Jason Gusdorf 11-26-2013 Latin American History I The Enlightened Revolutions of Spanish America Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self- imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere Aude! “Have courage to use your own understanding. That is the motto of enlightenment. Immanuel Kant, An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment? (1784) In 1808, the Spanish and Portuguese America colonies that had been successfully ruled for almost three-hundred years began to declare independence from their respective rulers. The American and French Revolutions championed the ideals of the Enlightenment, publishing the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789), respectively. The temporal proximity of these events to the wave of Latin American revolutions should make any scholar question similarities in the causal ideologies. An interesting debate has emerged about which ideology spurred the Latin American independence movements. O. Carlos Stoetzer argues that the revolutions were a move against the liberal ideals of the 18th century European Enlightenment, back towards a more conservative ideology. On the other hand, historians Jaime Rodríguez, and Richard Graham demonstrate that Enlightenment thought was pervasive throughout Latin America and the independence movements were a move towards an Enlightened society, rather than a move away from it. Stoetzer’s argument originates from a misunderstanding of what Enlightenment thought actually meant. In essence, it was a broad movement towards 2 reliance upon one’s own ability to reason and autonomy. It is evident from this inspection that the revolutions were, in fact, a move towards Enlightenment ideals, not against them. The individual independence movements were motivated by a multitude to complex reasons. Some historians argue that over the 300 years that Spanish colonies existed, a regional nationalism developed that gradually led to a perceived separation between Spain and the colony; this facilitated revolutionary impulses. Other historians point to the class conflict of the criollos and the peninsulares as a rising tension that eventually inflamed into rebellion when the peninsulares were no longer supported by Spain due to Napoleon’s invasion. Economic exploitation is another theory. Under the Bourbon reforms, tax collection became more efficient due to an increased military presence, and due to the military situation in Spain taxes were increased substantially. This angered the populations of Spanish America who felt the taxes were unjustified. While these theories are legitimate, they will not be the focus of this paper. The motivations that gave rise to the revolutions in Latin America are extremely complex and interlinked. So, for the purposes of this paper, I will focus only on the ideologies present in Latin America at the time that underlay the movements. Stoetzer disagrees and writes, “The revolution which began in 1808-1810 was little influenced by the philosophy of North America or Western Europe; it was based on the political theory of Spanish Late Scholasticism (pactum tranlationis).”1 The general thesis of his work, The Scholastic Roots of the Spanish American Revolution, is that Late Spanish Scholastic political philosophy, as represented by the works of Francis Suárez, Luis de Molina, Juan de Mariana, and Francisco de Vitoria, was responsible for the revolutions, as opposed to the spreading of Enlightenment thought. He examines the idea that if there is no 3 legitimate king, power falls into the hands of the people. This idea, he points out, was from Suárez rather than the Enlightenment: “sovereign power originated with the collectivity of men.”2 This notion of sovereignty resting in the people is pactum translationis. This is actually a fairly conservative concept of revolution. While it asserts that power originates from the people, it nevertheless maintains that a rightful monarch has a claim to the throne. Under this concept, the goal of the revolutions was not a radical transformation of society towards the autonomy of the Enlightenment, but rather a conservative effort to return to the Bourbon monarchy. Stoetzer next demonstrates that Enlightenment thought, which he concedes did make an appearance on Spanish soil, “was very much the work of a small elite whose main concern was the practical application of useful knowledge and whose members were basically religiously orthodox and politically monarchical.”3 Further, the ideas of the Enlightenment were transformed into the what Stoetzer calls the “Hispanic Enlightenment.” Exemplifying this distinction is Spanish philosopher and scientist Benedictine Benito Jerónimo Feijóo, who adopted the critical and scientific approach “without losing the religious basis.” Feijóo books reached 420,000 copies, demonstrating the extent to which his work was dispersed across both the New World and Europe. 4 Essentially, Stoetzer works to make the claim that while the French Enlightenment did appear in Spanish America, its presence was trivial compared to that of Scholastic thought. This seems to contradict his earlier arguments that the Enlightenment could not spread in Spanish America due to the contradiction of natural law definitions. He sees the basis of the French Enlightenment as a different perception of the natural law; one that conflicted with that which was widely understood in Spanish Scholastic thought. The new 4 perception of it was “individualistic, mechanistic, atomistic – which has little in common with the Scholastic version.” In the Scholastic natural law, “the autonomy of human reason was not the source of all morality and of all law,”5 but rather God. The difference between Scholastic Latin American thought and Enlightenment thought, as he describes here, is that the former depends more on a God-given natural law and moral code, while the latter finds morality in the autonomy, or self-governance, of the human will. He notes that this is a fundamental contradiction that would make it difficult for them to coexist in Spanish America. In a charitable examination of Stoetzer’s work, let us say that his argument is that while some elements of the Enlightenment affected Spanish Scholasticism, it essentially maintained its integrity. Thus attributing the revolutions to Enlightenment thought would be unfair, as its presence was not nearly as great as that of Scholasticism. Stoetzer continues to argue that when the Bourbon reforms threatened to forcefully impose the irreligiosity of the Enlightenment, the people of Spanish America revolted. These reforms’ main purpose was to motivate technology and manufacturing production to modernize Spain. They also kicked Jesuits out of Spanish America, created a standing army, and attempted to increase Spain’s hold on its colonies. He writes, Christian tradition was more important than any reform. The question of religion as to play a great role in the Spanish American Revolution, and the independence would come between 1820 and 1823 as a conservative reaction to liberal Spain. Spanish America became independent because it wanted to remain Spanish in temperament and character, and because Spain seemed to have lost this character through the Bourbon regime and the influence of the European Enlightenment.6 Essentially, Stoetzer is claiming that the dominant religion of Spanish America caused a conservative reaction to the Bourbon reforms and Enlightenment. 5 In 1808, Napoleon, in an attempt to strengthen his blockade against England, forced Charles IV and Ferdinand VII of Spain to abdicate the Spanish throne and replaced them with his brother, Joseph Bonaparte. Suddenly, revolutions began rising up all over Latin America. Stoetzer uses this to show the Spanish Americans’ adherence to Scholastic thought by pointing out that Suárezian philosophy dictates the power should return to the people in the case that the rightful monarch is dethroned. This, on top of the growing animosity from the Bourbon reforms, caused the revolutions to begin. Thus, it was not the Enlightenment that spurred the revolutions but rather Spanish American Scholastic thought. In this way, the war for independence was not a war merely against Napoleon’s armies, but also “a religious war against the ideas of the French Revolution.”7 On the other side of the argument are Jaime Rodríguez and Richard Graham, arguing that the Enlightenment was an important causal factor for the Spanish American Revolutions. Rodríguez’s argument focuses on the similarities of Spanish American and Enlightenment thought. He notes that Feijóo looked to increase the production and popularity of scientific achievements. He notes that “[Feijóo’s] approach was critical, exposing the fallibility of physicians, false saints and miracles, and in all cases advancing the cause of modern political thought.”8 He continues to list off the many periodicals revolving around art, literature, and science that were produced in Spanish America in order to evidence his claim that Enlightenment thought has indeed spread widely throughout the New World.9 Further on this point, tertulias were social gatherings where people could discuss politics and philosophies, further allowing the dissemination of Enlightenment ideas. While at first tertulias were primarily for the wealthier upper class,