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).
