Arielista Elitism and Geopolitical Exigencies
in Post-War
Colombia, 1902-1910
Shawn McDaniel
The Graduate Center and Lehman
College, CUNY
Torres was an active essayist, poet, and
journalist. (1) Even though êdola fori concentrates on political superstitions in Latin
America, TorresÕs affinity for British thought is clear. Torres spent nearly a decade in England,
writing êdola fori while
living in Liverpool as a consul of the Colombian government. He published a well-known book entitled Estudios ingleses
(1906) in which he commented on, among other topics, Shakespeare, Byron, and
Spencer (Salazar C‡ceres 65). Moreover, êdola fori borrows its title from one of the
four idols that English philosopher Francis Bacon criticizes in his Novum Organum
(1620), the idols of the Marketplace. (2)
Although largely dismissed today, êdola fori is one
of the most valuable documents of its time about the history of ideas in Latin
America. Critics have read êdola fori in contradictory ways. Although many critics extend it a brief,
approbatory nod, the shadow of Ariel
has essentially obscured its importance in the contemporary canon. Although we
may think that this omission is due to the non-literary nature of êdola fori, as
TorresÕs essay is expositional, even revered critical opinions of the essay in
Latin America that do take a closer look at it downplay its importance. For instance, Medardo
Vitier, an influential Cuban critic on Latin American
intellectual history, criticizes êdola fori for its excessive references to European ideas
(157). In addition, in a seminal study on the Latin American essay, Historia del ensayo hispanoamericano
(1973), U.S. academics Peter Earle and Robert Mead suggest that Torres is
intolerant. (3) By contrast, a more recent reading by Colombian scholar
RubŽn Sierra Mej’a regards êdola fori a nonpolemical,
serene text that demonstrates a clear concern for bipartisanship and national
reconciliation in the wake of serious challenges to ColombiaÕs sovereignty (ÒEl
intelectualÓ 212). Although critics disagree about
the tone of TorresÕs essay, they generally accept that Torres was one of the
clearest proponents of arielismo
in Latin America (Altamirano 10; DevŽs
ValdŽs 26).
Although they never met in person, Rod— and Torres praised each otherÕs work in personal
correspondence and literary articles. When Torres published êdola fori (4) in 1910, Rod— wrote an enthusiastic article supporting it entitled ÒRumbos nuevos.Ó Although in this
article Rod— celebrates TorresÕs message of
tolerance, as well as other standard arielista facets of the essay, Rod—
affords relatively little space to a direct analysis of êdola fori. Instead, Rod—
uses TorresÕs essay as a pretext to explicate, as he had done in Ariel, the neospiritualist
movement in Latin America that seeks to supersede the confines of positivism.
In ÒRumbos
nuevosÓ Rod— enumerates
various criticisms against positivism. However, Rod—
also underscores positivismÕs favorable contributions to Latin American
thought. For Rod—, a pure European positivism was not
transplanted to Latin America; rather, a corrupted form concerned solely with
utilitarian empiricism and material wealth surfaced. Rod— claims that by omitting
higher ideals, positivism codified a contradictory emulation in the masses: Òcreyendo predicar la
filosof’a que hab’an aprendido, predicaban la imitaci—n de su propia
naturalezaÓ (43). To put it
another way, positivism insisted that only science can reveal the real
world. Those who accept the
validity of this doctrine believe they are discovering the world the way it
really is, which subsequently devalues any components outside the scientific
realm.
While Rod—Õs
criticisms of positivism mirror those he offers in Ariel, he specifies its invaluable contributions to intellectual
life in the twentieth century:
La iniciaci—n positivista dej— en nosotros, para lo especulativo como para lo de la pr‡ctica y la acci—n, su potente sentido de relatividad; la justa consideraci—n de las realidades terrenas; la vigilancia e insistencia del esp’ritu cr’tico; la desconfianza para las afirmaciones absolutas; el respeto de las condiciones de tiempo y de lugar; la cuidadosa adaptaci—n de los medios a los fines; el reconocimiento del valor y del hecho m’nimo y del esfuerzo lento y paciente en cualquier gŽnero de obra; el desdŽn de la intenci—n ilusa, del arrebato estŽril, de la vana anticipaci—n. (ÒRumbosÓ 46)
On the opening page of êdola fori, Torres identifies the prevalence of uncritical ideas as
a threat to Latin American societies: ÒBien es sabido que Bacon llama Òêdolos del
ForoÓ (Idola Fori)
aquellas f—rmulas o ideas "verdaderas supersticiones pol’ticas" que continœan imperando en el esp’ritu despuŽs de que una cr’tica
racional ha demostrado su falsedadÓ (17). êdola fori applies BaconÕs critical lense to Latin American democracies in order to denounce traps
in thinking and understanding
due to Òcriterios falsos
producidos por el empleo inconsciente de tŽrminos que se imponen, cargados de
un sentido ilusorioÓ (Vitier 162-163). (5) This disconnect between the words used to indicate ideas and
the actual relationship between these two elements is responsible for the
persistence of political idols in Latin America because people all too readily
lend their support to a leader or party without fully understanding the
specifics of their political platforms. Far from ArielÕs highly literary construction of an idealized classroom, êdola fori is a
sociopolitical treatise written during an era of hyper-partisanship, violence,
and economic decline, which is a state of crisis that has defined Colombian
politics to this day.
In the second half of the
nineteenth century, in addition to fifty nine local revolts, there were six
civil wars in Colombia: 1860, 1875, 1876, 1885, 1895, and the guerra de los Mil D’as
(1899-1902) (Posada Carb— 62). The twentieth century
dawned in the midst of an endless stream of national conflicts. The civil war
commonly known as los Mil D’as erupted in large part because of political and
economic disparities between Conservatives, who favored a centralized,
religious state, and Liberals, who preferred stronger regional governments and
a separation of church and state. Between 1878 and 1898, the Conservative
PartyÕs regeneracionista
program instituted an extreme centralism that gave the conservative head of
state virtually unchallenged authority to appoint local and national officials,
with Liberals largely excluded from government. For example, between 1888 and
1904 no liberals were appointed to the Senate (Fischer 77). President Rafael Nœ–ez
codified the regenerationist vision in a new
Constitution in 1886, a document drafted by his predecessor, Miguel Antonio
Caro, who in turn continued this policy until los Mil D’as. The Constitution of 1886
was at odds with liberalism in that it sanctioned and institutionalized the
power of the Catholic Church in national matters such as education and censure
of dissidence, which is to say anyone who expressed anti-governmental,
anti-religious, and ÒimmoralÓ sentiments in newspapers. However, the
exclusivity of conservative political appointments relegated many liberal elite
to industry and trade, and some got very rich in the international coffee
market. By the mid-1890s, however, participating in the
international market required monetary modernization, including adopting the
gold standard. The conservative government, however, resisted and
defended traditional agriculture and monetary policy, which stifled imports and
exports (Fischer 77). Frustrated, many liberals took up arms to overthrow the
government.
It goes without saying that Los Mil D’as
was devastating for Colombia. Approximately 100,000 people died in the
guerrilla warfare that spanned much of the Colombian geography (Fischer 81). (6)
The war ravaged ColombiaÕs economy and plunged the country into a recession
that lasted until 1910 (Fischer 40). In addition to the devaluation of the
national currency on international markets, there was widespread robbery and
corruption (Fischer 80). By 1902, the year in which a peace treaty was signed
by conservative and liberal leaders on board the U.S. battleship Wisconsin, it
was generally acknowledged that the costs of the conflict outweighed its
possible benefits. In addition to the discernible political, economic, and
civil catastrophes, many were concerned that the war had jeopardized the very
national sovereignty the Regeneraci—n
had endeavored so diligently to construct (S‡nchez
and Aguilera 24).
As the latter stages of the
conflict became concentrated in the Colombian isthmus
of Panama, a liberal stronghold, the United States intervened citing article 35
of the Mallarino-Bidlack Treaty of 1846, which
permitted the United States to ensure free transit (Fischer 92). Of course,
President Theodore Roosevelt realized the strategic importance for the United
States in the Panama Canal, which by that point was well under construction by
a French company. In fact, ownership of the Canal was one of the most important
facets of the peace accord (Fischer 94).
With the support of the United States, Panama seceded from Colombia one
year later. Soon after in 1904, the United States purchased the Canal and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers oversaw its construction until its completion in
1914.
Recognition by the United States of
the internal ideological and political divide in Colombia, not to mention the
CanalÕs strategic importance, no doubt led to U.S. intervention into sovereign
Colombian territory. While this was widely recognized, many Colombians
understandably viewed the geo-psychological severing of their nation by the
United States as a calculated, imperialist maneuver. It is little wonder that
many Colombians subsequently embraced the North/South paradigm of arielismo, which
posed Latin American nations as culturally distinct from the United States and
its materialist drives, as a national narrative (Fischer 96).
This historical context is
essential when reading êdola fori because
in it Torres criticizes the political extremisms responsible for this national
decline. In addition, TorresÕs
essay is emblematic of a conscious post-war political and civil reconciliation.
This was a platform forwarded by conservative President Rafael Reyes
(1904-1909) that resulted in constitutional reforms in 1904 and 1905 that
curbed the extreme centralism implemented by the Regeneration (S‡nchez and Aguilera 23). Torres, as he had previously done
at the height of political fanaticism at the outset of los Mil D’as, participated once again in
a conservative government as a Colombian consul in Liverpool.
In the wake of this geopolitical catastrophe,
Torres seeks to correct the Òherd instinctÓ that he insists precludes many Latin
Americans from discerning the flaws in the political dogmas they so ardently
defend. Torres challenges
this cognitive dissonance by proposing
a serene, critical independence
based on the Spencerian notions of relativity and evolution, which he examines from a historicist perspective: ÒLa marcha del pensamiento humano en veinte
a–os ha demostrado hasta donde pueden complementarse, ampliarse y rectificarse
conclusiones que parec’an definitivas y hasta d—nde alcanza, segœn la gr‡fica
expresi—n del mismo Spencer, a evolucionar el sistema de evoluci—nÓ (22). Certainty and fixed criteria, then, are illusory and Torres underscores this idea by highlighting
the discrepant interpretations that the same event
or historical figure receive in different time periods: Òquien pretenda descubrir al travŽs de los anales
humanos y a la luz de un juicio predeterminado el hilo continuo de un principio
dado en sus desarrollos hist—ricos,Ése ver’a extraviado en un dŽdalo de
imposible orientaci—nÓ (91-92). A principal objective in êdola fori centers on
subverting the idea of dogmatic certainty that incites violence and tyranny: Òhay el fanatismo de la religi—n y el fanatismo de
la irreligi—n; la superstici—n de la fe y la superstici—n de la raz—n; la
idolatr’a de la tradici—n y la idolatr’a de la ciencia; la intransigencia de lo
antiguo y la intransigencia de lo nuevo; el despotismo teol—gico y el despotismo
nacionalista; la incomprensi—n conservadora y la incomprensi—n liberalÓ
(26). Torres argues that
fanaticisms are illogical and detrimental because every facet of existence is
subject to change. Although he admired Spencer, Torres laments that the predominant
Òthought shapersÓ of the modern epoch,
which is to say the
evolutionary theories of
Darwin and Spencer, have become
strict dogmas in virtually all areas of existence
and knowledge: ÒLa moral, la pol’tica y la sociolog’a
buscaban all’ sus orientaciones definitivas; la historia, la literatura y la
estŽtica se modelaban sobre aquellas nociones que, verificadas en un orden,
exclusivo de hechos cient’ficos, el de la anatom’a, aparec’an como el fin de
todos los fen—menos vitales en todos los dominios del conocimientoÓ (67). Torres
challenges these scientific dogmatisms by arguing that scientific truths, far
from being static, incessantly fluctuate.
He cites two contemporary thinkers whose ideas have modified or expanded
evolutionary theories: French biologist and naturalist RenŽ Quinton (1866-1925)
and French philosopher Henri Bergson (1859-1941).
In 1896, Quinton, commonly referred
to as Òthe French Darwin,Ó proposes a theory of constance that holds that life is not, as Darwin
contends, uncontrolled and unlimited transformation. Rather, Quinton asserts that an
Òoriginal conditionÓ is maintained in each organism throughout time (Torres
69). The importance of QuintonÕs theory of constance, as well as his subsequent arguments
outlined in LÕEau de mer, milieu organique (1904), resides in his view that life
determines nature, which challenges the deterministic underpinnings of DarwinÕs
theory of evolution. In a similar
transformative effort, Bergson tried to re-establish the link between the
physical and the metaphysical that positivism negated by proposing a new type
of evolution in his L'Evolution crŽatrice (1907).
BergsonÕs creative evolution denies
all determinisms by reclaiming intuition, spontaneity, and idealism. BergsonÕs ideas quickly became prevalent
in Latin America and were particularly influential during the neospiritual wave that swept Latin America in the first two
decades of the twentieth century (Guy 121).
Torres highlights the ways in which
Quinton and Bergson rework the theory of evolution in order to signal the
alterability of science as well as relativize the
idea of certainty. For Torres, modernity necessitates dynamic rather than
static ways of thinking, and he maintains that progress should be measured not by
the quantity of certainties but by the number of conceptions that are open to
or have experienced modification (Torres 27). The danger of convictions, Torres
claims, is that they halt action and devalue accuracy. This is why
Torres proposes a critical independence unrestrained by science and mysticism as a viable method for harmony and progress: ÒEl mostrar lo caduco de lo que se tiene
generalmente por definitivo y la falibilidad de lo que se tiene generalmente
por dogm‡tico, es llegar, no a la liberaci—n del pensamiento y a la plenitud de
la vida, porque Žsta es una meta inaccesible, pero a lo menos a las sendas de
ascensi—n que a ella conducenÓ (74). This critical independence should
not, however, translate into conviction; rather, it should accept the
inexistence of coherent narratives and embrace constant modification. Torres
calls the freedom to think critically and independently Òthe rotation of
ideas,Ó which oscillates in the form of Òdemoliciones
y restauraciones sucesivas
e incesantesÉÓ (103).
It is important to note that
TorresÕs methodology of interrogating idols coincides with NietzscheÕs
Òphilosophizing with a hammer,Ó which in The
Twilight of the Idols (1888) means tapping idols to ascertain if they are
empty or substantive. The symbolism of their respective tools utilized for this
inquiry is likewise indicative of their respective attitudes. For example, NietzscheÕs hammer represents a demolishing, destructive tool, yet Torres insists that Òel emblema del esp’ritu de rectificacion
es un cincel, no una piqueta; su mensaje es de perfeccionamiento, no de
aniquilaci—nÓ (275). In this way, Torres situates his program between
two philosophical extremes, between, on the one hand, the destructive nihilists
whose deterministic views surrounding, for example, the superiority of certain
races and, on the other, those who cling to inflexible dogmas because they are
unwilling to accept the inevitable modifications of existence. This middle
ground rejects the radicalism of the former and seeks to reform the Òmental
stagnationÓ of the latter by emphasizing evolution and independence. Above all, TorresÕs program seeks to
replace the preconceived and predetermined nature of Òlas
convicciones tradicionales
e inquebrantablesÓ with Òlas
convicciones racionales y perfectiblesÓ (278).
TorresÕs advocacy for an
intellectual freedom free from certainty does not coincide with a Nietzschean-like individualism. In contrast, Torres sees
individual development only within the larger social framework. Following English sociologist Benjamin Kidd,
Torres asserts that Òde la
integraci—n de las conciencias individuales surge una conciencia colectiva,
diferente de cada una de las que la forman y superior a la suma de todas
ellasÉÓ (115). In the same way, Torres denies
the mutual exclusivity of individual freedom and national solidarity, an idea
that was outlined by French politician Henri BŽrenger
in La conscience nationale
(1898). (7) National cohesion, much like the modern rhetoric surrounding
bipartisanship, implies transcending party loyalties for the greater good. According to Torres, the prevalence of a
herd mentality accounts for the diminished propensity of the freedom to
interrogate and criticize political parties (127). Torres blames the uncritical
acceptance of and devotion to a political party for the facility with which
violence erupts in and frustrates Latin American democracies.
The ideas of inherent change lead
Torres to engage in a suggestive negotiation when he deconstructs the
respective roles of an intellectual aristocracy and the masses in the post-war
Colombian national project. A central component of Ariel and arielismo,
informed by BŽrenger and Gustave
Le Bon, portrays the masses as unable to transcend their instinctive impulses. (8) Torres echoes this notion by dehumanizing
the masses: Òel impulso de
las multitudes representa cuanto hay de m‡s
inconsciente e irrazonado en las acciones humanas;Équerer allegar un ‡tomo de raz—n a esas impulsiones
instintivas ser’a tanto como pretender discutir con el terremoto o convencer al
cicl—nÉÓ (Torres 132). Such a correlation reveals an elitist attitude
that, in addition to denying legitimate agency to the masses, fears their
unbridled impulses.
Like Rod—,
Torres attributes to the masses a primitive instinct that precludes them from
defining a moral compass as well as from generating ÔreasonableÕ courses of
action within a national framework. The crowdÕs inconsciencia accounts for its
pliability with respect to base emotions such as violence (132). Although
ÒspiritÓ became a key word after Ariel,
its definition was flexible. Torres cites Gustave Le
BonÕs widely influential Psychologie des Foules
(1895) to call into question the very existence of the crowdÕs spirit and
conscience. If these do exist, Torres maintains, Òson un
esp’ritu informe y una conciencia obscura y primitiva de donde la verdad y la
justicia no emanan sino raza vez, en r‡fagas moment‡neas, en inspiraciones
tornadizas y ef’merasÉÓ (133). Torres proposes a thinking elite to fill
the critical void left by what he considers the massÕs innate tendency to
follow the herd, which has been responsible for the widespread violence and
dictatorships that have occurred throughout Latin American republics. Throughout history, Torres argues,
steering civilization toward higher ideals has been the obligation of Òlas mentes superiores
que se han
atrevido a tener raz—n contra los dem‡sÉÓ (135). (9)
Such outstanding individuals are capable of
envisioning the future and therefore their primary task is, and always has
been, to pass Òla antorcha de la verdad
sobre el espeso manto de tinieblas en que las multitudes se envuelven obstinadamente para negar la luzÓ
(134). (10)
For Torres, a successful democracy
means having a directive intelligentsia that can divulge validated ideas and
actions via a Òcultivated criterion.Ó Although Torres recognizes the divisive
implications of his ideas surrounding equality and legitimate hierarchies, he
states that they are less extreme because they do not coincide with the scientific aristocratism of the nineteenth century that gave way to racialized diagnostics. Significantly, although Torres
insists on the validity of intellectual hierarchies, he also disdains what he
calls herolatr’a
(hero worship), a concept borrowed from Scottish writer Thomas Carlyle. In On Heroes and Hero Worship (1840),
Carlyle examines six varieties (11) of Ògreat menÓ throughout history,
such as Mohammed, Dante, Shakespeare, Luther, Rousseau, Cromwell, and Napoleon,
and, as the following passage illustrates, casts them as almost supernatural
beings:
[The hero] is the living
light-fountain, which it is good and pleasant to be near. The light which enlightens, which has
enlightened the darkness of the world; and this is not as a kindled lamp only,
but rather as a natural luminary shining by the gift of Heaven; a flowing
light-fountain, as I say, of native original insight, of manhood and heroic
nobleness;¾in
whose radiance all souls feel that it is well with them. (Carlyle 4)
Although his endorsement of the
directive roles of a sanctioned intelligentsia seemingly participates in
CarlyleÕs hyperbolic hero fascination, Torres attempts to stabilize this by
validating the progressive roles that anonymous individuals and groups have
played throughout history. (12)
Imagining a nation frequently involves mythologizing one figure (for
example, Bol’var, Napoleon) and projects onto this person all the
accomplishments of a collective effort.
According to Torres, this mythologizing tendency is a selective history
that privileges hero worship without acknowledging the participation of those
people and groups whom national histories and popular narratives overlook.
Torres, then, inverts his earlier assertions regarding the incapacity of the
masses to participate in national pursuits and insists that Òson las masas el granito
esencial de la grandeza de las nacionesÓ (188).
According to Czech political
theorist Miroslav Hroch,
collective memory and equality are two key features of nation-building processes
(79). While for Hroch these two facets are not
mutually exclusive, Torres interrogates popular myths that inform cultural
memory in order to grant agency to and incorporate a larger percentage of the
population in the reconstruction of Colombia. Of course, the incongruity between
TorresÕs initial denigration of the masses and his subsequent calls to reject Òtoda especie de directores de conciencia o de directores de pensamientoÓ (188),
manifests the oscillative and paradoxical nature of
assessing and assigning roles in a post-war national reconstruction. (13)
Although in ÒRumbos
nuevosÓ Rod— applauds
TorresÕs emphasis on equilibrium, Rod— criticizes the
Colombian for his insufficient recognition of the importance of legitimate
hierarchies. Rod—
observes a discrepancy between, on the one hand, TorresÕs advocacy for a
directive class and, on the other, his protestations against hero worship. According to Rod—, Òal
impugnar la superstici—n aristocr‡tica, [Torres] no reconoce todo su valor de
oportunidad a la obra de instituir, en el alma de estos pueblos, el sentimiento
de la autoridad vinculada a las leg’timas aristocracias del esp’ritu, para la
orientaci—n y el gobierno de la conciencia colectivaÓ (ÒRumbosÓ 48). For
Rod—, Torres went too far in attempting to encourage
collective participation in imagining the Colombian nation. Despite TorresÕs clear repudiation of
the masses in certain moments of the essay, Rod— felt
it necessary to insist once more, as he had done consistently since Ariel, on the absolute legitimacy of a
directive intellectual class.
In other words, Rod—
recognizes the importance of equilibrium with respect to positivism and
spiritualism, but he is firm in his dichotomous, elitist division between a
privileged minority who charts the course for society and the crowd, who should
follow their lead because it is unable to generate any substantive sociopolitical
progress on its own. While Rod— commends TorresÕs
balanced approach in êdola fori, the
Uruguayan feels that the Colombian takes his emphasis on balance too far. Specifically,
Rod— criticizes Torres for calling what the Uruguayan
considers to be legitimate intellectual authorities an Òaristocratic
superstitionÓ (Torres 165). However, it is important to remember that unlike Rod—, Torres writes his essay in the midst of a national
crisis and therefore does not have the luxury of speaking metaphorically or
restricting who can and cannot participate in the reconstruction of post-war
Colombia. In other words, in the years following the divisive military and
political struggles, in the years following los
Mil D’as Torres sought to avoid the exclusionary
policies that spawned the divisive military and political struggles that
ravaged Colombia.
Although êdola fori is one of the most widely-read
mediums for sharing universal intellectual currents in Latin America in the
decade of 1910, literary histories rarely offer more than a quick aside about
it. Moreover, critics who have commented TorresÕs essay view it in an
ambivalent manner. For example, as already mentioned above, while Medardo Vitier praises TorresÕs
ability to incorporate a wide variety of scientific, philosophical, and
political ideas into êdola fori, he
laments that these derive from predominantly European sources (165). Due to TorresÕs ÒapplicationÓ of
European ideas to Latin American realities, Vitier
classifies the ColombianÕs Americanism as ÒindirectÓ (157). (14) In
addition, from the perspective of two important U.S. commentators of the Latin
American essay, Earle and Mead, Torres is anything but moderate and calm like êdola fori. Despite
these critical assertions that date from the 1940s and 1970s, more recent
critics such as Sierra Mej’a tend to read êdola fori as a
very balanced and serene essay written to quell an era dominated by violence
and division. TorresÕs emphasis on peace and cooperation will undoubtedly be
attractive to readers who live in bitterly hyper-partisan political
environments, or near rapidly-shifting borders, today. Moreover, Torres
stipulates that a successful democracy depends on reason, tolerance, and
inclusion. In his estimation the revolts and civil wars in Colombia were fueled
by the divisive political ideas and ideologies of a few politicians. The
problem was not primarily a power-hungry caudillo,
although Torres was critical of this strong man too, but rather uncritical ideas
used by interested parties. Although Torres underscored the importance of
rational ideas, he did so by focusing on serenity, relativity, and sociability
(Jaramillo Uribe 443).
For over a century, Torres has been
essentially dismissed by critics of Latin American literature. When scholars do mention him, they
generally label him an ÔarielistaÕ.
His connection with arielismo
is evident from Rod—Õs prologue, which suggests that
both essayists shared a similar pedagogical mission. However, each essayist
wrote from very different places and in vastly distinct circumstances: Rod— writes from a small, wealthy country on the verge of
an expansive social democracy, while Torres finds himself in the economic and
cultural aftermaths of a civil war. In other words, Rod—Õs
spiritualism was too vague and simplistic for the post-war necessities of
Colombia, which required utilitarian and practical pursuits (Sierra Mej’a Carlos Arturo
Torres 23-25). Rod— overlooks the plethora of
geopolitical realities that inform cultural production in Colombia in the
post-war period. Civil wars, a contentious political system, and the succession
of Panama with the intervention of the United States, necessitate a different
reading of TorresÕs essay outside a strictly arielista paradigm.
As I have pointed out, TorresÕs
principle disjunction with Rod—Õs arielismo lies in the notion of
legitimate hierarchies. Initially, Torres validates Rod—Õs
elitist vision in no uncertain terms.
Subsequently, however, he argues against the exclusivity of Ariel by insisting that all members of a
nation, not just the select intellectual minority, deserve to participate in
determining the direction of their countries. Rod—Õs
restrictive view of democracy is incongruous with the geopolitical realities in
post-war Colombia that necessitated a more inclusive vision for democratic
participation. In other words, Torres realized from first
hand experience that exclusivity and hyper-partisanship are synonymous
and counterproductive for democratic projects. Therefore, Rod—Õs
continentalist discourse that advocates an elitist,
spiritualist transcendence of material realities and utilitarian endeavors
contrasts sharply with TorresÕs role as a man of state trying to navigate and reconcile
the complexities of a highly polarized political situation in Colombia.
Notes
(1). His works
include Poemas
simb—licos (1897), La abad’a de
Westminster otros poemas (1902), Estudios
ingleses and Estudios varios
(1906).
(2). Bacon identifies four kinds of idols: idols of the
Tribe, idols of the Cave, idols of the Marketplace and idols of the Theater
(Bacon 20).
(3). ÒTorres no posee ni la tolerancia ni la elasticidad espiritual necesarias
para comprender a los que defienden opiniones opuestas a las suyas. Est‡ seguro de la verdad de sus
aseveraciones y suele recibir la contradicci—n con el porte de ap—stol mal
comprendidoÓ (Earle and Mead 57).
(4). The second edition
of the essay (1916) is entitled Los ’dolos del foro.
(5). Vitier maintains that
Torres offers an insufficient explanation of the theory of idols, which he
believes accounts for the essayÕs inaccessibility for most Latin American
readers (158).
(6). Colombian writer Gabriel Garc’a
M‡rquez fictionalizes how these catastrophic events
affected a small, isolated village called Macondo in
his bestseller novel, Cien a–os de soledad (1967).
(7). BŽrengerÕs ideas also
influenced Rod—, who mentions BŽrengerÕs
L'aristocratie intellectuelle
(1895) in Ariel (Cf. Rod— Ariel 191).
(8). For Rod—, there are two
types of instinct; a dangerous instinct that manifests itself in the imitative
tendencies of the masses and an ideal instinct that permits a select minority
of the Òlegitimate human superioritiesÓ (Ariel
26) to transcend mediocre influences.
(9). For example, Carlyle, Nietzsche, Emerson, and
William James all claimed that only exceptional men create history (Torres 165).
(10). Note how this description mirrors CarlyleÕs hero
worship.
(11). The six kinds of
heroes are: divine, prophet, poet, priest, man of letters, and king.
(12). British writer Carne Ross analyzes a recent
resurgence of this idea in the Occupy Wall Street movement in the United States
in his The Leaderless Revolution: How
Ordinary People Will Take Charge and Change Politics in the 21st
Century.
(13). Vitier opines that
this negotiation is unsatisfactory because he believes that the references
Torres provides in hopes of subverting CarlyleÕs hero worship actually
reinforce it (168).
(14). It is curious, however, that Vitier
does not apply the same standard to Rod—Õs Ariel, an essay that engages with an
enormous quantity of European ideas, but cites very few Latin American sources.
Works Cited
Altamirano, Carlos. Historia de los intelectuales en AmŽrica Latina: Los avatares de la Òciudad letradaÓ en el siglo XX. Buenos Aires: Katz Editores, 2008.
Bacon, Francis. Novum Organum. New York: American Home Library Company, 1902.
Carlyle, Thomas. Heroes and Hero Worship. London: Chapman and Hall, 1869.
DevŽs ValdŽs,
Eduardo. ÒEl pensamiento latinoamericano a comienzos del
siglo XX: La reivindicaci—n de la identidad.Ó CUYO:
Anuario de Filosof’a Argentina y Americana 14 (1997): 11-75.
Earle,
Peter and Robert Mead. Historia
del ensayo hispanoamericano. MŽxico: Ediciones de Andrea,
1973.
Fischer,
Thomas. ÒDesarrollo hacia afuera y
ÒrevolucionesÓ en Colombia, 1850-1910.Ó In Memoria de un pa’s en guerra:
los Mil D’as: 1899-1902. Eds.
Gonzalo S‡nchez and Mario Aguilera.
Bogot‡: Editorial Planeta Colombiana, S.A., 2001: 33-58.
Guy, Alain. ÒLe bergsonisme en AmŽrique latine.Ó Caravelle 1 (1963): 121-139.
Hroch, Miroslav. ÒFrom National Movement to the Fully-Formed Nation: The Nation-Building Process in Europe.Ó In Mapping the Nation. Ed. Gopal Balakrishnan. New York: Verso, 1999: 78-97.
Jaramillo Uribe, Jaime. El pensamiento colombiano en el siglo XIX. Bogot‡: Editorial Temis, 1964.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Anti-Christ, Ecce Homo, Twilight of the Idols, and Other Writings. Eds. Aaron Ridley and Judith Norman. Tran. Judith Norman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Oviedo,
JosŽ Miguel. Breve historia del ensayo hispanoamericano. Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 1990.
Posada Carb—, Eduardo.
ÒLas guerras civiles del siglo XIX en la AmŽrica Hisp‡nica.Ó In Memoria
de un pa’s en guerra: los Mil D’as: 1899-1902. Eds. Gonzalo S‡nchez and Mario
Aguilera. Bogot‡: Editorial Planeta
Colombiana, S.A., 2001: 59-73.
Rod—, JosŽ Enrique. Ariel.
Madrid: Ediciones C‡tedra, 2000.
-----. ÒRumbos nuevos.Ó El
mirador de Pr—spero. Valencia:
Editorial Cervantes, 1919: 31-61.
Salazar C‡ceres,
Carlos Gabriel. Carlos Arturo Torres Pe–a: Vida, Žpoca,
pensamiento. Boyac‡, Colombia:
Editorial Talleres Gr‡ficos Ltda., 1997.
S‡nchez, Gonzalo
and Mario Aguilera. ÒIntroducci—n.Ó In Memoria de un pa’s en guerra: los Mil D’as:
1899-1902. Eds. Gonzalo S‡nchez
and Mario Aguilera. Bogot‡:
Editorial Planeta Colombiana, S.A., 2001: 19-30.
Sierra Mej’a,
RubŽn. Carlos Arturo Torres.
Bogot‡: Editorial Nomos, 1989.
-----. ÒEl intelectual contra la guerra.Ó In Memoria
de un pa’s en guerra: los Mil D’as: 1899-1902. Eds. Gonzalo S‡nchez and Mario
Aguilera. Bogot‡: Editorial Planeta
Colombiana, S.A., 2001: 211-224.
Torres, Carlos
Arturo. Los ’dolos del foro: ensayo sobre las supersticiones pol’ticas. Madrid: Editorial AmŽrica, 1916.
Vitier,
Medardo. Del ensayo americano.
MŽxico: Fondo de Cultura Econ—mica, 1945.