|
Armando Hart: Inquiry into an epoch • Interview with Armando Hart Dávalos, director of the Martí Program Office • The three principle currents in the second half of the 20th century came from Latin America • There is only one Cuban identity, the one forged out of the melting pot of Varela, Luz and a pleiad of philosophers who molded that epoch • The great aspiration of Félix Varela was to move closer to God without creating an antagonism with science • Ethical principles: that is one of the keys to Cuban intellectual thought BY RAYSA WHITE (Special for Granma International) I’VE wondered, in these turbulent, constantly changing times of disintegration and adjustment, of trends which grow old and others which have renewed themselves with the advent of the new millennium, whether the Cuban Revolution should model its current ideological discourse, as was done by other genuine revolutions, like those in France and Russia. The Cuban Revolution has its own discourse born out of its own experiences in martyrdom and struggles, its determination to legitimize—in the midst of fierce hostility—one of the century’s most advanced constitutions, and above all the caution and intelligence with which it has fashioned its political future without damaging its independence or weakening the ethical principles on which it was founded. At the same time, I think that socialism benefits from the circumstances which have made it the object of criticism. In the case of Cuba, for example, we are obliged to study new sources and integrate other experiences. And I also believe it is necessary because of what it expects from us, especially in regard to thought and action in the Americas.
In what areas can we share this concern? In order to determine the legitimacy of what you call the current ideological discourse, we must make an analysis of the new currents in thinking that have emerged within universal culture over the last 50 years. And it is not only my passion as a Latin American that makes me reaffirm that the three principle currents in the second half of the 20th century came from Latin America. One current, in the political and social sphere with philosophical implications, is the Cuban Revolution and all that Fidel and Che have represented, with their action and thought, in regard to the examination of what socialism is, its moral and ethical significance, and the arsenal of ideas which only we have inherited for our political and historical future, and which we must elaborate further, polish more, since it is one of the greatest currents of Latin American thought. I place the second current within the terrain of art, since I consider as essential Alejo Carpentier’s magic realism, José Lezama Lima’s system of poetry, the literary boom of the ’60s and all that surrounded it. I think that it is important, in principle, to theorize about these sources in order to find within each of them the treasure they contain, and to utilize what we can and what will serve as a vehicle—without imposing anything on art—in the evolution and perception of ideas. The third current, which in my opinion deserves further study, is liberation theology. Without entering into the subject of "the beyond," which is a theme I prefer to leave to the individual conscience, I think that the philosophical depth of liberation theology should at least be examined with greater care. There is a book, Marx y la Biblia (Marx and the Bible), by liberation theologian Porfirio Miranda, which proves with erudite arguments that the accusations made against the celebrated philosopher of dialectical materialism, Karl Marx, are based precisely on what he has in common with the best of original Christian thinking. MARXISM AND CHRISTIANITY IN LATIN AMERICAN THOUGHT Other liberation theologians make very interesting observations, in that they show that during these 50 years Latin American thinking has been able to critically incorporate the two most important philosophical currents, Marxism and Christianity. And it has done so from its worldly essence. Personally, I maintain the position I assumed in the prologue I wrote for the Cuban edition of Fidel y la Religion (Fidel and Religion): "Two of humanity’s most important trends of thought and emotions, Christianity and Marxism, presented as irreconcilable by the adversaries of human progress, find here new and surprising paths of understanding. This is an issue upon which all those sincerely concerned about the fate of humanity must surely meditate." At the time in which we find ourselves now, given my training in Martí’s thinking, I should tell you that Martí was at the height of modern thinking at the end of the 19th century, and it is vital for Western civilization to recognize his ideas in order to critically face the concrete drama of the peoples. He lived in the United States for 15 years; it was the country in which he lived the longest and in which he completed his thinking and his lessons. That was from 1880 to 1895, in New York, at a time when all the currents of ideas, the most influential currents of thinking in the world were emerging. And he was an active participant there, and for that reason José Martí’s thinking can and should be included as an essential element in Our America’s culture. But what was it that Martí discovered and denounced in U.S. society? The drama represented by economic growth oriented toward the exacerbation of selfish interests, on one side; the limitations of spiritual life, on the other; and the seeds that were germinating as a consequence of this. Martí saw Cuba situated in the center of that drama because it is located in the Caribbean and because it is the largest island in the Antilles, and he considered its contribution to the world equilibrium. He desperately advocated equilibrium, as a subject of individual psychology—the equilibrium between thoughts and feelings, emotions and rational capacity—as well as the equilibrium among nations. In regard to the latter, he hoped to prevent the United States from falling, as he said, with that addition force, on the peoples of the Americas. Meanwhile, in the strictly philosophical sense, Our America must investigate or create new categories of thought, taking the immense culture of the 19th century as an essential point of reference. At the beginning of this century, in Our America, modernism appropriated existing culture, recreated it and transformed it, thereby developing new forms of literature. Now we must do the same in philosophy, and there are three categories which I feel must be taken into consideration: 1. The concept of identity. This should be based on the identity of each individual in particular, of each human group, of the family. On the identity of a municipality, of a province, of a nation, of a group of nations, on universal identity. For me, universality signifies a complex of identities. No one can, in the name of universality, impose their own identity. 2. The right to a higher civilization. We all have that right. The term "higher" also includes the spiritual. For that reason, we are proposing that the globalization of culture and development should be recognized. 3. And, of course, the principle of universality, but, as I said, within the complex of identities, because if identity means the imposition of concepts and customs from other cultures, people, groups, then it is not universal; it is crushing. These are my suggestions for a basis for studying what are or should be the sources of ideas of today and tomorrow, on the subject that you call Cuba’s current ideological discourse.
How do you view the insertion of these categories within Cuban intellectual thought? We can say that Cuban culture began to develop at the end of the 18th century with the influence of the Enlightenment at the dawn of the 19th century. Within that process we can situate, in its beginnings, the projections of Bishop Espada—we must recall the Friends of the Country Economic Society, and the newspaper El Papel Periódico de La Habana—through the first half of the 20th century, which includes Varela, Saco, Luz y Caballero, Del Monte, Arango y Parreño. At the end of the 19th century, Martí’s thought stands out, as does—in my opinion—Enrique José Varona at the start of the 20th century. In the first years of the Republic—which became known as the pseudo-republic when the infamous Platt Amendment became part of the Fundamental Law of the State—in those early years, Varona’s formative role among the younger generation of that century is very important. But let’s go back to the first period in which Cuban thought emerged, from 1790 to 1868 as the high point. Many intellectuals have written about this period. Medardo Vitier wrote a book of Cuban philosophy which I keep by my bedside. There is only one Cuban identity, the one forged out of the melting pot of Varela, Luz and a pleiad of philosophers who molded that epoch. In it, Christian thinking and ethical sentiments are assumed in an original way. To be fair, this originality has antecedents: Bartolomé de las Casas and all those concepts of the dignity of human beings, people’s pain, concepts of profound Christian devolution. Ethical categories are accepted and science is not rejected; on the contrary, scientific thought is exalted. And this, in the first half of the 19th century, is really exceptional. I would even say original, because in Europe those concepts entered into a fierce antagonism, so fierce that it led Marx to say that religion was the opiate of the people. For that reason, Fidel told Frei Betto, in their famous interview Fidel and Religion, that what Marx had said was valid for Europe but it was not a universal truth. The fact is that in Europe religion had been under the power of the Inquisition, of the worst and most retrograde ecclesiastical hierarchy and authority at that time. This was not the case in Cuba. Here, those concepts brought life to the spiritual aspect of ethical thinking rooted in a Christian-based culture. I’m speaking of ethical concepts that come from the Old and New Testament and all those fundaments that contribute to the equilibrium of consciousness among people, the salvation of people here on Earth. In the Americas—I cite the specific example in Cuba of Varela’s thought—those categories were accepted in a manner as natural and humane as the American nature. They were not contaminated by the old reactionary legacy of European intellectual thought.
WHETHER OR NOT TO BELIEVE IN GOD: A MATTER OF INDIVIDUAL CONSCIENCE Do you consider it vital for the development of our ideology today to be based on those fundaments? In the specific case of Cubans, I mean. I think that this is the essence of the Cuban cultural phenomenon: to situate that problem, of whether or not to believe in God, in the individual conscience. And that—as part of all the thought which arrived on the island with Bishop Espada—was developed by a priest, Father Félix Varela, who did not see a conflict between science and conscience. That element can be seen later in Martí’s ideas and nowadays I believe that it is the basis of liberation theology’s argument. The decision about whether something exists beyond what science recognizes is left up to the individual. In Cuba it is explained—and here the role of historical processes becomes clear—why European currents entered with unprecedented strength in the midst of a slave-holding society under a profoundly reactionary and uncultured colonial system. A system that attacks the Enlightenment. For that reason, when I have come up against opinions such as those of the celebrated Menéndez y Pelayo, I’m flabbergasted. In 1892, he equated Cuban literary progress with that achieved in the rest of the Americas, but while recognizing that we had gone ahead of the others in the fields of science and philosophy, he attributed it to the benefits of the colonial system. In the first place, Cuban scientific and philosophical development in that period must be attributed to the very high cultural level attained by the country’s most enlightened strata. In the second place, it is due to the need to confront, as no other nation did, the three most important demands of the 19th century throughout the world: overcoming colonialism in order to achieve independence, abolishing slavery, and dealing with U.S. expansion however it could. No other country on the continent faced these three challenges with so much maturity. Also in that period, Simón Bolívar’s thoughts on independence exerted considerable influence on our society. To my way of thinking, all this explains the fact that throughout our intellectual history, Cuban thinking has been free of dogmatic tendencies.
Are you saying that there was no dogmatism in the Cuban thinking of that period? There was no dogmatism with cultural fundaments. Cultured Cubans do not have rigid schemas. There are no rigid schemas in Cuban culture. And I make this observation on the basis of our national history. The dogmatism of the Inquisition was a dogmatism with a cultural basis, as is also the case with Nazi Germany. Germany had the greatness of Hegel and Marx, but it also had Nazism, which had a strong and vigorous cultural base. A terrible culture, although I don’t like to call that culture. In Cuba, on the other hand, ideas with popular roots and based on science took hold. The great aspiration of Félix Varela and those who followed that current was to move closer to God without creating an antagonism with science. Thus, instead of our dogmatic principles flourishing, ethical principles appeared. That is one of the keys to Cuban intellectual thought: what in other countries was imposed through rigid schemas and unacceptable "isms" was achieved through ethical principles in our country. Can anyone consider José de la Luz y Caballero dogmatic? Rather, he was a man who had great steadfastness related to certain ideas. Thus, when he affirmed, "¼ all the schools, no schools, that is the school," he was negating any dogmatism. And when he said, "¼ justice is the sun of the moral world," he was affirming an ethical principle. That is an example, I think, of the way Cuban thinking has functioned.
How do you view certain renovations in thinking that have taken hold in Western civilization? In certain areas of Western thought today, there is a nostalgic return to the pre-modernist past. Let’s say that they accept that Galileo was right, to give an example, or certain values espoused by De las Casas are accepted, but some do so full of prejudices and limitations which really do not deserve to be taken seriously 500 years later. And the other nostalgia is neoliberalism, because it’s nothing more than that: a conservative nostalgia for the liberalism which in the 18th and 19th centuries constituted a revolutionary progressive force, but which today is a profoundly reactionary force. And what’s more, it is no longer coherent, because the forces of renewal and culture come together in history in a dialectical and critical appropriation of the past. We socialists, even though we have suffered through this whole current process, can review the past with greater rigor and a more critical attitude. Not just modern society until the collapse, but also the whole Christian era. But the others currently lack a capacity for criticism, because capitalist civilization is intellectually bankrupt. I’m speaking specifically of U.S. society and more concretely of the ultraright, because Europe has found a more subtle, more complex form. And I see more potential, a greater critical capacity among the Europeans, because their history of capitalism is longer. The United States needs imagination to face the crisis; it acts chaotically as if this were the prelude to the great crises which will appear in the 21st century. The liberation theologians
have found an explanation for the scientific deficit in the social,
economic and political disciplines that serve the bourgeoisie, or more
precisely, U.S. imperialism. They point out that a cause of that deficit
is that all of reality is not analyzed. And according to the liberation
theologians, what part of reality is it that don’t they analyze? Pain.
And that is a common-sense truth which, as Gramsci said, should be the
basis of all philosophy. Pain is a truth too terrible to ignore. In that
regard, we should recall a statement by Martí: "He who puts aside a part
of the truth out of willfulness and forgetfulness eventually confronts
the truth which was missing, which grows out of negligence and topples
whatever rises up without it." And that is the weakness, the limitation
currently confronting U.S. capitalist society, above all.
• Interview with
Armando Hart Dávalos, director of the Martí Program Office BY RAYSA WHITE (Special for Granma International) AT one point you stated: life changes, things change and, as a consequence, some ideas are transformed and, of course, certain fundamentals shouldn’t remain immobile. Certain ideas become exhausted or have fulfilled their role for certain cultures in specific circumstances or epochs. Others remain and are part of our times, our future and our interests in relation to the world. It is in this context that I can see the value of an organization of Cuban thought. Organizing it in a body as a source of our own ideological wealth, which could also accommodate new trends of thought that emerge. Yes, I think that’s right, because the dialectic of life makes thought change and things change as well, but there must be respect, and we must do whatever we do with respect. I say to you: What are our most solid fundamentals? • A legal system created by the Revolution and a people which supports the Revolution and that system. That exists in an organic form: as one designates a president, as one chooses a government. That’s everything. • Our nation’s ethical principles within a profound tradition following on from Martí. • And one collectively cohesive element: unity. However, one must bear in mind that unity cannot be guaranteed in the future if it isn’t based on respect for the formation of Cuban legislation as proclaimed in the Constitution of the Republic and within the legal system. For that reason, the basis of that culture of respect must be created now. There must be a cultural and legal sensibility, with an awareness that if such a unity is forced or assaulted, it would cause a division which would tarnish much of what we have achieved. You have affirmed on various occasions that it is essential for us to study ethics on the basis of scientific fundaments. Which is not to imply that scientific thought should rule ethics. Certain ethical principles are factors of human communication. Without the existence of an ethical relationship between human groups, each one would do as they liked. However, no civilization or society has been able to endure for long without having legal bases, laws that regulate relations among individuals. Martí said that the secret of what is human is to be found in the faculty of associating, and how can persons associate without ethical principles? Ah, but ethical principles must be sustained by legal bases. The paths of socialism must be paved with cooperation, education, culture and a legal system whose social content is justice and equity. Of course, this requires an economic base. In its commentary on the outrages and lack of discipline of the Hebrew people, the Book of Judges closes with a paragraph that states: "In those days there was no king in Israel and every man did what was right in his own eyes." There are ethical principles that society cannot allow to be violated. Like taking justice into one’s own hands ("Thou shalt not kill") or appropriating something that is not yours ("Thou shalt not steal"), which are subject to punishment. Let’s take as a point for reflection penal law, which is the most typical. Penal law is no less than the formulation of those ethical principles that society cannot allow to be violated. There are examples of conduct that society objectively rejects. For example, it wouldn’t occur to anyone to commit to prison a child who behaves in a discourteous and arrogant way toward his parents. That kind of conduct comes in for social repudiation, but the weight of penal law doesn’t fall on that child. However, there are other violations that one knows can lead to serious conflicts in terms of coexistence among individuals, and that there is no alternative but to establish penalties. Even though in life, in the final analysis, one comes to the conclusion that not even laws and kings are sufficient. People’s education, their disposition towards harmony, their ideas, carry a decisive weight in their conduct. What I’m saying is that passing a law doesn’t necessarily solve anything. The thing is that law cannot be perceived as a simply legal issue. The essence of legality must be a part of us. I see that as a matter of culture. And in Cuba it is distinguished by its history. Cuban culture has a popular and juridical basis. I’ve also observed something else: the Cuban legal cultural tradition, and even certain principles that we could call philosophical or legal, have been oriented in Cuban history towards the defense of the poor, the defenseless. This has been an organic element since the time of Varela, Céspedes, Agramonte, José Martí and, in the present, Fidel. In the War of 1868, when our first republic was constituted with its government-in-arms, from the time of the decrees abolishing slavery, all the finest history of law and philosophy of law has leaned towards the defense of the people’s interests. It was an exceptional republic, given its attachment to the law, especially when you think about a government assembly that, given its state of war, the distance between delegates and the Spanish persecution, was delayed six or seven months in meeting. A great juridical sensibility has always existed in Cuba. When I studied the debate in the Guáimaro Assembly, those discussions between Carlos Manuel de Céspedes and Ignacio Agramonte, I found their discrepancies memorable. Both leaders were lawyers, educated men, persons from the legal profession. And they held different opinions. Céspedes thought that, from the practical point of view, the Republic should not be constituted with an institutional government in the midst of war. Agramonte opposed that point of view, but both of them argued from legal bases. And one of Céspedes’ most valuable acts was to respect the decisions of that parliament of 19th-century independence fighters. Only persons of that stature and legal sensibility are capable of respecting such principles. If they hadn’t possessed a political education and legal sensibility, they would have been more inclined to underestimate the decision of that parliament-in-arms composed of little more than 10 men. And that kind of conduct creates the basis of respect in a nation. Certain texts constantly criticize those disagreements. Afterwards, they led to the Zanjón Pact. It was demonstrated that that type of republic wasn’t viable—Martí examined all of that. But it was the republic to which they aspired and Céspedes was aware that if he acted in another way he would divide the Cubans. His conduct can be seen as a question of praxis. Ethical conduct leads to respect for a juridical decision, even when it is not functional, until its inoperativeness is demonstrated. Doing the opposite could lead to disastrous reactions related to respect and social norms. What can be seen is a fundament of beauty, personal honor, and exceptional qualities, of knowing that when something is born, it has to be cared for so that it doesn’t grow on rarefied bases, on lean and flimsy supports. Martí himself taught us that the tree must have healthy roots. And he exemplified that with his conduct. The disagreements between Maceo, Gómez and Martí in La Mejorana are sacred pages of history. Those discussions that started among them in the 1880s are no more than juridical themes: how to organize the army and what its functions should be, the functions of the government, the limits between the two. Martí had discovered a formula: the Cuban Revolutionary Party. And they were in agreement on the essential themes: the abolition of slavery, Cuban independence, overcoming racial conflict, their position in relation to U.S. pretensions. The disagreements appeared in their form of approaching a commonly accepted objective. The fact is that their backgrounds were different. Martí had an intellectual background and the other two men were forged in struggle, in combat. When the time came to institute the Republic, certain differences were bound to appear. The distinctive aspect of Martí’s proposals emerged from his fear of caudillismo, which dogged America like a pernicious and terrible tradition. Maceo housed the same fear of pettifoggery, another wretched and disastrous tradition. But given that Martí was not a pettifogger, nor Maceo a caudillo, they reached an understanding in the end. And that is the basis for the honorable La Mejorana discussions. In all of the foregoing there has been an essence which reveals that, in Cuba, law has been exercised for the liberation of the exploited, and for Cuban independence. Unfortunately, in 1898 came the U.S. intervention, and when the Republic was proclaimed, the Platt Amendment was imposed upon us as law. The Platt Amendment was an anti-juridical event. Nevertheless, it was approved by the majority.... It was imposed on the Assembly by force and many people voted against it. Others didn’t vote against it for a number of reasons, but the majority knew or felt that they were voting for something morally wrong. And it is known that there was pressure, that force was employed in that vote. With the opposition of constituents, the U.S. Congress forced that body to approve the amendment’s text, and it was stated that if it wasn’t included in our Constitution, U.S. intervention would not come to an end. For that reason it is unacceptable to give juridical value to the Platt Amendment. The Platt Amendment became a thorn in the Cubans’ side. Because it was a legal outrage. And in Cuba you cannot play around with such things. If you review neocolonial history, you will realize that the two governments that were catalysts for revolutionary movements of social magnitude in 1933 and 1953—that of Gerardo Machado with the proroguing of power, and that of Fulgencio Batista with the 1952 coup d’état—were the ones that turned into violent dictatorships. The remaining governments, in spite of their corruption, internal illegalities, mediocrity in all aspects, had to face opposition and disturbances, but not social revolutions, as they were careful to dress themselves in legal clothing. However, Batista violated the law, violated the 1940 Constitution. We were born defending that Constitution, it was one of our sacred memories. The violation of the 1940 Constitution motivated a movement of popular rebellion. We students took to the streets. Fidel presented a denunciation. We also presented a letter before the Constitutional Guarantee Court demanding respect for the law, and for a ruling that that government was illegal. Could it be said that the armed struggle was to defend the 1940 Constitution? The armed struggle was for respect for the law. Batista violated the Constitution because, for its time, it had a progressive nature and was oriented towards the people’s interests. It has often been said that a bourgeois revolution could have occurred in the ’50s, and I can tell you that merely the fulfillment of the 1940 Constitution would have resulted in a confrontation with the United States, because that Constitution formally abolished the holding of large tracts of land. Did you know that? And if you were going to fulfill the law, you would have had to regulate land tenure. What do you think? The abolition of the large sugar plantations and all the other large landholdings in Cuba represented a brutal clash with the United States. An inevitable clash. When the Revolution triumphed, the 1940 Constitution was maintained for more than 15 years. With the triumph of the Revolution and a program that went beyond that body of legislation, a change was needed. And with the people’s backing, we proclaimed a constitutional legislation, but one that respected the spirit of the 1940 Constitution. In fact, that Constitution was already out of date. In 1976 we finally arrived at a process in which the country established a new set of institutions and the Socialist Constitution proclaimed. This is our model, passed by popular plebiscite, and supported by free elections and a direct and secret vote by the people. Neither of the two constitutions of the Republic of Cuba, those of 1940 and 1976, were imposed by force. They were discussed, amended and approved by the majority of the Cuban people. And that’s the reason why we defend that legal system based on the Socialist Constitution. That’s why when people talk to me about other models, I think that they’re proposing something illegal. Today we have a huge strength, thanks to the existence of Fidel, who supports all this. And when I’m asked what will happen after he is gone—which I hope happens in the very distant future... infinite—I always state that the main thing is that we have created our laws and known how to defend and respect them, to respect the legal system that we have created and the ethical principles emanating from the Revolution and our relationship with the world. Do you believe that Cuban revolutionaries, when they advance in the future along obscure and difficult paths, will be in possession of that light? I think so. And I also think that those who don’t possess it have not looked deep enough into their hearts or their spirits, or have emptied them of feeling. But I know that there are many men and women in this nation and in the world who do not have empty hearts. I believe that our people will be stronger, more secure, more experienced. I have a kind of faith in that. a conviction that we will never return to the past, although we need to learn from past experience and to construct the beauty and nobility demanded by every moment.
PART TWO: |