something possessing physical weight. Under this characterization, that dissocialize the foundations of state domination, the state finally seems to become detached from society, turning into a thing that—apparently—has its own life and an existence alien to any social relationship. On the contrary, we think that the state is rather a framework of social relations of domination, which is constantly at the boiling point, in perpetual upheaval and instability.
This characterization, which we believe is also valid for the process of state-building in many Western States well into the nineteenth century, is more readily visible in the process of state-building in Latin America during the same century. As the process of state construction is being consolidated, there are sectors of the “camp of forces” that are progressively institutionalized (such as the civil servants or armed forces), but we remain under the impression that this process of institutionalization always remains unstable at least until well beyond the period we studied, to wit 1815-1875. This obviously explains the rampant fragility that characterizes the process of construction of all the Latin American states during the nineteenth century and even in some cases during a considerable part of the twentieth.
Representing the exact opposite of the “apparatus” that is habitually used to describe it. This conception is a reification of the state, viewing it as a device, as a thing, as something possessing physical weight. Under this characterization, that dissocialize the foundations of state domination, the state finally seems to become detached from society, turning into a thing that—apparently—has its own life and an existence alien to any social relationship. On the contrary, we think that the state is rather a framework of social relations of domination, which is constantly at the boiling point, in perpetual upheaval and instability.
This characterization, which we believe is also valid for the process of state-building in many Western States well into the nineteenth century, is more readily visible in the process of state-building in Latin America during the same century. As the process of state construction is being consolidated, there are sectors of the “camp of forces” that are progressively institutionalized (such as the civil servants or armed forces), but we remain under the impression that this process of institutionalization always remains unstable at least until well beyond the period we studied, to wit 1815-1875. This obviously explains the rampant fragility that characterizes the process of construction of all the Latin American states during the nineteenth century and even in some cases during a considerable part of the twentieth.