Discuss the ways in which Jos Enrique Rod reacts in Ariel to the processes associated with modernisation.

The context in which Jos Enrique Rods wrote his essay Ariel (1900), was a Latin America becoming progressively independent with its people beginning to question the cultural, political and ideological developments of their newly borne nations. In his essay, Rod outlined the risks associated with blindly accepting the North-American cultural model which was oriented by the principles of utilitarianism and contained an inherent frantic rhythm of modernisation. The ways in which Rod reacted to the process of modernisation in Latin America will be analysed and the historical context of his work will be explored. Rods criticism of the North American utilitarianism will be discussed in light of his aim for younger generations to develop an independent model of society based on their proud Roman and Hellenic cultural past. Finally, Rods pedagogic discourses directed at the youth of Latin America will be analysed in the context of his views on democracy and education, the importance of aesthetics and on ocio. In his essay, Rod aimed to provide a set of guidelines for the future leaders of Latin American society but before examining all of these factors, a brief historical perspective will be provided. At the end of the nineteenth century, mainly due to a higher degree of political stability and foreign investment from the USA and Europe, Latin America started its process of modernisation. Economic growth, predominantly boosted by an export-oriented economy, increased political stability in countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Per. In general though, the development of Latin America came under the non-democratic leadership of oligarchs, dictators and the North American military occupation (Howard & Harvey, 1986). Castro (2000) explains that the US military intervention in the 1898 Cuban war of independence outraged Rod who felt it was his duty to address the issues of transition. He warned the younger generations of the need to develop an independent project of national leadership. Devs Valds (2000) explains that the main features of Latin American modernisation were; the tendency of Latin American countries to follow the most developed countries, the importance of technology and mechanics in expense of the arts, the idea that the most industrialised countries had the right to lead the modernisation process in Latin America and the belief that the cultural characteristics of the industrialised countries were models to be imported. Devs Valds added that the Latin American people believed they needed to update and open up their cultures to the rest of the world. The people of Latin America were in search of efficiency and productivity at the expense of justice and equality and their Hispanic and Latin origins together with the Indigenous issues, were often forgotten. It is in this context that the Latin American modernist cultural movement was born, with its push to reform, its focus on freedom of thought and its worship of the form (Bollo, 1951). Rods Ariel was one of the first works that included the modernist

movements principles and it suggested a clear path forward towards reform. In his critique of the North American approach to modernisation, he expressed what he believed would have been the ideal Latin American reaction. Rod, through the voice of Prspero, warned the young audience of the risks associated with the utilitarian spirit of the United States. Stimsons essay on Ariel (1922) defines utilitarianism in Stuart Mills terms as utilities, fixed and embodied in material objects (p. viii). Stimson adds that the modern life of the early nineteenth century seemed to value only those utilities which could be fixed and embodied in material objects (p. viii). Rod opposed the passive acceptance of the conquista of a Latin America deslatinizada, and described such a phenomenon as nordomana (p. 196). He depicted utilitarianism as a typically Anglo-Saxon phenomenon and through a statement by the French historian Michelet la imitacin inconsulta no har nunca sino deformar las lneas del modelo warned of the risks of imitating an external phenomenon (p. 197). Ariel outlined the positive characteristics of North American society in order to highlight the differences between the histories of the two cultures. Rod believed the youth of Latin America needed to recognise those differences in order to understand that the societal model of the United States could not be applied to the diverse Latin American realities. Rod described the culture of the people in the United States as lejos de ser refinada ni espiritual but at the same time with an eficacia admirable siempre que se dirige prcticamente a realizar una finalidad inmediata (p. 202). He declared his admiration for the Northern Americans primarily in relation to their ability of querer, however, he noted that their impetus was directed exclusively to the persecucin del bienestar (p.202). His main criticism was the vulgar spirit that undermines any thinking activity without an immediate, tangible result. In Rods reaction to Aglo-Saxon modernisation, he proposed various areas of focus for those who would be in charge of restructuring the cultural development of Latin American nations. He placed great emphasis on the importance of education and its role in the construction of an ideal democracy. Rod outlined the weaknesses of the democracies at the end of the nineteenth century, emphasising the risks of becoming a mediocre society. Rod referred to Renan when he critiqued democracy in its utilitarian interpretation, claiming that the spirit of democracy did not embed a concern for los intereses ideales (p. 177). His response was education, which he claimed, was the instrument that should underpin democracy. A democracy, he argued, based on a classically educated population, could be truly egalitarian in contrast to the North American model of egalitarianism en la forma mansa de la tendencia a lo utilitario y lo vulgar (p.184). Rod believed that cultures should favour el dominio de la calidad sobre el nmero (p. 180) and each government was responsible for providing equal opportunities through the foundation of a comprehensive high quality education. The government would select the leading political elite through merit. Rod contradicted the utilitarian

specialisation in education, citing the French philosopher Guyau who believed each young man should explore many facets of the spirit before focussing on one profession and field of learning; hay una profesin universal , que es la de hombre (p.153). Alvarado (2003) claims that Rods Ariel proposes a society where everyone has the possibility of achieving their maximum potential. Furthermore, Alvarado explains that the effects of such a system of education and merit-based leadership would be a society where unjust inequalities were eliminated to create desigualdades legtimas (p. 167). In addition, the creation of an aristocracia cultural, legitimised by the equal opportunity of the whole population, would represent superior values that would shape the real democratic society, derived by the values of Christianity and classic cultures (p. 167). Ette (2000) explains that education is essential in order to awaken the consciousness of the youth and to create an lite with the priorities of culture and enrichment of the spirit against the diffusing mercantilism (p. 127). Ariel responded to the democratic model of North America, concepcin mecnica de gobierno (p. 181) by appealing to the cultural inheritance of Latin Americans, where the classic civilisations taught the importance of hierarchy supported by the Christian predicaments, outlining that God did not want the whole human race to live with the same spiritual awakening. Rod then offers a definition of equality una futura equivalencia de los hombres por su ascension al mismo grado de cultura(p.192) suggesting this as the principle on which a society should build its democracy. The emphasis of the modernistas on the importance of having an individual meditative time is another aspect of Rods response to modernisation. The importance of ocio is presented through the legend of the rey hospitalario, who despite his hospitable nature, reserved time and space for solitary reflections. With this inter-textual reflection, Rod justified the noble nature of the practice of ocio outlining its Hellenic origins. Alvarado (2003) argues that utilitarian societies require that individuals renounce their interior, private lives. She highlights the fact that Rod maintained the necessity for individuals to have space to contemplate ideals and philosophical matters (p. 164). Rod claims that in order to be truly free, a man must hide into his interior space which he describes with a metaphor of a place inviolable seguro (p. 161). Rod added that the ocio was identified by the classical Hellenic civilisation as the only means to achieve an emancipated thought. The possibility of investing time in thinking was considered by the Hellenic civilisation as an expression of superior life; the Latin American people should model this belief in order to avoid the risks of treating time as any other commodity. The idea of ocio is embedded in the importance of the freedom of thinking preached by Hispano-American modernists. Bollo (1951) presents the need for the rey hospitalario of thinking, dreaming and admiring in his celda ntima(114), in order to preserve his intimacy from any external influence. Ette (2000) adds that the concept of interior space is made sacro in Ariel (p.92). Castro Morales (2000) states the criticisms which followed the publication of Ariel, contained descriptions of the culture of ocio as a

desfase utpico and an optimista. Castro Morales adds that those arguments stressed the anachronism of Rods suggestions, considering that modern society was far removed from the Hellenic model. The symbolism of Rods story is connected to the importance of contemplating ones own self, with the purpose of improving the human and moral characteristics of the individual. Mellado (2000) explains that it was very important to Rod that people withdraw from the culture of the economy. Furthermore, Mellado highlights Prosperos suggestion for the young to refer to the past when organising their values and to complete their cura de almas (p.80). In conclusion, Rod suggested that the man who is able to dedicate some time for isolated thinking and reflection, will avoid submitting to the rules of utilitarianism. According to Rod the young Latin Americans needed to model their culture on the classic civilisation and to react to the modern tendency of mutilacin of their moral nature (p. 162). The role of aesthetics was discussed in Ariel as another path for the enhancement of moral nature. In her essay on the Uruguayan modernist movement, Bollo (1951) explains how modernist writers referred to and compared their own work to artistic masterpieces in order to increase the beauty of their work. In addition, Bollo stresses the position of lo bello in Rods Ariel as the superior feeling of anyone who lives a rational existence (p. 51). Ariel is itself symbol of the victory of lo bello, the improver of human behaviour, over the unrefined nature of the Caliban, metaphor of thenordomana. Rod in this discussion returned to the idea of a comprehensive education, where citizens would be taught to interpret and understand the arts in order to avoid mediocrity. Ancient Greeks were perfectly aware of the importance of aesthetics and they created a perfect society where no one could disturb the graciosa proporcin de la linea(p.156). Beauty leads to kindness, standing firmly in opposition to anything utilitarian. Rod suggested that beauty is a pathway for a just society; duty will not be something imposed but people will strive to achieve it; le sienta esteticamente como una armonia (p.164). Rod stressed the link between moral beliefs and aesthetics by affirming el que ha aprendido a distinguir de lo delicado lo vulgar, lo feo de lo hermoso, lleva hecha media jornada para distinguir lo malo de lo bueno (p.165). Rather than focusing on the achievement of utility, Ariel positions itself as a metaphor for an aesthetic way of life, where the sense of beauty and education are the basis for a responsible society and all its members are particularly aware of their nature, moral principle and democratic potential. Rods Ariel by criticising the process of modernisation with its utilitarian principles, depicts the North American society as a Calibn; a brutal creature whose actions are driven by instincts and urges. Rod was not opposed to the inevitable process of the modernisation of Latin America, he simply reacted to the utilitarian model imposed by the North American imperialism and expressed the need to construct an independent Latin American identity. Through his essay, Rod warned the youth

of the risks involved with the passive acceptance of the phenomenon of nordomana and a mediocre society would be its ultimate result. Ariel is the aesthetic model to follow, in consideration of the cultural inheritance of the Latin American societies. Aesthetics will lead to a morality like education will lead to a real, egalitarian democracy. Prsperos students were now ready to lead the Latin American society; their master was able to teach them the aesthetic principles through the beauty of his words. Furthermore, Prspero criticised the industrialised proposal of cosmopolitan development and provided clear instructions for his people to avoid the wrong example of the Calibn. The young Latin Americans were now ready to construct an independent identity for their society that would represent and embed the Latin American values and those of their ancestors.

References.

Alvarado, M. (2003). Rod y su Ariel. El Ariel de Rod. CUYO. Anuario de Filosofa Argentina y Americana, 20, p. 155-173. Alonso, D. (2001) Jos Enrique Rod: una retrica para la democracia. Revista canadiense de studios hispnicos, Vol. XXV, pp. 184-190. Harward, J. & Harvey, M. (1986). In Bethell, L. (Ed.). The Cambridge history of Latin America. Vol. 4. Cambridge: Cambridgeshire, pp. 23 35. Bollo, S. (1951). El modernismo en el Uruguay. Montevideo: Impresora Uruguaya. Ette, O., & Heydenreich, T. et al. (2000). Jos Enrique Rod y su tiempo. Madrid: Iberoamericana. pp. 127. Devs Valds, Eduardo (2000). Del Ariel de Rod a la CEPAL. Buenos Aires: Biblos. Henriquez Urena, Max. (1954). Breve historia del modernismo. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Economica. Howard, J. Wiarda, Harvey, F. (2006). Latin American politics and development (6th ed) New York: Westview Press Rod, J.E. (2003). In Beln Castro (Ed.) Ariel. (2nded ). Mardid: Ctedra. Stimson, F.J. (1922) Jos Enrique Rod. Prefatory essay. Whitefish, Mt.: Kessinger Publishing, pp. i xxii.