|
 What Hosam Abou-Ela (2005) calls the "poetics of peripheralization" is described as "the relationship between novelistic structure and the multivocal, anti-Eurocentric histories of coloniality," or the history of the periphery. Just as history is inevitably built on a structure, so is the novel.
It follows then that since the nineteenth century, which marked the pinnacle of linearity in novelistic structure, also coincides with the peak of colonialism; that considering the influence colonialism had on the novelistic structure of Faulkner is necessary to understand and fully appreciate Faulkner's impact in Brazil. The usefulness of applying Abou-Ela's notion of the poetics of peripheralization to Faulkner, and especially to Absalom, Absalom! is that it forces readers to understand postcolonial problems in terms that take into account the colonial economy and the legacy of slavery in the Americas. This socioeconomic understanding of postcolonialism is more useful than ever now, at a time when a globalized economy dominates the world. Reading Faulkner in terms of the Brazilian legacy of slavery will make apparent why his work has been well-received in Brazil, and why Faulkner's relationship to Brazil is as important an area of research as is his relationship with Spanish America. Abou-Ela notes that since the ascent of postcolonial theory, postcolonial critical practice has been unable to answer a number of seeming insoluble questions about the historical dynamics underpinning the discipline, such as: Why has decolonization resulted in nation states that are independent, yet are no more liberated now than when they were colonized; and why do countries that were never colonized by a European power - such as Iran - have so many of the same socioeconomic challenges other countries of the periphery have (485)? While I would love to look at the fascinating case of Iran (especially now in the context of 9/11, Lebanon, and given Iran's current position as the likely next victim of neoconservative imperialism) and examine insights to be gained from a comparison of Brazilian and Iranian development as Abou-Ela has, I digress. Unfortunately this topic goes too far beyond the scope of my objective here. To make the comparison of Absalom, Absalom! and Brazilian economic development clear, we must first account for the seminal role played by the colonial economy in Sutpen's design. Jorge Amado and the Atlantic Slave Trade The effort to link history with the continuing processes of peripheralization and disruption through the use of a narrative that keeps ending up back at the beginning is shared by Faulkner, Eduardo Glissant and other writers from the global South, including one of Faulkner's best known Brazilian contemporaries, Jorge Amado. Amado is one of Brazil's most famous literary voices from the state of Bahia. Salvador, Bahia was the Portuguese capital of the Atlantic slave trade until slavery in Brazil was abolished in 1888, twenty years after Sutpen's death. Richardson points out that Faulkner and Amado both work at the intersection of fact and fiction, of history and narrative, of ontology and mythology, and of past and present (16). Both were New World writers examining problems that were uniquely New World. These problems were fundamental to the fabric of their environments, in particular, problems from areas that depended on agricultural slavery. This places Bahia and Yoknapatawpha County within the same comparative context. Central to Absalom, Absalom! is the theme of co-mingling of races from three continents and the human tragedy that plays out as a result of European colonization. Often called the novelist of Black Bahia, Amado's work shares this theme of racial co-mingling. One of the principal objectives in Amado's classic Tenda dos milagres (Tent of Miracles) is to call attention to the contribution made by Africans to Bahia's rich cultural life, while exposing the inequities of racial bigotry at the same time. Comparing Faulkner and Amado is to study how two distinct voices from the New World speak to miscegenation and race relations in general. This is a particularly meaningful area of study given the similar historical basis on which the social reality of both places lies. The lasting impact of African slavery on the both author's construction of place is palpable, and both authors viewed this legacy as a matter of primary concern. Sharing the defining characteristics of economic inequality and the legacy of slavery, Sutpen's saga, set in the antebellum South, could just as easily taken place in Amado's Brazil. Miscegenation in Brazil For all the historical similarities that exist between the Deep South and Brazil, Faulkner faced a racial reality that was different in one important way. Miscegenation became the rule in Brazil. By contrast, the opportunity for reconciliation and reconstruction, not to mention an integral and natural mingling of the races, has been missed in the United States. The figures of racial mixing in Absalom, Absalom! represent a hopeless situation. Instead of demonstrating the possibilities for fusion and co-mingling of blood lines from different continents, those of mixed ancestry, or even of nominally mixed ancestry; Faulkner's characters begin in alienation and end in tragedy. Amado, by contrast, is much more optimistic in terms of race. The cocoa-producing region of Bahia in which Amado was born and raised bears fundamental similarities to the plantation system of the Deep South. Both regions, for example, depended on slave labor and used force and violence to maintain the social order. Also, African culture was vigorously oppressed; otherwise it would have represented a threat to the artificially created hierarchy that bore a strong resemblance to the caste system. Since both authors are from places with similarly violent colonial pasts built on slavery, regional problems of economic underdevelopment are also shared. Narrative Structure and Progressivism Given the way in which Sutpen's story is pieced together retrospectively by characters living decades later, Aboul-Ela observes that Absalom, Absalom! is as much about narration and narrators as it is about the material history of the antebellum and Civil War periods in which it is set. The impact of the colonial economy on the various settings of the novel and on the fragmented nature of its plot would not be as significant if Faulkner had not employed this type of narrative structure (Aboul-Ela 468). Faulkner is often compared with another Brazilian writer for sharing this style, Guimarães Rosa. Luis Fernando Valente, director of the Portuguese and Brazilian Studies graduate program at Brown University, points out that Faulkner and Rosa share a "similarity of their narrative techniques, such as their use of stream-of-consciousness, their manipulation of point of view and their fragmentation of plot development (Valente 149). Both writers require the reader to create a sense of order, fill in narrative gaps, and take an active role in the ethical unfolding of the plot (Richardson 18-19). In an almost early postmodern fashion, Faulkner and Rosa reinvent time and sequence in the plot in such a way that a new logic of perception emerges which also mirrors that of Amado in Tenda dos milagres. The phenomena of time, sequence and consequence tend to be much less linear and positivistic, instead integrating modernist techniques abrupt and unmarked shifts of perspective and narrative time. Faulkner and his Brazilian contemporaries share this complicated style of narrative structure; yet it was Faulkner who made this structure into which the details of the novel become absorbed notorious. This structure advances a powerful argument against the presumption of Western imperialism that history equals progress. This notion finds its best sociological expression in the work of Fernando Henrique Cardoso; founding father of dependency theory, former Brazilian president and currently professor at large in Luiz Valente's department of Portuguese and Brazilian Studies at Brown. I must reiterate Aboul-Ela's observation that a vocabulary for discussing postcolonial questions in light of the structures of a colonial economy can be extracted from the genealogy connecting the narrative structure of Absalom, Absalom! and Latin American dependency theory (486). Os Dependentistas Led by Fernando Henrique Cardoso, the dependentistas were a group of academics who addressed issues of dependency and economic development in Latin America that had a powerful impact on the region beginning in the late 1960s. Just as Faulkner and the South go hand-in hand, so do Cardoso and dependency theory. The Marxist roots of dependency theory as a perspective were derived as a reaction against modernization theory which presupposed development in the periphery would assume the course it took in the core. In this way, Absalom, Absalom! and dependency theory can clearly be seen in the same light. Fernando Henrique Cardoso led the dependency movement to emphasize unequal exchange vis-à-vis colonialism and to see dependency and development as being mutually exclusive economic processes. Dependency necessarily leads to marginality, stagnation and the reproduction of underdevelopment, just as did Sutpen's design. Absalom, Absalom!, Cardoso and dependency theory are analogous in several other key ways. All were born into a time of dynamic change caused by rapidly modernizing and industrializing societies. All were influenced by ideas from abroad, especially those that came out of Europe's tumultuous experience with nationalism and Marxism. Like Cardoso, dependency theory was "absorbed abroad, extolled and applauded at home, critiqued everywhere, perceived, misperceived and polemicized" (Black 37). Some writers argue that since Latin America today is more dependent on international capital and decisions made by institutions such as the IMF and World Bank than during the height of dependência, the dependency school no longer holds power and should be referred to in the past tense (Black 37). Especially in the aftermath of Katrina, however, I believe Faulkner would agree with dos Santos and argue that dependency theory is alive and well noting the cycle of underdevelopment and destruction in the Deep South, the vast literature produced on dependency theory every year, and its continued broad international repercussions (dos Santos 53). For Cardoso, dependency theory was never a theory so much as simply a way of understanding the relationship between the productive forces of capitalism in the core and the class structure of a particular developing country in the periphery. Or rather, a framework for analyzing "situations of dependency," which "are nothing more than the particular ways in which the impact of the international capitalist system whose dynamic centers are not in the third world are received through the internal political and class system of a specific peripheral country or region" (Larain 159). In Latin America, the combined, three-way influence of the State, the industrial bourgeoisie and international capital has resulted in the region moving out of the stage of "import substitution" to what Cardoso terms "the internationalization of the domestic market" (Cardoso & Faletto 1979). We see this Brazilian process take place in Yoknapatawpha County just the same, when, for example, Sutpen leaves for Haiti to work and brings back slaves to help him achieve his design. I stress the importance of Cardoso's prior sociological work in fully understanding his position on dependency and development in Latin America in my master's thesis (2004). I stress the importance of Cardoso's prior sociological work in this paper because of the commonality it shares with the importance Faulkner places on the legacy of slavery in the Deep South. Cardoso's dissertation on slavery and the development of capitalism in southern Brazil (1962) and his work on industrial entrepreneurs (1965) preceded his dependency writings but were essential to their formation. The Legacy of Slavery "Só é possível entender o que eu disse sobre dependência se você remontar a análise da escravidão, o que ninguém faz. Pouca gente lê" (quoted in Freire 4). Here, Cardoso confirms that it is only possible to understand what he said about dependency by resurrecting his analysis of slavery, which few people care to read. The book for which Cardoso will be best remembered, Dependency and Development in Latin America, was first circulated in mimeographed form in 1967 during Cardoso's exile to Santiago, Chile. It was first published in Spanish two years later as Dependencia y Desarrollo en America Latina, and is as much a reflection on the times it was written as it is the quintessential statement on dependency theory. The 1979 English revision came after it had been published repeatedly in Spanish, Italian, German, and French. However, the end of the Cold War, technological advance, globalization, terrorism and security have profoundly altered the course Latin American development has taken since Dependency and Development in Latin America was written. Still, the historical roots of Latin American economic development remain, and these roots are just as inexorably linked to slavery in Brazil as they are in Yoknapatawpha County. By way of background, Cardoso began his doctoral work at the University of São Paulo with his sociological mentor, Florestan Fernandes, who was influenced by the work of exiled French structural anthropologist Claude Lévi Strauss. Lévi Strauss did fieldwork in the interior of Brazil and published one of the most important books ever written on the history of Brazilian Indians, Tristes Tropiques (1961). Florestan's collaboration with Lévi-Strauss led to his (1969) dissertation on race relations called The Negro in Brazilian Society, which also became an instant classic. The Brazilian Melting Pot Cardoso states that for him it was the Negro question which connected empirical studies to national issues (Kahl 131). As Cardoso recalls, he and his sociological mentors sought to demonstrate that UNICEF was wrong in its assumption that Brazil was a melting pot society without any problems, and that the Negro was not, in fact, equal in Brazil as was assumed. As a student, Cardoso studied some aspects of this problem jointly with an anthropology student who, incidentally, later became his wife. Together, with Bastide and Florestan, they interviewed Negroes at the University and visited them in the favelas of São Paulo, where what Cardoso saw of poverty and prejudice had a radicalizing effect on him (Kahl 131). According to Cardoso, Florestan emphasized the historical perspective, so they read old newspapers and anything Negros had written about former times. They took many notes, developed systematic files, and tried to be very empirical in their approach (Kahl 131). Cardoso, however, soon began to refocus his perspective on the Negro from interpersonal relations to the historical-structural framework particular to the Negro's position in Brazilian society. For this reason, Brazil's colonial and imperial past had to be considered because it is the context in which slavery and abolition took place. Cardoso describes the economic system in colonial Brazil much like Faulkner describes the setting of Stupen's Hundred - a plantation system based on slavery, but integrated into the expansion of mercantile capitalism, within a competitive international framework (Freire 5). In Capitalismo e Escravidão no Brasil Meridional, Cardoso (1962) emphasizes that slavery and abolition in Brazil need to be understood in reference to the broader expansion of global capitalism. With regard to the beginnings of this expansion for Brazil, Portuguese explorer Pedro Alvarez Cabral was in search of a trade route to India when he accidentally landed on Brazil's coast in the year 1500. Cabral's landing in Porto Seguro marked the beginning of the Portuguese colonization of Brazil and enslavement of its indigenous populations. The enslavement of indigenous people was attempted since a reliable source of labor was needed to obtain Portuguese commercial objectives. It became apparent, however, due to the Indians' rebelliousness, susceptibility to European disease, complete incomprehension as to what the notion of productivity was combined with a corresponding aversion to hard labor, that Negro slaves imported from West Africa were much more valuable. Tobacco was the main product exchanged for African slave cargoes. Plantation life was comparable to hell, wrote a Jesuit Father trying to convert African and Indian slaves to Christianity in 1627, but it was from land worked by slaves that the economy and society of Brazil unfolded (Levine 47). Slave desertions among Indians were regular since they were familiar with the territory and were able to communicate amongst themselves about how best to flee. Negro slaves, on the other hand, frequently came from diverse regions of Africa and were of many different ethnicities. As a result, most Africans were unable to communicate with each other, let alone the Indians or Portuguese they encountered in Africa or Brazil. African slaves were completely ignorant as to how to survive in the countryside or jungles of Brazil. They had neither a historical nor genealogical basis on which to unite, so their potential for collective rebellion was nonexistent. For better or worse, imported slaves in Brazil adapted to the brutal system of forced labor over time in much the same way as Faulkner observed happened in the South. Unlike Brazilian Indians, Africans had been uprooted, arbitrarily separated and brought in successive waves to an alien land. Thus, the plight of the African slave was in many ways even more hopeless than that of the Brazilian Indian, which was at best doomed. As a sociologist, Cardoso highlights the significance of slavery in his research because he illustrates how the Negro's present day position in Brazilian society is a reflection of their heritage, and how this heritage of slavery must be considered when one discusses dependency and development in Brazil. The contradictory notion of development in Absalom, Absalom! is expressed by Sutpen's returning from the Civil War to find his design in ruins. The notion of development during Brazil's colonial period (1500-1822) is similarly contradictory because, as in Spanish America, the Portuguese crown neither encouraged nor permitted the growth of industry. The economic activity that did take place was based entirely on extractive wealth from the land. This wealth was appropriated by the crown in large measure and deposited into the Portuguese royal treasury in Lisbon (Levine 46). The Napoleonic Invasion An external event set into motion a process which would lead first to Brazilian independence and finally to the abolition of Brazilian slavery by the end of the 19th century. This process would become central to the issue of development in Brazil. In 1807, Napoleon Bonaparte and his minions invaded the Iberian Peninsula. To escape capture, King João VI and his son Pedro negotiated with Great Britain for a naval escort of the Portuguese crown to Rio de Janeiro. While the Napoleonic invasion fundamentally undermined the stability of Portugal and all but bankrupted its treasury, which João VI brought with him, Great Britain emerged from the invasion as the world's foremost imperial power after England defeated Napoleon at Waterloo in 1814. The price Portugal paid to Britain for saving the royal family was the trade treaty of 1810. This agreement brought foreign trade to Brazil by giving Britain control over all Brazilian ports. Mercantilist controls were lifted and imported goods flooded the country, which had the effect of further dooming any efforts to stimulate manufacturing. Within months of his majesty's arrival, King João VI had used his treasury to establish a central bank in Rio that initially led to economic stability in Brazil. Gold and silver were replaced by printed bank notes, and the King used the money to finance military actions against the Spanish in the south. Thus, Rio de Janeiro became the seat of the Portuguese empire during her imperial demise until 1821, when João VI returned to Portugal and left his son Dom Pedro behind. King João VI did, however, liquidate the central bank and take his treasury back with him, and the deficit that remained became Brazil's national debt. By this time, the movement for Brazilian independence had already begun and was gaining momentum when young Dom Pedro refused his father's order to return to Portugal the following year. The arrival from Lisbon of dispatches revoking Dom Pedro's decrees and accusing Brazilian ministers of treason were met with contempt. Dom Pedro was in route from Rio to São Paulo on September 7, 1822, when he delivered the cry of the Ipiranga, "Independência ou morte!" ("Independence or Death!"), which formalized Brazil's independence. Portuguese troops who refused to swear loyalty to Dom Pedro were obliged to leave Rio and from that point on the Brazilian military began to be built. On December 1, 1822, the prince regent was crowned emperor of Brazil and received the title of Dom Pedro I at the age of 24. Brazil had become independent, but with a monarchical form of government and the characteristic backwardness that seems to come with Portuguese heritage intact. In the year Brazil won its independence it is estimated that slaves constituted as much as half the nation's population (Levine 66). Dom Pedro I created a new ministry that was made up of Portuguese but headed by a Brazilian, José Bonifácio de Andrade e Silva. José Bonifácio was a central figure in politics at the time. He came from one of the richest families in Brazil and had lived in Europe for many years where he was influenced by the Industrial Revolution and Enlightenment ideals. Politically, José Bonifácio was a staunch adversary of democracy and believed the monarchical form of government was right for Brazil. Socially, however, José Bonifácio espoused progressive ideas such as agrarian reform, the free entry of immigrants and most notably, the gradual extinction of the slave trade and slavery (Fausto 71). The Portuguese dominated the Atlantic slave trade. Although José Bonifácio's efforts to ban the slave trade began as early as 1817, it only stopped after 1850 when the British forced the imperial government to end slave trading once and for all by threatening Brazil with a naval blockade. This newfound morality in British foreign policy may have ended the Portuguese slave trade, but successive economic periods in which cheap labor fueled prosperity in Brazil - sugar, then cacao, then mining, then coffee - encouraged Brazilian elites to act like Sutpen and hold on to slavery for as long as possible. In Capitalismo e Escravidão no Brasil Meridional, Cardoso takes special pains to distinguish the dialectical mode of analysis he uses to study slavery from the functionalist approach, which seeks to understand how each part of society contributes to the whole. Faulkner would certainly have avowed Cardoso's approach. Cardoso summarizes dialectical sociology as the study of the "concrete totality" of a social system, where the reciprocal interaction between thought and the material reality of a particular historical situation makes its understanding possible (Goertzel 25). This method was first used by Marx. Whereas functional sociology focuses on the harmonious interplay among components of a social system, dialectical sociology focuses on the conflicts and contradictions that lie within. Cardoso used this dialectical approach in his research on slavery to explain the relationship between slave and master. The very violence and brutality, on which this relationship was based, combined with an economy that was diversifying in response to large inputs of foreign capital and influence, were the main factors contributing to the "Golden Law" that abolished slavery in 1888. Cardoso observed that slavery had been introduced for capitalist purposes, but became less attractive when technology improved and more skilled labor was needed. Slaves were poorly motivated by their cruel relationship with their masters and required more supervision than free laborers, who also produced more. Community leaders noticed this fact, the more progressive of whom thought progress and modernization required the abolition of slavery. In addition, abolitionist sentiment was fueled by embarrassment that Brazil stood out as the last independent nation in the world where slavery remained legal. Generally speaking, abolition took place nonviolently in response to both international pressures and domestic economic trends. That Capitalismo e Escravidão no Brasil Meridional illustrates how the ending of the slave trade actually spurred economic development in Southern Brazil is telling. Between 1850 and 1860 the number of corporations in the region boomed. Ventures in manufacturing, railroads, insurance, mining, savings banks and land settlements became prevalent (Levine 67). Ecological destruction and a corresponding decline in economic growth of the once dominant Northeast contributed to the emerging economic power of Southern Brazil. The emerging prosperity was, however, not shared by freed slaves anywhere in the country. Negroes remained defined by considerable doubt as to their very status as human. While the Golden Law of 1888 brought emancipation, it was accompanied by social practices and even legislation that served to drastically limit opportunities for blacks and deny them of virtually all civil and human rights. Joaquim Nabuco, a famous statesman and abolitionist of the period, lamented how the triumph of abolition was not complemented by social measures for the benefit of the freed, nor by any movement to refashion public awareness (Cardoso 2001:186). Crown policy remained to send criminals and undesirables to Brazil during the country's first hundred years as a Portuguese territory (Levine 46). Descendants of these malefactors and European workers who were encouraged to immigrate to Brazil by José Bonifácio prevailed over blacks in the social hierarchy. Once emancipation had been achieved, abolitionists shifted their attention to other causes and did nothing to help newly freed blacks prepare for life as free men. For this reason, Cardoso describes the social position of the slave as hidden (Freire 4). By depersonalizing slave characters in Absalom, Absalom!, Faulkner situates the social position of slaves in much the same way. For Cardoso, as both a hidden and excluded social actor, the most to which a slave could aspire was to be free. Free in a formal sense like the master, but without the freedom to aspire to attain the structural position of the master (Freire 4). This legacy of subservience is carried by Brazilian Negroes to the present day, and is the key fact by which Cardoso and his colleagues proved UNICEF wrong in their assumption that Brazil was a model melting pot society. Cardoso applied these anthropological conclusions to the Marxist debate over class struggle in Brazil. Cardoso states that Marxist theories about revolution that were popular during the late 1950s and early 1960s were, therefore, very confusing. Cardoso's research raised the question of how to politicize Marxist class relations in a slave society that is not of classes, but of castes (Freire 4). Moreover, the caste system in Brazil is historically unique, a fact which, for Cardoso, requires that an interpretative approach unique to its context be employed for accurate sociological analysis. The Brazilian Negro, although alienated, remained trapped in an underground social caste even as Brazil transformed into a class-based society. Correspondingly, Negroes demonstrated a lack of class-consciousness necessary for active membership in the proletariat. Their participation could not, therefore, be expected in any worldwide proletarian revolution. Cardoso noted additionally that the Brazilian working class was much less organized and had a different relationship to the capitalist class than did the working class in Europe, who managed to successfully organize into groups such as labor unions. Two principle conclusions can be drawn from Cardoso's study. Classical economic determinism assumes that development will progress in much the same way around the world. Due to slavery, however, Cardoso showed that the path of capitalist development would not follow a similar course in Brazil as it had in Europe, whose societies were not based on slavery, but feudalism. Second, with regard to the mood of the times, contrary to the spirit of revolutionary communism, not everywhere would the masses alienated under capitalism be prepared to participate in a worldwide communist revolution simultaneously. Contrary to modernization theory, Cardoso showed that the course of change in Brazil would clearly be different than that which took place in Europe, even though Brazil's developmental process is derived from, subordinate to, and dependent upon European influence. The legacy of slavery in Brazil, the colonial and imperial context of forced labor and its relationship to the broader development of mercantile capitalism in the world is also important to note because they help explain why the United States and Brazil are such different countries today. Both are a nation of immigrants. Whereas, however, American settlers aimed to use her resources to create a new and democratic country free from European domination, those who settled in Brazil did so under the yoke of imperialism with an aim to export Brazil's wealth back to Europe, with no regard for her future. The United States is a land Europeans went to build; Brazil is a land that Europeans came to exploit. This simple historical truth helps explain the origins of nationalism as an overriding theme in Brazilian politics. For many Brazilians, foreign capital is still conceived as a harbinger of exploitation and external domination. After losing the Civil War, confederates developed their own sense of nationalism and nostalgia, which, combined with a bitter resentment toward Northern colonization, was enough to convince 9000 confederates to set up colonies of the confederate cause in Brazil (Lowe 6). Next we will see how the legacy of that immigration is lived in Brazil to this day. Works Cited Aboul-Ela, Hosam. "The Poetics of Peripheralization: Faulkner and the Question of the Postcolonial." American Literature 77.3 (2005):483-509. Black, Carina Alejandra. ". "Fernando Henrique Cardoso: Intellectual Evolution from Exile to Presidency." (1997) Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of Nevada, Reno. Cardoso, Fernando Henrique, and Faletto, Enzo. Dependency and Development in Latin America. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1979. Cardoso, Fernando Henrique. Capitalismo e Escravidão no Brasil Meridional (Capitalism and Slavery in Southern Brazil). São Paulo: Difusão Européia do Livro, 1962. Cardoso, Fernando Henrique. Empresário Industrial e Desenvolvimento Econômico no Brasil (Industrial Entrepreneurship and Economic Development in Brazil). São Paulo: Difel, 1965. Cardoso, Fernando Henrique. Charting a New Course: The Politics of Globalization and Social Transformation. Edited and introduced by Mauricio A. Font, Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001. Dos Santos, Theotonio. "The Theoretical Foundations of the Cardoso Government: A New Stage of the Dependency-Theory Debate." Latin American Perspectives 25 (1998) 53-70. Freire, V.T. 1996. "Para lembrar o que ele escreveu: FHC explica a formação de suas idéias sobre a história brasileira e por que elas não mudaram" (Remembering what he wrote: FHC explains the formation of his ideas about Brazilian history and why they haven't changed). Folha de São Paulo, 13 October 1996. Goertzel, Ted. Fernando Henrique Cardoso: Reinventing Democracy in Brazil. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1999. Hill, Lawrence F. Diplomatic Relations Between the United States and Brazil. (1932) New York: AMS Press, 1971. Kahl, J.A. Three Latin American Sociologists: Gino Germani, Pablo Gonzales Casanova, Fernando Henrique Cardoso. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, Inc., 1976. Kane, Richard F. "The Sociology and Politics of Fernando Henrique Cardoso." M.S. thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Illinois State University, 2004. Larrain, Jorge. Theories of Development: Capitalism, Colonialism and Dependency. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1989. Levine, Robert. The History of Brazil. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1999. Monteiro, George. "Faulkner in Brazil." Southern Literary Journal 16 (1983): 96-104. Richardson, Daniel C. "Towards Faulkner's Presence in Brazil: Race, History, and Place in Faulkner and Amado." South Atlantic Review 65.4 (2000):13-27. Valente, Luiz Fernando. "Marriages of Speaking and Hearing: Mediation and Response in Absalom, Absalom! and Grande Sertão Veredas." The Faulkner Journal 11.2 (1996) 149-164. This is the second of a three-part series on William Faulkner's presence in Brazil. Richard F. Kane, from the Department of Sociology and Anthropology of Illinois State University, can be reached at
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
.
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed