Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México University of California Institute For Mexico and The United States

Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico University of California Institute for Mexico and the United States
An Image of Mexican Intellectuals, Some Preliminary Observations Author(s): Roderic Ai Camp Reviewed work(s): Source: Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Winter, 1985), pp. 61-82 Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the University of California Institute for Mexico and the United States and the Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1051980 . Accessed: 16/11/2012 23:45
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
University of California Press, Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, University of California Institute for Mexico and the United States are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.205 on Fri, 16 Nov 2012 23:45:43 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
An Image of Mexican Intellectuals, Some Preliminary Observations*

Roderic Ai Camp
Central College, Pella, Iowa
Empleando el metodo reputacional, el autor acude a las opiniones de los intelectuales mexicanos, los politicos, y los expertos norteamericanos para formar una lista de los intelectuales sobresalientes en Mexico desde 1920 hasta 1980. Se analizan los antecedentes de estos intelectuales por lo que nos dicen de los intelectuales mexicanos colectivamente, y de la estructura de la vida intelectual generalmente. Lo mas revelador son las diferencias en la lista de los intelectuales sobresalientes proporcionados por los intelectuales y los politicos, diferencias que explican cambios importantes ocurriendo en la relaci6n entre el estado y la comunidad intelectual.
Intellectual life in Mexico and in Latin America has received considerable attention from scholars, but their efforts have focused almost exclusively on intellectual thought. Little is known about intellectuals themselves: who they are, how they see themselves in their society, the role they play, their relationship to the state, their cultural leadership, their recruitment, and their interrelationships with each other.' To examine these facets of intellectual life would require a book-length study. The purpose of this essay is to explore the first of these little-studied questions-who are Mexican intellectuals-by defining what a Mexican intellectual
*The author would like to acknowledge the helpful comments of Stanley R. Ross, Edward J. Williams, and John Skirius on an earlier version of this manuscript. 1. To my knowledge, in all of the literature on intellectuals in Mexico and in Latin America, only one scholar has made any serious effort to examine these questions with concrete data, rather than with suppositions. This is the book of Juan F. Marsal, collected in his two edited works: El intellectual latinoamericano (Bueno Aires: Instituto Torcuato Di Tella, 1970), and Los intelectuales polfticos (Buenos Aires: Ediciones Nueva Visi6n, 1971). The author is engaged in a fulllength study examining these and other questions about Mexican intellectuals.
61
62
Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos
is; by analyzing why various groups, including the Mexican intellectual himself, consider others to be intellectuals; and by speculating about the implications their responses have for understanding intellectual life and the intellectual's relation to other leadership groups. To make this analysis possible, the author selected and questioned three groups: North American scholars familiar with Mexico, Mexican intellectuals, and Mexican public men. Each was asked to provide the author with a list of Mexican intellectuals who, in their opinion, were the most influential in that country from 1920 to the present. (See Appendix A.) For the purposes of this study, an intellectual is defined as a creative thinker who takes a critical posture in searching for more humane and rational solutions to contemporary problems from a perspective of transcendental values and transmits his ideas to a broad audience.2 While definitions of intellectuals abound, this one contains complementary criteria from those most widely used in the literature on intellectuals.3 Furthermore, in order to provide a sound basis for a comparison of the lists of intellectuals given by the three groups, a single definition was necessary. Before describing each group's choices and analyzing their differences, a further justification for conducting this research is in order. At least three important questions deserve consideration. First, much of the scholarship focusing on intellectuals in Mexico and in Latin America has been carried out by non-Mexican scholars, primarily from the United States. Most of the remaining work, of course, has been undertaken by Mexicans or other Latin American scholars and intellectuals. The image which North American scholars have, reflected in their choice of names, as to who is most important in Mexican intellectual life is more than a mere curiosity;
2. Roderic A. Camp, "Mexico in Crisis: An Intellectual View," Latin American Digest, 13, 3 (Summer, 1979), 1. 3. See, for example, Marcus Cunliffe, "The Intellectuals: The United States," Encounter, 4 (May, 1955), 25; Paul A. Baran, "The Commitment of the Intellectual," Monthly Review, 13 (May 1961), 12; Robert K. Merton, "Role of the Intellectual in Public Bureaucracy," in Merton, ed. Social Theory and Social Structure (New York: The Free Press, 1968), 263; Lewis A. Coser, Men of Ideas: A Sociologist's View (New York: Free Press, 1965, x; Karl W. Deutsch, "Comments on 'American Intellectuals: Their Politics and Status,'" Daedalus, 88 (Summer, 1959, 489; Johan Galtung, "Development and Intellectual Styles, Some Notes on the Case of the Lawyer," Paper presented at the Internationl Conference on Comparative Social Research in Developing Countries, Buenos Aires, September 9-15, 1964, p. 3; Alvin Gouldner, "Prologue to a Theory of Revolutionary Intellectuals," Telos, 26 (Winter, 1975-76), 16; and Thomas P. Neill, "The Social Function of the Intellectual," Thought, 32 (June, 1957), 201.
Camp: An Image of Mexican Intellectuals
63
rather it largely determines who will be studied by graduate students and by other academics. The more attention a subject receives initially, the more it will receive in the future. Notable biographies and acclaimed critical examinations of creative work rarely deal with little-known figures in cultural history; instead, well-known figures draw scholars to them like magnets. But how deserving are these individuals of scholarly attention? Do North American scholars, who often serve as models in the scholarly communities of developing nations, have a correct perception of who has been influential in that society's cultural development; or, is their view of cultural leaders different from that of native academics and intellectuals? These questions have a twofold importance. The North American scholar may be misleading his students and colleagues by giving undue emphasis to some individuals, while neglecting, unknowingly, the importance of other figures. But the impact of the academic's emphasis goes beyond scholarship, for it may well play an influential role in the advice these scholars provide to the leaders of our foreign policy community, a leadership often influenced by and dependent upon the specialists' interpretation of problems in Third World countries, including Latin America.4 The North American academic's view is often determined by the native intellectual view as expressed in their own writings. Equally important is the view that Mexican public men have about who are the leading intellectuals, for their view, completely unknown and unstudied, is even more crucial to policy-making, particularly within Third World nations. As I have argued elsewhere, intellectuals-because of their special training, their breadth, and their exposure to a variety of ideas-may well be critical to the success with which political leaders are able to cope with a plethora of social, economic and political problems.5 But, if politicians are impressed by one set of intellectuals, while they ignore another, they are excluding a group of individuals who might well provide them with the necessary insight to solve some of the more pressing crises. Furthermore, if the North American scholarly image differs from that of the native politician's image
4. The accuracy of North American observations, and their importance in determining the outcome of United States foreign policy decisions, has been thoroughly documented in the case of the Cuban revolution in 1958, in a fascinating, behind-the-scenes account, by John Dorschner and Oberto Fabricio, The Winds of December: Cuba, 1958 (New York: Coward, McCann and Geoghegan, 1980). 5. "Intellectuals: Agents of Change in Mexico?" Journal of Inter-American Studies & World Affairs, 23 (August, 1981), 297-320.
64
of who has been and is important, our analysis of the reasons political systems evolve along different paths may be filled with lacunae that could be avoided. Lastly, the intellectual's own opinion of who has been influential is important because differences with the North American scholars produce obstacles to cultural communication. Furthermore, if two sets or more of elite intellectuals actually exist in a society, to what extent do they communicate with one another? as a whole Divisions within the elite intellectual community weaken it as a source for alternative solutions. It is also important to know which group of intellectuals is read, listened to, and consulted, and by whom, since United States embassy staffers, as the crucial ears attuned to foreign public opinion, may listen to one group of critics, while Mexican public men listen to another, and North American intellectuals to still another. What does the separation of intellectuals mean for the formulation of American foreign policy? It can be seen from the questions raised above that the differences the three groups have about Mexican intellectuals have for scholarship, for United States' relations important implications with Mexico and for internal policy-making in that country; and that the lessons learned from Mexico could well have implications elsewhere. To determine if such differences exist, and to what extent, let us first examine the North American scholar's list of elite Mexican intellectuals (Table 1). Among North American scholars, at least two or more agreed that forty-five Mexican intellectuals had been most influential in Mexico since 1920. Although we can learn much more about the North American scholarly choice of intellectuals by comparing it with the choices of the other two groups, several worthwhile conclusions are apparent from analyzing only the individuals listed in Table 1. In the first place, the elite intellectual community in Mexico, according to the North American scholar, is male-dominated. No women appear in Table 1, nor do they appear on the list provided by Mexican public men (Table 2). Mexican intellectuals also omit women, with the exception of Elena Poniatowsky, a Mexican journalist and lineal descendant of the last king of Poland, who is best known outside of Mexico for her book on the 1968 student massacre6 (Table 3). Thus, it is fair to conclude that women, at least until the 1970s, have not been seen to be influen6. Selden Rodman, Mexican Journal (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1958), p. 200.
Table
Mexico's Elite Intellectuals as Viewed by the North American Scholar (a) Intellectuals Most Frequently Selected (b)
* * ** * Lucio Mendieta y Nifiez (4) Victor Urquidi (4) Jesus Reyes Heroles (3) Carlos Monsivais (3) Rodolfo Usigli (3) Gonzalo Aguirre Beltran (3) Edmundo O'Gorman (3) Jose Clemente Orozco (3) Andres Molina Enriquez (3) Julio Scherer Garcia (3) Antonio Diaz Soto y Gama (3) Ignacio Bernal (2) Miguel Le6n Portilla (2) Edmundo Flores (2) Ram6n Beteta (2) Agustin Basave Fernandez del Valle (2) Silvio Zavala (2) Moises Saenz (2) Jose C. Valadez (2) Juan Rulfo (2) Rodolfo Stavenhagen (2) Luis Spota (2)
* *(c) * * ** * * * * ** ** ** * * ** * * ** * * * * *
Jose Vasconcelos (22) Octavio Paz (20) Daniel Cosio Villegas (20) Carlos Fuentes (18) Samuel Ramos (15) Vicente Lombardo Toledano (13) Jaime Torres Bodet (13) Alfonso Reyes (13) Pablo Gonzalez Casanova (12) Jes6s Silva Herzog (11) Antonio Caso (10) Martin Luis Guzman (9) Agustin Yafiez (8) Narciso Bassols (6) Manuel Gamio (6) Mariano Azuela (6) Diego Rivera (5) David Alfaro Siqueiros (5) Alfonso Caso (5) Manuel G6mez Morin (4) Luis Cabrera (4) Jose Gaos (4)
* *
* * *
(a) Each selected up to fifteen intellectuals. Twenty-four North American scholars responded to the questionnaire; they were: Marvin Alisky, Rodney D. Anderson, David Charles Bailey, Lyle C. Brown, John S. Brushwood, Harold E. Davis, Gabriella De Beer, Susan Eckstein, Felicity Trueblood, William P. Glade, Charles A. Hale, John P. Harrison, Harold E. Hinds, Kenneth F. Johnson, Donald Mabry, Michael C. Meyer, Robert A. Monson, Martin C. Needler, Susan K. Purcell, William D. Raat, Patrick Romanell, Stanley Ross, Henry Schmidt, and Evelyn P. Stevens. (b) The North American respondents provided a total of ninety-six names, only those persons receiving a vote from two or more respondents were considered for inclusion in the table. The number of times an individual's name was mentioned appears in parenthesis behind his name. (c) A single asterisk indicates that the intellectual's name also appears among those individuals thought to be important by other Mexican intellectuals (Table 3) or by public men (Table 2). Two asterisks indicate that the person's name appeared in both Tables 2-3. No asterisk means, of course, that only North American scholars considered the person important.
66
Table 2
Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos Mexico's Elite Intellectuals as Viewed by the Mexican Public Men (a) Intellectuals Most Frequently Selected (b)
(15) *
*(c) Vicente Lombardo Toledano
* Manuel G6mez Morin (15)
David Alfaro Siqueiros (3) Ignacio Garcia Tellez (3)

Samuel Ramos (3)
Jose Vasconcelos (15) * Narciso Bassols (11) * Luis Cabrera (11)
* *
*
* *
Daniel Casio Villegas (10)
Gast6n Garcia Cantui(2) Pablo Gonzalez Casanova (2) Victor Manuel Villasefior (2)
Nabor Carrillo Flores (2) Isidro Fabela (2) Enrique Gonzalez Aparicio (2) Sotero Prieto (2) Manuel Sandoval Vallarta (2) Gabino Fraga (2) Manuel Borja Soriano (2)
Antonio Caso (9) Jesus Silva Herzog (7) *Jaime Torres Bodet (7) * Alfonso Caso (6)
Eduardo Suarez (6) Antonio Diaz Soto y Gama (5)

* * * Alfonso Reyes (5) Jesis Reyes Heroles (4)
* *
*
Ignacio Chavez (3)

Octavio Paz (3)
Alberto Vazquez del Mercado (3) Miguel Oth6n de Mendizabal (3)

Diego Rivera (3)
Jose Clemente Orozco (2) Rufino Tamayo (2) Francisco Migica (2) Antonio Carrillo Flores (2)
Carlos Fuentes (2)
Mario de la Cueva (2)
(a) Each selected up to fifteen intellectuals. Twenty-one political leaders responded to letters and/or personal interviews. The respondents included: Rosa Alegria, Manuel Hinojosa Ortiz, Jose Juan de Olloqui, Leopoldo Solis, Luis de la Pefia Porth, Andres Serra Rojas, Fernando Zertuche Mufioz, Enrique Beltran, Pedro Daniel Martinez, Sealtiel Alatriste, Antonio Armendariz, Praxedis Balboa, Raul Rangel Frias, Ricardo Jose Zevada, Mariano Azuela, Javier Gaxiola, Jose Angel Conchello, Alfonso Pulido Islas, Antonio Martinez Baez, and Gonzalo Robles. (b) The Mexican public men provided a total of ninety-nine names. (c) An asterisk by the name indicates that the person is also listed in Table 3.
tial on Mexican society or in Mexican political and intellectual circles and that no significant difference exists among the three groups on this point. This is not to say, however, that women have been inactive in intellectual circles in Mexico. Indeed, in the 1970s women were making strong inroads into the male dominated world, and their contributions are being recognized. It is important to recognize this trend because while they are emerging slowly, the entry of women into Mexican intellectual life may produce greater fluidity in the composition of intellectuals and add new directions for thought.
Table 3
Mexico's Elite Intellectuals as Viewed by Other Intellectuals (a) Intellectuals Most Frequently Selected (b)
* (13) Jose Gaos (4) Agustin Yfiez (4)
*(d)Octavio
Paz (23) Carlos Fuentes (14) *Jose Vasconcelos (14) * Vicente Lombardo Toledano * * * * * Daniel Cosio Villegas (11) Narciso Bassols (10) Antonio Caso (10) Manuel G6mez Morin (10) Jesus Silva Herzog (7) *Jaime Torres Bodet (7) Carlos Monsivais (7) Gabriel Zaid (7) * Pablo Gonzalez Casanova (6) Jose Emilio Pacheco (6) * Luis Cabrera (6) * Diego Rivera (6) Victor Flores Olea (6) * * Alfonso Reyes (5) Luis Villor (5) Gast6n Garcia Cantu (5) Jose Luis Martinez (5) Elena Poniatowsky (4) Jaime Garcia Torres (4) Hector Aguilar Camin (4) Fernando Benitez (4)
*
*
Juan Rulfo (3) Carlos Pellicer (3) Edmundo O'Gorman (3) Mariano Azuela (3) Samuel Ramos (3) Alfonso Caso (3) Victor Urquidi (3) Manuel Gamio (2) Antonio Carrillo Flores (2) Jesus Reyes Heroles (2) Silvio Zavala (2) Luis Spota (2) Lucio Mendieta y Nfifiez (2) Martin Luis Guzman (2) Enrique Gonzalez Pedrero (2) Luis Gonzalez y Gonzalez (2) Leopoldo Zea (2) Gustavo Sainz (2) Vicente Leniero (2) Jose Clemente Orozco (2) Rodolfo Stavenhagen (2) Enrique Krauze (2) Carlos Pereyra (2)
*
*
(a) Each selected up to fifteen elite intellectuals. Forty-one Mexican intellectuals, artists and academics responded including: Roberto L. Mantilla Molina, Ricardo Rivera Perez, Rail Cardiel Reyes, Lucio Mendieta y Nnfiez, Antonio Carrillo Flores (c), Cesar Sepulveda, Leopoldo Zea, Jose Emilio Pacheco, Miguel Palacios Macedo, Fernando Benitez, Enrique Florescano, Juan O'Gorman, Cristina Barros de Stivalet, Pedro Ramirez Vazquez (c), Jose Alvarez, Jesus Reyes Heroles (c), Padre Daniel Olmedo, Manuel Becerra Acosta, Edmundo O'Gorman, Gast6n Garcia Cantu, Martha Robles, Carlos Monsivais, Ignacio Chavez, Octavio Paz, Jose Joaquin Blanco, Abel Quezada, Jaime Garcia Terres, Arturo Warman, Agustin Yaiez (c), Luis Villoro, Enrique Krauze, Alberto Vazquez del Mercado (c), Victor Manuel Villasenor (c), Jorge Espinosa de los Reyes, Jr., Enrique Espinosa, Angela Gurria, Ricardo Guerra, Salvador Elizondo, Paulina Lavista, and Alejandro G6mez Arias. (b) Mexican intellectuals provided a total of one-hundred and twenty-six names. (c) Any intellectual prominent in public life was included in note (a) above if that person's name appeared as an elite intellectual in Table 5. (d) An asterisk next to an individual's name indicates he also appears in Table 2.
68
In addition to their gender, the geographic location of intellectuals is important to the structure of a country's intellectual life, both in terms of who is listened to and who is communicated with. North American scholars named elite Mexican intellectuals from only one metropolitan area, Mexico City. Not one individual among the forty-five intellectuals chosen by North American academics resided outside of Mexico City after establishing their career. It has long been recognized that Mexico City, like capital cities in many other developing nations, dominates the country economically, culturally and politically, but the completeness with which it has absorbed the intellectual elite is nothing short of extraordinary. This geographic centralization occurs in spite of the dynamic growth characterizing the cultural and religious center of Guadalajara in the West, and the industrial expansion occurring in Monterrey in the North. The only other available study which carefully examines the backgrounds of another society's elite intellectuals is that done by Charles Kadushin on the American intellectual elite. Not surprisingly, the New York City area (within a fifty mile radius of the Empire State Building) is the North American equivalent of Mexico City, but it is the residence for only fifty-one percent of Kadushin's intellectuals. New England, excluding the New York City area, accounted for an additional 14 percent of the current residences, and Washington, D.C., for another eleven.7 One possible explanation for intellectuals from Mexico City dominating the North American list, is that few North American scholars have focused their own research projects, regardless of field, on strictly regional subjects. In Mexico, the scholarly world, and the majority of the resources it uses, is confined to Mexico City. Furthermore, the top dozen or so individuals on the North American list have one characteristic in common: their literary contributions have been widely translated into English, and made available to a scholarly audience in the United States. Their original works became known to North Americans through publishers in the capital, not by small, financially insolvent, disreputable presses in the provinces.8 Therefore, because one would expect North
7. Charles Kadushin, American Intellectual Elite (Boston: Little-Brown, 1974), p. 23. 8. An examination of the published writings of the intellectuals appearing in Table 1 clearly demonstrates the domination of the capital city, and of several presses. In Mexico, the most important for intellectual writings have been the Fondo de Cultura Econ6mica, Porruia, and in more recent years, Siglo Veintiuno. Also important have been the National University, and recently, El Colegio de Mexico andJoaquin Mortiz.
Camp:An Imageof MexicanIntellectuals
69
Americans to recognize only those intellectuals with whom they had come in contact personally or through their works, they might be excused for excluding intellectuals outside of Mexico City. It would be easy to explain away the North American's list of Mexican intellectuals if he were the only one to perceive the intellectual elite as confined to Mexico City. This, however, is clearly not the case: since an examination of the intellectuals in Table 2, many of whom are not listed in Table 1, reveals a remarkably similar pattern. Of the thirty-eight intellectuals selected by public men in Mexico, not one, with the possible exception of muralist Jose Clemente Orozco, who lived in Guadalajara for three years during the zenith of his artistic life, resided outside of Mexico City after embarking on a successful career. Because of the physical and psychological concentration of political resources and influence in Mexico City, which determine, in large part, the successful career patterns of most public men, it is again logical to expect that public men, who themselves become residents of the capital, are also influenced most by fellow capitalinos.9 Mexican intellectuals and humanists, or those closest to the general intellectual scene, respond in exactly the same way as the other two groups: they too include only residents of Mexico City on their lists (Table 3). The only person on their lists who did not reside in Mexico City is novelist Juan Rulfo, who made his reputation in the 1950s, having spent considerable time living and working in several provincial cities; however, for the last several decades, he too has resided in Mexico City. Again, as with women intellectuals, there is unanimous agreement among all groups that Mexico's intellectual elite are residents of Mexico City. This finding has numerous implications for intellectual life and the influence intellectuals exert on each other, public men, the foreign scholarly community, and United States decision-makers. More
9. Lewis Coser has argued that common background, institutional settings and physical proximity were all important in contributing a sense of cohesion within the French and English intellectual communities. See his "The Differing Roles of Intellectuals in Contemporary France, England and America," Paper presented at the Symposium on Sociology of the Intellectuals, Buenos Aires, July 3-5, 1967. During my interviews, I asked each intellectual whom they read or were presently influenced by, and nearly all provided me with names of individuals whom they saw regularly, socialized with, and with whom they served on intellectual magazines. In other words, each intellectual had a circle of intellectual friends in Mexico City who were a source of creative stimulus. Similarly, interviews I have had since 1973 with political figures reveal the same pattern. See my paper on "The Role of Intellectuals in Post-Revolutionary Mexico," paper presented before the 20th National Sociology Congress, Mexico City, June, 1978.
70
MexicanStudies/EstudiosMexicanos
will be said about these implications in the conclusion, but it is obvious that unless he is recognized by his colleagues in Mexico City, and unless he himself resides in that city, little likelihood exists for the provincial intellectual to be considered important enough to influence the above groups. A third characteristic that emerges from our analysis of the intellectuals contained in Tables 1-3, are the fields they represent. A breakdown of intellectual fields into six categories: literature, fine arts, law, humanities, sciences, and social sciences, suggests several clear patterns (See Table 4). North American scholars completely exclude scientists from their list, and even though they give some representation to law and the fine arts, it is small. Instead, humanities, literature and the social sciences are the fields which dominate their lists of intellectual elites, and although their preferences are almost equally divided among these three fields, the omission of scientists is significant. This omission perhaps is due to two elements. First, a brief review of the literature on intellectual history reveals that while several scholars have contributed classic works on the revolutions in scientific thinking in Latin America in other centuries, this subject has been, for the most part, a completely overlooked topic in the 20th century.10 Secondly, no respondent among the North Americans was a scientist, or had carried out research on scientific thought in the 20th century. If we compare the intellectual fields represented among the North American choices with those among the elite intellectuals chosen by Mexican public men, we find important differences (Table 4). On the subject of scientists, we find that public men give far more attention to the scientific intellectual community than do North American scholars; their lists include representatives of the natural and physical sciences almost equally with those from fine arts and social sciences. Why do public men in Mexico give more importance to men of science? It is a complex question,
10. For example, the works of Irving A. Leonard, Baroque Times in Old Mexico (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1966), and those of John Tate Lanning and Arthur P. Whitaker on the enlightenment, readily come to mind, but Mexican scientists during this century have not received scholarly attention. For two sources which provide an incomplete but useful view of developments in Mexican medicine and biology, see Ignacio Chavez's early work entitled Mexico en la cultura medica (Mexico: Colegio Nacional, 1947), and Enrique Beltran's revealing memoir, Medio siglo de recuerdos de un biologo mexicano (Mexico: Sociedad Mexicana de Historia Natural, 1977).
Table 4
Fields Represented by Elite Mexican Intellectuals

Literature % no. Fine Arts % no. Law % no.
Field Humani % n
Intellectuals Selected by North American Scholars (Table 1) Intellectuals Selected by Mexican Public Men (Table 2)
29
13
11
31
11
34
13
24
Intellectuals Selected by Other Mexican Intellectuals (Table 3) 34 Combined List of Mexican Intellectuals (Table 5)
17
10
32
28
15
15
28
Key: For the purposes of this Table, Literature refers to poetry, essays, and fic music; Law to all fields of public law; Humanities to history, philosophy, c education; Sciences to physical and natural sciences and mathematics; and Socia science and anthropology.
72
but an examination of the four men who represent this field provides a clue. They are the late Ignacio Chavez, world-reknowned Nabor Carrillo Flores, cardiologist and Mexican man-of-letters; one of Mexico's foremost mathematicians; Sotero Prieto, an engineer who specialized in math and taught for many years at the National University; and Manuel Sandoval Vallarta, internationally recognized physicist. All four were very much involved in university life in Mexico, each having taught for many years at the National University, and a third serving as Subsecretary of Public Education and President of the National Polytechnic Institute. Furthermore, three of them led very active careers in academia and public life which directly contributed to the evolution of public policy and the creation of important scientific institutions in their respective specialties. As will be shown later in this essay, public men prefer intellectuals who are not afraid to hold public office. However, of equal importance when comparing the fields intellectuals in Tables 1 and 2 represent, is the strong emphasis public men give to law, and the almost total neglect of literature. The five leading intellectuals among the elite group selected by Mexican public men, Vicente Lombardo Toledano, Manuel G6mez Morin, Jose Vasconcelos, Narciso Bassols, and Luis Cabrera, were all lawyers by profession. Four of them could be said to have made their intellectual contributions in the field of law, whether it was The fifth, Jose Vasconcelos, financial, labor or constitutional. although classified as a humanist because of his important contributions to philosophy and literature, is most remembered for his educational legislation as Mexico's first post-revolutionary minister of education.1 Again, interviews with Mexican politicians suggest that they were favorably impressed with creative thinkers who tried to apply their talents in a pragmatic way to the social and political complexities so characteristic of Mexico in the 1920s and 1930s. Thus, the neglect of literary figures among the politician's selections of elite intellectuals is the result, in part, of their emphasis on the activist intellectual. Those literary figures who appeared on their lists were Octavio Paz, Carlos Fuentes, and Jaime Torres Bodet. Paz no longer feels comfortable serving Mexico in the diplomatic corps (having resigned in 1968), but both he and
11. Roderic A. Camp, La formacion de un polftico; la socializaci6n de los funcionarios publicos en Mixico post-revolucionario (Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Econ6mica, 1981), p. 184ff.
73
Fuentes (who resigned in 1977) served many years in the government. Furthermore, it might have been more correct to have included Jaime Torres Bodet in the humanities category, since his creative contributions were almost entirely confined to the 1910s and 1920s, and nearly all of his efforts after 1930 were in education. Torres Bodet, on the other hand, is the intellectual bureaucrat par excellence, having served for more years in high-level public offices in Mexico than any other single major literary figure.12 Furthermore, Mexican public men, like North American scholars, tend to exclude the younger generation of intellectuals since the 1960s and 1970s. The fields represented among elite intellectuals selected by other Mexican intellectuals correspond closely to the distribution found in the list picked by North Americans. Clearly, intellectuals themselves see literary figures, followed by humanists, as most important, with social sciences running a strong third. While placing a low emphasis on legal thinkers, most striking is their complete exclusion of scientists, and near exclusion of contributors in the fine arts. The lack of representation of these two fields is clearly present among the combined lists of elite intellectuals (Table 5). The exclusion of scientists among elite intellectuals does not appear to be confined to Mexico, since Kadushin found that among the North American elite intellectuals, only one such person appeared in his list of one-hundred and seventy-two persons.13 One explanation which has been offered for the separation of science from other fields is that most leading scientists tend to be "diffident about communicating their non-expert personal values and feelings to general audiences. When they do make policy or value pronouncements, these tend to be one-shot affairs in the mass media."14 Furthermore, since scientists often work
12. He was Subsecretary of Foreign Relations, Secretary of Foreign Relations, Secretary of Public Education and Ambassador to France for a combined total of eighteen years, having reached this level by 1940 and ending his career in 1964. He also served as Secretary General of UNESCO from 1949 to 1952. The only other major literary figure who comes close to that level of service, although strangely remaining unmentioned by public men, is Agustin Ynfiez, who also was Secretary of Public Education, as well as governor of his home state and Subsecretary of the Presidency, having held these high-level positions for a total of fifteen years. Some intellectuals see Torres Bodet as a bureaucrat, rather than a creative, intellectual figure. See, for example, Jose Joaquin Blanco, Se llamaba Vasconcelos (Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Econ6mica, 1977), p. 82. 13. Charles Kadushin, p. 21. 14. Ibid.
74 Table 5
Mexico's Elite Intellectuals 1920-1980 (a) Intellectuals Most Frequently Selected (b)
Victor Urquidi (8) Eduardo Suarez (7) Gabrield Zaid (7) Jose C. Orozco (7) Ignacio Chavez (7) Lucio Mendieta y Nufiez (6) Edmundo O'Gorman (6) Jose Emilio Pacheco (6) Victor Flores Olea (6) Luis Villoro (6) Juan Rulfo (6) Jose Luis Martinez (5) Hector Aguilar Camin (5) Antonio Carrillo Flores (5) Gonzalo Aguirre Beltran (5) Andres Molina Enriquez (5) Fernando Benitez (5) Elena Poniatowsky (5) Silvio Zavala (5) Rodolfo Stavenhagen (4) Alberto Vazquez del Mercado (4) Ignacio Garcia Tellez (4) Luis Gonzalez y Gonzalez (4) Luis Spota (4) Ram6n Beteta (4) Jaime Garcia Terres (4) Victor Manuel Villasefior (4)
Jose Vasconcelos (47) Octavio Paz (46) Vicente Lombardo Toledano (41) Daniel Cosio Villegas (41) Carlos Fuentes (34) Manuel G6mez Morin (29) Antonio Caso (29) Narciso Bassols (27) Jaime Torres Bodet (27) Jesus Silva Herzog (25) Luis Cabrera (21) Leopoldo Zea (21) Samuel Ramos (21) Pablo Gonzalez Casanova (20) Alfonso Reyes (18) Alfonso Caso (14) Diego Rivera (14) Agustin Yfiez (12) Martin Luis Guzman (12) Carlos Monsivais (10) David Alfaro Siqueiros (9) Mariano Azuela (9) Jesus Reyes Heroles (9) Antonio Diaz Soto y Gama (9) Manuel Gamio (9) Jose Gaos (8) Gast6n Garcia Cantu (8)
(a) As reflected in the eighty-six combined responses of Mexican intellectuals, public men and North American scholars.
behind the scenes to influence public policy, their style affects their ability to be perceived as effective or influential. A second explanation for the exclusion of scientists from intellectual lists has been offered by Talcott Parsons: "When the the empirical sciences began to grow in relative significance: experimental method necessitated technological operations, and the gentleman was not permitted, except for the use of arms, to 'work with his hands.' . . . There has been a certain tendency to consider the scientist as not quite a 'nice person,' his calling as one
15. Talcott Parsons, "'The Intellectual': A Special Role Category," in Philip Rieff, ed., On Intellectuals; Theoretical Case Studies (New York: Doubleday, 1969), p. 16.
Camp:An Imageof MexicanIntellectuals
75
not suitable for a gentleman."'5 This statement is particularly applicable to Mexico and Latin America where social class differences have always been more pronounced. Political and social elites in general have received their education in nonscientific fields. Our second finding, that the fine arts are not well-represented among intellectual elites, is revealing about contemporary intellectual life in Mexico. When I asked Mexican artists and intellectuals why artists were not commonly among the names in Table 5, several explanations emerged. The first was historical, as explained by Juan O'Gorman, Mexico's last living major painter from the muralist era: Art in the middle ages was a sort of ally to the church and the faith of the people. It had a special place in this era and was related to people through their faith and their religion. But today, the masses have no relationto artbecauseit is not at the service of faith or religion. Humanism had a much higher value then, than it does today, and the technology then available was used in the service of religious faith. Even after the Renaissance this phenomenon continued, although not in the form of religion, but ratherit became a culturaland state concept. In the reflection of the masses. Victor Hugo is a good example of this in the 19th centuryhe was popular because he understood and wrote about the exploited classes, that is, he was the conscience of the French people during his own age in opposing the oppressive forms of power and in defending the interests of the masses. Today, there is specialization within the arts, in the past, artists worked together, and the works formed an integral whole, because they had the same religion, faith, and ideology. Work has become individualized,not collective.'6 The social message in Mexican art was present after the Revolution, during a time when the only three artists to appear among the names of elite intellectuals, Diego Rivera, David Alfaro Siqueiros and Jose Clemente Orozco, were at the highpoint of their creative work. Octavio Paz suggests a change which took place: "Painting was fired up by the Revolution, but then painting became an old lady, a prostitute, and began to die out. There was an aesthetic and moral reaction to the works of Rivera and Siqueiros some years ago."17 Works with a social message were replaced by abstract art, which as Leopoldo Zea suggests, became more fashionable. "Its domination of art explains part of it (why art is influential on ideas), as well as the influence of the United States and other countries, whose ideas and attitudes currently in vogue
16. Personal interview withJuan O'Gorman, Mexico City, June 6, 1978. 17. Personal interview with Octavio Paz, Mexico City, June 29, 1978.
76
MexicanStudies/EstudiosMexicanos
become more important than our national reality."18 When asked to speculate on why art is removed from reality in Mexico, O'Gorman replied that "this is a philosophical development which signifies a desire not to search our own reality because it is rather painful. There is little hope for the future, we have created an artificial world which is the cancer of the organic world."'9 Of course, this is only one artist's explanation, but for whatever personal and artistic reasons, Mexicans in the fine arts have not been represented, for the last three decades, among Mexico's intellectual elite. The intellectual's gender, place of residence, and field of activity are all important to the composition of intellectual elites and their influence on Mexico. But a fourth characteristic, his career, is equally influential in determining his presence on some lists, and exclusion on others, and in understanding the structure of intellectual life. If the careers of intellectuals are divided into two broad categories-public, and academic or independenta definite pattern occurs among the images the three groups of respondents have of elite intellectuals. Although one would expect public careers to be automatically very important among Mexican intellectuals, because traditionally Latin American intellectuals have been politically active and employed by the state to a much greater degree than in the United States, a discrepancy is obvious between the views of Mexican public men and other intellectuals (Table 6). North American scholars' images of intellectuals with public careers coincide with the combined list of elite intellectuals: that is, slightly more than half of their selections have followed such careers. However, public men show a much stronger preference for intellectuals with public careers since more than three quarters of their choices pursued that profession. Not surprisingly, intellectuals themselves tend to prefer those with academic or independent careers. The differing images which intellectuals and public men have of elite intellectuals can be further emphasized by examining the data in Table 7. If we look at those elite intellectuals who are excluded from these two groups' respective lists, the division becomes clear. Of the eighteen intellectuals on the public men's list who did not appear on the list chosen by other intellectuals, an overwhelming percentage (72) followed careers in the public sector. If, on the other hand, we examine those intellectuals considered to be part of an elite group by ordinary Mexican intel18. Personal interview with Leopoldo Zea, Mexico City, July 26, 1978. 19. Personal interview, June 6, 1978.
77
Table 6
Public Careers of Mexico's Elite Intellectuals

Types of Careers Public Academic or Careers (a) Independent % no. % no.
Totals % no. 100 100 100 100 45 38 50 53
North American List (Table 1) Mexican Public Men List (Table 2) Mexican Intellectuals List (Table 3) Combined Lists (Table 5) 55 29 45 24 (a) Defined as any nationalpolitical office, appointive, elective or diplomatic, from 1920 to the present, includingthe rectorshipof the NationalUniversity. 46 23 54 27 76 29 24 9 56 25 44 20
lectuals and academics, but excluded from the list of responses

by public men, we find the precise inverse relationship, that is, an overwhelming percentage (72) followed academic or independent careers. What does this mean for intellectual life? As I surmised in an earlier article, Mexican intellectuals and political leaders, while sharing an appreciation for some of the same intellectual leaders, are also definitely being influenced by two distinct groups.20 This is clearly shown in that eighteen or nearly half of the elite intellectuals thought to be important by Mexican public men did not even appear on the list compiled from Mexican intellectuals. Furthermore, an even larger proportion of elite intellectuals (twenty-nine or 58 percent) appearing among the choices of Mexican intellectuals, did not appear on the list compiled from public men. Thus, each group really looks toward a different set of intellectual leaders. The significance of this is that: Many intellectuals feel that they are not being listened to. They are correct. While politicians are not allergic to intellectuals as a group, many resent intellectuals who remain outside of public life. Therefore, politicians may be listening to one group of intellectuals, while the intellectuals look to another group, those outside public life, as their own leaders. Thus, suspicion will grow between the two groups, and the gap between public policy and intellectual life may widen if politicians' and intellec20. "Intellectuals: Agentsof Changein Mexico?"
78 Table 7
Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos Intellectuals Excluded By Other Intellectuals Who Were Considered Important by Mexican Public Men Public Careers (a) % no. Academic or Independent % no. Totals % no.
Excluded Intellectuals and Their Careers (a)
Table 8
Intellectuals Excluded by Public Men Who Were Considered Important by Other Intellectuals (a) Public Careers (a) % no. Academic or Independent % no. Totals % no.
Excluded Intellectuals and Their Careers (a) As takenfrom the datain Tables2, 3.
tuals' perceptions of each other cannot be reconciled and their relationship clarified.21
The divisions between intellectual's and public men's perceptions of who are elite intellectuals can also be found, to a lesser extent, between North American images and those of both Mexican groups. Nearly a fourth of the North American choices did not appear on either Mexican list, and an additional forty percent appeared on only one of the Mexican lists. With the North Americans, however, the presence or lack of a public career does not appear to be the determining variable. Instead, familiarity with an individual's work, especially through English translation, seems very important. For example, Leopoldo Zea, prominent Mexican historian and scholar on intellectual thought, ranks among the top five elite intellectuals among North American scholars, yet he does not even appear on the public men's list and he received only two votes from Mexican intellectuals. To many Mexicans, it would seem that Zea, while perhaps the foremost student of
21. Ibid.
79
Mexican intellectual thought, is not himself considered a prominent intellectual, as defined in this study.22 However, North Americans tended to equate his scholarship about intellectuals with his status as an intellectual. Furthermore, those elite intellectuals on the North American list who do not appear among the names in Tables 2 and 3, have been well-publicized in the United States. The same could be said of others who, like Leopoldo Zea, are ranked high by North Americans, but appear in the bottom half of one or both of the other lists. Both Martin Luis Guzman and Augstin Yaniez, whose works have been published in the United States, are not considered universally by these Mexican respondents to have been major intellectual influences, in spite of their well-deserved The importance of these literary achievements. differences, as suggested previously, is that North American scholarship studies many intellectuals, even enhancing their reputation, while ignoring others, who are considered to be more important by Mexicans. Conclusions The impressions which North American scholars, Mexican intellectuals, and Mexican public men have of who are elite Mexican intellectuals demonstrate numerous characteristics about the attitude of the group who views the elite intellectual, and suggests these differing perceptions have on various many implications relationships among these three groups. Some of the differences which occur support traditional wisdom about certain characteristics of intellectuals. For example, geographic location has a tremendous impact on intellectual life in middle-size countries where other conditions are lacking which might moderate the influence of centralization. Several hypotheses might be suggested about why Mexican intellectuals have confined themselves to one urban center. First, intellectual concentration follows geographic patterns taken by Mexican political, economic, and social groups in general. When geographic centralization occurs among these
22. Zea's classic work, which brought him much fame was, of course, his El positivismo en Mexico (1943), which received the Justo Sierra Prize. Some younger intellectuals suggested in personal interviews that the reason for his small showing among other intellectuals was his lack of recent scholarship. That assertion, however, while believed by these intellectuals, is not true, since Zea has published six more books from 1952 through 1974. The reason for this "generation gap" requires further elucidation, and may be due to a narrow set of reading tastes among elite intellectuals. Letter to the author, Mexico City, April 18, 1973.
80
groups in a society, it is unlikely that intellectual leadership, which Secgravitates towards these groups, will also be decentralized. ond, if it can be believed that innovative, creative thinkers do exist in the provinces, many, whose ideas may well be important to Mexico's future, may go unrecognized, both by Mexicans and North Americans and other foreigners. Third, because the vast by majority of the political and intellectual elite resides in one city, they tend to view their society's problems through urban-tinted glasses. Their loss of contact with the realities of rural life, and with the problems of the provinces, may prove to be a critical omission. Fourth, since North American scholars are generally familiar with only these intellectuals living in Mexico City, the inherent biases present in this highly centralized community is passed on by their scholarly interpretations to our foreign policy community. Fifth, unless well-funded universities, cultural institutions, and presses are established in outlying regions, this pattern of intellectual concentration is likely to continue.23 A second major finding about the surveyed groups is that they are influenced in their perceptions of elite intellectuals by their own professional orientations and career choices. For example, it can be speculated that both the Mexican politicians and the intellectuals are somewhat narrow-minded in whom they read or listen to, and who they choose to be influenced by. Intellectuals in Mexico place a higher value on the independent intellectual, although he has been in the minority in the 20th century, especially among the most prominent figures in Mexican culture; whereas the public man places a much stronger emphasis on the elite intellectual who, like himself, has devoted his life to a public career. The fact that intellectuals are most impressed with literary and humanistic figures, while public men give more credibility to the legal mind and to the scientist, suggest an important division between the two. While the obvious implication may be determined by the value politicians place on the pragmatist, the significant implication is that ordinary intellectuals are excluding, almost entire fields of creative thought. As technology automatically, becomes more important, as has already been the case in Mexico, the traditional elite intellectual must open his mind to the scientific thinker who can offer value judgments on the implications of applied technology.
23. Very recently, some attempts to decentralize cultural institutions are beginning to occur. The Colegio de Michoacan, in emulation of the Colegio de Mexico, was established in the fall of 1979 in Zamora, Michoacan, and Luis Gonzalez, leading Mexican regional historian and member of the National College, was appointed its first president. Hispano Americano, September 10, 1979, p. 49.
81
Similarly, the public man has to become more receptive to the critical ideas of Mexico's leading literary figures, especially its younger thinkers, many of whom have constructive suggestions to offer for Mexico's problems. If Mexico's political leadership continues to be influenced by one group of intellectuals, while intellectuals themselves seek leadership from another group, the influence intellectuals as a group can have on the policy arena in Mexico, and the number of possible alternatives from which political decision-makers might choose, is reduced. Furthermore, the North American scholar needs to expand most his efforts to familiarize himself with those intellectuals influential in Mexico, not by depending on translated works to provide him with a measure of that influence, but by talking to those who are influenced by Mexican intellectuals. The haphazardness with which important Mexican books are reviewed in this country is frightening, and in no way are the books reviewed representative of the major works published in Mexico. Instead, old reputations are perpetuated, and new ones ignored, and our reliance on North American scholarly reviews leaves the scholar in this country ignorant of much of the criticial literature until long after it becomes literary history.24 The significant differences these groups have of elite intellectuals in Mexico have a bearing on the unity of the intellectual community, the impact of that community on domestic political leadership and on foreign scholars, and on foreign political leadership concerned with international issues. These important implications, which have only been speculated upon in this essay, demand further exploration, both to understand the importance of intellectual life in Mexico and the influence which intellectuals can and will exert in other societies. A How Respondents Were Selected
Appendix
To select the respondents for this study, I relied on an eclectic combination of several methodologies, hoping to avoid the pitfalls of each. Although my results surely have their own limitations, I applied several criteria in selecting each group. The North American scholars were chosen from the Latin American Studies Association List of Members (Gainesville: LASA, 1977), on the basis
24. Another reason why North Americans may be less aware of certain Mexican intellectuals is their use of the critical essay, rather than the book or novel. As Enrique Krauze told the author, literature has been the dominant intellectual form since 1970, and two broad groups of intellectual writers exist, novelists and the essayists. Personal interview, Mexico City, August 28, 1978.
82
MexicanStudies/Estudios Mexicanos
of whether or not they had been engaged in major recent scholarship on Mexico, regardless of field. Thirty-seven persons under this criteria were sent a letter March 15, 1978, asking them to provide a list of fifteen intellectuals they considered to have been most important in Mexican life since 1920. Twenty-four scholars responded. Simultaneously, I sent a letter to thirty-three figures who have been, or are prominent in Mexican public life. Twenty-one responded by letters or through follow-up oral interviews in Mexico City from May through August, 1978. These individuals were selected on the basis of their backgrounds, the types of political careers they represented, and their ideological orientations, so as to obtain a broad cross-section of public leadership. My basis for making such judgments relies on my intimate knowledge of the backgrounds of Mexican political leaders resulting from a decade of research, the results of which have been published in several books. Using the initial responses on North Americans and Mexican public men as a beginning, I began to interview a number of prominent academics, artists and intellectuals. In each interview, I asked the same question that was put to the previous two groups, and also, the names of persons in all fields, particularly younger individuals and women, who were involved in intellectual life and might themselves belong to the new generation of Mexico's intellectual elite. Furthermore, I also added the names of persons holding prominent academic positions and individuals who were members of Mexico's leading elite cultural institution, the National College. To this compilation of names, I added those who were the most frequent contributors to Mexico's leading intellectual and scholarly journals. Thus, of the thirty-one persons among the elite intellectuals listed in Table 5 who were alive in the summer of 1978, I interviewed sixteen, or slightly more than half. Only one of the original thirty-one respondents, after granting me an audience, refused to answer my questions. Forty-one persons were ultimately interviewed. I believe that by using criteria from the reputational and positional approaches in combination with their frequency of contributions, I have avoided the problems inherent in any one of these approaches.

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México University of California Institute For Mexico and The United States

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México University of California Institute For Mexico and The United States

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico University of California Institute for Mexico and the United States

An Image of Mexican Intellectuals, Some Preliminary Observations*

Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos

Camp: An Image of Mexican Intellectuals

Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos

*(c) Vicente Lombardo Toledano

* Manuel G6mez Morin (15)

David Alfaro Siqueiros (3) Ignacio Garcia Tellez (3)

Jose Vasconcelos (15) * Narciso Bassols (11) * Luis Cabrera (11)

Daniel Casio Villegas (10)

Eduardo Suarez (6) Antonio Diaz Soto y Gama (5)

Ignacio Chavez (3)

Alberto Vazquez del Mercado (3) Miguel Oth6n de Mendizabal (3)

Mario de la Cueva (2)

Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos

Camp:An Imageof MexicanIntellectuals

Fields Represented by Elite Mexican Intellectuals

Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos

Camp: An Image of Mexican Intellectuals

Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos

Camp:An Imageof MexicanIntellectuals

Camp: An Image of Mexican Intellectuals

Public Careers of Mexico's Elite Intellectuals

Totals % no. 100 100 100 100 45 38 50 53

lectuals and academics, but excluded from the list of responses

Excluded Intellectuals and Their Careers (a)

Camp: An Image of Mexican Intellectuals

Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos

Camp: An Image of Mexican Intellectuals

Anda mungkin juga menyukai