In 2021, I posted under the above heading three papers of students from my course Diversifying Philosophy. It is now already for the ninth year that I teach this course, while Academia, with varying success, undertakes diversification of its curriculum and its staff. The students attending our English Philosophy Bachelor program are already as diverse as possible (structural hindrances of studying abroad that are a sad reality aside)! This led, this year especially, to lively exchanges between the students, in class and in the breaks, as they shared the knowledge they possessed from their home countries, and thus enriched our ways to see the world. Next year the course will have a new title and focus: Intercultural Philosophy and Postcolonial Theory, and this year I already ran it with a selection of readings in that field as a pilot. I read many interesting papers from the students, and am proud of the work they did! It is time I share once again one of those, by Maira van Emden, who added to the course, by arguing that it should include more of the contributions to the field from Latin American thinkers. I wish you enjoy reading it as much as I did!
The invisibility of Latin American philosophy: Internal and engrained colonial echoes
Introduction
A surge of desire to diversify the academic canon has pervaded the academic realm. Rather than merely upholding Western ideals, academia now strives to offer a well-rounded view of scientific inquiry. Courses like Diversifying Philosophy aim to underscore the underlying power structures and inherent biases within the philosophical world. Consequently, a more diverse and colorful philosophical canon has emerged. From amplifying the voice of people of color to learning about the wisdom of Asian philosophers, the canon is slowly but surely enriching. However, despite the interesting array of fields of thought, as a philosophy student, I have not once encountered a Latin American philosopher within the curriculum. The Latin American continent is a vast one with many Spanish or Portuguese-speaking scholars, so how come it is so under-exposed in philosophical education? There is philosophical education in Latin American universities, but Western thought, such as that of Hegel, Kant, and Marx, still holds a position of dominance. In addition, modern works by European scholars are overrepresented in Latin American universities, whereas works by Spanish and Portuguese-speaking authors are often overlooked.
This paper will dive into Latin American Philosophy’s complex historical, cultural, and internal challenges to come to a distinct and inclusive solution for the problem of identity and lack of representation in the global discourse. Furthermore, essential steps for decolonizing and liberating the philosophical narrative will be explored.
Latin America’s colonial history
To deconstruct this issue, the history of Latin America and its people should be examined. This history is inseparable from colonialism. Before Columbus found the Americas in the 15th century and turned Latin America into the continent we know today, indigenous peoples were the custodians of the land. As James Maffie, a prominent academic in the field of indigenous philosophy, articulates, these pre-Columbian peoples had a rich tradition of philosophical thinking preceding Western occupation. Fundamental questions, all too familiar to the European tradition, that inquire into the nature of being, ethics, and knowledge were pondered on by various Aztec and Andean thinkers. Nevertheless, Western, and pre-Columbian philosophies at the time proved hard to marry. While indigenous philosophy perceived humans as “a part of the world” and “of the world”, Western ideals positioned humanity at the center of the world with the God-given right to exploit the natural world. (Maffie, 2010) Western ideals at the time were grounded in the Christian religion, whereas pre-Columbian thought did not honor a deity as much as it honored the living world, including themselves as an integrated part. Thus, lacking in the Christian godly values, missionaries viewed indigenous philosophy as primitive and superstitious. Nowadays, amidst the climate crisis and the destruction of vital forests by Western ideals, this integrated view held by indigenous philosophy is often glorified and looked upon as a helpful alternative structure. Yet, at the time indigenous thought was deemed ungodly and banished, at which the colonial power was incredibly successful. In the end, Eurocentric and Christian ideology prevailed in Latin America, resulting in the eradication, dilution, or banishment of indigenous cultures by racist and Eurocentric ideals.
Philosophy with a Latin American character
It is evident that indigenous philosophy, although occasionally glorified by the West, does not dominate modern Latin American philosophy. However, the history of inequality and racism does play a crucial role in shaping modern Latin American philosophy. The Indigenous population in the Latin peninsula often experiences higher levels of poverty as a result of colonial ideology. Still, they are looked down on and negatively affected by biases. Latin America, in general, is plagued by inequality and poverty. This is frequently used as an excuse for the underdevelopment of the philosophical tradition in this area. It is thought that there is no room for philosophical inquiry in a society where simply surviving is the main priority. This would coincide with an attitude of ridicule towards a superfluous activity such as philosophy. Following this line of reasoning, short essays that are easy to read would be more suitable for such an underdeveloped society. This perspective, while seemingly plausible, implies that Latin American philosophers lack the capacity for independent thought. (Pereda, 2006) It is condescending to suggest that because of limited money and therefore limited time, people in Latin America have a limited capacity to think. Be that as it may, it is true that philosophy often takes up another form in the face of social issues. Rather than solely pondering ontological, epistemic, or metaphysical questions such as “What is being?” Or “What is truth?” it takes on a politically and socially engaged role.
In his work, “Canonizing the Critical Race Artifice, An Analysis of Philosophy’s Gentrification of Critical Race Theory” (2018 ), Curry emphasizes the importance of an engaged and realistic approach to the philosophy of race. The realist approach advocates for maintaining a connection to tangible social constructs when philosophizing. It calls for voicing the experience of actual people and fights against the over-abstract view on race and social inequality. The realistic view is both economically and politically engaged, resonating with the Latin American experience as the region continues to grapple with the harmful effects of colonialism. The socially engaged philosophical tradition, referred to as Liberation Philosophy, has been quite vast in Latin American countries. Liberation philosophy utilizes the tools of philosophy to dissect the reality of the Latin American people, providing a distinctly Latin American perspective to philosophy. Much like what Curry calls for, Liberation philosophy disregards idealism and focuses on the material conditions of Latin American people. It is based on the fact that human existence, that with which philosophy is most often concerned, is embedded within cultural identity, and should therefore be concerned with cultural and social issues. (Gandolfo, 2010) Philosophers like Arturo Andres Roig often shift the focus from a Heideggerian mode of being, towards materialism based on Marx and Hegel’s theory. Roig emphasizes this by stating that the only way in which humans have access to being is through the fact of being human. Therefore, these distinct aspects of being a human embedded within a social and historical context should be examined. (Roig, 2004; Gandolfo, 2010) Philosophy, thus, takes up a social responsibility. Ignacio Ellacuria deepens this idea by historically reconstructing the human tendency toward the realization of freedom. Humanity is effectively working towards a state of freedom at all times and because of this, philosophy must be engaged in seeking freedom for the people. (Gandolfo, 2010)
The “distinctivist” and “universalist” approaches
Although Liberation philosophy focuses on Latin American issues, it is still based on much of the ideas of Western philosophers like Hegel, Marx and Heidegger. This begs the question of how one goes about distinguishing Latin American philosophy and if such an endeavor even is possible. Philosopher Andrea Nuccetelli (2010) deconstructs this issue by offering a “universalist” and a “distinctivist” answer. According to the universalist view, there are at least some philosophical theories, methods, and topics that are universal, meaning that they apply to a Mondial philosophical tradition. Whereas strong Universalism would imply that all philosophical endeavors are universal, the weaker variant allows for the possibility of distinctively Latin American aspects to philosophy (2010). The weaker universalist view would classify Latin American philosophy as Ethnic philosophy, Nuccetelli contends, which means that it does not fit within the universal philosophical tradition, as well as not fitting into another ethnic philosophy. As follows, a Chilean Philosopher working from Hegelian ideas is not practicing Ethnic Latin American philosophy. This takes on a distinctly Eurocentric undertone when these European-based ideas are taken as universal. It could be said, however, that these ideas are so deeply engrained within philosophy due to having the upper hand in dialogue for so long, that it has become a universal thought framework. On the other hand, a distinctivist, would say that the Chilean philosopher is practicing Latin American philosophy when she uses theories, methods, or topics that are characteristically Latin American (Nutacelli, 2010). As to the nature of this distinct “Latin Americanism”, not much is clear. According to this view, however, the previously mentioned Liberation Philosophy would be distinctively Latin American as it regards a specific Latin American topic, namely Latin American social, cultural, and economic inequality. Howsoever one may look at this issue, being from a universalist standpoint or a distinctivist standpoint, it is evident that both leave room for ambiguity. While one regards the tradition in Latin America as “philosophy in Latin America”, the other one views it as “characteristically” Latin American (Nutacelli, 2010). Yet both views ought to determine what falls under the differently worded concepts.
Evidently, it is not easy to define Latin American philosophy. The lines of demarcation are vague and historically, a varied array of philosophical topics have been discussed by Latin thinkers. The opposing views on the universality of philosophy would lead to drastically different answers to the question of distinguishing Latin American philosophy. Whereas a universalist would find it only logical that Latin American philosophy is similar to European philosophy, distinctivists would be more inclined to view theories like Liberation philosophy as truly Latin American. Following this idealist Philosophy would call for liberation from Western ideas as they stem from a colonized past. From here it would follow that philosophy in Latin America would adhere to a characteristically Latin American framework applied to practical issues in society.
Problems of specification
In her paper, “Intercultural, Transcultural, Cross-cultural – Why We Need All Three Of Them” (2018), Roothaan addresses the vagueness of delineating between cultural philosophies, showing that culture is not as bounded as previously believed and that these ideas of boundedness are unhelpful for the goal of decolonization as well as for cross-cultural human understanding. Roothaan transforms the concept of culture into the idea of “thinking spaces”. Thinking spaces are the space from which people seek to understand reality. They unfold within a specific historical and geographical area, yet they are not bounded by such spatio-temporal borders. In this sense, “cultures” are inherently touched and shaped by other “cultures”, leading to new ideas within such cultures. Instead of the multicultural approach of recognizing other cultures, Roothaan advocates for a dialogue where ideas from different parts of the world touch each other and subsequently shape each other. It is only through his framework that true understanding can arise, and power structures can be abolished. Roothaans ideas are ever so applicable to the Latin American peninsula. Instead of defining Latin American philosophy as either Western-centered or something specifically Latin American, it is exactly the touching of viewpoints that represents Latin American philosophy. Stemming from colonization as well as globalization, Latin America is a melting pot of ideas, traditions, and philosophies. However, as explained in a previous paragraph, the hegemony of Eurocentric ideals has led to economic and social inequality as well as unequal power dynamics in the philosophical world. These unequal power dynamics are expressed in a lack of indigenous representation in the philosophical canon in Latin America, as well as the lack of Latin American authors in the Western philosophical canon.
A possible explanation for the underrepresentation of Latin American authors could be the ambiguity in the definition of Latin American philosophy. However, if Latin American philosophy is indeed the culmination of different “thinking spaces”, then firstly, it would indeed offer a unique view on the issues dealt with in philosophical thinking and therefore be a valuable addition to philosophical thought. Secondly, the ambiguity of the definition does not explain the fact that Latin American works regarding Western Philosophy are also underrepresented in the Western canon. This shows a racist tendency, as Western scholars are deemed more well-versed to write about topics stemming from their own continent. Following Roothaan’s ideas, merely defining what is Latin American will not abolish this power system but will uphold the differentiation of colonial thinking. Instead, as Roothaan emphasizes, an unbreaking awareness of the power system is vital to ensure that these are not unknowingly sustained (2018). In practice, this would mean that Latin American authors are represented in the canon just as much as authors from other “thinking spaces” and that investigating Indigenous philosophy, as well as any other philosophical tradition, would be held to the same esteem as investigating Kant or Hegel in Latin American universities, as well as European, African or Asian ones.
Internal issues
Regarding the invisibility of Latin American authors, Uruguayan Mexican philosopher Carlos Pereda offers some internal deficiencies that could explain the lack of representation. In his 2006 text Pereda emphasizes the remnants of colonial power dynamics by stating that even scholars from Latin America disregard the ideas of their Latinx1 colleagues. Rarely are ideas stemming from one’s peers offered the same podium as those originating in Europe, even internally. Pereda (2006) broadens this invisibility to the realm of intercultural dialogue, comparable to Roothaan’s views. Even here, Pereda states, Latin American philosophers remain unnoticed. It should be mentioned that Roothaan’s ideas are more recent and that the scope has evolved somewhat. However, the underrepresentation of Latin American authors in the canon is proof that this evolution is not as far as one might hope.
Pereda (2006) explains the underrepresentation through three internal deficiencies. Firstly, the internally engrained belief that the center of ideas resides elsewhere than the Spanish-speaking continent limits scholars to the realm of reflection rather than that of innovative ideas. Secondly, Pereda discerns a certain degree of intellectual laziness within the philosophical tradition, where Latin American scholars seek sensational and trending ideas. This makes for superficial philosophical inquiry. To remedy these vices a philosophy with a national character emerges, which is a vice in itself according to Pereda. While striving towards an authentic philosophical tradition, the rhetoric is returned to topics that are authentically Latin American. Here, Pereda essentially describes the” distinctivist” categorization of Latin American philosophy. Although Pereda advocates for decolonization, this refocus on authentically Latin American philosophy does not help the status of Latin American works and is not a remedy for colonization. As Roothaan mentions in her text, Franz Fanon said, “The colonial world is a compartmentalized world”. By compartmentalizing between authentically Latin American and “Other”, colonial power dynamics are upheld. More practically, this attitude of exclusion does not make it appealing for scholars from different parts of the world to investigate Latin American works. Despite Pereda’s critical words regarding the philosophy in question, he also emphasizes that the tradition should not be simplified or reduced. He stresses that despite its shortcomings and even though the people in Latin America experience poverty, there is still a vast array of profound thought within the continent. Subsequently, he calls for Latin scholars to read the work of their Spanish and Portuguese-speaking peers. This combats internal invisibility as well as dismantling the system where Western thought is deemed leading.
Conclusion: toward a liberated dialogue in Latin American philosophy
Seeking to define Latin American philosophy reveals the multiple layers that contribute to its underrepresentation in academic discourse. The historical remnants of colonialism are ever so present, with indigenous philosophies marginalized and dismissed in favor of Eurocentric ideals. The power dynamics, rooted in the colonial past, persist in the modern academic landscape, overshadowing the richness of Latin American philosophical thought. Delineating a distinct Latin American philosophy proves problematic and the opposing universalist and distinctivist approaches don’t quite grasp its unique identity. Liberation philosophy is an example of a characteristically Latinx philosophy and offers a socially engaged philosophical lens for Latin philosophers. However, the question whether Latin American philosophy can truly break free from the persuasive influence of Western Thinkers remains open.
The concept of “thinking spaces” proposed by Roothaan provides a nuanced lens through which to view Latin American philosophy. The interplay of ideas and ideologies stemming from colonization as well as globalization is what defines Latin American philosophy. Embracing this fluidity challenges the notion of boundedness to culture and calls for a dialogue that transcends spatio-temporal borders. Yet, internal deficiencies further exacerbate the challenges faced by Latin American scholars. The remnants of colonial power dynamics are ever so persistent in the academic community. This perpetuates an intellectual hierarchy that favors ideas that originate outside of Latin America. Pereda’s critique highlights the need for Latinx scholars to overcome intellectual laziness and engage in an exploration of their own philosophical traditions.
Moving forward, it is important to recognize the intricacies of Latin American philosophy and address the systemic issues that perpetuate its invisibility. Roothaan’s call for an unbreaking awareness of power structure resonates, emphasizing the importance of dismantling distinctions between “Latin American’ and “other”. A liberated dialogue demands the inclusion of Latin American authors in the global canon and an equal assessment of their contribution alongside those from other “thinking spaces”.
Ultimately, the journey toward a more inclusive and diverse academic landscape requires a commitment to decolonization. This involves not only acknowledging Latin American philosophy’s unique perspective but also actively dismantling the hierarchal structures present in the philosophical discourse. In doing so, the academic canon can truly reflect the richness of human thought, transcending geographical boundaries and embracing the interconnectedness of diverse philosophical traditions,
References
Curry, T. J. (2017). Canonizing the critical race artifice. In Routledge eBooks (pp. 349–361). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315884424-25
Gandolfo, D. I, (2010) Liberation Philosophy. In Nuccetelli, S., Schutte, O., & Bueno, O. (Eds). A companion to Latin American philosophy. John Wiley & Sons.
Hurtado, G. (2006). Two models of Latin American philosophy. Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 20(3), 204–213. https://doi.org/10.1353/jsp.2007.0004
Maffie, J, (2010). pre-Columbian Philosophies. In Nuccetelli, S., Schutte, O., & Bueno, O. (Eds). A companion to Latin American philosophy. John Wiley & Sons.
Nuccetelli, S, (2010) Latin American Philosophy. In Nuccetelli, S., Schutte, O., & Bueno, O. (Eds). A companion to Latin American philosophy. John Wiley & Sons.
Pereda, C. (2006). Latin American Philosophy: Some vices. Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 20(3), 192–203. https://doi.org/10.1353/jsp.2007.0007
Roothaan, A. (2018). Interkulturell, transkulturell, cross-cultural – warum wir alle drei Begriffe brauchen. Polylog. Zeitschrift für interkulturelles Philosophieren, 40, 67-82. https://www.polylog.net/fileadmin/docs/polylog/40/40_thema_Roothaan.pdf
angelaroothaan 