The phenomenon of peasant revolt in the Andean area of South America has been both sustained and violent from Spanish colonial times to the present. The revolt of Túpac Amaru II, who led a rebellion against Spanish colonialism near Cuzco in 1780, has been the best-known incidence of this phenomenon, although the southern highlands region, sometimes known as the mancha india (“Indian stain”), was the center of numerous local revolts during the period 1860–1920, and the focus of several peasant land invasions during the two decades 1950–70.

Throughout the world, the Catholic Church has been in ferment since the Second Vatican Council. In Latin America, traditionally a Catholic region, the application of the council's ideas has stimulated dramatic changes in the outlook and practices of Church groups. These changes are particularly visible in the development of a new language for describing and evaluating temporal action (“the world”), and in the emergence of novel perspectives on the Church's proper relation to “the world.” What is the import of such changes for the student of politics?

This essay is devoted to a critique of the interpretation of the present Brazilian regime given in a recent work by Philippe Schmitter, an interpretation that is organized around the themes of “Bonapartism” and “restoration/Portugalization” (Schmitter 1973). The basic problem treated by means of these concepts is that of the relation between the state and social classes in Brazil. Our argument will be that Schmitter's usage rips these concepts out of their original historical context and attempts to utilize them in a context in which they do not really fit. They are therefore only of limited use for understanding the nature of the post-1964 regime, and in fact their application can easily lead us to lose sight of what is specifically new in the political economy of Brazil today. Having made our criticisms, we will advance a number of alternative hypotheses about how that regime's relation to the fundamental classes of Brazilian society should be understood.

The arena of Brazilian literary criticism during the 1950s was one of heated polemics and angry debates between the “old” and the “new” critics. In many ways, this protracted encounter involved a clash of world views as much as of concepts of literature and criticism. For one thing, the opponents of the nova crítica had a wholly different cast of mind from the new critics. Whether they utilized the reigning impressionistic or sociological approaches to literature and criticism, or whether they were merely dilettantes who dabbled in letters at their leisure, they all tended to view literature in other than a literary framework. To the new critics, this orientation was the same thing as saying that literature was only a satellite responding to the gravitational pull of other forms of knowledge—history, sociology, or psychology, for example. Its main function, therefore, was to illuminate the style of an epoch or the personality of the author, even that of the critic himself. Such a concept of literature was totally unacceptable to the new critics, who insisted on regarding literature in its own right, as a separate but equal planet in the universe of the intellect. Further, the new and the old critics locked horns over the measure of importance that subjective considerations should be allotted in literary criticism. The former wished to minimize them dramatically, maintaining that criticism was a rational, objective discipline; while the latter objected strenuously to such minimization, holding that criticism was primarily an exercise of the critic's creative imagination. The debate over subjective and objective attitudes in literary study is part of the broader issue of the relative merits of the modern, scientific mode of thought and the traditional, personalist mode that had characterized Brazilian literary criticism.

Both developed and developing countries have experienced increasing state intervention in the social welfare arena. In most countries of the world, the state has sponsored some social welfare programs, especially programs of social security. Despite their prevalence, little is known about their political nature, especially in the developing countries. Yet, the study of the political aspects of social security, especially the who, the what, and the how, would at once reveal important patterns of state-society relations.

Durante el mes de septiembre de 1976, se visitaron diferentes personas e instituciones que en forma directa o indirecta realizan o están en disponibilidad de realizar, programas de investigación o acción en relación con la mujer. De estas visitas se presenta a continuación una lista por países con el nombre de la persona, la institución a que pertenece, la actividad que realiza o está en capacidad de realizar, y su dirección. Esta lista de ninguna manera es exhaustiva y representa sólo los contactos obtenidos en un corto viaje.

A general assumption of the modernization literature is that urbanized nations constitute more socially mobilized and therefore potentially demanding political environments (Thompson, p. 477; Deutsch, p. 498). The expansion of urban centers indicates the breakdown of traditional peasant society and the natural static political order that it represents. Consequently, Huntington (pp. 53–55) and others argue that nations undergoing the process of urbanization will tend to become more violent and politically unstable unless the new demands ultimately created by rural to urban migration are satisfied in the socioeconomic sphere or managed by capable political institutions.

My experience in teaching reference and research tools in the field of Latin American studies began in 1966, when I was a researcher and bibliographer at the UCLA Latin American Center. I was approached by approximately fifteen doctoral candidates in Latin American history who had completed all of their course work and needed orientation in beginning dissertation research. During the two months that followed, I met this group weekly for a two-hour period. I began by introducing them to the terminology (including definitions of the various types of reference tools) of library science. The second meeting was devoted to library research in general.