Latin American Identity - Case Study Example

Latin American Identity: A Cultural, Social and Historical Analysis based on Rodo’s Ariel and Retamar’s Caliban Latin-American Identity is a complex and ambiguous concept, influenced as it is by numerous cultural, social and historical contexts that often present dichotomies rather than unified wholes. While Rodo and Retamar present different paths towards a Latin-American identity a great irony must be initially pointed out. This is the fact that, despite their differences, both writers use metaphors stemming from one of the great icon’s of European culture, namely William Shakespeare and his play The Tempest. However they may seek to reject European influence, the very metaphoric framework within which their argument grows is European in nature. Rodo and Retamar have contrasting visions of what will create a strong Latin-American Identity. For Rodo it is the educated intellectuals who must lead the way, while for Retamar it is the mestizos and the lower classes. Taking Rodo’s Ariel first, in this work the writer calls for a cosmopolitanism that involved changing/transforming European models of development and identity. According to Rodo, Latin-Americans should neither slavishly follow European standards/structures nor unthinkingly reject them. According to Rodo the sense of Ariel as ‘spirit’ can create a Latin-American cultural sovereignty: Shakespeare’s ethereal Ariel symbolizes the noble, soaring aspect of the human spirit. He represents the superiority of reason and feeling over the base impulses of irrationality. He is generous enthusiasm, elevated and unselfish motivation in all actions, spirituality in culture, vivacity and grace in intelligence.1 Rolo’s view of Ariel, and the manner in which it can inform an identity for Latin-Americans, seems based upon the Cartesian contrast between rationality and savagery, between elevation and baseness, between intelligence and ignorance. Essentially, all those features which are typically “European”, stemming mainly from the Enlightenment image of civilization are contrasted with those characteristics which were typically associated with the “natives” (i.e. non-Europeans, in this case Latin-Americans) who are perceived as savage. The colonial past, if not valorized, is at least presented in a softer light than many critics would suggest is both realistic and a moral imperative. As part of his vision of Ariel, Rodo does reject current North American cultural imperialism, but in this he almost echoes similar complaints from Europeans, especially the French. Current imperialism is rejected because it does not live up to the ideals of Ariel. It is coarse, unintelligent, appealing to the baser emotions and unrefined. It is, once again, a carbon-copy of the European stereotype regarding Latin-Americans. Rodo’s concentration on the educated elite as the best hope for creating a Latin-American identity raises the question whether such an elite, almost by definition educated in the European tradition, can really be seen as independent from it. Rodo argues that they can be: for Ariel is not a simplistic figure; he can combine apparently contradictory elements within a unified whole. Similarly, while the educated elite may appear European in their behavior and thought-patterns, they can bring to Latin America a new sense of identity based upon their intellectual confidence. According to Rodo, it is only those who have a refined mind who can adapt the intellectual, cultural, social and political dominance of the Europeans. Within the parable of the king that appears in Ariel, Rodo suggests that the leaders of society must cross from the world of action into the world of thought. This is, of course, the opposite process from what most political revolutionaries would suggest. Most use thought to spur action, but Rodo seeks for increased passivity: a slow evolution into the philosopher-king rather than the soldier/merchant-king. He describes this process thus: The ancients, in their wisdom, included my visitors within the family of otium, the wise use of leisure, which they held as the highest example of rational life - - - thought freed from any ignoble yoke . . . noble pleasure was the investment of time that they expressed as a superior mode of life opposed to commercial enterprise . . . the aristocratic ideal of repose. (p.47) (my emphasis) Rodo is quite direct in admitting that his vision involves an aristocratic ideal that assumed that a person can choose whether he wants to work or not. The choice of to work or not to work is moved to become a pleasantly philosophical dilemma; never mind that the vast majority of Latin-Americans must work in order to feed themselves. But the masses within Rodo’s vision are of little importance, because they are not the fulcrum around which a Latin-American identity will revolve. It is the educated elite who will create that identity, and if it trickles down to the masses, then so be it. If not, then that is of little import. Retamar presents a rather different view of Latin-American identity. He calls for, indeed, shouts for, a firm rejection of the European culture and values that he argues has belittled and emasculated Latin-American peoples for centuries. According to Retamar it is Caliban, the drunken monster who seeks to overthrow Prospero in Shakespeare’s play that should be the image of Latin-American identity. Caliban represents everything that Ariel is not: he is brutal, lower-class, loud, drunken and unapologetic. Compromise is not a word in his vocabulary. Retamar suggests that Caliban can be seen as a symbol for the Caribbean, and thus for Latin-America. Prospero taught Caliban how to speak, and now Caliban uses the language that has been taught him to rise up against his teacher/master. To Retamar this is a perfect image for how Latin-Americans should react to European culture. The idea of a complete rejection of everything European is impractical because it would be impossible and atemporal. However, the ideas and thought-processes, indeed, the very language that Europeans have taught Latin-Americans can be used to assert their independence from their former masters/teachers. It must be stated that Retamar was a Professor at the University of Havana (Cuba) when he wrote his famous essay, and so he was, more or less, forced to adopt a revolutionary aspect towards European culture. Thus he sees matters in terms of opposites: “America mestiza” versus “America europea”, “popular culture” verus “bourgeois culture”, “barbarism” versus “civilization” and ultimately, and most importantly to Retamar, “revolutionary culture” versus “counter-revolutionary/colonial culture.”2 It is ironic that he adopts the very European system of Cartesian opposites that he seeks to reject. Revolution in thought, apparently, is not as easy as Retamar suggests. But Retamar courageously defends his point of view, suggesting that European and Latin-American culture are so contradictory that a compromise which takes the best of both is impossible. Is it a case of either/or rather than both/and. Retamar intended his essay to be a tribute to Rodo on the centenary of his birth, and yet he presents a profoundly different version of Caliban from the man he is honoring. Rodo’s Caliban is a symbol of materialism and barbarism, whereas Retamar’s is a symbol of reaction against a kind of effete European culture than can only be countered through war, physical revolution. It is materialism that the two authors disagree upon most. For Rodo materialism will lead to a coarsening of the Latin American identity, while Retamar, steeped as he is within Marxist theory, rejects the idea that intellectual pursuits are more worthy than material goals. While they may agree on the rejection of the capitalist obsession with the accumulation of wealth, they disagree on the fact that all modes of physical production are somehow inferior to quiet introspection. To be succinct, Fidel Castro did not take Cuba from its previous rulers by quiet, gentle philosophizing, he took it at the end of a gun. He was Caliban-like, and that, within Retamar’s estimation, is a complimentary not a pejorative description. The fact that the working classes must rise up and take over culture within Retamar’s vision (a convenient concordance with what had happened in Cuba less than twenty years before) suggests essentially a rejection of intellectual discourse and the higher rationality that Rodo is calling for. Oddly, Retamar seems to suggest that intellectual exploration belongs exclusively to Europeans. In this manner he may be accidentally playing into the hands of those who would suggest that there is an innate superiority to European culture. While Rodo and Retamar disagree on much, they share a common vision in the idea that Latin-America should have an “identity” that is separate from those cultures that came together to create the sense of a unified region (if that exists) in the first place. It must be noted that the vast majority of the population of the region would have no idea what the writers were talking about with their esoteric arguments about identity, using fictional characters from a Elizabethan’s play as their models. Most of the population has little education, and must concentrate on where the next meal is coming from to feed their family. _________________________________________ Works Cited Retamar, Roberto “Caliban: Notes Towards a Discussion of Our America.” 1971. . Rodo, Jose. Ariel. University of Texas Press, Austin: 1988. Read More