THE HUMANITY OF THE
MESTIZAJE AND THE
SEARCH FOR FREEDOM
Ofelia Schutte
WHAT IS THE COMMON QUESTION?
 Leopoldo Zea, Ar turo Andrés Roig and Francisco Miró Quesada “have in
common the acceptance of the role of reason in histor y as an
integrating and progressive element of regional development and
sociopolitical liberation” (p.109)
 The question, then is about the role Latin American philosophy may
play in moving toward that sociopolitical liberation.
Zea
Roig
Miró Quesada
ZEA: HISTORY, CONSCIOUSNESS &
IDENTIT Y
 “Human reality is both conflictive and historical”
(p.110) => though objectivity is impor tant
philosophers cannot and should not attempt to
divorce themselves entirely from their own historical
condition
 The conflictive par t comes in the struggle to achieve
justice and fairness for oneself while acknowledging
that one is not alone & that justice and fairness for
other s is also sought.
 The historical par t of this equation establishes the
context for one’s memor y, consciousness, values and
actions – it is not merely the duration of “space and
time” 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 ON FREEDOM & PHILOSOPHY
 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 & THE HISTORY OF THE MESTIZAJE
 So…we see how impor tant knowledge and
philosophy becomes in the achievement of
freedom.
 The problem arises in the histor y of Latin
America – the stor y is only told from one
per spective: that of the conqueror – and full
knowledge requires self -knowledge and the
stor y of the conquered in order to achieve
“univer sality” and remedy the marginalizing of
Latin American voices (nice metaphor: to move
the Latin American per spective of histor y from
mere marginalia to an essential par t of the
core text).
 Zea argues that per spectives are relative to
each other – one cannot really under stand the
stor y from just one per spective – it would
become nearly incoherent (like tr ying to
under stand a conver sati on between character s
in a book when all 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.
 “L an din g o f Co l umbus,” Jo h n Van derlyn , 1 8 4 7
“Spaniar d and Indian Pr oduce a
Me stizo ,” attr ibute d to Juan Rodr ígue z
Juár e z , c. 1 7 1 5
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.

Diego Rivera, The great city of
Tenochtitlán. National Palace, Mexico.
1925-35.
FIRST MOVEMENTS TOWARDS
INDEPENDENCE: BOLÍVAR’S DREAM
 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.

“Simón Bolívar,” Ricardo Acevedo
Bernal (1867 - 1930)
SECOND MOVEMENT: MARTÍ & EQUALIT Y
 For Zea, “Mar tí combines Bolívar’s idea
of political independence from Spain
and the suppor t for Hispanic American
unity with a democratic, egalitarian, and
anti-imperialistic per spective.” (p.1 22)
 But rather than positioning Latin
American values as in conflict 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 liber ty and
equality….” (p.131)

Portrait from Universidad José
Martí de Latinoamerica
SCHUTTE: SOME CRITICAL CONCERNS
WITH ZEA
 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
ROIG & NOSOTROS
 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: RESPONDING TO THE LEGACY OF
COLONIZATION - ARIEL OR CALIBAN?
 For Roig, ever yone is born into a reality
that they didn’t create – this is not
unique to the Latin American.
 It follows from this that it is futile to
attempt to dismiss or erase or forget
the legacy of Latin America – the task is
to use this legacy consci ousl y and
critically as an “instrument of our
aspiration for freedom and social
change.” (p.1 29)
 In considering the role that the Latin
American should play, Roig rejects the
idealistic Ariel in Shakespeare’s play
“The Tempest” and instead argues for
the rebelliousness of Caliban, who
claims, “This island is mine….You have
taught me your language, and now I use
it to cur se you.” (Shakespeare’s “The
Tempest”)
R o d d y M c D o w e l l a s A r i e l i n “ S h o o t i n g S h a k e s pe a r e - T h e T e m pe s t , ”
N B C 1 9 6 0 & D j i m o n H o un s o u a s Ca l i ba n i n J ul i e T a y m o r ’ s 2 0 1 1 f i l m
a d a p t a t i o n o f T h e T e m pe s t
SCHUTTE: SOME REFLECTIONS ON ROIG
 Nosotros implies Ustedes – that there is a concept of
Latin America that is our s implies that there has
been a Latin America that is their s – thus
establishing a dialectical relationship between
per spectives.
 For Roig, philosophy is an inward -directed activity, a
self-examination which at least initially requires a
cer tain degree of distance from both one’s own
per spective and from the per spective of the other in
order to even make such a distinction – in order to
recognize alienation and the negation of values, one
must be in a position to negate their values which
negate our values.
 Despite or perhaps because of this inclusive dualism,
ultimately for both Zea and Roig, who side with the
oppressed, their reasons for doing so are non dualistic – that all people should experience
“freedom and self -wor th.” (p.131)
MIRÓ QUESADA: “CULTURE IS NOT AN
ORGANISM”
 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 ON SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY
 Miró Quesada argues that the impor tation of
science and technology, though useful in the
development of the region, never theless plays
an impor tant role in increasing the dependency
on developed nations.
 Fur ther, the impor tation of science and
technology do not necessarily come as value neutral tools – to impor t foreign science and
technology usually comes with the impor ting of
foreign cultural values as well.
 For Miró Quesada, because cultures are not
organic, through the use of reason, it may be
possible to distinguish between what one wants
– the actual scientific and technological
development without having to accept the
wholesale impor tation 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 distinction is to develop a rigorousl y critical
evaluation of the “ mitoide”/mythlike belief in the
univer sal value of technology – that we are failing
to be scientific about technology and just
accepting of it. (p.133)
 This uncritical acceptance of technology then
becomes the ready vehicle of “cultural
penetration” which occur s vir tually without
resistance.
 In order to solve concrete problems of
underdevelopment facing Latin Americans today,
one must be able to position “science and
technology as products of reason” and refusing to
accept them based on authoritarian proclamations
or mythic beliefs (p.134)
 For Miró Quesada then, “The proper use of reason
as a source of combating human ignorance and
error becomes the ultimate avenue of liberation.”
(ibid.)
MIRÓ QUESADA: MAN WITHOUT A
THEORY
 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
theor y” – one who always understands that theories are incomplete
and inflexible.
 This per son understands the benefits of and is adept at theoretical
enquir y: all theories must be open to critique and any theor y must be
able to be improved upon.
 Fur ther, through this process of rational enquir y, one will be able to
distinguish between poor theories and poor applications and
appropriate applications of theories which are in touch with reality and
will ser ve goals of liberation and empowerment.
SCHUTTE: SOME REFLECTIONS ON ZEA,
ROIG AND MIRÓ QUESADA
 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?