English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This essay analyzes a case study illustrating the reception of the Subaltern Studies analytical perspective, originally developed by the Indian Subaltern Studies Group, by Latin American scholars, and especially, by the Latin American Subaltern Studies Group at the beginning of the 90’s. It focuses on the debate regarding the relevance, scope and problems stemming from the application of the subaltern and postcolonial analytical focus in the historical texts of historian Florencia Mallon and cultural critic John Beverly. The author evaluates both sides of the argument, also introducing some points of agreement, dissent and limited concurrence, taking into account the fundamental fact that this debate has developed within the limits of North American academia, limiting the participation of Latin American scholars in equal conditions. The essay concludes with a series of reflections on four general themes in order to assess the problems and challenges stemming from these issues: access to the subaltern corpus, a critique of nationalism in the historiographic operation, subaltern agency and the positivist shadow.

Enfoque subalterno e historia latinoamericana: nación, subalternidad y escritura de la historia en el debate Mallon-Beverley