The Vanguard of the Atlantic World: Creating Modernity, Nation and Democracy in Nineteenth-Century Latin America by James E. Sanders (review)

In the tradition of “Americas” and Atlantic history, Sanders challenges us to take seriously the central role of Spanish American nations in the evolution of democracy and modernity in the nineteenth century. Inspired by the recent literature about nation formation in Latin America, he presents a counter-argument to the more recognizable and standard narratives of democracy as beginning in Europe and extending to other parts of the world. Highlighting the originality of Latin American political thinkers, such as the Colombian David Peña and the Chilean Francisco Bilbao, and basing himself on Bilbao, he argues that the discourses and practices of democracy in Latin America were deeper and more significant than the written principles of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, which in any case were not observed consistently. Ultimately, he argues, the democratic practices of Latin American nations were overtaken and marginalized by the development of capital and European industrial modernity, and republican citizens were transformed into “workers for capital” (179).

Sanders’ call to take seriously the democratic discourses and practices of Latin American nations and intellectuals is an important corrective to Eurocentric narratives of democracy. His hemispheric perspective helps us see the political struggles in different parts of the hemisphere, including the United States, from a different angle. His combined analysis of the French Intervention and the U.S. Civil War is especially illuminating (144–145), bringing to the fore speculations from Latin American analysts that Britain and France, for economic reasons, supported the Confederacy.

Sanders’ broad-sweeping hemispheric narrative, however, leaves some questions unanswered. One example is his use of the term subalterns to refer to people without political power. The generic nature of this term tends to prevent us from understanding more fully who these people were; what differences might have existed, say, between indigenous, peasant, and Afro-descendant communities; as well as what divisions might have existed within or between communities with the same identity. In fact, part of the argument in favor of the term subaltern, as Sanders is well aware, was developed by Guha—subaltern studies’ intellectual leader—in order to appreciate the diversity of power relations within communities.¹

The issue goes beyond simply a methodological splitting of hairs. Unless we take into account the diversity of each political side and identify it carefully, we cannot fully understand the line of causation from democratic hope to conservative, even reactionary, outcome. The endpoint of Sanders’ argument, which involves the perhaps inevitable democratic declension that results in a world dominated by industrial capital, suggests that the line of causation comes essentially from capital itself—that industrial capitalism is responsible for the erosion of democracy and the plight of the working classes. I am not convinced, however, that the only cause of the erosion of democracy was the development of industrial capitalism. According to the research of this reviewer, Porifirio Díaz’s dictatorship in Mexico was more the result of class, cultural, ethnic, and regional differences among distinct factions of his own allies than of capitalism. Although Porifirio Díaz’s effective negotiations with foreign capital were crucial to the consolidation of his rule, they were not the main cause for his dictatorship, nor of its hardening toward the end.²

One of Sanders’ greatest strengths—the breadth and capaciousness of his coverage—is also something of a weakness. Although the ample reach of his analysis helps us to understand the important connections, across the nineteenth century, between the Americas more broadly and Europe, it also tends to preclude his ability to delve deeply into any one case. He is most comprehensive about Colombia, the location of his earlier research, and vaguer about Mexico. When dealing with Argentina and Chile, his analyses of individuals and their intellectual production is a great deal stronger than his analysis of the overall context.

Sanders...