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.

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.

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.

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?”

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.

Most latinamericanists will be interested and some fascinated by the aesthetic import of this epoch-making exhibit, jointly organized and presented by the Yale University Art Gallery and the University of Texas Art Museum. The purpose of this brief statement is to indicate some of its more important repercussions on the social scientist and historian which have potential research value. The first and obvious value lies in the fact that the catalogue presents in one compact volume all of the outstanding stylistic developments in painting, and to a lesser extent in architecture and engraving, from early Independence times to the present day. From a purely documentary point of view, excepting the few authentic, extant architectural remains, painting is the only medium that gives visual expression to the developments in the first half of the 19th century; so that the exhibition provides a basic research tool towards determining what the graphic representation of the socio-political developments of the period were. Even for the later nineteenth and twentieth centuries, this concentrated panorama supplies us with representative perceptions of how Latin Americans conceptualized themselves and their cultural traditions. We base our remarks on the paintings themselves and on an excellent representative catalogue. Catlin, director of the exhibit, with his collaborators (Grieder, Davidson, Deredita, and Faulhaber) will soon begin work on a scholarly volume which will interrelate the aesthetic developments with the social, economic and political developments of Latin American history in a thoroughgoing study.