Caudillismo, Hyper-masculinity, and Patriarchal Violence

InLatin America, the mid-19th century was defined by the emergence and proliferation of the caudillos: patriarchal “military men” who ruled over regions of Central and South America. Caudillos derived authority from their willingness to rule through violence—a characteristic that distinguished caudillos from their less-violent political challengers. The pervasive dominance of caudillismo—the reign of the caudillos—can be attributed to the patriarchal monopoly on violence which the caudillos ruled under; without a complete monopoly on the use of violence and force, a caudillo could not rule effectively. A caudillo’s ability to earn the respect of other men, physically dominate women, and rule with the threat of violence encapsulated the benefits enshrined by the monopoly on violence held by these military leaders.

According to historians Eric Wolf and Edward Hansen, caudillos derived their social and political power from their masculinity, or machismo, as it is dubbed in Central and South American culture. Caudillos were always men, who used their “capacity to dominate females” and “readiness to use violence” to exert their control over local communities (Wolf & Hansen 51). For caudillos, these two characteristics were indisputably linked: the ability to dominate over other men “implie[d] the further capacity to best other men in the competition over females” (51). Firstly, in order to prove his authority and gain the respect of others, a caudillo had to prove his worth against other political challengers: “[a]ssertions of dominance are tested in numerous encounters, in which the political leader must test himself against other political claimants” (51). To prove himself, a caudillo had to demonstrate his capacity for violence, often risking death at the opportunity to gain political and social capital amongst other men: “the claimants to victory must be prepared to kill their rivals and to demonstrate this willingness publicly…[they] must submit to the winner, or be killed” (51). In order to prove his masculinity, and thus his capacity for violence, a caudillo had to be willing to sacrifice his own life to maintain the ruthless culture of the caudillos. In a society defined by violence and domination, “submit[ing] to the winner” was antithetical to the construction of masculinity built by caudillos (51). The aversion to yielding inextricably tied masculinity to violence, as the construction of masculinity was dependent on demonstrating an unwavering commitment toward the use of violence. This capacity for violence served two purposes in the upholding of patriarchal power structures. Firstly, it demonstrated the ability of men to control other men physically through positions of power; and secondly, it represented a hierarchy of masculinity created by the threat of violence—the more violent a man was, the higher his social standing was on the social and political hierarchy. The connection between patriarchal power systems and violence was also seen in early 19th-century systems of gift-giving. Lords, wanting to have their wealth and property protected, would offer gifts to their local caudillo to demonstrate their respect (Wolf & Hansen

52). These gifts served as a symbolic recognition of authority and, by extension, the violent and patriarchal means by which authority was achieved. This process not only paid tribute to a caudillo, but its non-violent nature represented the acceptance of defeat and submission to the violent authority of a caudillo. On the contrary, those who disrespected the authority of a caudillo faced a swift demonstration of a caudillo’s capacity for violence. In one story, a group of young men was celebrating the defeat of Facundo Quiroga, an Argentine caudillo during the early 19th century, when they noticed a hooded man standing in the corner. The hooded man, who was Quiroga, let the young men finish their celebratory song before promptly having the young men publicly executed (De la Fuente 55). To rule effectively, a caudillo used violence to demand the utmost respect for his authority, anything less was unacceptable. The use of violence both entrenches this authority and prevents other potential challengers from contesting the system, two outcomes that helped the caudillos maintain social and political power. As such, caudillos used violence to uphold social structures of masculinity and patriarchy.

Ignited by the Spanish American Wars of Independence, the need for strong, capable fighters was omnipresent. Subsequently, many caudillos were military leaders who saw extensive combat against Spanish forces throughout Latin America (Wood & Alexander 44). This military background allowed the caudillos to leverage their military identity to legitimize their violence-prone methods—effectively ensuring political, cultural, and social respect. During the 19th century, it was customary for men to be armed with muskets and swords, as “the protection of both life and property depended more upon one’s self than upon the law” (Chapman 46). Caudillos derived their authority from this violent association, shaping their masculinity around “building personal ties of loyalty with their following and in leading them in ventures of successful pillage” (49). The characteristics of a caudillo represented a direct connection between their proximity to violence and masculine presentation; the only way to gain respect within the patriarchal system was through the demonstration of violence. Chacho Penaloza, an Argentine caudillo who ruled during the Argentine Civil War, noted that he had political authority over other soldiers because “he fought at their side for forty-three years” (De La Fuente 56). Penaloza noted that his men respected his authority not just because he was their leader, but also because he had demonstrated his capacity to be violent, in the face of violence (56). This behavior further highlighted the connection between masculinity and violence, as caudillos with military backgrounds used violence to prove their authority as a leader.

Although the authority of a caudillo largely hinged on his ability to physically assert his authority over others, his role as community leader also strengthened his authority. Caudillos were not just responsible for the maintaining of civil order but were also responsible for “the reproduction of patriarchy” in a society (57). One example of this social unfolding is through arranged marriages, which attested to patriarchal control wielded by caudillos in Spanish-American culture: “[i]t was the caudillo who castigated those who would subvert the functioning of matrimony and the authority of the father to choose a daughter’s mate”

(De La Fuente 57). Caudillos were perceived as the highest social and moral authority; as society came to idealize the authority of the caudillos, they came to be seen as “moral authorities and role models in the communities they ruled over” (55). Cultural and social respect for the authority of the caudillos further reinforced the authority of caudillos to adjudicate customs of patriarchal domination, linking social and cultural authority to violence and respect. Although the caudillos’ monopoly on violence was wildly effective to legitimize their authority, it eventually was threatened as Spanish and American military leaders continued to bolster their military forces and strengthen their position. With each battle lost, the caudillos’ monopoly on violence continued to slip; without their military success and valiant displays of violence, the caudillos quickly lost their reputation and authority (Beezley 351). As foreign military forces won the upper hand, caudillos could no longer associate their masculine identity with moral superiority; in turn, the constant threat of patriarchal violence was nullified, stripping the caudillos of their perceived authority. The reign of the caudillos demonstrates the inextricable connection between patriarchal violence and masculinity; without both, the caudillos were unable to rule effectively.

Works Cited

Eric R. Wolf and Edward C. Hansen, “Caudillo Politics: A Structural Analysis,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 9 (1967): 168-79.

Wood, James A, and Anna Rose Alexander. Problems in Modern Latin American History : Sources and Interpretations Lanham, Maryland, Rowman & Littlefield, 2019.

Ariel de la Fuente, Children of Facundo: Caudillo and Gaucho Insurgency during the Argentine State-Formation Process (La Rioja, 1853–1870) (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2000), 115–17, 125–28.

Chapman, Charles E. “The Age of Caudillos: A Chapter in Hispanic American History.” Hispanic American Research Review 12, no. 2 (May 1932): 286-92.

Antonio López de Santa Anna, The Eagle: The Autobiography of Santa Anna, ed. and trans. Ann Fears Crawford (Austin, TX: Pemberton, 1967), 65–69.

Beezley, William H. “Caudillismo: An Interpretive Note.” Journal of Inter-American Studies 11, no. 3 (1969): 345–52. https://doi.org/10.2307/165417.

Sam J. is a graduating senior who is interested in science fiction movies, cooking, and backpacking. His favorite subjects include economics, history, computer science, and political science—yet somehow has to pick only one of those subjects to major in. He originally wrote this piece for a history elective: Postcolonial Latin America.

Alice T.