Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T15:42:40.914Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Revisiting Bolivian Studies: Reflections on Theory, Scholarship, and Activism since 1980

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2022

Brooke Larson*
Affiliation:
State University of New York at Stony Brook, US
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As both a focus and locus of vibrant scholarly work, the field of Bolivian studies burst onto the international scene, carving a distinctive niche for itself within the larger fields of Andean and Latin American studies over the past twenty-five years. Bolivia went from being the hemisphere’s “least studied” country, according to a 1984 LASA Forum survey, to becoming a beacon of intercultural dialogue, vanguard scholarship, and postcolonial debate. This essay traces Bolivian studies’ coming of age. Plotting the field’s developments and dialogues across history, anthropology, and ethnohistory, it argues that a dual process of academic decentering and epistemic reinvention unfolded in Bolivia at the height of its indigenous and popular mobilizations during the 1990s and early 2000s. The article closes by identifying five thematic clusters of recent research and briefly reflects on the place of Bolivian scholarship in the wider purview of Andean studies.

Como foco y lugar de trabajo académico vibrante, el campo de los estudios bolivianos irrumpió en la escena internacional, labrándose un nicho distintivo dentro de los campos más amplios de los estudios andinos y latinoamericanos durante los últimos veinticinco años. Bolivia pasó de ser el país “menos estudiado” del hemisferio, según una encuesta del Foro LASA de 1984, a convertirse en un faro de diálogo intercultural, estudios de vanguardia y debate postcolonial. Este ensayo muestra la madurez de los estudios bolivianos. Trazando desarrollos de campo y diálogos a través de Historia, Antropología y Etnohistoria, argumenta que un proceso dual de descentración académica y reinvención epistémica se desarrolló en Bolivia en el apogeo de sus movilizaciones indígenas y populares durante la década de 1990 y principios de 2000. El artículo cierra identificando cinco grupos temáticos de nuevas investigaciones, y reflexiona brevemente sobre el lugar de la investigación boliviana en el ámbito más amplio de los Estudios Andinos.

Type
History
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Copyright
Copyright: © 2019 The Author(s)

Bolivian Studies Coming of Age

Any essay that attempts to cast a critical eye on “the state of the field” is a treacherous enterprise. One has to navigate between the Scylla of fawning praise and the Charybdis of damning critique, and then chart exciting new research agendas. Be that as it may, in 1988 I was provoked into writing just such a review essay on Bolivian scholarship for the Latin American Research Review. What prompted me was a 1984 LASA (Latin American Studies Association) survey on field developments that had ranked Bolivia as the least studied country in Latin America (see Reference LarsonLarson 1988; Reference MerkxMerkx 1984). Sadly, it was true, at least in quantitative terms. But even then, I could see that Bolivia, along with the Andean region more widely, was on the threshold of becoming a dynamic, interdisciplinary field of study—one located at the interface of history, anthropology, and ethnohistory.Footnote 1 I wanted to help bring the vibrant new work of Bolivianists (if only those residing in the United States) into the purview of Latin American studies.

Bolivia’s fate as the hemisphere’s least studied country was soon to change, however. I argue below that Bolivian studies crystallized into a legitimate field of study as Bolivia turned from being exclusively an object of scholarly inquiry in the global North into the primary geocultural “locus of enunciation” for scholarly theory and debate inside Bolivia itself.Footnote 2 The historic struggles for voice (and the politics of self-representation) among a new cadre of indigenous activists was rapidly unfolding in the Bolivian Andes in ways that would fundamentally challenge the social practices and purposes of academic scholarship (Reference LuceroLucero 2008). There was, I argue, a kind of dual process of academic decentering and epistemic reinvention going on in Bolivia during the 1990s that resonated with the postcolonial turn in Latin American studies more generally.

First, Bolivia emerged as a vital site of scholarship and debate, becoming a wellspring of critical postcolonial and decolonization thinking that has invigorated dialogue across several disciplinary niches of the Latin American studies landscape.Footnote 3 Second, and simultaneously, the locus of scholarly research and dialogue in Bolivia moved beyond the walls of academia, staid NGO offices, and government think tanks into civil society and popular culture—that vital, unruly informal sphere of community organization, struggle, and work. In short, the axis of knowledge/power moved out of the criollo academy (Angel Rama’s metaphorical lettered city) and into what Xavier Albó (Reference Albó, Beverley, Aronna and Oviedo1995) has called “the pluralist base,” where knowledge, struggle, and identity were mutually constitutive. Although Albó’s prodigious scholarship has circulated widely among scholars and activists across Latin America, it has remained firmly anchored in Bolivia’s resurgent indigenous and peasant movements—the core of Albó’s pluralist base—that surfaced in the 1970s under conditions of dictatorship and repression, and flowered in the 1980s, after the partial restoration of civil society and democratic rule.Footnote 4 This remarkable political and cultural effervescence was nurtured by local collectives of activists, teachers, and students experimenting with postcolonial and indigenous-centered research agendas and methodologies—ranging from scholarly collectives in search of silenced indigenous voices, hidden transcripts, and counternarratives to the field practitioners of an insurgent “applied anthropology” that served many highland ayllu communities in their ongoing land claims and quests for local sovereignty. In the present essay, then, the flowering of Bolivian studies is planted firmly in the subsoil of activist scholarship coming out of three converging fields of political contention: the indigenous-based struggles for political rights and representation in the 1980s and 1990s; the rise of progressive NGO-driven projects empowering local scholar-activists within a larger neoliberal, “multicultural” political order in the 1990s; and the crack-up of that neoliberal/multicultural framework under the pressure of popular mobilizations and epistemic disruptions in the late 1990s and early 2000s.Footnote 5

But let us not go too far in provincializing the North American academe and its community of Latin American scholars.Footnote 6 Postcolonial modes of thinking were also the stuff of postmodernism and critical theory (including the South Asian school of subaltern studies) in the global North.Footnote 7 But until the late 1980s, they had made few inroads into the field of Latin American studies, the precinct of embedded structuralist and dependency perspectives.Footnote 8 And no wonder: leftist scholars in Latin America were long intent upon exploding US-exported theories of modernization and democracy in a hemisphere torn by endemic poverty, dictatorship, and US imperial adventures. Furthermore, much of the best historical scholarship was still wedded to structural paradigms critiquing capitalist modernity and colonial legacies.Footnote 9 And yet, the cultural turn toward power, politics, and identity began to pervade Latin American studies, especially as America’s counter-quincentenary approached. The field pivoted from materialist (structural) questions to the contingent politics of power and representation (and toward a “new political history from below”) (Reference MallonMallon 1995a, Reference Mallon1995b). And the convergence of three critical fields of study—subaltern studies, postcolonial theory, and a decentered anthropology of indigeneity—created the perfect epistemic storm for thrusting Bolivia (as an emerging field) and Bolivian scholars (as knowledge producers) into the eye of the postcolonial hurricane. Those field disruptions also compelled a few outsider Bolivianists (like me) to go back to the drawing board and rethink the politics and conceptual frameworks of their own earlier work (see my critical appraisals in Reference Larson, Larson, Harris and TandeterLarson 1995, Reference Larson1998).

By the end of the 1990s, Bolivia’s vigorous indigenous and popular cultures had drawn a new generation of North American scholars into their fold. They brought their scholarly passions and postcolonial sensibilities to bear on a host of new research projects: Zulawski (Reference Zulawski1995) Thomson (Reference Thomson2002), Serulnikov (Reference Serulnikov2003, Reference Serulnikov2013), and Gotkowitz (Reference Gotkowitz2007), for example, produced magnificent indigenous-centered histories of peasant politics and rebellion. Bolivia’s contemporary ethnic movements also drew a host of social scientists studying Aymara, Quechua, and Guaraní movements, producing case studies often situated in the international context of Indian rights movements (for example, Reference YasharYashar 2005; Reference PosteroPostero 2007; Reference GustafsonGustafson 2009). Not least, the explosive growth of NGOs in postdictatorship Bolivia (and Latin America more generally) opened new spaces at the intersection of social science and policymaking, focused on such normative issues as grassroots (or “ethno-”) development, gender discrimination, and practices of democratic self-empowerment (Reference HealyHealy 2001; Reference Andolina, Laurie and A. RadcliffeAndolina, Laurie, and Radcliffe 2009; Reference HarrisHarris 2000; Reference LazarLazar 2008). That neoliberal decade of market-driven development in rural Bolivia, fueled by NGO projects in community-based enterprises or civil society projects, brought many indigenous organizations (as well as educated urban interlocutors) into the globalizing reach of transnational field researchers and their funders. In fact, over the 1990s, a whole generation of progressive (and opportunistic) Bolivian social scientists was buoyed, for a brief while, by the influx of transnational money promoting local NGO programs in multicultural democracy and social development.

Arguably, however, the most decisive shift occurred not in the transnational realm of high theory or NGO networking, but in the trenches of struggle and at the edges of Bolivian civil society. The irruption of Bolivia’s unruly multiculturalism, especially in the twin cities of El Alto and La Paz, saw the flowering of hundreds of grassroots activist groups of women, workers, peasants, university students, and indigenous activists over the 1990s. Local self-governing, deliberative bodies of men and women created grassroots laboratories for dialogue and decision-making in response to the government’s harsh neoliberal reforms and/or multicultural social reforms. These micropolitical contexts of “situated knowledge” soon became the sites and objects of engaged ethnographic fieldwork, some of it pioneered by Xavier Albó’s collaborative work with Aymara students and scholars at his Jesuit-funded organization, Centro de Investigación y Promoción del Campesinado (CIPCA).Footnote 10 Much of this grassroots intellectual activity was plugged into regional (and sometimes transnational) circuits of knowledge and empowerment that leveraged (as well as translated and mediated) local interests, ideas, and agendas that indigenous and popular groups were bringing to the proverbial table.Footnote 11 Yet, a new generation of Aymara-based activist/intellectuals—many of them first-generation college educated—emerged as primary “movement entrepreneurs” and, as such, became critical to the production of alternative norms and knowledges that fundamentally challenged neoliberal paradigms of capitalist modernity and assimilationist ideals of mestizaje. Inspired by Silvia Rivera Cusicanqui’s intrepid scholarship, teaching, and activism, it was this group of Bolivian scholar-activists who, far more than the purveyors of high theory in academia, performed the epistemic work of “decolonization thinking.”Footnote 12

An iconic example of this early decolonizing work comes from the formative years of THOA, the Taller de Historia Oral Andina. Founded in 1983 by a dozen Aymara students attending the San Andrés University in La Paz (many working under the guidance of Rivera Cusicanqui, their sociology professor), the THOA collective broke new ground in several ways. First, it improvised a communal ethos and methodologies to perform a combination of deep archival research and extensive work in the collection, translation, and transcription of oral testimonies of Aymara- and Quechua-speaking elders. In sheer volume and originality, THOA built a prodigious artisan workshop of ethnohistory, oral testimony, stories, and verse, as well as breakout historical and anthropological studies. Second, THOA virtually invented a revisionist indigenous-centered historiography.Footnote 13 Narrating the nation from “pluralism at the base,” THOA scholars produced and disseminated the evidence of “an autonomous indigenous historical memory and subjectivity [that had] persisted throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries.” This work drew inspiration from the earlier katarista peasant movement, just as THOA’s “activist texts” were to serve resurgent ethnic movements of the late 1980s and into the 1990s (Reference StephensonStephenson 2002, 105).Footnote 14 THOA’s activist form of scholarship coincided with the historic 1990 March for Territory and Dignity, culminating in the unification of the eastern lowland and western highland flanks of what was fast becoming a nationwide indigenous movement pressing for constitutional and social reforms. Third, THOA put its archival findings (and transcribed documents) at the disposal of indigenous groups lobbying the government for the restitution of their legally held ancestral lands. It devised tools and skills to help in the formation of ayllu federations in parts of La Paz and southern Oruro.Footnote 15 And, finally, THOA broke down literate and language barriers with a torrent of inexpensive bilingual print editions and the use of other media (popular theater, radionovelas, videos, etc.). This intellectual and cultural ferment opened alternative arenas of public debate, “where native peoples could explore their own identities, voices, experiences of political disenfranchisement, and cultural dislocation” (Reference StephensonStephenson 2002, 103).Footnote 16

The ferment fed by THOA’s insurgent scholarship quickly transcended it. A new generation of Bolivian scholars and intellectuals, many with deep roots in the Aymara and Quechua countryside, burst onto the academic scene to throw open new windows on indigenous history and cultural politics—to become the authors of “a history of our own that speaks to us” (the phrase is drawn from the 1973 “Tiahuanaku Manifesto,” written by Aymara rebel students). A new intellectual school of Aymara historicism, in particular, was registered in manifold ways. It was embodied, for example, in the life experiences and work of Roberto Choque Canqui, a prolific research historian and archivist who, almost single-handedly, plowed the first furrows of an Indian-centered history and historiography of Bolivian history.Footnote 17 Other Aymara scholars have traversed the Altiplano in pursuit of moral memory and Indian-centered reinterpretations of the past. Whereas Choque, for example, excavated documentary sediments to uncover the tracks of indigenous actors, Waskar Ari tapped into oral memory and plumbed the depths of cacique and community archives to open a window on the obscure Alcalde Mayor Particular (AMP) movement and its novel uses of essentialist legal discourse, nativist schooling, and local knowledge to fashion a quasi-nationalist project of territorial and nativist redemption.Footnote 18 The intellectual work of sociologist Esteban Ticona Alejo, by contrast, moved the compass between literary analysis, oral testimony, and narrative history to critically engage colonial and postcolonial epistemologies, as well as to locate the subject of indigenous movements, and Aymara thinkers and activists specifically, at the core of his larger counternarrative of modern Bolivian history and memory.Footnote 19

Stepping back to survey the larger canvas, it is possible to see the transformative effects that Bolivia’s robust social movements (as well as the wider hemispheric Indian rights movement) has had on postcolonial “border thinking” and practices, particularly in anthropology. In her provocative 2008 article “Bolivia: Bridges and Chasms,” Rossana Barragán describes Bolivia as a vital field laboratory for observing the interplay between “research and academic thinking and practices, on the one hand, and political action and social movements, on the other” (Reference Barragán Romano and PooleBarragán 2008, 32; see also Reference Rivera CusicanquiRivera Cusicanqui 1999). Just as indigenous confederations reached out to the THOA group for help in negotiating the restoration of local ayllu territories, so too did indigenous leaders deploy the scholarly work of certain Bolivian anthropologists to leverage their local political and ethnodevelopment agendas. To be sure, this sort of indigenous and popular ferment was not exclusive to Bolivia. Surveying the activist role of Andean ethnography in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Frank Salomon (Reference Salomon1985, 92) chronicled stories about formally trained anthropologists intervening in policy debates, “less as experimenters in applied work than as expert witnesses in defense of Andean interests,” or as advocates for restoring Andean traditions of farming and healing practices; or, in defense of Andean traditions of growing and chewing the coca leaf; or, to validate and make official the use of native languages in public schools; or to adapt church practices to the demands of Aymara parishioners. But nowhere else in the Andes did anthropologists and grassroots political activists seem to be so impactful as in Bolivia, especially after they joined forces to push for fundamental changes at the state level. Those efforts culminated in the 1990s under the neoliberal regime of Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada (“Goni”) and his indigenous vice president, Victor Hugo Cárdenas. They presided over a symbolic and institutional reorganization of the Bolivian nation-state, redefined as being both “multiethnic and plurilingual” (if not yet plurinational).Footnote 20 Spurred by indigenous activists and their allies, the government conferred legitimacy on the normative categories of pueblo indígena and ethnic nacionalidad, and thus began taking seriously indigenous claims to their ancestral cultures and languages, territories, and autonomies. A pluralist framework of ethnic and individual rights was finally beginning to supplant Bolivia’s restrictive homogeneous ideal of national belonging.Footnote 21

Of course, there were troubling signs that Goni was setting a new kind of political trap, as his regime tried simultaneously to co-opt or suppress the more militant factions of the Aymara and urban popular movements, while trying to mask the state’s repressive, racist, and exclusionary politics in the celebration of multiculturalism.Footnote 22 Rivera Cusicanqui’s penetrating critique was echoed in other corners of Amerindian America and reverberated in other camps of critical social science scholarship on neoliberal state-indigenous relations, including Charles Hale’s influential 2002 article broadly warning against “the menace of multiculturalism” (Reference HaleHale 2002, 485, 491). But menace or not, by no means did the fog of official multiculturalism shroud Bolivia’s vibrant sphere of indigenous and popular knowledge/activism over the 1990s. Intense transnational networking opened communication between indigenous groups within Bolivia and across Latin America, and plugged some local organizations into advocacy NGOs. There were some “trickle-up effects.” Some multilateral agencies repudiated earlier technocratic development schemes and began reconceiving culturally appropriate and interactive programs in the new field of ethnodevelopment, by recognizing indigenous people as co-participants in designing and implementing local development projects. Comparative case studies of the “NGO-ification” of Ecuador and Bolivia over the 1990s reveal how a variety of grassroots development organizations managed to hook into indigenous-movement issues and agendas (Reference Andolina, Laurie and A. RadcliffeAndolina, Laurie, and Radcliffe 2009, 34–35). Bolivia’s political and institutional climate proved especially receptive: the 1994 constitutional redefinition of the nation as multicultural and plurilingual; the 1994 education reforms establishing national-level bilingual and intercultural curricula; the 1994–1995 Law of Popular Participation (LPP) aiming to diversify local politics by shifting power to municipalities and giving recognition to indigenous civil organizations; and the 1996 provision for original community lands (Tierras Comunitarias de Orígen, TCOs) recognizing collective property titles. That cascade of government reforms, fueled by NGO money and activity, had an enormous generative effect on the training, status, and employment of Bolivian social scientists-turned-practitioners.Footnote 23 Yet, as noted, the NGO/neoliberal pact also provoked strong countercurrents of opposition and dissent, not only among radical groups of young urban intellectuals but also within militant factions of Aymara-based and Quechua-based movements.Footnote 24 Ultimately, the contradictions of globalization and its local brand of neoliberalism (with its mantra of multiculturalism) surfaced, triggering a chain of events that was difficult for Bolivian elites to anticipate, and impossible to reverse. Popular and indigenous waves of insurgency, beginning with the 1999–2000 Water War in Cochabamba and followed by the 2003 Gas War in La Paz, unleashed a wave of “intercultural” popular mobilizations that propelled Evo Morales into power by the end of 2005. From the vantage point of the new millennium, Bolivia came to symbolize Latin America’s most spectacular failure of state-controlled multiculturalism; the regime had crumbled before the specter of the popular disavowal of neoliberalism’s false promises and, by the early 2000s, increasingly austere and repressive policies.

How to capture the intellectual synergy that came out of Bolivia’s indigenous counterpublic sphere and local activist scholarship over the 1990s? How to plot the shifting tensions among scholarly research, social movements, the NGO world, progressive organs of the Catholic Church, and the public universities in that heady decade? These questions cry out for robust research on Bolivian cultural politics and intellectual ferment spanning two cycles of neoliberal reformism and the rise of populist hegemony under Morales.

From this vantage point, I can’t help but admire the richness and originality of the research being produced by Bolivian scholars, whether more activist or archivist in their orientation, over the past twenty-five years. Much academic work in anthropology and history, as I have argued, originated from the base, flowing from the kinetic imperatives and arguments animating Bolivia’s social movements rather than developing in mimetic relationship to the academic fashions in the global North. This effervescence is all the more impressive when we remember the material hardships and institutional fragility under which most local scholars in Bolivia continued to work. Barragán has observed how, during the 1990s, “the conditions within Bolivian academia, as well as social and political demands [on Bolivian academics], led to two very different pathways: [funding and] stability for the privileged community of [foreign] Bolivianists, and the dispersion and nomadic existence for local Bolivians” (Reference Barragán Romano and PooleBarragán 2008, 39). In spite of these gross disparities of wealth and privilege, Bolivian scholars have contributed to important transnational dialogues in several thematic and conceptual areas.

Briefly, I suggest several areas of recent scholarly activity and exchange—currents of critical scholarship and research agendas flowing out of Bolivia (South to North, and South to South)—that have stimulated, in turn, new currents of scholarly activity on Bolivian history and society in North America. Here, I identify several thematic research agendas that have drawn Bolivianists into transnational conversations, creating the kind of metaphorical bridges that Barragán wrote about in her 2008 state-of-the-field appraisal.

Studies of internal colonialism

Aymara scholar/activists have produced what might be thought of as a Bolivian school of postcolonial (or “decolonial”) theory and history, though there is nothing doctrinaire about it. Arguably, Rivera Cusicanqui’s (Reference Rivera Cusicanqui, Albó and Barrios1993) book-length essay “La raíz: Colonizadores y colonizados” remains the seminal study that works to historicize the concept of “internal colonialism” in its myriad guises and to trace its narrative arc (bending toward injustice) through successive historical stages—the long colonial cycle, the liberal-republican cycle, and the recent populist cycle. In that early work, writes theorist Walter Mignolo, Rivera posited these historical periods not as progressive stages of state-society formation but as “coexisting temporalities that produce and explain [the continuity of] structural violence in Bolivia” (Reference MignoloMignolo 1994, 61).Footnote 25 Here, she set down the foundations for examining the compound workings of modernity/coloniality and civilization/violence as two sides of the historical coin (a problemática that dialogues with postcolonial theory in the work of scholars like Aníbal Quijano (Reference Quijano and Mignolo2001), Walter Mignolo (Reference Mignolo2000), and Javier Sanjinés (Reference Sanjinés C.2004, Reference Sanjinés C.2013). Critical theory of “decolonization” and “decoloniality”—interrogating the logic of modernity/coloniality, Western ideas of time, and global politics of knowledge—represents the latest conceptual development in First World academic settings. See, for example, Walter Mignolo and Catherine Walsh (Reference Mignolo and E. Walsh2018), and Pablo Quintero (Reference Quintero2015). Here, too, was the impetus behind a new generation of Bolivian scholars, men and women seeking to understand the manifest historical forces behind the power and perpetuation of racial and gendered hierarchies and exclusions in Bolivian society (to mention but a few works, Reference Choque CanquiChoque 2005; Reference Cárdenas and AlbóCárdenas 1988; Reference Sanjinés C.Sanjinés 2004; Reference Ticona AlejoTicona Alejo 2005; Reference Soruco SologurenSoruco Sologuren 2011; Reference YapuYapu 2006). And to tackle, straight on, the carapace of colonial racism that has structured inequality in Bolivia, even as it was silenced by modernist discourses of mestizaje and multiculturalism (Reference Mamani RamírezMamani Ramírez 2017).Footnote 26

In myriad ways, a local cultural studies literature has taken up the challenge “to provincialize Europe” by problematizing “the homogeneous time of European modernity.” Inspired by South Asian studies, and also invoking the Aymara concept of nayrapacha (captured by the aphorism “mirando al futuro-pasado, caminaremos por el presente”), several Bolivian historians and cultural theorists have interrogated the West’s metahistorical categories of time and knowledge, history, and memory—all the while working toward a critical understanding of the intrinsic violence that Western linear notions of universal progress and modernity have represented for the rights of Bolivia’s indigenous cultures to civil equality and cultural coexistence (or coevalness).Footnote 27

The indigenous city

Popular culture, the plebeian, and the ambiguity of identity on the racial/spatial borderland between indio and cholo/mestizo, or between rural and urban, make up the thematic cluster of themes first explored in the early 1980s by Xavier Albó, Tomás Greaves, and Godofredo Sandoval. In the 1990s, a spate of scholarly studies began complicating the dualist geography of race by looking to the liminal spaces of the city—with its thriving peasant-controlled, women-dominated outdoor market economy; the strong circular migratory paths connecting rural community to city; the sprawling urban barrios of Indians; the symbolic saturation of urban public spaces and civic festivals by indigenous and popular sectors; and the reworking of gender, ethnic, and class relations within urban working-class communities, robust trade union and anarchist movements in La Paz, Oruro, Cochabamba, and other cities.Footnote 28 El Alto, America’s largest “spontaneous” Indian city, has become a social laboratory for urban ethnographers and social historians, among others, to study the invention of a distinctly local popular economy and communitarian citizenship practices that defy Western liberal norms of market and citizenship behavior. It is also the terrain of innumerous NGO projects supporting local research-action programs. But as Lazar (Reference Lazar2008, 51) notes, in recent years much local research on El Alto has sought to understand “the process of making a distinctive and separate identity for El Alto,” one that [became] increasingly “bound up with political radicalism and indigeneity.”

Lowland Bolivia

A burgeoning literature brought lowland Bolivia out of the dense undergrowth of historical obscurity and into the limelight of national narratives. Much of it engages such themes as missionary and state projects of colonization, agro-development schemes and the rise of Santa Cruz as the nation’s eastern axis of power, and the problem regionalism and racial politics (Reference GillGill 1987; Reference Soruco Sologuren, Quispe and MedeirosSoruco Sologuren, Plata Quispe, and Medeiros 2008; Reference LemaLema 2009; Reference PrudenPruden 2012; Reference LangerLanger 2009). Inspired by the 1990 indigenous March for Territory and Dignity; the simmering Guaraní movement for land and bilingual schools during the 1990s; massive indigenous land-claim movements in the east before the growing threats of state-sponsored violence and extractive capitalism; and, most recently, by the TIPNIS (Territorio Indígena y Parque Nacional Isiboro Sécure) mobilizations for environmental justice, territory, and ethnic autonomy, a critical anthropological literature is attempting to dislocate, pluralize, and complicate Bolivian politics and discourses of region, ethnicity, and class by mapping it across the multiple folds and tensions spanning the Andean/Amazonian divide (see Reference GustafsonGustafson 2009; Reference FabricantFabricant 2012; Reference Fabricant and PosteroFabricant and Postero 2015; and Reference PosteroPostero 2007).

Movimiento Nacionalista Revolucionario

Another wave of historical research on Bolivia’s nationalist revolutionary state has used the vantage point of more than a half century to move beyond an earlier set of ideological polarities that either paid nationalist homage to the MNR as Bolivia’s revolutionary gift to Latin America (and to itself) or punctured that balloon with sharp-edged sociohistorical critique (including the early wave of Marxist critique of the MNR’s betrayal of the working and peasant classes, various literary “requiems” for a dead revolution, and postcolonial assaults on the MNR’s racist-clientelist apparatus of rule). A new generation of scholars has gone into the archives and gathered oral histories to people the narrative with protagonists left out of the picture by an earlier generation of nationalist historiographers, to reappraise the “unfinished” nature of the MNR revolution, and to probe its “unresolved tensions” that eventually came back to haunt Bolivia around the turn of the new millennium.Footnote 29 The resonance between past and present—the mobilization of disparate working-class, student, and peasant groups into broad popular coalitions; the demand for nationalist and egalitarian alternatives to market-driven capitalism; the constitutional fight for a pluriethnic state; the darkening shadows of US military (anti-drug) presence and globalization; and the call for nationalization of Bolivia’s strategic (mostly energy) resources—has provided an opportunity for scholars to cast historical light on the present political moment, as well as to reflect back on the shifting possibilities and perils of national-popular revolution as it evolved, and faltered, some sixty or more years earlier.Footnote 30

Popular resistance

Finally, popular resistance to neoliberal hegemony in the late 1990s has been the midwife of critical postcolonial scholarship. Bolivia’s most recent insurrectionary moment was the result of popular pressure that not only ousted the governing elites but also mandated the recasting of Bolivia as a plurinational state. Although resistance has been well chronicled in the press and scholarly literature, it is worth remembering the scope and intensity of popular mobilizations that culminated in the Gas War of 2003, when multitudes gathered in open-air assemblies to coordinate civil unrest and other insurgent activities. El Alto quickly emerged as the staging ground for mass marches, demonstrations, hunger strikes, and propaganda campaigns. By the end of 2003, well before the 2005 landslide election of Morales, those mobilizations were pushing for a popular referendum on the nationalization of hydrocarbon resources and, beyond that, for a constitutional assembly that would “decolonize” the state, giving various popular constituencies a hand in reshaping state-society relations in a more populist and plurinationalist mold.

Bolivia’s fin de siècle popular revolutionary activity fired up political imaginations, stirred fundamental debate, and unleashed a stream of politically charged scholarship which, in the view of Forrest Hylton and Sinclair Thomson (Reference Hylton, Thomson and Gilly2006, 22), “resulted from a rare convergence between Indian and national-popular horizons” that animated the most recent cycle of unrest. This scholarly literature might be seen as falling into two basic categories. The first comes out of urgent dynamics of local politics and struggle: a surge of praxis-oriented research and theory produced by Bolivian activist-scholars in the fury of the moment. (By now, some of those individuals have moved into, and maybe out of, Movimiento al Socialismo governing circles, or else gone into the political opposition.) The second wave flows from the global North, where scholars have examined the millennial mobilizations through the prism of social science disciplines, the hermeneutics of postcolonial theory, and/or the genealogies (the long view) of indigenous and popular struggles. One way or another, narrative analyses of contemporary Bolivian politics and history see the watershed victory of Evo Morales as a convenient hitching post for a wide variety of scholarly purposes. Indeed, just as the Sandinista revolution drew academic interest for a few years in the 1980s, so now does Bolivia seem to be a hot spot for a new generation of North American scholars.Footnote 31

Conclusion

In sum, the resonance of this intellectual work, and the rebel spirit nourishing it, have imprinted Bolivian studies with an originality and integrity of its own making. If, looking back to the year 1988, Bolivian studies had yet to gain recognition as a legitimate field, by the turn of the millennium it had certainly crashed the gates and entered the big tent of Latin American studies. One small index is the fact that thirteen scholarly panels were devoted exclusively to things Bolivian during the 2016 LASA conference.Footnote 32 Paradoxically, as I have argued here, Bolivian studies slowly gained currency in international circuits precisely because it broke away, turned inward, and provincialized the North American academy over the last two decades of the twentieth century.

Most recently, the Bolivian case stands as a transcendent example of neoliberalism’s arc of (multicultural) consolidation, profound crisis, and partial transformation between the late twentieth and early twenty-first century. If Bolivia has morphed from a forgotten corner of the Andes into a hotspot of antiglobalization and decolonial “border thinking,” it is arguably because of this historical cycle in our own time. Never in Bolivia’s history, since its founding two centuries ago, has the country mattered so much to the world. The proliferation of innovative scholarship both inside and beyond Bolivia is a fundamental reflection of the country’s deep pluralist strain of emancipatory politics, even in times (like the present?) when the utopian tides of pluriethnic possibility inevitably crash against social reality, or else evaporate in the face of insidious betrayals by a governing party perhaps too long in power.

If there is an undertone of ambivalence here, it should not be allowed to distract from the main premise of this essay, that through two or three decades of scholarship and struggle, lo boliviano has become emblematic of engaged, pluriethnic modes of knowledge production, dissemination, and praxis. Indeed, Silvia Rivera and Virginia Aillón (Reference Rivera Cusicanqui and Aillón Soria2015) recently made this case in their important anthology of critical Bolivian thought. So, too, does the dazzling new collection The Bolivia Reader (Reference Thomson, Barragán, Albó, Qayuum and GoodaleThomson et al. 2018). Arguably, the most original Bolivian scholarship has been moored, in ethical and epistemic ways, to ongoing decolonizing struggles against imperial, gendered, class, and ethnic forms of oppression. On the wider canvas, earlier Andean studies paradigms and utopias may have faded in fashion, but to judge by the vitality and density of Bolivian scholarship over the last quarter century, we can rest assured that a multitude of new voices, struggles, and scholarly projects are cropping up in vertical niches across the Andean studies landscape.

Acknowledgements

For their commentary and encouragement, the author thanks Sinclair Thomson, Laura Gotkowitz, Carmen Solíz, and the two anonymous LARR reviewers.

Footnotes

1 Of course, I was not the only young scholar beginning to take the measure of new research trends in Bolivia and Andean studies. See, for example, Salomon (Reference Salomon1982), Urbano (Reference Urbano1991), Poole (Reference Poole1992), and Rivera Cusicanqui (Reference Rivera Cusicanqui1999).

2 I borrow the term from Mignolo (Reference Mignolo2000).

3 I cite but one key article to illustrate Bolivia’s emerging “cosmopolitanism,” as it registered on the hemispheric radar of Latin American studies: Xavier Albó’s lead 1995 article. Echoing Jose Martí’s famous anti-imperialist call for a unifying pan-Latin American political culture and identity (in his heralded 1901 essay “Nuestra América”), Albó went in rhetorical search for a multiple and pluralist field of national identities and voices coming out of the Indian rights movements simmering in different parts of the Americas. For Albó, Latin America’s postmodern theoretical agenda was to disrupt Western paradigms of nationhood by reintroducing (sub)national and ethnic notions of “peoplehood,” empowered by their status as “First Nations” or “Testimonial Peoples,” to stake their claims to local sovereignty. In making a bid for “our identity starting from pluralism at the base,” Albó called for the hemisphere’s indigenous peoples to take rhetorical possession of their originary lands and identities by renaming America with the unitary Cuna name of Abya-Yala, long a symbol among Andean peoples of ethnic resistance. See also the lengthy discussion of Albó’s essay in Mignolo (Reference Mignolo1994).

4 On Bolivia’s grassroots indigenous movements, namely the union-based katarista group that controlled the nation’s largest peasant confederation (Confederación Sindical Única de Trabajadores y Campesinos Bolivianos, CSUTCB) in the 1980s, and the more culturally oriented indianista movement that flourished in La Paz, see Javier Hurtado (Reference Hurtado1986), Rivera Cusicanqui (Reference Rivera Cusicanqui, Albó and Barrios1993, Reference Rivera Cusicanqui1984), and Lucero (Reference Lucero2008, chap. 4).

5 This essay, more reflexive than comprehensive, hopes to capture the spirit and trajectories of scholarly creativity both on and in Bolivia rather than offer a comprehensive literature review. It uses my earlier slant (Reference LarsonLarson 1988) on the state of the field (which referenced recent Anglophone scholarship) as a rough baseline, although here I reflect on crucial developments unfolding in Bolivian ethnohistory during the 1980s that bore fruit in the scholarly harvests of the 1990s and beyond.

6 With apologies to Chakrabarty (Reference Chakrabarty2000), who uses the idea of “provincializing Europe” to critique Western narratives of universal progress and the unitary subject and thus to problematize the idea of subaltern peoples representing themselves in history.

7 Critical postcolonial and subaltern approaches have helped frame the work of Andeanist ethnohistorians, such as Thurner (Reference Thurner1997), Thurner and Guerrero (Reference Thurner and Guerrero2003), and Mallon (Reference Mallon1995b, Reference Mallon2005, and Reference Mallon2012).

8 For an overview, see Wade (Reference Wade1997, chap. 7). See also Coronil (Reference Coronil1996) and Mallon (Reference Mallon1995b). The South Asian subaltern studies school was introduced to Bolivian readers in Rivera Cusicanqui and Barragán (Reference Rivera Cusicanqui and Barragán1997).

9 My generation of historians, coming of age in the 1970s and 1980s, was profoundly influenced by the historical work of Tulio Halperin Donghi and, in particular, by the breakout historical synthesis by Stanley Stein and Barbara Stein (Reference Stein and Stein1970). Even more widely read throughout the hemisphere was Eduardo Galeano’s Open Veins of Latin America (Reference Galeano1997).

10 Emblematic is Albó’s extraordinary life work in CIPCA, which has been at the axis of investigation, movement praxis, policy design, and advocacy over the past half century. Albó’s voluminous scholarship and essays are now available in Obras selectas (Reference Albó and La Paz2016, 4 vols.).

11 Here, I am not so interested in the politics of knowledge as an exercise in distilling a pristine nativist “cosmology” or textual corpus, as in how indigenous and social science knowledges were interconnected, translated, and deployed during the chimera of neoliberal governance and global modernity of the 1990s and early 2000s.

12 Translated into English, this term is rather awkward, although its use is spreading. See Sanjinés (Reference Sanjinés C.2013, 1–27) Mignolo (Reference Mignolo2000), Mignolo and Walsh (Reference Mignolo and E. Walsh2018), Mamani Ramírez (Reference Mamani Ramírez2017), and Mallon (Reference Mallon2012, 1–19). My purpose here, however, is not to excavate the layered meanings of “decolonization” but to focus on the indissoluble links among political practice, pedagogy, and contestative knowledge that sprang from the grassroots work of Aymara students, teachers, and intellectuals.

13 But an early pathfinder was Ramiro Condarco Morales (Reference Condarco Morales1965).

14 Not well known outside of Bolivia are the extraordinary empirical discoveries that came out of THOA’s archival and field excavations. In short order, THOA scholars uncovered a subterranean landscape of Aymara and Quechua peasant activist-intellectuals (from Santos Marka T’ula and Nina Qhispe to Gregorio Titiriku and others). They operated on the national stage, representing some four hundred rural communities and ayllus trying to restore, or defend, their ancestral lands. As advocates and intellectuals, activists and teachers, they intervened in politics and the public sphere from the early 1900s onward.

15 Most notably, the Federation of Ayllus of Southern Oruro, the “Quillacas-Azanques nation.” See Andolina, Laurie, and Radcliffe (Reference Andolina, Laurie and A. Radcliffe2009, 102–103). THOA’s work also helped legitimize traditional practices of communal self-governance, for example, the significant role of community elders in vernacular governance and active roles that women performed in the daily life of the ayllu. See Rivera Cusicanqui and THOA (Reference Rivera Cusicanqui1992), Stephenson (Reference Stephenson2002). A parallel stream of activist studies poured forth from the venerable organ of grassroots peasant work, CIPCA, under the aegis of Xavier Albó and his Aymara collaborators.

16 Probably THOA’s most influential work was, and continues to be, the booklet entitled El indio Santos Marka T’ula, cacique principal de los ayllus de Callapa y apoderado general de las comunidades de la República (THOA 1984).

17 Born in 1942 in the provincial town of Caquiaviri, province of Pacajes, Choque came of age in that pivotal postrevolutionary era when the children of ex-colonos were released from servitude and granted the civil liberty to attend school (among other newly won civil and labor rights). He attended a small rural school and, anxious to advance, took lessons with an indigenous woman teacher in her home. Eventually, Choque won his father’s blessing to seek opportunities in the city. Once resettled in La Paz, Choque apprenticed as a shoemaker with his uncle. But bench work, hammering soles, was but a way station en route to higher education. And along with other Aymara students, Choque was caught up in the swirl of cultural effervescence in the 1970s. He gained entry into the Universidad de San Andrés, where he entered the Department of History and later, along with other students, helped rescue and deposit a massive cache of historical documents from the District Supreme Court that had been earmarked for the dustbin. That intervention helped launch Choque’s illustrious career as Bolivian archivist and historian. An indefatigable researcher, Choque turned the archive—once the symbol and preserve of colonialist knowledge/power matrices—into a vault of “hidden transcripts” and muffled and mediated voices that might be made to shine new light on indigenous historical actors who had, over decades and centuries, engaged with the language, laws, and documentary power of Rama’s metaphorical lettered city (personal communication). Aside from the citations to his work below, see especially Choque’s important 2005 synthesis of Bolivia’s indigenous movements in the lead-up to the MNR revolution of 1952.

18 Ari (Reference Ari Chachaki2014) makes a provocative argument that members of the AMP network engaged in a radical hermeneutics, turning the republic’s law codes into their own moral and legal philosophy, dubbed “Indian Law.” Several other classic oral histories and historical ethnographies burst onto the scene, including the masterful three-volume study (1992–1997) on the Aymara region of Jesús de Machaqa: Jesús de Machaqa: La marka rebelde (Reference Choque CanquiChoque et al. 1992–1997), involving the collaboration of a historian, sociologist, and anthropologist: Roberto Choque, Esteban Ticona, and Xavier Albó, respectively. See also Mamani Condori (Reference Mamani Condori1991) on the ayllu network of Taraqu and their fight for communal revindication; Choque et al. (Reference Choque Canqui1992) and Choque and Quisbert (Reference Choque Canqui and Quisbert Quispe2006) on indigenous education initiatives; and Fernández (Reference Fernández Osco2000) on Aymara practices of communal justice.

19 See Ticona Alejo (Reference Ticona Alejo2005) as well as his coauthored 1992 oral history of Leandro Condori Chura, an important Aymara scribe and activist in the early twentieth century (Reference Condori Chura and Ticona AlejoCondori Chura and Ticona Alejo 1992). Spurred by THOA, oral and testimonial history quickly became a critical historiographical genre among Aymara scholars. See, for example, Flores Apaza et al. (Reference Flores Apaza, Ruiz, Andia and Huanacuni1999).

20 “Plurinational” refers to the widening parameters of pluralist constitutional reforms under Evo Morales. Meanwhile, Bolivia’s homegrown indigenous movement fed into the hemispheric movement sweeping across Amerindian regions of Latin America during the late 1980s and 1990s. See Postero and Zamosc (Reference Postero and Zamosc2004), Maybury-Lewis (Reference Maybury-Lewis2002).

21 Goni’s neoliberal order has been the object of passionate polemic and critique, but for a judicious historical synthesis, see Barragán (Reference Barragán Romano and Poole2008, 44–46).

22 Among others, Rivera Cusicanqui was a relentless critic of the state’s official rhetoric of “pluri-multi,” revealing it to be a façade camouflaging harsh austerity measures and repression against the poor and all those indigenous activists and intellectuals who did not conform to the state’s ideal of the compliant Indian citizen, “el indio permitido.”

23 The IAF and a host of European NGOs generated opportunities for training and employing hundreds of local fieldworkers, agents, and interlocutors to work in various niches of rural development. The flood of NGOs was also a boon to young Bolivian anthropologists and sociologists (and other social scientists), as well as to agronomists, veterinarians, and other technically trained professionals, all of whom carried out an extraordinary range of basic and applied research projects in the service of their NGO-funded programs in such fields as: environmental sustainability; the recovery of Andean ecological and agrarian knowledge and practices (potato farming and llama rearing, for example); the extension of social welfare services and public education into the territory of the Guaraní and other eastern lowland zones; the articulation of communitarian values and civil society under the LPP; the study and restoration of the ancient art and craft of weaving, along with other cultural revitalization programs; all kinds of community-based popular education programs, particularly those targeted to empowering women’s organizations; the implementation of “intercultural” ideals and practices in various institutional venues, etc.

24 Most notably, Oscar Oliveira emerged as the leader of Cochabamba’s broad coalition for the Defense of Water and Life that exploded in the region’s Water War of 1999 against the privatization of water resources, “the source of all life.” Meanwhile, Felipe Quispe (“El Mallku”) surfaced as a militant leader in Aymara-based guerrilla and indianista politics over the 1980s and 1990s, and played a central role in fueling popular mobilizations on the Altiplano and in El Alto during the Gas War of 2003. Finally, lest we forget, during those years Evo Morales was gaining power and notoriety for his militant union activism on behalf of the confederation of coca producers, especially those based in the Chapare region of Cochabamba.

25 See Mignolo’s critical appraisal of Rivera’s essay (1994, 60–66). See also Rivera’s incomparable synthesis, Oprimidos pero no vencidos (Reference Rivera Cusicanqui1984), which came out of the era of katarismo (a militant indigenous trade union movement in the 1970s and early 1980s) and which set the research agenda for a new generation of (mostly Aymara) historians and sociologists. Its 2003 edition contains an important essay placing this work in historical perspective and laying out a devastating critique of Bolivia’s experiment in neoliberalism and multiculturalism.

26 See the Bolivian-authored articles in Gotkowitz (Reference Gotkowitz2011), particularly the antiracist agenda (in the era of the Plurinational Constitutional Assembly) written by Pamela Calla and the Research Group of the Observatorio del Racismo. See the decentering approaches to Andean ethnohistory in Larson, Harris, and Tandeter (Reference Larson, Harris and Tandeter1995), Larson (Reference Larson1998, Reference Larson2004), Gruner (Reference Gruner2015), Kuenzli (Reference Kuenzli2013), Canessa (Reference Canessa2005), and Ehrinpreis (Reference Ehrinpreis2018), as well as Irurozqui’s classic work on the matrix of neocolonial power and knowledge under the Bolivian oligarchy (Reference Irurozqui1994).

27 Illustrative is Rivera’s foundational work on the cultural politics of indigenous memory (the politics of “long” and “short” memory) that helped define Aymara ethnic platforms and identities revolving around the commune, on the one hand, and Quechua peasantist agendas and identities that were more attuned to agrarian unionist politics. She takes up this theme again in the 2003 reedition of Oprimidos pero no vencidos. See her essay “Mirando al pasado para caminar por el presente y el futuro (qhip nayr uñtasis sarnaqapxañani)” (Reference Rivera Cusicanqui2003, 11–62). See also the ethnographic classics on temporality, Abercrombie (Reference Abercrombie1998) and Wachtel (Reference Wachtel2001); see also Sanjinés (Reference Sanjinés C.2013, chap. 1) and Hylton (Reference Hylton2003). That literature also recognizes how the forging of moral memory has performed an essential role in sustaining the Aymaras’ struggle for cultural identity and justice over a long period of time. See also Farthing and Kohl (Reference Farthing and Kohl2013) and Dangl (Reference Dangl2019).

28 The landmark four-volume study Chukiyawu: La cara aymara de La Paz was published between 1981 and 1987 (Reference Albó, Sandoval and GreavesAlbó, Sandoval, and Greaves 1981–1983). Less than a decade later, Rossana Barragán’s historical work (Reference Barragán Romano1990, Reference Barragán Romano and Arze1992) on the urban popular classes of La Paz opened new windows on spatial, racial, and gendered hierarchies and transgressions in the context of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Her work mounted a challenge to earlier dualist approaches to the Indian/mestizo binary by reconceptualizing “the third republic” of men and women (classified as “cholo” by elites) who colonized this liminal space of hybridity. She also showed the key role that Aymara women played in colonizing the “third republic,” articulating hybrid identities and bridging the rural/urban and indio/cholo divide. Other important studies of labor, gender, and race would have to include Lehm and Rivera Cusicanqui (Reference Zulema and Cusicanqui1988), Stephenson (Reference Stephenson1999), Medinaceli (Reference Medinaceli1989), Soruco Sologuren (Reference Soruco Sologuren2011), Gill (Reference Gill1994), Goldstein (Reference Goldstein2004). Inspired by the radical labor historiography pioneered by Guillermo Lora, a new labor history has sprung up: see Rodríguez Ostria (Reference Rodríguez Ostria1991), Rodríguez García (Reference Rodríguez García2012), and Barragán (Reference Barragán Romano2017). From North America comes the work of Zulawski (Reference Zulawski1995), Mangan (Reference Mangan2001), Smale (Reference Smale2010), Shesko (Reference Shesko2012), and Young (Reference Young2017).

29 Key studies that reappraise the role of peasants and the struggle over land rights leading up to, and during, the MNR era include Choque Canqui (Reference Choque Canqui2005), Gordillo (Reference Gordillo2000), Gotkowitz (Reference Gotkowitz2007), Solíz Urrutia (Reference Solíz Urrutia2014, Reference Solíz Urrutia2017), and Hylton (Reference Hylton2018). Intellectual heirs of Bolivia’s preeminent labor historian, Guillermo Lora, Dunkerley (Reference Dunkerley1984, Reference Dunkerley2007) and John (Reference John2009) revisit the terrain of mine workers, labor militancy, and the tradition of radical parties in the revolutionary era. Vibrant new political and environmental history casting new light on the MNR era includes Young (Reference Young2017) and Hines (Reference Hines2015). Two major studies revisit the revolutionary nationalism, as viewed through the lenses of cruceño regionalism and official MNR political and public culture, respectively: Pruden (Reference Pruden2012) and Gildner (Reference Gildner2012). See also Pacino (Reference Pacino2015, Reference Pacino2017) on the MNR’s gendered politics of public health programs, as well as various chapters in Grindle and Domingo (Reference Grindle and Domingo2003) and Crabtree and Whitehead (Reference Crabtree and Whitehead2008). In 2012, Rossana Barragán, in charge of the Latin American program of the International Institute of Social History (IISH, Amsterdam), initiated an ambitious program to digitalize the oral history of Bolivia’s labor and indigenous movements, preserved in taped recordings between 1982 and 1997 in the National Museum of Ethnography and Folklore (MUSEF, La Paz). This extraordinary archival project has rescued the voices of peasants and indigenous people, mine workers, coca producers, teachers, and artisans who met in congresses and other kinds of meetings to advance their social and political agendas during those tumultuous decades.

30 Rethinking the MNR era from the perspective of today has naturally led to reflexive essays on the leading theorist of the MNR era, René Zavaleta Mercado. See the new English-language edition of his work Towards a History of the National-Popular in Bolivia (Reference Zavaleta Mercado and FreelandZavaleta Mercado [1986] 2016). Zavaleta’s Boswell is Luís Tapia (Reference Tapia and Spedding[2002] 2018). Limitations of space force me to short-change discussion of important new work on U.S.-Bolivian relations during and after the MNR era, but see especially Field (Reference Field2014) and Siekmeier (Reference Siekmeier2011).

31 Aymara sociologist Pablo Mamani Ramírez (Reference Mamani Ramírez2004, Reference Mamani Ramírez2012, Reference Mamani Ramírez2017) has emerged as a major intellectual, scholar, and activist regarding the formation of Bolivia’s plurinational state and urban popular uprisings. Félix Patzi Paco (Reference Patzi Paco1999, Reference Patzi Paco2000, Reference Patzi Paco and Hylton2003) is a noted social analyst of the Aymara community mobilization who served briefly in the Morales administration. Meanwhile, La Comuna, a prolific cabal of urban intellectuals, was the source of rebel scholarship working over the 1990s and early 2000s. Álvaro García Linera, a founding member, emerged as its leading theorist of Bolivia’s popular and indigenous (“plebeian”) movements, even as he went underground, took up arms, and suffered time in prison. Long before ascending to the vice presidency, García Linera and his comrades flooded the public sphere with an activist literature that brought currents of Marxism and Indianism into fluent dialogue. See, for example, García Linera (Reference García Linera2008), Gutiérrez Aguilar et al. (Reference Gutiérrez Aguilar, Tapia, Prada and Linera2002), Gómez (Reference Gómez2004), and Gutiérrez Aguilar (Reference Gutiérrez Aguilar2014).

From the global North has come a timely burst of revisionist social history and contemporary political analysis, mapping history backwards, as it were, from the conjuncture of popular mobilizations, the electoral victory of Evo Morales, and the plurinational state-building process. See Hylton and Thomson (Reference Hylton, Thomson and Gilly2006) for an elegant rendering of the cultural politics of revolutionary insurgency (inspired by the work of Adolfo Gilly). See also Kohl and Farthing (Reference Kohl and Farthing2006), Schultz and Draper (Reference Schultz and Draper2008), Webber (Reference Webber2011), Dunkerley (Reference Dunkerley2007), Pearce (Reference Pearce2011), Sivak (Reference Sivak2010), Crabtree and Chaplin (Reference Crabtree and Chaplin2013), Fabricant and Gustafson (Reference Fabricant and Gustafson2011), Postero (Reference Postero2017), and Ellison (Reference Ellison2018).

32 Another index is the thriving Bolivian Studies Journal/Revista de Estudios Bolivianos, published by the University of Pittsburgh. LASA also now has a robust Bolivia Section.

References

Abercrombie, Tom. 1998. Pathways of Memory and Power: Ethnography and History among an Andean People. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Albó, Xavier. 1995. “Our Identity Starting from Pluralism in the Base.” In The Postmodernism Debate in Latin America, edited by Beverley, John, Aronna, Michael, and Oviedo, José, 1833. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. DOI: 10.1215/9780822382683-002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albó, Xavier. 2016. Obras selectas. Edition prepared by La Paz, Hugo Fernández A.: Fundación Xavier Albó; CIPCA.Google Scholar
Albó, Xavier, Sandoval, Godofredo, Greaves, Tomás. 1981–1983. Chukiyawu: La cara aymara de La Paz, vols. 1–3. Cuadernos de Investigación, nos. 20, 22, 24. La Paz: CIPCA.Google Scholar
Andolina, Robert, Laurie, Nina, and A. Radcliffe, Sarah. 2009. Indigenous Development in the Andes: Culture, Power, and Transnationalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. DOI: 10.1215/9780822391067Google Scholar
Ari Chachaki, Waskar. 2014. Earth Politics: Religion, Decolonization, and Bolivia’s Indigenous Intellectuals. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. DOI: 10.1215/9780822376958Google Scholar
Barragán Romano, Rossana. 1990. Espacio urbano y dinámica étnica: La Paz en el siglo XIX. La Paz: HISBOL.Google Scholar
Barragán Romano, Rossana. 1992. “Entre polleras, ñañacas y lliqllas: Los mestizos y cholos en la conformación de la ‘tercera república.’” In Etnicidad, economía y simbolismo en los Andes: II Congreso internacional de etnohistoria, Coroico, edited by Arze, Silvia et al. Lima: HISBOL; IFEA.Google Scholar
Barragán Romano, Rossana. 2008. “Bolivia: Bridges and Chasms.” In A Companion to Latin American Anthropology, edited by Poole, Deborah, 3255. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9781444301328.ch2Google Scholar
Barragán Romano, Rossana. 2017. “Working Silver for the World: Mining Labor and Popular Economy in Colonial Potosí.” Hispanic American Historical Review 97 (2): 193222. DOI: 10.1215/00182168-3824041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canessa, Andrew, ed. 2005. Natives Making Nation: Gender, Indigeneity, and the State in the Andes. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Cárdenas, Victor Hugo. 1988. “La lucha de un pueblo.” In Raíces de América: El mundo aymara, edited by Albó, Xavier, 495534. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.Google Scholar
Chakrabarty, Dipesh. 2000. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Choque Canqui, Roberto. 2005. Historia de una lucha desigual: Los contenidos ideológicos y políticos de las rebeliones indígenas de la pre-revolución nacional. La Paz: UNIH-PAKAXA.Google Scholar
Choque Canqui, Roberto, and Quisbert Quispe, Cristina. 2006. Educación indigenal en Bolivia: Un siglo de ensayos educativos y resistencias patronales. La Paz: UNIH-Pakaxa.Google Scholar
Choque Canqui, Roberto, et al. 1992. Educación indígena: Ciudadanía o colonización? La Paz: Ediciones Aruwiyiri; Taller de Historia Oral Andina.Google Scholar
Choque Canqui, Roberto, et al. 1992–1997. Jesús de Machaqa: La marka rebelde. 3 vols. La Paz: CIPCA/CEDOIN.Google Scholar
Condarco Morales, Ramiro. 1965. Zárate, el temible willka: Historia de la rebelión indígena de 1899. La Paz: Talleres Gráficos Bolivianos.Google Scholar
Condori Chura, Leandro, and Ticona Alejo, Esteban. 1992. El escribando de los Caciques Apoderados: Kasikinakan Purirarunaka Qillqiripa. La Paz: HISBOL/THOA.Google Scholar
Coronil, Fernando. 1996. “Beyond Occidentalism: Toward Nonimperial Geohistorical Categories.” Cultural Anthropology 11 (1): 5287. DOI: 10.1525/can.1996.11.1.02a00030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crabtree, John, and Chaplin, Ann, eds. 2013. Bolivia: Processes of Change. London: Zed Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crabtree, John, and Whitehead, Laurence, eds. 2008. Unresolved Tensions: Bolivia, Past and Present. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press. DOI: 10.2307/j.ctt5vkfjqCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dangl, Benjamin. 2019. The Five Hundred Year Rebellion: Indigenous Movements and the Power of History in Bolivia. Oakland, CA: AK Press.Google Scholar
Dunkerley, James. 1984. Rebellion in the Veins: Political Struggle in Bolivia, 1952–1982. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Dunkerley, James. 2007. Bolivia: Revolution and the Power of History in the Present. London: Institute for the Study of the Americas.Google Scholar
Ehrinpreis, Andrew B. 2018. “Coca Nation: Labor, Indigeneity, and the Politics of the Coca Leaf in Bolivia, 1900-1962.” PhD dissertation, Stony Brook University.Google Scholar
Ellison, Susan Helen. 2018. Domesticating Democracy: The Politics of Conflict Resolution in Bolivia. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. DOI: 10.1215/9780822371786Google Scholar
Fabricant, Nicole. 2012. Mobilizing Bolivia’s Displaced: Indigenous Politics and the Struggle over Land. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. DOI: 10.5149/9780807837511_fabricantCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabricant, Nicole, and Gustafson, Bret, eds. 2011. Remapping Bolivia: Resources, Territory and Indigeneity in a Plurinational State. Santa Fe: School for Advanced Research.Google Scholar
Fabricant, Nicole, and Postero, Nancy. 2015. “Sacrificing Indigenous Bodies and Lands: The Political-Economic History of Lowland Bolivia in Light of the Recent TIPNIS Debate.” Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology 20 (3): 452474. DOI: 10.1111/jlca.12173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farthing, Linda, and Kohl, Benjamin. 2013. “Mobilizing Memory: Bolivia’s Enduring Social Movements.” Social Movement Studies 12 (4): 115. DOI: 10.1080/14742837.2013.807728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández Osco, Marcelo. 2000. La ley del ayllu: Práctica de jach’a justicia y jisk’a justicia (justicia mayor y justicia menor) en comunidades aymaras. La Paz: Programa de Investigación Estratégica en Bolivia.Google Scholar
Field, Thomas C. Jr. 2014. From Development to Dictatorship. Bolivia and the Alliance for Progress in the Kennedy Era. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. DOI: 10.7591/cornell/9780801452604.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flores Apaza, Policarpio, Ruiz, Fernando Montes, Andia, Elizabeth, and Huanacuni, Fernando. 1999. El hombre que volvió a nacer: Vida saberes y reflexiones de un amawtá de Tiwanaku. La Paz: Plural Editores.Google Scholar
Galeano, Eduardo. 1997. Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
García Linera, Álvaro. 2008. La potencia plebeya: Acción colectiva e identidades indígenas, obreras y populares en Bolivia. Buenos Aires: CLACSO.Google Scholar
Gildner, Robert. 2012. “Indomestizo Modernism: National Development and Indigenous Integration in Postrevolutionary Bolivia, 1952–1964.” PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Gill, Lesley. 1987. Peasants, Entrepreneurs, and Social Change: Frontier Development in Lowland Bolivia. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Gill, Lesley. 1994. Precarious Dependencies: Gender, Class, and Domestic Service in Bolivia. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Daniel M. 2004. The Spectacular City: Violence and Performance in Urban Bolivia. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. DOI: 10.1215/9780822386018Google Scholar
Gómez, Luís A. 2004. El Alto de Pie: Una insurrección aymara en Bolivia. La Paz: Comuna; Indymedia.Google Scholar
Gordillo, José M. 2000. Campesinos revolucionarios en Bolivia: Identidad, territorio y sexualidad en el Valle Alto de Cochabamba, 1952–1964. La Paz: Promec; Plural Editores.Google Scholar
Gotkowitz, Laura. 2007. A Revolution for Our Rights. Indigenous Struggles for Land and Justice in Bolivia, 1880–1952. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. DOI: 10.1215/9780822390121Google Scholar
Gotkowitz, Laura, ed. 2011. Histories of Race and Racism: The Andes and Mesoamerica from Colonial Times to the Present. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. DOI: 10.1215/9780822394334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grindle, Merilee, and Domingo, Pilar, eds. 2003. Proclaiming Revolution: Bolivia in Comparative Perspective. London: Institute of Latin American Studies.Google Scholar
Gruner, Wolf. 2015. Parias de la patria: El mito de la liberación de los indígenas en la República de Bolivia, 1825–1890. La Paz: Plural Editores.Google Scholar
Gustafson, Bret Darin. 2009. New Languages of State: Indigenous Resurgence and the Politics of Knowledge in Bolivia. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez Aguilar, Raquel. 2014. Rhythms of the Pachakuti: Indigenous Uprising and State Power in Bolivia. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. DOI: 10.1215/9780822376361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez Aguilar, Raquel, Tapia, Luís, Prada, Raúl, and Linera, Álvaro García. 2002. Democratizaciones plebeyas. La Paz: Muela del Diablo Editores.Google Scholar
Hale, Charles R. 2002. “Does Multiculturalism Menace? Governance, Cultural Rights, and the Politics of Identity in Guatemala.” Journal of Latin American Studies 34 (3): 485524. DOI: 10.1017/S0022216X02006521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Olivia. 2000. To Make the Earth Bear Fruit: Essays on Fertility, Work and Gender in Highland Bolivia. London: Institute of Latin American Studies.Google Scholar
Healy, Kevin. 2001. Llamas, Weavings, and Organic Chocolate: Multicultural Grassroots Development in the Andes and Amazon of Bolivia. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Hines, Sarah Thompson. 2015. “Dividing the Waters: How Power, Property, and Protest Transformed the Waterscape of Cochabamba, Bolivia (1879–2000).” PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Hurtado, Javier. 1986. El Katarismo. La Paz: HISBOL.Google Scholar
Hylton, Forrest. 2003. Ya es otro tiempo el presente: Cuatro momentos de insurgencia indígena. La Paz: Muela del Diablo Editores.Google Scholar
Hylton, Forrest. 2018. “Forgetting Peasants: ‘Indigeneity’ and the Anthropology of Revolution in Bolivia.” Paper presented at the Latin American Studies Association conference. Barcelona, Spain, May 2018.Google Scholar
Hylton, Forrest, and Thomson, Sinclair. 2006. Revolutionary Horizons: Past and Present in Bolivian Politics. Prologue by Gilly, Adolfo. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Irurozqui, Marta. 1994. La armonía de las desigualdades: Elites y conflictos de poder en Bolivia, 1880–1920. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.Google Scholar
John, S. Sándor. 2009. Bolivia’s Radical Tradition: Permanent Revolution in the Andes. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohl, Benjamin H., and Farthing, Linda C.. 2006. Impasse in Bolivia: Neoliberal Hegemony and Popular Resistance. London: Zed Books, 2006.Google Scholar
Kuenzli, E. Gabrielle. 2013. Acting Inca: National Belonging in Early Twentieth-Century Bolivia. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. DOI: 10.2307/j.ctt9qh7cnCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langer, Erick Detlef. 2009. Expecting Pears from an Elm Tree: Franciscan Missions on the Chiriguano Frontier in the Heart of South America, 1830–1949. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. DOI: 10.1215/9780822390916Google Scholar
Larson, Brooke. 1988. “Revisiting Bolivia: New Directions in North American Research in History and Anthropology.” Latin American Research Review 23(1): 6390. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2503320.Google Scholar
Larson, Brooke. 1995. “Andean Communities, Political Cultures, and Markets: the Changing Contours of a Field.” In Ethnicity, Markets, and Migration in the Andes, edited by Larson, Brooke, Harris, Olivia, and Tandeter, Enrique, 553. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. DOI: 10.1215/9780822379867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Brooke. 1998. “Cochabamba: (Re)constructing a History.” In Cochabamba, 1550–1900: Colonialism and Agrarian Transformation in Bolivia, 322390. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. DOI: 10.1215/9780822379850-011Google Scholar
Larson, Brooke. 2004. Trials of Nation Making: Liberalism, Race and Ethnicity in the Andes, 1810–1910. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511616396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Brooke, Harris, Olivia, and Tandeter, Enrique, eds. 1995. Ethnicity, Markets, and Migration in the Andes: At the Crossroads of History and Anthropology. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Lazar, Sian. 2008. El Alto, Rebel City: Self and Citizenship in Andean Bolivia. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. DOI: 10.1215/9780822388760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zulema, Lehm A., and Cusicanqui, Silvia Rivera. 1988. Los artesanos libertarios y la ética del trabajo. La Paz: Gramma.Google Scholar
Lema, Ana María. 2009. El sentido del silencio: La mano de obra chiquitana en el oriente boliviano a principios del siglo XX. Santa Cruz de la Sierra: UPIEB.Google Scholar
Lucero, José Antonio. 2008. Struggles of Voice: The Politics of Indigenous Representation in the Andes. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh. DOI: 10.2307/j.ctt6wrd86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallon, Florencia E. 1995a. Peasant and Nation: The Making of Postcolonial Mexico and Peru. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallon, Florencia E.. 1995b. “The Promise and Dilemma of Subaltern Studies: Perspectives from Latin American History.” American Historical Review 99 (5): 14911515. DOI: 10.2307/2168386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallon, Florencia E. 2005. Courage Tastes of Blood: The Mapuche Community of Nicolás Ailío and the Chilean State, 1906–2001. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. DOI: 10.1215/9780822387268Google Scholar
Mallon, Florencia E., ed. 2012. Decolonizing Native Histories: Collaboration, Knowledge, and Language in the Americas. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Mamani Condori, Carlos B. 1991. Taraqu, 1866–1935: Massacre, guerra y “renovación” en la biografía de Eduardo L. Nina Qhispi. La Paz: Ediciones Aruwiyiri.Google Scholar
Mamani Ramírez, Pablo. 2004. El rugir de las multitudes: La fuerza de los levantamientos indígenas en Bolivia/Qullasuyu. El Alto, Qullasuyu: Ediciones Aruwiyiri.Google Scholar
Mamani Ramírez, Pablo. 2012. Wiphalas y fusiles: Poder comunal y el levantamiento aymara de Achacachi-Omasuyus, 2000–2001. La Paz: FLACSO; Revista Willka.Google Scholar
Mamani Ramírez, Pablo. 2017. El estado neocolonial: Una mirada al proceso de la lucha por el poder y sus contradicciones en Bolivia. La Paz: Rincón Ediciones.Google Scholar
Mangan, Jane E. 2001. Trading Roles: Gender, Ethnicity, and the Urban Economy in Colonial Potosí. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. DOI: 10.1215/9780822386667Google Scholar
Maybury-Lewis, David, ed. 2002. The Politics of Ethnicity: Indigenous Peoples in Latin America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Medinaceli, Ximena. 1989. Alterando la rutina: Mujeres en las ciudades de Bolivia, 1920–1930. La Paz: CIDEM.Google Scholar
Merkx, Gilbert W. 1984. “Research Manpower Needs for Latin America and the Caribbean: An Assessment.” LASA Forum 15 (3): 1119.Google Scholar
Mignolo, Walter. 1994. “Are Subaltern Studies Postmodern or Postcolonial? The Politics and Sensibilities of Geo-cultural Locations.” Dispositio 19 (46): 4573. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41491505.Google Scholar
Mignolo, Walter. 2000. Local Histories/Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges, and Border Thinking. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mignolo, Walter, and E. Walsh, Catherine. 2018. On Decoloniality: Concepts, Analytics, and Praxis. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. DOI: 10.1215/9780822371779Google Scholar
Pacino, Nicole L. 2015. “Creating Madres Campesinas: Revolutionary Motherhood and the Gendered Politics of Nation Building in 1950s Bolivia.” Journal of Women’s History 27 (1): 6287. DOI: 10.1353/jowh.2015.0004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pacino, Nicole L. 2017. “Bringing the Revolution to the Countryside: Rural Health Programmes as State-Building in Post-1952 Bolivia.” Bulletin of Latin American Research, published online November 2017. DOI: 10.1111/blar.12639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patzi Paco, Félix. 1999. Insurgencia y sumisión: Movimientos indígeno-campesinos, 1983–1998. La Paz: Muela del Diablo Editores.Google Scholar
Patzi Paco, Félix. 2000. Etnofagia estatal: Modernas formas de violencia simbólica: Análisis de la reforma educativa en Bolivia. La Paz: Instituto de Investigaciones Sociológicas “Mauricio Lefebvre.”Google Scholar
Patzi Paco, Félix. 2003. “Rebelión indígena contra la colonialidad y la transnacionalización de la economía: Triunfos y vicisitudes del movimiento indígena desde 2000 a 2003.” In Ya es otro tiempo el presente: Cuatro momentos de insurgencia indígena, edited by Hylton, Forrest et al., 199279. La Paz: Muela del Diablo Editores.Google Scholar
Pearce, Adrian J., ed. 2011. Evo Morales and the Movimiento al Socialismo in Bolivia: The First Term in Context, 2005–2009. London: Institute for the Study of the Americas, University of London.Google Scholar
Poole, Deborah. 1992. “Antropología e historia andinas en los EEUU: Buscando un reencuentro.” Revista Andina 10 (1): 209245.Google Scholar
Postero, Nancy Grey. 2007. Now We Are Citizens: Indigenous Politics in Postmulticultural Bolivia. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Postero, Nancy Grey. 2017. The Indigenous State: Race, Politics, and Performance in Plurinational Bolivia. Oakland: University of California Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1pq34b0. DOI: 10.1525/luminos.31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postero, Nancy Grey, and Zamosc, León, eds. 2004. The Struggle for Indigenous Rights in Latin America. Brighton: Sussex Academic Press.Google Scholar
Pruden, Hernán. 2012. “Cruceños into Cambas: Regionalism and Revolutionary Nationalism in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia, 1935–1959.” PhD dissertation, Stony Brook University.Google Scholar
Quijano, Anibal. 2001. “Colonialidad del poder, cultura y conocimiento en América.” In Capitalismo y geopolítica del conocimiento, edited by Mignolo, Walter. Buenos Aires: Ediciones del Signo.Google Scholar
Quintero, Pablo, ed. 2015. Alternativas decoloniales al capitalismo colonial/moderno. Buenos Aires: Ediciones del Signo.Google Scholar
Rivera Cusicanqui, Silvia. 1984. Oprimidos pero no vencidos: Luchas del campesinado aymara y qhechwa de Bolivia, 1900–1980. La Paz: HISBOL-CSUTCB.Google Scholar
Rivera Cusicanqui, Silvia. 1993. “La Raíz: Coloniadores y colonizados.” In Violencias encubiertas en Bolivia, edited by Albó, Xavier and Barrios, Raúl, 27139. La Paz: CIPCA; Ediciones Aruwiyiri.Google Scholar
Rivera Cusicanqui, Silvia. 1999. “Sendas y senderos de la ciencia social andina.” Autodeterminación: Análisis Histórico, Político y Teoría Social 10: 83107.Google Scholar
Rivera Cusicanqui, Silvia. 2003. “Mirando al pasado para caminar por el presente y el futuro: Prefacio de la autora, 2003.” Oprimidos pero no vencidos: Luchas del campesinado aymara y qhechwa, 1900–1980. La Paz: Ediciones Aruwiyiri; Yachaywasi.Google Scholar
Rivera Cusicanqui, Silvia, and Aillón Soria, Virginia, eds. 2015. Antología del pensamiento crítico boliviano contemporáneo. Buenos Aires: CLACSO.Google Scholar
Rivera Cusicanqui, Silvia, and Barragán, Rossana, eds. 1997. Debates post coloniales: Una introducción a los estudios de la subalternidad. La Paz: Historias.Google Scholar
Rivera Cusicanqui, Silvia, and THOA. 1992. Ayllus y proyectos de desarrollo en el norte de Potosí. La Paz: Ediciones Aruwiyiri.Google Scholar
Rodríguez García, Huascar. 2012. La choledad antiestatal: El anarcosindicalismo en el movimiento obrero boliviano (1912–1965). La Paz: Muela del Diablo.Google Scholar
Rodríguez Ostria, Gustavo. 1991. El socavón y el sindicato: Ensayos históricos sobre los trabajadores mineros, siglos XIX–XX. La Paz: Instituto de Investigaciones Sociológica.Google Scholar
Salomon, Frank. 1982. “Andean Ethnology in the 1970s: A Retrospective.” Latin American Research Review 17 (2): 75128. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2503146.Google Scholar
Salomon, Frank. 1985. “The Historical Development of Andean Ethnology.” Mountain Research and Development 5 (1): 7998. DOI: 10.2307/3673224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanjinés C., Javier. 2004. Mestizaje Turned Upside Down: Aesthetic Politics in Modern Bolivia. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Sanjinés C., Javier. 2013. Embers of the Past: Essays in Times of Decolonization. Durham, NC: Duke University. DOI: 10.1215/9780822378815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, Jim, and Draper, Melissa, eds. 2008. Dignity and Defiance: Stories from Bolivia’s Challenge to Globalization. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Serulnikov, Sergio. 2003. Subverting Colonial Authority: Challenges to Spanish Rule in Eighteenth Century Southern Andes. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. DOI: 10.1215/9780822385264Google Scholar
Serulnikov, Sergio. 2013. Revolution in the Andes: The Age of Túpac Amaru. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. DOI: 10.1215/9780822378303Google Scholar
Shesko, Elizabeth. 2012. “Conscript Nation: Negotiating Authority and Belonging in the Bolivian Barracks, 1900–1950.” PhD dissertation, Duke University.Google Scholar
Siekmeier, James F. 2011. The Bolivian Revolution and the United States, 1952 to the Present. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Sivak, Martín. 2010. Evo Morales: The Extraordinary Rise of the First Indigenous President of Bolivia. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Smale, Roberto. 2010. I Sweat the Flavor of Tin: Labor Activism in Early Twentieth-Century Bolivia. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Solíz Urrutia, Carmen. 2014. “Fields of Revolution: Politics of Agrarian Reform in Bolivia, 1935–1971.” PhD dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar
Solíz Urrutia, Carmen. 2017. “‘Land to the Original Owners’: Rethinking the Indigenous Politics of the Bolivian Agrarian Reform.” Hispanic American Historical Review 97 (2): 259296. DOI: 10.1215/00182168-3824065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soruco Sologuren, Ximena. 2011. La ciudad de los cholos: Mestizaje y colonialidad en Bolivia, siglos XIX y XX. La Paz: PIEB; Lima: Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos/IFEA. DOI: 10.4000/books.ifea.810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soruco Sologuren, Ximena, Quispe, Wilfredo Carlos Plata, and Medeiros, Gustavo. 2008. Los Barones del Oriente: El poder en Santa Cruz ayer y hoy. Santa Cruz: Fundación Tierra.Google Scholar
Stein, Stanley J., and Stein, Barbara H.. 1970. The Colonial Heritage of Latin America: Essays on Economic Dependence in Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephenson, Marcia. 1999. Gender and Modernity in Andean Bolivia. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Stephenson, Marcia. 2002. “Forging an Indigenous Counterpublic Sphere: The Taller de Historia Oral Andina in Bolivia.” Latin American Research Review 37 (2): 99118. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2692150.Google Scholar
Tapia, Luís. (2002) 2018. The Production of Local Knowledge: History and Politics in the Work of René Zavaleta Mercado. Translated by Spedding, Alison. Calcutta: Seagull.Google Scholar
THOA (Taller de Historia Oral Andina). 1984. El indio Santos Marka T’ula, cacique principal de los ayllus de Callapa y apoderado general de las comunidades de la República. La Paz: THOA.Google Scholar
Thomson, Sinclair. 2002. We Alone Will Rule: Native Andean Politics in the Age of Insurgency. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Thomson, Sinclair, Barragán, Rossana, Albó, Xavier, Qayuum, Seemin, and Goodale, Mark, eds. 2018. The Bolivia Reader. History, Culture, Politics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurner, Mark. 1997. From Two Republics to One Divided: Contradictions of Postcolonial Nationmaking in Andean Peru. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. DOI: 10.1215/9780822379744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurner, Mark, and Guerrero, Andrés, eds. 2003. After Spanish Rule. Postcolonial Predicaments of the Americas. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. DOI: 10.1215/9780822385332-002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ticona Alejo, Esteban. 2005. Lecturas para la descolonización: Taqpachani qhispiyasipxañani = Líbrémonos todos. La Paz: Plural Editores.Google Scholar
Urbano, Henrique. 1991. “Historia y etnohistoria andinas.” Revista Andina 9 (2): 123163.Google Scholar
Wachtel, Nathan. 2001. El regreso de los antepasados: Los indios urus de Bolivia, del siglo XX al XVI: Ensayos de historia regresiva. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica.Google Scholar
Wade, Peter. 1997. Race and Ethnicity in Latin America. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
Webber, Jeffrey R. 2011. From Rebellion to Reform in Bolivia: Class Struggle, Indigenous Liberation, and the Politics of Evo Morales. Chicago: Haymarket Books.Google Scholar
Yapu, Mario, ed. 2006. Modernidad y pensamiento descolonizador: Memoria del Seminario Internacional. La Paz: PIEB; Lima: Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos/IFEA.Google Scholar
Yashar, Deborah J. 2005. Contesting Citizenship in Latin America: The Rise of Indigenous Movements and the Postliberal Challenge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511790966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, Kevin A. 2017. Blood of the Earth: Resource Nationalism, Revolution, and Empire in Bolivia. Austin: University of Texas Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zavaleta Mercado, René. (1986) 2016. Towards a History of the National-Popular in Bolivia. Translated by Freeland, Anne. Calcutta: Seagull.Google Scholar
Zulawski, Ann. 1995. They Eat from Their Labor: Work and Social Change in Colonial Bolivia. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar