This Spanish-language edited collection comprises the writings of 18 distinguished authors from Europe and Latin America, mainly political scientists, of which several works will be examined. The quality of the writing is both academic and literary, requiring fluency by readers. The tome concerns the writings of Alberto Methol Ferré (1929–2009), who was one of the Southern Cone’s leading left-wing Roman Catholic nationalist theologians and unionist writers. The subject hailed from a prominent family and received his doctorate from the University of the Republic in Montevideo. While at the university, Methol Ferré became a genuine convert to Roman Catholicism. After graduation, he led a distinguished academic life and was appointed to be Uruguay’s lay representative to the Vatican. He was originally a member of the Blanco Party, which was the political organ for those who were conservative, Roman Catholic, and Spanish.
The late 1950s and early 1960s produced a schism within the Blanco Party, which had traditionally represented those of Spanish and Roman Catholic heritage. The younger generation of intellectuals and political activists in the Blanco political apparatus sought a more nationalist and militant stance toward the traditional Washington-centric policies of the party elites. This younger cadre had been influenced by liberation theology and sought new reformist policies in the domestic sphere, including a mechanism for the economic and political integration of Latin America. Methol Ferré was active in the promotion of these unionist policies for Latin America. His frustration with the Blanco oligarchy led him to join a massive defection from the party to the Frente Amplio (Broad Front), which was a coalition of nationalist, Roman Catholic, and leftist parties and factions that had been on the outside looking in.
Methol Ferré dedicated his life to the propagation of political integration for Latin America, helping to establish the periodical NEXO, which promoted unionism as one of its primary objectives. He argued that in the future, only the large continental states would have any impact on the world. Only political integration could bring the region democracy, stability, and industrialization; he argued that the latter was indispensable to the former. He never indicated what economic policies were to be adopted if the unionist agenda was achieved.
One of the more significant reviews in this volume is that of José Briceño Ruiz, who examines the views of Methol Ferré and regional integration. He reviews the intellectual antecedents of unionism from a political and even an ecclesiastical perspective. Methol Ferré argued that the church was as much a creator of Latin America as was the Spanish Crown. He asserted that the church brought the region into the occidental world by uniting the diocese and the archdiocese with the empire, claiming that “the evangelization of the sixteenth century was made possible via the introduction of the baroque” in Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico, thereby creating the core culture of the region. Methol Ferré minimized the historical tensions that existed between the Iberian and American empires. The union of crowns between 1580 and 1640, he argued, fostered collaboration. He deftly noted that the Argentine-Brazilian border became the first frontier in America, where cooperation between both the Portuguese-Mestizo and the Hispanic-Mestizo was extensive. Methol Ferré did not deny that tensions existed in the border regions but insisted that the only significant matter was that these contacts existed and that they could form the basis for modern-day cooperation through economic and political integration. According to Methol Ferré, the foremost impediment to further integration was the “oligarchies of the poleis,” and only their complete and utter defeat could bring about industrialization and democracy.
Diego Hernández Nilson discusses the intellectual trek from the traditional country-centric view to a broader embrace of regionalism. He observes that Methol Ferré minimized the schism between left and right on the political spectrum and focused more on the national qualities of Latin America. Methol Ferré lambasted the international cosmopolitan disposition of many Argentines, claiming that it was the “vacuous ideology of the Buenos Aires oligarchy.” He added that the continental nationalism he advocated was not localism but the search for what was “universal and concrete, rather than an abstraction.” He defined Latin American society as quintessentially Catholic, Mestizo, and populist, claiming that the liberal oligarchy of the poleis (Buenos Aires and Montevideo) turned on the church with various degrees of hostility. Hernández Nilson asserts that Methol Ferré’s writings vindicate the “baroque culture” of Catholicism because it successfully incorporated so many groups.
José Ramiro Podetti studies the interaction between Methol Ferré and the church. The scholarly Methol Ferré was acquainted with all the leading River Plate lay theologians, including Guzmán Carriquiry of Uruguay and Cardinal Bergoglio of Buenos Aires, now Pope Francis. Methol Ferré always emphasized that he had two passions: the church and Latin America. In the 1960s he championed Vatican II and supported the 1979 Puebla Episcopal Conference for Latin America, both of which called for greater inclusion of the common person and the promotion of social justice. As a modern man, he viewed history as a glimpse into the future, claiming that “the philosophies of history are the road to reading the signs of the times.” He asserted that the church had made a valuable contribution to the region but that it lacked a historical vision unique to Latin America, which had led to the absence of a coherent pro-unionist policy, steering Methol Ferré to inquire, “should we think of 20 churches or one Latin American church?”
The theologian Emilce Cuda scrutinizes Methol Ferré’s relationship with leftwing elements of liberation theology. Methol Ferré maintained that this school of thought was stronger in Latin America than in the United States because “the theological climate in North America had conformed to the secular society of neocapitalism.” Although Methol Ferré promoted liberation theology, he limited his support for the ideology, claiming that individuals had to recognize that the “problem with society was sin.” The enemy, he argued continuously, “tears at society and the church.” He noted that Marxist ideas, which had filtered into the church, were a predicament for Christians, who needed to learn how to deal with the hostility of the extreme left.
Ximena Espeche examines the reasons behind Methol Ferré’s espousal of a “third way,” via Western-style socialism and unionist ideology. Methol Ferré argued that only the River Plate region could serve as the fulcrum for the integration movement because the idea had strong historical roots in the area, going back to the Perón-Vargas rapprochement. Many supporters of Methol Ferré favored a unified socialist Latin America, leading many intellectuals to concur that Latin Americanism was not a conservative notion but a realistic tool for fighting imperialism in the hands of the nationalist left.
The chapter by Alberto Couriel is particularly insightful because he served as an Uruguayan legislator from 1990 to 2015 and was therefore an insider. His work sums up the life of Methol Ferré and of the unionists’ most recent creation, MERCOSUR. He argues that Methol Ferre’s efforts lost out because the enemies of MERCOSUR were legion.
In discussing the trajectory of MERCOSUR, Couriel examines the trade bloc’s passel of problems. The two great enemies of the bloc, he argues, were indifference and neoliberalism. The latter policy was adopted by both Presidents Mauricio Macri and Jair Bolsonaro, who sought closer ties with Washington via bilateral trade agreements. Couriel, however, ignores the malice shown to MERCOSUR by the Argentine presidential couple Néstor Kirchner and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who held power for a total of 13 years and did everything possible to undermine the organization.
Couriel explains that MERCOSUR’s anemic nature arose because Latin American institutions did not support it. Accordingly, a genuine regional consciousness did not develop, and no political party ever made economic integration its priority. The trade bloc also lacked high-profile political advocates, except for Brazilian president Lula da Silva. Similarly, no industries or business leaders have lobbied on its behalf. Even the regional news media ignored the bloc, although its problems were highlighted at every opportunity.
Couriel argues that Methol Ferre’s efforts at persuasion were “utopian,” but that the intellectual’s work had some effect in promoting democracy, industrialization, and integration. Despite setbacks for unionism, Methol Ferré’s labor was not in vain, because his writings “opened avenues for advancement.” Couriel concludes that only structural changes in political relationships can establish a new political culture that will firmly ensconce the political and economic integration of Latin America.
In sum, this collection makes a valuable contribution for those seeking to understand one of Latin America’s leading intellectuals in the context of the integration movement and historical developments.
