Drawing from Edward Said’s understanding
of orientalism, Mark T. Berger (1995)
argues that ideas about Latin America in the
USA are inseparable from and the effect of US
imperialism in the region. Berger elaborates
this argument along three lines. First, he
points to the blurred boundaries between the
state and Latin American studies. Not only
have academics moved back and forth
between academia and the various agencies
of the government, but the state has also
attempted to shape the kinds of research
undertaken. Hence, ideas about Latin
America tend to reflect and constitute state
interests. For example, Santana (1996,
p. 459) illustrates how US-based geographical
researchers in Puerto Rico advanced a theory
of ‘non-viability’, suggesting that the island
was ‘not viable as an independent state’.
Such studies were used to support arguments
for continued US occupation.
Second, Latin American studies scholars
have used organizing concepts that facilitate
reductionism and allow the region to be ana-
lysed as a coherent unit. This is especially true
after the Second World War, when the US
government began to promote area studies.
In the newly conceived world region frame-
work, the term ‘Latin America’ replaced
‘South America’ (Martin and Wigen, 1997,
p. 162). Area studies presumed the existence
of coherent, naturally bounded regions,
wherein human–environment relations had
produced unique cultural groups. Contem-
porary regional geographies of Latin
America continue in this tradition by seeking
to delineate the core cultural traits organizing
the region. Thus, Clawson’s (1997, p. 7) text-
book defines Latin America as a ‘cultural
entity’ bound by ‘a common Latin, or
Roman, heritage’. Clawson identifies the core
as that area where Latin or Hispanic culture is
dominant: in fringe areas such as the US
Southwest and the Caribbean, ‘traditional
Hispanic values are largely missing’. Such
demarcations between what properly belongs
inside and outside a region are deeply prob-
lematic, for they obscure differences within
nations and render invisible the interconnec-
tions and interdependencies between them.
Third, Latin American studies tend to use
the USA as the frame of reference or bench-
mark for encoding representations of, and
measuring the material progress in, Latin
America (Berger, 1995; Schoultz, 1998). As a
result, academic knowledge tends to be under-
written by a United Statesian –Self/Latin
American –Other binary, which constitutes
difference and distance within a hierarchical
framing. No matter the theoretical approach
used in the USA, from environmental deter-
minism in the 1930s to area studies, regional
geographies and development studies from
the 1940s on, Latin America is conjured
to embody everything that the USA is not:
handicapped by climate and geography,
isolated, backward, traditional, violent, per-
ipheral, underdeveloped and poor. Such
imaginative geographiesare called upon to
authorize or legitimize US intervention in the
region, whether to protect national interests or
foster development (Santana, 1996).
When the term ‘Latin America’ began to
have broad circulation in English and Spanish
in the early decades of the twentieth century,
some Spanish intellectuals decried its use.
Writing in 1918, Ramo ́n Mene ́ndez Pidal
complained that the term deprived Spain of
its historical and geographical titles in the
New World (Ardao, 1992, p. 17).
South of the Rio Bravo, the idea of Latin
Americahas conjuredambivalence and passion-
ate attachment. For Daniel Mato (1998), the
continuing salience of Latinoamericanismo
stems from its association with nationalist, anti-
imperialist struggles. Thus, for example, Alonso
Aguilar (1968, p. 30) contrasts the US vision of
Pan-Americanism with the ‘Latin-Americanism
ofBolı ́var,SanMartı ́n,andMoreloswhichstood
for the struggle of their people for full independ-
ence’. Appropriating such associations, ruling
elites and state bureaucracies, Mato argues, re-
peatedly constitute and address a pan-ethnic
group calledLatinoamericanosto advance na-
tion-building projects founded upon the myth
ofmestizaje(‘racial mixing’). For instance, in
¿Existe Ame ́rica Latina?, Luis Alberto Sanchez
(1945, p. 239) suggests that the future of the
region depends upon acceptingmestizajein a
positive sense, as integration and creation. In
Mato’s view, the notion of amestizo‘extended
ethnic group’ perpetuates the exclusion of
indigenous and African-descendent peoples.
The idea of Latin America has come under
intense public criticism since the Columbus
Quincentennial in 1992. While state officials
planned elaborate celebrations – many funded
by the Spanish government – indigenous and
Afro-Latin American groups took to the streets
throughout the region in an organized effort to
posit alternative perspectives on the conquest
and its aftermath. The increasing political
power of such groups calls into question hege-
monicviewsoftheregion’sLatinheritage,which
work to obscure the contributions of indigenous
and African-descendent peoples, as well as theGregory / The Dictionary of Human Geography 9781405132879_4_L Final Proof page 413 31.3.2009 2:44pmLATIN AMERICA