Social historiography in Latin America has been increasingly suspicious of the power wielded by men of science and the efficacy of their projects, especially at the turn of the twentieth century. After a number of works that acknowledged the effectiveness of projects of social control, the research published recently emphasises the distance between the discourses of men of science and the conflictive aspects of social reality. Hygienists, criminologists, and other urban experts could very well view themselves as the privileged owners of an allegedly technical and neutral knowledge, and as such, as privileged subjects of their own national histories. However, their interventions were essentially political, in as much as they were confronted by other social groups, and also by other subjects that challenged the alleged monopoly of their knowledge. Based on these insights, historians have changed social control narratives in different Latin American contexts. For example, many studies have shed light on border histories, where programmes of social control travelled different paths from those applied in urban environments. The latest research has also analysed the impact of urban reform programmes on workers' lives, as well as their conflicts with the authorities: one example is Teresa Meade′s ‘Civilizing’ Rio: Reform and Resistance in a Brazilian City 1889–1930 (Penn State University Press, 1997) which, in spite of the similar title, presents a very different perspective from the one reviewed here.

But this is not the path chosen by Julia Rodriguez. Rather, she focusses mainly on the ideas and projects of a group of professional experts who took it upon themselves to ‘civilise’ Argentina at the turn of the twentieth century. Just as in other regions of Latin America, Argentine men of science expressed power relations through race and gender categories. Rodriguez shows how these men were committed to specific notions of civilisation, which included a radical depoliticisation of politics through science. This meant that science began to have an increasingly important bearing on matters of politics and ethics, such as civil and political rights. Fortified with the authority of their science and backed by the structure and resources of the national state, the men under study identified symptoms, suggested diagnoses, and prescribed solutions to free Argentina from its ‘barbaric’ legacy, seeking to guarantee its entry in the world of modern European nations.

Inspired in the rationale of what she calls ‘Argentine social pathologists’ (p. 84), the book is divided in four parts: symptoms, diagnosis, prescriptions, and hygiene. In ten chapters, Rodriguez presents several aspects of the ideas informing their projects and prejudices, especially their notions of race and gender, as well as their impact on public policy and legislation. Rodriguez bases her analysis mainly on the published works of the most renowned representatives of a generation of experts in turn-of-the-century Buenos Aires, such as José Ingenieros, Francisco de Veyga, Emilio and Gabriela Coni, Miguel Cané, and José María Ramos Mejía, among others. The author combines the analysis of books and specialised journals which published their findings, with newspapers, literary works, law projects and legal debates throughout the period.

Rodriguez challenges the notion that Argentine historiography should explain the alleged enigma of the decadence that followed a ‘golden era’ of prosperity and affluence. Her book replaces the picture of a prosperous Argentina with a sombre and negative vision that featured social pathologists devoted to medicalising the entire social environment and influencing public policy which targeted different segments of the population. In this way, her portrait of ‘social pathologists’ and their alliance with the Argentine state emphasises the ‘oligarchic, intrusive, controlling, and punitive’ (p. 6) features of their interventions in the rapidly changing society of Buenos Aires.

The most compelling feature of Civilizing Argentina: Science, Medicine, and Modern State is Rodriguez's multifaceted portrait of the ideas and practices of the group of men who believed in the power of science and their self-appointed mission to guide the nation in its path towards civilisation. The author's emphasis on gender and on the racist component of social pathologists’ thought is a necessary and welcome approach. Moreover, her decision to introduce personal and professional histories in her narrative, as is the case with José Ingenieros and particularly with Juan Vucetich, the inventor of fingerprinting, proves an interesting strategy.

However, the text has an important drawback that stems from the author's choice to focus on the mind frame and discourses of Argentine doctors, hygienists and criminologists. Even if her intention is to emphasise the limits and contradictions of ‘social pathologists’, Rodriguez runs the risk of repeating the rationale of the subjects under study. Her statements about the opposition between the power of the church and the progress of scientific thought are a point in case. Rodriguez states that in Argentina, the turn of the century meant ‘an opportunity to turn away from traditional practices and church control’ (p. 97) as regards gender roles. Nevertheless, when she finds that both doctors and ‘religious institutions’ shared very similar ideas on vices and virtues, Rodriguez relativises the reach and transformations in Argentine scientific thought at the time, concluding that ‘science had not changed fundamental assumptions about gender or roles for women’ (p. 99). The fixed opposition between scientific thought, on the one hand, and a traditional and religious environment, on the other, does not explain the complex turn-of-the-century Argentine reality, and ultimately that opposition stands unchallenged in her interpretation. Moreover, Rodriguez's statements on the alleged ‘church control’ over Argentine women at the time and on the absence of gender change are not corroborated by other evidence.

Readers should be cautious about some statements that are not sufficiently backed by the evidence presented in the book. There are also some mistaken facts, such as the statement that Eduardo Wilde was president of Argentina. However, by systematising multiple aspects of the ideas of Argentine men of science and compounding these with partial biographical studies, Rodriguez's book may be useful as a first glimpse into the ideas and practices of Argentine scientists at the turn of the twentieth century.