Book review: Seeing the World: How US Universities Make Knowledge in a Global Era

Abstract

Although the book is about Brazil, it explores generalizations from that case. Most generalizations take the form of part-whole generalizations, when authors discuss how global forces operated in Brazil and what the case of Brazil can teach us about the global agri-food system under neoliberalism. For instance, the chapter by Mota Silva on irrigated agriculture in the San Francisco Valley looks at how “the state [. . .] contributed to the insertion of the [valley] into global agri-food circuits of production and consumption” (p. 113). However, some generalizations are part-parts generalizations, when authors explore the case of Brazil in comparison to other countries. For instance, in the conclusion, Bonanno and Cavalcanti situate the development of Keynesianism and Fordism in Brazil in the broader context of the Global South and Latin America (p. 165) and compare Brazilian policies for rural populations with those adopted in the Global North (p. 171). The concluding chapter synthesizes the findings of individual chapters and discusses them in light of two major theoretical debates in political economy: the agrarian question and the relative autonomy of the state. I recommend the book to readers interested in the intersection of neoliberal globalization and agriculture, especially as a nuanced empirical investigation of the limits and possibilities of the state in the emancipation of farmers, food consumers, and the environment in the Global South. Balancing structure and agency, the authors conclude that “state capitalism is a limited form of opposition to neoliberal globalization. However, the extent of its success (or failure) depends upon the strength of the social movements that support state actions” (p. 163). It is this type of analysis that can help us avoid the traps of voluntarism (“everything is possible”) and structuralism (“there is no alternative”) as progressive movements of peasants and consumers seek alternatives to capitalist “productivism” (p. 162).