Ofelia Schutte

THE HUMANITY OF THE

MESTIZAJE AND THE

SEARCH FOR FREEDOM

Leopoldo Zea, Ar turo Andrés Roig and Francisco Miró Quesada “have in common the acceptance of the role of reason in history as an integrating and progressive element of regional development and sociopolit ical l iberation” (p.109)

The question, then is about the role Latin American philosophy may play in moving toward that sociopolit ical l iberation.

Zea Roig Miró Quesada

WHAT IS THE COMMON QUESTION?

“Human reality is both confl ictive and historical” (p.110) => though objectivity is important phi losophers cannot and should not attempt to divorce themselves entirely from their own historical condition

The confl ictive part comes in the struggle to achieve justice and fairness for oneself while acknowledging that one is not alone & that justice and fairness for others is also sought.

The historical par t of this equation establishes the context for one’s memory, consciousness, values and actions – i t is not merely the duration of “space and t ime” in which one exists.

Identity is then found in the conscious choices actively constructed within a historical context to achieve “reciprocal recognition and freedom” (from Hegel - ibid.)

ZEA: HISTORY, CONSCIOUSNESS &

IDENTITY

Zea borrows from Sartre in describing the role

of philosophy:

We start with our facticity – the historical

context and the facts of our lived experience

resulting from not only our own past choices but

also the past choices of our world.

And then add to that our projection of ourselves

into the future as free beings – this is our

transcendence of those facts – which can arise

only through our “philosophical reflection and

analysis of one’s lived experience” (p.111)

From this we arrive at “human agency or praxis”

which when driven by “knowledge and action”

can be transformative to the current

circumstances of one’s life. (ibid.)

ZEA ON FREEDOM & PHILOSOPHY

So…we see how important knowledge and philosophy becomes in the achievement of freedom.

The problem arises in the history of Latin America – the story is only told from one perspective: that of the conqueror – and ful l knowledge requires self -knowledge and the story of the conquered in order to achieve “universal ity” and remedy the marginaliz ing of Latin American voices (nice metaphor: to move the Latin American perspective of history from mere marginalia to an essential par t of the core text) .

Zea argues that perspectives are relative to each other – one cannot real ly understand the story from just one perspective – i t would become nearly incoherent ( l ike trying to understand a conversation between characters in a book when al l but one voice is excised out) .

ZEA & THE HISTORY OF THE MESTIZAJE

Zea goes on to argue that self -knowledge in Latin America

must include a diversity of stories – Latin Americans in

understanding their identity, must acknowledge the relational

values of the dependency on Europeans and the post -conquest

emergence of the Mestizaje.

“Landing of Columbus,” John Vanderlyn , 1847 “Spaniard and Indian Produce a

Mest izo , ” attr ibuted to Juan Rodríguez

Juárez , c . 1715

ZEA & THE HISTORY OF THE MESTIZAJE

To transcend this history of dependency, Zea positions the essential & universal characteristic of the Mestizaje as rational beings thus capable of self knowledge and holders of the right to self-governance

Zea argues that this transcendence depends on both the conquerors and the conquered recognizing the consequences of colonization.

D i e g o R i v e r a , T h e g r e a t c i t y o f T e n o c h t i t l á n . N a t i o n a l P a l a c e , M e x i c o . 1 9 2 5 - 3 5 .

ZEA & THE HISTORY OF THE MESTIZAJE

Zea examines various historical stages in Latin American’s attempt to achieve this transcendence towards freedom – beginning with Simon Bolívar’s ultimately failed goal of establishing a united Latin America.

Zea argues that the principle reason Bolívar could not realize his dream during his life was that Latin Americans still suffered under an admiration of Europe and the denigration of the mestizaje.

“ S i m ó n B o l í v a r , ” R i c a r d o A c e v e d o B e r n a l ( 1 8 6 7 - 1 9 3 0 )

FIRST MOVEMENTS TOWARDS

INDEPENDENCE: BOLÍVAR’S DREAM

For Zea, “Martí combines Bolívar’s idea of polit ical independence from Spain and the support for Hispanic American unity with a democratic, egalitarian, and anti - imperialistic perspective.” (p.122)

But rather than positioning Latin American values as in confl ict with imperialistic nations, Zea argues for a “type of peaceful, egalitarian relation of co-existence” so long as the imperial nations do not attempt to subordinate or dominate the regional culture. ( ibid.)

Zea’s ultimate goal is “a united attitude on behalf of the defense and development of a Latin American cultural legacy and of the region’s political projects for l iberty and equality….” (p.131)

P o r t r a i t f r o m U n i v e r s i d a d J o s é M a r t í d e L a t i n o a m e r i c a

SECOND MOVEMENT: MARTÍ & EQUALITY

His ideas may be too idealistic and ultimately insufficiently powerful to turn the tide of the modern erosion of Latin American culture

Consciousness of history needs to be joined with more concrete egalitarian economic reform

Zea’s philosophic dialogue may privilege certain groups (e.g. “politicians and intellectuals” and the mestizaje ) and even further marginalize others within Latin America – there are many “for itselfs” in Latin America

Zea’s notion of humanity is essentially a European concept with a Latin American flavor

SCHUTTE: SOME CRITICAL CONCERNS

WITH ZEA

Also agrees with Hegel in that philosophy begins

with the subject seeing oneself as “valuable and

at the same time assumes the cultural legacy of

the society to which he belongs.” (p.128)

Developing Zea’s concept of “for itself,” Roig

argues that instead of seeking an abstract

concept, philosophy must analyze history with

an eye towards finding authenticity in “for

us”/nosotros

Roig argues then that the beginning of Latin

American philosophy occurs when the Latin

American subject turns “away from a

consciousness of ‘for another,’ which represents

the state of servitude or colonization.” (p.129)

ROIG & NOSOTROS

For Roig, everyone is born into a real ity that they didn’t create – this is not unique to the Latin American.

It fol lows from this that i t is futi le to attempt to dismiss or erase or forget the legacy of Latin America – the task is to use this legacy consciously and crit ical ly as an “instrument of our aspiration for freedom and social change.” (p.129)

In considering the role that the Latin American should play, Roig rejects the idealist ic Ariel in Shakespeare’s play “The Tempest” and instead argues for the rebell iousness of Caliban, who claims, “This island is mine….You have taught me your language, and now I use i t to curse you.” (Shakespeare’s “The Tempest”)

Roddy McDowel l as Ar ie l in “Shoot ing Shakespeare -The Tempest , ” NBC 1960 & Dj imon Hounsou as Cal iban in Jul ie Taymor ’s 2011 f i lm adaptat ion of The Tempest

ROIG: RESPONDING TO THE LEGACY OF

COLONIZATION - ARIEL OR CALIBAN?

Nosotros implies Ustedes – that there is a concept of Latin America that is ours implies that there has been a Latin America that is theirs – thus establishing a dialectical relationship between perspectives.

For Roig, phi losophy is an inward -directed activity, a self -examination which at least initially requires a cer tain degree of distance from both one’s own perspective and from the perspective of the other in order to even make such a dist inction – in order to recognize al ienation and the negation of values, one must be in a posit ion to negate their values which negate our values.

Despite or perhaps because of this inclusive dualism, ult imately for both Zea and Roig, who side with the oppressed, their reasons for doing so are non -dualist ic – that all people should experience “freedom and self -worth.” (p.131)

SCHUTTE: SOME REFLECTIONS ON ROIG

Miró Quesada rejects the Hegelian concept of

culture as an organic synthesis of values – the

idea that cultures are organic wholes – with

all the parts inescapably dependent on each

other creating a harmonious whole which is

yet greater than the sum of those parts.

For Miró Quesada, philosophy as a rational

activity allows one to understand that some

aspects of a culture may be harmful to and

disharmonious with the whole.

This presents a more outward looking task for

philosophy than with Zea and Roig.

MIRÓ QUESADA: “CULTURE IS NOT AN

ORGANISM”

Miró Quesada argues that the importation of science and technology, though useful in the development of the region, never theless plays an important role in increasing the dependency on developed nations.

Further, the importation of science and technology do not necessarily come as value -neutral tools – to import foreign science and technology usually comes with the importing of foreign cultural values as well .

For Miró Quesada, because cultures are not organic, through the use of reason, i t may be possible to dist inguish between what one wants – the actual scientific and technological development without having to accept the wholesale importation of a foreign culture or increase in dependency on those developed nations.

MIRÓ QUESADA ON SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY

Miró Quesada argues that the means of making this dist inction is to develop a rigorously crit ical evaluation of the “mitoide”/mythlike bel ief in the universal value of technology – that we are fai l ing to be scientific about technology and just accepting of i t . (p.133)

This uncrit ical acceptance of technology then becomes the ready vehicle of “cultural penetration” which occurs vir tual ly without resistance.

In order to solve concrete problems of underdevelopment facing Latin Americans today, one must be able to posit ion “science and technology as products of reason” and refusing to accept them based on authoritarian proclamations or mythic bel iefs (p.134)

For Miró Quesada then, “The proper use of reason as a source of combating human ignorance and error becomes the ult imate avenue of l iberation.” ( ibid.)

MIRÓ QUESADA ON SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY

For Miró Quesada, the role of reason must not result in a

dogmatic attachment to the product of that reason – a theory.

He wrote , “It is as if man were a spider and the theory were

his web, but a web that continued to expand unceasingly until

it had imprisoned him in its own strands and slowly,

inevitably, asphyxiated him.” (p.136)

MIRÓ QUESADA: MAN WITHOUT A

THEORY

Miró Quesada introduces the ideal of the rational “man without a theory” – one who always understands that theories are incomplete and inflexible.

This person understands the benefits of and is adept at theoretical enquiry: al l theories must be open to crit ique and any theory must be able to be improved upon.

Further, through this process of rational enquiry, one wil l be able to dist inguish between poor theories and poor applications and appropriate applications of theories which are in touch with real ity and wil l serve goals of l iberation and empowerment.

MIRÓ QUESADA: MAN WITHOUT A

THEORY

A few big questions: Is the solution found in self-knowledge – inwardly or in

an understanding of the modern world – outward knowledge?

Is the solution found as a Hegelian dialectical process or through a non-dialectical “universality of reason?”

How can one reconcile the situation in Latin America with many and sometimes conflicting “for itselves” as with the instance of mestizos fighting against other mestizos or the Sandinistas fighting the Contras in Nicaragua in the 1980’s?

Is the concept of critical rational deliberation too general to resolve particular problems facing Latin Americans: If a unity is to be achieved, how can one on a more practical level convince the opposing parties who are interested in their particular aims to adopt a more universal ideal of liberty and autonomy for everyone?

SCHUTTE: SOME REFLECTIONS ON ZEA,

ROIG AND MIRÓ QUESADA