Few scholars have achieved such distinction in the field of Latin American intellectual history as has Leopoldo Zea. For more than forty years he has devoted his professional career to research, teaching, and the promotion of the study of Latin America.

Leopoldo Zea’s studies have constantly displayed originality, academic rigor, a personal involvement, commitment to his subject matter, creativity, and diversity in the themes addressed. His classic works on positivism in Mexico, El positivismo en México and Apogeo y decadencia del positivismo en México, represented the first major historiographical view of the intellectual history of Mexico. The studies remain standard interpretations of the relationships among ideology, society, and politics in the nineteenth century. Professor Zea has also been instrumental in the development of the intellectual current of “México y lo mexicano, which probes and seeks to define the essence of the Mexican and of Mexico. Zea broke with tradition when he extended his research inquiry to comparative analysis of Latin America, from which came his provocative interpretations of the culture. His most recent and perhaps most ambitious work focuses upon the relationships of Latin America with western industrialized nations and with the Third World. Indicative of the merit and significance of Professor Zea’s publications is the fact that his books and articles have been translated and published in numerous countries, where they have evoked much commentary, mostly of a positive nature.

Professor Zea has had a remarkably varied career. He has held appointments at the Colegio de México and from 1944 to the present, at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, where his graduate seminar has attracted students from several Latin American and European countries and most recently from Japan. He has also lectured and offered seminars throughout Latin America, North America, Europe, and the Middle East.

Throughout his distinguished career Professor Zea has held important administrative and professional posts: among them, Director of the Cultural Outreach Program at UNAM; Director of Cultural Programs for the Secretariat of Foreign Relations, as well as Minister-at-large, 1960-66; President of the Committee on the History of Ideas in America of the Instituto Panamericano de Geografía e Historia; Director of the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters of UNAM, 1966 -70; founding member and member of the Executive Council of the Federación de Estudios Americanos, 1982. It is safe to say that in Zea’s own mind his greatest satisfaction has come from his contribution in bringing Latin American scholars together to consider the cultural issues confronting the republics. Few have done as much as Professor Zea to make the Latin American intellectual community sensitive to its need to reduce its dependence on North American and European scholars to interpret its own reality.

Dr. Zea’s distinguished career has brought him many distinctions and a variety of important awards. A selected list includes: Gran Oficial de la Orden “Al Mérito”, 1963, Italy; Gran Oficial de la Orden Bandera Yugoslavia, 1963, Yugoslavia; Recipient of the Legion of Honor, 1964, France; Gran Oficial de la Orden “Al Mérito,” 1966, Peru; Premio Nacional de Ciencias y Artes, 1980, Mexico. Above all else, Professor Zea’s friendship, understanding, ideological openness, personal integrity, and intellectual commitment have earned him the highest respect, admiration, and gratitude of colleagues, students, and the public.

David Maciel: Dr. Zea, could we begin this interview by discussing your early studies and formal education?

Leopoldo Zea: I received my early training in law and the humanities at the National University of Mexico. I began in law in search of a profession; however, my real interest was always in literature and philosophy. During the hours that I was not working, I took classes in law and in the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters. My emphasis at that time was Hispanic letters.

D.M.: What were the circumstances under which your interest turned primarily to philosophy?

L.Z.: I remember well. It was in a course on contemporary Spanish literature in which I was introduced to the works of José Ortega y Gasset. My focus changed from letters to philosophy from that moment. My formal study, though, began when I enrolled in an introductory philosophy course taught by the Spanish philosopher Dr. José Gaos. Professor Gaos had required members of the class to submit an essay on the thought of Heraclitus. Two classes later, he said to the students: “I have here a number of interesting and well-done papers. One particularly stands out, written by Mr. Leopoldo Zea Aguilar. Will that person please identify himself?” I identified myself. “Young man, have you ever been in Madrid?” I replied, “No.” Dr. Gaos said, “Then I don’t know how this is possible, because your interpretation of Heraclitus follows Xavier Zubizi’s. It is a very original thesis. How do you explain your ideas?” I said, “I’m not sure. Perhaps through my readings of Ortega y Gasset.” From that moment on, Professor Gaos took a personal interest in my work. He later asked me, “What do you do for a living?” I said, “Well, I work at night, study law in the morning and philosophy in the afternoon.” “And when do you sleep?” “Well, some days I do, others I don’t.” Professor Gaos said that at that rate I was never going to succeed in a professional career. A short time later, don Alfonso Reyes, president of the Casa de España, called me. He said: “Dr. Gaos has spoken highly of your work and he wants you to pursue a career in philosophy. How much do you currently earn?” I replied, “I earn 120 pesos per month as a telegram messenger.” Don Alfonso then asked if I would like to study full-time and major in philosophy, if I received financial support. I answered, “Yes, of course.” Don Alfonso said: “Excellent, then you must give up your job. If you accept our offer, we will pay you 150 pesos a month to study full time. But you also must drop law and devote yourself exclusively to philosophy. Think about it.” I didn’t have to give it a second thought, and I accepted the offer at once. That is how my career in the study of ideas began. I studied at both the Casa de España (later its name was changed to El Colegio de México) and at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM). Most of my professors were the Spanish intellectuals who had come to Mexico with the fall of the Republic in Spain. My major professor, however, was José Gaos, who guided my course work and my graduate thesis.

D.M.: How did your interest in Positivism develop?

L.Z.: Again, I owe my initial study in the field to Dr. Gaos. It was after completing my course work and beginning work on my master’s thesis that he encouraged me to focus upon Mexican ideology. A course taught by Dr. Gaos on Greek philosophy had interested me immensely and I had decided to write my master’s thesis on the Greek sophists. But Dr. Gaos advised me to forego that topic, because it had already been extensively worked by European and North American scholars. Instead he recommended that I choose a Mexican or Latin American subject and thus contribute to a field that was little known. He specifically suggested Positivism. He stated that no matter how preliminary the study might be, I could at least offer new and important insights.

D.M.: Thus originated your study El positivismo en México?

L.Z.: Yes, the first phase was my master’s thesis. The development and decline of Positivism in Mexico was my doctoral thesis.

D.M.: After completing your doctorate and the publication of Apogeo y decadencia del positivismo en México, did you begin your teaching career?

L.Z.: No, not at that time. A short time after I completed my doctoral work, Professor Gaos called me in and said, “The faculty of El Colegio de México, and I, feel you should continue your research on nineteenth-century thought, expanding from Mexico to include Latin America as a whole. On this matter don Alfonso Reyes would like to speak to you.” Don Alfonso did indeed speak to me on the subject. He said that he had just read a recent study published in the United States on Latin America by William Rex Crawford entitled A Century of Latin American Thought. Don Alfonso said, “Frankly I do not agree at all with this book. It is full of errors and serious misinterpretations.” Don Alfonso added that he was so bothered by the study that he had contacted a representative of the Rockefeller Foundation about the possibility of funding a study from a Latin American perspective. He had received assurance that if a scholar were assigned to the task, the project would be supported by the Rockefeller Foundation. Don Alfonso went on: “We believe that you should be the person to carry out this assignment and build upon your work on Mexican Positivism to include the entire nineteenth century as well as other Latin American countries. If you agree, a Rockefeller Foundation grant will provide you with resources to visit libraries and sites in the United States and Latin America. A published interpretive study is expected once the research is completed.” I immediately agreed and was honored with the opportunity.

D.M.: Thus your study of nineteenth-century thought, Dos etapas del pensamiento latinoamericano, began as a means to refute Crawford?

L.Z.: No, I had no preconceived notions of refuting anybody. I merely wanted to learn for myself the principal currents of nineteenth-century Latin American thought through its most representative intellectuals.

D.M.: In your book you began with Romanticism and Liberalism and followed with a discussion of Positivism. Was this your intention from the start?

L.Z.: No, although I soon realized that in order the better to understand Positivism as well as any other ideology, it was essential to analyze the period and intellectual currents before its development. Romanticism is important not only as a precursor to Positivism but as a dominant influence in the first half of the nineteenth century in all Latin America. I’ll tell you, though, the project almost didn’t materialize.

D.M.: Please elaborate.

L.Z.: I had recently published an article entitled “Las dos Américas” in which I compared the materialism and precision of the United States to opposing currents in Latin America. Don Daniel Cosío Villegas, professor at the Colegio de México, called me in, in regard to my article. He was furious. He said, “Listen, Zea. We are in the process of securing a fellowship for you and you write this critical article on the United States.” He was really worked up. He took me to task for writing about a country that I had never visited and of which, therefore, I had no firsthand knowledge. I said to him that I had read extensively on the United States and believed my assumptions correct. Later that week, don Daniel called to say he had arranged a meeting for me with Professor William Berrien of Harvard and a consultant to the Rockefeller Foundation. I met with Dr. Berrien, and it turned out to be a cordial and pleasant meeting. Professor Berrien said, “I have read your interesting article. Have you spent much time in the United States?” I said, No, I have never had the opportunity to visit the United States, although I have read widely on the subject.” Professor Berrien replied, “Let’s do something about that right away. Before you pursue your research in South America, I suggest that you go to the United States for six months. There you can visit the major research libraries and learn firsthand about our country. When you complete your research, you can look me up at Harvard, and then we will have another discussion on this subject.” I agreed, and thus began my research on nineteenth-century Latin American thought. The trip proved to be extremely useful and productive. I spent my time at the Library of Congress, the New York City Library, and visited most of the major university holdings on Latin America. In fact, most of the search for materials was done in that period. When I went later to South America I only concentrated on the few writings that I had not been able to secure in the United States. As agreed, upon completion of my six-month research period I met Professor Berrien for lunch at Harvard. He asked me if my ideas had changed at all. I replied that my trip and personal stay had only reinforced my ideas, not changed them in any way. I believed and still do that there exists a fundamental difference in the two Americas from world views to thought and culture. Dr. Berrien said he basically agreed with me, and observed that I seemed more sure of myself and my analysis than I had when we first met. He wished me success on the remaining part of my research trip in South America.

D.M.: Tell me about that experience, which you have mentioned on other occasions; of its importance to your intellectual and personal development.

L.Z.: My first visit was to Argentina where I met with the noted Argentine philosopher and scholar Francisco Romero. Professor Romero was marvelous. He not only instructed me at length on Argentine intellectual history but shared his contacts in other South American countries with me. He wrote personal letters of introduction to the scholars I would meet in Chile, Bolivia, Peru, and so on. He said, “I have written to the top people in the field on your behalf. They will meet you and help you in your work. All are specialists on intellectual history and culture, familiar not only with their own country but with the international scene as well.” All during my travels I encountered young scholars with similar affinities and research projects as my own. I met Arturo Ardao in Montevideo, João Cruz Costa in São Paulo, Guillermo Francovich in La Paz, Francisco Miró-Quesada and Augusto Salazar Bondy in Lima, and others in Santiago and Havana. Although all of these scholars were working on similar studies, they were working in isolation. Many did not know of the others. I believe that my meeting and later correspondence led to a closer cooperation between us in developing interpretations of the history of ideas and a philosophy of Latin America. These scholars became my colleagues and friends for more than twenty years. We all agreed that we should maintain ties with each other. The first results of these meetings came during the fourth meeting of the Inter-American Conference of Philosophy. I made a concentrated effort to invite all the scholars I had met to participate.

D.M.: How many attended and what do you consider to have been the most promising results?

L.Z.: Nearly all of those whom I had met and had been in correspondence with since my return to Mexico attended. An association of scholars interested in the history of ideas in Latin America was organized. For the first time, there was serious dialogue and discussion on the question of an original Latin American philosophy. A few months later, Dr. Silvio Zavala, president of the commission of history of the recently created Instituto Panamericano de Historia y Geografía suggested that I organize a series of studies on the intellectual history of the various Latin American countries under the sponsorship of the Instituto Panamericano. I proposed that a separate commission on the history of ideas in Latin America be formed. The suggestion was endorsed by the directorial board and I have been its chair since its inception. I have worked to expand its areas of interest. We received generous financial support to sponsor research, again from the Rockefeller Foundation. I immediately began to commission studies. The first ones were published in the collection “Tierra Firme” of the Fondo de Cultura Económica. Among these were José Luis Romero, Historia de las ideas políticas en Argentina, João Cruz Costa, Esbozo de una historia de las ideas en el Brasil, Víctor Alba, Las ideas sociales en México, Arturo Ardao, La filosofía en el Uruguay en el siglo xx, Ricardo Donoso, Las ideas políticas en Chile, Rafael Heliodoro Valle, Historia de las ideas contemporáneas, Guillermo Francovich, Pensamiento boliviano en el siglo xx. Various others began in that initial effort and were published either in the same series or in others. Publications in the series continue to the present; four studies on Latin American thought have been published by the Fondo during the last two years. It should be stated that these studies reflect original perspectives and a novel historiography of Latin America by Latin American scholars. Dr. José Gaos was the first to recognize and publish on the significance of these studies. He said that we were developing through our individual monographic studies not only a school and methodology for the study of intellectual currents but an original interpretation of the history of Latin America.

D.M.: Could we return to the evolution of your own research and publications? It seems that with the publication of Dos etapas del pensamiento latinoamericano you moved from specific studies to more general interpretations of Latin America. Is this the case?

L.Z.: What has evolved in my treatment of Latin America is a philosophy of history on a universal level from the point of view of myself, a Latin American and a Mexican. Until the 1940s, the history of Latin America had principally been written from a European viewpoint. This was a world seen from a Hegelian perspective. What we have now is a history of cultural decolonization, as was outlined by Franz Fanon: a totally different interpretation of history and of Latin America. To state the obvious, Latin America is distinct from the other America, so, therefore, there exist different interpretations of the history of the Americas. What has evolved in my treatment of this subject is a philosophy of history, on a universal level, from the point of view of what, I repeat, I myself am, namely, a Latin American or a Mexican.

D.M.: Does your current work continue this trend?

L.Z.: Yes, I continue to examine Latin America and the Third World’s relationship to the industrialized powers.

D.M.: I recall that on another occasion you mentioned that Arnold Toynbee exercised a strong influence on your comparative perspective.

L.Z.: Most definitely. I sent my books El positivismo and Dos etapas to him as a courtesy and asked for his comments. Toynbee replied that he had enjoyed the books because they contained an important historical interpretation that he shared, namely, that Mexico was the first American country to sever its ties with the nineteenth century in Europe. He wrote me three letters on the subject. One day he called me from Austin, Texas, and informed me that he was a recipient of a fellowship and was traveling to Mexico. He wanted to meet with me in the hope that I would put him in contact with some of Mexico’s leading scholars. I contacted the private secretary of President Miguel Alemán who issued Toynbee an official invitation. He was given the royal treatment. He delivered a series of lectures and shared many ideas with us. For me that encounter was most important.

D.M.: To change the subject again, would you elaborate more on the works that you consider the most significant in your career?

L.Z.: Very well. In El positivismo en México there is a historicist’s desire to interpret—not merely to write history, but to give it meaning, context, and reality. Subsequently, this led to the book Dos etapas del pensamiento latinoamericano, in which I attempted to construct a history of ideas, emphasizing Dr. José Gaos’s concept of the Latin American’s sense of his own history: a knowledge that the Latin American (as a Latin Americanist) is beyond history, that he is marginalized from the historical process, and that he can only participate in history by overcoming his marginalization. That specific concern is the essence of my América en la historia. In that work I discussed the essence of Latin America in a larger, more universal context. I dealt with the countries that are on the fringes of western civilization, such as the Soviet Union, Spain, and Latin America. Following this theme, I published two related and expanded studies: La conciencia americana, a dialectical interpretation of how the idea of history in the two Americas relates to other civilizations, and La filosofía de la historia americana, an interpretation of universal history from a Latin American perspective.

D.M.: There have been considerable commentary and published critiques of methodological aspects of your work. Would you please address the questions raised in these critiques?

L.Z.: During my graduate course work and guidance by Professor Gaos, I elaborated my conceptual framework to the study of the history of ideas. Dr. Gaos pointed out to me, “You know Ortega y Gasset well, but you also must familiarize yourself with the principal influences on Ortega as well as other philosophical approaches to the study of ideas.” Ortega’s major influence was the school of German historicism, so I acquainted myself with German historicism, particularly Karl Mannheim and the sociology of knowledge. Another major influence was the work of Benedetto Croce particularly in La historia como hazaña de la libertad. As I have written previously, the relationship between philosophy and history is central to my work. The Spanish philosopher Emile Brehier addressing this problem observed that the history of philosophy has been approached as the study of abstract ideas removed from their circumstances and from their originators. This is the key for me: to separate ideas from their circumstances is to remove philosophy from its history. For me, history cannot exist without philosophy, nor philosophy without history. Thus every philosophical current possesses truth in proportion to its historical reality. My interest lies in examining ideas in Latin America in relation to their concrete reality. The history of ideas should be used as a useful conceptual instrument of analysis of certain Latin American issues. Indeed, there has been much published and said of my work. I would classify the observations under two categories: the North American and, ironically, the Soviet (which are similar); and the Latin American. It is the North American that I believe has received the most attention. The critics of my work have been principally Professor Dirk Raat and Professor Charles Hale. And although I have published two replies—one in the introduction to the English translation of El positivismo en México and one in Dependencia y liberación en la cultura latinoamericana—I believe it is still important to clarify certain points. Professor Raat, who has been the most persistent critic, addressed his comments to methodological questions. He seems preoccupied by my approach, which does not follow what he considers “intellectual history.” He specifically stated that I wrote meta-history. This carries the danger, according to him, of being philosophy of history, which, in his analysis, is poor philosophy and bad history. It seems to me that my work is being evaluated, more or less, for all that it does not cover or attempt to do, and not for what it set out to do. I stated quite clearly in my introduction my aims, method, and approach. If other works add to the understanding of certain aspects of Positivism not covered in my study, so much the better. Yet, in Professor Raat’s own study of Positivism, I do not find a dramatic departure or conclusion so different from my own. As to Professor Hale’s commentary, the question of objectivity is raised. Professor Hale suggests that my involvement with my historical past will result in a lack of objectivity and, by necessity, will distort the historical subject under study. The thesis is that foreign scholars will have an easier task in rendering a critical and comparative analysis than will a person from within. I find this view totally unacceptable. It would mean then that North American scholars could not be objective about their own history. We are all influenced by our realities and circumstances. To say otherwise is to negate the obvious. I agree that I am impassioned, but I cannot help being so. The North Americans are impassioned also, and they seem not to be aware of it or want to admit it. There is a kind of imperial passion; they look at reality from the outside and ask, “Well, what motivates these people? How do they behave?” Recently, I just returned from the Soviet Union and I attended a seminar on my published work. It was interesting that many of the points raised by them coincided with the North American perspective.

D.M.: Can you elaborate on a most interesting polemic you carried out with Augusto Salazar Bondy over the question of Latin American philosophy?

L.Z.: Professor Salazar Bondy maintains that there cannot be real Latin American philosophy until there exists material and social progress, and until we are able to achieve parity with Europe and North America. To his premise, I replied, “How can we stop thinking? Philosophy is not a question of material progress; if it were, and if we ever succeeded in solving all our problems, there would no longer be any philosophy. I say that the problems of life and man constitute philosophy. I believe that there is a philosophy of underdevelopment, and that all authentic philosophy is the philosophy of problems. Thus, I say that a unique Latin American philosophy does exist. Ours is a philosophical interpretation of a reality that is being lived.

D.M.: Would you care to comment on other aspects of your career—teaching and working with young scholars.

L.Z.: I began teaching shortly after the publication of Dos etapas. Professor Gaos invited me to collaborate with him in the teaching of the history of ideas in Latin America. I carried on his work: stimulating research and interest in intellectual history. I have taught a graduate seminar on the subject since the early 1960s at the UNAM. The earliest students with whom I worked directly made up a group of outstanding young scholars known as the “Hyperión Group.” In the 1950s in Mexico a quest for national identity became of paramount intellectual importance. A movement entitled “la filosofía de lo mexicano” attempted to define the essence of Mexican thought, culture, and man. We began by asking existential and ontological questions: “What are the particulars of Mexican culture and thought? How can we define and characterize the Mexican psyche and being?” We shared the concerns of German philosophy and people like Martin Heidegger as well as the French existentialist school of Jean-Paul Sartre and others. We would meet as a group, discuss these thinkers, and attempt to relate their central theses to our concrete reality. We were able to assume and understand their concern for the concrete being, regardless of whether it be European or Latin American. With the collaboration of Editorial Porrúa y Obregón, we founded a series, México y lo mexicano, as an outlet for expression. I served as general editor to the series, which had a great impact nationally and even internationally. In many countries the volumes received extensive attention and review. It was not without some cost, though. A heated polemic developed. Our critics challenged our views and questioned the validity of such work, which they characterized as sectarian and provincial. Even people who had published originally in the series later turned against the idea. In the final analysis, I believe we raised important questions and even provided answers to some of them. “What and who is a Mexican?” We ultimately agreed that the Mexican is a person like all others, with certain potential and limitations, also not unlike those of others. And once the Mexican becomes aware of his limitations, and his reality in relationship to others, he can deal more effectively with his being and circumstance.

D.M.: There certainly have been many other students who have worked directly with you since that time.

L.Z.: Yes, I have been fortunate to have worked with many students from Latin America, the United States, Europe, and the Middle East who have enrolled in my seminar on the history of ideas. Many stayed in Mexico and completed their doctorates in Latin American Studies at the UNAM. Among the various students who have had distinguished careers are: Augusto Salazar Bondy, Domingo Moliani, Abelardo Villegas, Tzvi Medin, Charles Hale, John Leddy Phelan, María Elena Rodríguez, Luis Villoro, and Emilio Uranga.

D.M.: Are there certain students who continue your general approach?

L.Z.: Abelardo Villegas, among others, now professor of Latin American philosophy at the UNAM, is probably the closest in association with me. He has contributed important studies to the history of ideas in Mexico and Latin America.

D.M.: You have been one of the principal scholars in Latin America in working toward the development of Latin American Studies. Can you comment on your activities in this field?

L.Z.: I have always shared a commitment to fostering the study of Latin America both in Mexico and elsewhere. At the UNAM I worked to create a center of Latin American Studies, which would serve as a coordinating unit of Latin American affairs on campus. We also established the undergraduate major in Latin American Studies and soon thereafter began offering master’s and doctoral programs. Here at UNAM we have graduated a considerable number of Ph.D.’s in Latin American Studies who are teaching and researching throughout Latin America, the Middle East, and Europe.

D.M.: Dr. Zea, you have worked consistently to bring together Latin Americanists for common agendas and interests. How would you evaluate this effort of yours?

L.Z.: As I mentioned earlier, during my initial trips to the Caribbean and South America I discovered that scholars there were working in isolation. The need for more contact and cooperation between us was essential. I also felt that we Latin Americanists had to transcend the study of our national boundaries and contribute to the understanding of Latin America as a whole. You are correct in pointing out my deep interest and constant efforts in this area. I feel very strongly about this issue. The latest effort in this field is the founding of a Federation of Latin American Studies, which will include members from all continents. So far we have members from all the important Latin American Studies centers in Latin America, many European centers, the Soviet Union, and two individual centers from the United States. The LASA was invited formally to join. The LASA directorship is currently considering its possible membership. Our center in Mexico at the UNAM serves as the overall coordinating unit of the Federation.

D.M.: Dr. Zea, could you please comment on the development of Latin American Studies since you began your career?

L.Z.: I believe that the evolution from what we had in the 1940s to what we have now has been extraordinary. We have definitely established the fact of a distinct and dynamic Latin American culture, a Latin American philosophy, a Latin American literature. The bibliography in these and other fields is growing both in quality and quantity. There is a deep interest worldwide in Latin America. Also, throughout Latin America, centers of study now work interdisciplinarily. Contemporary works reflect a broader concept of Latin American reality. Much has been accomplished. What we have now is something concrete and original, a body of thought, an impressive historiography, a philosophy that is unique to our America, a literary boom that is at the vanguard of world literature; and this intellectual activity is a special kind of reality. There is, however, still much more that needs to be accomplished. Working on an international Latin American sphere, I believe we can improve the possibilities for greater cooperation between scholars of the various countries in the Americas. For example, I think that the work being carried out by North American scholars on Latin America is of great importance to us. By virtue of being non-Latin Americans, they are able to perceive certain aspects that we might miss in our analyses. By the same token, North Americans can learn much from us, for we as Latin Americans may contribute certain analyses they have overlooked.

D.M.: Dr. Zea, since you mentioned North American scholarship on Latin America, could you comment on it more fully?

L.Z.: Well, in general, research by North American scholars is more removed, less passionate. We Latin Americans are directly involved. We give our hearts and souls to our scholarship. Yet, we cannot minimize the scope, information, and analysis of North American scholarship for us. It is fundamental and useful to all of us.

D.M.: Do you think that North American research and studies on Latin America constitute a type of cultural imperialism?

L.Z.: That depends on how we employ the studies. If we regard North American studies as only one of several interpretations of a theme or topic, and if we are careful to consider the viewpoint and perspective of the research, then this would not result in a cultural imperialism. But if we were to accept North American scholarship as doctrine, as superior to our own, as truth, then of course this would be a form of cultural imposition. Another important element in North American scholarship is that it also reveals to us the directions that North American thought and policies toward Latin America are taking.

D.M.: Do you think that North American researchers have reciprocated adequately with their findings and published studies?

L.Z.: This of course is a main concern for us. A center of documentation at the UNAM was recently created. The interchange of sources, research, knowledge, and publications on Latin America by North Americans is fundamental to us.

D.M.: Dr. Zea, could we turn our attention to current activities and trends. Recently you restructured your Latin American Institute at the UNAM. Can you discuss its objectives and projects?

L.Z.: Our institute is now entitled Centro Coordinador y Difusor de Estudios Latino Americanos. Within UNAM and Mexico, the center seeks to coordinate systematically Latin American programs and activities. The center also strives to diffuse information on Latin America, sponsor conferences, symposiums, lecture series, and continue the undergraduate and graduate program in Latin American Studies. On an international level, the CIDEL has been named as the secretariat of the Federation of Latin American Studies. Our center was also recognized as a major research unit by UNESCO of the United Nations. Most of last year we were engaged in the “Jornadas Bolivarianas” in celebration of the bicentennial of Simón Bolívar, our publication series and work on the newly created Federation of Latin American Studies.

Our teaching program is very important to us since we are one of the principal teaching programs of Latin American Studies in Mexico and Latin America. When I began my academic career, we had virtually no Latin Americanists. The situation is now much improved, although we certainly could use many more good people trained in Latin American affairs throughout Latin America. At our center and the UNAM, we are very committed to this purpose. Our efforts this year have been hampered because of the economic situation of the country.

D.M.: Can you elaborate on the effects of the current economic crisis on higher education and research?

L.Z.: The crisis has certainly made our efforts more difficult. We have had to be more creative and work in cooperation with others to accomplish our projects. Inflation, the devaluation of the peso, and reduced university budgets have hurt each and every one of our activities. Although unlike in the industrialized countries, crises are not new for us. We are used to working under adverse conditions throughout our history. The crisis might slow us down but in no way does it impede our efforts or lessen our enthusiasm. Our seminars, organized research projects, publications march on.

D.M.: Dr. Zea, could you comment on current historiographical trends and scholarship in Mexico?

L.Z.: In comparison to earlier periods, we see many more interdisciplinary studies; also more diverse approaches and methodologies. A comparative framework of the study of Mexico with other Latin American countries and the Third World is also apparent. More open attitudes toward the study of the relationship with the United States is a recent phenomenon.

D.M.: Dr. Zea, it appears that intellectual history is not currently one of the main historiographical trends in Mexico. Is this the case?

L.Z.: In the last few years socioeconomic and political analysis did predominate, although in certain publications like our yearly Latinoamérica and the series Nuestra América, selected studies on culture and history of ideas were published. I believe that we will see in the very near future a resurgence of the study of ideology and culture. Historiographical trends seem to go in cycles.

D.M.: In conclusion, Dr. Zea, how do you see the future trends of Latin American research?

L.Z.: Scholarship within Latin America is developing and maturing notably. In the past, more research and publication were carried out in the United States than in Latin America. This situation is changing. There now exist many Latin Americans who are engaged in the rigorous study of their own reality, their history, philosophy, and science. The number of research centers in Latin America has also increased. The research itself is broadening and becoming more interdisciplinary. I feel quite pleased with the current status and the prospects for the future. I believe that we are seeing the fruits of our efforts. The desire of Latin America to know itself is coming to fruition.

Translation of this article was made possible in part by funding from The Tinker Foundation of New York.

Select Bibliography

I. BOOKS
Superbus philosophus
.
Mexico City
,
1942
.
El positivismo en México
.
Mexico City
,
1943
.
Apogeo y decadencia del positivismo en México
.
Mexico City
,
1944
.
En torno a una filosofía americana
.
Mexico City
,
1945
.
Ensayos sobre filosofía en la historia
.
Mexico City
,
1948
.
Dos etapas del pensamiento en Hispanoamérica
.
Mexico City
,
1949
.
Conciencia y posibilidad del mexicano
.
Mexico City
,
1952
.
La filosofía como compromiso, y otros ensayos
.
Mexico City
,
1952
.
América como conciencia
.
Mexico City
,
1953
.
El Occidente y la conciencia de México
.
Mexico City
,
1953
.
Introducción a la filosofía. La conciencia del hombre en la filosofía
.
Mexico City
,
1953
.
La filosofía en México
.
2
vols.
Mexico City
,
1955
.
América en la conciencia de Europa
.
Mexico City
,
1955
.
Esquema para una historia de las ideas en Iberoamérica
.
Mexico City
,
1956
.
Del liberalismo a la revolución en la educación mexicana
.
Mexico City
,
1956
.
América en la historia
.
Mexico City
,
1957
.
La cultura y el hombre de nuestros días
.
Mexico City
,
1959
.
Latinoamérica en la formación de nuestro tiempo
.
Mexico City
,
1965
.
Antología de la filosofía americana contemporánea
.
Mexico City
,
1968
.
Democracias y dictaduras en Latinoamérica
.
Mérida, Venez.
,
1960
.
Antología del pensamiento social y político de América Latina
.
Washington, D.C.
,
1964
.
El pensamiento latinoamericano
.
Mexico City
,
1965
.
Latinoamérica en la formación de nuestro tiempo
.
Mexico City
,
1965
.
Antología de la filosofía americana contemporánea
.
Mexico City
,
1968
.
La filosofía americana como filosofía sin más
.
Mexico City
,
1969
.
La esencia de lo americano
.
Buenos Aires
,
1971
.
Precursores del pensamiento latinoamericano contemporáneo
.
Mexico City
,
1971
.
Latinoamérica: Emancipación y neocolonialismo: Ensayos
.
Caracas
,
1971
.
Dependencia y liberación en la cultura latinoamericana
.
Mexico City
,
1974
.
Dialéctica de la conciencia americana
.
Mexico City
,
1976
.
Filosofía y cultura latinoamericanas
.
Caracas
,
1976
.
Filosofía de la historia de América
.
Mexico City
,
1978
.
Latinoamérica en la encrucijada de la historia
.
Mexico City
,
1981
.
Articles and Book Chapters
“Positivism and Porfirism in Latín America,” in North F. S. C. , ed.,
Ideological Differences and World Order
.
New Haven
,
1949
.
“The Arcana of Spanish-American Culture, in
UNESCO, Interrelations of Cultures
.
Paris
,
1953
.
“La culture européene et les deux Amériques,” in
UNESCO, L’Originalité des Cultures
.
Paris
,
1953
.
“L’Allemagne et la culture hispanoaméricaine,” in
L’Esprit des Lettres
.
Dijon
,
1955
.