Introduction: Peru in Theory

Abstract

Readers of this volume may well ask: “Why Peru in theory?” The ambiguity of the title, of course, is deliberate. After all, anyone who studies Peru will be familiar with the often-expressed belief that the country is not quite there. It is, many agree, a problema and a posibilidad as the historian Jorge Basadre suggested many years ago. It exists, in theory. But … in practice? The title reminds us that Peru has been and continues to be understood as a work in progress, as an idea or project that, somehow, and as yet, has not come to fruition. Much intellectual work has been expended in making sense of this theoretical, not quite there, character of Peru in the past. This volume contributes to, and builds on, this intellectual work. But the title also alludes to the more distinctive, specific, intellectual project of this volume: to bring Peru and theory together, to mix and mash them up, observe, and draw useful and, hopefully, original conclusions. Why do this? Is Peru amenable to theorization? Is theory amenable to Peruvianization? Can “theory” teach us anything new about Peru? Can “Peru” teach us anything new about theory? This is what this volume sets out to explore.¹ But why do this now? As I discuss below, Peru has undergone very significant changes in the past 30 years. It is a good time to take stock and think about the problems and possibilities that the country faces.

I am grateful to Jelke Boesten and Alberto Vergara, and particularly to the anonymous reader, for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this introduction.