But in Adelman's account I also find something missing, which leaves the political and intellectual landscape looking more barren than it actually is. The new subjects, in turn, are skeptical of both globalization talk and that neo-dependencista quest. Take Maya cultural activism, for example. Far from hastening the end of history, Maya intellectuals are busy writing histories of their own, because they don't recognize themselves in the ones written by others. But there is also something vital in intellectual work that prioritizes the particular.
Dangers abound in such a strategy, but the results are far from preordained.
Another sign is the widespread critique of the intellectual as social category in Latin America. The different theoretical positions that Adelman outlines arguably hold a common conception of the intellectual as privileged national-level interpreter of particular identities, histories and struggles. Perhaps part of what Adelman sees as the absence of debate is actually the loss of this center of intellectual activity. If so, then two challenges logically follow. Yet I do ultimately share Adelman's sobriety.