The Culture of Fear A report on a project of the Joint Committee on Latin American Studies
byJoan Das in*
S
CCE IVE MILITARY TAKEOVER in Brazil and the population. Project re earch focu ed on the contruction of mechani m for repre ion and the maouthern Cone countrie of Ar entina, Uruguay, and Chile during the 1960 and 1970 ignalled the nipulation of fear by the military regime, the experiemergence of new form of authoritarian rule. The e ence of fear in different ocial group, and the develregime were ocially and politicall repre ive, on the opment of re i tance mo ements which occurred 0 er one hand, and economically dynamic, on the other, time a fear wa ub tantially overcome. Repre entaeeking to further tie between the local economy and tive topic include the method and pha e of repre large international ource of capital (Cardo 0 1982). ion in the four countrie (Fagen 1986); fear among The military ruled a an in titution, rather than a direct victim in Chile ( alamovich 1986); re i tance individual , expanded the role of the tate, and em- in the Brazilian labor movement (Alve 19 6); and pha ized technocratic experti e in policy making. intellectual contribution to the 10 of fear (AlThe e characteri tic led cholar to label the regime tamirano 1986; arlo 1986). ee the box on page 8 for "bureaucratic-authoritarian," di tingui hing them a Ii t of the participants. from previou populi t dictator hip in the region he project wa called "The Culture of Fear," a (O'Donnell 1973; Collier 1979). concept that wa it elf the ubject of much debate Thi cla ification ha generated exten ive debate, becau e of the difficultie involved in defining prenot only becau e the e military regime per i ted into ci ely what a "cultural approach" to fear hould inthe 1980, but al 0 becau e their emergence chal- clude and in i olating tho e factor that di tingui hed lenged a central hypothe i of modernization the fear created by the e four military regime from theory-that more advanced indu trialization would many other hi torical experience of fear produced re ult in the development of democratic political y- by tate terror. The e que tion were debated in a erie of eminar held in 19 1-82, in which it wa tern (Collier 1979). Three principal per pective ub equent project re earch on have been employed in thi di cu ion (Carreton decided to focu 19 5). One approach focu e on the internal charac- Brazil and the three outhern Cone countrie . The teri tic of the political regime and tend , therefore, et of ca e wa limited in thi way becau e the milito empha ize their repre ive elements. Another tary regime were ideologically imilar, creating "naeek to link the gene i of the e regime to the de- tional ecurity tate" which upended civil libertie mand of a new pha e of economic accumulation re- and permitted authoritie to wage unre tricted war quired by the proce of capitali t development, while again t internal di enter. The e mea ure were 0 a third tre e change in military organization and ten ibly taken to a ure political tability for economic the expan ion of militar power in Latin America a growth, but were in fact u ed to eliminate oppo ition to a new economic model ba ed on the concentration the ba i for the analy i of military govern men . In contra t to much of thi work, which focu e on of income and the exclu ion of worker and the poor. political regime and th tate, a project pon ored by The project continued in 19 3 with po ition paper the Joint Committee on Latin American tudie outlining pecific re earch que tion for the countrie ought to analyze repre ion and wide pread fear a cho en. The re earch wa presented at a conference ocial proce e and to identify the multiple way in convened in Bueno Aire in 1985. which in titution and individual in Brazil and the Four major problem were explored in the Culture outhern Cone countrie were affected by and re- of Fear project: (1) the characteri tic of political fear; sponded to tate terror. Thi wa defined a the y- the mechani m through which it was induced; and its tematic threat and u e of violence by governments con equence for individual and collective behavior; again t both political di enter and the general (2) the difference and imilaritie of repre ive practice ; (3) the tage of political fear a it wa impo ed and conte ted; and (4) the legacie left by political *The author, a peciali t in modern thought and literature, serve as taff for the Joint Committee on Latin American tudi . fear after the re toration of con titutional governMARCH
1986
7