Table of Contents



Title page

Copyright page



1 Modernity and Identity

Dimensions of modernity

Crises of modernity

Historical trajectories to modernity

The Latin American trajectory to modernity

The three component parts of identity

Personal and collective identities

National identity and the two poles of culture

Different theoretical conceptions of national identity

Globalization and identity

2 The Colonial Stage, Modernity Denied

Cultural reasons for a defeat

The socioeconomic consequences of the conquest

The Spanish and Portuguese construction of the other

The judgement of European philosophy and science

The construction of a colonial identity

The case against the idea of a ‘baroque’ modernity

3 Oligarchic Modernity

Beginnings and limits of modernization (1810–1850)

The search for a new identity

Consolidation of the exporting economy (1850–1900)

The new cultural synthesis: Positivism and racism

The romantic novel and modernism

Modernity against old identity

4 The End of Oligarchic Modernity

The crisis of oligarchic modernity and populist modernization

The transition

Anti-imperialism and the realist novel


The national populist stage

The 1930s essayists and the Latin American character


5 Postwar Expansion

Economic development and modernization

The new theories of development and modernization

The thought of the Economic Commission for Latin America

Theories of dependency

The problem of national culture and identity

The Latin American novel ‘boom’

6 Dictatorships and the Lost Decade

The crisis of the 1970s and 1980s

The ambivalence of Latin American modernity

Identity crisis

The search for a ‘true’ identity


Cultural mestizaje

Identity and popular religiosity

Towards a critique of essentialism

7 The Neoliberal Stage

General mechanisms and tendencies of late modernity

Modernization, identity and neoliberalism in the 1990s

The identity of Archilochus’ hedgehog

The ambiguities of postmodernism

The power of media and new trends in literature

8 Key Elements of Latin American Modernity and Identity

Clientelism, traditionalism and weak civil society

Politics, democracy and human rights

Authoritarianism, legalistic lack of principle and masked racism

Exclusion and solidarity

The religious factor




To Mercedes and Carolina

Title page


I would like to thank John Thompson, Lynn Dunlop and the editorial board of Polity Press for believing in this book against many odds. Their patience and commitment throughout encouraged me to make it a better book, although I am sure I have not always succeeded. I would also like to thank Ann Bone for her painstaking and impressive work in improving my English.

Some of the material in this book draws on work I have published elsewhere:

Modernidad, Razón e Identidad en América Latina (Santiago: Editorial Andrés Bello, 1996). Winner of the 1997 Municipal Prize for Literature in the Essay Genre, Santiago, Chile.

‘La Trayectoria Latinoamericana a la Modernidad’, Revista de Estudios Públicos, no. 66 (Autumn, 1997), pp. 313–33. (ISSN 076-1115)

‘Identidades religiosas, secularización y esencialismo católico en América Latina’, in América Latina: un espacio cultural en el mundo globalizado, ed. Manuel Antonio Garretón (Bogota: Convenio Andrés Bello, 1999), pp. 220–48.

‘Modernity and Identity: Cultural Change in Latin America’, in Latin America Transformed: Globalization and Modernity, ed. R. Gwynne and C. Kay (London: Arnold, 1999), pp. 182–202. (ISBN 0340691654)

‘The Concept of Identity’, in National Identities and Sociopolitical Changes in Latin America, ed. F. Durán-Cogan and Antonio Gómez Moriana (New York and London: Garland Publishing, 2000).


This book is about modernity and identity in Latin America, their trajectories and relationships. In themselves these concepts have well-established contents and meanings and are discussed in many currents of thought. This is why the first chapter will be devoted to a theoretical elucidation of these two concepts in a general way. But even mentioning these phenomena in relation to Latin America raises difficult questions. In what sense can anyone speak of a Latin American identity? Is one not assuming a common ground which does not exist among Latin American nations? Can one speak of modernity in Latin America? Is there a specific Latin American trajectory to modernity? What are the relationships between identity and modernity in Latin America? Is not modernity opposed to identity in Latin America?

In Latin America there has always existed a consciousness of Latin American identity, articulated alongside national identities. Much of this stems without doubt from a shared history during the three centuries of Spanish domination, the independence wars in which the criollos of several countries (descended from the Spanish conquerors) fought together, the language, religion and many other common social, economic and cultural factors. There are signs that consciousness about these common elements has been growing in Latin America in recent times. The existence of this Latin American consciousness is shown by four kinds of facts. First, most Latin American authors who have ever written about identity assume that there is a Latin American identity either by directly describing its characteristics or by analysing the identity of their own countries and extending their affirmations to the rest of Latin America. It is a fact that Latin American authors frequently and with some ease go from the national to the Latin American, and conversely.

Second, this is not only true of social science essays that directly address the issue of identity, but in a different manner is also true of narrative, poetry, music and television’s telenovelas or soap operas. They have also made possible this general perception of a Latin American identity. In the literary field, for instance, many poets directly assume a Latin American perspective. Think for instance of Neruda’s Canto General and some of the poems of José Martí, Rubén Darío and César Vallejo. Fernando Ainsa has also mentioned the recurrence of archetypal towns in the contemporary Latin American novel such as Rumí in Ciro Alegría’s El mundo es ancho y ajeno, Macondo in Gabriel García Márquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude, Comala in Juan Rulfo’s Pedro Páramo, El Valle in all the work of Adonias Filho, Santa María in the work of Juan Carlos Onetti, etc. These towns, even though they are all local, have become universally representative of the Latin American. They are mythical and telluric places, autarchic island-towns where the demarcation line between history and myth is diffuse, representing a golden age, a centre which in its isolation provides stability and happiness, a sense of identity.1

Third, that this consciousness does not only belong to intellec-tuals and novelists but also to common people is shown by the marked enjoyment of each other’s music, novels, dance and soap operas. Most Latin American cultural practices have an important and widespread continental impact. Brazilian sambas, Colombian cumbias, Mexican corridos, Argentinian tangos and Cuban salsa are not only heard daily on the radio and danced in parties all over Latin America but they are also expressions with which Latin American people easily and spontaneously communicate. In television, the soap operas from Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Venezuela and Chile are exported and watched with enormous interest and relish everywhere in Latin America. This sense of a common identity was also shown by reactions to football matches in the 1998 World Cup. Although there was at first a fairly nationalistic frame of mind, as some Latin American national teams were eliminated allegiances switched to those which were still in competition. There was a spontaneous sense of Latin American solidarity which went well beyond any sense of a solidarity among Europeans. This is significant because more and more in Latin America the popular consciousness of national identity is mediated by football.

Fourth, it is also true that this sense of regional identity has been frequently imputed, whether we like it or not, from without, especially from Europe. From the sixteenth century onwards South America has been spoken of and discursively constructed in Europe as a more or less integrated whole, most of the time endowed with pejorative characteristics. This is true as much of European ‘scientific’ discourse2 as of the European popular imaginary. Thus a sense of the Latin American identity also emerges out of the elements shared by the Latin American nations as recognized and imputed to them by the European other. The access to these versions of identity and their internalization by the Latin American people was secured by three centuries of colonial domination.

I have come across only one Latin American author, Mario Sambarino,3 who puts forward the idea that there is no common cultural ethos between Latin American nations. For him there is no such thing as a Latin American being. The question of a ‘Latin American being’ – or a ‘national being’ for that matter – is a false problem because these are historically and culturally generated modes of living, which do not have and cannot have an ontological reality, a kind of immobile legality. Clearly Sambarino’s anti-essentialist conception of identity, which is to be praised because it is so rare in Latin America, leads him mistakenly to deny the possibility of a Latin American, or even a national, ‘imagined community’. It may be inadequate to look for a Latin American or national essence, but if there is a national, or a Latin American, historically variable and relatively common way of living, then one can speak of a national identity or a Latin American identity as a historically changing ‘cultural identity’.

It goes almost without saying that in Latin America there are also very strong national identities, which are mainly defined in relation to Latin American ‘others’, especially neighbouring countries. In this case differences are stressed more than similarities. Each national identity in Latin America has thus a Latin American common component and a specific one of its own. It is also possible to group some countries within Latin America as sharing more common features with one another than with the rest of the area, due to certain historical conditions, to their geographical location or to similar social factors. A good example would be the case of Argentina and Uruguay. Another one would be Peru and Bolivia. In this way it is possible to distinguish three or four groupings with different characteristics. For instance, Darcy Ribeiro has proposed a classification between ‘witness peoples’ (Mexico, Central America, Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador), ‘new peoples’ (Brazil, Venezuela, Colombia, Caribbean nations, Chile and Paraguay) and ‘transplanted peoples’ (Uruguay and Argentina).4 Sambarino adopts a classification taken from Elman Service, which is similar to Darcy Ribeiro’s: ‘Indigenous America’ (Bolivia, Peru, Guatemala, Mexico), ‘“Mestiza” America’ (Paraguay, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Venezuela) and ‘European America’ (Uruguay, Argentina).5

In chapters 2 to 8, I shall mostly analyse the character and evolution of cultural elements common to all Latin America, along with a few relevant differences between some groups of countries. I shall do this by distinguishing certain historical stages. I shall not be able to study the peculiarities and differences of any national identity in particular, important as they are. Yet it should be borne in mind that in Latin America national identities and the regional Latin American identity, apart from each being a separate kind of collective ‘cultural identity’, are also closely linked. This is why in studying identity processes in Latin America, it is impossible to avoid a reference to this interplay between national identities and Latin American identity.

The theme of modernity in Latin America is full of historical paradoxes. Latin America was ‘discovered’ and colonized at the beginning of European modernity and thus became the ‘other’ of European modern identity. But Latin America was deliberately kept apart from the main processes of modernity by the colonial power. With the process of independence from Spain, Latin America enthusiastically embraced the Enlightenment’s ideas, but more in their formal, cultural and discursive horizon than in their political and economic institutional practice, where for a long time traditional and excluding structures were kept in place. When finally political and economic modernity began to be implemented in practice during the twentieth century, cultural doubts began to emerge as to whether Latin America could adequately modernize, or whether it was good to modernize by following European and North American patterns. While in practice modernizing processes were widened, disquieting questions arose as to whether they could be carried out in an authentic manner. Hence, it could be said that Latin America was born in modern times without being allowed to become modern; when it could become modern, it became so only in the realm of programmatic discourse; and when it began to be modern in practice, then doubts emerged as to whether this conspired against its identity.

This book will try to show how from the beginning of the nineteenth century modernity has been presented in Latin America as an alternative to identity, as much by those who have been suspicious of enlightened modernity as by those who badly wanted it at all cost. Examples of the latter are plentiful. Nineteenth-century Latin American positivism, for instance, believed that ‘order and progress’ could be provided by the Enlightenment’s ideas, and precisely because of this, it strongly opposed the prevalent Indo-Iberian cultural identity. In the same way, the optimistic North American theories of modernization in the 1950s believed in an ineluctable transition to modernity through a series of stages, which would eventually overcome the traditional cultural pattern. In many contemporary neoliberal positions in Latin America the idea is implicit that the application of appropriate economic policies is a sufficient condition for an accelerated development which will lead Latin America to a modernity similar to the European or North American one.

But at the same time those who oppose enlightened modernity in the twentieth century do it because of what they see as Latin America’s true religious, Hispanic or Indian identity. For indigenistas, the true Latin American identity that modernity has destroyed has lain in the forgotten and oppressed Indian traditions since the conquest. For Hispanists, Latin America’s true identity can be found in the Spanish medieval cultural values that have been forgotten by the modernization processes since independence. For religious currents that emphasize the Christian or even Catholic nature of the Latin American ethos, the true identity has not been recognized by the enlightened Latin American elite, but can still be found in popular religiosity. All of them believe that Latin American identity was formed in the past once and for all, and that it was subsequently lost in the alienated pursuit of modernity. All of them believe that as long as modernity takes courses of action which go against the true Latin American identity, it cannot succeed and will lead to failure. Hence they propose that the only way out of this dilemma is to recover the lost essence of Latin America by going back to the Indian cultural matrix or to the values of medieval Hispanic culture or to Christian religion.

Between these two extremes are those like Octavio Paz, Carlos Fuentes and Claudio Véliz who, despite adhering to modernity, try to show how difficult the process of Latin American modernization has been because of the Spanish baroque legacy. For Fuentes ‘we are a continent in desperate search of its modernity’;6 for Paz, since the beginnings of the twentieth century we have been ‘totally installed in pseudo-modernity’,7 that is to say, for Paz Latin American modernity has never become really genuine. More recently Claudio Véliz has argued in a similar vein that Latin America’s stubborn baroque identity has been a major obstacle to its modernization and that only in the 1990s, bombarded by all sorts of consumer artefacts, did it begin to crumble and give way to an Anglo-Saxon kind of modernity.8 Somehow the Latin American identity would have delayed the search for modernity, or would have allowed only a semblance of modernity to be reached.

It is interesting to verify that in spite of the many differences among these authors and currents of thought, and their favourable or unfavourable positions with respect to modernity, in all of them modernity is conceived as an eminently European phenomenon which can only be understood from the perspective of European experience and self-consciousness. Which means that it is supposed to be totally alien to Latin America and can only exist in the region in conflict with its true identity. Some oppose it for this reason and others want to impose it in spite of this reason, but both recognize the existence of a conflict that has to be resolved in favour of one or the other. Modernity and identity are polarized as phenomena with opposite roots.

Contrary to these absolutist theories which present modernity and identity in Latin America as mutually excluding phenomena, I would like to show their continuity and interconnection. The same historical process of identity construction is, from independence onwards, a process of the construction of modernity. It is true that modernity was born in Europe, but Europe does not monopolize its entire trajectory. Precisely because it is a globalizing phenomenon, modernity is actively and not passively incorporated, adapted and put in context in Latin America in most institutional and value dimensions. That there are important differences with Europe in these institutional and value processes there is no doubt. Latin America has a specific way of being in modernity. Latin American modernity is not exactly the same as European modernity; it is a mixture, a hybrid, a product of a process of mediation which has its own trajectory; it is neither purely endogenous nor entirely imposed from without, and some call it subordinate or peripheral.9

The objective of this book is to show historically how, within the context of some distinct stages, Latin America has been simultaneously constructing its cultural identity and modernizing, and the way in which these two phenomena, in spite of being intimately interconnected, are frequently perceived as opposite alternatives. It will also try to show historically in what respects the Latin American trajectory to modernity differs from or converges with other trajectories, in order finally to arrive at an idea of the specific elements of Latin America’s present modernity. In exploring historically the way in which identity and modernity have interacted in Latin America, I will also seek to explain why it is that, in spite of the fact that they are not mutually excluding phenomena, there has been such a marked tendency to consider modernity as something external and opposed to Latin American identity.

At the root of this mistaken perception is the obvious fact that Latin American identity began to be constructed as long ago as 1492, three centuries prior to the first steps towards modernity, which started in earnest with the independence process at the beginning of the nineteenth century. This displacement of modernity with respect to identity could not but promote the idea either that modernity is a late and unwelcome graft on to an already constituted identity, or that identity is an obsolete and traditional obstacle to an indispensable modernization. Corresponding with these two positions, there are inadequate conceptions of both identity and modernity. Oversimplified conceptions of modernity totally conflate its different trajectories into a single European or North American model that has to be repeated. Essentialist conceptions of cultural identity freeze its contents and do not consider real cultural change. The former tend to hold that modernity requires getting rid of an identity that presents many obstacles to its progress. The latter tend to hold that identity must prevail against the encroachments of a foreign modernizing model.

My reading of Latin American cultural history is that an emphasis on oversimplified theories of modernity has alternated with an emphasis on essentialist conceptions of identity, loosely following the alternation of stages of economic expansion and stagnation or recession. Theories of modernization are more widely accepted at times of accelerated development and economic expansion. Theories of identity have emerged with greater force in periods of crisis or stagnation when rates of economic growth and general welfare stall or go down.

My idea is that in Latin America’s history there have been ‘roughly speaking’ six alternating stages, dealt with in chapters 2 to 7:

1 From 1492 to 1810, the colonial stage in which modernity was kept out.

2 From independence to 1900, the age of oligarchic modernity with important economic expansion.

3 From 1900 to 1950, the crisis of oligarchic modernity and beginnings of populist modernization. This is a long and difficult period with many crises and difficulties: two world wars, the Russian revolution and the major depression of the 1930s.

4 From 1950 to 1970, the postwar expansion.

5 From 1970 to 1990, the time of dictatorships, huge international debt and the ‘lost decade’ with negative growth.

6 From 1990 onwards, neoliberal modernization and economic expansion.

Now, the alternation between identity and modernity in Latin American history already suggests that questions about identity have not always had the same relevance. In fact questions about identity seem to disappear in situations of relative prosperity and stability. This is not only an empirical fact but there are also good reasons for this to be so. For identity to become an issue, a period of instability and crisis, a threat to old-established ways, seems to be required. As Kobena Mercer has put it, ‘identity only becomes an issue when it is in crisis, when something assumed to be fixed, coherent and stable is displaced by the experience of doubt and uncertainty.’10 This does not mean that in times of stability identity stops being constructed; it only means that at such times very few people are consciously concerned with problems of identity – identity tends to be taken for granted.

Within the six stages that I have delineated there are four moments or periods of crisis when the issue of identity has acquired importance. Both the Indians and the Spanish undoubtedly raised the first questions about identity during the critical years of conquest and colonization. A second important moment when questions about identity re-emerged was the crisis of independence and the period of the constitution of the national states. A third critical period emerged in Latin America between 1914 and the 1930s: in the wake of the First World War and in the context of a huge international depression in the world capitalist system, the oligarchic rule of the Latin American landowners began to crumble and the newly mobilized middles classes and working classes came to challenge the old system. A fourth crucial period can be detected around the 1970s: the exhaustion of populist regimes, progressive industrial stagnation and the radicalism of the working classes led to a series of military coups in many countries. I shall explore cultural production at these moments with particular attention in order to ascertain the way in which the Latin American identity was constructed.

Most Latin American societies are not culturally unified and despite some central forms of integration and synthesis, which undoubtedly exist, cultural differences are still very important. These are more accentuated in countries with an important Indian and black ethnic component like Peru, Bolivia, Mexico,11 Venezuela, Brazil and Central America in general. In these plural societies there exists an enormous cultural diversity. But such cultural differences also exist, although to a lesser degree, in more homogeneous countries like Chile, Argentina and Uruguay. After independence, the new republics and their ruling classes tried very hard to construct not only a national state and a viable economy but also a sense of national identity. This national identity would respond to a national culture which had still to be constructed and which, it was hoped, would integrate the best elements and traditions of the existing ethnic cultures. But this, of course, was not a natural, spontaneous or ideologically neutral process. It was a very selective and excluding process, conducted from above, in which it was decided what to keep and what to ignore. This started with the adoption of Spanish as the national language (which means that many hundred Indian languages were condemned to second place or to extinction), but went on to cover many other cultural aspects including religion, art, etc.

Because of the original and persistent cultural heterogeneity, it can be argued that in most Latin American countries the state had to play a crucial role in the construction of national identities. It fell to the recently created Latin American states to create a sense of national unity and a national culture, in countries that after the independence wars were barely integrated. Hence to speak of national identities in Latin America is to speak of power relations, of ruling classes, which used the centralizing powers of the state and selectively decided what was going to count as national culture and what not. The history of Latin American national identities is closely interwoven with the interests of its ruling classes in their relationship with the state.

Any book on a collective identity, especially one that covers more or less half a continent, has to face some big methodological difficulties and decisions. A first important problem has to do with the kind of source material to be used in the analysis and the limits of the enterprise. Ideally, a complete book on Latin American identity should take into account all aspects of culture, that is to say both the more rigorous theoretical, scientific and artistic expressions of culture and the people’s whole range of modes of life, customs, values and forms of entertainment. There is no doubt that identity is influenced by and expressed through all aspects of life: art, film, economics, politics, media (television, radio, newspapers), popular religion, ways of life, novels, poetry, painting, popular art, etc. But obviously any single work cannot hope to be as comprehensive as that, not just because there will be fields in which the author will not have the necessary expertise, but also because to do justice to each domain would require more than the space available in a single book. In other words, it is inevitable that one has to make some choices and privilege what one hopes are the most representative areas.

There are, for instance, those who deal with Latin American cultural identity exclusively from the point of view of literature. Even more, one of them maintains that

it can be said without exaggeration that for the most part the Iberoamerican cultural identity has been defined by its narrative … Literary fiction has been able to go beyond any anthropology treatise or sociological study in the perception of reality. Statistical data and objective information are most of the time secondary in the face of what can be evoked by the power of images and the suggestions of a metaphor.12

This is a pretty widespread view in some intellectual quarters outside Latin America. Although it may be true that sometimes literature’s images and metaphors teach one more about a country or region than many sociological essays, I do not agree that identity in the Latin American case has been for the most part defined by literature. Literature is only one expression among others, although it is perfectly legitimate for a book to choose this angle as a way to study Latin American identity.

I have chosen a different path, probably determined by the fact that I am a sociologist. Basically, what my book does is to reconstruct the way in which the social sciences have directly dealt with the problem of identity and modernity in Latin America. I do not mean to exhaust the issue of identity or culture in Latin America, but only to trace the evolution of the complex relationship between identity and modernity as it has been seen and discussed by the Latin American social sciences. I understand social science in a wide sense, including essays and works of a philosophical, historical, sociological, political, economic and anthropological character. Although I believe this is a legitimate option, limited, but valid in itself, I have sought to enrich this approach with some secondary references to literature, religion and the role of the media in the various stages of Latin American development in order to present a more complete picture which includes at least some cultural practices. In so far as religion is concerned I shall not be concerned with Umbanda or Santeria, important as they may be, but with the main tendencies: Catholicism and the Pentecostal challenge because these have direct relevance for the issues of modernity and modernization in the area. I am conscious of the limitations of this effort. Still, although the social sciences, literature, religion and the media do not exhaust the cultural complexity of Latin America, I hope that by focusing on them I shall provide an account which will be representative and expressive of such complexity.

A second important problem has to do with the heterogeneity of Latin America, which not only includes many different nations of the Hispanic tradition, from the Caribbean to the extreme south, but also a giant country, Brazil, which belongs to the Portuguese tradition. Although the Hispanic and Portuguese traditions are not absolutely dissimilar, it is true that many works on Latin America have concentrated on Hispanic America and have tended to ignore Brazil – which, after all, is practically half the continent (constituting the eighth biggest economy in the world) and has an enormous cultural richness of its own. I consider Brazil an important part of Latin America, but the problematic of Latin American identity and modernity cannot be reduced to any single country, important as it may be. Yet obviously Brazil’s sheer weight and importance within Latin America warrants some kind of special treatment. I am no expert in Brazilian cultural and socioeconomic processes but I shall try to incorporate as much as possible and whenever possible some elements drawn from Brazilian literature and social sciences. This, I am sure, will not be enough, but is more than I shall do for any other specific country of the Hispanic tradition.


1 See Fernando Ainsa, Identidad Cultural de Iberoamérica en su Narrativa (Madrid: Gredos, 1986), pp. 439–57. In the case of this book, and all others where no English language edition is cited, I have translated any extracts myself.

2 For a brief account of modern European thought on Latin America see chapter 2.

3 See Mario Sambarino, Identidad, tradición y autenticidad, Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos (Caracas: Rómulo Gallego, 1980), pp. 51–79.

4 See Darcy Ribeiro, Las Américas y la Civilización (Caracas: Biblioteca Ayacucho, 1968), p. 69.

5 See Sambarino, Identidad, tradición y autenticidad, p. 52.

6 Carlos Fuentes, Valiente Mundo Nuevo: Épica, Utopía y Mito en la Novela Hispanoamericana (Madrid: Narrativa Mondadori, 1990), pp. 12–13.

7 See Octavio Paz, El Ogro Filantrópico (Barcelona: Seix Barral, 1990), p. 64.

8 See Claudio Véliz, The New World of the Gothic Fox: Culture and Economy in English and Spanish America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994).

9 J. J. Brunner, Cartografías de la Modernidad (Santiago: Dolmen, 1994), p. 144. Cristián Parker has also spoken of a ‘peripheral modernization’ in Latin America. See Otra Lógica en América Latina: Religión Popular y Modernización Capitalista (Santiago: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1993), ch. 3.

10 Kobena Mercer, ‘Welcome to the Jungle: Identity and Diversity in Postmodern Politics’, in J. Rutherford (ed.), Identity, Community, Culture, Difference (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1990), p. 43.

11 See Guillermo Bonfil Batalla’s excellent analysis of the Mexican case in ‘El Patrimonio Cultural de México: un Laberinto de Significados’, Folklore Americano, no 47 (Jan.–Jun. 1989), pp. 125–45.

12 See Ainsa, Identidad Cultural de Iberoamérica, pp. 23–4.