Following their particular doctrinary inclinations, students of the social and the political situation have utilized diverse designations to identify the various segments into which they divide the world. These designations have always tended to present a tripartite division, based frequently on economic or politico-social organizations. They have thus used terms such as “free,” communist and uncommitted, capitalist, socialist, “third world,” imperialistic, colonial or marxist.

Con este número se inicia la publicación de una nueva revista dedicada al intercambio continuo y sistemático de información referente a investigaciones que se están llevando a cabo en la actualidad en América Latina en los campos de las Ciencias Sociales y las Humanidades.

To Understand the development of research on latin america we must not overlook the present status of the social sciences throughout the world. One of the characteristics of the contemporary world is that distances hardly exist; scientists thus continually stage “invasions” from more developed into the so-called underdeveloped societies. Such phenomena, of course, existed in the past, too; the origin of anthropology is linked to the study of primitive societies in colonial times. The amount of resources available today, modern transportation facilities, and the constantly growing number of researchers make it increasingly impossible that one area or country could be without social scientists studying something.

The striking racial heterogeneity of contemporary latin america has obviously evolved in the course of a historical process that started in 1492. There would perhaps be a temptation to interpret the whole of Latin American history in terms of race relations. Though we believe that such an approach would be absurd, race relations have admittedly colored many aspects of Latin American history. Their role is by no means easily defined.

This article with commentaries is presented experimentally in response to suggestions made to the editor by representatives of the LARR Board at the Ithaca meetings that topical articles of the type developed in Current Anthropology be solicited for the Review. The Current Anthropology (*) treatment consists of commissioning a specific article on a theme of moment, then circulating it prior to publication among a group of experts for commentary and publishing both together with a rebuttal by the author. Time did not permit a complete imitation of the process, but with the kind cooperation of the author and his sponsoring organization we have obtained permission to circulate in advance an article of interdisciplinary import which has appeared only recently in Spanish and printed the reactions of a selected group of experts in distinct disciplines. Neither did time allow the author his rebuttal in this issue, but we shall reserve space in Number 3 should he care to make use of it.

The theme of the first world congress of rural sociology pointed to the importance of technological change in agricultural production throughout the world and the social changes that accompany or follow it.

Examples can indeed be found in Latin America of rural technological change being succeeded by social change, but that proposition alone does not provide a good characterization of the present rural scene. Great social changes are being incubated, there is much latent and some open conflict, but little technological change leading to development.

A comprehensive survey of recent research on latin american urbanization would be a large task for a team of specialists, particularly if it were to include local as well as comparative studies, the working papers which circulate through government and academic offices, and all the scholarly disciplines which now contribute to the topic. This paper is no more than a sampling of research on selected aspects of urbanization, interlarded with commentary and a bit of opinion. Except for Section 1, emphasis is upon scholarly output of the past five years. Whatever unity the presentation may have springs from the interests of a historian who is less concerned with physical and social engineering than with identifying cultural and institutional imperatives of the past which shape contemporary social process.

In his inclusive and detailed classification of rural settlement types in Latin America, Marshall Wolfe admirably succeeds in his intention “to describe patterns and relationships that are widely important in the region.” His discussion touches upon important realities of rural social life and its place in the national society which too often are ignored. Despite the modesty of his claims, the author's synthesis of data from many sources provides the basis of a conceptualization which should prove extremely useful as a frame of reference for many practical and scholarly interests. The generalizations he offers about the characteristics of the distinct settlement types, and the nature of their relations to each other and to national institutions, constitute a series of hypotheses worthy of being investigated by research projects designed primarily for that purpose.

A major development in research in latin american humanities in recent years has been the emergence of theater as a recognized research discipline, and a consequent, although uneven, increase in published investigation. Further, there has been a major shift in emphasis, in that the formerly predominant concentration on the Colonial period and the national approach has been broadened to include a rather considerable amount of material dealing with the 20th century. Before pursuing this further, however, it is necessary to outline certain problems which distinguish research in the field from other specialities within the extremely broad scope of Hispanic literature.

For one who lacks the knowledge, as well as the wish, to challenge Andrew Pearse's account of the facts of the Latin American rural scene, the only useful form of comment is to raise questions and perhaps thereby to express some minor doubts concerning the inference he makes from the facts. It might be most useful to start from the end opposite Pearse's. He has looked at the evidence, crystallized the diversity of the changes he sees into a discrete set of trends, illustrated them with illuminating and convincing details, and tentatively forecast their implications. Instead, let us start at the other end with a question that rests on a clear value premise, and ask whether the trends Pearse indicates are “for the better” or “for the worse.” I would choose the question: “what chances are there of a substantial and sustained increase in agricultural production?”

Land reform as a subject of investigation in latin america post-dates its appearance as a political measure, and although its appearance as a plank in programs of liberal and leftist parties and movements has been in vogue since the Twenties, few serious studies that can be properly referred to as land reform investigation took place until the Thirties. Many of the early studies that may be cited as pioneer works in this field are fact-finding land use studies by the geographers (e.g., McBride in Bolivia and Chile), and some early rural sociological studies in the same vein (e.g., Carl Taylor in Argentina and the Consejo de Bienestar Rural study on the Venezuelan Andes). In many cases these types of studies have continued into the past decade (DeYoung in Haiti, Ford in Peru, and Fals Borda in Colombia). The wave of anthropological community studies (mostly rural) were microcosmic, pioneer type research on land tenure. There were few agricultural censuses upon which any sort of nationwide study would need to have been based and in general the basic reference material for land reform until 1950 was most spotty and conjectural.

French efforts to develop latin american studies were noted by three recent conferences: one in Bordeaux, in 1963, on the “History of Latin America in the 20th century”; one in Toulouse, in 1964, on the “Problems of Cities in Latin America”; one in Paris, in October 1965, on the “Agrarian Problems in Latin American Countries.” This last conference, like the preceding ones, was organized by the C. N. R. S. It took place at the Latin American Institute of Higher Studies of the University of Paris, under the chairmanship of Pierre Monbeig, professor at the Sorbonne and director of the Institute, and of Francois Chevalier, professor at the University of Bordeaux and director of the French Institute of Studies of the Andes.

This essay is divided into three parts: a discussion of the pervasive role of Marxism-Leninism in Soviet Latin American studies; an examination of the contents of a collection of translated readings of USSR scholars tentatively entitled The Soviet Image of Latin America, 1945–1965: A Documentary History, and a general survey of certain basic works devoted to the principal Latin American themes prescribed by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.