It has been some time since anyone has seriously taken up the issue of intellectual life in Mexico, and La sombra de Ulises is the first effort by either a Mexican or North American scholar to address the interrelationship, structurally speaking, of intellectuals in Mexico and the United States. For this reason alone, it is a welcome work. The author, a student of Edward Shils, whose own work on India provides many commonalities with the Mexican case, addresses two broad issues in four essays. First, he characterizes and analyzes the intellectual bridge between the two countries, and second, he chooses two Mexican intellectuals from two generations, Carlos Fuentes and Jorge Castañeda, to illustrate the peculiarities of Mexican intellectual influence in the United States.

The first half of the book insightfully draws out the historical foundations for the bilateral intellectual exchange, and ascribes considerable influence in establishing the pattern to John Dewey, and later his disciple, Frank Tannenbaum. On the Mexican side, José Vasconcelos played a critical role too. Aguilar Rivera’s major argument is that few Mexican intellectuals have continued the pattern of collaboration and conversation with their North American peers. He attributes the loss of the connection between the two communities to the movement of American intellectuals away from a life of public engagement, into the narrower, protected confines of academia. In short, contemporary academic intellectuals have lost the link to their public audience.

The historical analysis is also illuminating in suggesting the importance of C. Wright Mills, and his work, as the last United States intellectual to “connect” with the Mexicans. Aguilar Rivera laments the inability of the academic institutions of both countries to produce “public intellectuals.” He also argues that Mexico’s conversion to a mass society was not translated into an expanded cultural life.

In his two case studies, the author explores the impact of Carlos Fuentes on this exchange, and provides insight into the origins of the conflict between Fuentes and Enrique Krauze. He does the same for Jorge Castañeda, a much younger contemporary, and identifies some of the reasons why both have exercised such an influence in the United States. Among these is the importance of a shared vocabulary, that is, they speak the same language as their North American counterparts. Both individuals also share some striking similarities, having been raised abroad, particularly in the United States, and having been the children of Mexican diplomats.

Although Aguilar Rivera makes clear that he can only explore a limited number of issues, readers are likely to be disappointed that the essays on the two Mexican intellectuals, despite their significant revelations, do not go much beyond their work and intellectual influence. One wishes for an expanded treatment on the structural patterns, besides the growth of academia, in illuminating the intellectual relationship between the two countries; for example, the role of the United States media in Mexico and who has access to it; or the way in which intellectuals are chosen to testify before United States congressional committees. Despite these shortcomings, Aguilar Rivera’s essays provide a readable, intriguing, and significant portrait of a neglected topic in cultural history.