Many social scientists working today in Latin American studies are skeptical, if not hostile, to the notion of incorporating psychological theory and methodology in their research. Some contend that studies of individual personality formation, while perhaps inherently fascinating and certainly of professional interest to the psychologist, contribute little to our greater understanding of Latin American society. Social behavior and social systems, others argue, are wholly explainable in terms of structural-materialist-power factors. Consequently, there is no need for a social psychological approach. Still others view this type of orientation as essentially conservative, an effort to attribute Latin American problems (for example, underdevelopment) to the existence of a “Latin American mind” or a “Latin American personality” (through generally pejorative categories, such as the inability to exert onself).

Inasmuch as Scientific Criticism and Polemic are of the Greatest significance for the development of every branch of historical science, including, of course, the study of Latin America, I should like to offer a few thoughts on this subject.

Soviet historians of Latin America, just as scholars in other fields, attach great significance to the views of specialists everywhere-be they their colleagues in the USSR or abroad; be they Marxists or non-Marxists. Even if we hold different philosophical and methodological positions than our opponents, we are always ready to lend an attentive ear to critical observations. Disagreement with the world view or general historical conception of one or another of our foreign critics by no means prevents us from recognizing the correctness of his views on given problems, provided that the viewpoint in question is convincingly argued and scientificallydemonstrated. Even though we reject any questioning of the basic conceptions advanced by us, we are still able to accept admonitions and to seek a kernel of reason in otherwise totally inadmissible criticisms.

Historians who have sought to examine the native societies of the Americas, whether before or after the European conquest, have often felt a need to go beyond the traditional bounds of the discipline, loose as they are, in their efforts to comprehend the values and the actions of people whose societies did not conform to the European pattern. In the study of Indian societies, anthropology and history joined early and have continued to collaborate; the very term ethnohistory, which some would consider an unnecessary coining of a new name for social history, is clear evidence of this union. Further evidence, if such be necessary, is provided by the degree to which scholars have drawn upon the approaches and conclusions of both disciplines in their work. While this practice is of long standing, earlier work showed a general tendency to utilize the data and the conclusions of other disciplines, rather than drawing upon the theories and the approaches developed by others in order to reexamine one's own materials. This highly pragmatic approach to the potential contributions of other disciplines is increasingly giving way to deeper collaboration and interchange.

This paper is a survey of Maya archaeology of the last ten years. A brief historical examination of the years prior to 1958 is made. There follows an intensive look at fieldwork from 1958 to 1968. An examination is made of the state of the field with respect to research design and analytical techniques along with a consideration of data contributed by collateral fields. On the level of explanation and synthesis, there is an examination of the major problems of Maya culture-history to the solution of which recent research has contributed. The concluding sections summarize the characteristics of recent work and attempt to sketch the critical areas for future investigation. I may have unfairly slighted some investigations and workers because much recent work is still in unpublished form. I have depended not only on preliminary reports and the standard publication sources, but also to some degree on the “bush telegraph” of anthropology in assessing the field. Thus the following can only be regarded as one (albeit active) worker's perception of his own specialty.

Cada escritor se maneja dentro de peculiares ciclos productivos, cuyo ritmo, duración, intensidad, época de la vida, propician valederas leeciones sobre su intima problematica, tanto personal como social, tanto histórica como estética, tanto ideológica como artistica, por cuanto no responden meramente a su voluntad productiva sino que surgen en la confluencia de sus interiores procesos psiquicos con las situaciones históricas de la cultura en que viven. Por eso nos hablan del tiempo del escritor y del tiempo de la sociedad y solo podemos alcanzar su comprensión si abrazamos conjuntamente a los dos a través de la fusión ideológica que nos entregan los textos.

Dependencia y Desarrollo en América Latina se ha constituido, sin duda alguna, en el análisis de los procesos sociales y políticos latinoamericanos que más impacto ha tenido en los círculos académicos e intelectuales de dicho continente en los ultimos quince años. Asimismo, la versión en inglés publicada en 1979 ha alcanzado una difusión semejante en los Estados Unidos y Canadá, habiéndose transformado en una referencia obligada de todo curso sobre sociedad y política en América Latina.

The first part of this essay reviews some of the strengths and weaknesses in the current state of social history of Latin American cities. Specifically, it tries to create an awareness that quantitative urban studies need not be, and should not be, limited to aggregate data for sources. Unfortunately, many of the nascent quantitative studies of postindependence Latin American cities achieve their figures through published materials, principally demographic and commercial censuses. However, manuscript census returns, notarial records, judicial assessments, and other primary documentation can also provide the base from which we can observe frequencies both of personal vital records and of popular quotidian behavior; moving, marrying, going to school, buying or selling goods or property, and so on.

Sex has been and continues to be one of the most important elements that differentiates the functions performed by members of society, particularly those related to the social division of work. From a strictly biological perspective, the primary difference between men and women lies in the fact that, during specific periods of the life cycle, women direct a considerable part of their energy to the reproduction of the species. Beyond this difference, the physical and intellectual capacities of men and women are relatively similar. Nevertheless, it is a general fact that the levels of male and female participation differ extensively.

Literature on the latin american university is largely of a polemical and speculative nature, generally devoid of empirical grounding and theoretical significance. Research, in the sense of a systematic quest to enhance our powers to understand, predict, and control relationships among variables, is of recent origin. Parker (1964), in a review of over two hundred U.S. doctoral dissertations written on Latin American education, noted that few studies were concerned with university reform or the influence of universities on social, economic, and political improvement. Lipset (1966, p. 153), in a general survey of literature on university students in underdeveloped countries, observed that the influence of university studies, patterns of recruitment, modes of teaching on intellectual, professional, political and cultural standards and aspirations or the assimilation of students into the various spheres of adult activity is still terra incognita.