Spain in 1930. He joined the Jesuits in 1947 and was quickly sent to
El Salvador, where he lived and worked for the next forty-two years,
except for periods when he was pursuing his education in Ecuador,
Spain, and West Germany. He developed an important and novel
contribution to Latin American Liberation Philosophy. The body of
thought known as Liberation Philosophy developed in Latin America in
the second half of the Twentieth Century. It grew out of the works of
philosophers working in Peru (A. Salazar Bondy) and Mexico (Leopoldo
Zea), and quickly spread throughout Latin America. It resulted from
efforts by these philosophers to create a Latin American philosophy by
looking at how the discipline could help to make sense of Latin
American reality. That reality, as distinct from the European (and
later North American) context in which the modern Western
philosophical tradition developed, is one of dependence on economic
and political (and to some extent cultural) factors that are beyond
one's control. In thematizing dependency, Latin American philosophy
developed a liberation philosophy that focused on the social and
personal imperative to overcome dependency as the path toward the
fullness of one's humanity, given the conditions of dependency. There
are at least five different schools within Latin American liberation
philosophy (see Cerutti in the Bibliography below), but all are
grounded in the attempt to use philosophy to understand the Latin
American reality of dependency and the need to overcome it.
1. Life
Ellacuría's initial training in philosophy was in the
Neo-Scholasticism required at that time of all Jesuits. Later he
studied Ortega, Bergson, Heidegger, phenomenology, and the
existentialists. All of these influenced him, but the key influences
in the make up of his mature philosophical thought were Hegel, Marx,
and the Basque philosopher Xavier Zubiri (1898-1983). Ellacuría worked
on his doctorate under Zubiri from 1962 to 1965, writing a
dissertation that reached some 1100 pages on the concept of essence in
Zubiri's thought. He also studied theology with the great Heideggerian
Jesuit, Karl Rahner, and had finished all the requirements for a
second PhD, but did not write the dissertation (which he was also
going to write under Zubiri). For the next 18 years, until Zubiri's
death in 1983, they were close collaborators, with Ellacuría returning
to Spain from El Salvador for a few months each year to facilitate
their work. The two worked together on most of Zubiri's texts and
talks, eventually reaching the point where Zubiri would not publish
something, or even present a lecture, without first showing the
material to Ellacuría.
Zubiri is a major figure in 20th century Spanish philosophy and has
had a lot of influence in Latin America, largely through the efforts
of Ellacuría, but his work is not well known in the countries more
traditionally associated with Continental Philosophy (France and
Germany) or in the Anglo-American tradition. By the age of 23, Zubiri
had finished both a PhD in theology at the Gregorian University and a
PhD in philosophy at the University of Madrid. At 28 he was named to
the prestigious chair in the history of philosophy at the University
of Madrid, and for the next few years he traveled widely in Europe to
study with experts in many different fields: philosophy with Husserl
and Heidegger, physics with Schrödinger and De Broglie, as well as
biology and mathematics with luminaries of the day. Zubiri also taught
in Paris at the Institut Catholique and at the University of
Barcelona, but in 1942 he left formal academia and for the rest of his
life conducted seminars on his own.
From among a large number of very important publications, his two most
important are On Essence (1963) and the three-volume work, Sentient
Intelligence (1980-83). Ellacuría, who knew all of Zubiri's work, was
particularly familiar with these two works: his doctoral dissertation
was on the former, and he worked very closely with Zubiri to bring the
latter to publication before Zubiri's death.
Zubiri created a systematic philosophy grounded in a re-configuring
and overcoming of the distinction between epistemology and
metaphysics, between the knower and the known (for more, see the
section below on Ellacuría's philosophy). There are now various
interpretations of Zubiri's work (among others, phenomenological,
Nietzschean, praxical) with Ellacuría heading up the
historical/metaphysical interpretation. Although there is no agreement
among Zubirian scholars as to which among these is the better
interpretation, the fact that Zubiri adopted Ellacuría as his closest
collaborator for the last 20 years of his life has to lend some weight
to Ellacuría's interpretation
Ellacuría was murdered in 1989 – along with five other Jesuits with
whom he lived, their housekeeper and her daughter – at the hands of an
elite, US-trained squadron of the Salvadoran army. The murders came
towards the end of El Salvador's long civil war (1980-1992) between a
right-wing government and leftist guerillas. At the time of his death,
Ellacuría was president of the country's prestigious Jesuit
university, the University of Central America (UCA), as well as chair
of its philosophy department and editor of many of its scholarly
publications. In his quarter century with the UCA, the last ten years
as its president, he had played a principle role in molding it into a
university whose full institutional power – that is, through its
research, teaching and publications – was directed towards uncovering
the causes of poverty and oppression in El Salvador. In addition, he
spoke out frequently on these topics as a regular contributor to the
country's newspapers, radio and television programs. He also addressed
these topics frequently in his scholarly publications on philosophy
and theology. These were the reasons behind his murder.
During his lifetime Ellacuría was known, primarily, as one of the
principle contributors to Latin American liberation theology. However,
he also spent the last two decades of his life elaborating a
liberation philosophy. The latter work was left, at the time of his
murder, unfinished, unpublished, and scattered across many different
writings. In the years since his death, a number of scholars have
pieced together his philosophical thought, and it is now possible to
argue that Ellacuría had a well-developed philosophy that represents
an important contribution to Latin American liberation philosophy.
2. Ellacuría's Philosophy of Liberation
Ellacuría argued that philosophy, in order to remain true to itself,
must be a philosophy of liberation. He begins with the assertion that
it is the responsibility of philosophy to help us in figuring out what
reality is and in situating ourselves within reality. For Ellacuría,
human reality is historical and social: the range of possibilities in
which the freedom of any given individual's life must be exercised is
the result of both past human actions and the society in which the
individual lives. Human actions accrete as history, and within this
reality individuals and societies are able to realize some of the
possibilities handed over by the past, in the process creating new
possibilities to hand over to future generations. There is progress in
reality, from the physical to the biological to the praxical, each of
these representing a further unfolding of an ever more complex
reality. In the realm of praxis (his word for human action to change
reality), human beings act to realize a wider range of possibility:
praxis seeks to realize a fuller praxis. Thus, praxis realizes a
gradual increase in liberty: praxis gradually liberates liberty.
Human beings, as praxical beings, are responsible for the further
unfolding of reality, i.e., for the realization of a reality in which
all praxical beings can fully realize themselves as such. Ellacuría
argues that the vantage point from which one can see most clearly what
reality unfolding as history has and has not delivered, is the
perspective of the marginalized. Thus, the philosophy of history must
make a preferential option for the marginalized, i.e., it must be a
philosophy of liberation.
Ellacuría's liberation philosophy begins with a critique grounded in a
Zubirian metaphysics that is radically critical of all forms of
idealism, including most of what has passed for realism in the history
of Western philosophy. This critique argues that the Western tradition
made a fundamental error, from Parmenides on, in separating sensation
and the intellect, an error which distorted all subsequent philosophy.
This error resulted in the "logification of intelligence" and the
"entification of reality." By the former, Zubiri means that the full
powers of the intellect have been reduced to a predicative logos,
i.e., a logos whose function is to determine what things are, in
themselves and in relation to other things. Zubiri argues that while
this is a vital part of intelligence, it is not the only part and not
the most fundamental part, but Western philosophy reduced intelligence
to this predicative logos. In doing so, the object of logos, i.e., the
being of entities, became the sum total of reality: reality became
entified. These two distortions (the logification of intelligence and
entification of reality) can only be overcome by the recognition that
sensation and intellection are not separate, that they are two aspects
of a single faculty. Zubiri called this faculty the sentient
intellect. By this term he meant that, for human beings, the intellect
is always sentient and sensation is always intelligent. The two
faculties of sensation and intelligence are, for human beings, one and
the same faculty. This new, human faculty, the "sentient intellect,"
is Zubiri's candidate for the specific difference of human beings as a
species: a new type of sensation that is essentially different from
the sense faculty of other animals, different by the addition of
intelligence.
In what way is human sensation essentially different than the
sensation of other animals? For Zubiri, part of every human sensation,
but absent in animal sensation, is the awareness that the object
sensed is real, i.e., that it is has the property of being something
in and of itself, independent from me, that it is not a willful
extension of me. This recognition of the real as real is the
fundamental act of the intelligence; it is the intellectual act that
is part and parcel, structurally, inextricably, of every act of human
sensation. Thus, through the unitary faculty of the sentient intellect
we apprehend reality as real. The consequence of this is that we are
always already installed in reality. There is no question about how
the mind reaches what is real, no need to build a bridge between the
mind and reality.
The intellect, like the rest of the body, evolved as a response to
challenges posed by the environment. Animals respond to stimuli while
humans are confronted with possible realities. Animals are faced with
a predetermined cast of responses to a given stimuli. But human beings
in any given situation have an open spectrum of options from among
which we must choose. We are, in effect, faced with the possibilities
of many different realities, and our choices contribute to the
determination of reality as it is realized; thus the name that Zubiri
gives to human beings: the "reality animal." The openness of the
options facing us is the structural basis of our freedom. Freedom is
not something mysterious but a result of the evolutionary pressures
that lead to the emergence of a sentient intelligence. The
evolutionary niche occupied by human beings is one in which the cast
of responses to a stimulus grew to the point where there was no longer
anything automatic about which possible response would be enacted. Our
niche is the one where the huge number of possible responses opened up
different potential realities, allowing us more fully to exploit
reality's possibilities. In other words, our niche is precisely the
freedom to choose from among the huge number of possible responses,
i.e., from among the huge number of possible realities. To manage this
operation of choosing, animal sensation evolved into the sentient
intellect.
So, according to Zubirian metaphysics, human beings are always already
installed in reality as the part of reality whose actions determine
future reality: humans are the part of reality that now unfolds
further reality. In previous eras, the unfolding of reality took place
by physical and biological forces, but now it is human forces (praxis)
that unfolds reality. This is not to say that physical and biological
forces are no longer present. They are present, and continue to form
the foundation of praxis, but praxis outstrips them. An authentic
praxis, however, must recognize its foundation in biology and physics
– that is why the physical and biological needs of human beings must
be met in order for the fullness of human praxis to be realizable.
Thus, an authentic praxis must strive for a reality in which the
physical and biological needs of all humans are met.
Ellacuría concludes from all of this that the primary question facing
human beings – metaphysical and ethical at once – is: given that we
are always already in reality, what is the proper way to engage it?
Ellacuría characterizes Zubiri's intellectual motto as "to come as
close as possible, intellectually, to the reality of things." Western
philosophy "had not found an adequate way to shoulder responsibility
for reality [hacerse cargo de la realidad]." The search for the right
way to engage reality was the motivation for Ellacuría's work. For
Ellacuría, humans are now shouldered with responsibility for reality
in the sense of being charged with the task of figuring out what is
the proper way of exercising the fundamental freedom opened up by the
advent, within evolution, of the sentient intellect. In this sense,
human beings are the responsible part of reality, i.e., the part of
reality whose task it is to figure out how to respond to reality
thereby creating a new reality unfolded out of the previous reality.
In order for humans to properly exercise this responsibility, we must
discern the direction in which reality needs to be taken.
The sentient intellect evolved to enable us to act more effectively in
insuring our own survival. This is not selfish, as it may at first
sound, given the element of responsibility that comes along with the
sentient intellect. As the reality animal, our actions decide between
various possible future realities. Thus, as the responsible part of
reality, we are now charged with assisting in the further realization
of reality. Ellacuría gives the special name of "praxis" to this
action that determines reality.
If we look at the development of reality, we can discern a progression
from matter, to life, to human life. This progression has been under
the control of, first, physical forces, then biological forces, and
now, with the evolution of the being with sentient intelligence, the
progressive unfolding of reality is subject to the force of praxis.
Thus there is a gradual liberation of more developed forces.
Subsequent forces do not erase the earlier ones, but rather subsume
them dialectically. Thus, human praxis cannot ignore the physical and
biological needs of reality: these are the imperatives that must be
satisfied on the way to the full realization of praxis itself. Reality
has delivered, liberated, successively more developed forces, each
layered over the previous: the biological on top of the physical, and
the praxical on top of the biological. The direction of this process
can be seen: praxis is the most advanced force reality has developed,
and praxis must now take its place as the force that most drives the
further unfolding of reality (just as physical and biological forces
had, successively, taken that place previously). Since the essence of
praxis is freedom, human beings must now exercise our freedom such
that we further the proper development of reality. To remain true to
our essence, and true to the essence of reality, we must act so as to
further the development, the spread, of praxis. Thus, the direction of
this process of liberation is the liberation of liberty itself, a
process for which the reality animal, the praxical being, is
responsible. Thus the full realization of reality entails this:
praxical beings acting to bring about the realization of the reality
in which all praxical beings (that is, all human beings) can realize
the fullness of their praxical essence. In other words, physical and
biological forces brought about human beings; but the nature of human
beings is such that we are now responsible for the further and fuller
realization of reality, which realization is precisely the liberation
of all human beings such that they can realize the fullness of their
essence. Thus Ellacuría is able to argue that the metaphysics of
reality demands a liberatory praxis from us: liberation, because of
the essence of human beings and the nature of reality, is a
metaphysical imperative.
We can begin to see the prescriptions that emerge from the foregoing
analysis. Ellacuría's liberation philosophy allows him to argue that
the essence of being human demands that society be structured in such
a way as to meet the physical and biological needs of human beings at
an adequate level, i.e., a level that frees us to pursue our essence
as praxical beings. Further, his analysis suggests that it is the duty
of those of us who enjoy a wider exercise of freedom to dedicate our
talents and efforts towards the construction of such a society: our
essence as the leading edge of reality that is now responsible for the
further unfolding of reality demands that we assist in the
establishment of a reality in which praxis is more fully realized,
i.e., a reality in which more people (ultimately, all people) are
freed from basic wants (inflicted on them by poverty) so that they can
exercise their praxis. In other words, the full self-realization of
the privileged lies in their enlisting themselves in the struggles of
the oppressed. This does not mean that the privileged have to become
oppressed. Rather, it means that they should use the education and
power delivered to them by their socially and historically conditioned
privilege to further the struggles of the oppressed. Note that this is
not paternalistic. The struggles of the oppressed represent the
leading edge of reality's further development. The endeavors of the
privileged apart from these struggles represent dead-end
dilly-dallying (no matter how important they seem to those engaged in
them) that does not further the humanization of reality and, thus,
will not become an enduring part of human history. Far from
paternalism, what saves the privileged from the meaningless pursuits
with which they are wont to fill their time, and thus from a
meaningless life, is the decision to lend their efforts to further the
cause of the oppressed.
Thus, with Zubirian realism and in creative dialogue with Marx,
Ellacuría undertook, from the perspective of the poor of the Third
World, the project of forging a philosophy that recognized the
material nature of being human – and thus the need to take into
account the structures of poverty and oppression – while holding open
the possibility of a transcendent realm, a realm one and the same with
the material realm (actually part of the material realm) in which can
exist human freedom and perhaps even God. Ellacuría was constructing a
liberation philosophy in the service of the concrete needs of the
Latin American people and of the Third World in general. It is a
project in the service of which Ellacuría took great strides, but
which remained unfinished at his death.
3. References and Further Reading
The most thorough presentation of Ellacuría's philosophical thought is
the impressive work by Héctor Samour, Voluntad de Liberación: El
Pensamiento Filosófico de Ignacio Ellacuría (San Salvador: UCA
Editores, 2002); Samour is the scholar who has done the most to pull
together, from the thousands of pages of unpublished and published
material, Ellacuría's liberation philosophy and this comprehensive
book is the result of his labors. In English, Kevin Burke's book, The
Ground Beneath the Cross: The Theology of Ignacio Ellacuría
(Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2000) contains good
chapters (chs. 2-4) on the philosophical foundation of Ellacuría's
theological thought.
The best intellectual biography on Ellacuría is Teresa Whitfield's
Paying the Price: Ignacio Ellacuría and the Murdered Jesuits of El
Salvador, (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1995).
The best overview of Latin American liberation philosophy is still
Horacio Cerutti's La Filosofia de la Liberación Latinoamericana
(Mexico City: FCE, 1992), though the book was written before
Ellacuría's contributions to the topic were widely known. Thus,
Cerutti charts four main currents of Latin American liberation
philosophy. Ellacuría's contributions represent a fifth current.
Ellacuría's main philosophical work is Filosofía de la Realidad
Histórica, (San Salvador: UCA Editores, 1990). This 600-page work was
written and revised a couple of times in the early 1970s. It was never
finished (there are indications in his notes that he intended to write
more chapters) but is fairly polished and is the best indication of
the scope and force of his argument for liberation philosophy.
His scores of important philosophical essays have been collected. They
can be found, primarily, in: •
Escritos Filosóficos [EF], three volumes (San Salvador: UCA Editores,
1996-2001).
Some philosophically important pieces are also collected in: •
Escritos Teológicos [ET], four volumes (San Salvador: UCA Editores, 2000-2002) •
Veinte Años de Historia en El Salvador: Escritos Políticos [VA], three
volumes, second edition (San Salvador: UCA Editores, 1993) •
Escritos Universitarios [EU], (San Salvador: UCA Editores, 1999).
English translations of eight of his essays (philosophical,
theological and political) can be found in: •
John Hassett and Hugh Lacey, eds., Towards a Society that Serves Its
People: The Intellectual Contribution of El Salvador's Murdered
Jesuits [TSSP], (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1991).
From among all of the collected essays, the most important for
understanding Ellacuría's liberation philosophy are the following: •
"Filosofía y Política" [1972], VA-1, pp. 47-62 •
"Liberación: Misión y Carisma de la Iglesia" [1973], ET-2, pp. 553-584 •
"Diez Años Después: ¿Es Posible una Universidad Distinta?" [1975], EU,
pp. 49-92 (an English translation is available in TSSP, pp. 177-207) •
"Hacia una Fundamentación del Método Teológico Latinoamericana"
[1975], ET-1, pp. 187-218 •
"Filosofía, ¿Para Qué?" [1976], EF-3, pp. 115-132 •
"Fundamentación Biológica de la Ética" [1979], EF-3, pp, 251-269 •
"Universidad y Política" [1980], VA-1, pp. 17-46 •
"El Objeto de la Filosofía" [1981], VA-1, pp. 63-92 •
"Función Liberadora de la Filosofía" [1985], VA-1, pp. 93-122 •
"La Superación del Reduccionismo Idealista en Zubiri" [1988], EF-3,
pp. 403-430 •
"El Desafío de las Mayorías Populares" (1989), EU, pp. 297-306 (an
English translation is available in TSSP, pp. 171-176) •
"En Torno al Concepto y a la Idea de Liberación" [1989], ET-1, pp. 629-657 •
"Utopía y Profetismo en América Latina" [1989], ET-2, pp. 233-294 (an
English translation is available in TSSP, pp. 44-88).
Finally, there still remain a number of unpublished pieces that are
important to Ellacuría's liberation philosophy. These consist
primarily of extensive notes he took for the courses he taught at the
UCA. These, and all of Ellacuría's published and unpublished writings,
are located in the Ignacio Ellacuría Archives at the Universidad
Centroamericana (UCA) in San Salvador, El Salvador.
No comments:
Post a Comment