A Biblioteca Nacional de Chile mantém um interessante projeto intitulado "Memória Chilena". Entre os vários tópicos abordados, há uma seção inteira dedicada ao Positivismo chileno, com livros, artigos, fotos etc. - a maior parte dos quais, se não a sua totalidade, podendo ser baixada gratuitamente.
A seção dedicada ao Positivismo chileno - "La filosofía positivista en Chile (1873-1949)" - pode ser consultada aqui.
Vale notar que essa seção abrange tanto o Positivismo religioso - realizado na obra dos irmãos Lagarrigues (Jorge, Juan e Luís) - quanto o que se poderia chamar de Positivismo "político" - realizado principalmente por Valentín Letelier.
28 agosto 2019
22 agosto 2019
Textos positivistas no Archive.org
Desde há muitos anos o portal Archive.org põe à disposição dos interessados uma série de documentos e arquivos, como livros, documentos, gravações de acesso público, a maior parte dos quais raríssimos e de dificílimo acesso de outra maneira.
Pois bem: na medida em que há alguns anos digitalizei quase 250 opúsculos da Igreja Positivista do Brasil, bem como artigos da Revue Occidentale (órgão internacional do Positivismo), publicados todos eles entre c. 1870 e c. 1930, aos poucos passarei a carregá-los no portal Archive.org.
Esses documentos podem ser consultados por meio das palavras-chave mais relevantes (geralmente "Positivism", "Brazilian Positivist Church" etc.) ou, então, na minha página pessoal de documentos carregados (disponível aqui).
Essa é uma forma fácil e barata de manter-se a memória do Positivismo no Brasil e no mundo e, com isso, de manter a sua ação regeneradora, pacífica e altruísta.
Pois bem: na medida em que há alguns anos digitalizei quase 250 opúsculos da Igreja Positivista do Brasil, bem como artigos da Revue Occidentale (órgão internacional do Positivismo), publicados todos eles entre c. 1870 e c. 1930, aos poucos passarei a carregá-los no portal Archive.org.
Esses documentos podem ser consultados por meio das palavras-chave mais relevantes (geralmente "Positivism", "Brazilian Positivist Church" etc.) ou, então, na minha página pessoal de documentos carregados (disponível aqui).
Essa é uma forma fácil e barata de manter-se a memória do Positivismo no Brasil e no mundo e, com isso, de manter a sua ação regeneradora, pacífica e altruísta.
19 agosto 2019
Raimundo Teixeira Mendes: República pacífica, livre e convergente
Defendida pelos positivistas brasileiros e estrangeiros com clareza e desde sempre, a República é concebida pelo Positivismo como o regime ideal por excelência. Para os positivistas, o regime republicano não é somente, nem principalmente, o regime presidencialista em oposição à monarquia e ao parlamentarismo. Muito mais do que isso, a República é o regime das liberdades e da fraternidade em todos os âmbitos (doméstico, cívico, universal); é o regime que consagra o ser humano e a atividade pacífica, (portanto) convergente e esclarecido pela ciência.
Essas características tornam-se mais relevantes quando comparadas com os regimes militaristas e com as paixões demagógicas. Nesse sentido, o trecho abaixo é exemplar e instrutivo. Ao mesmo tempo ele serve para evidenciar que o Positivismo e os positivistas são e sempre foram pacifistas e que a República é o verdadeiro regime ideal da paz, da convergência e das liberdades.
Esse texto é um pequeno trecho de um opúsculo de 1908, de autoria de Raimundo Teixeira Mendes, vice-Diretor da Igreja Positivista do Brasil, em que ele opõe-se, com base no Positivismo, à lei de sorteio militar, considerando-a um instrumento disfarçado do militarismo e ao mesmo tempo contrária à República e à índole pacífica do povo brasileiro.
(Como o texto é originalmente de 1908, a grafia foi atualizada.)
"[...] Ninguém contesta que a índole do regime republicano reside no predomínio da fraternidade universal, em todas as relações sociais, quer domésticas, quer cívicas, quer planetárias. Esse predomínio conduz logo ao escrupuloso respeito pela liberdade dos homens, sem distinções de raças, de crenças, de fortunas ou de forças etc., a fim de que cada um se dedique, na função que preferir e no lugar que escolher, ao bem geral da Humanidade, servindo à Pátria que herdou dos seus pais ou adotou, graças à Família em cujo seio os seus pendores altruístas recebem o cultivo fundamental, imprescindível à existência social.
Assim, o verdadeiro regime republicano só pode realizar-se plenamente quando a inteligência se concentrar na investigação dos meios capazes de fazer prevalecer a sociabilidade sobre a personalidade e quando a atividade se consagrar exclusivamente à elaboração desses meios, já aperfeiçoando a nossa natureza, já aperfeiçoando a Terra. Em conclusão, o regime republicano supõe a livre preponderância final da poesia, da ciência e da indústria sobre o teologismo, a metafísica e a guerra, que formam a índole preparatória da Humanidade, e que a República aspira [a] substituir".
(Raimundo Teixeira Mendes, Ainda o militarismo perante a política moderna. A propósito da agitação a que está dando lugar a lei do sorteio, Rio de Janeiro, Igreja Positivista do Brasil, fevereiro de 1908, p. 7; série da Igreja Positivista do Brasil, n. 249.)
Essas características tornam-se mais relevantes quando comparadas com os regimes militaristas e com as paixões demagógicas. Nesse sentido, o trecho abaixo é exemplar e instrutivo. Ao mesmo tempo ele serve para evidenciar que o Positivismo e os positivistas são e sempre foram pacifistas e que a República é o verdadeiro regime ideal da paz, da convergência e das liberdades.
Esse texto é um pequeno trecho de um opúsculo de 1908, de autoria de Raimundo Teixeira Mendes, vice-Diretor da Igreja Positivista do Brasil, em que ele opõe-se, com base no Positivismo, à lei de sorteio militar, considerando-a um instrumento disfarçado do militarismo e ao mesmo tempo contrária à República e à índole pacífica do povo brasileiro.
(Como o texto é originalmente de 1908, a grafia foi atualizada.)
* * *
"[...] Ninguém contesta que a índole do regime republicano reside no predomínio da fraternidade universal, em todas as relações sociais, quer domésticas, quer cívicas, quer planetárias. Esse predomínio conduz logo ao escrupuloso respeito pela liberdade dos homens, sem distinções de raças, de crenças, de fortunas ou de forças etc., a fim de que cada um se dedique, na função que preferir e no lugar que escolher, ao bem geral da Humanidade, servindo à Pátria que herdou dos seus pais ou adotou, graças à Família em cujo seio os seus pendores altruístas recebem o cultivo fundamental, imprescindível à existência social.
Assim, o verdadeiro regime republicano só pode realizar-se plenamente quando a inteligência se concentrar na investigação dos meios capazes de fazer prevalecer a sociabilidade sobre a personalidade e quando a atividade se consagrar exclusivamente à elaboração desses meios, já aperfeiçoando a nossa natureza, já aperfeiçoando a Terra. Em conclusão, o regime republicano supõe a livre preponderância final da poesia, da ciência e da indústria sobre o teologismo, a metafísica e a guerra, que formam a índole preparatória da Humanidade, e que a República aspira [a] substituir".
(Raimundo Teixeira Mendes, Ainda o militarismo perante a política moderna. A propósito da agitação a que está dando lugar a lei do sorteio, Rio de Janeiro, Igreja Positivista do Brasil, fevereiro de 1908, p. 7; série da Igreja Positivista do Brasil, n. 249.)
 |
| (Facsímile de Raimundo Teixeira Mendes, Ainda o militarismo perante a política moderna, Rio de Janeiro, Igreja Positivista do Brasil, 1908) |
 |
| Raimundo Teixeira Mendes |
15 agosto 2019
Abolição e política identitária na Ciência Hoje para Crianças
Nos últimos anos, a “discussão” sobre a abolição da
escravidão no Brasil tem tomado alguns rumos inesperados mas, ao mesmo tempo,
nefastos.
Antes de mais nada, é evidente (ou deveria ser
evidente) que a valorização dos movimentos negros (escravos, livres ou
libertos) na campanha pela abolição da escravidão é algo corretíssimo e tem que
ser valorizado; todavia, isso não pode, de maneira nenhuma, corresponder a
negar-se o papel desempenhado nessa campanha por outros brasileiros, que, na
falta de melhor expressão, chamaríamos de “brancos” (quer fossem populares, quer
fossem da elite, quer fossem de classe média).
O que importa notar, nesse sentido, é que a
campanha pela abolição foi um movimento verdadeiramente nacional, no duplo
sentido de que (1) ocorreu de Norte a Sul (e de Leste a Oeste) do país e,
principalmente, (2) mobilizou todas as
classes sociais, todos os grupos sociais. Nesse sentido, vale lembrar que a
lei da abolição, antes de ser sancionada pela Princesa Isabel, fora aprovada
pelo parlamento brasileiro: essa aprovação indica o quanto a sociedade como um
todo mobilizara-se previamente, forçando o parlamento a aceitar o projeto.
É fundamental insistirmos em que consiste em um
mito a idéia de que Princesa Isabel teria sido a “redentora”, isto é, de que a
abolição teria ocorrido graças à pura vontade unilateral da regente do Império
brasileiro. Aliás, esse mito foi criado já em 1888, para tentar valorizar a
monarquia decadente e também para tentar legitimar um eventual terceiro reinado
dos Órleans e Braganças, a ser assumido pelo casal composto pela Princesa
Isabel e seu marido, o francês Conde d’Eu.
Mas se é correto desmistificar a atuação “redentora”
da Princesa Isabel, assim como é importante valorizar a atuação dos movimentos
negros na campanha abolicionista, por outro lado é importante não negar a
atuação de toda a sociedade brasileira da época. Nesse sentido, por exemplo,
vale notar que partes do próprio “movimento negro” afirmaram desde 1888 elementos
do mito da “redentora”: afinal, após o 13 de maio constituiu-se sob o comando
de José do Patrocínio (um dos antigos campeões negros da causa abolicionista) a
“Guarda Negra”, que servia para defender a monarquia escravocrata contra a
república e os republicanos, sem temer o emprego de espancamentos, linchamentos
etc. Esse triste fato não costuma ser lembrado – mesmo nos dias de hoje! – nem
pelos reacionários que defendem a monarquia nem pelo movimento negro.
Há outro motivo, mais profundo, para preocupação com
os rumos atuais sobre os “debates” a respeito da campanha abolicionista:
trata-se de que muito da historiografia revisionista das últimas duas décadas
tem um fortíssimo caráter de política identitária. Ora, a política identitária
baseia-se nas “identidades de grupo”, isto é, naqueles elementos que cada grupo
social considera como exclusivos seus e que, portanto, separam esses grupos do conjunto da sociedade e dos demais grupos.
Referi-me a “muito da historiografia”, ou seja,
muitos historiadores, mas também muitos cientistas sociais atuais adotam esses
parâmetros identitários para fazerem suas análises, que se caracterizam cada
vez mais pela brutal dicotomia que separa de maneira seca e dura “brancos” de “negros”,
sem categorias intermediárias (os mulatos) mas com um fortíssimo elemento moral
(em que, evidentemente, os “brancos” por definição não prestam). (Esse procedimento
tem sido adotado por cientistas sociais independentemente da sua “raça”.)
Isso tem ocorrido graças à importação,
completamente acrítica e despudorada, feita pelo movimento negro brasileiro dos
esquemas mentais e sociais próprios ao racismo dos Estados Unidos e das
estratégias sociopolíticas adotadas pelo movimento negro estadunidense – com
todos os vícios que isso acarreta, em particular a reprodução ocorrida aqui do
racismo e do divisionismo existentes lá. Sinal simples e escandaloso disso é a
afirmação de que “miscigenação é genocídio” em faixas e cartazes que integrantes
do movimento negro brasileiro exibem com orgulho em manifestações públicas, ainda
que com isso apenas (e infelizmente) reproduzam aqui e a favor dos negros a nefanda
regra da “gota única de sangue” (“one
drop rule”), vigente nos EUA e que fundamenta sociologicamente o racismo
lá.
Não posso deixar de observar que, muito diferente
disso tudo, resultando em ações e práticas muito diversas, com efeitos sociais
e políticos amplos (também diversos), foi a atuação dos positivistas. Os
positivistas brasileiros celebravam no dia 13 de Maio a união da raças no
Brasil, com a colaboração de cada uma delas para o progresso nacional; aliás,
os positivistas brasileiros foram alguns dos mais ardorosos defensores da
abolição da escravidão imediata e sem compensação financeira para os donos de
escravos: aliás, nos grêmios positivistas, ser dono de escravo causava a
expulsão sumária. Não é por acaso que, entre 1890 e 1930, o 13 de Maio era
feriado nacional (e muita gente, mesmo nos dias de hoje, ainda se lembra disso): proposto pelos positivistas logo no início da República, esse
feriado celebrava a fraternidade nacional nos termos indicados acima – mas muito
diferentes da apologia reacionária que cultuava a “redentora” e também muito
diferente da política identitária, segregacionista e não raro racista do dia da
“consciência negra”.
Faço essas extensas considerações porque a revista Ciência Hoje para Crianças (CHC), em sua
edição n. 299, de maio de 2019, dedicou o número a tratar da abolição da
escravidão, dando ênfase aos negros envolvidos no movimento. Como observei
antes, essa ênfase é histórica e politicamente necessária, mas ela não pode conduzir
a negar o papel desempenhado pelo conjunto da sociedade brasileira – que,
aliás, atuou como um conjunto – nessa campanha. Em particular, nesse número da
CHC, a matéria “13 de Maio ainda seria data para celebrar?” (disponível aqui: http://chc.org.br/artigo/13-de-maio/) deixa entrever os problemas que comentei acima. É
bastante claro o quão problemático, quando não desastroso, que, em nome de uma
proposta bem intencionada, mas errada no final das contas, uma revista de
divulgação científica leve adiante a “correção política” (que é a tradução
correta do “politicamente correto”) e a política identitária sob a forma de
conteúdo “educativo” para crianças.
Artigo "Positivism in Brazil"
Em nossa postagem "Verbetes na 'Encyclopedia of Latin American Religions': Positivismo e laicidade", de 5.8.2019, divulgamos que tivemos dois artigos (ou melhor, verbetes) na Enclyclopedia of Latin American Religions, publicada pela editora Springer.
Pois bem: seguindo os parâmetros editoriais da Springer, podemos tornar público o artigo em sua versão preliminar, isto é, sem a formatação da editora e sem a paginação.
Assim, o texto inicial está disponível abaixo.
As referências bibliográficas para consulta efetiva são estas:
Pois bem: seguindo os parâmetros editoriais da Springer, podemos tornar público o artigo em sua versão preliminar, isto é, sem a formatação da editora e sem a paginação.
Assim, o texto inicial está disponível abaixo.
As referências bibliográficas para consulta efetiva são estas:
Biscaia de Lacerda G. (2019) Positivism in Brazil. In: Gooren H. (eds) Encyclopedia of Latin American Religions. Religions of the World. Springer, Cham, pp 1301-1308
* * *
Positivism in Brazil
Gustavo Biscaia de Lacerda
Setor de Ciências Exatas, Universidade Federal do Paraná
Curitiba
Brazil
Keywords
Religion of
Humanity, religion, humanism, political action, civic and pious cults
Definition
Positivism
is the philosophical system created by Auguste Comte (1798-1857), which
comprises not only a social-historical philosophy or a philosophy of sciences,
but also and mainly a secular religion, the Religion of Humanity. Constituted
in three main parts (cult, dogma and regime), Positivism as a religion in
practical terms can be broadly understood as a set of pious oeuvres (“religious”
ones) and political interventions. From mid-XIX century on, many forms of
Positivism spread all along Latin America, specially in Brazil, where the
Brazilian Positivist Church has been founded in the city of Rio de Janeiro, in
1881, by Miguel Lemos (1854-1917) and seconded by Raimundo Teixeira Mendes
(1855-1927). Despite the fact that there were many varieties of positivists in
Brazil (many of them not affiliated to Brazilian Positivist Church), it remains
the fact that, from 1881 to 1927, both Lemos and Teixeira Mendes developed an
intense set of actions, with “religious” and political characters. Pursuing a
pacific, altruistic and positive society, Lemos and Teixeira Mendes championed
the causes of freedom of consciousness and expression, the separation of church
and State, the end of black slavery, the dignity of proletarians and Brazilian
indigenous peoples, the international fraternity and so on. The most visible
aspect of their work is the Brazilian national flag, with the Positivist motto,
“Order and Progress”, authored by the Positivists Teixeira Mendes and Décio
Villares.
Introduction
In a state-of-the-art-article written some
years ago, Alonso (1996) has pointed out the existence of three broad phases in
the dealing with Positivism in Brazil. The first generation was that when the
Brazilian Positivist movements were strong and really active, between 1870 and
1930, comprehending the last phase of the Brazilian Empire (1822-1889) and the
whole Brazilian I Republic (1889-1930). During this phase, the debates pro and
against Positivism were ferocious; there were many branches of the Positivist
movement (orthodox, unorthodox, political, religious, journalistic, military)
and even the critics of the positivists may agree with one or another of their
ideas. The second generation occurred from the “Vargas Era” (1930-1945) to the
end of the military regime (1964-1985), passing through the Brazilian II
Republic (or “Populist Republic”) (1946-1964): during this phase, Positivism
was in general very much criticized, either because it was identified with
authoritarian ideas (for example, by supposedly inspiring Getúlio Vargas’ coup
d’état in 1937), in the Catholic and/or Liberal accounts, or because Positivism
was seen as a conservative-bourgeois ideology, in the Marxist account. The
third phase is the current one, and it has began in the late 1980s, with fairest
visions of Positivism and of the Brazilian Positivist movements. For sure, the
simple criticism doesn’t prevent good interpretations, as we can see in some of
the works published during the second phase identified by Alonso, as the books
written by João Cruz Costa (1967) and, specially, by Ivan Lins (2009), although
some of worst interpretations are of that period, just like the unduly
successful work of Sérgio Buarque de Hollanda (1985). So, Alonso’s third phase
give us the possibility of studying Positivism in more comprehensive and varied
ways, as shown by researches like Carvalho’s (2000), Alonso’s (2002), Ribeiro’s
(2012), Maestri’s (2013), and Lacerda’s (2016). This article will present some
characteristics of the Brazilian Positivist movements based in such researches;
but, before, it is necessary to expose some traits of the Comtean political
doctrine, in order to illuminate the practical actions of Brazilians
Positivists.
Elements of Comte’s Doctrine
Although Auguste Comte (1798-1857) is best
known for his scientific-philosophical work (mainly his Course in Positive Philosophy, 1830-1842), since his early writings
his ambitions was on political and social subjects; as a matter of fact, the
objective of the comprehensive revision of the sciences of his times he developed
in the three first volumes of the Course
was to consider the conditions of scientificity of each of the fundamental
sciences he distinguished (Mathematics, Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry,
Biology), so he could set the foundations of a brand new science, Sociology.
This new science has been founded not only for intellectual purposes, but also
for practical needs: as Comte has lived during the post-French Revolution,
post-Napoleon and Restauration Era, social order was passing by a permanent
turmoil, with the recent end of the Ancient Regime (the catholic-feudal order)
and the beginnings of the modern, “capitalistic” society (or, in the Comte’s
words, the beginnings of the “industrial society”, which was supposed to be
pacific, positive and altruistic); so, the theoretical understanding of the
social realities was urgent, as well as the proposal of ways to direct the new
forces.
Johan Heilbron (1990) has noted that the
revision of sciences that Comte undertook was not in order to reduce the new
social science to the natural sciences, but, instead, based on a relational
conception, to understand the specificity of each science and to propose the
elements of Sociology. So, to Comte Sociology must base itself in history,
considering the changes societies passes through time; his inspiration for it
was Condorcet’s and Turgot’s conceptions: his three “laws of three stages”
reflects that idea and constitute the spinal cord of his “Social Dynamics”. On
the other hand, Comte considered that every society has some institutions that
structured it and constitute the basis of the developments through time:
property, family, government, language and religion are the elements of the “Social
Statics”. Both Statics and Dynamics, taken together, allow Comte to propose a policy
of “order and progress”.
From 1848 onwards, with the publication of his A General View of Positivism – or,
better, since 1845, when Comte met Clotilde de Vaux (1815-1846), sister of one
of his students, and developed a strong, Platonic passion for her –, Comte has
begun what has been called (even by himself) his “second career”. Presented in
his System of Positive Policy
(1851-1854) and many accessory books (A
General View of Positivism, 1848; Positivist
Catechism, 1854; Appeal to
Conservatives, 1855; Subjective
Synthesis, 1856, and hundreds of letters), such “second career” was devoted
to propose practical measures for the social troubles French and, more broadly,
European societies were facing. More specifically, Comte create a human
religion, the “Religion of Humanity”; leaving aside many details of its project
that are easily, but unfairly, seen just like eccentricities or anecdotic
traits (e. g., the “historical calendar”), the Religion of Humanity was
considered by Comte the proper means to create a new “spiritual power”, i. e.,
the means to regulate, through counseling, the values, the ideas and the
actions of the industrial society. That spiritual power must create, regulate
and develop a new public opinion, based on the conceptions of pacifism,
relativism, historicism, freedoms of conscience, exposure and association, and
respect for all individuals, social classes and cultures.
It is important to consider that, to Comte, “religion”
is different from “theology”: while theology
is an interpretation of reality based on the assumption of the existence of
supernatural beings that regulate reality – generally speaking, the “gods” –, religion
is the social institution that regulate the three aspects of human nature
(feelings, intelligence and practical actions), at the same time constituting a
personal, individual unity and a social, shared unity (and, thus, realizing the
“religare” Latin ethimology of the
word religion). According to Comtean law of three intellectual stages, as
religion can be based on theological grounds, it can also be a metaphysical
institution and, more importantly, it can be a positive, human one: so, the “Religion
of Humanity”.
As we have seen above, another element of
Social Statics was government. For Comte there is not only the material,
temporal government, which is generally called “State”; it also exists the
moral, spiritual government. While temporal government is based in force – in
the sense proposed by Thomas Hobbes and, later, restated by Max Weber –, the
spiritual power is based in counseling. Both powers can be either united or
separated; while in earlier times of Humanity and, in general, in periods in
which theology prevails temporal and spiritual powers are together, in positive
society for Comte both powers must be carefully apart one from another. The
principle underneath such a separation is to preserve the autonomy and the
dignity of both powers, specially spiritual power, which must not use the force
to prevail; remaining separated, spiritual power gains influence only through
counseling and, besides that, is autonomous to criticize freely temporal power,
without prejudicial commitments. On the other hand, remaining separated,
temporal power does not become despotic and it is prevented the creation of
official hypocrisies, by avoiding the institution of State-imposed doctrines.
Many Brazilian Positivist Movements
In Brazil – just like in Latin America, in
general terms (cf. Zea 1980) – there weren’t only one Positivist movement, but many of them. For sure it can be said
that there were a large “wave” of Positivism, but we can analytically establish
many specific kinds of positivists, depending on their fields.
The best known of all are those assembled in
the Brazilian Positivist Church and Apostolate (IPB), which was leaded by
Miguel Lemos (1854-1917), its first Director (1881-1904), and specially by
Raimundo Teixeira Mendes (1855-1927), its second and more important Director
(1904-1927) – although Teixeira Mendes always insisted that he was only the “vice-Director”
of IPB. Both Lemos and Teixeira Mendes developed an intense activity of
publicizing Positivism, as well as applying to Brazilian issues what they
considered that were the positivistic solutions to them. During nearly half a
century (1881-1927), they both maintained a constant worship of Humanity in the
huge Temple of Humanity, in the city of Rio de Janeiro (then capital of
Brazil), and intervened in a number of political, social, philosophical and
religious issues. Organized in a church, those positivists were considered by
themselves and by other positivists as “orthodoxes” – because they followed the
integrity of Comte’s oeuvres, specially the last ones (such as the System of Positive Policy[1]).
Despite being the most important Positivist
group in Brazil, those assembled around IPB were neither the only nor
chronologically the first ones. Knowing Positivism a few years before Lemos and
Teixeira Mendes, and applying it to public issues, the physician of São Paulo
Luís Pereira Barreto (1840-1923) was another prominent Positivist. However, the
majority of his career was based in the philosophical account of Comte’s works,
rejecting its religious version; so, Pereira Barreto was an unorthodox
positivist, as he preferred to apply Positivism to Brazilian society as a
method, as a way of thinking, as well as a set of general principles and ideas,
instead of a broader system of organizing social and individual lives. Anyway,
Pereira Barreto not only has written books and journalistic articles on
philosophy, but also texts of political intervention, proposing changes in
political life, in agricultural policies etc. (cf. Lins 2009).
We can also identify journalistic-practical and
military Positivistic groups in Brazil. Both branches considered more the
practical aspects of Comte’s doctrine, in the sense of regime change – mainly
from the unitary monarchy to a proposal of a republican regime, to be installed
in federative basis –; furthermore, they saw in Positivism the way to conduct
Brazil to a modern society, that is, an urban, industrial, rich, socially
integrated one – in a word, to conduct Brazil into progress. Just like IPB (and
even Luís Pereira Barreto), these groups acted mainly during the last phase of
Brazilian monarchy (1870-1889) and the Brazilian I Republic (1889-1930).
There were those Positivistic journalists all
over Brazil; their action in the press occurred mainly during the Brazilian
Empire[2],
precisely against monarchy and unitarism and for republic and federalism. Some
of the most active of them were those in the Southern Brazilian state of Rio
Grande do Sul (the “gaúchos”), led by
the journalist and lawyer Júlio de Castilhos. As we just have said, they were
more concerned with the social-political aspects of Positivism, although they
haven’t stood against the religious ones; they even worked together later with
the group of IPB, as for the laws of separation between church and State, of
public holidays and Brazilian national flag, in the months after the
proclamation of Republic prove. After the fall of monarchy in the end of 1889,
through elections the Positivist gaúchos
took power in Rio Grande do Sul and, despite many political turmoils in the
initial years, they conserved it until 1930 (cf. Soares 1998).
There were also military Positivists. This
group has develop around the figure of the teacher of Mathematics, the Major
Benjamin Constant Botelho de Magalhães (1836-1891)[3].
Adept of religious Positivism since young adult (cf. Teixeira Mendes 1936),
Benjamin Constant, took part of Paraguayan War (1864-1870)[4]
and, after that, developed a career as a Mathematic teacher in the Military
School. Adopting Comte’s ideas for society in general and for Mathematics
itself, he became a symbol and a focus of convergence for the students, who were
looking for progress of Brazil. Since he was considered a leader of old and
young militaries and the military as a corporation felt itself devaluated after
the Paraguayan War, in the late 1880s Benjamin Constant vocalized their discontentments
(including there the opposition of militaries to be hunters of fugitive slaves),
although he rejected revolution-like solutions to their problems. However, in
1889, as the prestige of Brazilian monarchy fell and the campaign for the
Republic rose, Benjamin Constant was put ahead of a movement that in the first
hours of November 15 proclaimed the new regime, which, subsequently, promoted
the separation between church and State, the federalization of Brazilian
political organization and many other important measures.
Those young military assembled around Benjamin
Constant espoused different branches of Positivism; some, like Gomes de Castro,
were looking for a means for radical political action (even if it was against a
more rigorous interpretation of Positivism – cf. Teixeira Mendes 1906); others,
like Cândido Mariano da Silva Rondon (1865-1958), became religious positivists
and developed a public action following Positivist parameters. Of course,
others young militaries were just involved in the milieu of political
exaltation, activism and patriotism (and, for sure, also republicanism), not
following Positivism later: that was the case of Euclides da Cunha (1866-1909),
who developed an important career as a journalist and a writer, becoming one of
the most important Brazilian authors (specially due to his masterpiece Os sertões (Rebellion in the Backlands), 1902).
A few more words on the military positivists
are necessary. For a long time, the role Benjamin Constant developed both as a
teacher of young, radical(ized) students and as the éminence grise in the Proclamation of Republic was considered an
important, if not the most important,
factor that led to the politization of Brazilian military, which resulted, in
the following decades, to many, systematic political interventions and coups d’État – namely, that of 1930,
which ended Brazilian I Republic and between 1937 and 1945 assumed the form of
a civilian dictatorship runned by Getúlio Vargas; and that of 1964, which endured
until 1985 as a military-civilian dictatorship. The thesis of Positivist
influence in the formation of an authoritarian mind, specially among the
military, although still repeated today, was very famous during the 1964’s
authoritarian regime; such a thesis was sustained by authors like Sérgio
Buarque de Holanda (1985)[5].
The teaching of Benjamin Constant, despite held
to the military youth, in the Military School, had a civilian orientation; at
the same time, despite being a teacher of Mathematics, he was a true intellectual leader, based in Comtean
ideas (specially in Comte 1856 work Subjective
Synthesis). As we have seen earlier, for Comte the positive society must be
pacific and “industrial”, a pair of words which must be understood in
positivistic philosophy of history, in opposition to military-conquering
societies. If the positive society must be a pacific one, the Armed Forces and
the military will lose importance and, so, they will change their social roles
into pacific, productive ones. That was the orientation of Benjamin Constant’s
teaching at Military School; a generation later, military instructors and
theoreticians, dissatisfied with such orientation, called it in very negative
terms such as a “bookish” teaching.
Brazilian Positivism as a religious movement
Despite the fact that, as we have said above,
there were many Positivists movements in Brazil, there is no doubt that the
actions of Brazilian Positivist Church were the most important ones[6].
Following closely the ideas and proposals of Auguste Comte, both Miguel Lemos
and, later, Teixeira Mendes have had an intense activity during 1881
(foundation of IPB by Lemos) and 1927 (death of Teixeira Mendes – Lemos died in
1917). According to Comtean doctrine, an orthodox Positivist develops
activities that are at the same time religious and political; in rigorous
terms, to that doctrine every action is, or may be, religious, despite the fact
that it can have a more obvious political visage.
Those considerations are important because,
being a church, IPB had its own ceremonies, following the seven sacraments of
Religion of Humanity (presentation, initiation, admission, destination, marriage,
retirement, transformation, incorporation)[7]
and, more generally, the cult of Humanity, including the explication of the Positivist Catechism and the celebration
of both abstract and concrete calendars, as well as the civic and the religious
holidays. Lacerda (2016), analyzing the themes of 355 of the more than 500
publications of IPB between 1881 and 1927, reached the value of 27,32% of books
and publications that can be categorized under the label of “religious texts”,
i. e., texts regarding ecclesiastical themes, historical commemorations, pious
texts and so on. Many of them present history of Positivist movement in Brazil;
others are beautiful and touching tributes to Auguste Comte and Clotilde de
Vaux (see, for example, Teixeira Mendes 1899, 1916); on the other hand, there
are books or pamphlets concerning the history of religions (mainly of
Catholicism) and/or their relations with Positivism (e. g., Teixeira Mendes 1903,
1907).
The ceremonies of public cults as well as books
concerning historical figures present some of the most interesting aspects of
Positivism, linking “religious” and “political” actions of IPB. One conspicuous
example is the biography of Benjamin Constant (Teixeira Mendes 1936), where
Teixeira Mendes at the same time inserts the history of Brazil in the world’s
history (more precisely, in Europe’s history), explains the dynamics of
Brazilian history and exposes how Benjamin Constant – supported by Positivism –
acted first as a military (during the Paraguayan War), then as a Mathematics
teacher, as a political leader and as a spouse and father.
The sense of actions of IPB were at the same
time to develop the milieu for the gradual triumph of Positivism and to follow
Comtean doctrine. To fulfill both aims, Lemos and Teixeira Mendes were very
careful to distinguish Temporal and Spiritual powers; so, in the early 1880s they
resign to their public functions (despite the fact that both had been approved
in public contests) in order to become, and to remain, morally and intellectually
independent. Considering that, at the time, the divulgation of ideas and
doctrines occurred mainly through public speeches, lectures and texts, they
have written about a huge list of subjects: putting aside those already
mentioned “religious themes” (ecclesiastical and pious ones; Positivist cult;
religious doctrines), they wrote about the end of black slavery; religious
alliance; civil marriage; immigration; historical commemorations; sanitarian
despotism; obligatory education; protection to indigenous peoples; freedoms of
commerce, of testaments, spiritual, of professions; militarism; organization
and proclamation of Republic; conditions of live of proletarians; separation
between church and State; international relations; orthographic reform; Historical
Sociology of Brazil; political theory; medical and psychological theories.
As we just have noted, the search for a pacific,
altruistic and rational milieu was at the same time the means, the objective
and the fulfillment of Positivism; in this sense, IPB many times fought against
what they considered despotism of the State, as in the violent obligation to
vaccine (at a time when vaccine was not fully proven), or, in more conspicuous
cases, in the defense of many priests, let them be sorcerers oppressed by the
State in behalf of the Catholic Church, or be Catholic priests oppressed by the
State (cf. Teixeira Mendes 1912a). The defense of a pacific society was another
constant subject of the public interventions of IPB, against the systematic use
of insurrections to solve socio-political crisis, against militarism in Brazil
or against World War I, or for the right of proletarians to make strikes (cf. Teixeira
Mendes 1906, 1910, 1912b, 1914).
The republican regime was seen as a more
developed regime than monarchy; so, all positivists were republicans. As the de facto leader of the Proclamation of
Republic in November 15, 1889 was, despite himself, the Positivist Benjamin
Constant, both Miguel Lemos and Teixeira Mendes proposed many suggestions to
the provisory government – and, one year later, to the Constitutional Assembly
–, in order to structure the young republic following Positivist lines. Since
the beginning, some of their most successful suggestions were the law of
separation between church and State (Decree n. 117-A, of January 7, 1890), the
law of national holidays (Decree n. 155-B, of January 14, 1890), and – maybe
the most visible sign of the Positivist influence – the Republican Brazilian
national flag (of November 19, 1889).
The law of separation of church and State was
intended to end the existence of an official religion and to preserve the
freedom of consciousness and expression (not only of the Catholic Church, but
also of every religion, cult and doctrine). The national holidays celebrated many
dates important to Brazil in particular and to Brazil as a part of the West and
Humanity: universal fraternity (January 1), fraternity of all Brazilian (May 13
– day of the end of black slavery), Republic, Liberty and the independence of
American peoples (July 14) – and so on.
The flag was idealized by Teixeira Mendes and
painted by the Positivist painter Décio Villares; based on the Brazilian Empire
flag (the green rectangle and the yellow lozenge), the Republican one
substituted the central imperial arms by a blue circle with an idealized
version of the sky of November 15, 1889, as well as by a white stripe with the motto
“Ordem e Progresso” (“Order and Progress”) in green letters[8].
Final thoughts
Brazilian Positivism shows us a very
interesting spectacle, as it is not a single movement, but a manifold one. In
this sense, the most important branch was the religious one, represented in
particular by the Brazilian Positivist Church, led between 1881 and 1927 by its
two most important leaders, Miguel Lemos and Raimundo Teixeira Mendes.
Two final thoughts to end this article. First,
a historical one. Ralph Della Cava (1975) has pointed out that, from 1916
onwards, but specially after 1931 – i. e., after the Revolution of 1930 –, both
the new political regime (led by Getúlio Vargas) and the Catholic Church (led
by cardinal Sebastião Leme) supported each other. So, Brazilian Catholicism
(re)gained political and educational privileges, at the same time that the new
regime obtained legitimacy, in a period when both politics in Europe and
Catholic Church tended to right-wing authoritarianism. Such a renewed alliance
between Catholicism and State in Brazil worked directly and consciously against
Positivism (although not only against it), and in many ways, but mainly against
the set of values and practices tending to a pacific and humane society, with
liberties of consciousness and expression: the long period between 1930 and
1945 saw militarism, authoritarianism, (para-)official religions, thought
police being affirmed in Brazil.
Second, a sociological remark. Religious
Positivism is a non-theological religion; despite the facts of being, in
rigorous philosophical terms, an agnosticism (Comte always rejected both
atheism and the label of Positivism as an atheism) and, concerning theology,
Positivism is a very powerful source of secularization, it remains clear that
the Religion of Humanity is, after all, a religion.
In this sense, in one hand, it gives to every individual a personal unity and,
at the same time, bides them to each other: it is the primary sense of “religion”
for Comte. On the other hand, it provides a set of practices, ideas, values in
order to structure society, inspire (good) feelings, provide common images and
purposes and so on, in a continuum that goes from the more intellectual
accounts to the most pious, almost mystic feelings – in humane, non-theological
terms.
Cross References
Secularism;
Roman Catholicism in Latin America; Vargas, Getúlio; Brazil; Agnosticism;
Atheism; Secular Humanism; Modernity.
References
ALONSO A (1996)
De Positivismo e de positivistas. BIB 42: 109-134.
ALONSO A (2002)
Idéias em movimento. São Paulo, Paz e Terra.
CARVALHO JM (2000) A formação das almas. São Paulo, Companhia
das Letras.
CARVALHO
JM (2005a) Forças Armadas na Primeira República. In: _____. Forças Armadas e
política no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro, J. Zahar.
CARVALHO
JM (2005b) Forças Armadas e política. In: _____. Forças Armadas e política no
Brasil. Rio
de Janeiro, J. Zahar.
COMTE A (1929) Système de politique positive, ou traité de Sociologie
instituant la Religion de l’Humanité. Paris, Société Positiviste.
CRUZ COSTA J (1967) Contribuição à
História das Idéias no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro, Civilização Brasileira.
DELLA CAVA R (1975) Igreja e
Estado no Brasil do século XX. Novos
Estudos 12: 5-52.
HEILBRON J (1990) Auguste Comte and Modern Epistemology. Sociological
Theory 2: 153-162.
HOLANDA SB (1985)
Da maçonaria ao Positivismo. In: _____. História geral da civilização
brasileira. V. 7. Rio de Janeiro, Difel.
LACERDA GB (2013)
Ordem e Progresso – e o Amor? Gazeta do Povo January 15.
LACERDA GB (2016) Laicidade na I
República brasileira. Curitiba, Appris.
LAFFITTE P (1881) Sacrement de la destination. Revue Occidantale 3:
331-372.
LEMOS M (1934) Sacramento da
Apresentação. Rio de Janeiro, Igreja
Positivista do Brasil.
LINS IMB (2009) História
do Positivismo no Brasil. Brasília, Senado Federal.
MAESTRI M (2013) A guerra no
papel. Porto Alegre, Clube dos Autores.
Ribeiro MTR (2012) Controvérsias da questão social. Porto Alegre, Zouk.
Soares
MP (1998) O Positivismo no Brasil. Porto Alegre, UFRGS.
TEIXEIRA MENDES R (1889) A
bandeira nacional. Rio de Janeiro, Igreja Positivista do Brasil.
TEIXEIRA MENDES R (1899) Uma
visitas aos lugares santos do positivismo. Rio de Janeiro, Igreja Positivista
do Brasil.
TEIXEIRA MENDES R (1903) O culto
católico. Rio de Janeiro, Igreja Positivista do Brasil.
TEIXEIRA MENDES R (1906) O Positivismo e o recurso às insurreições. Rio de Janeiro, Igreja Positivista do Brasil.
TEIXEIRA MENDES R (1907)
Christianisme, théisme et positivisme. Rio de Janeiro, Église Positiviste du
Brésil.
TEIXEIRA MENDES R (1910) A atitude
dos positivistas ante a retrogradação militarista. Rio de Janeiro, Igreja Positivista do Brasil.
TEIXEIRA MENDES R (1912a) Ainda
pela separação entre o poder Temporal e o poder Espiritual. Rio de Janeiro, Igreja Positivista do Brasil.
TEIXEIRA MENDES R (1912b) A
verdadeira política republicana e a incorporação do proletariado na sociedade
moderna. Rio de Janeiro, Igreja
Positivista do Brasil.
TEIXEIRA MENDES R (1913) Évolution
originale d’Auguste Comte. Rio de Janeiro, Apostolat Positiviste du Brésil.
TEIXEIRA MENDES R (1914) Pour l’Humanité!
Rio de Janeiro, Église
Positiviste du Brésil.
TEIXEIRA MENDES R (1916) Clotilde et Comte, très saints fondateurs de la
religion de l’Humanité. Rio de Janeiro, Église Positiviste du Brésil.
TEIXEIRA MENDES R (1936) Benjamin
Constant. Rio de Janeiro, Igreja Positivista do Brasil.
ZEA L (ed.). (1980) Pensamiento
positivista latinoamericano. Caracas, Biblioteca Ayacucho.
[1] It is important to observe that the
subtitle of the System of Positive Policy
was “Treaty of Sociology instituting the Religion
of Humanity”). So, it is clear that those who accepted that work was
considered a “religious” positivist.
[2] From 1500 (year of discovery of
Brazil by Portugal) until 1815, Brazil was a Portuguese colony; from 1815 until
1822, Brazil has been elevated to United Kingdom with Portugal; in 1822 Brazil
declared its independence, as a monarchy and, more specifically, as an “empire”.
Finally, in 1889 the republic was proclaimed, being the political regime in
Brazil since then.
[3] Sometimes there is some confusion
around the name of the Brazilian political leader called just “Benjamin
Constant”. His name was an homage made by his father to the Franco-Swiss writer
Henri-Benjamin Constant de Rebecque (1767-1830), also known just like “Benjamin
Constant”. For sure, they were two different people; in this text, obviously,
we are concerned only with the Brazilian leader.
[4] That conflict, also known as “War
of Triple Alliance”, involved Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina together against
Paraguay. Leaving aside the consequences for the other countries (despite it
has devastated Paraguay), its end marked the beginning of the final phase of
Brazilian monarchy and, so, of a number of social-political campaigns, which
culminated all by the same period: the end of black slavery, the proclamation
of Republic and the diffusion of “new, modern ideas” (Evolutionism, Socialism,
Social Darwinism – and, for sure, Positivism). About the Paraguayan War, cf.
Maestri (2013); on the “new ideas”, cf. Cruz Costa (1967).
[5] Since his masterpiece of 1936, Raízes do Brazil (Roots of Brazil), Sérgio Buarque showed bad will against Positivists
– despite the fact that his bad will was generally targeted against all thinkers of Brazilian I Republic
(1889-1930). But in the long article titled “From Freemasonry to Positivism” (Holanda
1985), in order to sustain his argument that the Positivists created the
authoritarian mind in Brazil, Sérgio Buarque proposed daring interpretations of
Positivism, such as that the members of IPB didn’t know the letters and the
spirit of Comtean works. For a complete discussion of Sérgio Buarque’s
arguments, cf. Lacerda (2016).
[6] Only the gaúchos can, at some degree, be paralleled in importance to the
Positivists of IPB. It is important to notice that such an importance is due to
their practical action in Rio Grande do Sul between 1891 and 1930 and, later,
in much more indirect lines, to some aspects of the labor regulation during the
Vargas’ governments (mainly between 1930 and 1932). Anyway, in 1912 it has been
founded the Positivist Church of Porto Alegre, which maintain its activities
until today.
[7] Based on periods of seven or
seven-multiple years, those sacraments intend to mark the most important phases
of individual life, attaching it to the social institutions and acknowledgment.
Their description can be found in Comte (1929, v. IV). Miguel Lemos himself
received the sacrament of destination by the hands of Pierre Laffitte, the not
so much orthodox successor of Auguste Comte (cf. Laffitte 1881); after that,
IPB delivered those sacraments in public ceremonies, as we can see in Lemos
(1934).
[8] From some years to now, many
public figures have insisted to change the motto by adding the word “Amor” (“Love”)
before “Order”; it is said that Teixeira Mendes have forgotten or despised
love, as the original, complete phrase by Comte is: “Love as principle and
Order as basis; Progress as end”). But, for Comte, there were two different mottos: a properly
religious one (the complete motto) and a more political one (just “Order and
Progress”). About that, cf. Teixeira Mendes (1889) and Lacerda (2013).
Artigo "Laicism in Brazil"
Em nossa postagem "Verbetes na 'Encyclopedia of Latin American Religions': Positivismo e laicidade", de 5.8.2019, divulgamos que tivemos dois artigos (ou melhor, verbetes) na Enclyclopedia of Latin American Religions, publicada pela editora Springer.
Pois bem: seguindo os parâmetros editoriais da Springer, podemos tornar público o artigo em sua versão preliminar, isto é, sem a formatação da editora e sem a paginação.
Assim, o texto inicial está disponível abaixo.
As referências bibliográficas para consulta efetiva são estas:
From
colony to I Republic (1500-1930)
From
the Vargas Era to the military regime (1930-1964)
From
the New Republic on (1985-…)
Pois bem: seguindo os parâmetros editoriais da Springer, podemos tornar público o artigo em sua versão preliminar, isto é, sem a formatação da editora e sem a paginação.
Assim, o texto inicial está disponível abaixo.
As referências bibliográficas para consulta efetiva são estas:
Biscaia de Lacerda G. (2019) Laicity in Brazil. In: Gooren H. (eds) Encyclopedia of Latin American Religions. Religions of the World. pp 821-825, Springer, Cham, pp 821-825* * *
Laicism in Brazil
Gustavo Biscaia de Lacerda
Setor de Ciências Exatas, Universidade Federal do Paraná
Curitiba
Brazil
Keywords
Laicism, Catholic
Church, Brazilian State, juridical-political organization.
Definition
Laicism can be understood as the theory that
advocates the separation between church and State (“laicity”), as well as the
militant practice that follows from the theory. It is not the
defense of an atheist State, as it does not deny God nor forbids religions; on
the other hand, it is not pluriconfessionalism, because laicity respect but not
“recognize” religions nor bring them inside the State or finance them: so,
laicity is more a position of indifference or neutrality between church and
State. During Brazilian history, the State had official religion (Catholicism
in particular) and a formally perfect laicity of State; in other moments,
Catholicism has been a para-official religion; Brazil has never had atheism of
State or pluriconfessionalism. Currently, a strong social and political activism
fights pro and against laicity.
Introduction
Since January 7, 1890, Brazil is characterized by laicity, just after
the proclamation of Republic (November 15, 1889)[1].
In terms of history of religions in Brazil, or, more precisely, the history of
religious liberties, these two dates establishes a “before” and a “later” and,
then, are central to deal with laicity in Brazil in general. Such a subject
must be treated in sociological terms; as society doesn’t exist in the vacuum,
we must consider the relations maintained by at least four
collective-institutional actors: the State; the Catholic Church; non-catholic
religions; and civil society in general. At the same time, a historical
approach is necessary, in order to understand the many transformations those
relations have suffered during time and that conforms the Brazilian religious
milieu today. On the other hand, some legal remarks will be done, as the formal
relations between the State and the churches/religions are defined by law,
specially in the many national constitutions. Considering all these aspects
(historical-sociological and legal), much of the discussion on laicism in
Brazil deals in particular with the relations between Catholic Church (or ICAR
– Igreja Católica Apostólica Romana) and the Brazilian State, be it
historically or politically.
Anyway, as we said above, we can establish two main phases on laicity in
Brazil, before and after the proclamation of Brazilian Republic (November 15,
1889) and the subsequent Decree n. 119-A (January 7, 1890): before, Catholicism
was the official religion, sustained by the State and with a number of
privileges and duties (even its situation was many times a difficult one, with
disputes with the government); after 1889-1890, it was proclaimed the freedom
of consciousness, expression and association in a general canvas of laicity,
but for a long time many cults – mainly those that are nowadays called “of
African matrix” (such as Candomblé and Umbanda), but also Allan Kardec’s
Spiritism – have been persecuted and in some periods Catholicism appeared as a
para-official religion (like in 1930-1946 and 1964-1966).
Basic definitions: secularism, laicity, laicism
We need some basic,
operational definitions. So, we can define laicism as the mutual absence of
support by the State and the many churches, in the sense that the State does
not privilege any church and, in the contrary, it also does not create
obstacles to the existence of any church; it can also be understood in the
sense that the State does not have an official doctrine that must be accepted
by all citizens in order to have a full citizenship. By the part of the
churches, laicity imply they do not ask for the State to use its power to
impose to society their particular beliefs (even if some church assemble the
majority of the population of some country).
Separation between
churches and the State can happen in a number of different situations (although
not in any social context); for
example, during the Middle Ages, the Papacy and the Holy Empire were two distinct
institutions which divided and disputed the mastery over Catholic Europe.
However, as the Catholic Church intended not only to be a spiritual power, but
a temporal one too, both Papacy and the Holy Empire clashed, as the “Road to
Canossa” episode, in the XI Century, exemplifies; the result of those clashes
were the mutual neutralization and the overture of the path for the ascension
of the kings as rulers of Europe.
The “Road to Canossa”
also exemplifies a separation of church and State in a situation of a
non-secularized society: however, we must recognize that in such societies
separation between church and State are the exception, not the rule. On the
other hand, seculariz(ed) societies are the most common and easy milieus for
the institutionalization of laicity, as there happens the progressive
privatization of believes, the separation of realms (political, religious etc.)
and the rationalization of life (Casanova 1994), specially the first two
features.
So, for our purposes,
laicity presupposes the broad process of secularization. It is important to
note that, as “laicity” is the
phenomenon, “laicism” can be
understood both as the process and the militancy for the laicity. For us,
laicism in the sense of militancy is just a descriptive noun, which we use
without value judgments; however, in Brazil, many social-political actors use
that word with a negative sense, implying it as an aggressive militancy which
supposedly seeks for the laicization not only of the State, but also of the
society itself: in particular, that is the interpretation of Brazilian branch
of Catholic Church.
From
colony to I Republic (1500-1930)
As we have said
before, the history of laicism in Brazil is divided into two main phases,
before and after the proclamation of Republic, in 1889; the period before 1889,
by its part, is divided into two other phases, the colonial Brazil (1500-1822)
and the Brazilian Empire (1822-1889). Leaving aside the particular
characteristics of the colonial phase, for what concerns to the relations between
church and State, as Brazil was a Portuguese colony, its institutions followed
Portuguese ones; so, the official religion – and, as a matter of fact, the only
accepted religion – was that established by ICAR.
Two specific institutions
were particularly religiously important to the Portuguese State, concerning the
whole building of the Catholic Church: the regalism (“regalismo”) and the patronage (“padroado”).
They both were conceded in early Modern times by the Holy See to the Iberian
monarchies (Portugal and Spain). By the patronage, the monarch was the
responsible both for the defense and propagation of the Catholic doctrine and
for the maintenance of the Catholic church; by the regalism, the Temporal power
not only pay for the whole structure of the church, but was also responsible
for organizing its bureaucratic structure, including the appointment of the
bishops, priests etc.: so, actually, the clerics were public officials and
depended of and were limited by the State. Anyway, it is important to notice
that the Church was an important instrument of the colonization of the
territory (Weffort 2012), as it can be seen by the examples of Jesuitical
priests Manoel da Nóbrega and Antônio Vieira.
After 1822, when
Brazil became an independent State, the monarchic regime was maintained (in
order to keep together all the provinces) and so did the ecclesiastic
structure; in particular, both patronage and regalism remained. But the
Brazilian Empire differed from the Brazilian colony, among other aspects, by
having a constitution and, according to it, despite the Roman Catholic
Apostolic religion was the official doctrine of the State (art. 5th
of the Constitution of 1824), other confessions were accepted, since they were
not publicly professed and their temples have not an exterior aspect of
churches: non-catholic religions (or, more specifically, non-catholic christianisms) were literally private matters[2].
During the Brazilian
Empire, the situation of Catholic Church was paradoxical: on the one hand, it
had a lot of privileges, like the exclusivity of civil acts (registration of
births, deaths, matrimonies), the management of public cemeteries and
maintenance of basic public schools and basic public teaching; on the other
hand, without rejecting the political importance of ICAR for public control,
the State and many Statesmen acted in order to restrict the action of the
Church, by imposing rigorous limits to the number of new priests graduated in
Brazil, of the importation of new priests from abroad, the maintenance of
churches and parishes in the interior of the country etc. Such a policy was
followed even by men like Priest
Feijó, during his regency (1835-1837), or the Emperor d. Pedro II himself (1840-1889)
(Scampini 1978) (albeit the Emperor acted cautiously in this case, just like in
everything else). The climate of confrontation between Church and State grew
over the years and in 1872-1875 the “Religious Question” (“Questão Religiosa”) opposed neatly both institutions, with some
ultramontanists bishops on one side and free-masons, Enlightenment-like civil
servants on the other side.
The Republican
movement – which has rebirth in 1870 – was not unitary, but many propagandists
of Republic also favored the separation between church and State: liberals,
positivists, even freemasons. The Republic being proclaimed in November 15,
1889, only two months later (January 7, 1890) the separation between Church and
State has been accomplished, through the Decree n. 119-A, which separated
citizenship and the religious professions: the State ceased both to finance and
control Church(es) and, on the other hand, Catholic Church ceased to regulate
civil acts (like birth, death and matrimony registrations); however, the
mortmain (“mão morta”)[3]
has been maintained at first, due to the influence of Rui Barbosa. Anyway, in
February 24, 1891, a new, Republican Constitution has been approved by the National
Congress, reaffirming the laicization of Brazilian State and securing the
liberties of consciousness, expression and association; official holidays lost
their religious character and assumed civic human traits[4].
As the Positivist leader Raimundo Teixeira Mendes noticed, laicization of the
State was so desired by the people and the civil and military elites that there
were virtually no complaints and no riots at all against it (Lacerda 2016).
Despite these legal
provisions, the laicization process was not fully accomplished: administration
of public cemeteries were not ran by the State (Lacerda 2016) and much of the
educational system remained under the control of Catholic Church (Cunha 2007). Just
after the Decree n. 119-A, the Church itself complained vehemently against what
it saw as a “violence”, demanding in particular the maintenance of its
character of official doctrine and some sort of patronage (but without
regalism).
However, soon the
clergy perceived that the laicization of the State was not bad at all and, on
the contrary, it freed the Church and created the conditions for its
reorganization, reversing the harsh institutional conditions suffered during
the Empire. The quest for patronage-without-regalism remained constant through
the Republican years; in 1916, the future Bishop of Rio de Janeiro and
Brazilian Cardinal d. Sebastião Leme launched the campaign named
“Neo-Christendom” (“Neocristandade”),
aiming to “recatholicize” both Brazilian State and society. In 1925-1926, in a
process of constitutional revision, Sebastião Leme tried to inscribe in the
Brazilian Constitution some article instituting again Catholicism as official creed,
affirming it the “religion of the Brazilian people”; however, President Arthur
Bernardes refused such a proposition: the Revolution of 1930, which ended the
Brazilian I Republic, changed the situation and allowed the Neocristandade
project to be finally victorious.
From
the Vargas Era to the military regime (1930-1964)
In the end of 1930
Getúlio Vargas leaded a successful civilian-military coup, putting an end to
the social-political arrangement of the I Republic and beginning a 15-year
period called by the historians the “Vargas Era” – which was divided into many
different phases: provisional (1930-1934) and constitutional (1934-1937)
governments and civilian-military dictatorship (1937-1945). While the period
1889-1930 was characterized by the prevalence of rural societies and the rule
of regional elites in a strong federalism, after 1930 Vargas conducted Brazil
into a united (even authoritarian) government and to efforts of State-oriented
industrialization.
After the
revolutionary movement of 1930, Vargas needed political support to make stable
his new regime; such a need was soon perceived by Sebastião Leme, who in 1931 –
by the way, during the inauguration of the now world-famous monument “Christ
the Redeemer” (“Cristo Redentor”) –
proposed a not fair trade to Vargas: ICAR would support the new regime in
exchange of many concessions and privileges granted by the State and based on
the myth of Brazil as a “Christian nation” (Della Cava 1975); so, Catholicism
assumed a condition of para-official religion of Brazil, with the obligatory
presence of the clergy in official ceremonies, the Church ruling the public
education, the introduction of a facultative discipline of “Religious
Education” in the regular periods of classes and the possibility of “collaboration”
between church and State based on the “public interest”. Besides that, a major
social-political Catholic activism was developed, with the creation of the
Electoral Catholic League (“Liga
Eleitoral Católica”), the Catholic workers circles and the aggressive criticisms
made by intellectual lays (like Jackson de Figueiredo) against liberalism,
freedom of consciousness and, more generally, against modernity; alongside with
the efforts of recatholicization of the State and the elites, the Neo-Christendom
tented to support more conservatives and authoritarian conceptions of the
society and the State. In 1937, when Vargas accomplished a new
civilian-military coup, now to establish an authoritarian, fascist-like regime
(called “New State” (“Estado Novo”)),
ICAR made no opposition to that[5].
Besides that, the Afro-Brazilian cults were criminalized and the many Protestantisms
suffered intolerance. Finally, the homage to “God” was inscribed in the
constitution of 1934 – albeit, curiously, it was absent in the authoritarian
constitution of 1937.
During the authoritarian
“New State”, laicity had a difficult situation. Firstly, ICAR acted actively
before to be a para-official church; secondly, Vargas created polices for
political activities and ideological diffusion, besides an office for official
propaganda: albeit the New State was not a totalitarian regime, it had
something like an official ideology, imposed over society and characterized by
a cult of the dictator, strong nationalism and an emphasis on hierarchy and
military-like order. From 1930 until 1937, despite the more or less liberal
environment, many illiberal ideologies championed in Brazil, including
Communism and “Integralism” (“Integralismo”),
the Brazilian version of Fascism, besides the more conservative, authoritarian
version of Catholicism, that is, the Neo-Christendom. After 1937 and until
1945, only remained Neo-Christendom and the official propaganda: cults and
religions other than Catholicism were accepted (when they were accepted) only
as they were practiced as more or less private matters and, above all, as
non-political ones. Yet, it is noteworthy that in the 1930’s and the 1940’s a political-pedagogical
movement called “New School” (“Escola
Nova”), leaded by Anísio Teixeira, championed the causes of democracy,
modern pedagogical methods and laicity in Education (Cunha 2007).
During World War II,
Brazil had been aligned with USA; the defeat of the nazi-fascist regimes in
Europe led to a growing pression to democratization, what occurred through a
military coup in the end of 1945; in 1946 a new, democratic constitution was
promulgated, changing some of the terms of the relation between ICAR and the
State, but not reversing to the status quo of full laicity previous to 1930.
The laicity of the State and the religious freedom were affirmed, but the
collaboration between church and State in the name of public interest remained,
as well as classes of Religious Education in the regular times; on the other
hand, chaplaincies were allowed to exist in the Armed Forces.
Anyway, after 1946 two
major social traits were the social-intellectual pluralization and
politization; it was the period of the decolonization nationalism, but also of
the Cold War and Brazil was not exempt from its troubles. Political-intellectual
Marxism spread through society and constituted by itself a major force on
behalf of secularization and laicity (even sometimes also on behalf of
atheism); it influenced ICAR, which divided into two great tendencies, one more
“progressist” and Marxism-friendly and another more conservative: in broad
terms, a left-wing and a right-wing ICAR. Both were militant, but the leftist
Catholics had more prominence, providing support for social movements of
students, urban and rural workers, women etc. Political Catholicism has
suffered ambiguous influences in that period, anyway: Marxism, nationalism and
pluralization all worked in the direction of secularization; II Vatican Council
(1962-1965), affirming the need and the correction of openness of ICAR to the modernity,
refrained the (declining) importance of ultramontanist impulses of Catholic
Church in Brazil and, in certain way, legitimized the secularization process;
but, at the same time, in 1952 it was founded the National Conference of
Bishops of Brazil (Conferência Nacional
dos Bispos do Brasil – CNBB), assembling all the Brazilian bishops in an
unique institution[6], but
mainly giving voice to the leftist priests and, so, legitimizing their
political action and their support to social movements.
On the other hand,
Protestantisms also spread, specially in the lower classes; not as militant as
Catholics (or not militant at all), they were more conservatives or openly
politically rightist, claiming against (atheist) Communism (even based on the
Catholic myth of Brazil as a “Christian nation”).
From 1946 on, but
specially after 1961, radicalization accompanied politization. The years
between 1961 and 1964 have seen many disturbances related to the Presidential
succession from the rightist President Jânio Quadros (who renounced in 1961,
just after seven months in office) to the leftist vice-President João Goulart
(whose alias was “Jango”). In order to be installed in office, Jango first
accepted to lose Presidential powers, after a maneuver to establish parliamentarism
in Brazil, in 1962; after a harsh campaign for the re-establishment of
presidentialism, Jango regained full power, but his fame as a radical leftist
(albeit he wasn’t initially radical), the aggressive campaigns of the rightist
opposition and the climate of Cold War weakened the social-political support to
Jango; the result was the growing radicalization of the President of Brazil,
which resulted in April 1, 1964, in a civilian-military coup, which soon
installed a mostly military authoritarian regime, lasting until 1985.
Just like Vargas’ “New
State”, during the military regime most religions were tolerated if they were
practiced as non-political matters. But unlike the authoritarian regime of
1937-1945, the military regime had no official ideology other than the militant
anti-Communism and, in certain periods, some political and/or economical
nationalism. In 1964 ICAR supported the civilian-military coup in the name of
anti-Communism, but, due the political persecutions and, after, the practice of
tortures, ICAR soon distanced itself from the regime, becoming then a focus of
opposition to the regime. On the other hand, looking for some religious
legitimation, the regime changed a century-long policy and invited some
Protestants – mostly Evangelicals – to participate of official ceremonies.
Protestants and, in particular, Evangelicals were both vigorous anti-Communists
and non-political actors, so they were very adequate to substitute ICAR as
para-official priests. Those changes – even if they were merely temporary
concerning ICAR –, in addition to the support of Catholic Church to the
transition from authoritarianism to democracy in the early 1980’s set apart the
institution from the State, at least during some time (Della Cava, 1975;
Mariano, 2002).
From
the New Republic on (1985-…)
In 1985 a new,
civilian President has been elected in Brazil (Tancredo Neves, who died before
assuming office and being succeeded by the vice-President, José Sarney). That
event was a mark in the Brazilian political transition, which began in late
1970’s with a controlled overture, passed through provincial elections for
gubernators (in 1982, with a massive victory of opposition) and an indirect
election for President (in 1985) and culminated in 1988 with the promulgation of
a new Constitution – the “citizen constitution”. All that process occurred with
the strong participation of the civil society: old and new neighbor
associations, professional unions, cultural and thematic organizations
(landless workers, houseless people, environmentalism, feminists, gays etc.) and,
for sure, churches developed an intense activism during that period and, in
particular, contributed during the debates of the new constitution.
Such an activism was
(and is) based on basic civil freedoms: consciousness, expression and
association; as those social movements affirmed themselves at the expense of
the State, they also affirmed values and practices close to laicity, even if
they didn’t intended to. However, we must observe that, as ICAR distanced itself
from the State during the military regime, its action developed in civil
society and much of the activism of the late 1970’s and 1980’s was influenced
or even organized and sustained by the Catholic Church: so, laicity as an
absence of mutual influences between church and State suffered or, at least,
was in an ambiguous situation, as the “confessionalization” of politics was
again affirmed, this time by the side of civil society. On the other hand,
after the invitation of the military presidents for the political engagement of
Evangelicals, these churches began to launch candidates, appealing directly to
ecclesiastical values: “believer votes in believer” was their motto during the
1980’s and most of the 1990’s[7].
A sign of the renewed confessionalization of the politics is the inscription of
the motto “God be blessed” (“Deus seja
louvado”) in all currency notes since 1986 by the pious President Sarney.
The Constitution of
1988 followed the ambivalent pattern of previous constitutions concerning
laicity: on one hand, it affirmed the separation of churches and State in terms
according to the concept of laicity (art. 19); but, on the other hand, it accepted
the “collaboration” between churches and the State in the case of “public
interest”, affirmed the teaching of Religious Education[8]
and, in its “Preamble”, affirmed that the Constitution was promulgated under
the “protection of God”[9]
(Brasil s/d-b). These provisions had their effects: in 1996 a new Law of Basis
of Education was promulgated, where Religious Education is reaffirmed as
constitutive of the scholar curriculum, although as an optional discipline to
be offered in regular school period (Brasil s/d-c); in 1997 an amendment to
that law affirmed that the teachers of Religious Education must be paid by the
State, but leaving open the specific subject matter of such discipline[10].
Besides that, in 2008
President Lula signed an agreement with the Holy See, by the occasion of the
visit of Pope Benedict XVI – a Concordat, reaffirming old privileges of ICAR
and establishing new ones, such as the legal provision of Catholic chaplaincies
in the military and in public hospitals and the express reference to
Catholicism in the Religious Education curricula (Cunha 2009). To be approved
by the Brazilian National Congress, the government proposed the creation of a
“General Law of Religions” (“Lei Geral
das Religiões”), extending the privileges of ICAR present in the Concordat
to “all” religions, but targeting in particular Evangelicals. Such “General Law
of Religions” have not been approved until 2018, but the international treaty that is the Concordat continues producing internal effects.
The Concordat was a
major theme that opposed ICAR to Evangelicals, but in practice these
organizations are frequently allied in moral issues, both in society and in
Brazilian parliaments: fight against pro-abortion and pro-same sex marriage
laws are two conspicuous examples of such close political alliances.
The growing
pluralization of Brazilian civil society, specially from the 1980’s on, has its
effects on the religiosity of people: on one hand, in the last three decades
the number of atheists, agnostics and persons without religion (and/or even
without church affiliation) has grown[11],
with the creation of militant associations of atheists, agnostics and secular
humanists; on the other hand, despite the maintenance of the privileges of
ICAR, its numbers has fallen (95% in 1940 to 64,6% in 2010), in part due to the
growing number of Evangelicals (2,7% in 1940 to 22,2% in 2010) (Alves 2017).
Finally, the Afro-Brazilian cults are more evident and demanding of respect and
tolerance, as well as Spiritism.
Considering those
demographic changes, the more important feature of Brazilian politics
concerning religion is the organization of Evangelicals in political parties
and their eagerness to master public offices and to influence policies; albeit
not indifferent to political-economic themes, their agenda is primarily moral, aggressively
demanding legislation tending to more conservative behavior patterns. On the
other hand, with more or less success they repeatedly try to impose the lecture
of the Bible and/or to celebrate cults in public spaces, like schools and even
parliaments.
One of the major
alterations in the Brazilian polity made by the Constitution of 1988 is the
more independence and power granted to Attorney General Office (“Ministério Público”), seen since then as
the “guardian of citizenship”. So, specially since mid-2000’s, Federal Attorney
General Office and its subnational branches develop an active defense of
laicity, both through judicial processes and educational campaigns[12].
Anyway, a great social-political-juridical activism pro-laicity is being done
by Ministério Público and civil society, motivated by the separation between
churches and State, but also for sensitive issues, like education, abortion,
same-sex marriage etc.
As a last remark, we
must notice that, despite the clear concept of laicity as the
mutual indifference between churches and the State, remains in Brazil two major
confusions, either they are innocent or interested, between laicity and atheism
of State, on one hand, and between laicity and pluriconfessionalism. They represent
conceptual differences, but also different political arrangements concerning
State and religions. Atheism deny God and an atheist State in practice is
anti-clericalist; so, by imposing an official doctrine the atheist State
distances itself from the laicity – but, in order to fight laicity, it is an
easy rethoric resource to force the confusion between it and atheism of State.
On the other hand, pluriconfessionality seems to many either an alternative to
laicity or even its best realization: by recognizing and bringing religions inside
the State, many consider the pluriconfessionalism a more “democratic” way to
deal with politics and religion. Brazil has not an atheist State; despite many
prefer pluriconfessionality in good faith, many defends it as a means to deny
and cease laicity.
Cross References
Catholicism in Brazil;
Vargas, Getúlio; Positivism in Brazil; Roman Catholic Apostolic Church; Protestantism
in Brazil; Secularism
References
ALVES JED (2017) A transição religiosa na América Latina e no Brasil. Available at https://www.ecodebate.com.br/2017/05/31/transicao-religiosa-na-america-latina-e-no-brasil-artigo-de-jose-eustaquio-diniz-alves/.
Access in Jan 19, 2018.
BRASIL (s/d-a)
Constituições anteriores. Available at http://www4.planalto.gov.br/legislacao/legislacao-historica/constituicoes-anteriores-1. Access in Jan 19, 2018.
BRASIL (s/d-b) Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988. Available at http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/Constituicao/Constituicao.htm. Access in Jan 19, 2018.
BRASIL (s/d-c) Lei n. 9394. Available
at http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/L9394.htm.
Access in Jan 19, 2018.
CASANOVA J (1994) Public
Religions in the Modern World. Chicago: University of Chicago.
CNMP (2014) Ministério Público em defesa do Estado laico. Brasília,
Conselho Nacional do Ministério Público.
CUNHA LA (2007) Sintonia oscilante. Cadernos de Pesquisa, 131: 285-302.
CUNHA LA (2009) A educação na
Concordata Brasil-Vaticano. Educação e
Sociedade, 106: 263-280.
DELLA CAVA R (1975) Igreja e Estado no
Brasil do século XX. Estudos Cebrap,
12: 5-52.
KERTZER, DI (2017) O Papa e Mussolini. Rio de Janeiro, Intrínseca.
LACERDA GB (2016) Laicidade na I República brasileira. Curitiba, Appris.
LINHARES MYL (ed.) (2016) História geral do Brasil. 10 ed. Rio de
Janeiro, Elsevier.
MARIANO R (2002) Secularização do Estado, liberdades e pluralismo religioso. Available at http://www.naya.org.ar/congreso2002/ponencias/ricardo_mariano.htm.
Access in Jan 19, 2018.
SCAMPINI J (1978) A liberdade religiosa nas constituições brasileiras. Petrópolis,
Vozes.
WEFFORT FC (2012) Espada, cobiça e fé. Rio de Janeiro, Civilização
Brasileira.
[1] A general picture of
Brazilian history can be read in Linhares (2016).
[2] Mariano (2002) has noticed that
that openness for other religions beyond Catholicism was due to the policy of
immigration of the Brazilian Empire, which preferred German and Swiss workers,
most of them being Protestants; they created colonies in the Southern and
South-Eastern provinces of Brazil.
[3] The mortmain was as institution of
medieval origin according to which ecclesiastical properties – specially real
estate ones – needed the approval of the Temporal power to be alienated; so, in
the Brazilian context, it was part of regalism.
[4] A strong symbol of that
laicization was the absence of any reference to “God” in the Constitution of
1891, just like that of 1937 – but differently from all the other Republican
ones (1934, 1946, 1967, 1988) (cf. Brasil s/d-a, s/d-b).
[5] Such support was not only close to
the ultramontanist inspiration of the Neo-Christendom but was also close the
conservative, authoritarian, fascist-friend politics then adopted by the Pope
Pius XI – who, not surprisingly, was at good terms with Mussolini so they
celebrated the Treaty of Lateran, in 1929 (Kertzer 2017).
[6] For sure, that concentration
had at least two main purposes: to provide the ecclesiastical hierarchy with more
discipline (both organizational and doctrinaire) and to create an unified
structure able to influence and make pressure upon the State.
[7] In the elections of the
2000’s and 2010’s, many candidates overtly used as mottos phrases like “vote
for Jesus”, “vote for the Gospels” etc.
[8] Religious Education is the only discipline that is mentioned in the
Constitution: besides the fact that specific disciplines of the scholar
curriculum should not be inserted in the Constitution, other disciplines more
obvious are not cited, like Portuguese and Mathematics.
[9] The article 60 of the Constitution
of 1988 affirms the “articles carved in stone” (“cláusulas pétreas”), which are the elements of Brazilian polity
that cannot be changed: secret, universal, direct vote; federative form;
separation of powers; and individual rights and duties: it is noteworthy that
laicity does not integrate such articles.
[10] So, the many states of the
Brazilian federation diverge on what the students must learn in Religious
Education (confessional or more historical-philosophical approaches), on what
is the specific labor regime of its teachers (priests paid as civil servants or
not) and even if the discipline is mandatory or not.
[11] Those without religions grew
from 0% in 1940 to 8% in 2010 (Alves 2017).
[12] One example of such educational
campaigns is the publication of the book The
Attorney General Office in defense of the laicity of the State (CNMP 2014).
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)