When Nation-States Still Matter: Notes from Latin America

Nation-centered narratives can be limiting; they routinely lose sight not only of larger transnational processes and developments, but also of local or regional distinctiveness. Thus, they can be both narrow-minded and homogeneized, the product of self-consciously nationalist political ideologies. The solution, however, is not simply to internationalize history, because to ignore the national perspective when writing modern history is equally perilous.  The national focus decisively shapes the beliefs, motivations, and reasons of all internal actors, regardless of whether they endorse it, are indifferent to it, or even actively reject it.  It is, in modern times, the master narrative of all social actors, learned in school and at home. To ignore it is to risk not understanding the conceptual framework around which these actors construct meaning and purpose. For national subjects, transnational phenomena (e.g., the long history of Mexico-US migration) and local particularities (i.e., deviations from the norm) are both made sense of through the lens of the national story. Historians must therefore learn it well, and that is a time-consuming task, especially when it involves mastering foreign languages and historiographies.  We are bound—though not restricted—to it, whether we like it or not, and despite its obvious limitations.There is also the fact that most historians outside of the US and western Europe work within the framework of the nation-state, not only because it is what is feasible and rewarded, but also, in many cases, because it is what they find useful and important. It is still, in many ways, what matters to them. This is a subject (what are the uses of history?) that deserves ample discussion.