Bienestar Social Rural: Improving Rural Physical and Social Well-Being in 1950s Mexico

BIENESTAR SOCIAL RURAL: IMPROVING RURAL PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL WELL-BEING IN 1950S MEXICO Stephanie Baker Opperman Assistant Professor, History Georgia College Faced with a devaluation of the peso and political demands to address unequal distribution of income among classes, Mexico’s President Adolfo Ruiz Cortines began his administration in December of 1952 by supporting small-scale public works programs that attempted to provide economic relief to rural areas. Moreover, the dramatic population growth in the 1940s and 1950s required additional governmental resources to address the inconsistent quality in health care delivery right at a time when the state’s finances were strained. The rapid dispersal of people resulting from post-revolutionary land redistribution also made it increasingly difficult to bring social services to rural communities. It was equally hard for these communities to feel that they were included in national programs . Ruiz Cortines believed all of these issues could be resolved under the banner of “community development.” His policymakers responded by incorporating new international rhetoric for the overall bienestar, or wellbeing , of citizens into their national policies. They hoped this new initiative would be a stepping stone toward their larger goals of widespread political cohesion, higher national standards of living, and increased economic productivity. Poor health conditions in rural Mexico prompted this renewed effort of government intervention. By the time Ruiz Cortines took office in 1952, smallpox had successfully been eradicated, but malaria and tuberculosis infection rates remained a constant concern. Nearly 60% of the national population lived in rural areas with fewer than 2,500 residents. The average life expectancy for men was forty-eight and for women was fifty-one. Only 21% of the overall population had indoor plumbing. Infant mortality rates remained high in rural regions and were largely attributed to preventable conditions such as malnutrition, diarrhea, and lack of prenatal care.1 In short, while the health treatment programs of the Ministry of Public Health (SSA) in the 1930s and 1940s made considerable improvements in disease eradication, many areas of Mexico remained underserved. Public health officials appealed to the President for a more inclusive approach, one that included the installation of a permanent medical staff in rural towns and campaigns that encouraged preventive medicine in addition to treatment.2 SSA officials were heavily influenced by the World Health Organization ’s (WHO) redefinition of health in 1948 as not just the absence of C  2016 Southeastern Council on Latin American Studies and Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1111/tla.12065 79 The Latin Americanist, March 2016 disease, but rather the complete physical, mental and social well-being of an individual.3 As translated by SSA representative Dr. Pilar Hernández Lira, the WHO document that set forth this new definition stated: Without health, one cannot work or progress; without work and resources , there can be no material prosperity; without this minimum of well-being, one cannot achieve human dignity or exercise their rights.4 Several Mexican public health leaders incorporated this new concept of health, including connections between health and progress as well as links between the well-being of individuals with collective social and economic measures, into their programs and publications. They incorporated the WHO’s connection between health and progress to link the well-being of individuals with collective social and economic measures. As a result, SSA leaders established the Bienestar Social Rural (BSR) program to reach out to previously semi-autonomous indigenous communities. They hoped to succeed where former rural health campaigns had failed by appealing to community rights, integrity, and active participation. A central challenge to carrying out the BSR initiative would be securing community participation. Most community interaction with the state had been limited to economic scavenger hunts and temporary interventions during health crises. These efforts were rarely well-received and, in fact, left a bitter taste in the mouths of groups seeking to protect their semiautonomous ways of life.5 Modernity projects inevitably carried with them the belief that indigenous communities operated on out-of-date economic and social practices, and these sentiments continually crept into official rhetoric and instruction.6 Many officials believed that indigenous groups had no understanding of either their right to health as guaranteed in the 1917...