alan knight: interpreting the mexican revolution

8/2/2019 Alan Knight: Interpreting the Mexican Revolution

1/27

TEXAS PAPERS ON MEXICOPre -pub lic ation work ing paper s o f theMexican CenterIn stitu te o f Latin Americ an S tudie sUn ivers ity o f Texas a t Austin

I SSN 1041-3715

In te rp re tin g th e Mex ic an R ev olu tio nA lan Kn ight

D ep artm en t o f H isto ryU niversity of T exas at A ustinPaper No. 88-02

http://lanic.utexas.edu/project/etext/llilas/tpla/8802.pdf Alan Knight Interpreting the Mexican Revolution


2/27

Interp retin g the Mexican R evolu tion

Alan KnightDepar tment of History

Un iver si ty o fTexas a t Aust in

Historians should probably not spend too much time writing or readingh isto rio grap hical re sums su ch as th is. T hey c an ea sily b ec ome ex erc ises in ra nd omnam e-dropping or contrived polem ic (and there are no doubt elem ents of both in thispaper). Carried to excess, they take us aw ay from our m ain task, researching andw ritin g h isto ry . If p rac tic ed in mod eratio n, h owev er, th ey c an b e u se fu l in allowin gone to review the field, to survey the state of the art, in this case in the field of" revo lu tiona ry Mex ico" , wh ich 1 loose ly defme as 1876-1940 .

1men tion con tT Ivedpol emics . The o rigin o f this paper t ra ce s to an invi ta tion k indlyex te nd ed to me b y E ric V an Youn g, th e d istin gu ish ed co lo nialist, w ho was lo ok in g fo ra speaker for a C onference on Latin American H istory (M exicanist) session at theAmerican Hi stor ic al Associa tion Confer ence , Washington, D .C ., Decembe r 1987. H isin vitatio n was c ou ch ed in term s a little remin isc en t o f a b ox in g p romo ter p uttin g in tothe ring his latest find from the barrio de Tepito; roughly speaking, he urged m e tocom e out sw in ging (1 exaggerate slightly-as 1m ay w ell do elsew here in this paper).O r, to adopt an apter com parison, he seem ed to envisage som ething akin to PanchoV ilIa's attack on Herm osillo in N ovem ber 1915, described by one historian as "aslash in g, d eterm in ed attack in th e o ld V illista sty le " (C len de nen 1 96 1, p . 2 14 ). T ha tm ay be the m odel, but V illa's attack, of course, proved a costly failure; so m ight this.F urth ermore, as an Eng lishman fa irly rec en tly arriv ed in th e U .S ., an xio us n ot to g iv eoffense to the m any M exicanists w hose w ork 1 knew but w hose faces 1 d idn't, 1 hada dd itio nal g ro un ds fo r ca utio n. In th e face o f th is awkward d ilemma, 1 h it u po n a safeand con g enial strategy (one that com es easy, being graven in the E nglish collectiv ep sy ch e): h av e a g o at th e F re nch . T hat w ill b ecome e vid en t la ter.

F irst, how ever, 1 w ant to sketch a quick outline of "revolutionary" history, as ith as p erh ap s d ev eloped th rough th re e sc ho la rly g en era tio ns . Then, 1want to lo ok a t th e



3/27

2curre nt s ta te o f p la y, in p artic ula r th e re vis io nis t in te rp re ta tio ns th at h av e come th ic kan d fa st since , ro ug hly , the 19 60 s. T hat g iv es me th e ex cu se to in vo ke Agin co urt an dWaterloo.

Y ou can slice revolutionary historiography any w ay you choose; but one w ay, itseem s to m e, is by generations, roughly as fo11ow s. A n initial generation of w riterswe re part ic ipan ts /observe rs ; they fough t, poli ticked, o r we re engaged commenta to rs .T hese w ould include M exican w riters/inte11ectuals of both left (e.g., Jess SilvaH erzo g, Isid ro F ab ela, And rs Mo lin a Enrq uez) an d righ t (F ran cisco Buln es, Jorg eV era Estaol), as w e11 a s highly influential American commentators, like FrankTannenbaum and E rn es t G ru en ing (Tannenbaum , in p artic ula r, is th e bte noir e of therev isio nists; h is is th e p rinc ip al scalp th at-th ey lik e to th in k-h an gs from their belt).O f course, this generation w ould also include m any revolutionary participantsth em selve s, who pe nn ed their m emoirs, d iaries, and ap olo gia. T hese are n umero usand o fte n v alu ab le a s sourc es (e .g ., Gab rie l Gav ira 's o r S alv ara do A lv ara do 's ); b ut, o fcourse, they are highly partisan and-take the example of Obregn's Ocho milkilometro s en camp a a which, on reading, seem s at least that long and som etim esmore lik e ochoc ien tos mi l- they can be quite heavy going. B ut they, T annenbaumespecia11y, helped create an im age of the R evolution (popular, peasant, agrarian,n atio na lis t), a n image th at was v irtu ally c oeva l w ith th e Revolu tio n itse lf. They were ,unavoidably, cornm itted; but by the sam e token they caught som e of the intangiblef lavo r o f the r evolut iona ry exper ience (a poin t 1 '11e tu rn to ).They a ls o la id th e g roundwork fo r g en era tio n #2: a cademic h is to ria ns, p ub lish ingchie fly in th e 1950s and 196Os ,who adopte d a " sc ho la rly ", c hie fly n arra tiv e app ro ach,w ho usua11y f ocused on national elites, governm ents and m ajor events, but w h~even though they w ere often sympathetic to the R evolution in principle-sought toavoid partisanship: for exam ple, in the U .S ., C harles C umberland, S tan1ey R oss,Robert Qu irk ; in Mexic o, Jo s C . Vala d s, Berta U11oa ,Roberto B la nco Moheno , a ndth e outsta nd ing te am which, under th e edito rs hip o f Dan ie l Cos io V ille ga s, work ed onthe His to ria Moderna de Mxico. Though the ir schola rly, "objec tive", usua lly narrat iveapproach led them aw ay from grand generalizations-they rarely paused to offercategorizations of the R ev01ution in its totality-they tended to rem ain w ithin theparadigm set out by Tannenbaum, which we may term the old orthodoxy. Thisconceived of the R evolution as popular, agrarian, spontaneous, characterized bypow erful peasant participation and a large-scale confrontation of peasants and



4/27

3landowners (often "feudal latifundistas", as well as by strong sentiments ofn atio na lism , e ven xenophobia (a ll o f wh ic h c arrie d imp lic atio ns fo r in te rp re ta tio ns o fth e Porfiria to : a re gime o f authorita ria n, x enophile opp re ss io n). Accord ing to th e o ldorthod oxy, the R evolution-a genuine social rev olution-o vertum ed the Po rfirianregim e and resulted in a new , m ore radical, nationalist and reform ist regim e that,d esp ite h alts, re gressio ns a nd b etray als, rep resen ted some k in d o f a dv an ce, a nd th atc erta in ly re pre se nte d a ma jo r departure from th e P orftriato . E ven where th is seco ndgeneration concentrated, as they often did, on the great m en and great events, theunderly in g a ss ump tio ns were s till th ose o f th e o ld o rth odoxy.

F rom about the late 1 960s on, a third generation b ecam e discern ible. T hese w ereth e b ab y-b oomers o f Mex ica n h isto rio grap hy . T he y were more n umero us, arg uab lymo re p ro fe ss io na l, p erh ap s mo re s in gle -m inded (a nc l/o r n arrow -m inded). Follow ingth e prevailing (global) histo riographical trends, they specialized, by top ic, ev enme thodology . They ra ns acked th e a rc hiv es a s n ev er b efo re (c oin cid en ta lly , Mexic ana rch iv es b ecame muc h more acc essib le). A nd , u nlik e th eir p red ece sso rs, w hom th eysom etim es scorned, they soug ht to av oid the o ld con cen tration on elites and leadersan d to see history from the bo ttom u p; it w as tim e for lo s d e a ba jo t o get their deserveda tte ntio n (it is iro nic , in th e lig ht o f th is n ew app ro ach, th at th ese same h is to ria ns o fte ncone luded tha t lo s d e a ba jo were so much hap le ss cannon -fodder ).

The most nota ble fe atu re o f th is g en era tio n is th eir s he er numbers . A s Dav id Baile yo bse rv ed , in a h isto rio gra ph ic al artiele w ritten some ten y ea rs a go (an d which o ffe rs ac on ven ien t p re -emptiv e e xcu se ): " Ev en th e sp ec ialists ftn d th em selv es o vertax ed toread-and som etim es to locate-th e bo oks artieles an d dissertations that po ur forth ,not only in M exico and in the U S but also in a half-dozen other countries" (B ailey1978, p. 62). This outpouring derived partly from the grow th of higher education,hence of PhDs, in the U .S., M exico, and Europe (Europe now starts to figure in am odest way); perhaps partly it reflected, too, the 1960s vogue for things LatinAmerican , especial1y rev olutions; and it w as also a consequence of the inev itablehistoriographical cyele, whereby, as time goes by and archives open up, once"contem porary" topics recede in tim e, escape from the irresponsible clutches ofjo uma lis ts a nd in sta nt c ommenta to rs, a nd fin d s an ctu ary w ith s erio us , s ou rc e-m in ingh is to ria ns . In th e te n y ea rs 1946-1955, fo r e xample , th e Hispanic American Histor icalReview p ub lish ed sev en teen artie les o n p ostco lo nial Mexic o, o f which o nly two (o ne abrief note) focused on the Porfiriato or R evolution; during 1956-1975 there w ere



5/27

4fony -th ree a rti cle s ( sugges ting only a modest over all i ne rease in inte re st i n pos tcolon ia lM exico), but of these no fewer than twenty-three dealt w ith the Porfiriato andRevolu tio n (in th e ra tio 10: 13 ).

The m arch of tim e, how ever, had other consequences, I w ould suggest. First, itdistanced historians from their subject; while this may have made for greaterobjectivity, it did not necessarily m ake for greater com prehension, em pathy, orunderstanding (verstehen, in the classic W eberian sense). A feel for context-for theintangible m oods, sentim ents and assum ptions of historical actors-gave w ay to amo re pos itiv is tic re lia nc e on fa cts, e sp ec ia lly h ard fa cts, if p os sib le quantifia ble fa cts .A lso, the late 1960s and after w ere years when the M exican political system and"e co nomic m ira cle" seemed to falter (lo ok in g b ac k from to day 's p ersp ectiv e w e maywonder what the fuss was all about). But it is not surprising that those who, asp rac tic in g h isto rian s, work in g in p ost-1 96 8 Mex ico , h ad k nown only th e P eac e o fth ePRI, th e " eco nomic m irac le ", T la te lo lco (1 96 8), an d ritu al o ffic ia l in vo catio ns o f th eR evolution w hich seem ed to fly in the face of M exican reality, sho uld question w hatth e R ev olu tio n was all ab ou t an d fe el th e u rg e to d eb un k an d d emystify it.

Thus, from the late 1960s on, new, detailed monographs-books, theses,articles-flooded the m arket. G iven their sheer num ber, it is obvious that they didnot-could not-follow a common pattern. Some tried new methodologies:q uantita tiv e h is to ry (J ohn Coa tswo rth , P ete r Sm ith , James Wi lk ie ); o ra l h is to ry (AnnCraig, A nuro W annan, Eugenia M eyer and their respective team s, w ho sought torecover agrarista m em ories; W ilkie, again, w ho recorded the w ell-processedre co lle ctio ns o f h igh-up politic al v ete ra ns ). In most c as es , h owever, o ra l h is to ry was amea ns to g et at " histo ry from b elow" , an d it reflec ted th at p re valen t tre nd , b y n o mean sco nfin ed to Mexican historiog raphy in the last tw enty years. B ut the m ost cornm ondevice or approach for such history w as regional or local. Thus, aside from theira rch iva l origina li ty or cri ti ca l s tance vis-a-vis th e o ffic ia l re vo lu tio n, th e n ew h is to ry o fth e p ost-1 96 0s w as a bo ve a ll ch arac terised b y a lo ca l o r reg io nal fo cu s. S uc h a fo cu s,o f c ou rse, w as n ot n ew ; th ere w as a v en erab le trad itio n o f histories-of-the-patria-chica(some of them very useful); but now "professional" historians-M exican andfo reig n--acquired their ow n, adoptive patria s c hic as (and som etim es their ow na do ptiv e lo ca l ch au vin ism to g o w ith th em ). T he list is lo ng an d I w ill m erely list someof the bett er ones; s ever al, o f cou rse, comb ine b iog raph ical w ith local/r eg iona l s tudi es :H ctor A guilar C am n, D udley A nkerson, Thom as B enjam in, A nn C raig, R om ana



6/27

5Falc n (tw ic e), Hea th er Fow le r S alam in i, P au l F rie dric h, la n J acob s, G ilb ert J os eph,C arlos M artnez A ssad, Jean Meyer (a special case), E nrique Montalv o, F ranciscoP ao li, F rans S chryer, S tuart V oss, A rturo Warm an, M ark Wassennan, A llen Wells,John Womack; the several contributors to D avid B rading's Caudillo an d P easant(notably R aym ond B uve); and to B enjam in and M cN ellie's Other Mexicos (e.g.,D av id L aF ra nce , W illiam Lan gsto n, D an ie la S pen se r). O f co urse , th e d oy en o f lo ca lhistory--of microhistoria-was and is Luis Gonz le z; a nd th ere a re s ev era l flo uris hingcenters in M exico w hich generate valuable local studies: the Instituto M ora; theJiq uilp an C en tro d e E stu dio s d e la R ev olu ci n Mex ica na; th e Cole gio d e M ich oac n;th e Cole gio d e J alis co . Rec en t e xample s o f s ophis tic ate d re giona l s ympos ia a re V c to rRal Martnez Vsquez 's La rev olu ci n e n Oaxa ca an d Ma rtin ez A ssa d's tw o v olumeLa r evolu cin en la s r eg ione s.

So the m ost obvious and indisputable feature of post-1960s revolutionaryhistoriography has been its geographical or spatial disaggregation. T he nationalhistorian-the nonn of the earlier period-has been supplanted by the regional andlo ca l h is to ria n. And th ere c an be no doubt th at th is re pre se nte d evo lu tio na ry p rogre ss .T here, have, of course, been cou ntervailing attem pts at agg regatio n-at syntheticstudies, either natio nal and comprehensive in appro ach , or at least nation al in theirtreatm ent of specific them es. Studies of the revolution's foreign relations are onesp ecies, w hich I w ill p ass o ver (th ey are someth in g o f a b re ed ap art, th ou gh it is worthnoting that th e ou tstandin g foreign relations stu dy of this period-F riedrich K atz'sSec re t War -a l so sh ed s a lo t o f lig ht o n d omestic p olitic s an d so cial mov emen ts).

G iv en th e p le th ora o f re cent monograph s, a nd th e g re ate r a cc es sib ility o f a rc hiv es ,strictIy d omestic th emes-su ch a s lab or o r th e p easan try -a re less easily sy nth esized .W e have som e good studies of labor (by R odney A nderson, Joe A shby, B arry C arr,John Hart, Ram n Ruiz, as well as the valuable series edited by Pablo GonzlezC asanova), but they necessarily focus on m ajor industries (textiles) and nationalco nfed eratio ns (COM , CROM, CTM). Mex ica n lab or h isto ry is still a lo ng way b eh in dits E uropean and U .S. coun terp arts in breaking the tyrann y of acronym s and seekingto reconstruct the real "lives o f labor" or the "m aking of th e M exican w ork ing class"(rare examples are Garca D az's brief but cogent study of Santa Rosa and LeifAd le son's wo rk on th e Tamp ico la bo r movemen t).

T he a grarian sec to r (p ea sa nt, h ac ie nd a, ran ch o) h as b een b etter serv ed -p artlythrough the regional and local studies already m entioned, as w ell as a num ber of



7/27

6v alu ab le h ac ie nd a stu die s (b y Marijo s Amerlin ck d e Bon tempo, Ma rco B ellin geri,Juan Felipe L eal, S im on M iller, H eriberto Moreno G arca, H erbert N ick el, M anu elP lana, B eatriz R ojas, M ara V argas L ob singer)-and more am bitiou s syntheses arenow starting to app ear: b y John T utin o, Fried rich K atz, and Joh n C oatsw orth . D avidBrading, lan Jacobs, Frans Schryer and others have rescued the ranchero fromobliv io n (1 t hin k we can n ow sto p lame ntin g h is h isto rio grap hica l n eg lec t); b ut, if w eknow a good deal m ore about agrarian change in central and north M exico, MxicoSur rem ains-notw ithstanding excellent w ork by G ilbert Joseph, A llen W ells,T hom as B enjam in and others - som ething of an agrarian t ierra incognita, especiallyouts ide Yucatn .

F in ally , it is n o e xag gera tio n to say th at th e stu dy o f ch urch -state co nflic t h as b eenrevolutionized by the work of Jean M eyer, who has been ably seconded by otherscholars (A licia O livera Sedano, D avid B ailey). T hat, in fact, is a them e that veryreadily translates into national history; as I sha11 s uggest, the pow er of M eyer'srevisionist study of the C ristiada (a m ovem ent that, for all its im portance, w as quitelim ited in tim e and space) has enabled it, like som e errant giant planet, to exert anin fluence f ar beyond it s legit ima te o rb it .

T his brings us to the nub of the question: the interpretations of the R evolutionwhich these recent studies have stimulated. First, it should be noted that theconve rs io n o f lo caVregiona l s tu die s in to mo re g en era l, h ig he r le ve l s yn th es es is not a ne asy ta sk . C on fro nted w ith su ch stu die s, th e h isto rian , as re ad er o r w rite r, h as se vera !options. One is to avoid such syntheses altogether; to see the Revolution as anirred uc ib ly c omplex p atchwo rk , d efy in g g en eraliz atio n (1 w ill come b ac k to th is, th ep atc hwork a pp ro ach , in a momen t). A seco nd o ptio n is lim ited , q ualifie d comp ariso nand contrast. T his can produce useful aper~us and observations, but no genuinestru ctu red sy nth esis. A th ird o ptio n co nsists o f g en era lizin g a p artic ula r c ase, b old lyasserting-or tacitIy im ply ing-its typicality fo r a11(or m ost) of M exico. A rguably,th is is what Je an Mey er h as d on e (a lth ou gh w ith g reat p ower a nd p an ac he): th e C en ter-W est experience of the C ristiada inform s his entire interpretation of the C allistarev olu tio na ry state an d, b y fu rth er ex ten sio n, o f th e en tire R ev olu tio n (an d, ev en , o fM exican histo ry since the co nquest) (M eyer 1 973). O f course, this process of ev er-ra dia tin g g en eraliza tio n d oes n ot mean th at Mey er ig no re s c on tra sts o r b ald ly assertsth e o utrig ht ty pic ality o f th e C ristiad a, b ut th e effe ct is su fficie ntIy stro ng , I th in k, toju stify ca llin g Mey er's R ev olu tio n a R ev olu tio n se en th ro ug h C ristero stain ed g lass,



8/27

7an d, in co nse qu en ce, h ea vily c olo re d. A fo urth , fin al a nd co ntrastin g o ptio n co nsistsof denying the typicality of any given case; of asserting not its typicality but itsu niq uen ess; an d th us, b y implic atio n, g en era lizin g (n eg ativ ely ) a bo ut th e rest o f th eR evolu tio n. T he clearest an d cornmonest case of th is involv es Z apatism o, w hich iso fte n c ate go ris ed a s th e s ole g enuin e peasantlagrarista r evoluti onary movement amidth e o th erw ise mea nin gless c hao s an d ca ud illismo o f 1 91 0-1 92 0 (Ruiz 1 98 0, p . 2 (0 ).T hus, as historians b egin to synth esize th e m ass of new , chiefly local/regionalstudies, they begin, explicitly or im plicitly, to generate interpretations of theR ev olu tio n as a who le . S ome h av e g on e th e who le h og , attemptin g g en uin e sy nth ese s:F ran~o is-X avier G uerra, John H art, Jean Meyer, R amon R uiz, H ans Wemer T oblerand m yself. A llow m e here a brief digression. Several of these synthesisers areE uropean (a Frenchm an, a Spaniard based in France, a Sw iss and an E nglishm an).W hy should this be? 1 attribute it partly to a set of very practical considerations:E uro pean s h av e le ss a cc ess to p rim ary so urces, h en ce a re d riv en to sy nth esis (Gue rrau se d n o a rch iv es, T ob le r a lim ite d se le ctio n); th ey a lso o perate in a n a ca dem ic worldwhere Mex ica n h isto ry is a p retty o bscu re a nd ex otic rinconcito, hence th ey a re d riv ento teach, and w rite, at a hig her level o f generality virtually to justify their academ icex iste nce ; c on ve rse ly , th ey fe elless in hib ited b y th e sc ho la rly p ro xim ity o f "riv als" .W here the N orth American M exicanist m ay som etim es feel a sense of scholarlyclau stro ph ob ia, th e o cc up atio nal n eu ro sis o f th e E uro pe an Mex ican ist is more lik elyag orap ho bia ; th e se nse o f ro am in g in a v ast emp ty terra in , o cc asio nally meetin g lo ng -lo st c olle ague s ra th er a s S ta nle y me t L iv ings tone in th e w ild s o f th e Congo.

B ut, as 1 have sugg ested, general interp retations are also built up piecem eal andincrem entally, like coral reefs, as w ell as deliberately and architectonically, likesk yscra pers; th ey d ep en d th ere fo re a g oo d d ea l o n work s th at are n ot sy nth etic, an d o nh isto rian s who a re n ot comm itted sy nth esize rs. R oman a F alc n, fo r ex ample, whom 1wou ld see as an able and significant contribu tor to the revision ist view , has w rittenthr ee r eg iona l s tudie s a s we ll a s s ever a! subst an tia l a rt ic le s. O ther loca l/r eg ional h is to -rians venture their g eneralizations, in th e m anner(s) suggested. It all adds up. Whatdoes it add up to? Again, you can slice the me Ion all different ways. However, 1wou ld c ho ose fo ur b ro ad area s from whic h in terp re ta tiv e co nc lu sio ns-n ota bly th oseo f revisionist stam p---can be extracted and d iscussed . T he first concem s the homo-g en eity / h ete ro gen eity o f th e R ev olu tio n; a q uestio n th at must p rec ed e a ny attemp t atfu rth er g en era liz atio n. The se cond concems th e cha ra cte r o f th e 1910-1920 Revolu tio n



9/27

8its elf. The th ird and fourth , c 10 se ly re la te d, c on cem th e Porfiria to , a nd th e pos t-1 920revolutionary sett lement .

The a ccumu la tio n o f re cent re se arc h h as c1e arly d is pla yed th e comp lexity a nd het-ero gen eity o f th e R ev olu tio n. "Many Mex ico s" , "Oth er Mexic os", are th e p hrases o nall lips nowadays. But this is a pretty m odest gain. The supposed orthodoxy-of amonolith ic p op ula r re vo lu tio n, seam1 ess a nd u nifo rm -is a comp lete myth (o r, if y oulike, a giant straw m an). Its on ly proponents are PR lista ideologu es and orators and Idoubt we want to waste time arguing with them . Tannenbaum, the "orthodox"sta nd ard -b ea re r a nd re vis io nis ts ' s ac rific ia l v ic tim , was quite e xp lic it a bout th is, a s h ew as bo und to be, given his intim ate know ledge of rev olutionary M exico. Indeed, theheterogeneity of the R evolution w as central to his argum ento T he R evolution, hew ro te, "has not been a national revolu tio n in the sen se that all of the country partici-pated in the sam e m ovem ent and at the sam e tim e. It has been local, regional, som e-tim es almost b y c ou ntie s" . It w as n ot monolith ic ; n or w as it u nid ire ctio na l. "S o ra pida nd v arie d h av e b een th e cro ss c urren ts th at h av e c ome to th e su rfac e in th e R ev olu tio nth at it is most d ifficu lt to d isc ov er a ny d irectio n in th e mov emen t" (T an ne nb aum 196 6,pp. 121, 147).

To say, therefore, that the R evolution as a w hole w as not m onolithic, that therew ere "m any revolution s", just as there w ere "m any Mexicos", is not to say anythin gvery profoun d or original. C ertainly it is n ot a rebuttal of T an nenbaum . It is, at best, aritu al exorcism o f official ideolo gy. In scholar1y term s, it is a goo d beginn ing bu t abanal conc1usion. The key question is, w here next? W e can, of course, stop at thatpoint, and rest content w ith the patchw ork revolution-as m any revolutions as re-g ions , loca liti es , movement s, even ind iv idua ls . The Revo lu tion becomes a bewilde ri ngco lla ge o f atomistic ev en ts an d p ec uliarities. O ra l h isto ry (esp ecially if p ursu ed as ama in stre am , ra th er th an an anc illa ry , me thodology ) c an le ad in th is d ire ctio n. The re c-ollectio ns of ind ividuals-the m oreso w hen they are strip ped, as they should be, of expos t fa cto ra tio na lis atio ns --o fte n se em to s ugge st a ra ndom a rra y o f mo tiv es, r angingfrom pers on al g rudges to d islik e o f one 's mo th erin -Iaw, mo tiv atio ns th at a re not e as yto gener ali ze . Oral account s o f r evoluti onary par tic ipati on a re o ft en s imi la rly episod ican d ostensibly m eanin gless (W arm an 19 76, p p. 104 -105). L ikew ise, im ages of theR evolution d eriv ed from literary so urces, even from the incomparable A zu ela, arec haotic a nd pattemle ss . The ma ss es b ecome igno ra nt c annon-fodder, th e le ad ers c yn i-cal contenders for pow er, and th e R evolution itself is m etaphorized as a grim , gam e-



10/27

9p la ying deity (Ruth erfo rd 1971). In te re stin gly , th is v is io n o f th e a irn le ss , amora l re v-o lu tio n comes acro ss stro ng ly in fo reig n d ip lomatic so urc es, as w ell as o ral a nd liter-a ry a cco un ts. T here is, in co nseq ue nce, n o sh ortag e o f so urc es--o ra l, literary , d ip lo -matic -wh ic h c an be u tiliz ed to support th e notio n o f a n a irn le ss, fo rrn le ss re vo lu tio n.T o go dow n this path-to em brace the random and the individual and to deny formor pattern to the R evolution-seem s to m e a counsel of scholarly despair, even if it canb e d ec ked o ut in a sp urio us d isp la y o f acad em ic so ph istic atio n (L e., w ith d isp arag in gta lk o f meta his to ric al th eo rie s o r P ro cru ste an b ed s-th e fam ilia r quibble s o f a p ern ic k-e ty empi ric ism). He re , t he par alle l w ith the F rench Revo lu ti on i s il luminat ing.

One s choo l o f F re nch re vo lu tio na ry h is to rio gra phy has a ssid uously pursu ed mo reand more research about less and less, devoting pages to bloodcurd ling incidents ofthe W hite Terror in Nim es, or to the suicide of pregnant cham berm aids in Pars.Mex ican rev olu tio na ry h isto rio gra ph y h as n ot g on e th at far (th e o utp ut is less an d th ea rc hiv es, e sp ec ia lly th e polic e a rc hiv es , a re le ss c op ious and in fo rma tiv e); b ut th e re -s ea rc hing-away o f th e Revolu tio n in F ra nc e o ffe rs , 1 t h in k, a s ob erin g le ss on fo r th os een gag ed in th e stu dy o f Mex ico 's R ev olu tio n (a nd may be o th er rev olu tio ns to o). Mo reresea rch a nd p ub licatio n d o n ot n ec essarly mean b etter; arc hiv al work a lo ne d oe s n otunlock h is to ric al s ec re ts ; and h is to riogr aphy does not i nevit ab ly and p rogres sively ad-vance from generation to generation. Indeed, som e of today's revisionists could nothold a candle to Tannenbaum or G ruening. A nd-although this is a question of per-so nal in clin atio n-th e re ality o f th e R ev olu tio n can no t b e estab lish ed simply b y n ar-ra tin g indiv idua l e xp erie nc es and a ccounts . The re a re h is to ric al p atte rn s o f whic h th eh is to ric al sub ject s t hemse lves a re unaware; o r, to put the a rgument d if fe rently , h is to ri-a ns, lik e o th er s oc ia l s cie ntis ts (b e th ey e conom is ts , so cio logis ts , o r p sy chologis ts )mu st in co rpora te la te nt a s well a s man ife st mo tiv es /fu nc tio ns in to th eir a na ly sis . TheC risteros rose in arm s to defend the faith-by their ow n account; but that does not ex-h au st th e lis t o f e xp la na to ry fa cto rs underly in g th e C ristia da . Some V illis ta s re so lv edto ir a la bola to escape their oppressive m others-in-Iaw ; but w e should hesitate tomake opp re ss ive mo ther s- in -I aw a gener ic cause o fr evolu ti on .

Once we g o b ey on d in div id ual, e piso dic n arra tio n, w e b eg in to g en era liz e. Wh ata re th e g en era liz atio ns th at h av e emerg ed from th e p le th ora o f s tu die s o f th e la st twen tyor so years? When D avid B ailey w rote his resum of revolutionary historiographysome te n y ears ag o, h e d iscern ed a rev isio nism th at w as "e xcitin g an d p erp lex in g" b utin whic h h e saw no co he ren t d rift: "th e o nly co rnmon g ro un d left is th e ack nowle dg e-



11/27

10ment th at th ere is less a gre emen t tod ay ab ou t th e n atu re an d mean in g o f th e rev olu tio nthan at any tim e since scholars fIrst tum ed their attention to it m ore than fIfty yearsago" (B ailey 1978, p. 63). B ailey thus saw revisionism as a kind of inchoate antithe-sis, a n eg ativ e re pudia tio n o f th e o ld whic h d id not y et c on stitu te a pos itiv e a ltemativ e.I am not sure if such a positive altem ative is now clearly established, nor if w e canbeg in to ta lk o f th e now not-s o-n ew revisio nism con so lid atin g its elf in to an o rth odoxy(th at is a rguable ). But we c an c erta in ly d is cem common in te rp re ta tiv e fe atu re s w ith inth e co rp us of rev isio nist sch olarsh ip an d, ev en if th is d oes n ot y et comp rise th e main -stream (perhaps there is no m ainstream ), it represents a pow erful current, not just amultitude of random whirls and eddies. This current includes a number of thelo ca l/re giona l stu die s a lre ady mentio ned, a nd th re e, p erh ap s four, o f th e majo r s yn th e-ses w e have to hand: G uerra, M eyer, R uiz, and perhaps Tobler. Interestingly, thestro ng est c urre nt riv al-at th e le vel o f g ran d sy nth esis-is a Marx ist o ne , rep resen te din th e main by h ighly sc hema tic s tu die s, u su ally d evoid o f o rig in al a rc hiv al e vid en ce :Adolfo Gi lly's Revoluc in Interrumpida, Anatol Shulgovski 's Mxico en la en cru ci-jada de su historia ( John Hart's r ecen t Revolutionary Mexico , b elo ng in g to th e sameth eo re tic al c amp , doe s, in c on tra st, embody a wea lth o f a rc hiv al d ata , s uppo rtiv e o f th etra ditio na l v iew o f a popula r, a gra ria n re vo lu tio n; it a lso purports to s uppo rt th e-a lsosom ewhat traditional-view ofaxenophobic, anti-im perialist revolution, w hich Ibeli eve is a d if fe rent , and much more questionabl e, thes is ).

T he in terp retativ e impac t o f rev isio nism c an b e seen in th e d omain o f th e R ev olu -tion, the Pornriato, and the postrevolutionary phase. I w ill begin (in defiance ofchronological sequence) w ith the R evolution, fIrst, because I know it best and, sec-ond, because I think it m akes analytical sense to start there. T he essence of the revi-sio nist in terp retatio n is to d e-emph asize an d a t tim es d en y th e p op ula r an d ag rarianch arac ter o f th e R ev olu tio n. It d oes not d e-empha size a featu re o f th e o ld o rtho do xythat I would de-em phasize: nam ely, the popular nationalism or xenophobia thatalleg ed ly u nd erw ro te th e rev olu tio n, which I c on sid er h igh ly ex ag ge ra ted an d whic hH art's new synthesis particularly stresses (K night 1987). H ow ever-and this is thecentral point-according to the revisionist interpretation, the peasantry played alim ite d, d ep en den t ro le; m id dle -class an d la nd ed elite s ca lle d th e tu ne. Z ap atismo(who se po pu lar an d ag raria n ch ara cter n o-o ne c an d en y) is th e e xc ep tion th at p ro vesthe rule. In fact, a quick litm us test of revisionism is often provided by a w riter'streatm en t o f Z ap atismo: Is it a p owerfu l ex ample o f a more w id esp read p hen omenon



12/27

1 1(th e o ld o rth odoxy) o r a unique abe rra tio n (re vis io nis t)? In cid en ta lly , th is means th at( supe rf ic ia l) s tudi es o f the Revo lu ti on wh ich, i n d is cuss ing peasant rebe ll ion, concen-tra te h eavily o r so le ly on Zapatismo , in dire ctly le nd a id and corn fo rt to th e re vis io nis tca use , fo r th ey ad van ce n o ev id en ce to su gg est th at Z ap atismo was typical r at he r thanunique . In sim ilar fashion, I w ould add, analyses that go to the other extrem e andappropriate w idely divergent m ovem ents-such as V illism o or the C ristiada-for acatch-all agrarianism also succor revisionism , by offering it cheap and easy sho ts.S uch sw eep in g asse rtio ns o f an in discrim in ate a grarian ism , co rnmon among rad icalw rite rs a nd ra re ly supporte d by good evid en ce , re semble th e o ld F lowe ry Wa rs o fp re -Columbian Mexic o: ra th er fu tile underta kings th at only s upply th e re visio nis t Azte csw ith th eir n ecessary q uo ta o f sa crificial v ictim s (a n ex ample wou ld b e Jo hn Tutin o'sotherw ise excellent synthesis of M exican agrarian history, w hich show s signs ofjumping th e ra ils a s it le av es th e n in ete en th c en tu ry and ente rs th e twen tie th ). The re a reother hallm arks of revisionism to look out for: an em phasis on the role of landlordsand c ac ique s a s th e k ey re vo lu tio na ry a cto rslle ad ers ; a d en ia l o f th e s ig nific an ce o f th eMad erista rev olu tio n (a mere sto rm in a te acu p); an d a co ntriv ed e ffo rt to reh ab ilitateH uerta (on the grounds that, if he w as cast as a villain by the R evolution, he can't bea 11b ad ; th is is o ne o f th e simplest fo rm s o f rev isio nism , sin ce it in vo lv es a mere in ver-s io n o f th e o ld Manic ha ean o rth odoxy o f th e Revolu tio n itse lt).

I can o nly g iv e q uic k illu strativ e e xamples o f th e rev isio nist ap pro ach . "T he b ulko f th e p easan try . . . was not much involved in the revolution of 1910-20", EricH obsbawm has w ritten, on the basis of a (rapid?) reading of Jean Meyer (H obsbawm1973, p. 10). T his is no doubt an exaggerated reading, but it is not altogether unw ar-ran ted o r su rp risin g, sin ce Mey er stresse s th e sco pe a nd sp on tan eity o f p op ular mob i-l iz ation dur ing the Cri stiada , wh ile de- emphas iz ing the same for the Revo lu tion (Meyer1 98 5: 3 , p . 2 3; 1 97 3, p . 1 04 ). F ollowin g h is Americ an n amesa ke (M ich ael C . Mey er),(Jean) M eyer also has to put in a pitch for H uerta, since-though he strives uncon-vincingly to deny and de-em phasize it-he has to accept a degree of Catholic con-n iv an ce w ith th e Huerta c ou p an d re gim e. T he fin al e sc ap e is to assert H uerta's b ro adpopularity: "It is true that em inent m em bers of the PCN [Partido C atlico Nacional] . .participated in H uerta's governm ent, but w ho w as not a H uerta supporter?" (M eyer1976, p. 11; 1985: n, pp. 64-67; 1973 pp. 48-49). As for the landlord captains andcontrollers of th e R evolution, they figure prom inently in Falcn's w ork, thus as keyitems in a arg umen t sp ecifica lly d ire cte d ag ain st T an nen ba um (fig ure head o f th e o ld



13/27

12onhodoxy) and latter-day M arxists, like G illy, both of w hom err, Falcn says, bystre ssin g th e autonomou s ro le o f popula r, p ea sa nt fo rc es; F alc n , in c on tra st, p oin ts to"the d ecisiv e p an icip ation o f the m idd le c1 asses an d th e well-to -d o sec to rs (sectoresacomodados) in the lead ersh ip o f th e [Mad erista] rev olt'; these gro up s in itiated th erebellion, w hich "found a popular echo", and they w ere able to m aintain their hege-mony ov er th eir jo hn ny -come-Iately p op ular followers (F alc n 19 79 , p p. 1 98 -1 99).Ram n Ruiz, sim ilarly, sees the M aderistas as "not peasants but sm all-tim e en-tre pre neurs a nd o th ers e ag er to imp rove th eir s ta tio n in life , matu re h eads o f familie s,rancheros, the ow ners of lands often left behind in the care of their sons" (R uiz 1980,p . 2 14 ; an d see Meye r, 1 97 3, p .1 07 ). T his sou nd s pretty d ou btful from a g en eration alas w ell as a socioeconom ic perspective: the arm ed revolution w as the w ork of theyoung , not th e m iddle -a ged. Note , to o, th e re cu rre nt emphas is on risin g expec ta tio nsand upward mob ility , w hich is ev id en t in sev eral recen t stu dies (e.g ., V an derwoo d,1981, 1988). And it is not just a question of the M aderista revolution, for Ruiz'citations-and his overall m ethodology--collapse together successive w aves ofrebellion under m uch the sam e rubrico R evolutionary leadership-w hether in 1910,1913 or 1915-is seen to be m iddle c1ass or better: "of the rebellum inaries . . . only ahandful had com e from the rural villages"; "shopkeepers and m erchants, alm ostalw ays from town s in th e pro vin ces, from th e start p articip ated in the reb ellio n"; so,too , d id lan dlord s. R uiz mentio ns ab ou t a d oz en , who are in clu ded among his "p ro fileo f re be ls "; se ve ra l o f th es e a re c1a ss ic b andwagon -hoppe rs , who se " re vo lu tio na ry "cre de ntials d ep en d eith er on b elated an d op po nun istic sw itch es, d esig ne d to p rotecttheir p ro peny , o r fu llsome ov en ures to th e victo rio us C arran za, w ritten from ex ile inN ew York (R uiz 1980, pp. 216, 230, 234-235).

O f cou rse th ere were s ome la nd lo rd -re vo lu tio na rie s. Some were p ione er le ad ers o fp op ular forces (e sp ecialIy serran o fo rces); as su ch th ey were members o f th e p op ularmovemen t, sha ring with peasant fol lower s a cornmon anti pa thy to Po rfman cen tr aliz a-tion and "prog re ss ". Their part ic ipati on does not negate the popula r, l ocal, " tradi tiona l"c ha ra cte r o f th e Revolu tio n. Some, a lte rn ativ ely , were d ie -h ard lib era l s o r fru stra te d"o uts". B ut n ot th at m an y. T hey c ena in ly d id n ot su pp ly the ch iefmotive fo rce b eh in dth e a rmed revo lu tio n; on th e con tra ry , mo st h ac endado s re siste d it, s tic king w ith D a zuntil D az's goose w as cooked, then sw itching to R eyes, D e la B arra, H uena-thesu ccessiv e in herito rs o f the P orfirian man tle. U ltim ately , some h acen dado s b ecame. ta rdy tact ic al convens to the Revo lu tion, e spec ia lI y a s it ent er ed its conse rvative phase



14/27

13after 1915, and as O bregn struck deals right and left in 1920. N one of these groupsw as su fficie ntly n umero us, p owerfu l, o r, ab ov e alI, p re co cio us, to se t th eir stamp onthe arm ed popular revolution of 1910-1915, w hich w as of very different character.S erra no p ione ers a sid e, la nd lo rd " re vo lu tio na rie s" made th eir b ig ge st c on trib utio n tocounterrevolution , lo ca lIy o r n atio na lly (G arciad ieg o Dan ta n 1 98 1; B en jamin 1 98 1;M artnez V azquez 1985; R uiz C ervantes 1986). O ne point to stress is that, given thesw ift changes in political clim ate during this decade, as w ell as the m arked regionalvariations of the R evolution, it is highly m isleading to assem ble lists of landlord"rebels" w ho hailed from different tim es and places and often obeyed differentmo tiv es . Imag in e th e conceptu al c haos th at would ens ue if th e F re nch Revolu tio n weresim ilarly hom ogenized and lum ped, so that early aristocratic reform ers rubbedshoulder s w ith Bre ton backwoodsmen and Bonapa rt is t parvenus!

C onversely, peasant participation and autonom y w ere m uch greater than therev isio nists-in flu en ced , p erh ap s, b y th e lo ng p eace o f th e PR!, th e a pp aren t rela tiv equiescence of the peasantry since the 1940s, and the prevalence of a controllingcaciquismo-are nowadays prepared to admito I know of no way of settling thisargum ent except by trading examples (1 am not at all sure I know how to quantify thee xamples). H ow many p easan t re bels m ak e a p ea sa nt revolution , h ow many la nd lo rd sto re fu te it in fav ou r o f an elite -co ntro lled rebellion ? M aybe John C oatsw orth, w hohas shown great ingenuity trying to calibrate rather intractable rural protestmovements, could help out. I will say that my own research threw up plenty ofpeasant m ovem ents (w hich does not m ean, of course, m ovem ents in all cases 100 b ypeasants); and other researchers seem to be discovering more~ven in regions, likeChih uah ua , where th e cla ssic p easan t/ag rarian sy nd rome h as o fte n b een reg ard ed a sw eak (A lonso 1988 ; Koreck 1988; Nugent 1988b). Such research reinforces then otio n o f a p op ular p easan t rev olu tio n n ot o nly b y v irtu e o f simple h ead -c ou ntin g, b utalso b y an aly sin g th e mod es, co ntin uitie s an d d isc ou rse o f p easan t p ro testo It is th uspossible to argue-in opposition to those w ho w ould prefer a m ore individualist," ra tio na l-a cto r" mode l-th at p ea sant c ommun itie s d isp la yed c erta in d istin ct, sh arOOvalues, perhaps rootOOin a "mora l economy", which fac il it atOOprolongOOres is tance topolitic al a nd e conom ic th re ats (Knight 1986: 1 , pp . 150 -170 ). T annenbaum d id not ta lkabout "mora l e conomy" ; but h is notio n o f a d efe nsiv e, p opula r a nd agra ria n re vo lu tio nis re ad ily a ss im ila ble to a mo ra l e conomy th esis.



15/27

14F rom the R evolu tio n itself, w e can turo back to th e P orfiriato. If the R evolu tio n

was less a b ro ad , p op ular, ag ra ria n in su rre ctio n th an a series o f c on tro lle d, fa ctio na lb attle s fo r p ower, it fo llows th at th e o ld ley en da n eg ra o f th e P orfIriato sta nd s in n ee dof revision too. And it is the Porfiriato which has become the focus of the mostsy stema tic p iec e o f rev isio nism , th at o f F ran yo is-X av ier Guerra (Gue rra 1 98 5). B utGuer ra i sn 't whol ly innovative. Cosio Vi llega s' mass ive pol iti ca l h is to ry ( cr iti ci zed bysome fo r its e litis t a pp ro ach) o ffe re d a n ew ly rounded, qua lif ie d and even sympath eticpicture of the old regim e som e years ago (C oso V illegas 1970, 1972). Jean M eyer,s keptic al o f th e Revolu tio n's c la im to re pre se nt th e opp re ss ed ma ss es, a ls o que stio nedth e fac t o f P orfIria n o pp ressio n: " po pu lar d isc on te nt alo ne ", h e w ro te, " did n ot mak ethis rev olution. H ad it even increased prio r to 191O ?T hat isn't clear". R ath er than arev olu tio n p ro vo ke d b y mountin g so cio -ec on om ic g rie van ces, Meyer d iscemed o nebom of "modemization", of "rapid progress," of the "diffusion of a prise deconscience . . . at the level of the m iddle and upper sectors of society," in short, heconcluded, " it is th e r evolu tio n o f risin g expec ta tio ns, d ea r to Americ an s oc io logis ts ."Mea nwhile, "fo r th e majo rity o f th e p eo ple , life remain ed h ard , b ut also p alp ab ly lesstough, m ore easy, and longer too. T here w as no w ar, no hunger, no plague". (M eyer1973, pp. 23, 47, 103).

S o, the R evolu tio n ensued less because the po or w ere getting poorer (or becausepeasants w ere being dispossessed and villages w ere being ground under w hich isra th er d iffe re nt from simp le p aupe riz atio n) but ra th er b ec au se "modem is atio n" g en er-ated new social groups, new dem ands, new expectations. H ere w e have the m id-twentieth-century V.S. sociology of Edw ard Shils (com plete w ith its em phasis ondec la ss in te lle ctua ls ) app li ed to Po rf Ir ian Mex ico. And where Meyer subsc ribed to thethesis in som ew hat discursive, even elliptical, term s, G uerra has, m ore recently,p ro du ced a massiv e, fo rth rig ht work o f h isto rical c ertitu de. Gue rra's tw o v olume s a relo ng , d eta ile d, a nd imp re ss iv e. They con ta in a wea1th o f v alu ab le e vid en ce concem ingthe Po rf Ir ia to , the opposit ion and ( ra ther bel atedly and b rie fly ) t he ear ly (1910 -1911 )Revolution. A ll of that evidence, it should be noted, is derived from secondarysources; G uerra appears not to have set foot inside an archive, certainly outsideE uro pe. N ev erth ele ss, h e c omes u p w ith some in tere stin g a nd c on vin cin g arg umen ts:his N am ierite dissection of P orfIrian elites and faction s and of the P orfIrian cursushonorum is excellent (it out-Peter Sm iths Peter Sm ith); his evaluation of the anti-PorfIria n politic al o ppos itio n, e sp ec ia lly Made rismo, is one o f th e b es t s tu die s we have



16/27

15of that often m isunderstood phenom enon. B ut the w hole analysis is yoked to a ten-d en tio us a nd stu ltify in g th eo ry (whic h is in tum b ase d o n se vera l tac it assump tio ns).O n th e one hand, G uerra believes in the politics of faction and c1ientelism , w hich isfine-it m akes possible his acute analysis of Porfirian politics. On the other, hebelieves in the power of ideas, especially the "modem" ideology rooted in theE nlightenm ent w hich , according to his som ewhat esch ato logical view , is lock ed inp ermanent c ombat w ith a riv al s et o f id ea s/p rin cip Ie s, th os e o f tra ditio n. What we havehere are the old antitheses of m odem ization theory (sacredlsecular, folk/urban,g em ein schaft/ gesellsch aft), w hich b ecome analytical open sesam es to unlock thesec rets o f Mex ica n h isto ry from th e Bou rb on s to th e S on oran s. Wh at w e d on 't h av e-b ecause w hat G uerra leaves out is as significant as w hat he puts in -is any analysis ofc 1a ss : Guerr a's Mexic an s a re o rg an iz ed e ith er in c1ie nte lis t fa ctio ns o r in id eo logic alm ovem ents, thu s by bosses or intellectuals. A utonomous peasant m ovem ents haveliule place in such a sch em e. F urtherm ore, o bsessed w ith the political , G uerra com -pletely m isses a compo nent of "m od em ising " ideolo gy th at sho uld be central to anysueh study: I refer-for want of a beuer word-to the "developmentalism" thatp erv ad ed lib era l, P o Irian a nd rev olu tio nary th ou gh t, a nd whie h stre sse d th e n eed toeducate, m oralize, and-both literally and m etaphorically~lean up the dirty anddegenerate M exiean people. This is a them e w heh G onzlez Navarro noted in hispioneering V ida Soc ia l , whieh other scholars-sueh as M ary Kay Vaughan andW illiam Beezley-have begun to explore, and w hieh I think is deserving of m uchg re ate r a uen tio n, esp ecially b y th ose fo nd o f d ise ou rse an aly sis (Knig ht 1 98 6: 2 , p p.4 99 -5 03 ; V au gh an 1 98 2; B eezley 1 98 7) .

T hus, G uerra's sehem e is strangely self-lim iting and trad itional; fo r all its b oldr ev is ioni sm , i t oper ate s w ith in a f ami li ar , g iven and essen ti all y pol iti ea l con text, w i th inw hieh it ehooses to invert eommon assum ptions (m odem ization and progress areque stio ned, e ven condemned; tra ditio n is e xa lte d). It is a ls o a g loba l s ch eme ; th e Thir dW orld, for Guerra, is a kind of Arcadia of self-contained, rustic, "holistic"e ommunitie s, o fte n s till " trib al" , a nd wedded to tra ditio na l fa ith s a nd mo re s (in a ll th is ," tra ditio n" and "modem ity " p rovid e th e k ey antith es es , th ough th ey a re n ev er p rope rlye xp la in ed ). T he n, m ed dlesome refo rmers/in telle ctu alsllib era ls en ter A rca dia . F orMex ico, t he p roce ss o f degener ation s ta rts w i th the Bourbons ( centr ali zing , anti c1er ic alstatists: lean M eyer, of course, has liule tim e for th e B ou rbons either; nor do es th atother doyen of the pro-Catholic, or antianticlerical, school, David Brading).



17/27

16Degenera tio n a cc ele ra te s durin g th e n in ete en th c en tu ry , w ith th e fre ema sons p la ying apervasively subversive role; the D az regim e represents a kind of final holdingope ra tion, a mu ted con fl ic t between mode rn izer s and t radit iona lis ts , w ith the p re siden th imse lf a ctin g a b en ign, p atema lis t ro le , p ro te ctiv e-in Hap sburg s ty le -o f th re ate nedtra ditio na l c ommunitie s (th e p ea sants , we a re to ld , lo ok to D a z a s th ey d id to th e k ingsof Spain: Guerra 1985: 1, p. 51). Alas, w ith the revolution the meddlesome,m odernizing elite s-m ore deracin intellectuals, liberals, and freem asons, allp osse ssed o f a d ogma tic , u niv ersa l, in div id ualist p hilo so ph y an d some ev en tain te dwith Protestantism-come into their own. Tradition is now trashed. 'Holistic'communities - villages and haciendas (the hacienda community, for G uerra, has ad istin ct1 y b en ign, p ate rn alis t c ha ra cte r)-a re s hre dd ed by th es e upsta rt re fo rme rs a ndstate-b uild ers. G uerra 's b oo k sto ps in 1 91 1; p erh ap s h is computer w as n ow en go rg ed(with i ts 7 ,838 individus et collect ivits and 30,540 modules diffrents , m ak in g a to talof150,OOOdonnes); o r, mo re lik ely , its ma ste r s imp ly cou ld not c on temp la te th e fin alapoca lypse o f o ld , Ca thol ic , t radit iona lis t Mex ico and the t riumph of secul ar cen tr al iz -ing l iber al ismo Anyway, t ha t apoca lypse had a lr eady found it s chron ic1e r.

A 1th ou gh Gue rra's sch ema is g lo bal, it is also (lik e so much g lo bally p itch ed mod -emisa tio n th eo ry ) h ighly Euro centric . Mexic o is a n exte ns io n o f Roman and medie va lE urope. C icero and the M erovingian villa offer m odels that M exico has faithfullyfollowed; M exico is a "prolongation" of Europe (Guerra 1985: 1, p. 128). M oresp ecifically , Guerra , a S pan iard work in g in F ran ce, u ses S pain an d F ran ce as mod els.Spain (he m ust m ean A ragn) provides the m odel of a traditional society built uponpactisme; th e (p resumed ) d ec lin e in commun al fiesta e xp en ditu res o f a n e ig hte en th -c en tu ry India n pueblo is d emons tra te d by ana logy w ith con tempo ra ry Sev ille (Guerra1985: 1, p. 231); and-in a moment of some evidential desperation - Guerra seeks todemonstra te th e p erv asiv e importa nc e o f fre ema sonry in n in ete en th -c en tu ry Mexic anpolitics by pointing out that 39 per cent of the delegates to the S panish C onstituentC on gress o f 1 93 1 were fre emaso ns (Guerra 1 98 5: 1, p . 4 20 ). Q .E .D .

B ut the key model is France. G uerra repeated1y cites A ugustin C ochin's study ofthe free-thinking societies of eighteenth-century F rance, w hich C ochin saw as thein tellectu al a nd so cia l so lv en ts o f th e an cien rg im e. Guerra lifts C och in 's th esis a ndapp li es i t, lo ck -s tock -and -bar re l, to Mex ico. He see s h imselfpe rforming, for Mex ico'so ld re gime and re vo lu tio n, th e same counte rre vo lu tio na ry h isto rio gra ph ic al ro le th atCoch in and h is la tte r-day d is ciple s/d is cove re rs (no tably F ran~o is Fu re t) have sough t to



18/27

17perfonn for French revolutionary studies: that is, to banish the old cIass-or, as it iso fte n calle d, "so cia l"-in te rp re tatio n o f th e R ev olu tio n an d to re pla ce it w ith a th esisth at s tre sse s th e c en tra l ro le o f in te lle ctu al e lite s-fre e-th in ke rs , fre ema sons , lib era lrefonners-w ho railro ad an elitist, secularizing pro ject through a fundam entallyhostile, trad itional society (Fu ret 1981 ). T he R ev olution thus becom es a political ,ra th er th an a social, event; a n event d evoid o f c Ie ar c Ia ss sig nific an ce (h en ce it c anno tb e "b ou rg eo is"); b ut in vo lv in g th e su bv ersio n o f trad itio n in fav or o f mod ern ity , th esubstitution of old "holistic" bonds/allegiances b y new , cerebral, ideolo gical andatom istic attachments. A nd this-in the immortal w ords of S ellars and Y eatm an-isd ec id ed ly aBad Thing. It is h ard Iy coin cid en ta l th at Guerra re lie s h eavi1yon F ranc isc oB ulnes for his M exican observations, just as he relies on C ochin-as w ell as PierreChaunu, Roland M ousnier, and Louis D um ont-for his ideological inspiration.B uln es, th e mav erick P orflria n co nserv ativ e, is th e d arlin g o f th e rev isio nists: b othR amn R uiz and Jean Meyer rely a good deal o n h is question able authority. T hus, thelamen ts o f th e d is pla ced Porflria n e lite , th eir d ia trib es a ga in st re vo lu tio na ry ups ta rts ,m eddlers, and opportunists, fonn an im portant part of G uerra's schem e; and theyharm onize w ith C ochin's ow n refrains, w hich in turn reflected his status as the scionof a conservative, aristocratic fam ily, steeped in "Catholic traditionalism and . . .hos tility toward th e re public an re gime " (Fure t, 1 981, 163 ).

In sh ort, G uerra h arn esse s a mass o f e vid en ce , cu lle d from se co nd ary so urces an dcoupled w ith a high-tech m ethodology, in order to im pose upon the Porfiriato andR ev olu tio n a Euro -(an d moreso ) F ra nco cen tric sc heme, which se es th e R ev olu tio n asthe u lt ima te po lit ic al tr iumph of moderniz ing e li te s, enemie s o f t radi ti on , Ca thol ic ism ,and the healthy, holistic cornm unities of old M exico. It dam os the R evolution (asCoch in d id ), it g ild s th e o ld reg im e, an d it b an ish es c Iass.y ou m ay say that the R evolu tio n w as all th ese th ings, and, to som e extent, it w as.B ut there is a need for b alance. V ulgar m odernization theory is n o ad vance on vulgarM arx ism . T he m ain criticism of G uerra m ust be that h is picture is dogm atic and on e-sided, that it rom anticizes the old regim e, and that it im poses a narrow , political,c Ia ss le ss , a nd F rancoc en tric in te rp re ta tio n on what was a comp lex, c Ia ss -b as ed , s oc ia lrev olu tio n, a bo ve a ll d urin g th e y ears 1 91 0-1 91 5. It also lea ds to a b asic m isc on ce p-tio n conce rn ing th e Revolu tio n's outc ome , th us conce rn ing th e la be ls o r c ate go rie s wemay u ltim ately a tta ch to it. G ue rra's a naly sis, th ou gh it h alts in 1 91 1, fits n eatIy w ithth e p rev ailin g rev isio nist tren d th at emphasiz es (1 ) th e political - and o fte n e litis t -



19/27

1 8character of the revolution and (2) the basic continuities that linked it to the past,mak ing it mo re "neo-PorfIria n" th an genuin ely re vo lu tio na ry . For Guerra a nd o th ers,Vanderwood suggest s, " the r evolu tion . . . is consider ed s imp ly ano ther b lip , a lthougha rath er larg e o ne . . . i n the con tinuumof Mexican h is to ry" (Vanderwood 1987 ,432).R amon R uiz is at pains to point out that it w as not a true social revolution at all, just a"great rebellion" or a m ere "m utiny" (R uiz 1980, pp. 4-8; 1988, p. 228). It "updated"cap italism , b ut in n o sen se tran sfo rmed so cie ty . Its c hief effects w ere p oli t ic al (h ereTocquev ille is ritu ally in voked): it s erv ed to c re ate a powerfu l, c en tra liz ed s ta te ; th us itconsummated the w ork of the B ourbons, of the liberal reform ers of the nineteenthce ntu ry , o f D az h im self. R ev isio nist stu dies o f th e p ostrev olu tio nary era th us fo cu sheavily on the rise and rise of the state (1 have elsewhere term ed this approachstatolatry ), w hich they see as above society, "relatively autonom ous," and even"Bonapa rtist" (a no th er F re nch in te rpola tio n); in de ed , th ey se e th e s ta te a s m ix ing andkneading the inert dough of civil society much as it pleases. Not only does thisdoveta il n ea tly w ith F re nch re vo lu tio na ry re visio nism, it a ls o d raws in sp ira tio n fromrecent "statist" theories of revolution, notably Skocpol's, w hich lum ps together"bourgeois" and "socialist" revolutions under a common rubric as state-buildingmovements , h ighly condit ioned and dete rmined by s ta te acto rs , r ival rie s, and d iv is ions(and, therefore, relatively autonomous of dom es tic social pressures). It even w insM arxist converts, aficionados of the state-oriented theories that have becom efashionable in recent years. A rnaldo C rdova's analysis-w hich denies the fact ofsocial revolution and sees instead the rise of a so cie ded d e masa s and a con trol lingBon ap artist state-is a c ase in p oin t (C rd ov a 1 97 3).

For w ant of tim e (and because 1 have addressed this point elsew here in print:K night 1985) 1 w ill not go into the revisionist interpretation of postrevolutionaryMex ic o in an y d etail. B ut th ere a re a t least th ree fu nd amen ta l o bje ctio ns. F irst, th ereare th eo retical o bjec tio ns to su ch relativ ely au to nomous state s. T hey fIt awkward Iywith in both Marx is t and the l iber al p lu ra lis t t heory. Of ten, the re la tively autonomous o rB onapartist state appears as a D eus ex m achina : it is called upon when all otherexplanatory factors fail, or seem to fail. It is also an unmoved mover; it acts but is notacted upon. S econd, it is em pirically questionable. T he pow er of the M exican statew as, in m y judgm ent, m uch less than commonly im agined for the period 1910-1940(a ga in , th ere is no agre ed c rite ria fo r th e mea su remen t o f " sta te power" , th ough 1 t hinkif w e could com e up w ith som e such criteria w e w ould avoid a lot of fruitless debate).



20/27

19Conversely , th e p ower an d au to nomy o f c iv il so cie ty w ere g reater. C iv il so ciety mayhave been a me ss , b ut it was not a d is aggre ga te d, a nom ic , c 1a ss le ss me ss . Repea te dly ,the state w as buffeted by conflicts that w elled up w ithin society; and the state'sa ttempts to curta il o r c hannel c on flic ts were o fte n unsuc ce ss fu l. In s uc ce ss iv e d ec ad esboth C allism o and C ardenism o rose, flourished, then w ilted. T he batde against thechu rc h in th e 1920s p roduced a s ta lema te , th e b atd e fo r so cia list e du ca tio n in th e 1930swas lo st. T his w as h ard ly th e rec ord o f a m ig hty L ev ia th an . F urth en no re, th e ch an gestaking place in civil society were profound and fully deserving of the "socialre vo lu tio na ry " la be l. Not b ec au se th e n ew revo lu tio na ry e lite s in va ria bly w ille d su chchanges; often they did not O fficial agrarian reform -the key example~am e slow lyand grudgingly.

H ence som e scholars suggest that the 1920s w ere basically "neo-Porfirian" intenns not only of continued capitalist developm ent but also of continued haciendah eg emony (th ere is s ometh ing o f a con tra dic tio n h ere ). In fa ct, c ap ita lst d ev elopmentwas p ro foundly a ffe cte d by agra ria n change, a nd change th at was o fte n not le gisla te d,b ut in itiate d at th e g rassroo ts, flrst w ith th e v io len t p op ular u ph eav al o f 1 91 0-1 91 5,th en w ith th e long , a rduous, p ro ce ss o f a gra ris ta o rg an iz atio n, lo bbying, politic king,and fighting. This was not a process begun and controlled by the state, nor w as it asuperficial process. L ong before C rdenas accelerated the process of fonnal landd is tr ibut ion, the hac ienda had come under sever e, i n many cases deb ili ta ti ng , p re ssur e;it confronted new ly m obilized peasant antagonists; and the landlord c1ass had incon sequence lo st th e s oc ia l a nd poltic al h eg emony th at it h ad a rguably enjoyed durin gthe Porfiria to.

T his w as someth in g T an nen ba um , G ru en ing , an d o th ers-first-h an d o bse rve rs o fth e sc en e-fu lly ap preciated ; it is someth in g th at to day 's h isto rian s, remo te from th etime , ove rfond o f s ta tis tic al c erta in tie s (a no th er c on tra dic tio n), a nd fam ilia r w ith th emore q uiescen t, m in ority p ea sa ntry o f mod em Mex ico , sometim es h av e d ifficu 1ty inconce iv ing. Many, t he re fo re , s tre ss t he top-down, con tr ived , manipula tive cha racte r o fag rarismo. T hey see th e e jid o as an a lien fo nn fo isted o n h app y b uco lc c ommun ities;the ejido represents another im position by refonnist elites-Bourbon, liberal,revolutionary-w ho seek to "m odem ize" a traditional rural sector that is, in som esense, at peace w ith itself. Secular education, too, appears as a statist steam rollerflattening a hitherto happy, G odfearing peasantry (B ecker 1988). S o far as the ruralsector is concem ed, conflict com es from w ithout rather than from w ithin; and it is



21/27

20p olitic al ra th er th an class c on flict. A gain , th erefo re, re visio nism stre sse s th e ro le o fe lite s (wh ic h is, o f c ou rs e, b ette r documente d); it p la ys down popula r mobiliz atio n andtends to ignore grassroots shifts in m entality and organization. Y et such shifts,in dica tiv e o f a re al tran sfo rmatio n in th e so cio po litica l c lim ate, a re h a1 1mark s of th erev olu tio n--o f an y re vo lu tio n--ev en if th ey ca nn ot b e q uan tified an d d o n ot le ap at th er eade r f rom prin ted sou rces .

S uch shifts are also likely to b e v iolent, chao tic, an d dow nright nasty . P ropertyan d class rela tio ns d o n ot c han ge a cc ord in g to n eat, co nse nsu al a greement. T hu s, th ere vo lu tio nary p ro cess, esp ecia lly th e ag rarista p ro cess, is littered w ith acc ou nts o fc on flict, v io le nce, re sistan ce an d fac tio nalism . Con tra ry to some v ersio ns, th is d oe snot m ean that agrarism o w as a m ere vehicle for elite control, that the peasants w ereman ip ula te d c lie nts, o r th at th e ejid o was an a lie n impo sitio n (Knig ht 1 98 8). A s P au lF ri ed ri ch has b ril liantl y shown , Machi avell ian po li ti cs , c ac iqui smo , agr ar ianism , andv io len ce fIo urish ed to ge th er a nd -w e may g o fu rth er-it w ou ld h av e b een remark ab leif th ey h ad n otoThe d estru ctio n o f th e o ld o rd er in ru ra l Mex ico co uld h ard ly p ro cee dacco rding to the principIes o f W estem E uropean social dem ocracy. T he ugly face ofa grarismo was in se para ble from its p ro gressiv e, tra nsfo rm in g fa ce, a nd th ere is littlepoint in m oralizing about it, or dam ning the agrarista cause for its deviations fromsome ahisto ric al n orm . "The re vo lu tio n is th e re vo lu tio n," a s Luis Cab re ra s aid ; a nd , ifth is sen ten tio us p hra se mean s an yth in g, it m ean s th at w e sh ou ld tak e th e R ev olu tio n asit w as, put value judgm ents to one side, and try to te11w hat hap pened, w hy, and w hatits sig nifica nce was. We sh ou ld n ot lame nt lo st A rc ad ias o r try to te1 1th e R ev olu tio nwhe re it w en t w ro ng .

F in ally , re vis io nism g ro ss ly homogeniz es Mexic an h is to ry , e ven a s it o fte n a sse rtsMexic o's in fin ite g eogra ph ic al v arie ty . Guerra sque ez es th e long n in ete en th c en tu ryin to a p retty c ru de d ic ho tomy (su ch th at th e yorkinos o f th e 1 82 0s h av e to c oh ab it w iththe M agonistas of the 1900s: both are carriers of m odem ity). Statolaters yokepostrevolutionary history to the inexorable onw ard m arch of the state. Im portantc on junc tu re s a re th ere fo re n eg le cte d: 1910, when , to a lmo st univ ersa l su rp ris e, th e o ldre gim e spectacularly co11apsed; 1915, w hen the trium ph of Carrancism o on theb attlefield en su red th at state -b uild in g wou ld p romp tly resume a nd th at th e p op ularmov emen t wou ld h av e to rec ko n w ith th e rev olu tio nary state a nd its n ew ly in cumb en tn orte o e lites; 1 93 4-1 93 5, when a n ew , ra dic al p ro je ct w as fo rc ed u po n th e p oli tic a l. ag en da (n ot lea st, b y p op ular p ressu res); a nd , fin ally , 1 93 8-1 94 0, when th at p ro jec t



22/27

21faltered , w hen its en em ies rallied , and w hen the tide tum ed in fav or of a rival agenda(th e one wh ic h, in p re tty ta tte re d fOnD, still remain s on th e ta ble to day).

To conclude: w e know a lot m ore about the R evolution than w e did tw enty yearsago; our sources and m ethodologies have greatly diversified; in particular, ourknow ledge o f th e Revolu tio n's r eg iona l v aria tio ns and embodiments h as g rown apa ce ,and w ith it (though to a lesser extent) our understanding of certain key them es-p easan ts a nd c au dillo s, w ork ers an d cac iq ues. T his h as n ot n ec essarily impro ved o urg en era l g ra sp o f th e Revolu tio n in its to ta lity . Cas e s tu die s a re not e as ily in te gr ate d in togeneral syntheses; they m ay actually im pede synthesis. Syntheses also dem andtheoretical underpinnings and,to m y m ind, these have often been inadequate, ord ownrig ht m isco nc eiv ed . And a g oo d d eal o f rev isio nism h as b een rev isio nism fo r itsown sak e, simplistic in versio ns o f th e o ld o rth od ox y o r b old re bu ttals o f a c aric atu redorthodoxy. To my mind, the orthodoxy-the work of perceptive observers andp articip an ts-h ad an d still h as a lo t to rec ornmen d it. It is flaw ed in impo rta nt re sp ec ts(it exaggerates the nationalist/xen ophobic content of th e R evolution , it often sees"Indians" w here som e would prefer campesinos ), but its basic vision of a popularagrarian revolution, w hich overthrew the old regim e and contributed to a series ofd ecisiv e ch an ge s in Mexic an so ciety ~h an ge s whic h, p erh ap s, co nstitu te e lemen ts o fa "bourg eo is " re vo lu tio n-remain s v alid o I t d es er ve s c are fu l qua lific atio n ra th er th ano utrig ht reje ctio n. A s we o f th e th ird h isto rio grap hica l g en eratio n lo ok b ac k o n th osew ho w ent before, w e ow e them , perhaps, rather m ore C onfucian respect and ratherless Oedipa l resen tment.



23/27

22Bibliography

Aguila r Cam n , Hc to r. 1 977. La fronte ra nmada : Sonora y la r evolu cin mexicana. Mexico:Siglo Veintiuno.A lo nso , Ana Maria. 1 98 8. " 'P ro gre ss' as D iso rd er a nd D ish on or: D isc ou rses o fSerrano Resis tance," Crit ique of Anthropology 8 /1 , p p. 13-33.A lva rado , Salvado r. 1919 .La rec on stru cci n d e Mxico : Un men sa je a lo s p ue blo s d eAmrica (2 v ols.) Mex ico : J. B alle sca y C ia.Amerlin ck d e Bon tempo , Marijo s . 1 98 2. "La re fo rma a graria en la H ac ie nd a d e S anD ieg o d e R o Verd e." In G arc a Mo ren o, Despus de los la tifundios, pp. 183-198.Ande rs on , Rodney. 1976. Ou tcas ts in The ir Own Land. Mexican Indu str ia l Work er s,1906-1911. DeKalb : Northem I llino is Un iver si ty P re ss .Anke rson , Dudley . 1984. Agrarian Warlord . Saturnino Cedi llo and the MexicanRevolu tion in San Luis Poto s{ . DeKalb: Northem I ll inoi s Un iver sit y P re ss .A rchivo de la P ala bra , In stitu to Mo ra , Mexic o D .F .A shby, Joe C . 1963. Organ ized Labor and th e Mexican Revolu tion under Lza roCrdenas. Chapel H il1 :Un iver si ty o fNorth Ca ro lina P re ss .B aile y, D av id C . 1974.N iva Cris to Rey ! The Criste ro Rebellio n and Church-S ta teConf lic t in Mexico. Austin : Un iv ersity o f Texas P re ss .1 978. "Revis io nism and th e Rec en t H is to rio gra phy o f th e Mexic anRevolution", Hispanic American His to ri ca l Revi ew , 58, pp. 62-79.Becke r, Ma rjo rie . 1 988. "L za ro Crd en as, c ultu ra l c arto gra ph ers, a nd th e lim its o fe ve ryday r es is ta nc e in Mi choa cn, 1934-1940." P ap er g iv en a t th e 46thIntemational Congre ss o f Ameri canis ts , Ams te rdam.Bee zle y, W i lliam H . 1973. In su rg en t Gove rnor : Abraham Gonzle z and th eMexican Revo lu tion in Ch ihuahua . Linco ln : Un iver si ty o f Nebraska P re ss .1987. J ud as a t th e Jo cke y C lu b a nd O th er Episo des o f P orfiria n Mexic o.Linco ln : Un iver si ty o f Nebraska P re ss .Bellin ge ri, Ma rco. 1976. "L'e conom a d ella tifo ndo in Mess ic o. L 'h ac ie nd a SanAn tonio Tocht1 acoda l1880 a l 1920," Anna li del la Fondazione Lu ig i E inaud i X,

pp. 287 -428 .Ben jam n , Thomas L . 1981. "Pa ss ag es to Lev ia th an : Chia pa s and th e Mexic anS ta te , 1891 -1947 ." PhD d is se rta ti on , Mich igan S ta te Un iver sit y.B en jam in , T homas L ., a nd McNe llie , W illiam, ed s. 1 98 4. Other Mexicos : E ssay s onMexican Regional His to ry , 1876-1911. A lbuque rque : Un iv ers ity o f New Mexic oPress.B la nco Moheno , Robe rto . 1 961. Crnica de la r evolu cin mex icana de la dec enatr gica a lo s c ampo s d e Cela ya ( 3 vol s.) . Mex ico: L ib ro Mex icano.B rading , D . A . 1980 . Caud il lo and Peasan t in the Mexican Revo lu tion .Cambr idge:Cambr idge Un iver sit y P re ss .B ritto n, Jo hn A . 1 97 6. Educacin y rad icalismo en Mxico ( 2 vo ls .) . Mex ico:Sepsetentas.Bu lnes , F ranc is co . 1967. E l v erdadero D{a z y la r evolu cin. Mexico: EditoraNacional.B uv e, R aymond . 1 97 5. "P ea san t Movements, C au dillo s a nd L an d Refo rm durin g th eRevolu tio n (191~17) in T la xc ala , Mexic o," Bole t{n de Estudios Latinoamericanosy d el C aribe, XVIII , pp .112 -152 .Carr, Barry . 1 976. E l movim iento obre ro y la po[( tic a en Mxico ( 2 vol s.) . Mex ico:Sepsetentas.



24/27

23Clendenen , C la re nc e C . 1961. T he United States and P ancho V illa: A Study inUnconventional Diplomacy. I thaca : Corne ll Univers ity Press .Coa tswo rth , J ohn H . 1976. El impac to ecnomico de los fe rrocar ril es en e l Porfir ia to( 2 vols ). Mex ico: Sepse tenta s.C rdova, Arna ldo. 1972. La id eo log!a de la Revolu cin Mexicana: Lafo rmacin del

nuevo rgimen. Mexico: Ed ic iones Era .Cosio Vill egas , Danie l. 1955-65 . His to ria Mode rna de Mxico ( 7 vol s.) . Mex ico:Editor ial Hennes.C raig , Ann L . 1 98 3. The F irs t Agrarista s. An Ora l H is to ry o f a Mexican Agrar ianReform Movemen t. Berk ele y and Los Ange le s: Un iv ersity o f Califo rn ia P re ss.Cumberla nd , Cha rle s C . 1952. The Mexican Revolu tion: Genes is under Made ro .Austin : Un iv ersity o f Texas P re ss.. 1 97 2. The Mexican Revo lu tion: The Cons ti tu ti onali st Years . Austin:Un iv ers ity o f Texas P re ss.Fabela , I si dro. 1959. Histor ia dip lmatica de la revoluc in cons ti tuc ional is ta (2 vols .) .Mex ico: Fondo de Cu ltur a Ecnomica.Fal cn, Romana. 1977. El agrar ismo en Veracruz . La e tapa rad ical (1928-1935) .Mexico: E l Cole gio d e Mxic o.. 1979. "L os origines populares de la revolucin de 191O ?El caso de S an L uisPotos," Histor ia Mexicana XXIX, pp. 197 -240 .1984. Revolu cin y cac iquismo : San Luis Poto s!, 1910-1938. Mexico: E lCo legio de Mx ico.F alc n , Romana , a nd Garc a , Sole dad. 1986. La s em illa en e l s ur co : Ada lb erto Tejaday e l rad icalismo en Veracruz (1883-1960) . Mexico: E l Cole gio d e Mxic o.Fowle r Sala rn in i, Heather . 1971. AgrarianRadical ism in Veracruz 1920-1937 .Linco ln : Un iver sit y o f Nebraska P re ss .F riedri ch , Pau l. 1970. Agrar ian Revolt in a Mexican V illage . Englewood Cl if fs :Prentice-Hall.. 1 98 6. The Prin ce s o f Naran ja : An Essay in Anth rohis to ric al Me thod . Austin:Univ ers ity o f Texas P re ss .Furet , Fran~ois. 1981.1nterpret ing the French Revolu tion ( transl . E lborg Foster ).

Cambr idge : Cambr idge Un iver si ty P re ss .Ga rc ia D az, Be rnardo . 1981. Un pueblo fabr il del Por fi ri ato : San ta Rosa , Veracruz .Mexico: Fondo de Cu ltu ra Econmica .Garc iad iego Dantan , Jav ie r. 1981 . "Revoluc in cons ti tuc ional is ta y cont ra rrevoluc in(Mov imien to s r eacc iona rio s en Mex ico, 1914-1920 )" . PhD d is se rt ati on , E lCo legio de Mx ico.Gavir a, Gabr ie l. 1933. Genera l de Brigada Gabr ie l Gavira: Su actuac in poUti co -militar revolucionaria. Mexico: Ta ll er es g r ficos de A . del Bosque .G il ly , Adolfo. 1971. La revolucin inte rrumpida: Mxico 1910-1920 , una guerracampes ina por la tie rr a y e l pode r. Mexico: Edic iones El Cabal li to .Gonzlez, Lu is . 1972. Pueblo en v ilo : M ic rohisto ria d e San Jos de Gracia .Mexico: ElCo legio de Mx ico., coo r. His toria de la Revo lucin Mexicana (2 3 vols .). Mexic o: E l Cole gio d eMxico.Gonzlez Casanova , Pab lo , coo r. La cla se o brera e n la h isto ria d e Mxico (17 vols .) .Mexico : S ig lo Vein tiuno .Gruen ing, E rnes t. 1928. Mexico and Its Her itage . L ondon: S tanley P aul & Co.Guer ra , F ran~oi s-Xav ie r. 1985. L e Mxique de I'A ncien R gim e a la R volution (2vols .) . Pari s: L 'Harmattan .



25/27

24Ha ll, L inda . 1981. A lvaro Obregn: Power and Revolu tion in Mexico, 1911-1920.Co lle ge S ta tio n: Texas A&M Un iv ers ity P re ss .H art, John Mason. 1978. Ana rch ism and th e Mexica n Wo rk in g C la ss, 1 86 0-1 93 1.Austin : Un iv ers ity o f Texas P re ss .. 1987. Revo lu tio na ry Mex ic o, T he Com in g a nd P ro cess o fth e Mexic an

Revolution. Berkel ey : Un iver si ty o f Ca lif orni a P re ss .He rn nde z Chvez , A lic ia . 1 984. "M ilita re s y n egoc io s e n la Revolu cin Mexic an a" ,Histor ia Mexicana, 34, pp. 181 -212 .Hob sb awm , E ric J. 1 97 3. "P ea san ts a nd poli ti cs ,"Journa l o f Peasan t S tudi es 1,pp.l-22.J ac ob s, la n. 1 982. Ranchero Revolt: The M e xica n R ev olu tio n in th e S ta te o fGuerrero. Aust in : Un iver sit y o f Texas P re ss .Jornadas de His to ria de Occident e: Movimientos popu lares en e l occ iden te de Mxico ,siglos X IX y XX . 1 98 1. Jiq uilp n : C en tro d e E stu dio s d e la R ev olu ci n Mex ica na"Lzaro Crdenas."Joseph, G ilbe rt . 1982 . Revo lu tio nfrom W ith ou t: Y uca t n, Mexico a nd th e UnitedSta tes, 1880-1924. Cambr idge : Cambr idge Un iver sit y P re ss .Ka tz , F riedr ich. 1981 . The S ecret Wa r in Mex ic o: Euro pe , th e Unite d S ta te s a nd th eMexican Revolut ion . Chicago: Un iver si ty o f Ch icago Pre ss ., ed. 1987. R io t, Rebellio n and Revolu tion: Rural Soc ia l Con flic t in Mexico.Pr inceton: Pr inceton Univers ity Press.Kn ight, A la n. 1985. "The Mexic an Revolu tio n: Bou rg eo is ? Natio na lis t? O r J us t a'Great Rebell ion '?" Bulle tin o f Latin Amer ic an Res ea rch 4, pp. 1-37 .. 1 98 6. The Mexican Revo lu ti on ( 2 vol s.) . Cambr idge : Cambr idge Un iver si tyPress.. 1988. "T houghts o n the D em ise of the H acienda, 1 910-194 0." P aperg iven a t t he 46th Confer ence o f American is ts , Ams te rdam.. 1 98 7. U.S .Mexican Re la tions, 1910-1940: An 1nte rpre ta tion , SanD iego : Cen te r fo r U .S .-Mexic an S tudie s.Ko re ck , Ma ria Tere sa . 1 988. "Spac e and Revolu tio n on Chihuahua's E aste rn Bo rd er,"in N ugent, OO.,Rura l R evo lt, 1 98 8.

Krauz e, Enr iq ue , 1 987. Las b iograffa s d el poder (8 vols .). Mexic o: Fondo de Cultu raEconmica.L a F ra nce , D av id . 1 98 4. " Pu eb la, B rea kd own o f th e O ld O rd er," in B en jamin a ndMcNellie, Other Mexicos , 1984.Langston, Wi ll iam S . 1984. "Coahu il a: Centr al iz at ion aga in st S ta te Au tonomy ," inBenjamin and McNel li e, Other Mexicos , 1984.Lea l, J uan Felip e, a nd Huacuya, Ma rio . 1 977. Fuente s para e l e studio de la hac ie ndaen Mexico , 1856-1940 . Mexico: UNAM.Le rner , V ic to ria . 1979. His toria de la revolucin mexicana. La educacin soc ia lis ta .Mexico: E l Co le gio d e Mxic o.Lieuwen, Edwin .1968. Mexican Mi lit ar ism: the Po liti ca l R ise and Fa ll o ftheRevo lu ti onary Army , 1910-1940. Albuque rque : Un iv ersity o f New Mexic o P re ss .Mart nez Assad, Ca rlos . 1979. El laboratorio de la revoluc in: E l Tabasco Garr id is ta .Mexico: S ig lo Vein tiuno ., oo. 1986. La r evolu cin en la s regione s (2 vols .) .Guadalajara: Universidadde Guadalajara., ed. 1988 . Estadis tas , caciques y caudil los . Mexico: Ins ti tu to deInves ti gaciones Soci al , UNAM.



26/27

25Menegu s Bo rn emann , Ma rg arita , a nd Lea l, J uan Felip e, 1 982. "Lo s tra ba ja do re s d elas H ac ie nd as d e Maz aq uiah uac y E l Rosario , T lax cala," in Mo re no Garc a, e d.,Despus de los lati fund ios.Meye r, Eugen ia , a nd o th ers : c omp ile rs o f th e P rograma de H is to ria O ra l, s ee A rchivode la P ala bra .Meyer, Je an . 1 97 3. L a rvolution mexicaine. Paris : Calmann-Lvy.. 1976. The Cris tero Rebel lion . Cambr idge: Cambr idge Un iver si ty P re ss .. 1 98 5. La Cr is ti ada ( 3 vol s.) . Mex ico: S ig lo Ve in ti uno.Meyer, M ic hae l C . 1 96 7.MexicanRebe l: Pas cual Oro zco and th e MexicanRevolution. L in co ln : Un iv ers ity o f Nebra sk a P re ss .. 1 972. Huerta: A Poli tica l Portra it . Lincoln: University ofNebraskaPress.Mi ll er , S imon . 1988. "The n ineteen th -cen tu ry a rable hac ienda as an e ff ic ient economicadapt at ion." Pape r g iven a t t he 46th Confer ence o f Ameri canis ts , Ams te rdam.Mo lin a Enrq ue z, Andr s. 1 909. Los grandes problemas nacionale s. Mexico: A .Carranza.Moreno Garc a , He ribe rto , OO.1982. Despus de lo s la tifu nd io s (La des in te grac in dela gran prop iedad agrar ia en Mxico) . Zamora: E l Co legio de Michoacan .N ic ke l, Herb ert J . 1 978. Soz ia le Morpho logie der Mexikan ischen Hacienda.Wiesbaden: F ranz S te iner Ve rlag.Nugen t, Danie l, OO.1988a . Rural Revolt in Mexico and US ln te rv en tion. San D iego :Cente r for U .S .-Mex ican S tudi es .. 1 98 8b . Land, L ab or a nd Politics in a S erra no S ociety. PhD dis s., Un iver si tyo f Ch icago.O l iver a Sedano, A li ci a. 1966 . Aspec tos del con fli cto relig io so de 1926 a 1929.Mexico: Ins ti tu to Nacional de An tropolog a e His to ri a.P ao li, F ra nc isc o, a nd Monta lvo, Enriq ue . 1 977. E l soc ia lismo o lv idado de Yucatn.Mexico: S iglo Vein tiuno .P lana , Manue l. 1984 . Il R eg no d el Coto ne in Messic o: L a S tru ttu ra Agra ria d e laLaguna, 1855-1910. Milan: F ranco Ange li.Q uirk , R ob ert E . 1 96 0. The Mexican Revo lu tion: The Conven tion o f Aguascali en te s.New York :R ab y, D avid L . 1 974. Educacin y re vo lu cin soc ia l e n Mxico. Mexico: Sepsetentas.Richmond, Douglas .1983 . Venus tiano Carranza 's Nationali st S truggle , 1893-1920.Linco ln : Un iver sit y o f Nebraska P re ss .Ronfeldt, David . 1973 . A tenc ingo : The Politic s o f Agrar ian S tr uggle in a MexicanEjido. S tanford: S tanford Un iver sity P re ss .Ro ja s, Beatr iz . 1981 . La des truccin de la hac ienda en Aguascali en te s. Zamo ra : E lCo legio de Michoacn .R oss, S ta nle y R . 1 95 5. Franc isco l. Made ro : Apo stle o f Mexican Democrac y. NewYork : Co lumbia Un iver si ty P re ss .R uiz , R amn Edu ard o. 1 97 6. Labor and the Ambival en t Revo lu tionar ie s: Mexico ,1911-1923. Baltimo re : J ohns Hopk in s Un iv ers ity P re ss .. 1 98 0. The Great Rebellio n, Mexico 1905-1924. N ew Y ork: W . W . N orton&Co.. 1 98 8. The People o f Sonora and Yanke e Cap ita lis ts. Tuc son: Un iv ers ity o fAr izona Press.Ruiz Cer vante s, F ra nc is co J os . 1 986. L a revolucin en Oaxaca. E l m ovim iento de laSoberan[a (1915-1920). Mexico: Fondo de Cultu ra Econm ic a.Ru ther fo rd , John. 1971 .Mexican Soc ie ty dur ing th e Revolu tion: A L ite ra ryApproach. Oxfo rd : Oxfo rd Un iver si ty P re ss .



27/27

26S ch ry er, F ran s J. 1 98 0. The Ran ch ero s o f P isa flo re s. T he H isto ry o f a P ea sa ntBourgeois ie in Twen ti eth-Century Mexico. Toronto : Un iv ers ity o f Toronto P re ss .Shulgovsk i, Anato l. 1972. Mxico en la enc rucijada de su h isto ria . Mexico: CulturaPopular.S ilv a Herzog , J es s. 1 960. Breve h isto ria d e la r evolu cin mex icana (2 vols .) .Mexic o: Fondo de Cultu ra Econm ic a.Skocpol, Theda . 1980. S ta te s and Soc ia l Revolu tions : A Comparativ e Ana ly sis o fF rance, Russ ia and Ch ina. Cambr idge : Cambr idge Un iver sity P re ss .Smitn .,Pe te r H . 1979 . Labyrin ths o f Power : Po l ti ca l Recrui tment in Twen tie th -Century Mexico . Pr inceton: Pr inceton Univers ity Press.T annenbaum , F rank . 1929. The Mexican Agrarian Revo lu tion. New Yo rk : Macm illa n.. 1 96 6. Pea ce b y R ev olu tio n: Mexico A fte r 1 91 0. New Yo rk : Co lumbiaUnivers ity Press.T ob ler, H an s We rn er. 1 98 4. Die mexikanische Revolu tion: Gesel lschaft lcher Wandelund poli ti scher Umbruch , 1876-1940. Frank fu rt: Suhrkamp Verlag.Tutin o, John . 1986. From ln su rrec tio n to R ev olu tio n in Mex ic o: S ocia l B ase s o fAgrarian Vio lence, 1750-1940. Pr inceton: Pr inceton Univers ity Press.U llo a, Berta . 1 971. La revoluc in inte rven ida. Re laciones d ip lomti cas ent re Mxico yEstados Unidos . Mexico: E l Cole gio d e Mxic o.V alad s, Jo s C . 1 97 6. Histor ia general de la revolucin mexicana ( 5 vols ). Mex ico:Ed ito re s Mex icanos Un idos .Vande rwood , P au l. 1 981. Disorde r and Progr es s. Bandits , Polic e and MexicanDevelopment. Linco ln : Un iver sit y o f Nebraska P re ss .. 1 98 7. "Build in g B lo ck s b ut Y et No Build in g: R eg io na l H isto ry an d th eMexican Revolut ion ," Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos 3 , pp. 421 -432 .. 1 988. "Expla in in g th e Mexic an Revolu tio n," p ap er g iv en a t th e S ix th AnnualMex ico/Ch icano Symposium, Un iver si ty o f Ca li fo rn ia , I rv ine, Apri11988.Va rgas Lobs inge r, Mar a. 1984 .La Hacien da d e "La Con ch a": Una empre saa lgodonera de la Laguna, 1883-1917. Mexic o: UNAM.V aughan , M ary K . 1982 . S ta te , Educa tion and Soc ia l C la ss in Mexico, 1880-1928.

DeKalb : Un iver si ty o f Northern l ll inoi s P re ss .V zque z d e Knau th , J os efin a. 1 970. Nac iona lismo y educacin en Mxico. Mexico: E lCo legio de Mx ico.Vera E sta o l, Jo rg e. 1 957. La revolucin mexicana: orgenes y resul tados. Mexico:Ed it or ia l PO ITa.Voss, S tu art F . 1 98 2. On the Per iphe ry o f N in ete en th -Cen tu ry Mexico: Sonora andSinaloa , 1810-1877. Tuc son: Un iv ers ity o f A riz on a P re ss .W arm an, A rtu ro. 19 76. . . .Y venim os a con tradecir. L os camp esinos de Morelos y elestado nacional. Mexico: Edic io ne s d e la Cas a Chata .Wass erman, Ma rk . 1984. Capi ta ls ts , Caciques , and Revo lu tion: The Na tives E lite andForeign En te rpris e in Ch ihuahua , Mexico , 1845-1911. Chape l H ill: Un iv er sity o fNorth Ca ro lina P re ss .We lls , A lle n. 1 985. Yuca tan's Gi lded Age: Haciendas , Henequen , and lnte rnationalHarvester , 1860-1915. Albuque rque : Un iv ers ity o f New Mexic o P re ss.W ilk ie, James W ., 1 96 7. The Mexican Revo lu tion: Federa l Expend iture and Soc ia lChange sin ce 1910. Berkeley: Un iver si ty o f Ca lif ornia P re ss .W ilkie, Jam es W ., an d Monzn de W ilk ie, E dna. 1 969. Mxico visto en el siglo XX.Entrev is tas de his tor ia oral . Mexico: Inst ituto de Invest igaciones Econmicas.Woma ck , J., Jf. 1 96 9. Zapata and th e Mexican Revolu tion. New Yo rk : V in ta geBooks.

.Zevada,Ricardo J. 1971.Calles,El Presidente.Mexico:EditorialNuestroTiempo.

alan knight: interpreting the mexican revolution

Documents