Marx and the Bible: José Miranda’s Critique of the Philosophy of Oppression

This paper critically examines the liberation theology of José Porfirio Miranda, as expressed in his Marx and the Bible (1971), with a focus on the central idea (and subtitle) of this work: the “Critique of the Philosophy of Oppression.” Miranda’s critique is examined via certain key tropes such as “power,” “justice,” and “freedom,” both in the context of late twentieth-century Latin American society, and in the state of the “post-Christian” and “post-Marxist” world more generally, vis-à-vis contemporary liberal justice theory. Close examination of the potentialities, paradoxes and subtle evasions in Miranda’s critique leads not to the conclusion that Miranda does not go far enough in his application of Christian principles to justice theory.

Running Hot and Cold: Economic Liberalization and Foreign Direct Investment in Latin America by Sector

This article examines the effects of market–oriented economic reforms on foreign direct investment (FDI) flows to Latin America from 1985 to 2006. In contrast with most existing scholarship, we disaggregate FDI into its destination in the primary resource, manufacturing, and service sectors allowing us to determine that different kinds of investments exhibit distinct behavior. Notably, manufacturing FDI appears to be erratic; previous investment is not a predictor of current investment. FDI across sectors is associated with varying policy environments, with service and primary resource investment attracted to hosts with policies associated with more stable economic and political contexts. Overall, manufacturing FDI appears to function more like “hot” portfolio investment and is less likely to provide some of the positive spillover effects thought to be associated with more permanent FDI. These findings have an array of implications for economic, development, and industrial policies throughout Latin America and the developing world.

The Cultural Construction Of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Sociopolitical Responses To Psychological Trauma In American And Vie

In my thesis, I incorporate both psychological research and personal narratives in order to explain why, in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, the United States officially recognized Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder while the Vietnamese government did not. The absence of Vietnamese studies on the impact of PTSD on veterans, in comparison to the abundance of research collected on American soldiers, is reflective not of a disparity in the actual prevalence of the disorder, but of the influence of political policy on the scope of Vietnamese psychology. Personal narratives from Vietnamese civilians and soldiers thus reveal accounts of trauma otherwise hidden due to the absence of Vietnamese psychological research. Although these two nations conspicuously differed in their respective responses to the prevalence of psychological trauma in war veterans, these responses demonstrated that both the recognition and rejection of PTSD was a result of sociopolitical factors: political ideologies, rather than scientific reasons, dictated whether the postwar trajectory of psychological research focused on fully exploring the impact of PTSD on veteran populations. The association of military defeat with psychological trauma thus fixed attention on certain groups of veterans, including former American and South Vietnamese soldiers, while ignoring the impact of trauma on veterans of the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army. The correlation of a soldier¿s ideological background with psychological trauma, rather than exposure to actual traumatic experiences, demonstrates that cultural and sociopolitical factors are far more influential in the construction of PTSD than objective indicators of the disorder¿s prevalence. Culturally-constructed responses to disorders such as PTSD therefore account for the subjective treatment of mental illness. The American and Vietnamese responses to veterans suffering from PTSD both demonstrated that the evidence of mental health problems in an individual does not guarantee an immediate or appropriate diagnosis and treatment regimen. External authorities whose primary aims are not necessarily concerned with the objective treatment of all victims of mental illness subjectively dictate mental health care policy, and therefore risk ignoring or marginalizing the needs of individuals in need of proper treatment.