Why a Social Revolution?

Summarizing a historical analysis of Latin America's first steps toward Insurgency

Thomas O’Brien’s Making the Americas is a great comprehensive historical analysis of the relationship between Latin America and the United States and how this relationship both transformed Latin America and positioned the U.S. as a global power. The book is an amazing read and takes us from the beginning stages of empire building in Latin America to the upheaval that started cutting those colonial strings. In this blog post I want to focus on a couple of interesting points in the book, specifically chapters 1-3 and 6 (Respectively entitled: Encounters to Expansion, Civilizing Empire, Defending Empire, and Nationalism, Communism and Modernization). Also, chapters 8-9 (Dictators & Revolution, and Insurgency and Insolvency) speak to the consequences of the U.S. trying to overpower a region of the world where they are not always welcome.

The first topic I found interesting throughout the book is the definition of “reform.” In starting this course I defined reform in comparison to revolution. Reform does not necessitate revolution, but revolution necessitates reform. Either way both require a sort of amelioration of sorts, or a reconstruction of existing structures. This book speaks to the United States’ “global mission of reform.” The way in which the United States defined reform included a desire to “fix” the deficiencies they saw in Latin America. Why did the United States want to expand into Latin American territory? The argument is that Latin America not only had something to offer (resources), but could benefit from the teachings of the United States. This argument of superiority persevered through the entirety of Latin American-U.S. relations and it is what led to a lot of the disagreements in the Americas and the eventual upheaval of many Latin American countries.

The deficiencies the United States saw in Latin America can take a gendered, political, racial, economic or cultural lens. Every aspect of living in Latin America was scrutinized by the United States. Big American companies coming in affected the economy. The United States sprung into action by militarizing numerous countries as the fear of communism spread. In these areas, along many others, the United States made its mark. The need to “Americanize” other countries sets the stage for much of the resistance that arose outside of the United States.

As the U.S. declared a War on Drugs that spread to Latin America, and as ties to dictatorial regimes grew stronger, the United States became a nuisance to the public it occupied. It seems that setting up military occupations in places like Nicaragua and El Salvador, the pervasive infiltration of Protestantism, the active aversion to and opposition of Communism and a strong tourist market shook up Latin America and incited social revolution. The attempts to “civilize” Latin America’s religious beliefs, political beliefs, cultural ideologies and economic structure lasted long enough to incite movement. This was the beginning of the end to U.S. dictation of Latin American politics.

In all, I think O’Brien brings up a great argument about reform (which is important to understand before arriving at the issues of revolution). One of his points is that America’s initial need to help Latin America was not in itself an evil plan, though it is just a form of benevolent colonialism in my perspective. In fact, the danger lies in attempting to reform but being unwilling to listen to the needs of Latin Americans. The complex of superiority did not allow the United States to hear what Latin Americans wanted or their own ideas of reform. Ultimately, this leads to a power dynamic that will leave one group inevitably discontent. Discontent, furthermore, is the beginning of suspending complacency and joining movements of social revolution. 

Women in Movement: Lifting Everyone

Melissa Aybar

After my reading of Dubois, it seemed appropriate to follow it up with Angela Davis’ Women, Culture and Politics. Since Dubois was so outspokenly advocating women’s rights, it was important to add the voice of women to the discussion of radicalism, reform and revolution. What better voice to add than that of Angela Davis? In this particular book Davis discusses three main issues: the pursuit of equality and peace, international issues and, education and culture. Yet among these broad categories encompassing the rights of women, there is an overarching message Davis wants to send and it is an important one. She starts with a chapter entitled “Let us all rise together,” and the book continually comes back to this point in discussing reform and the struggle for not just women’s rights, but all rights for a disenfranchised minority. 

I will focus on specific, informative, chapters (chapters 1, 2, 3 and 6) to outline Davis’ major arguments. The start of her discussion is as I have mentioned, the role of Black women and poor women in the Women’s Rights Movement. Within a movement trying to empower all women, poors and Blacks are marginalized yet need the movement the most. This marginalization led to the creation of new groups, especially as the third wave of feminism rose. Yet, though there were a lot of issues to address for the overall advancement of women and other groups, the movement rendered the most powerful calls to action invisible because they were Afro-American names. Why were Black women and poor women marginalized within a movement that was supposed to advocate for them? One reason could be that rich and White women did not believe they needed the same things from the nation and in turn did not want to use the movement to advocate for the needs of “others.” Some have argued that Black women are not compelled by where the nation is headed, or that Black women do not care about the politics of their bodies in the United States, but Black men and women have made their political voice heard even if in silence. Seeing as “more than 90% of Blacks did not vote for Reagan,” who articulated the “Black family model” as one headed solely by women on welfare, I would say they have taken their stand and have chosen to disagree.

This is useful in considering the Women’s Rights Movement. Movements need not just invite outsiders into the circle of advocacy and then expect them to fight alongside everyone else. Movements need to address the issues that affect everyone in the group as well as issues that affect the minorities within the group, so that the movement advances together. The Women’s Rights agenda needs to be comprehensive and Davis argues it needs to address the issues that affect poor working class women. Some of the issues Davis brings up throughout include unemployment, reproductive rights and unions.

I appreciated her discussion of reproductive rights because it brought to the forefront a ground that women can stand on together, even if in disagreement. Davis lets her opinions known, utilizing chapter two of the book as a platform for calling to action women of color in the fight against anti-abortion movements and sterilization policies. She wonders where the women of color are in this fight, especially since they are the biggest victims of this. This is an example where it serves individuals right to think about what the movement stands for and who benefits from it. This example debunks the idea that if Black women were the majority that the fight would be about them. On the contrary, though Blacks are the majority of women being affected by anti-abortion and sterilization projects, the movement still excludes them. Does this stem from the myth that all Black families are matriarchy? The idea that “x” causes poverty as opposed to the idea that poverty causes “x?” Regardless, movements cannot discuss structural issues without making it about those who the structures affect most. Therefore, the Women’s Rights Movement, as an example, cannot discuss poverty or reproductive rights in the lives of women is they do not speak about poverty and reproductive rights for Black women. The ignorance of this propels a subset of individuals within the group and further suppresses an already disenfranchised minority. 

There is no one factor that is the sole cause for disenfranchisement. Davis demonstrates through exhaustive examples that there are more and more reasons to be comprehensive in our fights. For the women’s movement, one thing is to incorporate the voice of those who need to be heard, and desperately need a platform to do it. Recognizing the voting pattern of Black men and women, for example, is not enough. While issues such as poverty, restrictions on reproductive rights, rape and sexual assault, teen pregnancy, etc. all affect women everywhere, it is affecting mostly black and poor women. Therefore, the movement cannot speak to freedom for women if it does not seek freedom for Black women and it does not allow for Black women to speak up for themselves as opposed to allowing others to share how they think they feel and what they think they need.  

Movements have to lift all. This reading segues nicely into my readings of movements and reform in Latin America. Davis argues that the minority in the United States, be it gender, race or sexuality, are all facing a disenfranchisement that is important to battle on a united front. I continue exploring how these movements are not just similar across the nation, but global as well. How do women fall into the sphere of radicalism in countries where patriarchy is even more pervasive? How do other movements incorporate the minority? Furthermore, within the United States how did the disenfranchisement of women play a role into the Black Power movement? Understanding the role it had for Dubois incites further curiosity of how it fit into the rhetoric for others. It will be interesting to read texts on the Black Power movement through a more specific lens, like that of feminism. 

Looking at Social Revolutions

Alan Knight’s Social Revolutions: A Latin American Perspective provides an interesting approach to thinking about revolutions.  This article sets out to challenge prominent revolutionary theories, as they do a poor job of accounting for Latin American Revolutions. Typically, dominant theories concerning revolutions regard certain pre-revolutionary processes as key to defining a revolution.  They also tend to consider a strengthened national state as the most important revolutionary outcome.  Latin American revolutions, as Knight explores, challenge these definitions on various grounds.

Knight’s piece examines Skocpol’s asserted theory of revolutions, which emphasizes state-building and international systems as the important causal and functional factors and outcomes of a revolution.  However, the case in many Latin American revolutions as actually the opposite; a state breakdown was not a causal factor in these cases.  In fact, in the instance of several Latin American nations, the revolution was actually the cause of the state’s downfall.  To address this theoretical flaw, Skocpol offered another explanation that situates ‘economic dependency’ in place of ‘international-state conflict’, effectively shifting causal emphasis from the state to socio-economic factors.  However, as Knight explains, even this amendment is not applicable to countries that experienced a social revolution. 

Skocpol’s amendment is still inadequate in regards to Latin American Revolutions.  Though it shifts focus from the state to social causes, it is weak in that it continues to focus on individual components of the revolutions.  Knight raises a good point in the need to distinguish causal factors of a revolution.  While social circumstances in two different countries may be comparable, the way they come together vary greatly between nations and do not necessarily follow the same path and exhibit similar patterns.  Skocpol’s theory condemns all revolutions to a particular pattern, leaving no room to appreciate Latin American countries’ disparate paths to revolution, “narratives that depend on a peculiar concatenation of events” [181].  

Social revolutions are defined as such because of their social revolutionary outcome, defined in this piece as substantial and irreversible socio-political changes.  They do not follow the typical patterns of revolutions as put forth by prominent theories that focus primarily on “the great revolutions”.  Following the standard theoretical approach overlooks the important lasting outcomes of social revolutions.  I think it is important to challenge the lens through which we define revolutions.  Accepting prominent theories of revolutions could not possibly express the successes (or failures) of Latin American revolutions as the standards do not regard important aspects of these revolutions in their focus. 

Knight briefly talked about how revolutionary successes often do not correspond to the intentions of their participants, but that the revolutionary projects are purposefully planned.  Particularly interesting to me was the assertion that, even when a revolutionary regime fails to maintain power, a revolution may still be successful if it has brought about “substantial and irrevocable socio-political change,” because, in the end, long-term structural changes are the key to social revolutions.  This point better orients me in deciphering successful and unsuccessful aspects of revolutions.  I expect to continue my studies on revolutions and reforms with this notion in mind.  Is a revolution successful if it achieves only some structural changes?  What revolutions do we consider more successful than others, why?

Discontent and Division in Feminism

Between the readings concerning civil rights, sex, and the move to radicalism, I focused particularly on the division between mainstream Feminism and the broader Women’s Rights Movements.  The frustration with Feminism is not a recent phenomenon, as bell hooks remembers in  Ain’t I a Woman? I think any discussion on feminism should include if not begin with the limitations of Feminist theory as it is generally understood.

 It is not by innocuous that a Google image search of “feminism” yields mostly photos of Rosie the Riveter.  Born out of 1940s war propaganda, she became the widely recognized symbol of feminism that women are capable of doing the same manual labor as men.  However, while the question of women’s physical capabilities was one at the forefront of that era of feminism, it failed to address the circumstances of all women in the country.  It erased the experience of black women of who, since the start of the country, were unquestioningly expected to work side by side with men.  The title of bell hooks’ 1981 work reflects on Sojourner Truth’s powerful assertion in 1851 that still rings true today.  The larger experience of black women and all women of color in America is ignored by the mainstream concerns of feminism.  As exemplified by Rosie, middle class white women’s concerns trump feminist conversation.  The lack of black feminist voice and participation in feminist movements was often brushed off to lack of concern or understanding of women’s issues.  However, hooks and Davis are sure to explain that, rather, black women have historically faced an impossible task, in the face of colonization and imperialism, of leading – let alone being heard within – a national woman’s movement. 

Systemic barriers to productively participating in a national movement are of particular importance to especially marginalized groups.  While feminism generally sought to promote women’s equality to men, women of color fighting for basic human rights did not see their grievances advanced to a national platform.  Davis emphasizes the importance of recognizing not only the goals of the larger group, but also those on the margins, specifically black and poor women.  She asserts that this will increase the cohesion of the group, so that all women may rise out of oppression together, with those at the top pulling up those at the bottom, so to speak. 

Beyond addressing the issues of those typically considered minority for whatever reason, Davis instructs us that it is of particular importance for those women “at the top” – students, and professional women, upper middle class women – to actually accept leadership from those marginalized women they typically overlook.  This is the basic idea that prompted black women to promote a new, revamped Women’s Movement that would seek to further benefit all of humanity, regardless of race and gender.  Davis promotes the importance of recognizing common goals of a movement, but also how particular problems affect some populations more than others, namely poor and black women.  This notion is the basis for the term coined by Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw in 1989, “intersectionality” which appreciates how the many forms of discrimination simultaneously interact in an individual’s life and may not be separated.

Consider an analogy to traffic in an intersection, coming and going in all four directions.  Discrimination, like traffic through an intersection, may flow in one direction, and it may flow in another. If an accident happens in an intersection, it can be caused by cars traveling from any number of directions and, sometimes, from all of them. Similarly, if a Black woman is harmed because she is in an intersection, her injury could result from sex discrimination or race discrimination […] But it is not always easy to reconstruct an accident: Sometimes the skid marks and the injuries simply indicate that they occurred simultaneously, frustrating efforts to determine which driver caused the harm.

(Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, 1989. P149)

Davis and hooks remind us of the importance of advancing issues affecting all populations, not just a particular class of women.  Davis has readers visualize a pyramid, with white bourgeoisie women at the apex and racially oppressed women at the bottom.  Only when the position of those at the very bottom advances does the entire pyramid shift towards a common goal. 

I think it is important to remember this notion in future readings and discussions of radicalism both in the US and Latin America.  I am particularly interested in how more radical movements did or did not incorporate marginalized members.  In the future, I will be looking for hierarchical patterns in other radical movements and how leaders were and were not successful in advancing movements as a whole.