| I have been driven to the study of the early nineteenth-century Mexican labyrinth as a result of my search for clues to an understanding of Latin American politics, from the perspective of a sociologist with historical and comparative inclinations. But then, why concentrate on a single case? In the field of comparative sociology, it is necessary to try out new approaches, as the methodology is in the making and continually evolving. I could have taken four or five historical processes, using mostly secondary literature, and tried to establish similarities and contrasts among them. This is a valid approach, known to have given excellent results. But comparatists must also try their hand at the study in depth of a single case, so as to have a better look at the trees in the forest, getting involved with the vagaries and contradictions of the local scene. Of course given time, patience, and resources, it is possible to bestow this treatment not only on one but on several instances. Indeed this is necessary, but it need not be done in the same book, nor even by the same person. |
| In my analysis of the Mexican situation during the early decades of the republic, I have always kept in mind contrasting experiences both from the area and period considered and from outside of them. In a previous work, I tried to develop a general framework for the study of Latin American politics. I do not intend to inflict a summary of it on the unsuspecting reader, but of course I will use it and explain that use when necessary, tucking into footnotes the more complex references. I believe that the comparative method, nay more, theory building in general, must be capable of expressing its results in a plain language. But on the other hand, tentatively at least, some classificatory frameworks or schemata should be developed, in which to nest empirical materials and lower-level generalizations, so that results might be additive and open to easier contrast. |
| I have been working on Mexican history for quite a long time, moving |
|
