social sciences and society in chile: institutionalization,...

Social sciences in Latin America (1930–2003)

Les sciences sociales en Amérique latine (1930–2003)

Manuel Antonio Garretón

Social sciences and society in Chile:Social sciences and society in Chile:institutionalization, breakdown and rebirthinstitutionalization, breakdown and rebirth

Abstract. Social sciences emerged in Chile during the mid-1950s in a context ofsocial transformations that marked their foundation and consolidation as scientificdisciplines. This article deals with the general background of the installation of thesedisciplines, particularly sociology, their later consolidation and the subsequent processof dismantling and re-composition, from the point of view of their institutionalizationand internationalization. Like all research, this is a partial perspective, nurturedwith the views of the generation that followed the foundational phase, which has itsconceptual bases in what we have called the ‘‘social sciences development model’’ orproject, and the contributions of a series of other authors. In the Chilean case, severalauthors agree on the identification of three periods in the development of social sciences,viewed as institutional milestones, even though we consider sub-periods within eachone. A first period of creation, institutionalization and professionalization goes fromthe mid-1950s until 1973. A second period coincides with the military dictatorship(1973–89), during which the majority of social sciences had to abandon their homein universities. Such a loss was compensated by the creation of a variety of independentacademic centers, which permitted a development of these disciplines associated with agrowing process of thematic specialization. The third phase corresponds to the return ofa democratic regime (1990–2003), a period in which social sciences again situatedthemselves preferably in universities, occasioning a new expansion of professionaltraining programs and institutions. The article traces these phases in view of goingbeyond a history of the disciplines to develop an analytical perspective that accounts forthe characteristics of the context, the institutional dimensions, the thematic contentsand their role in society.

I thank Carolina Gaı́nza, Claudia Gutiérrez and Angélica Cruz for their collaboration in data

collection and the elaboration and revision of preliminary manuscripts of this article, and

Catalina Moya for the preliminary translation and Antonia Errázuriz for the revised translation.

Social Science Information & 2005 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and NewDelhi), 0539-0184

DOI: 10.1177/0539018405053292 Vol 44(2 & 3), pp. 359–409; 053292

Key words. Chile – Democracy – Institutionalization – Internationalization – Militarydictatorship – Professionalization – Social sciences – University

Résumé. Les sciences sociales sont apparues au Chili vers le milieu des années 1950dans un contexte de transformations sociales qui ont marqué leur fondation et leurconsolidation en tant que disciplines scientifiques. Cet article s’intéresse au contexteglobal de l’installation de ces disciplines (en particulier la sociologie), à leurconsolidation institutionnelle, et au processus de démantèlement puis de re-compositionqui a suivi, du point de vue de leur institutionnalisation et de leurinternationalisation. Comme toute recherche, il s’agit d’une perspective partielle nourriepar les points de vue de la génération qui a suivi la phase de fondation, et dont lesfondements conceptuels se trouvent dans ce que l’auteur a appelé le ‘‘modèle dedéveloppement des sciences sociales’’ et dans les contributions d’autres auteurs. Dans lecas Chilien, nombreux sont ceux qui s’accordent sur l’identification de trois périodesdans le développement des sciences sociales, qui constituent des jalons institutionnels,même si l’on considère également des sous-périodes. Une première période de création,institutionnalisation et professionnalisation va du milieu des années 1950 à 1973.Une deuxième période coı̈ncide avec la dictature militaire (1973–89) durant laquellela majorité des sciences sociales ont du quitter les universités. Cette perte a étécompensée par la création de divers centres académiques indépendants, ce qui a permisle développement de ces disciplines associé à l’essor de la spécialisation thématique. Latroisième phase correspond au retour d’un régime démocratique (1990–2003), périodeoù les sciences sociales retrouvent à nouveau leur place privilégiée dans les universités,et qui résulte en une nouvelle expansion des carrières et des institutions. L’articleretrace ces différentes phases en se proposant d’aller au delà de l’histoire de cesdisciplines et de développer une perspective analytique qui rende compte descaractéristiques, du contexte global, des dimensions institutionnelles, des contenusthématiques et du rôle de ces disciplines dans la société.

Mots-clés. Chili – Démocratie – Dictature militaire – Institutionnalisation –Internationalisation – Professionnalisation – Université

1. Creation, institutionalization and professionalization

Background

Several authors (Godoy, 1974; Barrios and Barrios, 1986; Courardand Frohman, 1999; Garretón, 1989) agree on the identification ofthree periods in the development of modern social sciences inChile (see Tables 1 and 2). The first period, which goes from thebeginning of the 1950s to the beginning of the 1970s, more preciselyto 1973, could be defined as a foundational period, and one of

360 Social Science Information Vol 44 – nos 2 & 3

growing valuation and expansion of the social sciences, which trans-lated into rapid professionalization and institutional development.This process was based on some assumptions not always made expli-cit. On the one hand, there was a social atmosphere that had to dowith a society feeling it was undergoing a deep transformation andwhich recognized the necessity of calling on a kind of ‘‘expert’’understanding of the new things that were going on and proposingalternatives to what was happening. On the other hand, there wasa high level of legitimacy of critical thought on society with an insti-tution for its pursuit. Thus, the social sciences were recognized as theconscience of society and were aware of their different historical pro-jects (Arrau, 1984; Baño, 1984; Garretón, 1982; Vasconi, 1996).

The institutionalization of disciplines was preceded by a transitionphase from a ‘‘chair’’ and ‘‘essay’’ sociology1 to an empirical scien-tific sociology. In the former phase sociology was understood ascourses given by amateur professors and as diverse papers by avariety of authors interpreting the national reality.2

Garretón Social sciences in Latin America 361

Acronyms used

AHC Academia de Humanismo Cristiano (Christian Humanism

Academy)

CEP Centro de Estudios Públicos (Public Studies Center)

CEPAL Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (Economic

Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean)

CEPLAN Centro de Estudios de Planificación (Planning Studies Center at the

Catholic University) later

CIEPLAN (Centro de Investigación y Estudios de Planificación – Center for

Research and Planning Studies)

CERC Centro de Estudios de la Realidad Contemporánea (Center for

Research on Contemporary Reality)

CEREN Centro de Estudios de la Realidad Nacional (National Reality

Center)

CESO Centro de Estudios Socio-económicos (Socio-economic Studies

Center of the University of Chile)

CLACSO Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales (Latin America

Social Sciences Council)

CONICYT Comisión Nacional para la Ciencia y la Tecnologı́a (National

Commission for Science and Technology)

FLACSO Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (Latin American

School of Social Sciences)

PPD Partido por la Democracia (Party for Democracy)

36

2Social

ScienceInform

ationV

ol44

–nos

2&

3

TABLE 1

Institutional-political panorama according to the institutionalization periods of social sciences

Period Foundations

1950–73

Rupture

1973–89

Post-authoritarianism

1990–2003

Political regime and

its evolution

Stable presidential democracy based

on 1925 constitution, with slow

gradual electoral inclusiveness.

Military dictatorship. Imposition of

1980 constitution and the neo-liberal

model. Decentralization and

privatization with a geopolitical view

of power.

Presidential regime, incomplete

process of democratization. Presence

of institutional authoritarian enclaves.

Bi-nominal, non-representative

electoral system that gives over powers

to the Right, initial veto power of

armed forces with impunity for

dictatorship crimes.

Type and

consistency of party

systems

Full party landscape from right to left.

1952–8 Attempt to destroy party

system (Ibañez). Electoral Law (1958)

allows consolidation and expansion

of the system in the 1964 elections.

Radicalization and polarization

(1967 onwards).

Elimination of electoral registers and

official suppression of parties.

Re-emergence of old opposition

parties and creation of new right-wing

parties. Beginning of large party

alliances against (center-left) or for

(right-wing) dictatorship.

Creation of large coalitions –

Concertación de Partidos por la

Democracia (Coalition of Parties for

Democracy) (center-left), Alianza por

Chile (Alliance for Chile) (center-right

and right more conservative). Left-

wing parties like the Communist Party

without parliamentary representation.

Garretón

Socialsciences

inL

atinA

merica

36

3

Social-economic

context

‘‘Inward development’’ model based

on import substitution

industrialization. Growing

mobilization of social actors.

Agrarian reform since 1965.

Widespread nationalization of firms

and ‘‘Chilean road to socialism’’

1970–3.

Neo-liberal model. Radical processes

of deregulation and privatization.

Big economic crisis in 1981–2.

Increasing poverty and inequalities.

Market-oriented model with

corrections to the role of the state and

policies against poverty.

Historical role of

the state

Benefactor and reformist state.

Principal agent in socio-economic

development and reference of

collective action.

Substantive reduction in role of

development. Main agent of

repression and control. Few targeted

policies.

Regulatory state. Active role in

globalization, infrastructure and social

policies (health, education).

36

4Social

ScienceInform

ationV

ol44

–nos

2&

3TABLE 2

Institutionalization and internationalization of social sciences according to institutionalization periods

Period Foundations

1950–73

Rupture

1973–89


1990–2003

Sociopolitical and

cultural context

‘‘Inward development’’ model based

on import substitution

industrialization. Stable democratic

political regime. Gradual and

progressive although segmented

social democratization. Growing

mobilization of social-political actors

endowed with ideological and

organic identity. Ideology inclined

towards social change. State role as

engine for economic development

and as reference of collective action.

Role of party system in the

constitution of actors and

orientations. Polarization and

radicalization since mid-1960s.

Military dictatorship. Imposition of

1980 Constitution. Neo-liberal model.

Decentralization and privatization

with a geopolitical view of power.

Attempt to eliminate and break up

previous social mobilization and

organization. Extensive and intensive

use of repression of individuals and

organizations. Permanent ‘‘state of

emergency’’.

Presidential regime, incomplete

process of democratization. Presence

of institutional authoritarian enclaves:

non-representative bi-nominal system,

climate of impunity for dictatorship

crimes. Mechanisms inherited from the

military regime have a strong impact

on current higher education system.

Media concentration linked to the

Right. Since 1990, three-party center-

left coalition government, with

corrections of the inherited socio-

economic model, especially social

policies.

Institutionalization

of disciplines

Institutes and schools of sociology

and anthropology in main

universities created since mid-1950s.

Political science present in only one

university in 1970. Interdisciplinary

centers in main universities since

mid-1960s.

Break-up of previous model and

dispersion and struggle for survival.

Military intervention in universities,

quantitative and qualitative

reduction especially in sociology and

anthropology. Exile. Reconstruction

outside universities of independent

Reformulation of the social science

model. Expansion and differentiation

of university social science institutions

under the inherited regulatory

framework for higher education and

without a special effort on the part of

the democratic governments in social

Garretón

Socialsciences

inL

atinA

merica

36

5

academic centers since 1976, some

with protection of the Church since

the end of the 1970s. Some teaching

presence of social sciences in new

private universities.

science matters. Weakening of

independent academic centers.

Opening of undergraduate and

graduate (master’s degrees only)

programs in all social sciences and

graduate programs in interdisciplinary

areas like education, communications,

gender, culture, ecology, urbanism,

international relations.

Professionalization

and job market

Relative expansion of job market.

Enterprises: economics; state:

economics and sociology; universities:

economics, sociology, history,

anthropology. Sociologists in social

organizations and Church

institutions, etc.

Closing of university institutions,

interruption of degrees, exile, high

unemployment. Stigmatization of

social scientists caused their ban

from job market. Independent

centers and teaching in private

universities, churches, publicity

and marketing.

Diversification and expansion. New

type of professionalization. Job

market: NGOs, grants from national,

regional and local governments,

organs of market research,

communications consultants, teaching

in universities and minor modes of

research.

Contents and

orientations

Professional-scientific and critical-

scientific projects. In schools,

structural models and Parsons’s

functionalism predominate. In centers,

in addition to the structural dualism

scheme, are added the development,

sub-development and marginality

models. Integrated approaches to

national problems: development,

agriculture, education,

Intellectual production outside

universities. No unique or exclusive

paradigms. Restricted academic

production describes and, until

mid-1980s, denounces the economic,

social, ideological and political model.

Re-evaluation of the social processes

preceding the military regime and

new subjects like state, democracy,

renewal of politics and socialism.

Transition, democratization,

modernization and national

integration as the principal context of

study. Phenomenon of domination

and resistance; themes of exclusion,

politics of the state, civil society. A new

actor: public opinion. The question:

whether we are facing a change of

regime or a change in the type of

society.

continued on next page

36

6Social

ScienceInform

ationV

ol44

–nos

2&

3TABLE 2 continued

Period Foundations

1950–73

Rupture

1973–89


1990–2003

Contents and

orientations

regional planning, etc. Also global

analysis of society: structural reforms,

modernization, non-capitalist paths to

development, etc. (academy and

professionals). Since mid-1960s,

predominance of structural Marxism,

class struggle and dependency

approaches.

Incipient search for re-formulations

of theoretical-analytic frameworks.

Reflection aimed at understanding

the nature of the structural and

institutional transformations. Study

of social actors. Techniques: statistical

study, systematic observations, action-

research, documentary work. Opinion

surveys and focus groups prohibited

until mid-1980s and then deployed.

Internationalization International institutions devoted to

social sciences (CEPAL, FLACSO,

Escuela Latinoamericana de Post

Grado [Escolatina]). External

support for the formation of centers,

schools and institutes that allow

institutionalization of disciplines,

with academic exchange for training.

Institutional grants for graduate

training abroad.

Training abroad of social scientists

expelled from the country at

undergraduate and graduate levels.

Financial aid to and academic

cooperation with independent

academic centers as alternative to

universities. Crucial role of external

governmental and private

foundations and networks.

Redefinition. On one hand, reduction

of foreign funds to independent

academic centers and lack of

significant funding to universities for

institution building. On the other,

reinforcement of agreements for

graduate study with foreign

universities; re-inauguration of

government and non-government

scholarship programs for graduate

studies. Importance of Latin American

comparative studies.

The transition between these sociological styles was in the contextof the process of social change that marked the 1940s. The first land-mark was the victory of the Popular Front in 1938 and a coalitiongovernment made up of the middle and working classes, whichaffected power distribution. The second was the new model ofdevelopment advanced by the post-war period, consisting of animport substitution industrialization, especially since the creationof the Corporación de Fomento de la Producción (Corporationfor the Promotion of Production), which transformed the produc-tive structure and diversified the economic system in accordancewith the changes in the sociopolitical structure. All these processescontributed to increase urban concentration and expansion of publicservices.

Opposite the economic and sociopolitical diversification thatincreased the complexity of Chilean society there emerged the neces-sity of creating academic structures for research on those processes,which involved the different social disciplines as well as the forma-tion of specialists.

Context: political, socio-economic and cultural transformations

In the 1930s a series of changes began in Chile that modified themodel of development and challenged the established oligarchicorder, a transformation, which, after a political recession between1947 and 1957, profoundly accelerated from 1964 on (Godoy, 1974).The foundational process of the social sciences is related to the prin-cipal traits of this sociopolitical, cultural and institutional trans-formation: first, the correlation between an ‘‘inward’’ model ofdevelopment, a stable democratic political regime and a gradual pro-cess of social democratization, although segmented and contra-dictory, with growing mobilization of sociopolitical actors endowedwith ideological and organic identities; second, the predominantrole of the state as the motor of economic development and as areferent of collective action, and the significant role of the partysystem in the constitution of actors and social orientations; third,the legitimacy and predominance of ideologies of social change.

In political terms, one must have in mind some political sub-periods surrounding the foundation and institutionalization ofsocial sciences. The first is the Ibañez government and the attemptto destroy the party system (1952–8), even though the political


parties were rebuilt and consolidated as a central element of thecollective action. The second is the enactment of the electoral lawof 1958 that rescinded the ban placed on the Communist Party in1947 and allowed the expansion of political participation expressedin the elections of 1964. Then came the first right-wing government,beginning in the 1930s, with Jorge Alessandri (1958–64), and theconsolidation of the poles of the center (Democracia Cristiana/Christian Democratic Party) and the left (Frente de Acción Popular/Popular Action Front, and later Unidad Popular/Popular Union).The sub-period 1964–73 was one of great radicalization and polari-zation, and included the reformist governments of Eduardo Frei andthe Democracia Cristiana, and their ‘‘revolution in liberty’’ (1964–70), and the Salvador Allende government and Unidad Popular(Communists, Socialists and other minor left-wing parties) withtheir ‘‘Chilean road to socialism’’ (1970–3).In this frame, the central ‘‘problématique’’ for the social sciences

were the creation of institutional bases and analysis of the society,with emphasis on the issues of underdevelopment and the structuralreforms that were going on. In this sense, the first generation ofsocial scientists, basically sociologists, had a heightened role inFrei’s government of the ‘‘revolution in liberty’’. With his presi-dential campaign and under his government, the social sciencesfound a space of professional insertion through the development ofsocial diagnosis and the policies of socio-economic, agrarian andeducational reforms, and popular promotion. Nevertheless, in thesame period, the first suspicions about the new discipline appeared,after the polemics surrounding the Camelot Plan (1965), as anexpression of the manipulation of the social sciences by internationalpolitical power, in other words, the USA.3

In 1967, a political radicalization in the country began that, from1970 onwards, led to polarization. The same phenomenon also per-meated the universities. On the one hand, at an institutional level,academic structures were transformed into a battleground forpower, which in some cases was resolved by creating parallel institu-tions, particularly in the social sciences (Garretón, 1982). On theother hand, the contents of the social sciences were ideologized,with an apologetic or denunciative emphasis on reality. In addition,structural Marxism (Althusser, Poulantzas) was widespread in thetheoretical field, which criticized the structural-functionalist viewspredominant until then, considering them to be linked to Americanviews on the Cold War. At the political level, the radicalization was


associated with Marxism-Leninism and the influence of the Cubanrevolution. Consequently, the student movement and students insocial sciences – the majority of whom were leftists – tended to aban-don the universities and the disciplines for involvement in social andpolitical strategies, which were played out outside the classrooms.On the horizon was the 1970 presidential election in which for thefirst time the left wing established a socialist project and a program:to create a social-property area by legally expropriating monopoliesso as to make way for socialism within the democratic frame.

From an economic point of view, the deepening of the ‘‘inwarddevelopment’’ model translated into big state investments, con-sumption expansion and increasing expenditure on education, whichimplied the expansion of university enrollment and budget.

The cultural atmosphere favoring radical social change trans-formed in a common sense the thesis of the exhaustion of the refor-mist process of the Frei government. Consequently, the right, centerand left were radicalized. The right wing affirmed a more authori-tarian capitalist development, the Christian Democratic Partyformulated the necessity for an ‘‘anti-neo-capitalist’’ revolution, andthe left wing and Unidad Popular proclaimed socialism on an elec-toral basis. This coalition governed from 1970 to 1973, unleashing aradical process of economic and social transformation that endedwith the overthrow of the government by the military coup led byGeneral Pinochet.

Institutionalization and disciplines

In contrast to the later phases, when politics intervened directly inthe development of the university and social sciences, our hypothesisconcerning their creation and institutionalization is that the socio-political context acted more as a cultural climate or dominant intel-lectual ideology, where the central problem was development.University and academic discipline and life have a density of theirown. This density was thinning at the end of the period.

The installation, in Santiago, of the Comisión Economica paraAmérica Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL, Economic Commission forLatin American and the Caribbean) in 1949 and, since 1955, itsDivision of Social Affairs, as well as the School of EconomicSciences and the Institute of Economics of the University of Chile,responded and contributed to this esprit du temps. These institutions


defined development as the fundamental and central historicalproblem of our societies. Thus, the need for experts to deal with thisnew issue was legitimized and identified basically with sociologists.The best and the earliest definition of sociology as a theoretical

and empirical scientific discipline having a specific objective forLatin America was formulated by Medina Echavarrı́a, first inMexico and then in Chile; later he was appointed Head of the Sociol-ogy School of the Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales(FLACSO, Latin American School of Social Sciences). At CEPALhe brought in sociological reflection and research both from a theo-retical perspective and from the standpoint of the analysis of socialdevelopment. Around him grew an important group of young LatinAmerican sociologists.We will consider two main sub-phases of this period of creation:

institutionalization, which involved the foundations and early steps(from 1950 to the beginning of the 1960s); and professionalization,consolidation, and expansion (from beginning of the 1960s until1973).4

The mid-1950s to the beginning of the 1960s: foundations and firstinstitutionalization phase

The first period was characterized by the building of the first institu-tions linked to anthropology and sociology, starting in the mid- andlate 1950s (Berdichewsky, 1998).In 1946, the Sociology Research Institute was created in the

University of Chile, though without much success in the beginning.In 1956, it was re-founded, with Eduardo Hamuy as Director, whichsubstantially improved its work. Sociology degrees began beingawarded in 1959 in the Catholic University of Chile, which wasbetter developed than the University of Chile. Even though theSchool of Sociology at the University of Chile was founded in1958, it did not actually get under way until the beginning of the1960s, principally because of the conflict between ‘‘chair’’ and ‘‘pro-fessional’’ sociologists.The University of Chile’s Institute of Sociology completed a fun-

damental task in the institutionalization of empirical and scientificsociology, being one of the pioneers in the region. The Institutesent students to Europe and the USA, thereby initiating systematictraining of sociologists; it also organized a specialized library, the


first of its kind in Latin America, and initiated field research onissues like land ownership in agriculture, education, public opinionand industry.5

In its turn, the School of Sociology of the Catholic University,with Roger Vekemans, SJ, initially emphasized social philosophyand the social doctrine of the Catholic Church. The return ofChilean sociologists sent to the USA to acquire professional trainingre-oriented the discipline in a more scientific way,6 while the Institutehad a greater influence on professional training than on research.A short time later, the Central Institute of Sociology was createdat the University of Concepción; it was founded by Raúl Samueland afterwards reorganized byGuillermo Briones, rapidly increasingenrollments.

The institutionalization of anthropology and political scienceduring this period was weaker (Orellana, 1988). The partial exclu-sion of anthropological studies was maintained throughout the1960s (Bengoa, 1997). Although the Anthropology Study Centerwas set up in 1954, it was only at the end of the 1960s that the pro-fessional training program began at the University of Concepciónin 1968 (Garbulsky, 1998), and in 1970 at the University of Chile(Arnold, 1990).

In 1954 the Political and Administrative Sciences Institute wasfounded at the University of Chile, in 1957 an institute bearing thesame name was created in the University of Concepción, and in1970 the Institute of Political Science was started in the CatholicUniversity. The first two, however, despite being institutions, con-tinued to be strongly marked by the tradition of law teaching(Fernández, 1997). Thus until the end of the 1960s the only placeof research and systematic formulation in modern political sciencewas the Escuela Latinoamericana de Ciencias Polı́ticas (LatinAmerican School of Political Sciences) at FLACSO.

Thus at the beginning of the 1960s there was already an affirma-tion of disciplinary identities linked to scientific training and research.Despite the later development of political science, this was a timeof expansion of the social sciences in the country, in which theywere gaining prestige and experiencing a social demand for theirknowledge.

With few exceptions, the institutional base was provided by theuniversities, where the teaching was basically at the undergraduatelevel with a few graduate courses in economics. As to the theoreticalorientations in sociology, the functionalist focus with its analytic


frame, based on modernization and a limited concept of develop-ment, prevailed. As a consequence of the preoccupation with teach-ing, works published in sociology during that period were scarce.7

Beginning of the 1960s to 1973: professionalization, expansion andconsolidation

This period saw the consolidation and expansion of social sciences.At this stage, all of the disciplines had a systematic undergraduatecycle that ensured professional and academic reproduction. Theenrollment of undergraduates in social sciences, which was 10.4 per-cent of the total university enrollment in 1957, increased to 15.2 per-cent in 1967, falling back only slightly to 15.0 percent in 1973.The graduates, especially those in economics, from schools and

institutes encountered a job market in relative expansion, generatedprincipally by the state, the universities and companies. To this canbe added a small occupational market linked to social organizationsor industrial and agricultural unions, and the churches.Concerning teaching, the sociology schools adopted plans and

study programs that mixed the curricula of the American uni-versities with some of the more humanist traditions of Europeansociology. That meant going through an initial phase (philosophy,history, mathematics, introduction to social sciences, etc.) andthen moving on to sociology; specialization was left for advancedcourses. To the predominant survey-methodological approach wasadded a more comprehensive analysis of the social frame, usingdemographic, social, economic and cultural indicators (Godoy,1974).More integrated views were promoted for analyzing national

problems. That gave rise to interdisciplinary centers at universitiesand at state agencies which were defined by their research on prob-lem areas (development, agriculture, education, urban and regionalplanning) or by a more global analysis of society. These institutionsbrought together academics and professionals from diverse scientificsocial disciplines.The creation of those centers helped reduce the gap between

empirical research and teaching,8 and, at the same time, promotedthe study of social change in Latin American, that is, Latin Americaas an analytical object of social research. While formal and abstractmodels linked to functionalism predominated in the schools, the


analytical approaches in the new university research centers weremore concretely oriented towards national and regional reality(Brunner, 1986; Godoy, 1974).

At the end of this period, a new emphasis on interdisciplinaryviews of social science was developed, this time under the influenceof academic Marxism and its affirmation of the necessity of a‘‘single social science’’. This weakened the disciplinary identitiesand the differences between them.9 Marxism severely criticized the‘‘American functionalist model’’ and proposed a new model forsocial sciences which co-existed with the previous one in the univer-sities. Academic life became strongly polarized.

This state of increasing ideologization and polarization, especiallyaround 1967, was linked to the national political process thatended with the overthrow of Allende’s Popular Union government(1970–3). The result was a deepening radicalization and an internalcrisis of the foundational model. The social sciences, especiallysociology, were part of the political struggles and processes reflectedin the academic and intellectual fields. This is not to say that, duringthe foundational and institutionalization period, there were no ideo-logical influences and struggles, in fact the Marxist views appearedas an answer to the hegemony of former visions, but in this periodsocial sciences were more directly linked with concrete politicalprocesses.

The institutionalization and consolidation of social sciencesdescribed above dramatically collapsed with the 1973 military coup(Garretón, 1982).

Predominant orientations

In schematic terms, slightly forcing the reality of the discipline andbeyond the artificiality of the labels, it is possible to identify twomain intellectual projects in the social sciences that, as I have said,coexisted during the period, with different emphasis (Garretón,1978). The transition from one project to the other was not inde-pendent of the sociopolitical and cultural context. The exhaustionof the ‘‘scientific-professional’’ project was influenced by the criti-cism of Frei’s ‘‘revolution in liberty’’ project, by the formulationof a ‘‘non-capitalist way to development’’ alternative within theChristian Democratic Party and the left-wing ‘‘Chilean way tosocialism’’ as expressed by the Popular Union Party. At the same


time, the military coups in Brazil and Argentina in the 1960s pro-voked the exodus of social scientists, who came to work in Chileand thereby gave ideological strength to revolutionary and criticalpositions.Thefirst, ‘‘scientific-professional’’, positionwas articulated around

scientific modernization, specialization of the disciplines and theirprofessional roles, the pre-eminence of a structural-functionalistfocus emphasizing quantitative methodology for empirical datacollection andmeasurement. This project was concernedwith aspectsof the society that could be defined under ‘‘development’’ or ‘‘moder-nization’’; e.g. agricultural structures, urban marginal integration,formulation and design of sectorial state policies.The second position, which was of a more ‘‘critical-intellectual’’

kind, was articulated around the criticizing role of the socialsciences. It emphasized the integrated character of the differentdisciplines, recognizing structural Marxism as its theoretical baseand highlighting the comprehensive and global analysis of societyin terms of its own principal contradictions and processes. The mainissues were ‘‘dependent capitalism’’ or ‘‘transition to socialism’’, andthe focus was the Chilean socio-economic and political processes:property concentration, structure and class struggles, political pro-cesses, ideology and communication.10

These theoretical orientations were present in the graduate pro-grams, publications and research on property concentration, classstructure, communication and ideological discourse. Finally, itshould be noted that the concern of social sciences with nationalprojects and processes was present in their strong participation inthe government programs of both Frei and Allende.

Professionalization and insertion of graduates

Summarizing what we have said, the shifting of social sciences pro-jects also brought a change in the professional insertion of socialscience graduates, particularly sociologists. During the foundationalphase, primacy was given to the scientific researchers who worked inacademic institutions and for the state. In the institutionalizationand consolidation phase there was a successive differentiation ofsocial insertion: from academic researcher to the expert or techno-crat in new social problems, to the intellectual and ideologue. The


state was always a place of insertion, especially its agencies linked tosocial actors. In universities social scientists looked at social organi-zations and sought to ‘‘embrace the real social world’’. To this mustbe added the tasks of training and political education carried out bypolitical parties and social organizations in which social scientistsused to participate.

Internationalization

The process of internationalization during the first phase reliedparticularly on external support for the foundation of social institu-tions, which contributed to the institutionalization of the disciplines,and to the academic and professional training of Chilean socialscientists in Europe and the USA. That is, the support for the foun-dation of academic institutions, research institutes and schoolsusually operated as an exported model from Europe or the USA,for the most part through institutional grants or graduate trainingin foreign countries of professionals coming from other areas (law,for example). Upon their return to Chile, the graduates were putin charge of new institutional spaces. From around the mid-1960suntil the first part of the 1970s, there was an intensification andexpansion of scholarships for graduate study, primarily throughintergovernmental cooperation.

In addition, international cooperation was implemented throughthe influence of different international institutions operating inChile. A particularly important institution was FLACSO, whichwas established in 1957, and its Latin American School of Sociology(1959) which, as we have said, was the only political science schoolof the period. This effectively contributed to the formation of aninitial critical mass of research and social scientists, whose contribu-tion relied on research and education of national universities.

Alternatively, Chile had always been receptive to the institutionalmodels and theoretical orientations of foreign academic production.That dependency was in a way compensated by the proliferation ofempirical research on national reality using models that were some-times accepted without critical evaluation. The connection betweentheory and research was thus deficient, the latter looking more likean illustration of the former (Garretón, 1982).

The predominance of what we called the critical approach meantwidespread acceptance of the academic Marxism imported from


Europe and Latin America. At the end of the period, the inter-nationalization took on a more Latin American character. Thiswas due in part to dependency theoretical approaches, but overallto the political impact of the Cuban revolution and the presenceof intellectuals and social scientists from Brazil, and somewhatfewer from Argentina.Finally, the Chilean political process also attracted intellectuals

and social scientists from all over the world, who brought withthem their own visions, together with their research. To that wasadded a series of international seminars and conferences on the‘‘Chilean way to socialism’’, with much effervescence but a weakChilean reflection on their own reality.

2. Crisis and re-foundation under the military dictatorship

Background

The military coup on 11 September 1973 and the Constitution of1980,11 which attempted to legitimize and institutionalize the newregime, produced a deep turn in the economic, sociopolitical,cultural and institutional history of the country, which affectedthe development of social sciences because it eliminated their insti-tutional bases, the universities, and imposed a new institutionaliza-tion that affected their work. There were two main impacts on theinstitutionalization and internationalization processes of the socialsciences.First, the repression of the social sciences produced a deteriora-

tion and regression of the disciplines, culminating in the UniversityLaw of 1981, which did not consider social sciences, except econ-omics, as strictly university disciplines.12 This was accompanied bythe reduction of the state resources allocated to education, especiallyto universities, together with the disjunction and reorganization ofpublic universities dispersed throughout the country and lackingthe resources to develop high-quality academic work. On the otherside, a private sector of universities mainly of middle and lowacademic level was created with strong competition between themand an inorganic expansion of first-year offers in the profitableprofessions.Second, during the military regime, the institutional base of the

extra-university research centers was created and consolidated,


and reached a relatively stable financial position, stemming fromforeign foundations and organizations.

The military dictatorship: sociopolitical, economic and culturalcontext

The military dictatorship combined a reactive or defensive dimen-sion with a foundational dimension that attempted to globallyreorganize society.13 The two dimensions were inseparable andhad reciprocal effects, even though, in the first phase, the reactivedimension was stronger, while later on the foundational dimensionpredominated. The reactive dimension consisted in eliminatingand dismantling the social mobilization and organization that hadexisted before the military coup; this dimension was characterizedby intensive and extensive use of repression of individuals and orga-nizations, and by the declaration of a ‘‘state of emergency’’, whichbecame both permanent and ‘‘normal’’. The foundational dimen-sion implied a capitalist re-composition and re-insertion in theworld economy, with an aspect of structural change due to the intro-duction of a new model of development and to institutional re-organization in all the spheres of social life. This change in thedevelopment model consisted in passing from import substitutionindustrialization, in which the state played a strong role, what wereferred to as the ‘‘inward development mode’’, to a so-called‘‘open economy’’. This meant reorienting the productive systemtowards services and the external market, privatizing state proper-ties, which gave the private sector and the market a major roleand at the same time drastically reduced the state’s economic andredistribution role. Self-financing of services like education andhealth and competitiveness in all aspects of social life were intro-duced, which reversed the social democratization process that hadprevailed up to then.

The changes in the development model, in the state and in therelations between state and civil society were expressed in a doubleprocess of regime institutionalization. One was political, and itsmajor expression was the constitution of 1980, which confirmedthe power relations established in 1973, and sought the definitiveinstallation of a conservative political order with political participa-tion restricted to military regime partisans. The other was social, and


sought normative crystallization of the principles of structural trans-formation across the diverse social spheres. Those principles werebased on market competition, reduction of the public space andsocial fragmentation and control of society.This political context began to change in the 1980s. An economic

crisis exploded between 1981 and 1982, with diverse political andsocial effects. Strong social mobilizations began in 1983, with theconsequent irruption of politics in public spaces, reappearance ofpolitical parties and rebuilding of social organizations. The founda-tional project of the military regime lost coherence, while the mainpreoccupation of the military and civilian power was to resolvethe economic crisis and to ensure victory in the 1988 referendumestablished by the constitution, which provided for a transitionfrom a military regime to an authoritarian civilian government withmilitary veto and maintenance of Pinochet in power. After themobilization cycle and complex discussions, the opposition cametogether in the referendum to reject the government alternative,and won with a significant margin. The result was flexibility of theconstitutional framework, presidential and parliamentary electionsin December of 1989, again won by the democratic sectors, and theend of the Pinochet government (March 1990).


As we have said, the foundational model of the social sciences wasdismantled under the military regime, and another model startedto emerge. Its principal characteristics were an extra-university insti-tutional frame, greater fusion among disciplines and an interruptionof training cycles that was barely compensated by training abroad(Brunner and Barrios, 1988). The proportion of social science enroll-ments of total undergraduate university enrollment dropped from15 percent in 1973 to 8.3 percent in 1983, and to 7.8 percent in 1985.It is possible to distinguish three sub-phases.

1973–6: dismantling the previous model

The main processes of this period were the dismantling of the pre-vious model, the dispersion of the persecuted social scientists andtheir fight for their own survival. A month after the military coup,


the military intervened in the universities, and military rectors wereappointed. It was an exclusively negative phase without a model thatcould replace the previous one (Garretón, 1982; Lechner, 1990).

From the beginning, a quantitative and qualitative reduction wasimposed on the universities. The highest price was paid by the socialsciences: many professional training programs and research centerswere closed.14 Therefore the institutional space where the socialsciences were developed for the most part was nearly destroyed bythe regime’s policies: elimination of centers and institutes, expulsionof students and professors, censure and control of subsistingacademic organizations, exile of academic personnel. The officialpolicies varied, depending on the previous situation in the academiccenters. The most affected were those that had an explicitly criticalperspective close to the Popular Union project.

A small nucleus of social scientists survived in the universities, butteaching was interrupted in many disciplines. The most affected weresociology and anthropology; the impact on history was smallerbecause there was a strong group of conservative historians. Theprivileged discipline was economics, as we shall see.

In a first stage, the main problem of the social sciences wasbasically the survival of students, researchers and teachers. Thatimplied emphasis on helping the persecuted leave the country or insome cases precariously relocating them inside the country.15 In asecond stage, university budget reductions, individual persecutionsor periodical waves of repression and generalized control over anykind of dissidence further diminished the university sector ofsocial sciences.16 Some centers were able to reconstruct themselvesoutside the universities, others were reduced to the minimum andother simply disappeared.17 As a consequence, the first researchcenters outside universities emerged, financed from outside and seek-ing free academic development. This new trend would be consoli-dated in the next period.18

The persecution of social scientists was compounded by new prob-lems created by the universities’ own policies. From the beginning,the regime had put pressure on the universities to rationalize, whichin fact meant adopting a policy of entrepreneurial efficiency, com-petitiveness, adaptation to market values and rules, and self-financing. This rationalization obviously affected the less profitableareas, which coincided with those most affected by the purge andde-politicization. In the case of the social sciences, it implied a grow-ing reduction of academic staff, deterioration of salaries, reduction


of student enrollment and, in some cases, especially in sociology,closing the door to first-year students and thus eliminating theprofessional training program within five years (Brunner, 1986;Courard and Frohman, 1999; Garretón, 1982; Lladser, 1988).As we have said, economics took a leading role in the social

sciences, expanding its resources and students because of the neo-liberal project of the military government. Economics also contri-buted to the official ideology, which combined military doctrine,fundamentalist Catholic philosophy and a neo-liberal discourse(FLACSO-Chile, 1983). The new economic model established thepredominance of market mechanisms and financial capital; on thisbasis, a line of action was developed to control the elaboration ofeconomic thought, research and teaching. On the face of it, thismodel was imposed by the military leadership, but in fact it wasbasically developed by a dogmatic and homogeneous group of tech-nocrats educated in the Chicago School, the so-called ‘‘Chicagoboys’’, who established close links with financially prominentgroups. More than a strictly economic vision, it was a global viewof society inspired by neo-liberalism, closer to a political ideologythan to a scientific theory. The ‘‘Chicago boys’’ gave significantimportance to the socialization of their ideas and, thanks to themilitary control of the universities, used teaching and instrumentalresearch to turn economic schools and institutes into a place forreproducing the economic elite and indoctrinating them with the‘‘new economic truth’’. Any other economic thought was excluded.The other side of the coin was provided by sociology and partly by

anthropology. These were the disciplines devastated by the regime’spolicies. There was no official model of reference imposed inacademies, but what did exist was a negative image, expressed inthe reduction and freezing of the development of these disciplines,and even their elimination. This could be explained by two com-plementary reasons. First, the emergence and development of uni-versity sociology were associated with progressive structural andpolitical changes linked to the critical and reformist view of society.Thus sociology and sociologists were regarded by the new rulers aselements of subversion, extremism or Marxist ideological infiltra-tion. Second, there was no influential group in the state that couldclaim sociological knowledge as a basis for a societal project,unlike the case of economics. Thus the question was how to controlor suppress sociology in the universities, and only marginally how todevelop its tools for the regime’s project.


The School of Sociology of the University of Concepción wasclosed, and its professors and students were expelled at the begin-ning of the military coup. At the Catholic University and in theUniversity of Chile, this happened more gradually. In the studyprograms, there were areas which disappeared or were minimizeddrastically (e.g. political sociology), and the Marxist or so-called‘‘leftist’’ perspectives were eliminated entirely. In their place, socialpsychology and functionalism were privileged, neglecting the newtendencies of American, European and Latin American thought.In the meantime, methodology came back to the traditional linesof quantitative teaching but without any application to the realsociopolitical context.

Research also felt the effect of the regime. There was no supportfor university research, and each researcher had to look for theirown funds outside the university. That affected basic research,reducing it to narrow problems and partial studies, without acritical-theoretical focus. Surveys were initially prohibited and,when they were finally accepted, were submitted to official censure(Lladser, 1988).

Nevertheless, despite an unfavorable atmosphere, there werevaluable personal efforts in some universities. Most were concen-trated on ‘‘non-contaminated’’ issues and areas, with some quantita-tive emphasis and without an explicit theoretical profile so as toavoid suspicion. That produced a relative thematic specializationon the part of researchers, and intellectual and scientific isolation.Those partial efforts prevented the definitive disappearance ofsociology at the universities but did not make up for the absenceof a collective elaboration and social reflection.19

The situation of political science (Fernández, 1997; Sepúlveda,1996) and anthropology (Arnold, 1990; Bengoa, 1997; Garbulsky,1998; Orellana, 1988) during the military regime was aggravatedby the previous insufficiency of their development. The only univer-sity institution cultivating political science was the Political ScienceInstitute of the Catholic University, which was purged between 1974and 1975. Its academic level – with few exceptions – was very low,with little disciplinary research. The Center for Political Docu-mentation, which lasted until 1975, was under surveillance and notopen for work. In general, the academic community did not developany common orientation that surpassed the individual vegetativedimension. The situation of anthropology was similar, even thoughvacancies for the first year had grown to 25 in 1975: the professional


training program had a vague structural-functionalist methodologybut without a strong theoretical and methodological orientationable to give a structure to the 55 courses offered, which superficiallycovered many subjects with much repetition between them.

From 1976 to 1980: emergence of a new model

In this sub-period, some basic elements from the previous time wereheld over, but other elements pointed to the creation of a new modelof social sciences, coinciding with the foundational sub-phase of themilitary regime and society’s response to it.On the one hand, in the academic sphere a sort of guideline crys-

tallized for the social sciences, characterized by the reduction anddisciplinary style of sociology and political science. It was also afrozen situation, with some freedom in history and a theoretical-ideological control on economics, with periodical punitive measuresagainst students in all programs and selective elimination ofacademic staff. Except for economics and history, which almostmonopolized social sciences enrollment, undergraduate studies insocial sciences were constantly interrupted.The sociology training program in the Catholic University was

closed in 1976, and at the end of 1979 the Sociology Institute ranout of students after suffering a substantive change in its curriculumsince 1974. Its faculty decreased from 36 full-time and 4 part-timeteachers in 1973 to 12 and 5 respectively. The University of Chileclosed admissions to the program in sociology in 1981, eventhough in 1980 hundreds of students applied for only 20 vacancies.Of its academic staff, the university initially eliminated 37 of the 40teachers there in 1973, and the total fell to 12 full-time teachers in1980.In anthropology, first-year admissions to the University of Chile

were closed in 1981. The main orientation was the formation of aprofessional that would give a ‘‘cultural focus’’ to social develop-ment and advise on social plans and policies. That definition wasnot accompanied by adequate training and was also fought by thestudents (Arnold, 1990; Bengoa, 1997; Garbulsky, 1998; Orellana,1988).During this period, independent academic centers were consoli-

dated. (Brunner, 1985; Brunner and Barrios, 1988; Lladser, 1988).That changed the institutional pattern of the discipline: its principal


base for research and intellectual production usually had an inter-disciplinary character and concentrated on a problem area, whileresources came from foreign public or private foundations. Herewere produced the informal contacts with students and the mostimportant production of knowledge about national reality. Theorigins of these centers were varied: for example, the first,FLACSO, originated with the departure of many students and pro-fessionals to foreign countries and their replacement primarily byacademics expelled from national universities. Other centers wereformed by complete teams of researchers coming from a universitydepartment. There were others that existed before 1973, but theiractivity and sometimes their legal situation changed meaningfully.Some others were projections of international institutions. Many,however, were new. The creation of new centers grew after 1977;they could arise from an initiative of a research group that haddecided to set up a stable institution for their work or from peoplewho were not involved in research but decided to create an institu-tional space in which to develop specific research lines and hiredsuitable staff for this purpose.20

In general, the independent centers were small with a reduced staffof rarely more than 15 researchers, but they were surrounded by agood number of people, especially graduate students acting as assis-tants, scholarship holders, and adjuncts or associate researchers.

Apart from their infrastructure and their economic precarious-ness, the main problem of the independent centers was their socialisolation beyond their own networks. That raised a communicationand publishing challenge because of the absence, until that point, ofa true public space in the society.

From 1981 to 1989: relative consolidation of a new model

As we said before, a new development model of the social sciencesrooted in the previous period seemed to be becoming consolidated.It was framed by the landmarks of the new constitution in 1980, theUniversity Law in 1981, the economic crisis with the reappearance ofsocial mobilizations from 1983, and the referendum of 1988 thatended the dictatorship.

First, at the university level, the University Law produced aperiod of deterioration of the social sciences: only economics wasofficially and exclusively taught at universities. State funding for


higher education was reduced, private universities were created, andthe old public universities were reorganized and scattered all overthe country. Some new universities developed a good level of teach-ing in social sciences, but submitted to the examination oftraditional universities. In these old universities, economics had thehighest percentage of first-year enrollments, while other disciplinesbecame relatively poor in research and their undergraduate teachingwas intermittent and first-year enrollment opened and closed irregu-larly throughout the period (Vasconi, 1996). With this, under-graduate teaching was weakened, accentuating the generation gapinsocial sciences, while education abroad benefited primarily Chileanyouth in exile. Researchers, for their part, began progressively towork as teachers at the new universities (Atria and Lemaitre, 1983).In this way, the disciplinary development in the universities was

seriously hurt, as was the training of new social scientists. Neverthe-less, in order to resolve financial problems through student fees,graduate programs began to proliferate, particularly in economics.In 1981, the Institute of Political Science was created at the Univer-sity of Chile, dedicated to graduate teaching and research, but with astrong geopolitical emphasis, in accordance with the ideology of themilitary regime. Towards the end of the dictatorship, the Universityof Chile began to open up somewhat, when, for example, the rectorimposed by the regime was removed.In 1990, when the dictatorship was replaced by the first demo-

cratic government, there were 65 universities. Of the 25 receivingpublic funding, 16 originated from the reorganization of the oldpublic universities and 9 from the so-called ‘‘traditional private’’universities; the other 40 were new private universities, some ofthem already consolidated. This implied an increase in enrollments,which had been reduced in the first years of the military regime, anda growing number of students in private universities as compared topublic ones (Courard and Frohman, 1999).Second, the institutional panorama of research centers outside

universities was consolidated; most of them received relativelystable funding, always international. Faculty was expanded accord-ing to specific projects, and social scientists returning from exile wereincorporated through different modalities. Their presence in intel-lectual circles was legitimized, something that was demonstrated inthe organization of different seminars and meetings, and in theincrease in publications. But even with all this, undergraduate teach-ing was still absent – except in a small proportion of centers within


universities – and the generation gap in the social sciences keptgrowing (Brunner, 1985).

Third, the different disciplines tended to organize themselves intoacademic and professional associations that, during these ‘‘years’’,held periodical congresses in an attempt to maintain the disciplines(Garretón, 1989a).

Fourth, concerning content, the absence of unique or compre-hensive paradigms allowed the development of new areas such asmedia studies and international relations. This included reflectionon very different topics like culture, democracy, the socialist renova-tion, modernity, social actors’ identity and public opinion, all fromdifferent points of view and combining different methodologies.With the slight political ‘‘opening’’ and the mobilizations in 1983–4,the public opinion survey method started to proliferate. These sur-veys were broadcast in the mass media and reached a peak duringthe 1988 plebiscite and the 1989 elections. This tended to lendmore rationality to the political-ideological debate and to incorpo-rate – from a professional standpoint – the intellectuals and socialscientists. Alternatively, the specificity of disciplines was still under-developed and there was no theoretical debate, properly speaking,that allowed its deployment.

Predominant orientations

The official tendencies in universities were to abandon theoreticalframes, areas and relevant research issues that were in conflictwith the predominant orientations of the regime, to suppress thoseprojects that were difficult to ‘‘sell’’ and to privilege those thatcoincided with the official view or were responsive to market orstate demands or were considered to be neutral.

As we have said, inside the intellectual camp opposing the dicta-torship there was a loss of disciplinary specificity, thematic focusesin research and medium-range theories with combined theoreticalframes predominating. In the beginning, this was associated withthe abandonment of unique and exclusive paradigms in socialsciences.

Around 1976, an academic production appeared under theauspices of churches and international organizations. The produc-tion circuit was semi-clandestine and limited to a few internal orga-nizations and those outside the country. The themes were principally


description and denunciation of the economic, social, ideologicaland political model imposed by the dictatorship and re-interpretationof the pre-military regime social processes, together with an incipientsearch for theoretical and analytical frames, due to the explosion ofall previous analytical frames.It is difficult to visualize a new project for social sciences in this

period, like those developed during the foundational and consolida-tion periods. The question of why this is difficult suggests two levelsof explanation. First, the critical cultural dimension inseparablefrom social sciences was repressed and was developed in only veryreduced spaces. In other words, the dominant project tried toreduce the institutional space of social sciences to its technical andprofessional dimensions. Second, unlike the democratic period, theintellectual contents of the historic project of the military regimewere not conceptually based on the different social science tradi-tions, nor did they find a conceptual support in them. The funda-mental concepts came from the geopolitical tradition and militarydisciplines, like the concept of national security or the convergenceon ideological conceptions that were not developed by modernsocial sciences. In that sense, there was no intellectual space withinthe civilian–military project for ideas and knowledge that did notlegitimize such domination, as was the case with economics.Later a new type of reflection arose, beyond the denunciations and

interpretations of the past crisis, aimed at unraveling the nature ofthe structural and institutional transformations as well as, to alesser degree than in future periods, what was happening withsocial actors. The techniques were basically statistical studies,systematic observation, action research practices and, above all,documentary work. Surveys continued to be officially prohibited.Unlike what happened at the end of the 1960s and beginning ofthe 1970s, there was no interest in all-encompassing theoreticalframes with a more incisive research into reality. As a counterpart,theoretical reflection, properly speaking, was left behind and therewas a particular delay in the evolution of the theory and method-ology of some disciplines.The main activities of intellectual research and production of the

independent research centers were oriented towards the description,analysis and interpretation of the emergent Chilean reality since1973. Therewas, on one side, a long-term historic rescue and revision,not confined to the 1970–3 period, at a global political as well assectorial level, where studies on specific political periods, the state’s


role in the economy and social policy could be highlighted. On theother side, we find an attempt at a diagnosis of the new structuresof society, that is of the transformations that occurred in the countryduring those years, which ‘‘also’’ implied an analysis of the ideologythat orientated those transformations and the specific policies imple-mented (Lladser, 1988). The shared supposition of those works wasthe emergence of a new type of society, characterized by a develop-ment model, an institutional system and a cultural model thatsuddenly broke with the lines that had characterized the countryin the earlier part of the century.

A third research field dealt with more theoretical problems, whichemerged from the changes undergone by the society and led to anintellectual production that, departing from empirical analysis,represented a more speculative tendency. Among the topics weredemocracy, development styles, reconstruction of civil society,relations between social movements and political structures, themarket–state dilemma, global and sectorial alternative economicmodels, redefinition of the political sphere, re-emergence of thedaily styles of social life, reappraisal of corporative dimensions, newmodes of international insertion, impact of transnationalization,renovation of socialist thought. More than specific lines of research,these were big areas or fields of intellectual preoccupation orresearch (Arrau, 1984; Baño, 1984; Brunner, 1986, 1988; Garretón,1982).21

As in the past, when the meta-scientific reference was provided byconcepts like ‘‘development’’, ‘‘revolution’’ and ‘‘socialism’’, themeta-scientific concept in this period was ‘‘democracy’’, which ofits own nature shied away from exclusive and closed visions. Thereference to democracy tended to redefine the role of intellectualsand social scientists, linking their approaches more to ethical posi-tions and historical options than to absolute truth and immutablecertainties.

Professionalization and insertion of graduates

The closure of the universities, the interruption of university studiesand professional training programs, the emigration of social scien-tists, the high levels of unemployment and the stigmatization ofsocial science provoked an exit from the occupational market. Onlythe creation of independent research centers provided a restricted


and elite job market, which would increase with the advent of privateuniversities and the proliferation of consultants and market studies.Until 1980, because of the closure of study programs and the exile

of students, there was an important gap between generations, whichwould be reduced by undergraduate and graduate study in foreigncountries. Later on, the forms of social insertion for social scientistsbegan to clearly differentiate.The massive irruption of economists in the public administration

and the private sectors (especially financial) was not repeated inthe rest of social sciences. As professional symbols of the regime’seconomic model, which created an illusion of success, economistsachieved the highest prestige, a situation that would suddenly bereversed after the failure of the economic model in 1981.With the closure of the university field came a tendency to create a

pronounced ranking and inequity in access to public resources andcommunications, in favor of those professionals who were able toinsert themselves in the job market. Some social scientists had todevote their time to the entrepreneurial effort of building indepen-dent centers. In a restricted public space, some of them participatedin debates and published, thus maintaining their critical intellectualrole in the mass media. Others inserted themselves in spaces pro-vided by the churches and, from that standpoint, provided a descrip-tion and critical analysis of the situation, as well as being involved inthe reconstruction of social organizations. Yet others played a rolein the ideological renovation of political parties and organizations.An important part of their time was devoted to informal academicwork with students and social organizations, on conceptual analysis,especially to diffuse research and reflection about problems of thenational reality. Finally, a small number joined publicity andmarket-ing agencies.22 Towards the end of the period, it was possible toperceive a greater identification of social scientists with corporateor personal interests, a situation that reinforced their autonomywith regard to the economic, political and ideological fields.

Internationalization

The internationalization under the military regime followed twofundamental tendencies: the undergraduate and graduate educationabroad of social scientists expelled from the country, and academic


and founding cooperation with independent research centers(Garretón, 1989a).

In the sub-period that goes from the mid-1970s to the first years ofthe 1980s, we can highlight the following aspects. On one side, therewas a tendency for graduate studies to culminate in exile, and a goodnumber of social scientists were able to obtain a professional posi-tion abroad, thus strengthening their academic careers and intellec-tual production. This raised a complex problem of the relationbetween ‘‘what was done inside and what was done outside’’. Onthe other side, there was a growing tendency to channel resourcesto non-university centers, which were financed solely by foreignresources. At the beginning these resources were in the nature ofrelief and solidarity, but later on they were governed more by criteriaof academic quality and focused on specific projects. This raised theproblem of the relative instability of institutional budgets. In thosecenters, a good number of independent researchers participated ininternational grants for individual research through the Ford Foun-dation, Friedrich Ebert Foundation, the World University Service,the Guggenheim Foundation, the Social Science Research Counciland the Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales (CLACSO,Latin American Social Sciences Research Council), among others(Stromquist, 1984).

In addition, those returning from exile and the frequency oftravel to international seminars and meetings of those who stayedin Chile had an impact on the contents of social sciences. Perhapsthe most important aspect was that the debates on the crisis of para-digms, and the crisis of Marxism in general, allowed new partial,non-monolithic frameworks to be applied freely to the study ofthe national reality. The type of reflection carried out on differentissues, such as non-structural determination, the importance ofsocial actors, the re-evaluation of democracy, the dimension of cul-ture and language, also influenced other countries of Latin America,where the debate was that of past decades.23 In turn, many of thesesubjects were developed in other countries of the Southern Cone andinfluenced Chilean social sciences.

Towards the end of the military regime, a paradox can beobserved: the moment of greatest financial dependency on inter-national organizations – which funded the independent researchcenters – was at the same time the moment of greatest intellectualindependence and local creativity for the social sciences. Eventhough there was a time when organizations privileged research


orientated towards action, there was a dialogue between centers andfoundations that allowed a redefinition of common expectations andinterests. New means of international collaboration started todevelop: teacher exchange programs, joint graduate programs andresearch projects, workshops and small working groups organizedby researchers from national centers and foreign academic institu-tions, and the re-opening of foreign non-governmental scholarshipsystems (foundations, universities, etc.) for Chilean students to goabroad.

3. The social sciences in the post-authoritarian period

Background

In 1990 a democratic regime, still incomplete and with authoritarianenclaves, was inaugurated. This new setting became clear in the newrelations between state and society, in the cultural scenario and,especially, in educational institutions. It was a period when theshort-term problems affecting the country dominated the long-term ones and the role of politics itself was redefined.The democratic recovery of public universities did not imply an

institutional change in higher education. Even though, as we willsee, in some cases social scientists displaced by the dictatorshipwere re-incorporated and new private universities offered opportu-nities, there was not a substantial state support policy especiallydesigned for social sciences through organisms like the ComisiónNacional para la Ciencia y la Tecnologı́a (CONICYT, NationalCommission for Science and Technology). With the end of thedictatorships and the new state requirements, the independentacademic centers model, which in some countries of Latin America,and in Chile in particular, had temporarily replaced the founda-tional model of social sciences, was losing validity. This was dueto the deployment of consultants and other types of activities,which highlighted only the professional dimension, the insertion ofsocial scientists in government tasks and the partial return ofactivities to universities. The Chilean university model had notentirely recovered from the violence of privatization brought onby the disjunction of the public higher education system by the dic-tatorship, the degradation suffered by public universities, and theintroduction of market mechanisms and fierce competition among


universities to the detriment of quality. To this, which especiallyaffected the social sciences, must be added a state scientific policythat largely ignored the nature and significance of these disciplines(Bravo, 1991; Courard and Frohman, 1999).

At the level of contents, beginning with the reintegration of thesocial science disciplines in the universities and with the incor-poration of many sociologists in government posts, the creation ofnew professional training programs and graduate studies in socialsciences, new topics appeared in the academic scenario as well asin public debate. Among them should be mentioned in particularthose related to the processes of political democratization, on theone hand, and, on the other, social transformations sparked bythe socio-economic model inherited from the dictatorship and bythe redefinition of the social actors.

The internationalization process changed its orientation. Therewas a drastic decrease in external funding of independent academiccenters, without this implying a significant increase in resources touniversities for institutional re-building. Alternatively, agree-ments to organize graduate study with foreign universities werestrengthened, government and non-government scholarship pro-grams for graduates were re-launched and an academic exchangeof faculty through seminars and conferences began. Many of thesehad as an objective the debate on the socio-economic and politicalprocesses linked to political democratization.

During this period, the central problems for the social scienceswere, on the one hand, rethinking their paradigms and reconstruct-ing their disciplines, and, on the other hand, reconstructing the insti-tutional place of their development.

Political and socio-economic context

In 1988, in the framework of the 1980 constitution, a referendumwas held to determine whether or not Pinochet and his regimeshould continue. The opposition, organized under the slogan‘‘Concertación de Partidos por el NO’’ (Coalition of Parties for aNO Vote), won the referendum. This unleashed a democratic transi-tion that had as important milestones the 1989 referendum, in whichthe constitutional reforms which facilitated the presidential elec-tion the same year were voted almost unanimously, and the oppos-ing coalition which became the ‘‘Concertación de Partidos por la


Democracia’’ (Coalition of Parties for Democracy), a center-left electoral coalition and future government.24 This transition cul-minated, in December 1989, in the election of the first democraticgovernment.The political regime inaugurated in 1990 could be classified as an

incomplete democracy (Garretón, 2003), since there have been demo-cratic governments and respect for public liberties, but within aframework of authoritarian enclaves. The constitution imposed in1980 has been maintained, except for some very partial reforms, asa symbol, with a so-called majority bi-nominal electoral systemthat gives practically 50 percent of the seats and an enormous vetopower to the first minority, excluding a second minority or a thirdforce. In addition to this, we have to add the tutorial role of thearmed forces, stipulated by the constitution, and the preservationof the already consolidated economic model, which has stronglyreduced the role of the state and completely transformed the panor-ama of social actors, reducing their traditional political influence.The impunity for crimes committed under the dictatorship that pre-vailed until the arrest of Pinochet in London, and which is foundedon the amnesty law imposed by Pinochet himself in 1979, is yieldingto a slow justice, with advances and retreats. This, together with therecalcitrance of the sectors involved in violations of human rightsunder the dictatorship, makes it difficult to speak of an effectivereconciliation. After 14 years of democratic government, the inde-pendent press is still minimal, due to the concentration of the media.During the entire democratic period, the right wing has main-

tained its veto power and has been able to build a civil-politicalblock which is the expression of those nostalgic for the militaryregime, including the new generations of the same origin. Undoubt-edly it has achieved a capacity for action, but without taking the‘‘big step’’ of breaking with the legacy of authoritarianism, whichallows us to speak of an absence of a real democratic right wing.25

With such political-institutional ties, it is not possible to deny theachievements of the democratic governments of ‘‘Concertación’’.Among them are: a sustainable 7 percent growth during the firstseven years, with drastic reduction of inflation; recovery in salariesto 1970 levels; 50 percent reduction of the poverty level; educationaland judicial reforms; more construction of public infrastructure thanduring the entire 20th century; and international economic agree-ments with regional blocks. Around 1997, under the impact of theAsian economic crisis, the optimistic atmosphere seemed to vanish,


even though some of the effects were attenuated in comparison withother countries in Latin America, and a distance developed betweensocial actors, young people and ‘‘civil society’’, with regard to the‘‘Concertación’’. The generalized illusions of consumption, ‘‘moder-nity’’ and the positive role of the market gave way to a certain skep-ticism and cultural critique. During the Lagos government, the pathto growth and the insertion of Chile in the global economyhavedee-pened, equity and poverty indicators have improved slightly, and thearmed forces have distanced themselves from the Pinochet legacy.Nevertheless, all of this has come about without the necessarychanges in the political institutionalization maintained since themilitary dictatorship.

Thus, the three biggest problems still not resolved by the politicaldemocratization and which represent the core of the national debateare: first, the issue of reconciliation and violation of human rightsunder the dictatorship;26 second, correction of the economic model,especially on issues such as the role of the state and social inequities;and third, the absence of a consensual and legitimized institutionalframework, especially regarding the constitution.


The post-authoritarian period is characterized by the expansionand differentiation of social science university institutions underthe regulatory framework inherited from higher education, withoutany special effort having been made by the democratic governments(Lagos et al., 1991).

The existence of 65 universities in the country has meant anenormous increase in enrollment, around 320,000 in the year 2000,70 percent of higher education, with a growing proportion in privateuniversities. In the social sciences, the percentage of enrollments ontotal undergraduate university enrollment increased from 7.8 per-cent in 1985, to 11.8 percent in 1995, 11.7 percent in 2000, and12.5 percent in 2002 (data from the Council of Rectors). Since1996, counting all universities, there are 5 (undergraduate) studyprograms in anthropology; political science increased from 4 to 8in 2001; and sociology from 9 to 12. To date there are 6 officiallycertified interdisciplinary graduate programs in social sciences:gender, cultural studies, public projects and management, public


policies, Latin American studies and one Latin American doctorate(see http://conicyt.cl/becas/resultados/resultados-acred.html).Very few private universities have a significant number of full-time

faculty in the social sciences; on the contrary they hire public univer-sity teachers to give courses, taking advantage of the low salariespaid by these universities. The proportion of scholarships forgraduate study abroad and research grants for social sciencescoming from CONICYT is very low compared with other fields ofscience. All of this is accompanied by the weakening of independentresearch centers, due to migration of senior researchers to thegovernment and consulting and, in part, to universities, and theshift of international funding and the lack of a state effort in thismatter, but it can be imputed as well to some miscalculations bythe direction of these centers concerning the academic future oftheir organizations. In addition, there has been a reorientation ofthese centers towards NGO-style work rather than research. Thisalso has to do with the return of young social scientists, the socialdemand for actors and the emergence of new topics that the politicaldemocratization had left out.Specialized journals began to appear with the rebirth of disciplin-

ary professions, some of which, like political sciences, incorporateda more corporate view. If, in the first half of the 1990s, there wasa predominance of social sciences or intellectual reviews of ageneral character (e.g. Estudios Públicos, Mapocho, Proposiciones),the tendency in recent years has been for each university institutionto publish its own journal.Nonetheless, in formal and institutional terms, there are some

limits to the re-institutionalization and re-appropriation of disci-plinary identities. In the first place, the perspectives, topics andapproaches, as well as research techniques, go in opposite directionsand in practice it is hard to distinguish disciplinary specificity.Currently we find complex phenomena like globalization, the irrup-tion of new mo

social sciences and society in chile: institutionalization,...

Documents