People are entitled to their own opinions and everyone has the right to make an hypothesis. Nonetheless, when writing non-fiction books, one would hope that authors thought carefully before formulating broad-spectrum theories.
What about countries like India, Brazil, and Paraguay were servants are more common than in Colombia. Do those countries have serious problems of organized violence?
No.
For the aforementioned commentary, did Paternostro take into consideration that most Colombian households do not have maids?
No.
Did she remember that maids are mostly seen in urban settings while the violence is mainly rural?
No.
The problem with Paternostro’s hypothesis is that it was made out of the blue, while watching television in her living room. That’s why the scientific method was established, so serious people could test their theories before putting them in books.The way in which she sustains her thesis on Colombian “powers structures” and their effects in violence is, for Paternostro, not an exception. Throughout the book, she has been making similar hypothesis based exclusively on in-my-living-room observations. Such is the case of her ideas on education. Paternostro believes that Colombia is in a chaotic state because most people do not take an active role in governance and are uninterested about Colombian history. She makes this argument just because when arriving at a museum with her driver, “I invite José in but he declines” (p.85).
Once again, I conclude that Paternostro’s observations shouldn’t be taken seriously and that the purpose of My Colombian War is not so much to make a useful explanation of Colombia’s social issues, but to provide an entertaining story about an exotic place to foreign readers.
It's not that far off to relate power structures to violence. Certainly this is part of the reason for Colombia's civil war. In the states it was this way - power structures shaped the future conflicts we have. There's a mix of the economic and the personal, given both influence one another.
ReplyDeleteAlfredo you don't seem to actually be as critical of Silvana Paternostro as you seemed to be. You seem to agree more with Paternostro than disagree, and disagree mainly in how the story is told/described. I don't think that disqualifies the book.