Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Latin
American Perspectives
This content downloaded from 204.78.0.252 on Tue, 19 Jul 2016 09:11:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Modern Society and Culture in Brazil
The Sociology of Florestan Fernandes
by
Maria Arminda do Nascimento Arruda
Translated by Laurence Hallewell
Maria Arminda do Nascimento Arruda is a professor of sociology at the University of S?o Paulo
and a senior researcher of the National Research Council of Brazil. She is the author of A etnbalagem
do sistema: A publicidade no capitalismo brasileiro (2004 [1985]), Mitologia da mineiridade: O imagin?rio
mineiro na vida politica e cultural do Brasil (2000), Metropole e cultura: S?o Paulo no meio seculo XX
(2001) (Honorable Mention, Jabuti Prize 2002), and Florestan Fernandes: Mestre da sociologia
moderna, (with Sylvia Gemignani Garcia) (2003). Laurence Hallewell was, until his retirement,
Latin Americanist librarian at Columbia University's Lehman Library.
LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES, Issue 178, Vol. 38 No. 3, May 2011 99-111
DOI: 10.1177/0094582X10391068
? 2011 Latin American Perspectives
99
This content downloaded from 204.78.0.252 on Tue, 19 Jul 2016 09:11:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
100 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES
This content downloaded from 204.78.0.252 on Tue, 19 Jul 2016 09:11:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Arruda / MODERN SOCIETY AND CULTURE IN BRAZIL 101
clearly the outstanding personality among the first social scientists that the
university produced.3 None of his contemporaries was as closely identified as
he was with establishing the scientific bases of sociology in Brazil, nor can so
prominent a role be attributed to anyone else of his generation in the fields of
theory, sociological research, institutional performance, or professionalism. For
this reason, the picture we have of the Brazilian sociologist today is largely
inspired by his career. This picture, which had begun to form by at least the
mid-twentieth century as a consequence of the establishment of the University
of Sao Paulo, the research model introduced by the 1933 Free School of Sociology
and Politics of Sao Paulo (Escola Livre de Sociologia e Politica de S?o Paulo), and
the Brazilian tradition of the public intellectual, combined teaching according
to a scientific pattern with involvement in the public concerns of the country.
In fact, Fernandes and his contemporaries saw Brazil as embarking on an era
of hope, full of promise, revealing its ability to "forge in the tropics the founda?
tions of a modern civilization" (Fernandes, 1965: 394). In brief, it was a period
of enormously energetic enthusiasm, in which the emergence of infinite possi?
bilities for cultural development was linked with a belief in the economic, politi?
cal, and social modernization of the nation with industrialization and urbanization
as its dynamic pole. Every Brazilian aware of these transformations was?let us
admit it?seduced by the aspiration to a civilized future. S?o Paulo was the
epicenter of the energetic convergence of economic and political power with the
"world of the spirit." Wealth and intellect found a common purpose in full-blown
modernization. As Georg Simmel (1978: 437) had pointed out, "Alongside the
impersonal objectivity inherent in the content of intelligence there exists an
extremely close relationship between intelligence and individuality.... The dual
role played by brains and money becomes intelligible if one distinguishes their
essentially objective content from their function or, in other words, from the uses
to which they are put." The increasing differentiation of culture and democrati?
zation of access to cultural life, combined with economic dynamism and great
social mobility (that is, the objective and the subjective dimensions of wealth),
provided the necessary conditions for a formal equalizing of these two spheres.
Along with these changes went the building of democratic institutions and
agencies that would finance the developmentalist policy of the Brazilian state
in the 1946-1964 period. Openly modernizing governments introduced measures
to overcome Brazil's backwardness and the traditional forms they had inherited.
Sociology in Brazil drank from the font of that modernization, taking as its
fundamental challenge the opportunities opened up by the shaping of a modern
society and the tensions, frustrations, and dilemmas created by the consequent
transformations. Social change became the central question that mobilized the
country's intellectuals. Concern about modernization was not new: it had occu?
pied the hearts and minds of educated Brazilians at least since Independence.
What was new was the way they began to think about the question?their ideas
of scientific knowledge based on rigorous research and the way these affected
the tenor of the debate. The novelty was that the new scenario called attention
to the social bases of scientific thought, abstract awareness being typical of
democratic contexts: "It is not things in themselves that lead to abstracting and
analysis. The cause is social: it is due to the size and structure of the group shar?
ing this awareness. We can conclude that a democratic society is better suited
This content downloaded from 204.78.0.252 on Tue, 19 Jul 2016 09:11:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
102 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES
This content downloaded from 204.78.0.252 on Tue, 19 Jul 2016 09:11:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Arruda / MODERN SOCIETY AND CULTURE IN BRAZIL 103
and self-discipline, he turned the university into a unique space that he had
built himself, embracing it with the urgency of one who dared not yield in the
face of adversity. Beyond his work as a sociologist, as an intellectual involved
in the problems of the day, as a teacher, and as a leader who determined the direc?
tion for theory and research, he achieved something in no way less admirable:
the shaping of his own character (C?ndido, 1996: 63).
Fernandes's life's work shows us the twists and turns of Brazilian history on
its journey toward building a modern capitalist society. In this it was as exem?
plary as that of many other Latin American intellectuals, particularly that of
social scientists such as the Argentine Gino Germani, whose work embodies "the
dilemmas and questions faced by his era" (Blanco, 2006:15). Fernandes's outlook
reflected all the great problems of his lifetime, but it enjoyed one particular
moment that offered manifold opportunities in many different directions: the
decade of the 1950s. Those were the years in which Brazil pursued "an ideal of
the modern world marked by progress, with unlimited possibilities to perfect
both the individual and society and to reshape values, interests, behavior, and
institutions" (Botelho, 2008:15). This was the decade in which his sociology took
shape and in which the creation of the so-called Sao Paulo School of Sociology
introduced a new style of social science to Brazil (Arruda, 2001). It was a period
in which intellectuals of a new, more specialized type directed their attention to
initiating projects in Brazil that might regenerate the nation, freeing it from a
past that they condemned (Bastos, 2008: 27-64). These intellectuals believed
in the power of ideas to produce the changes that were so eagerly anticipated
(Villas Boas, 2006).7 During this period at midcentury, the rate of development
in Brazil surpassed all international indices and was combined with a political
situation of open participation and dissent. In this soil of unlimited promise,
Brazilian sociology flourished.
The Sao Paulo School of Sociology sought, nevertheless, a clear demarcation
between the social scientist's public activity and his commitment to rigorous
research. In this it followed the example of Fernandes, who directed much of his
energy to enforcing this rigor. Among the other social scientists in Latin America
who played a central role in renewing their disciplines was Gino Germani in
Per?n's Argentina (Neiburg, 1997: 157-184). Not by chance, Fernandes and
Germani were typical outsiders: Fernandes because he had sprung from the lower
ranks of society, Germani because he was a recent immigrant, "not known as an
individual... nor having any connection with any visible intellectual movement"
(Blanco, 2006:244). Understanding the potential for innovation required, however,
taking into account the variations in outlook of those involved and the extent to
which they accepted the new approach and identified with their own institutions.
For Fernandes, the university provided new opportunities, both material and
symbolic, that were essential for someone who had nothing in his origins to fall
back on. As he explained in an interview published in 1975, "I could never have
become a sociologist had I not taught sociology at the University of Sao Paulo"
(Fernandes, 1975a: 39). Antonio C?ndido, his companion on his path, described
the role he played: "He revolutionized the situation. ... It was he who made
enthusiasm and scientific preparation the essential prerequisites for the budding
sociologist" (Fernandes, 1978). His concern to affirm sociology as a scientific
discipline made it necessary to identify its research methods rigorously and clearly.
This content downloaded from 204.78.0.252 on Tue, 19 Jul 2016 09:11:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
104 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES
Fernandes clearly saw the size of the undertaking. "Let us not forget that we
were in the 1940s and 1950s and that the fundamental need at that time was to
build sociology as an empirical science" (1975a: 16). Hence his ready acceptance
of the contributions of a variety of theories and methodologies and the need to
draw the necessary inspiration from different sources. He made no theoretical
assumptions. "We must reject neither the word 'function' nor a causal analysis
of the results of interpretative elaborations of structure and function. They are
instrumental. What we do have to get rid of is a naturalistic conception of the
social sciences: that is the heart of the problem" (1978: 56). Or even: "Marx
should not be seen in terms of the dogma of one political school. Marx emerges
straight out of his texts and of his theoretical impact on sociology" (1978: 14).
In other words, what was fundamental was work on the level of theoretical
constructions, distinguishing the principles of analysis from their wrappings of
practical politics. Even at the end of the decade, when he began to revise some
of his positions, he still showed caution with regard to any unqualified accep?
tance of an awareness of social problems (1958a: 213):
This content downloaded from 204.78.0.252 on Tue, 19 Jul 2016 09:11:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Arruda / MODERN SOCIETY AND CULTURE IN BRAZIL 105
This content downloaded from 204.78.0.252 on Tue, 19 Jul 2016 09:11:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
106 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES
Readers must understand that I was not trying to write a work of "academic
sociology." On the contrary, I was seeking to sum up, in the simplest possible
language, the main lines of the evolution of capitalism and the class society in
Brazil. This is a free-standing essay such as only a sociologist could have written,
but it is one that has brought into the foreground the frustrations and hopes of a
militant socialist.
Despite the author's stated intention, the book is in fact an academic exercise
in interpretation in which the stylistic peculiarities of academe are all too obvious.
When he examines the meaning in the Brazilian context of the notions of "bour?
geois," "bourgeoisie," and "bourgeois revolution," he is trying "to establish in
a preliminary way certain questions of heuristic approach" (1975b: 15). The
decisive problem posed in this work is the creation of a class-based society and
a bourgeois revolution in Brazil, seen through the prism of the formation of a
bourgeois mentality, an ethic of "gain," "profit," and "calculated risk" (16).9
This content downloaded from 204.78.0.252 on Tue, 19 Jul 2016 09:11:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Arruda / MODERN SOCIETY AND CULTURE IN BRAZIL 107
The first part examines the process of independence and the launching of the
bourgeois revolution. In dealing with this formative period, Fernandes discusses
the values introduced by the agents involved and the orientation they gave to
society and points out that economic thought during the colonial period "was
subject to an unavoidable distortion" (25). His analysis reveals the psychosocial
dimensions of the "bourgeois spirit." It is therefore crucial to understand the
building of the Brazilian nation, based on independence and liberalism, as the
work of the "native elites" before we can begin to understand how the new doctrines
emerged and determined policy. Liberalism produces "specific forms of power,
organized for profit making," which for a section of society requires "free com?
petition" (48). There emerges, then, "an area in which, despite inevitable clashes,
the 'competitive system' can co-exist with the 'system of fixed hierarchies'" (48).
Liberalism underlies the emergence and structuring of our national society but
is adulterated by components of our earlier history not all of which it manages
to overcome (39).10 It is here that the specificity of Brazil's historical develop?
ment achieves salience, allowing him to discuss the problem of our bourgeois
revolution (20):
This content downloaded from 204.78.0.252 on Tue, 19 Jul 2016 09:11:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
108 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES
Dependent capitalism is, by its very nature and in general, a type of capitalism
that is difficult to achieve and to practice, one that leaves the bourgeoisie with few
effective alternatives, condemned to being both its partner and its nurse. From
this angle, the historic reduction in the field of action of the bourgeoisie expresses
a specific reality in which the triumph of the bourgeoisie is linked not to a "national,
democratic revolution" but to dependent capitalism and the type of capitalist
transformation that that supposes.
Brazil's bourgeoisie has never had the strength to break the bonds imposed
by the dominant outside centers on a dependent economy and society. The
capitalist order is rocked by outside forces and, given its mixed pattern of devel?
opment, responds with a solidarity made up of opposites. This is why the
analysis of the "bourgeois revolution in Brazil is made up of the present-day
crisis of bourgeois power that emerges as the consequence of the transition from
competitive capitalism to monopoly capitalism" (Fernandes, 1975b: 215). And
it is here that damaging cleavages begin to appear, ruptures that affect the
analysis and the categories that identify it. The last two chapters, "Nature and
This content downloaded from 204.78.0.252 on Tue, 19 Jul 2016 09:11:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Arruda / MODERN SOCIETY AND CULTURE IN BRAZIL 109
NOTES
1. I have elsewhere explored the relationship between modernism and these essays of the
1930s (Arruda, 2006: 131-141). For an analysis of the differences between modernism and the
essays of Gilberto Freyre, see Ara?jo (2005).
2. "The real name of whoever writes the essay is one of the key elements of the genre: in
adopting the first person, the essayist also undertakes an explicit agreement with the reader that
he is responsible for what he has written" (Saitta, 2004:108). Ara?jo (2005:199) says that Gilberto
Freyre is a character in his own book, presenting himself "both its creator and its creature."
This content downloaded from 204.78.0.252 on Tue, 19 Jul 2016 09:11:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
110 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES
3. For an analysis of Fernandes's life and intellectual development, see Garcia (2002). For a
treatment of his pioneering modern sociology, see Arruda and Garcia (2003).
4. In this work Fernandes drew on material gathered by Herbert Baldus, Antonio Colbacchini,
and Cesar Albisetti (Fernandes, 1978: 85).
5. Martins (1996: 14-19) analyzes Fernandes's biographical studies. Besides the text about
Tiago Marques, he mentions research in Sorocaba on the charismatic leader Jo?o de Camargo
and a collection of summarized articles by friends, fellow partisans, and Brazilian and Latin
American intellectuals expressing radical positions, a classic of intellectual history (Fernandes,
Candido, et al., 1995). See also Martins (1998).
6. "I would be, as a human figure, what historians, anthropologists, and sociologists call an
uprooted personality. I am someone who has lost his roots" (Fernandes, 1978: 30).
7. On the project of social intervention in Fernandes's sociology, see Arruda and Garcia
(2003: esp. pt. 2).
8. "The resonances of the Chicago School's reforming agenda, which seeks to require its
researchers to immerse themselves in local life, in the Social Science Department of the University
of S?o Paulo were various" (Vianna, 1997: 190).
9. Here he makes use of Sombart's categories.
10. Fernandes relies for his analysis of the ideological and Utopian dimensions of liberalism
on Mannheim.
REFERENCES
This content downloaded from 204.78.0.252 on Tue, 19 Jul 2016 09:11:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Arruda / MODERN SOCIETY AND CULTURE IN BRAZIL 111
This content downloaded from 204.78.0.252 on Tue, 19 Jul 2016 09:11:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms