Latin America in Debate: Indigeneity, Development, Dependency, Populism, Maristella Svampa, translated by Alejandro Reyes, 2025, Duke University Press
There is no doubt that the conceptual contributions, debates, and topics cherished by theoretical and social reflection within Latin America itself are often rendered invisible in intellectual history.
There are various reasons for this, among them a form of intellectual dependency but also the theft of regional knowledge and theory by scholars from outside, what Maristella Svampa calls “epistemic expropriation”.
This invisibility of Latin American theoretical production and the process of epistemic expropriation, she argues, strengthen the notion that there are no general theories in Latin America but rather a “specific gaze”.
Svampa writes: “In other words, the concepts that compose Latin American philosophy and social sciences, rather than being generally applicable or comprising theories with a certain universal relevance, are encapsulated in the specific, a discourse about and from the margins, characterised by a local colour and an obsession with identity and case studies.”
One product of this has been a reading by many Latin American scholars of their reality in relation to Europe which concludes that what is most characteristic of the region is “its deficit, its shortfalls, its incompleteness”—a feeling of inferiority that permeates philosophy.
In recent decades, Svampa points out, Latin American critical thought has examined this issue of epistemic dependency in depth, and the author highlights three critical currents in this respect: the subaltern and postcolonial perspective; the decolonial perspective, condensed in the concept of the “coloniality of power” proposed by Peruvian sociologist Aníbal Quijano; and the Epistemologies of the South of the Portuguese essayist Boaventura de Sousa Santos, a reflection on an ecology of knowledges and intercultural translation.
In an effort to address this, Svampa sets herself the task of exploring four prominent debates in the intellectual history of the region: indigenous struggles and the place of indigenous peoples in the process of nation building; the revival of populism and its meaning and interpretation; the return of the concept of development, through the expansion of various forms of extractivism; and the thorny, recurrent associated question of dependency.
Latin America in Debate explores these four “essential” themes both in history and their contemporary relevance, to illustrate the intersection between disciplines including social theory, the history of ideas, and Latin American political and economic thought.
Svampa takes the reader on a stimulating and eloquent journey that veers into contemporary indigenous thought, political ecology and the feminisms of the South.
In Latin America, the author concludes, such debates do not respond to the canonical model of Europe and the United States—requiring of the student careful attention to the significant difficulties this poses for understanding the challenges facing democracy in the region.
Svampa writes: “Maladjustment, asymmetries, structural heterogeneity, variegation, dislocation, and especially dependency as the great master frame and populism as a specificity are categories that reflect this difficulty in comprehending Latin America’s reality, its social classes and processes of social mobilisation, and its political regimes from a ‘normalising’ perspective or through preestablished patterns, as both the theory of modernisation and orthodox Marxism intended.”
Read this and receive articles straight to your inbox by subscribing on Substack. Please help the Latin American Review of Books: subscribe on Substack for just one month ($5) or make a donation through Stripe or PayPal (to editor@latamrob.com)
Categories: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, South America