Professional Documents
Culture Documents
http://lap.sagepub.com/
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Latin American Perspectives, Inc.
Additional services and information for Latin American Perspectives can be found at:
Subscriptions: http://lap.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://lap.sagepub.com/content/38/3/5.refs.html
What is This?
Between the mid-1920s and 1937, Brazilians of all classes admitted that the
First Republic (18911930) was unsustainable, but no class had the power or
the will to impose its ideology on the whole of society. In that conjuncture the
demarcation of class boundaries was most evident in the state of So Paulo,
Jawdat Abu-El-Haj is an associate professor of political science and sociology at the Federal
University of Cear. He is a CAPES (Coordenao de Aperfeioamento de Pessoal de Nvel
Superior) visiting fellow at the Institute of Latin American Studies, Columbia University.
Ronald H. Chilcote is a professor of economics and political science at University of California,
Riverside, and the managing editor of Latin American Perspectives. The editorial collective thanks
them for organizing this issue.
LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES, Issue 178, Vol. 38 No. 3, May 2011 5-39
DOI: 10.1177/0094582X10391063
2011 Latin American Perspectives
5
Downloaded from lap.sagepub.com by Monica Hidalgo on October 10, 2011
6 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES
the political hegemon of the First Republic. The mobilization of class interests
would have had no clear direction without the ideological formulations of
organic intellectuals. An organic intellectual is an activist who is dedicated to
the transformation of class values and beliefs into legitimate and popular out-
comes. Most advocates of social classes limit their practices to empirical
defense and public debates, but organic intellectuals go a step farther. They
transform class interests into the institutionalized camps of theories, themes,
and scientific standards that are essential to reform. Alfredo Ellis Jnior,
Fernando de Azevedo, and Roberto Simonsen performed this role. Over a
span of five decades they pioneered historical reconstructions, actively par-
ticipated in paradigmatic debates, and consolidated prestigious intellectual
camps.
Fernando de Azevedo led a new faction of the urban middle classes com-
posed of professionals in alliance with a new urban bourgeoisie made up of
merchants and importers. Culturally they revolved around the newspaper O
Estado de So Paulo. The founding in February 1926 of the Partido Democrtico
(Democratic PartyPD) in opposition to the agrarian Partido Republicano
Paulista (So Paulo Republican PartyPRP) crystallized their class interests
into a political program. Although the PD was presided over by Antnio
Prado, the president of the Associao Comercial de So Paulo and the patri-
arch of the So Paulo bourgeoisie, it was class-ambiguous. By and large, the
new party represented a diversity of elites in transition from rural to urban-
based production and commerce. Under its auspices, Fernando de Azevedo
introduced the educational principles of the 1934 Constitution and formulated
the proposal for establishing the University of So Paulo (USP).
The intellectual camp of the industrial bourgeoisie can be traced to January
1928, when the industrialists George Street, Francisco Matarazzo, and Roberto
Simonsen split from the commercial association and organized the Center of
So Paulo Industries. Its cultural expression became the School of Sociology
and Politics of So Paulo, founded by Simonsen in 1933 as Brazils first gradu-
ate program of social science and modeled on that of the University of Chicago
(Love, 1982; Fausto, 1970).
The foremost intellectual of the landed oligarchies was Alfredo Ellis Jnior.
In contrast to Washington Luiz, Baslio de Magalhes, and Afonso Taunay, he
personified the unity of wealth, political power, and cultural prestige of the
coffee aristocracy. He founded the So Paulo School of Philosophy and
Literature in 1931 and went on to publish numerous volumes on the racial
superiority of the So Paulo landed aristocracy. In his first book (1934 [1924]),
sponsored by Afonso Taunay, then director of the Museu Paulista, Ellis Jnior
equated the history of Brazil with five centuries of the bandeirante (pioneer)
expansion. In his second and more influential book (1936 [1926]) he drew
upon eugenics to justify the planters political leadership. In his last major
work (1937) he retreated from determinism to pragmatism, describing the
superiority of the pioneers as not ethnic but the product of their work ethic,
family cohesion, and austerity. In his last works (1944; 1949) his focus nar-
rowed further to biographies of the founders of So Paulo, a nostalgic look
back at a faded society.
In the same period in which Ellis Jnior abandoned grand historical recon-
structions, Azevedo and Simonsen took the opposite path. They initiated their
The political support of the Paulista urban elite for the 1930 Revolution
was decisive to the demise of the First Republic. Its political organ, the PD,
had negotiated the support of Getlio Vargas in exchange for control of the
state of So Paulo, but the appointment of Lieutenant Joo Alberto Lins, born
in Pernambuco, as interventor (temporary administrator) led to a rebellion
known as the Constitutionalist Revolution. Led by Oliveira of O Estado de So
Paulo, the three competing social classes (coffee planters, the middle classes,
and the industrialists) converged in February 1932 in the Frente Paulista
Unida (Paulista United Front). Fighting in the same trenches for the auton-
omy of So Paulo were the historical rivals Mesquita Filho, Simonsen, Ellis
Jnior, and Azevedo (Dulles, 1984). However, in 1933 Vargas exchanged the
pacification of the So Paulo elites for a Constitutional Assembly, and the
unity of the three classes remained intact when Ellis Jnior, Simonsen, and
Mesquita Filho were dispatched to the assembly. In the same accord Oliveira,
the leader of the rebellion, was appointed interventor. He continued to gov-
ern until 1936, when he ran against Vargas for the presidency (Skidmore,
1967).
In the assembly, Azevedo helped to formulate its educational principles
and prepare the proposal for the founding of USP. In the 1934 Constitution,
the hegemony of the So Paulo middle class reached its peak when it approved
the educational principles of the New School, a group of educators led by
Azevedo and Ansio Teixeira. Public education from primary school to the
university became universal, free, and compulsory. The freedom of teaching
and research were insured against political interference, and special funds
were set up to finance new public educational facilities (Crippa, 1978). That
year, the favorable political climate allowed Azevedo to consolidate the ideo-
logical camp of the civil middle classes into Brazils most prestigious institu-
tion of higher education. USPs crest read Scientia Vinces (Science Conquers),
conveying the message that despite the political and military defeat So Paulo
The establishment of the Estado Novo and the promulgation of its constitu-
tion in 1937 were as decisive for the intellectual consolidation of the public
middle class as the revolution of 1932 and the 1934 constitution were for that
of the private middle class. First, the political and administrative centraliza-
tion of the Estado Novo multiplied public-sector jobs and ensured the relative
autonomy of white-collar workers from state oligarchies. Second, the recruit-
ment of the middle classes from different regions for positions in the federal
administration increased their political and intellectual prestige.
Integralists, Catholics, and lieutenants had for decades been in a position to
lead the public middle class (Forjaz, 1989) but it was a group of intellectuals
organized around the pragmatic Gustavo Capanema, a politician and a writer
from Minas Gerais, that now assumed that role. While So Paulo loomed as
Brazils economic heart and Rio de Janeiro as the center of its political and
cultural institutions, Minas Gerais, one of the cradles of independence, was
falling into obscurity (Arruda, 1989; 1990). To compensate for its fragility, the
state elites invested in political training. Electoral studies and formal political
analysis were included as core courses in its Law School, the traditional center
of elite formation (Forjaz, 1997). Capanema assumed the role of the organic
intellectual of the public middle class when he switched his loyalty from local
bosses to Vargas. During his tenure, between 1934 and 1945, as minister of
education and health, he implemented the educational project of the Estado
Novo, founding the University of Brazil and the National School of Philosophy.
Although the educational program of the Estado Novo retained free and pub-
lic education, it reversed key ideals of the 1934 constitution. Universal access
was to be offered equally by public and private institutions, Catholicism was to
be taught in public schools, and coeducation was canceled. By far its most con-
troversial aspect, however, was the reorganization of higher education. In a
development and competitive labor markets might aggravate rather than alle-
viate prejudice. These results contradicted the studies of Ramos, which made
the integration of blacks contingent on their participation in the nationalist
struggle for industrialization. A similar notion had been advanced by Pierson
in his Ph.D. dissertation in 1935, where he argued that Brazilian prejudice was
based on color rather than race. For the first time a group of Brazilian research-
ers dialogued with social theories, conducted an extensive empirical study,
and established a concrete theory of social stratification in Brazil. Besides the
two publications of Fernandes (Bastide and Fernandes, 1955; Fernandes,
1964), the doctoral dissertations of Cardoso (1962) and Ianni (1962) were based
on the results of this project.
The second wave of research followed a proposal by Fernandes for research
on modern Brazil in an attempt to predict the future of industrial civiliza-
tion, taking the city of So Paulo as a case study. In 1961, with the support of
Alain Touraine, director of the Laboratory of Industrial Sociology at the
University of Paris and then a visiting professor of sociology at USP, Fernandes
established the Centro de Estudos da Sociologia Industrial e de Trabalho
(Center for Industrial Sociology and LaborCESIT) to raise research funds
from the Confederao Nacional da Indstria and the Fundao de Amparo a
Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo. When the proposal had been approved,
Fernandes designated Fernando Henrique Cardoso to collect data, Octvio
Inni to prepare the sample of public and private companies, and Marialice
Mencarini Foracci and Maria Sylvia Carvalho Franco to supervise the
field research and prepare the reports. The British anthropologist Bertrand
Hutchinson helped with the questionnaire on the social values of entrepre-
neurs. The field research was carried out by USP freshmen Celso de Rui
Beisigel, Leoncio Martins Rodrigues, Gabriel Bolaffi, Jose Carlos Pereira, and
Lourdes Sola (Fernandes, 1962; 1977).
The survey focused on four themes: the values and work ethic of the indus-
trial entrepreneur, the effect of developmentalism on the growth of the indus-
trial economy, working conditions during the transition from traditional
industry to the modern enterprise, and the influence of technology on Brazilian
social conditions. The findings were presented by Cardoso (1964) and pointed
to the first formulation of the concept of associated dependency. For Cardoso,
the alliance between the industrial bourgeoisie, the proletariat, and the middle
classes had been made possible by protectionism and state investment in basic
industry, but with the advance of industry the multiclass alliance had collapsed,
for two reasons. First, the middle class had become intensely nationalistic and
demanded the deepening of state ownership. Second, the expansion of indus-
trial labor and its increased organizational capacity permitted greater working-
class militancydemands for better living conditions, higher wages, and more
social benefits. Political pressure on the ruling classes was aggravated by the
mobilization of the peasant masses for equal rights. Pressured economically by
high inflation and weakened politically by social strife, the national bourgeoisie
distanced itself from the nationalist social pact and joined international capital
as a junior partner. In this study Cardoso contradicted the positions of the ISEB
and developmentalist theorists in general by arguing that industrialization in
developing countries would create situations of dependence because of internal
social dynamics and class struggle rather than external impositions.
While the new generation at USP was absorbed by academic themes, par-
ticipated in empirical research, dialogued with social theories, and received
international recognition from the international scientific community, in Rio
de Janeiro politically engaged intellectuals were forming a parallel camp. The
emblematic figures Leal and Ramos, both associated with National School of
Philosophy, led its two variants. While the former focused on the political
arena and became the pioneer of political science in Brazil, the latter was
involved in public administration and planning institutions.
Leal, born in Minas, was director of the Documentation Service of the
Ministry of Education and Health under Capanema in 1939. In 1943, when
Andr Gros returned to Europe to support the French forces in the fight
against Nazism, Leal was asked to replace him in the political science chair at
the National School of Philosophy. Ironically, Santhiago Dantas, director of the
National School, had chosen Alberto Guerreiro Ramos, who had just com-
pleted his degrees in social sciences (1942) and law (1943), but was vetoed
because Ramos was a militant in an integralist organization in his home state
of Bahia. This episode proved to be a watershed in the intellectual camp of the
public middle class in Rio de Janeiro.
Between 1946 and 1949, Leal wrote his thesis for a full professorship in
political science at the National School while teaching at the Departamento
Administrativo do Setor Pblico (Public Sector Administrative SectorDASP)
and practicing law in a private office to supplement his salary. In his autobi-
ography he reports that weakness with regard to theory because of a lack of
professional training in the social sciences led him to choose an empirical
study of the Brazilian political system. His research dealt with the way the
municipality, the arena of traditional power of large landowners, accommo-
dated the modern central government established during the First Republic
and institutionalized by the political and administrative centralization of
the Estado Novo. Despite its theoretical deficiencies, it became a classic of
Brazilian political thought (Leal, 1978 [1948]).
Considering whether the economic decline of the rural oligarchies had paved
the way for a genuine political representation of social interests, he found that,
despite the expansion of territorial representation, the system was far from a
typical representative democracy in which political parties mediate between
social interests and government institutions. His explanation was coronelismo,
the exchange of political favors between the centralized authority and an out-
dated social structure based on the latifundio. With this formulation he pre-
sented an indirect critique of modernization theory. First, he showed that
political representation could have a separate dynamic from economic and
administrative modernizationthat societies could pass from rural modes of
production to manufacturing without necessarily disrupting traditional domi-
nation. Secondly, he suggested that traditional power could adapt to economic
change, rational management, and modern electoral mechanisms.
Leals work focused on the balance between the party system, local repre-
sentation, and the demand of the masses for political and social rights.
Political stability could be achieved, he argued, when the institutional
arrangements and organizational skills were compatible with the degree of
political mobilization of the masses. He concluded that the Brazilian political
dilemma lay not in the stagnation of modernization but in the inability of the
regime. That shift highlighted its transition from a defensive posture centered
on technical modernization and productivity to an offensive posture in favor
of protectionism and industrial policy. Secondly, it relinquished its educa-
tional institutions in So Paulo and invested in political activism and agenda
setting. Consequently, the Instituto de Desenvolvimento da Organizao
Racional do Trabalho (Institute for the Development of Rational Labor
Organization), founded in 1931 to promote industrial productivity and ratio-
nal administration in So Paulo, was replaced by Economics Department of
the Federao das Indstrias do Estado de So Paulo (So Paulo State Federation
of IndustriesFIESP), the first economic research think tank in Brazil, as the
main institution of the So Paulo bourgeoisie. This new intellectual camp was
made up of economists charged with producing studies and surveys to sus-
tain Simonsens defense of planning within the Estado Novo. Similarly, the
School of Sociology lost its importance when Simonsen left his teaching posi-
tion to represent the industrialists in the influential Council of Industrial and
Trade Policy (Bielschowsky, 1988).
After World War II, when planning fell out of favor for having been associ-
ated with authoritarian practices, Simonsen withdrew from public institutions
and devoted himself to economic surveys. His experience in the FIESP
Economics Department was transferred to the Confederao Nacional da
Indstria (National Industrial Confederation), which produced the first gen-
eration of developmentalist economists. Despite his death in 1948, the new
intellectual field became the breeding ground for the Brazilian techno-bureau-
cracy. Four of its economists held key positions in state economic institutions
in the 1950s. Rmulo de Almeida headed the council of economic advisers of
the second Vargas government in 1951 and became the first president of the
Banco do Nordeste in Fortaleza in 1952. Ewaldo Correia Lima and Joaquim
Mangia took up positions as senior managers of the Banco Nacional de
Desenvolvimento Econmico. In the early 1950s Correa Lima was a founding
member of the ISEB and headed its economics department. Ferreira Lima pre-
sided over the FIESP Economics Department and replaced Simonsen as the
main protagonist of the industrial bourgeoisie while publishing biographies
and histories of industrial associations (Bielschowsky, 1988).
In 1951 Ramos organized the techno-bureaucratic field founded by the
industrial bourgeoisie at the invitation of his old companion in Bahia, Rmulo
de Almeida. While Almeida, Ferreira Lima, Mangia, and Correia Lima occu-
pied managerial positions in the state and class-based organizations, Ramos
dedicated his time to an intellectual defense of techno-bureaucracy. He taught
administrative theory to Brazils bureaucratic elite in the graduate program of
the Fundao Getlio Vargas, founded by his ex-chief at the DASP, Luiz
Simes Lopes, and through the ISEB participated in public debates on indus-
trialization and intellectuals (Oliveira, 1995). His historic exchange with
Fernandes was one of the defining moments of Brazilian social science.
Between 1954 and 1958, Brazils two major sociologists debated the role of
intellectuals in society, the purpose of social research, and the effect of knowl-
edge on development.
The debate began during the Second Latin American Congress of Sociology
in Rio de Janeiro in 1953, when Ramos raised three considerations about the
role of intellectuals. The first was that countries like Brazil that had suffered
cultural colonization should not continue importing theories, methodologies,
Downloaded from lap.sagepub.com by Monica Hidalgo on October 10, 2011
20 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES
While Fernandes dictated the official social science and determined research
topics, it was Caio Prado Jnior who gave the new generation in So Paulo a
sense of the purpose of social research. Born into the coffee aristocracy, social-
ized politically in the PCB, and an adherent of historical materialism, Prado
Jnior contested the dominant paradigms of Brazilian historiography. In
his first book (1947 [1933]) he established a research agenda centered on an
analysis of the dominant classes from agrarian mercantilism to industrial
capitalism. The history of Brazil would become in Prado Jniors work the
history of class struggle.
The first critique centered on the ideology of bandeirismo and its glorification
of the heroic conqueror depicted in the works of Washington Luiz, Baslio de
Magalhes, and Alfredo Ellis Jnior. In showing that the expansion of Brazils
southern frontier was determined by the competition between Spain and
England for control of precious metals, Prado Jnior linked the existence of
Brazil to European primitive accumulation. His demystification of bandeirismo
was followed by a historical analysis of the origins of the bourgeoisie. Made up
of exporters linked to international markets, the bourgeoisie formed an alliance
with the metropolis to control a vast territory, facilitate the export of wealth, and
perpetuate political subordination. When the colonial system isolated the prov-
inces and prohibited the formation of an internal market, it prevented the
emergence of dominant classes with aspirations for independence. While the
extraction of wealth was the purpose of colonization, its production was based
on slave labor in a vast and sparsely inhabited territory. The colonial model was
a consistent but unusual capitalism. The bourgeoisie realized its profits in the
international market, the colonial state blocked internal accumulation to sustain
its administration, slavery produced wealth for the market, and the administra-
tive system was run by elites uprooted from their social environment.
To sustain a larger dominant class after independence, the colonial system
had to be expanded. The commercial bourgeoisie was given more power to
export wealth, monoculture was intensified, and the extraction of wealth from
the direct producers reached new heights. For half a century Brazil was in a
permanent state of rebellion presented by the elites as separatist movements.
For Prado Jnior these regional movements represented the reaction of Brazilian
civil society to exploitation. Fragmented into isolated provinces by the colo-
nial system, it could not unite in a national movement. Its suppression in the
name of national unity eliminated the possibility of a national capitalism. In
its place the commercial bourgeoisie perpetuated dependency, political repres-
sion, and rigid social stratification. With this formulation, Prado Jnior estab-
lished a dichotomy between two capitalist projects in constant competition
since independence: a dependent capitalism run by an internationalized bour-
geoisie that continued the colonial legacy of underdevelopment and repres-
sion and a national capitalism rooted in the general interests of the masses,
internal accumulation, and social rights.
In a subsequent work, Prado Jnior (1945 [1942]) showed how slavery,
monocrop cycles, and regional social relations of production combined to
form a coherent colonial economic system. In the 1950s his attention shifted
to industrial capitalism and its class struggles. Civil society now expressed
itself no longer in regional rebellions but in urban and rural labor movements.
This is the theme that dominated the Revista Brasiliense, the most important
intellectual forum between 1955 and 1964. In 31 articles Prado Jnior studied
agrarian movements, the nature of the industrial bourgeoisie, the meaning of
development, and the theoretical inconsistency of the Brazilian left. In his last
book (1966) he linked Brazilian history and class analysis to political practice.
His dialectical interpretation of Brazilian history, focusing on its economic
system, classes, and social conflict, provided the new generation of social
scientists the tools for a coherent political practice. It was not socialisman
inconceivable utopiathat attracted this generation but the prospects for a
national capitalism rooted in the concrete analysis of Brazilian social history.
The dilemmas of Brazilian intellectuals during this period were explored in
Dante Moreira Leites (1983 [1954]) grand synthesis of Brazilian social thought.
The national-character ideology had lost its appeal when university intellectu-
als, driven by the optimism of an industrialized Brazil, began to question its
consistency. In literature, sociology, philosophy, and psychology, the inferior-
ity complex that had dominated Brazilian culture since colonialism was aban-
doned. The academy discovered Afro-Brazilian, Indian, and folk (caipira,
sertanejo, and others) as authentic expressions of its culture. Intellectuals were
liberated from exoticism and plunged into the concrete comprehension of
society. However, scientific objectivity, social mobility, and competitiveness
signaled a new ideology of industrial capitalism. Still optimistic, Leite believed
that the discovery of Brazil by its intellectuals would eventually extend their
critique from a focus on national character to attention to socioeconomic
inequalities under industrial capitalism.
The military coup of 1964 purged intellectuals from cultural life. In 1966
Ramos left Brazil permanently to teach at the University of Southern California.
In 1968 the military repression affected Fernandes and his assistants, and in
1969 Fernandes, Cardoso, and Ianni were forcibly retired. In January 1969
Leal, Lima, and Evando were removed from the Supreme Court. Fernandes
left Brazil for a long exile at the University of Toronto, and after exile in Chile
Fernando Henrique Cardoso, along with Jos Arthur Giannotti, Cndido
Procopio Ferreira de Camargo, Juarez Rubens Brando Lopes, Octvio Ianni,
Paul Singer, and Elza Salvatori Berqu, founded the Centro Brasileiro de
Anlise e Planejamento (Brazilian Center for Analysis and Planning
CEBRAP) (Sorj, 2001). The vast majority had participated in the Capital Group
and followed Prado Jniors lead when he advocated a social analysis
focused on political practice (Bastos, 2006; Biderman, Coza, and Rego, 1996;
and Mantega and Rego, 1999).
salaried labor. For Oliveira urban marginalization reflected the dependent and
technical backwardness of the national bourgeoisie. Unable to compete with
multinationals, it concentrated on low-wage labor-intensive traditional indus-
tries. To pay low salaries and sustain high levels of accumulation, it had to
reduce the need for labor. Poverty, income concentration, and urban violence,
among other social ills, were costs incurred by society to retain the underdevel-
oped capitalism implanted and sustained by an authoritarian regime.
Pluralism spread into Brazilian intellectual circles. Luiz Bresser-Pereira
(1978) and Eli Diniz (1978) reinforced the notion of the compatibility of the
bougeoisie with liberal democracy. Contradicting Fernandess depiction of its
precapitalist values, Bresser-Pereira pointed to its liberal bent. New immi-
grants, these entrepreneurs benefited from the circulation of coffee wealth in
the internal market. In the course of industrialization they commanded greater
wealth but were blocked, initially by the landed oligarchies and then by prole-
tarian and middle-class radicalization, from exerting political power and cul-
tural hegemony. However, once the transition to industrial capitalism was
completed, the bourgeoisie became the sole dominant class. Between 1974 and
1977 it renounced the authoritarian pact and extended its power to politics and
hegemony. By the late 1970s Brazil was led for the first time by a national class.
Eli Diniz focused on the political practice of the entrepreneurs. She docu-
mented the way they acted within the state and determined the developmen-
talist path taken by Brazil in the 1950s. Their hegemony was manifested when
industrialization was supported by the middle classes and the proletariat and
reinforced when planning and protectionism became official state policies.
Both Bresser-Pereira and Diniz shared Cardosos view of a pragmatic bour-
geoisie mobilized to influence the state, negotiate political change, and engage
in modernization to compete for leadership in the internal market (Diniz,
2000; Diniz and Boschi, 2003).
In the late 1970s the pluralist turn reached Brazils left after its failed
armed struggle. Its strategy, however, focused on political inclusion rather
than political contestation (Sader and Paoli, 1986). Intellectuals assumed the
role of catalysts of the popular forces and became involved in social move-
ments (Cardoso, 1986). Their theories, public discourse, and political prac-
tices shifted from socialism to democracy (Chau, 1981; Dagnino, Olvera,
and Panfichi, 2006; Gohn, 1997; Moiss, 1977; Sader, 1988; Weffort, 1978;
1984). The ideological turn from the state to civil society came from different
sources: the PCB, Gramscian intellectuals, liberation theology, and Paulo
Freires pedagogy of the oppressed. Under the influence of Eurocommunists
expelled from the Communist Party by the Soviet faction, the concept of civil
society was introduced into the new left. Carlos Nelson Coutinhos notion of
democracy as a universal value became one of its pillars. It meant that
political democratization was but the first step in a long struggle to uproot
the autocratic values embedded in Brazilian daily life. Once democratic
practices reached the sphere of the means of production, the utopian con-
ciliation of democracy and socialism, liberty and equality, and subject and
collectivity would become a viable political practice (Coutinho and Nogueira,
1985; Coutinho, 2006). Paulo Freires (2005; 2007) pedagogical philosophy
was another influence on the new left. The association between adult liter-
acy, popular participation, and empowerment reinforced the option for a
The optimistic consensus that drew so many intellectuals into the CEBRAP
did not survive democratization. The theoretical traditions of the 1950s were
reborn in divergent political practices. Bolvar Lamounier, apparently for per-
sonal reasons, moved toward a revival of the political development tradition
of Leal. He was joined by other political scientists, mostly Mineiros, such as
Maria do Carmo Campelo de Souza (1988; 1990), Fbio Wanderley Reis
(1978), Olavo Brasil de Lima Jnior (1983), and Srgio Abranches (1988).
Lamounier, Olavo Brasil, and Reis argued that institutional instability was a
political dilemma under both dictatorship and democracy. Situated in an
REFERENCES
Abranches, Srgio
1988 Presidencialismo da coalizo: o dilema institucional brasileiro. Dados 3 (1): 533.
2001 A democracia brasileira vai bem mas requer alguns cuidados, in Joo Paulo dos
Velloso (ed.), Como vo a democracia e o desenvolvimento no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Jos Olympio.
Abu-El-Haj, Jawdat
2003 As revolues silenciosas no Nordeste: eleies e mudanas sociais em Itapiuna, in
Rejane Vasconcelos Accioly Carvalho (ed.), A produo da poltica em campanhas eleitorais. So
Paulo: Editora Pontes.
2005 Da era Vargas FHC: transies polticas e reformas administrativas. Revista de
Cincias Sociais 36 (12): 3351.
2006 Os tempos da rebeldia: Icapu na berlinda do modo petista de governar, in Maria
Auxiliadora Lemenhe and Rejane Vasconcelos Accioly Carvalho (eds.), Poltica, cultura e pro-
cessos eleitorias. Fortaleza: Fundao Konrad Adenaur.
Alvarez, Sonia, Evelina Dagnino, and Arturo Escobar (eds.)
2000 Cultura e poltica nos movimentos sociais latino americanos. Belo Horizonte: Editora
UFMG.
Arruda, Maria Arminda do Nascimento
1989 Modernidade possvel: Cientistas sociais em Minas Gerais. So Paulo: Instituto de Estudos
Econmicos e Polticos de So Paulo.
1990 Mitologia de mineiridade. So Paulo: Editora Brasiliense.
2001 Metrpole e cultura: So Paulo no meio sculo XX. So Paulo: EDUSC.
Avritzer, Leonardo
2008 Democratization and citizenship in Latin America: the emergence of institutional forms
of participation. Latin American Research Review 34 (2): 282289.
Avritzer, Leonardo and Sergio Costa
2004 Teoria crtica, democracia e esfera pblica: concepes e usos na Amrica Latina.
Dados 47: 703728.
Avritzer, Leonardo and Boaventura de Sousa Santos
2002 Para ampliar o cnone democrtico, in Boaventura de Sousa Santos (ed.), Democratizando
a democracia. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Civilizao Brasileira.
Azevedo, Fernando
1937 (1926) A educao pblica em So Paulo: O inqurito para O Estado de So Paulo. 2d edition.
So Paulo: Companhia Editora Nacional.
1939 Princpios de sociologia: Pequena introduo ao estudo de sociologia. 3d edition. So Paulo:
Companhia Editora Nacional.
1944 (1940) Cultura brasileira: Uma introduo ao estudo de cultura no Brasil. 2d edition. So
Paulo: Companhia Editora Nacional.
1953 A educao e seus problemas. So Paulo: Melhoramentos.
Baran, Paul
1988 The commitment of the intellectual. Monthly Review 39 (March): 5162.
Bastide, Roger and Florestan Fernandes
1955 Brancos e negros em So Paulo. So Paulo: Companhia Editora Nacional.
Bastos, lide Rugai
2006 Conversas com socilogos brasileiros. So Paulo: Editora 34.
Biderman, Ciro, Lus Felipe Coza, and Jos Mrcio Rego
1996 Conversas com economistas brasileiros. Vol. 1. So Paulo: Editora 34.
Bielschowsky, Ricardo
1988 Pensamento econmico brasileiro: O ciclo ideolgico do desenvolvimentismo. Rio de Janeiro:
IPEA/INPES.
Boggs, Carl
1993 Intellectuals and the Crisis of Modernity. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Bresser-Pereira, Luiz Carlos
1978 O colapso de uma aliana de classes. So Paulo: Editora Brasiliense.
Camargo, Cndido Ferreira
1975 So Paulo 1975: Crescimento e pobreza. So Paulo: Edies Loyola.
Cardoso, Fernando Henrique
1962 Capitalismo e escravido no Brasil meridional. So Paulo: Difuso Europeia do Livro.
1964 Empresrio industrial e desenvolvimento econmico no Brasil. So Paulo: Difuso Europeia
do Livro.
1973 Comentrios sobre of conceitos de superpopulao relatina e marginalidade, in O
modelo poltico brasileiro. So Paulo: Difel.
1975 Autoritarismo e democratizao. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.
Sader, der
1988 Quando novos personagens entraram em cena. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.
Sader, der and Maria Celia Paoli
1986 Sobre classes populares no pensamento sociolgico brasileiro, in Ruth Cardoso (ed.),
A aventura antropolgica. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.
Said, Edward W.
1996 Representations of the Intellectual. New York: Vintage.
Santos, Jos Rufino
2005 Nova Histria: Contedo histrico do ltimo ISEB, in Caio Navarro Toledo (ed.),
Intelectuais e poltica no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Revan.
Schwartzman, Simon
1979 A formao da comunidade cientfica no Brasil. So Paulo: Companhia Editora Nacional-FINEP.
Schwartzmann, Simon, Helena Maria Bousquet Bomeny, and Vanda Maria Ribeiro Costa
2000 Tempos de Capanema. So Paulo: Paz e Terra/Editora FGV.
Simonsen, Roberto
1937 Histria econmica do Brasil, 15501820. So Paulo: Companhia Editora Nacional.
1973 (1939) Evoluo industrial do Brasil. So Paulo: Companhia Editora Nacional.
Skidmore, Thomas
1967 Politics in Brazil: An Experiment in Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sodr, Nelson Werneck
1986 Histria da histria nova. Petrpolis: Vozes.
2005 A represso aos intelectuais do ISEB, in Caio Navarro Toledo (ed.), Intelectuais e poltica
no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Revan.
Sorj, Bernardo
2001 A construo intelectual do Brasil contemporneo. So Paulo: Jorge Zahar Editor.
Souza, Antnio Cndido de Mello
1959 Formao da literatura brasileira. So Paulo: Martins.
1963 O mtodo crtico de Silvio Romero. 2d edition. So Paulo: EDUSP.
1964 Os parceiros do Rio Bonito. So Paulo: Jos Olympio.
1965 Literatura e sociedade. So Paulo: Companhia Editora Nacional.
Souza, Maria do Carmo Campelo
1988 A nova republica brasileira: sob a espada de Dmocles, in Alfred Stepan (ed.),
Democratizando o Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.
1990 Estado e partidos polticos no Brasil. 3d edition. So Paulo: Editora Alfa-Omega.
Toledo, Caio Navarro
1977 ISEB: Fbrica de ideologias. So Paulo: tica.
Tolipan, Ricardo and Arthur Carlos Tinelli (eds.)
1975 A controvrsia da concentrao de renda. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar Editores.
Weffort, Francisco
1965 A poltica das massas, in Octvio Ianni (ed.), Poltica e revoluo social no Brasil. Rio de
Janeiro: Editora Civilizao Brasileira.
1978 O populismo na poltica brasileira. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.
1984 Por que democracia? So Paulo: Brasiliense.
Zenteno, Ral Bentez (ed.)
1977 As classes sociais na Amrica Latina. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.