Carol
asked if there is a difference between a thesis, a theory or a model. I think
the differences are how much you expand upon each other. A thesis and a theory
are both ideas, but theses are more individualized according the author and
theories are, usually, accepted explanations for occurrences. For example, a thesis
would present detailed and succinct information about a theory, which is an
explanation for an event you think is true, is supported by corroborated
research and is supported by other historians. You would then use specific data,
examples in from any period in history or a model to prove its veracity.
The
theory that is presented in From Silver
to Cocaine is that the prevailing theory about the relationship between the
more prosperous (core) nations of the North and the more underdeveloped (periphery)
countries of the South is that it does not do enough to present Latin American
countries on fair terms. The editors argue that they were not always victims of
an unfair trade system, but were instead often able to participate in the
commodity chain process on a more even footing. They argue that “the
international market was not an exogenous force on which Latin American
producers had no influence. Export producers and traders did not just dance to
whatever tune the anonymous global market played…[and they] question the common
view that they were victims or beneficiaries.”[1]
Like Kent, I also read a few reviews and Gustavo Paz from the University of
Buenos Aires had this to say about their theory.
By directing its attention to products rather than nations,
this theory transcends national approaches and offers a global perspective
encompassing producers in Latin America, consumers in North America and western
Europe (and eventually Asia), along with several layers of intermediaries (both
local and international) in between.
The
model the editors and authors use support this general theory is the commodity
chain model through the lens of 12 different Latin American commodities that
they believe prove their theory correct.
“Each of the essays in this volume argues that studying the interlocking
processes of production, transport, commercialization and consumption of export
commodities requires and analysis that transcends national histories.”[2]
As far as revisionist histories goes this one does not require a huge stretch
of imagination or arouse any negative feelings in me. In fact, revisionist
histories that seem to look at a seemingly negative aspect of history and
follow the data to a more positive outcome seem to be in fashion these days.
The
focus on commodity chains, from production and labor to consumption is a focus
we have seen from the books we have read recently, but none of the others have
placed as much emphasis on linking the beginning and the end as is evidenced by
the chosen commodities and the essays that represent them. I think that choosing
to focus on so many different commodities, unlike Mintz and the Coes, helps to
more strongly prove the thesis and make it a theory. If this idea is applicable
across different locations, different time periods, different products with
different cultural, social and political repercussions, then it stands to say
that it is a solid theory.
No comments:
Post a Comment