I'm currently the TA for a class on Latin America and United States relations. Since we're in the introductory stages of the class, we're looking at why the United States and the nations of Latin America have developed differently.
One of the arguments proposed is this: Since the Latin American populations were Catholic as opposed to Protestant like in America, and since Catholicism is authoritarian by nature, and democracy requires egalitarianism, the Latin American countries generally had authoritarian leaders because of their Catholicism while the United States had democratic ones.
Now, that's quite the mouthful of an argument, and I think considering the circumstances at hand, it makes a lot of sense. I chose this argument hoping to diagram it, but I'm not sure if I'm able to do it here. Lets see if I can tease it out.
I think our conclusion is 4)
the Latin American countries generally had authoritarian leaders because of their Catholicism while the United States had democratic ones.
But, how do we get there? I think that maybe we need to start with 2) Catholicism is authoritarian by nature and what follows from that is 1) the Latin American populations were Catholic as opposed to Protestant like in America
On the other side we have the statement as a stand alone which is 3) democracy requires egalitarianism.
Overall, we have 1) follows from 2) which, in conjunction with 3) comes to our conclusion 4)
Not sure if I structured this right, but give it a look!
Glad I didn't see this before I posted. Made sense to me.
ReplyDeleteI believe a few adjustments could be made towards your analysis.
ReplyDeleteThe following should clarify each individual statement:
(1) = The Latin American populations were Catholic
(2) = The populations in America were Protestant
(3) = Catholicism is authoritarian by nature
(4) = IMPLIED PREMISE = Protestants are (generally) egalitarian
(5) = Democracy requires egalitarianism
(6) = The Latin American countries generally had authoritarian leaders because of their Catholicism
(7) = The United States had democratic [leaders]
So, you were right in saying that there is a mouthful of argument there.
Essentially, what we have here is a series of statements with two conclusions that are directly unrelated, but are worthwhile comparing next to each other - hence the reason the author wrote it this way. It is clear to me that statements (6) and (7) are the two separate conclusions.
Looking at Statement (7)
Using the statements relevant to the Latin American countries and their leaders, we can create the following argument, which is contained inside the original complex argument:
The Latin American populations were Catholic. Catholicism is authoritarian by nature. Therefore, the Latin American countries generally had authoritarian leaders because of their Catholicism.
Looking at Statement (6)
Using the statements relevant to America and its leaders, we can create the following argument, which is contained inside the original complex argument:
The populations in the United States were Protestant. Protestants are (generally) egalitarian. Democracy requires egalitarianism. Therefore, the United States had democratic [leaders].
Conclusion
This breakdown should help show that ultimately, statements (6) and (7) are unrelated. That being said, they are similar topics, making it worthwhile to compare the two, as the original author did in his argument. Also, it should be noted that statement (4) is implied, in order to bridge the gap between (2) and (5).