Ciao!: Waking up from a sleep marathon

Waking up from a sleep marathon

06.18.2005

The weather's dropped several notches. Right now it's an autumnesque 69°. And for some reason, that makes me sleepy. Went to bed around 5pm last night; woke up at 1:30pm. That's just not right.

Making (substantial?) progress on the dissertation front. Still debating the order in which chapters 2 & 3 will go (2 then 3, or 3 then 2). But I'm getting comfortable w/ the historical background chapter, which is tied into a theory of nationalism & nation-building projects — mostly based on Benedict Anderson's concept of nationalism as "imagined community". Basically, I'm arguing that bolivia's national project from the 1930s (post Chaco War) through the 1980s (pre DS 21060) was consistent: a corporatist desarrollista state w/ mestizo revolutionary nationalism. Since the 1980s (after DS 21060), the major parties (MNR, ADN, MIR) broke w/ that tradition and adopted a liberal, free-market, pluralist state-society conception. Meanwhile, seperatists indigenista demands (e.g. Quispe) emerge; the syndicalists (e.g. Evo & Solares) want a return to corporatism; and regionalist movements (e.g. Santa Cruz) openly challenge the current state-society matrix. All kept in check by centripetal institutional forces; changing the electoral system in 1994 created centrifugal forces. Basically, Anderson's framework allows me to argue that just as 20th century Bolivia's nationalism was "imagined", so too are these new "nationalisms"; and certain institutional frameworks encourage some forms of imagining over others (e.g. particularist v. pluralist).

I'm also developing the idea that democracy is a form of "imagined community" along the same lines as religious communities, empires, and nations (using the Anderson framework). Democracies only survive because their members believe themselves as fellow-citizens of the same political society. Here, institutions play a key role. First, because each election is a public debate about the nature of the community. Second, because some institutional frameworks tend the community (as a garden analogy), while others damage the community and encourage newly "imagined" communities. Anyhow.

Finally saw The Aviator yesterday afternoon, before drifting into sleep. Fantastico! And all I could think of while watching it? Atlas Shrugged. I swear that several scenes seemed to come right off the pages of Ayn Rand. My favorite two scenes: Hughes snapping back at the Hepburns' (his Francisco d'Anconia moment) and Hughes snapping back at the senator (his Hank Rearden moment).

I guess that wraps up the last two days. A slow shift at the Rocket Star (but got about 100 pages read), a good afternoon movie w/ baby spinach salad & tortelloni in homemade tomato pesto, and 20 hours of sleep. Afternoon bike ride? I think, yes.

----
UPDATE: After a quick conversation w/ Upson, and notecarding my outline for the historical background chapter, I've decided to put it after the "parliamentarized presidentialism" chapter (that is, keep it as 2 then 3). The historical background chapter, if written as an evolution of a new kind of "national discourse" makes for a great transition into how that discourse was eroded during the post-transition democratic period. Capisci?

Posted by Miguel at 01:55 PM

Comments

Interesting posting about dissertation, though, I have a question. How is your "Democracies only survive because their members believe themselves as fellow-citizens of the same political society," different from stateness factor as explained in Linz & Stepan (post-comps syndrome, I think I know stuff, lol)?
About The Aviator, I was bored and didn't like the movie. I guess it's one of those American stories a foreigner has a hard time to follow or enjoy. But still, all the time I thought sth was missing from the beginning, it was like getting into a movie that started long before you entered the movie theater, so you missed a crucial beginning. That's how I felt. Cheers, N.

Posted by: Nenad at June 18, 2005 03:42 PM

@Nenad:

Yes, The Aviator is an "American" story. I think it was a good movie, certainly better than most. But it's best appreciated if you also believe: that man is a heroic being, that he can overcome obstacles, including his own flaws, that unabashed self-esteem is not only a virtue but an ethical code of conduct, and that the drive to achieve personal success & perfection is noble.

As to the Linz-related question. You're right, there's not that much of a difference. But I take it further than Linz et al. They talk about a state, a set of institutions for making political decisions (what they later call "political society"). I'm talking about a belief by citizens that they should be governed together by a state. It's from an original formulation by Dahl, where he refers to "the demos question". Before there can be a democracy, there must be a demos, a group of people who believe they belong together in one, joint political community (as opposed to membership in multiple communities). A common people can debate over how to govern themselves; but they must first agree that they are a common people.

Posted by: Miguel at June 18, 2005 05:42 PM