10.1177/0094582X03254300 ARTICLE Martin / LIBERATION THEOLOGY
AND DEVELOPMENT
Liberation Theology, Sustainable Development, and Postmodern Public Administration by
Edward J. Martin
Thecriteriaofanytheologyareitspracticalconsequences,notitstheoretical assumptions.
—Gustavo Gutierrez
Christianityhastendedtostressacceptanceofinjusticeandoppressionas simplyasideeffectofpoliticalorganization.Arguably,thisformof“escapist theology”haslegitimizedsufferingwhilereinforcinganoppressivetheoryof justice.Fromthishermeneuticalvantagepoint,theologians,philosophers, andsocialscientistsarenow“rereading”thesocialcontextofescapist worldviews(Gutierrez,1999;1973;Sobrino,1993;Miranda,1981;Metz, 1969;Derrida,1962).Thisdevelopmentisdramaticallynew,sinceLatin AmericaandtheThirdWorldcontinuetobethefocusofrevolutionary changebasedonthecontinuedstruggleforjusticeinresponsetothecontinueddisparitybetweenrichandpoornations(Gutierrez,1984a;1993a; 1993b; Dussel, 1985; Boff, 1984; Miranda, 1974).
ProgressiveChristiansandMarxistshavepointedtointernationalcapital andoppressivesocialandpoliticalstructuresasthemainculpritsinthisdisparity.Christianity’suseofMarxistpraxisinwhatisknownasthe“theology ofliberation”hasheavilyinfluencedtheongoingdiscourseonresistanceto globalhunger,injustice,andoppression(Sobrino,1994;Schillebeeckx, 1987;BoffandBoff,1985;Gutierrez,1984b;Tamez,1982).Theologians, philosophers,andsocialscientistsinboththeFirstandThirdWorldshave increasinglyturnedtoMarxistsocialanalysisforgreaterclarityintheir reflectionsregardingthisongoingdiscourse(Gutierrez,1993a;1993b; Sobrino,1984;Moltmann,1984;McGovern,1980;Segundo,1976).Moreover,liberationtheologiansarguethatcontemporaryChristianityischallengedasitconfrontsMarxistinterpretationsofincreasingpovertyand inequalitythroughouttheworld(Brown,1997;BoffandBoff,1987; Gutierrez,1973).LargelybecauseofMarxistinfluence,theologianshave
LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES, Issue 131, Vol. 30 No. 4, July 200369-91 DOI:10.1177/0094582X03254300
© 2003 Latin American Perspectives
69 EdwardJ.MartinteachesintheGraduateCenterforPublicPolicyandAdministrationatCalifornia State University, Long Beach.
beguntoreflectonthenatureofthischallengeandthemeansfortransformingsocialstructuresandinstitutionsthatperpetuatepovertyandoppression throughwhathasbecomeknownas“globalization”(Lorentzenetal.,2001). Thischallengeservestheologicalreflectioninitseffortstounderstand “thefaithreceivedfromthehistoricalpraxisofmaninhistoryaswellaswhat itsownreflectionmightmeanforthetransformationoftheworld” (Gutierrez,1973:9–10).Theseedsofthistransformationdatetothecentury beforeMarx(Brown,1993;Maduro,1987;Kung,1974).Inwhatamountsto thebeginningofliberalProtestantthought,FriedrichSchleiermacherrecognizedtheimportanceforChristianityofareexaminationofitsmissionin relationship to the world (Schleiermacher, 1969[1768–1834]: 208):
Religionmustbesocialifitistoexistatall.Itisman’snaturetobesocial.... Fellowshipandmutualdependencywithothersofthiskindareindispensable toman... religionisnotaservanttomoralitybutitsindispensablefriend.The sameistrueoftherelationofreligiontoallelsethatcanbeanobjectofhuman affairs.Evenmore:religionistheirpeerlessadvocatebeforeallhumanity Religion is no kind of slavery, no kind of captivity.
SchleiermacherperceivedtheneedforChristianity,inparticular,tofreeitself fromdistortionsandinauthenticinterpretationsofitscharacterandmeaning. ModerntheologianssuchasSchillebeeckx(1970:9)argueforasimilarreexaminationofChristianity:“Itisevidentthatthoughtisalsonecessaryfor action.ButtheChurchhasforcenturiesdevotedherattentiontoformulating truthsandmeanwhiledidalmostnothingtobettertheworld.Inotherwords theChurchfocusedonorthodoxyandleftorthopraxisinthehandsofnonmembers and nonbelievers.”
THE EMERGENCE OF LIBERATION THEOLOGY
OneoftheprimaryinstigatorsofthisnewdiscourseofresistancetopovertyandoppressionhasbeenthePeruvianCatholictheologianGustavo Gutierrez(1991;1976).TheSecondVaticanCouncil(1962–1965)argued thatfollowersofChristcannevercondoneinjustice,pointingespeciallyto thatwhichisperpetuatedbyWesterncapitalism(Gutierrez,1973;Boffand Boff,1984;Brown,1981).Morethan60yearsofCatholicsocialteaching, consciousofsocialandeconomicinjusticeintheworld,hadprecededthis announcement.ForGutierrezandotherliberationtheologians,thisnewawarenessoftheChurch’sconcernfortheoppressedconstituteda“pre-theological” assumptionthatwasthestartingpointfortheologicalreflectionandsocial
/ LIBERATION THEOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT71
analysis.However,whatwasimperativeforGutierrezwasnottheadherence tostricttheologicalprinciplesbutacompletecommitmenttoeradicating injusticethroughdirectactiononbehalfofthepoor:“WhenIdiscoveredthat povertywassomethingtobefoughtagainst,thatpovertywasstructural,that poorpeoplewereaclass[andcouldorganize],itbecamecrystal-clearthatin ordertoservethepoor,onehadtomoveintopoliticalaction”(1976:276). Moreover,forGutierrezadvancingtheneedsofthepooranderadicating injusticewerethemselvesrevolutionaryactions.Consequently,theagenda wassolidaritywiththepoor,whichimpliedacommitmenttotransformingor abolishingthesocialstructuresthatperpetuatedinjustice(1987).Gutierrez andothersarguedthatthismeantpromotingpublicpoliciesgroundedin humansolidarity(Gutierrez,1990;Moltmann,1984;TorresandEagleson, 1976; Baum, 1975).
Socialismisgenerallyunderstoodasthepoliticalmeansbywhichamore justandequitabledistributionofwealthandresourcesisadministeredforthe commongood.Itsgoalisaclasslesssociety(Harrington,1992).ForMarx (1964[1845]:232),exploitedworkerswouldinvariablyriseupagainstthe oppressivecapitalistclassthatexactedanoverabundanceofwealthatthe expenseofworkers.Theworkingclassisforced“torevoltagainstthisinhumanity.Itisforthesereasonsthattheproletariatcanandmustemancipate itself.Butitcanonlyemancipateitselfbydestroyingitsownconditionsof existence.”Marxfurtherarguesthatthisrelationshipissanctionedbythe state(1964[1846]:65):“Consequently,everyrevolutionarystruggleis directedagainsttheclasswhichhassofarbeendominant.”Hence,thedesired outcomeofclassstruggleaccordingtoMarxistandsocialisttheoryisanew classlesssociety“inplaceoftheoldbourgeoissociety...in whichthefree developmentofeachistheconditionofthefreedevelopmentofall”(Marx and Engels, 1978[1848]: 34).
Inordertoimplementjustsocialpolicies,Gutierrezargues,“subversive action”musttransformtheoldinternationalcapitalistorderandreplaceit withanewsocialistagendathatprioritizesbasichumanneedsonadomestic andglobalscale.Heconsidersthissocialistagendabestanalyzedintermsof thedifferencebetweeninternationaleconomic“development”and“liberation.”Neoliberaldevelopmentschemeshaveprovidedforrichnationstoaid pooronesthroughvariousformsofloansbrokeredthroughtheInternational MonetaryFundandtheWorldBank(Petras,1997;Arrighi,1994;Frank, 1990;CardosoandFaletto,1979;Sen,1973;1964).TheUN’sDecadeof Developmentinthe1960ssoughttoaccelerateeconomicgrowthandinvestmentactivitiesintheThirdWorld,butbytheendofitthegapbetweenrich andpoornationshadincreaseddisproportionately(Arrighi,1979;George, 1977).Thisgaphascontinuedtoincrease(Humefeldt,1997;Amin,1991).
72LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES
LiberationistsandMarxistsmaintainthatdevelopmentpoliciesarebasedon leveragedeconomicrelationshipsthatperpetuatethisdisparity.Infact,these theorists,echoingtheclassicalMarxistanalysisofcapital,wouldarguethat thestructuraldesignofmonopolyandinternationalcapitalfurtheralienates andexploitsthepooronaglobalscale(Figueroa,1993;ZeitlinandRatcliff, 1988).Hereworld-systemstheoristswouldagreewithMarx’s(1964[1847]: 187) classical assertions:
Thedominationofcapitalcreatedthecommonsituationandcommoninterests ofthisclass.Thusthismassisalreadyaclassinrelationtocapital,butnotyeta classforitself.Inthestruggle,ofwhichwehaveonlyindicatedafewphases, thismassunitesandformsitselfintoaclassforitself.Theinterests,whichit defends,becomeclassinterests.Butthestrugglebetweenclassesisapolitical struggle. ...Ifthe originalaimofresistancewasthatofmaintainingwages,to theextentthatthecapitalists,intheirturn,unitewiththeaimofrepressivemeasures,thecombinations,atfirstisolated,becomeorganizedintogroups,andin thefaceoftheunityofcapitalists,themaintenanceofthecombination becomesmoreimportantthanupholdingthelevelofwages. ...In thisstruggle—averitablewar—alltheelementsforafuturebattlearebroughttogether anddeveloped.Oncearrivedatthispointtheassociationtakesonapolitical character.
Neoliberaleconomictheoryholdsthatlaborsecuresitsfairshareof wealthwhenworkers’wagesequaltheircontributiontotheproduct,withthe balanceofprofitsgoingtomanagementandcapitalinproportiontothecontributionofeach(Arrighi,1990;Wallerstein,1975).Theneoliberalrationale isthatglobalmarketsfueledbyaggressivecompetitionwillyieldsufficient wealthforthegreatestnumberofpeopleonaglobalscale.Marxisttheory rejectsthisnotion,claimingthat“socialrelationsareintimatelyconnected withtheforcesofproduction”(Marx,1964[1847]:95)andthatthewealth derivedfromcapitalbyworkersisunjustlyexpropriatedbythecapitalist class.Moreover,neoliberaldesignshavebenefitedonlyasmallnumberof investors at the expense of the poor (Wallerstein, 1997; Petras, 1997).
LiberationtheologianssuchasGutierrez,Sobrino,Boff,andMiranda agreewiththeMarxistworld-systemscritiqueofdevelopmentandglobal capital.Indeed,GutierrezassertsthatChristianshaveauniqueroletoplayin identifyingwiththeexploitedandoppressedinordertoresistthisinjustice. Heclaimsthat“manyChristians... poororrich...have deliberatelyand explicitlyidentifiedwiththeoppressedonourcontinent. ...Thisisthemajor factintherecentlifeoftheChristiancommunityinLatinAmerica”(1976: 227).Elsewherehesays,“Withinasocietywheresocialclassesconflictwe aretruetoGodwhenwesidewiththepoor,theworkingclasses,thedespised races,themarginalcultures”(1977d:15),andhearguesthatthe“develop-
Martin / LIBERATION THEOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT73
ment”model—withrespecttothepoorintheThirdWorld—hascreated moreproblemsthanithassolved(1973;Boff,1991;Wallerstein,1997; 1992).
GutierrezidentifiesthreemajoraspectsofthefailureofneoliberaldevelopmentstrategiesintheThirdWorld.First,developmentisaformoftokenismanddoesnotfundamentallychangeasystemthatultimatelyprioritizes profitsoverimpoverishedpeople.Secondly,developmentisexploitativein thatitdirectsfinancesandresourcestodependentcountries,oftenwith antidemocraticregimes.Thesecountriesthenusetheirresourcestoensure “stability”—thatis,toimplementrepressivepoliciesthatlimitpoliticaland humanrights(Chomsky,1988;LaFeber,1984;OmangandNeier,1985).The FirstWorldrationalebehindthis“socialorder,”accordingtoGutierrez,is thattheThirdWorldisavenueforincreasedinvestment,profitability,cheap labor,andnaturalresources.Thirdly,developmentispaternalistic.Decisions aboutwhatisgoodforLatinAmericaandtheThirdWorldaremadenotfrom the“periphery”orbythepoorthemselvesbutbyelitesinNewYork,London, orBonn.GutierrezconcludesthatresistancetoneoliberaldevelopmentpolicyisaChristiandutythatdemandsaprofoundconversion.Thusthepoor playavitalevangelicalroleasinterlocutorsinconvertingtheirformercolonizers and oppressors (Gutierrez, 1973).
Gutierrezpointstotheimportanceofrestructuringaworldeconomicsystemthataddressestheneedsofthepoorby“makinghistoryfrombelow ...a subversivehistory... strugglingagainstthecapitalistsystem”(Gutierrez, 1977b:92–93).Commitmenttothepoorthusentailsactionagainstaneconomic system that perpetuates injustice and violence (1974: 60):
Solidaritycannotlimititselftojustsayingnotothewaythingsarearranged.... Itmustbeanefforttoforgeasocietyinwhichtheworkerisnotsubordinateto theownerofthemeansofproduction,asocietyinwhichtheassumptionof socialresponsibilityforpoliticalaffairswillincludesocialresponsibilityfor thereallibertyandwillleadtotheemergenceofanewsocialconsciousness.... Solidaritywiththepoorimpliesthetransformationoftheexistingsocialorder.
MARX, CHRISTIANITY, AND RESISTANCE DISCOURSE
Marxcategoricallyrejectedanytranscendentreligiousbelief:“Thecriticismofreligionisthepremiseofallcriticism. ...Thisstate,thissociety,producereligionwhichisaninvertedworldconsciousness”(Marx,1964[1843]: 43).Marxviewedreligionasaformof“falseconsciousness”orself-deception
thatwasusedbythepowerfultomaintaindominanceovertheworkingclass: “Manmakesreligion;religiondoesnotmakeman”(Marx,1964[1843]:43). InfluencedbyFeuerbach’s TheEssenceofChristianity,Marxcontendedthat inreligionthepersonprojectedhumancharacteristicsontoreligiousinstitutionalstructuresandtranscendentvalues.Hearguedthatthisallowedthecapitalistclasstocreatea“theodicy”anda“plausibilitystructure”thatprecluded anycriticalperspectiveonreligion(seeCarnegie,1962:14–49,134–165; Berger,1967).Religionreflectsthiscontrivedrealityandconsequentlyreinforces a “false consciousness” in people.
TheologianssuchasReinholdNiebuhrconcurwithMarxthat“theabsoluteclaimisusedasaweaponforvarioushistoricallyrelative,andusually established,socialandpoliticalforces.Inreligionwehavethefinalclaimto absolutetruth;MarxandEngelsaresocialscientists,interestedempirically inthewaythattheclaimoftheabsoluteisusedasascreenforparticularcompetitivehistoricalinterests”(Niebuhr,1964:vii).Theresultof“falseconsciousness”inturnreinforcestheexploitationofothers(seeWeber,1958; Wrong,1970).Consequently,Marxargues,“religioussufferingisthesighof theoppressedcreature,thesentimentofaheartlessworld,andthesoulof soullessconditions.Itistheopiumofthepeople”(Marx,1964[1843]:43–44).ForMarx,truehumanfreedomandliberationemergedwhenreligion wasunderstoodasan“illusion”thathaddivertedtheattentionofoppressed peoples from the social and economic causes of their oppression (52):
Thecriticismofreligionends... withthecategoricalimperativetooverthrow allthoseconditionsinwhichmanisanabased,enslaved,abandoned,contemptiblebeing—conditionswhichcanhardlybebetterdescribedthaninthe exclamationofaFrenchmanontheoccasionofaproposedtaxupondogs: “Wretched dogs! They want to treat you like men!”
In TheJewishQuestion,Marxarguedthatanyemancipationfromreligion shouldresultintheseparationofchurchandstatesimilartothatwhichwas officialpolicyintheUnitedStates:“Thestateemancipatesitselffromreligion...by emancipatingitselffromthestatereligion;thatistosay,bygiving recognitiontonoreligionandaffirmingitselfpurelyandsimplyasastate” (1964[1844]:9–10).Moreover,authenticreligion,heargued,shouldnolongerberepresentedbythestateasthe“spiritofthestate”butassignedtoits “properplace”asaprivatematter.Heassertedthat“politicalemancipation doesnotabolish,anddoesnotevenstrivetoabolish,man’srealreligiosity” (1964[1844]:15–16).Hesoughttorelegatereligiontoaprivatefunctionand makethestateneutralor“atheistic”initsapproachtoanyparticularreligion (16–17):
Martin / LIBERATION THEOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT75
TheperfectedChristianstateisnottheso-calledChristianstatewhich acknowledgesChristianityasitsbasis,asthestatereligion ...itis, rather,the atheisticstate,thedemocraticstate,thestatewhichrelegatesreligionamong otherelementsofcivilsociety....The democraticstate,therealstate,doesnot needreligionforitspoliticalconsummation.Onthecontrary,itcandispense withreligion,becauseinthiscasethehumancoreofreligionisrealizedina profane manner.
Marx’sviewofreligionasthe“opiumofthepeople”maythereforeneed clarification,sincereligioncanbeusedasacatalystforsocialchangetopromotehumanrights.Moreover,hisexhortationthatreligionbeaprivateaffair doesnotdiminishtheactivistrolethatreligioncanplayinpromotinggreater justiceinsociety.Infact,religioncanplayavitalpartinsocialchangeand resistance.Pastexamplesincludetheabolitionmovementpriortoandduring theCivilWar,theSocialGospelmovementledbyWalterRauschenbuschat theturnofthetwentiethcentury,theConfessingChurchofDietrich BonhoefferandRudolfBultmann,whichorganizedundergroundresistance totheThirdReich,andthecivilrightsmovementofMartinLutherKingJr., whichsuccessfullyendedlegalsegregationintheSouth(Zinn,1992;Cone, 1969).Thusreligiousbeliefs,specificallyChristianones,haveprovideda moralstandardagainstwhichexistingsocialarrangementsmaybejudged and perhaps found wanting.
ReligionforMarxhadamaterialbaselocatedintheconditionsinwhich peopleresideandinthissensewasanideologicalexpressionoftheirreal needs.Inhis PrefacetoAContributiontotheCritiqueofPoliticalEconomy, Marxdifferentiatedbetweenconflictingmaterialforcesandtheactualprocessesofchange.Healsoidentifiedtheideologicalbasisonwhichpeople becameengagedinconflictsthroughself-reflectiveprocesses(Marx, 1964[1859]).Theemergenceofliberationtheologyinnowayundermines Marx’sdialecticalanalysis.Rather,itdemonstratesthat,underuniquehistoricalsituations,peoplearelikelytoengageinclassstruggleonthebasisofa particularreligiousconsciousness.Religionhasnoinherentrevolutionary character,butitcanacquireoneunderparticularhistoricalconditions.Atthe sametimeitcanbeusedbytheoppressiveclasstomaintainthestatusquo (Engels, 1955[1850]).
Challengestothedominantreligioussystemarerarelymountedbypeople withintheestablishment.Instead,challengestendtocomefromreligious movementsnearthe“fringes”ofsocietyorfromdissidentgroupswithinthe dominantreligion.ThishasusuallybeenthecaseinLatinAmerica,where theCatholicChurchhastraditionallybeenassociatedwiththemilitaryand socialelite(Kennedy,1989).Yetinthepast30yearsthisreligious
76LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES
predispositionhasbeguntoerode.ManyLatinAmericanChristianshave cometoembraceanewtheologicalorientationinfluencedbythefaithreflectionsofthepoorandoppressed:liberationtheology.WithinthisnewtheologicalemphasisasitrelatestotheevangelicalmissionoftheChurch,Marxist categoriesareusedinattemptingtounderstandthecausesandeffectsofclass alienationandexploitation.Similarly,liberationtheologyhaspersistently critiquedtheinternationaleconomicorderrelativetoLatinAmericaandthe ThirdWorld.Itispreciselyinliberationtheology’scritiqueofinternational economicdevelopmentintheThirdWorldthatMarxistsandChristiansfind commongroundinwhathasbecomeknownasanongoing“discourseof resistance”(Gutierrez,1973;1999;Sobrino,2001;Boff,1997;1995;1988).
MARX AND GUTIERREZ
Gutierrez’suseofMarxistsocialanalysisinliberationtheologyinvolved incorporationoftheneo-MarxistworksofFromm,Marcuse,andHabermas. RatherthaninterpretMarxdogmatically,theseintellectualsadvocated“criticalawareness”or“praxis”withinaninterdisciplinaryapproach.According tothisapproach,assessingphenomenasuchassocialalienationandclass exploitationnolongerdemandedstrictadherencetorigidMarxistcategories anddogma.Instead,socialanalysisencouragedanenlightenedandflexible applicationofMarxistprinciplesinmultiplevenues,whethercapitalist, socialist,orMarxist.Inapplyingthecritical-theoryapproachtotheological reflection,Gutierrezwasabletoassesstherootcausesofoppressionand injusticewhilesimultaneouslyintroducingChristianitytorevolutionary action on behalf of the poor (1973: 174):
Thereisalsoasituation ...of miseryanddespoliationofthefruitofman’s work,theresultoftheexploitationofmanbyman;thereisaconfrontation betweensocialclassesand,therefore,astruggleforliberationfromoppressive structureswhichhindermanfromlivingwithdignityandassuminghisown destiny....Inthe underdevelopedcountriesonestartswitharejectionofthe existingsituation,consideredasfundamentallyunjustanddehumanizing. Althoughthisisanegativevision,itisneverthelesstheonlyonewhichallows ustogototherootoftheproblemsandtocreatewithoutcompromisesanew socialorder,basedonjusticeandbrotherhood.Thisrejectiondoesnotproduce an escapist attitude, but rather a will to revolution.
Marx(1978[1848]:16–17)embracedsimilarunderstandingsofexploitation and oppression:
Martin / LIBERATION THEOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT77
Thehistoryofallhithertoexistingsocietyisthehistoryofclassstruggles.... Freemanandslave,patricianandplebeian,lordandserf,guildmasterandjourneyman,inaword,oppressorandoppressed,stoodinconstantoppositionto oneanother,carriedonanuninterrupted,nowhidden,nowopentofight,afight thateachtimeended,eitherinarevolutionaryre-constructionofsocietyat large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.
FromGutierrez’sviewpoint(1984b:20),“whatisnewisnotwretchedness andrepressionandprematuredeath,forthese,unfortunately,areancientrealitiesinthesecountries.Whatisnewisthatthepeoplearebeginningtograsp thecausesoftheirsituationofinjusticeandareseekingtoreleasethemselves fromit.LikewisenewandimportantistherolewhichfaithinGodwholiberates is playing in the process.”
Theevidenceofthisstrugglecanbeassessedonaglobalscale.According totheUnitedNations HumanDevelopmentReport1995,thewealthiestfifth oftheworld’spopulationreceivesmorethanfour-fifthsofitsincomewhile thepoorestfifthreceiveslessthan2percentoftotalworldincome.TheoutcomeofthisdisproportionateaccesstowealthhasbeenwhatMarxcalled “thewarofallagainstall”(1964[1844]:15).GutierrezarguesthatthepoliticalagendaoftheChristianmustbetoenterintoastruggleandevenresistance onthesideofthepoor(1984a:98):“Thepraxisofthepoorconfirmsmein thisconviction—thatafertile,imaginativechallengeliesintheparticular formof‘contemplationinaction’bywhichpersonsmaytransformhistory. ForthisiswhereweencounterGodinthepoor:insolidaritywiththestruggle oftheoppressedandinafaithofhopeandgladness.”Consequently,for GutierreztheconvergencebetweenMarxistsocialanalysisandChristian scriptureprovidesacontextforadeepercriticalawarenessoftheevangelical missionofChristandtheChurchasexemplifiedinLuke4:18:“TheSpiritof theLordisuponme,becausehehasanointedmetopreachgoodnewstothe poor.Hehassentmetoproclaimreleasetothecaptivesandrecoveryofsight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed.”
In Capital,Marxpointsoutthattheinjusticethatcapitalismcreatesisnot simplytheinjusticeofasmallnumberofindividualsbuttheinjusticeofthe systemasawhole(1964[1867]).Inotherterms,capitalismitselfisnotunjust simplybecauseofthemoraldepravityofeliteswhofrequentlyleverage “zero-sum”decisionsintheinternationalarena;decisionsmadein“good faith,”evenbythemostwell-intentionedpersons,will,bytheverynatureof thesystem,producecontradictionsandcrisis.Asaresult,theinexorable driveforgreaterprofitswillinvariablyleadtoclassconflictandeventualrevolution.Theoutcome,accordingtothismaterialistposition,willbeinaclasslesssocietyorworker’sutopia.WhileGutierrez(1977e)rejectsthiselement
78LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES
ofmaterialistMarxistthought,hedistinguishesbetweenMarxisttheoryand practice:“Whathappensisthatwecan’tbewiththepoorofLatinAmerica withoutcallinguponsocialanalysisusingtermslikeinjustice,exploitation, exploitingclass,andclassstruggletoexplainwhatishappening.Tousecertainnotionstoexplainarealitydoesnotmeanagreeingwiththedetermined philosophical positions postulated by Marxism” (p. 17).
ForGutierrez,theimportanceofanidearesidesnotinitsoriginbutin whetheritaccuratelydepictstherealityinquestion,andevaluatingtheroleof classstrugglefromaMarxistperspectiveisirrelevanttothe“correctness”of thisassessment.ThispostulatealsoapplieswhenareligiousinsightregardingtherightsofthepoorisdiscoveredintheHebreworChristianscriptures; its“secular”presenceinMarxdoesnotinvalidateitspresenceinbiblicalliterature.ThefactthatMarxadvocatedlibertyfortheoppresseddoesnotrendersuspectJesus’,Isaiah’s,orMoses’declarationofthesametruthorthe similardeclarationofradicalandprogressiveChristians.Jesus,Isaiah,and Mosespreachedlibertyfortheoppressed;itcanhardlybeinterpretedas “communist-inspired.”
ThereisarevolutionarydimensionwithintheChristiantradition,submergedforcenturies,thatdoesnotrejectclassstruggle.Theologiansinthe firstcenturiesoftheearlyChurchargued“thatifpersonsareinextremeneed, theyhavetherighttotakefromtheabundanceofotherswhattheythemselves need.Thisisaveryrevolutionaryattitude Thisisaclassical,notaMarxist idea”(Gutierrez,1977a).ConsequentlyGutierrezcriticizes,interprets,and appliesMarxistsocialanalysisspecificallytoLatinAmericansand“gospelinspired” class struggle (1977a):
Externaldependenceandinternaldominationcharacterizethesocialstructure ofLatinAmerica.Thisiswhyonlyaclassanalysiswillpermitustoseewhatis reallyatplayintheoppositionofoppressedcountriesanddominatingcountries. ...AllthiswillleadustounderstandthesocialformationofLatinAmericaasadependentcapitalismandtoforeseethenecessarystrategytogetoutof thatsituation. ...Onlythetranscendingofasocietydividedintoclasses,a politicalpowerattheserviceofthegreatpopularmajorities,andtheeliminationofprivateappropriationofwealthproducedbyhumanworkcangiveusthe foundationsofasocietythatwouldbemorejust.Itisforthisreasonthatthe elaborationinahistoricalprojectofanewsocietyinLatinAmericatakesmore and more frequently the path of socialism.
ThemostcommonmisunderstandingofliberationtheologyisthatrevolutionaryChristiansorliberationists“glorifyviolence.”Itisimportanttodispel thisbypointingoutthatLatinAmericansliveinasituationthatisalreadyviolentbecauseoftheNorth’ssocial,political,andeconomicdominationofthe
Martin / LIBERATION THEOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT79
South.Gutierrezidentifiesthreetypesofviolence:“Thefirstistheinstitutionalizedviolenceofthepresentsocialorder;thesecond,therepressiveviolencewhichdefendsthefirst,keepinginpowertherulingregimes;andthe third,counterviolence.Tome,counterviolenceistheleastofthe“evils” (1977c).Violenceisoperativeintheinstitutionalpowerstructuresthatperpetuatepovertyandrepression:AsGutierrezdefinesit,“thegreatestviolence inLatinAmericaisnotthatofamanheadingforthemountainswitharifle, but institutionalized injustice” (Gutierrez, 1977c).
RepressiveviolencehasalsobeenpresentinbrutalLatinAmericandictatorships.World-systemstheoristshavearguedthatthesedictatorshipshave survivedpreciselybecauseofWesternhegemony.Counterviolencebecomes aright,forGutierrez,whenallpeacefulmeanshavefailedtorectifytheviolentsocialstructuresandinstitutionsandtorefrainfromitwouldperpetuate injustice.Similarlyin PopolorumProgressio PopePaulVIwarnsthat,while revolutionaryactionmaybringaboutgreaterinjustice,counterviolencemay bepermittedinthecaseof“long-standingtyrannywhichwoulddogreater damagetofundamentalpersonalrightsanddangerousharmtothecommon good of the country” (Paul VI, 1968: 19).
Inthiscontext,whetherrevolutionwillbeviolentornonviolentis,accordingtoGutierrez,adecisionthatwillultimatelybemadebythoseinpower. Consequently,iftheeliteresistsharingpowerandexcludethepoor,thena revolutionaryconditionpredicateduponviolenceisperpetuated.Inthis sense“subversiverevolutionaryaction”mustbeviewednotasindiscriminate violencebutasalegitimaterighttoself-defense.1 Neo-MarxistssuchasHerbertMarcusespeakofanalyzingthecostsandbenefitsofcounterviolence. Theradicaloppositionmustaddressthisproblem,accordingtoMarcuse (1972: 52–53), on the basis of an “economy of violence”:
Martyrshaverarelyhelpedapoliticalcause,and“revolutionarysuicide” remainssuicide.Andyet,itwouldbeself-righteousindifferencetosaythatthe revolutionaryoughttoliveratherthandiefortherevolution—aninsulttothe Communistsofalltime. ...Butthen,thedesperateactmayhavethesame result—perhapsaworseresult.Oneisthrownbacktotheinhumancalculus whichaninhumansocietyimposes:weighingthenumberofvictimsandthe quantityoftheirsacrificeagainsttheexpected(andreasonablyexpectable) achievements.
ThecriticalpointhereisthatliberationtheologiansandMarxistsdonotarbitrarilyandautomaticallyembracemilitantforceasanindispensableelement ofsocialchange.Theymakeacleardistinctionbetweengratuitousandindiscriminateviolenceandthelegitimaterighttoself-defense.Violenceunderstoodinthecontextoflegitimateself-defenseagainstthedominantclass,
80LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES
accordingtoMarcuse,isa“revolutionaryforcewhichisdestinedtoterminatethisviolence ...[and]wouldbetheactionofmassesorclassescapable ofsubvertingtheestablishedsysteminordertobuildasocialistsociety” (1972: 53).
InSeptember1984,CardinalJosephRatzingeroftheSacredCongregationfortheDoctrineoftheFaith(formerlytitledtheOfficeoftheInquisition) publisheda35-pagedocumententitled“InstructiononCertainAspectsofthe TheologyofLiberation.”Whilethedocumentwasintendedtounderminethe authoritativeeffortsoftheliberationtheologians,thewarningcouldnonethelessbeinterpretedasaffirmingthenotionthattheChristianfaithdoesindeed havearoleinendingdehumanizationonaglobalscale.Accordingto Ratzinger (1984: 6):
Thescandalofthisshockinginequalitybetweentherichandthepoor— whetherbetweenrichandpoorcountries,orbetweensocialclassesinasingle nation—isnolongertolerated.Ontheonehand,peoplehaveattainedan unheard-ofabundancewhichisgiventowaste,whileontheotherhandso manyliveinsuchpoverty,deprivedofthebasicnecessities,thatoneishardly able even to count the victims of malnutrition.
Indeed,thedevelopmentofChristianconsciousnessinthepostmodernerais clearlyrevolutionary,atleastintheory,accordingtoPopeJohnPaulII (quoted by Ferm, 1986[1984]: 57–58):
Theneedsofthepoormusttakepriorityoverthedesiresoftherich,therightsof workersoverthemaximizationofprofits,thepreservationoftheenvironment overuncontrolledindustrialexpansion,productiontomeetsocialneedsover productionformilitarypurposes. ...Thepoorpeopleandpoornations ...will judgethosepeoplewhotakethesegoodsawayfromthem,amassingtothemselvestheimperialisticmonopolyofeconomicandpoliticalsupremacyatthe expense of others.
ThusMarxisttheoryandliberationtheologydivorcethemselvesfrom etherealnotionsofreligionthroughastrategiccommitmenttothepoor.Both seektoendthesufferingoftheoppressedthroughrevolutionaryactionand conscientization(Freire,1973:19).Marcuse(1970:10)identifiesthiscommon praxis as follows:
WhileMarxiantheoryremainsirreconcilablewithChristiandogmaandinstitutionalidentity,itfindsanallyinthosetendencies,groups,andindividuals committedtothepartoftheChristianteachingthatstandsuncompromisingly againstinhuman,exploitativepower.Inourtimestheseradicalreligioustendencieshavecometolifeinthepriestsandministerswhohavejoinedthestrug-
Martin / LIBERATION THEOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT81
gleagainstfascisminallitsforms,andallthosewhohavemadecommoncause withliberationmovementsintheThirdWorld,especiallyLatinAmerica.They arepartoftheglobalanti-authoritarianstruggleagainsttheself-perpetuating powerstructure,eastandwest,whichislessandlessinterestedinhumanprogress.Thisanti-authoritariancharacterbringstolifelong-forgottenorreduced anarchist, heretic tendencies.
Thispraxis,whichactsasarevolutionarycatalystforChristianity,isneitherlimitedtonorconditionedbyitsexperienceofauthoritarianisminthe West.TheMarxistanalysisalsoappliestoformerandcurrenttotalitarian “Marxist”regimesintheEastandotherregionsoftheworld.Inoppositionto totalitarianMarxism,theCzechoslovaktheologianJanLochman(1970:22–25) states:
Therewerealwayspriestsoffate,oftheestablishment,andofpiousquietism. Yetthereisalsothebiblicalprophetictradition,andthisisverydifferent.Certainly,thebiblicalvisionoftheKingdomofGodopensadimensionwhichis notsimply“ofthisworld.”Ittranscendsthepotentialitiesoftheworldofman, ofwhatcanbeachievedinhistory.ItisthekingdomofGod.Yetthis“transcending”kingdomisseenpreciselyinitsdynamicrelationshiptomeninhistory.ThebiblicalGoddoesnotencourageanyescapism.Heisnotanabstract transcendence,alooffromallsecularconcerns.Onthecontrary,heistheGod involvedinhistory,openingnewpossibilities,theGodoftheopenfuture.Heis allthisinaconcretelyarticulatedway:hisbasicrevelationintheOldTestamentistheExodus—aneventofhumanliberation.Hisbasicrevelationinthe NewTestamentisthewayofJesusofNazareth:hisunconditionalsolidarity withmen,particularlywiththosewhoareoppressedandpoor....Intheperspectiveofhopethisinvolvementisneverinvain.Itisworthwhilenottogive up,butinsteadtostrive,despiteallpossibleandrealdifficulties,towarda changeofallthoseconditionsunderwhichmanisanoppressed,enslaved,destitute, and despised being.
Thisuniquedevelopmenthasmanifesteditselfinanongoingdialogue regardingsocialequity.ConservativetheologianssuchasMichaelNovak (1986)andJuanGutierrez2 (1977)havedissentedfromthisdevelopment,but theireffortshavehadlittleeffectincounteringthisnewreligiousperspective basedonwhatGutierrezdescribesasthe“undersideofhistory.”Atthesame time,scholarssuchasAlistairKeeclaimthatreligion,especiallythatwhich isbeingdevelopedintheThirdWorld,needstoincorporatemoreMarxist theoryandthatliberationtheologianshavesimply“baptized”Marxist dogma.Kee(1990)furtherarguesthatliberationtheologiansmustincorporateMarx’scritiqueofreligionnotsimplytounderstandthenatureof“alienation”butalsotounderstandandcritiqueliberationtheologyitself.Inresponse tothisitwouldbeconstructiveforleftiststoidentifyandcontextualizethe
82LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES
visceralelementsofreligioustraditionsthatseektocountertheeffectsof monopolycapitalism.Bothtraditionsineffectdoconfront,atleastpotentially,thecausesofdehumanizationandeffectivelysecuretherighttoaminimumstandardoflivinginwhichthegoodsofsocietywillbedistributedin termsoftheprinciple“Fromeachaccordingtohisability,toeachaccording to his needs!” (Marx, 1964[1875]: 258).
Sufficeittosay,thenotionofsolidarity,inGutierrez’sview,meansthe eliminationofinjusticethroughthetransformationofunjustsocialstructures.SolidarityisnotanentirelyChristianissue;itisalsoaMarxistconcern (McGovern,1980;Kolakowski,1969;Girardi,1968).Nonetheless,thisconvergenceofMarxistandChristianpraxisconstitutesanewsynthesisofsocial analysisandtheologicalreflectionfromtheperspectiveofthepoor (Gutierrez, 1999; Sobrino, 1985; Maduro, 1977).
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND POSTMODERN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Currently,Gutierrezandotherliberationtheologiansaredirectingtheir attentiontosustainabledevelopmentpoliciesinanattempttopromote greaterjusticeandequityintheThirdWorld(Gutierrez,1999;Sobrino, 2001;Boff,1995).Liberationtheologians,postmodernists,andMarxists havealsoarguedinfavorofsustainabledevelopmentstrategies,sincethe state(capitalistorsocialist)hasbeenahindranceinprovidingavenuefor peopletomeettheirownneedsinanycomprehensivemanner(Baudrillard, 1997;Jameson,1991;Lee,1982;1980;Lorentzenetal.,1996).However, thesetheoristsarguethatsocialistremedies—democraticcontrolofeconomicrelations—providetheoptimalbasisfortheeliminationofinjustice andoppression.Thisdoesnotnecessarilyruleoutmarketmeasures.Butif socialistpoliciesaretobeequitable,accordingtoGutierrez,thenremedies mustpromotejusticeatagrassrootslevelratherthanrelyonthestatetobein theforefrontofimplementingpolicy.Onewaytoimplementthisstrategyis through sustainable development models.
Thedoctrineofsustainabledevelopmentassertsthatgrowthanddevelopmentmustmaintainecologicallimitsinthebroadestsenseoftheterm(Merchant,1992).TheconceptoriginatedintheWorldConservationStrategy ReportandtheBrundtlandCommissionReport(seeSolow,1993),anditis thelatestexpressionofalong-standingethicwithregardtothehumancommunity’sinterrelationshipwiththeenvironmentandthecurrentgeneration’s responsibilitiestofutureones.Thefundamentalnotionofsustainabledevelopmentisbasedontheconceptsof intergenerationalequity (fairnessto
posterity)and intragenerationalequity (fairnesstocontemporarypersons). Thisexplicitlymeansthattheinternationalcommunityisobligatedtofuture generationstoleavethemwithsufficientnaturalresourcestosustainthemselvesandthatthecurrentgenerationmustnotsatisfyitselftotheextentthat it depletes the natural resources of its successors.
Sustainabledevelopmentpoliciesmustconfrontthedilemmaofbalancingmultipledemandsonlimitedresources.Slowingorstabilizinggrowth anddepletionmissesthepoint,asDaly(1996)pointsout,becausesustainablegrowthmayneverbeachieved.Thisisbecausetheresourcebaseon whichhumansdependisfinite,andunderminingitwillresultinecological disasterthatnullifiesanyattempttopromotegenerationalresourceequity (Schnailberg and Gould, 1994; Brown, 1996).
Oneofthecriticaldiscussionswithinsustainable-developmentcircles focusesontheneoliberaleconomicstrategiesthatareseenasperpetuating theecologicaldisorderthatisrampantintheThirdWorld(Brown,1996; Rifkin,1991;Boff,1995;Gorostiaga,1993;Martin,2002;Peffer,1990; Clark,1989).Sustainabledevelopment,incontrast,isanefforttoenhancethe economicandenvironmentalstatusofapopulationwithoutcompromising thatoffuturegenerations.Sustainabledevelopmentpoliciesaredirectedat fosteringadeepersenseofcommunitylifewhilebuildingpartnershipsand consensusamongkeystakeholders.Fundamentaltothesepoliciesistheprioritizationoffundamentalhumanneedsandrightsbasedontheequitabledistributionofeconomicandenvironmentalresourcesonaglobalscale (Cairncross,1991;Broham,1995;Schumacher,1973).Thustheyprioritize bothgenerationalresourceequityandrationalcarryingcapacity(themaximumnumberofpeoplethatagivenhabitatcansustainforanindefinite periodoftime).Consequently,sustainabledevelopmentcanbeunderstoodas astandardofequity,rootedinculturalvalues,thatprioritizestherightofpeopletousenaturalresourcesdemocraticallyandsecurebasichumanneeds (Brown,1991;Rich,1994),ineffect,prioritizingequityovereconomiceffectiveness and efficiency.
Whilethevalueofsocialiststrategiesmaybearguedadinfinitum(and perhapsdescribedasirrelevantinthetwenty-firstcentury),thenotionof democraticpopularcontrolofresourcesandwealththroughsustainable developmentstrategiesisbeingaddressedthroughwhathasbecomeknown aspostmodernpublicadministration.Inordertopromotetheongoingdiscourseofresistance,Marxists,anarchists,antiglobalizationactivists,andliberationistsareseekingtoimplementsustainabledevelopmentpolicies throughnonprofitsandnongovernmentorganizations(NGOs)insteadof stateinstitutions.Postmodernpublicadministrationattemptstorespondto thefundamentalneedsofthepoorandoppressedwithoutnecessarily
84LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES
addressingthecomplexitiesofpoliticalarrangements(WamsleyandWolf, 1996;FoxandMiller,1995;Subramanian,1990).Theliberationtheologian XabierGorostiaga(1993:12)identifiesthisphenomenonasonethat“has definitivelychangedtheregion’ssocialfabric.Thisexperienceisnoticedina newdynamicmadeevidentthroughthegrowthofNGO’sandthelinkageand networkingthroughoutLatinAmericaoforganizationsformedbypeasants, indigenouscommunities,women,environmentalists,urbandwellers,andthe emergingstudent(particularlyuniversity)movement.”TheBrazilianliberationtheologianLeonardoBoff(1995)arguesthattheuseofpostmodernpublicandprivateinstitutionsistheoptimalapproachtosecuringbasichuman needs on an international basis.
ThroughoutLatinAmericauniqueexamplesoftheimplementationof sustainablemethodsthroughpostmodernmechanismscanbefoundinthe politicalactivismoftheChristianbasecommunities.Theemergenceofbase communitiesinnumerouscountriesthroughoutLatinAmericacontinuesto provideavenueforthepoortoorganizeandreflectontheirspiritualand socialstatusinlife.IncountriessuchasChile,Brazil,ElSalvador,andNicaragua,thesecommunitieshavebecomesignificantwithrespecttopressing forjusticeandsocialchangeandthepossibilitiesofdirectactiontoremedy injustices.Thisformofgrassrootspopulismseekstopromotegreaterdemocraticparticipationinsocietyandsimultaneouslypromotethewelfareofits members.AsablendofearlyChristiancommunitiesandRousseauianpopulistdemocracies,thesehighly“decentralized”communitieshavesoughtto bypassthestateandinternationalinstitutionsinpursuingremediesforsocial justiceandsustainablepolicies.Infact,theyhaverunthegamutinseeking socialequityfortheircommunitieseitherthroughdirectpoliticalaction (resistancetolandownersandthepromotionofagrarianreform,agitation alongwithunionsforalivingwage,promotionofhealthcareandmedical insurance,demonstrationsagainstpolicebrutality,protestsofpoorornonexistentpublictransportation),orworkingthroughNGOs,nonprofits,coops, andthelike(Sigmund,1990).Recognizingthatthevastmajorityofpoorin LatinAmericaareunlikelytobeliberatedbystateandinternationalsolutions or,forthatmatter,bycataclysmicpoliticaltransformations,Christianbase communitieshaveinessenceformedpostmodernnetworks.Throughthese networkstheyarecommittedtofurtheringsocialequityandmeetingthe needsofthepoorbyensuringsustainablepoliciesthroughpostmoderninstitutionsandadministration.Consequently,theycontinuetoexperience “deinstitutionalized”successasagentsoftheirownspiritualandpolitical liberation.
IntheUnitedStates,elementsofpostmodernpublicadministrationhave manifestedthemselvesprimarilyineffortstoempowerwomenand
Martin / LIBERATION THEOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT85
minoritiesthroughjobtraining,life-skillstraining,supportivehousing,and otherendeavors(ChartonandMay,1995).Postmodernpublicadministration asaself-reflectiveenterprisecanempowerpeopleandcommunities(Stivers, 1995;Greenberg,2000).Onacross-nationalandcross-borderlevel,ithas resultedinnumerousdialoguesontheimplementationofsustainableenvironmental policies (Saint-Germain, 1995).
Whilesustainablepostmodernpoliciesdonotnecessarilynegatethe devolutionandprivatizationeffortstypicalofthe“reinventing-government” movement(OsborneandGaebler,1992),theyneverthelessaddressthe greaterroleofgovernmentinprovidingavenueforempowermentofthepoor onaglobalscale.Theongoingdiscourseofresistancebetweenliberation theologiansandleft-leaningscholarsandactivistshasproducedastrategy thathasmadeprogressagainstpovertyandoppression.LatinAmericahas thusprovidedavitalcontextfordiscoveringnewapproachestorevolutionary justice.
NOTES
1.Inthecontextofthetraditional“just-war”theory,thelegitimaterighttoself-defensecan alsobeinterpretedasself-defensethroughviolentrevolution(seeUnitedStatesCatholic Bishops, 1983).
2.JuanGutierrez’sagendaisbasicallytoseparatesocialanalysisfromtheologicalreflection. HealsomistakenlyarguesthattheacceptanceofMarxistsocialanalysisnecessarilyimpliesthe acceptance of Marxist materialism.
REFERENCES
Amin, Samir
1991“Theancientworld-systemsversusthemoderncapitalistworld-system.” Review 14 (Summer): 349–385.
Arrighi, Giovanni
1979“PeripheralizationofSouthernAfrica,1:changesinproductionprocesses.” Review 3 (Fall): 161–191.
1990 “The three hegemonies of historical capitalism.” Review 13 (Summer): 365–408.
1994 TheLongTwentiethCentury:Money,Power,andtheOriginsofOurTime.Londonand New York: Verso.
Baudrillard, Jean
1997 The Consumer Society: Myths and Structures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Baum, Gregory
1975 ReligionandAlienation:ATheologicalReadingofSociology.NewYork:PaulistPress.
86LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES
Berger, Peter
1967 TheSacredCanopy:ElementsofaSociologicalTheoryofReligion.NewYork: Doubleday.
Boff, Leonardo
1984 Jesus Christ Liberator. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
1988 When Theology Listens to the Poor. San Francisco: Harper and Row.
1991 NewEvangelization:GoodNewstothePoor.TranslatedbyRobertR.Barr.Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
1995 Ecology and Liberation: A New Paradigm. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
1997 Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Boff, Leonardo and Clodovis Boff
1984 SalvationandLiberation:InSearchofaBalancebetweenFaithandPolitics.Translated by Robert R. Barr. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
1985 LiberationTheology:FromConfrontationtoDialogue.TranslatedbyRobertR.Barr. New York: Harper and Row.
1987 IntroducingLiberationTheology.TranslatedbyPaulBurns.Maryknoll,NY:Orbis Books.
Broham, John
1995“Economismandcriticalsilenceindevelopmentstudies:atheoreticalcritiqueof neoliberalism.” Third World Quarterly 16 (2).
Brown, Lester
1991“Thenewworldorder,”inLesterBrown(ed.), StateoftheWorld1990 .NewYork: W. W. Norton.
1996 Tough Choices: Facing the Challenge of Food Scarcity. New York: W. W. Norton.
Brown, Robert McAffee
1981 Making Peace in the Global Village. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
1993 LiberationTheology:AnIntroductoryGuide.Louisville,KY:Westminster/JohnKnox Press.
1997 SpeakingofChristianity:PracticalCompassion,SocialJustice,andOtherWonders Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press.
Cairncross, Frances
1991 Costing the Earth. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Cardoso, Fernando Henrique and Enzo Faletto
1979 DependencyandDevelopmentinLatinAmerica.TranslatedbyMarjoryMattingly Urquidi. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Carnegie, Andrew
1962 TheGospelofWealth,andOtherTimelyEssays.EditedbyEdwardC.Kirkland.Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Charton, Roger and Roy May
1995“NGOs,politics,projects,andprobity:apolicyimplementationperspective.” Third World Quarterly 16 (2): 237–256.
Chomsky, Noam
1988 The Culture of Terrorism. Boston: South End Press.
Clark, John
1989 “Marx’s inorganic body.” Environmental Ethics 11 (3): 243–258.
Cone, James
1969 Black Theology and Black Power. New York: Seabury Press.
Daly, Herman
1996 BeyondGrowth:TheEconomicsofSustainableDevelopment.Boston:BeaconPress.
Martin / LIBERATION THEOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT87
Derrida, Jacques
1962“Theendofman,”in MarginsofPhilosophy.TranslatedbyAlanBass.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Dussel, Enrique
1985 PhilosophyofLiberation.TranslatedbyAquilineMartinezandChristineMarkovsky. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Engels, Frederick
1955(1850)“ThepeasantwarinGermany,”inKarlMarxandFrederickEngels, OnReligion Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House.
Ferm, Deane W.
1986(1984) Third World Liberation Theologies. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. Figueroa, Adolfo
1993“AgriculturaldevelopmentinLatinAmerica,”pp.287–314inOsvaldoSunkel(ed.), DevelopmentfromWithin:TowardaNeostructuralApproachforLatinAmerica.Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner.
Fox, Charles and Hugh Miller
1995 Postmodern Public Administration: Toward Discourse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Frank, Andre Gunder
1990“Atheoreticalintroductionto5,000yearsofworldsystemhistory.” Review 13 (Spring): 155–248.
Freire, Paulo
1973 Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum Publishing.
George, Susan
1977 HowtheOtherHalfDies:TheRealReasonsforWorldHunger.Montclair,CA: Allenhead, Osmun.
Girardi, Giulio
1968 Marxism and Christianity. Translated by Kevin Traynor. New York: Macmillan. Gorostiaga, Xabier
1993“IstheanswerintheSouth?”PaperpresentedattheSeminar“FirstWorldEthicsand ThirdWorldEconomics:ChristianResponsibilityinaWorldofPlentyandPoverty,” Sigtuna, Sweden, September 20–23.
Greenberg, Anna
2000“TheChurchandtherevitalizationofpoliticsandcommunity.” PoliticalScienceQuarterly 115 (3): 377–394.
Gutierrez, Gustavo
1973 A Theology of Liberation. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
1974“Liberationtheologyandtheproclamation,”inClaudeGeffreandGustavoGutierrez (eds.), TheMysticalandPoliticalDimensionoftheGospel.ConciliumSeries96.NewYork: Herder and Herder.
1976“Twotheologicalperspectives:liberationtheologyandprogressivisttheology,”p.243 inSergioTorresandVirginiaFabells(eds.), TheEmergentGospel.Maryknoll,NY:Orbis Books.
1977a “Where hunger is, God is not.” The Witness, April, p. 4.
1977c “Terrorism, liberation, and sexuality.” The Witness, April, p. 10.
1977d“ThepoorintheChurch,”p.15inNorbertGreinacherandAloisMuller(eds.), The Poor and the Church. New York: Seabury Press.
1977e “Gustavo Gutierrez.” National Catholic Reporter, February 15, p. 17.
1984a ThePowerofthePoorinHistory.TranslatedbyRobertR.Bar.Maryknoll,NY:Orbis Books.
88LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES
1984b We Drink from Our Own Wells. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
1987 OnJob:God-TalkandtheSufferingoftheInnocent.TranslatedbyMatthewO’Connell. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
1990 TheTruthShallMakeYouFree:Confrontations.TranslatedbyMatthewO’Connell. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
1991 The God of Life. Translated by Matthew O’Connell. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
1993a LasCasas:InSearchofthePoorofJesusChrist.TranslatedbyRobertR.Barr.Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
1993b SantoDomingoandAfter:TheChallengefortheLatinAmericanChurch.London: Catholic Institute for International Relations.
1999 The Destiny of the Present: Selected Writings. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. Gutierrez, Gustavo (ed.)
1977b Liberation and Change. Edited by Ronald H. Stone. Atlanta: John Knox Press. Gutierrez, Juan
1977 TheNewLiberationGospel:PitfallsoftheTheologyofLiberation.TranslatedbyPaul Burns. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press.
Harrington, Michael
1992 Socialism: Past and Future. New York: A Mentor Book.
Humefeldt, Christine
1997“Theagrarianlandscapeandchangingpoliticalawareness:enterprises,producers,and peasantcommunities,1969–1994,”inMaxwellA.CameronandPhilipMauceri(eds.), The Labyrinth:Polity,Society,Economy.UniversityPark:PennsylvaniaStateUniversityPress.
Jameson, Fredric
1991 Postmodernism,orTheLogicofLateCapitalism.Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress.
Kee, Alistair
1990 MarxandtheFailureofLiberationTheology.Philadelphia:TrinityPressInternational.
Kennedy, Paul
1989 The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. New York: Vintage Books. Kolakowski, Leszek
1969 Toward a Marxist Humanism. New York: Grove Press.
Kung, Hans
1974 On Being a Christian. Translated by Edward Quinn. New York: Doubleday. LaFeber, Walter
1984 Inevitable Revolutions. New York: W. W. Norton.
Lee, Donald
1980“OntheMarxianviewoftherelationshipbetweenmanandnature.” Environmental Ethics 2 (1).
1982“TowardaMarxianecologicalethic:aresponsetotwocritics,” EnvironmentalEthics 4 (4).
Lochman, Jan
1970“Marxism,liberalism,andreligion,”inJohnC.RainesandThomasDean(eds.), MarxismandRadicalReligion:EssaysTowardaRevolutionaryHumanism.Philadelphia:Temple University Press.
Lorentzen, Lois Ann, David Bastone, Eduardo Mendieta, and Dwight Hopkins
1996 Liberation Theologies, Postmodernity, and the Americas. New York: Routledge.
2001 Religion/Globalization: Theories and Cases. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. McGovern, Arthur
1980 Marxism: An American Christian Perspective. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Martin / LIBERATION THEOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT89
Maduro, Otto
1977 Marxismo y religión. Caracas, Venezuela: Monte Avila Editores.
1987 ReligionandSocialConflicts.TranslatedbyRobertR.Barr.Maryknoll,NY:Orbis Books.
Marcuse, Herbert
1970“Marxismandthenewhumanity,”inJohnC.RainesandThomasDean(eds.), Marxism andRadicalReligion:EssaysTowardaRevolutionaryHumanism.Philadelphia:Temple University Press.
1972 Counterrevolution and Revolt. Boston: Beacon Press.
Martin, Randy
2002 OnYourMarx:RethinkingSocialismandtheLeft.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesota Press.
Marx, Karl
1964(1843)“ThecritiqueofHegel’sPhilosophyofRight,”inT.B.Bottomore(ed.), Karl Marx: Early Writings. New York: McGraw-Hill.
1964(1844)“OntheJewishquestion,”inT.B.Bottomore(ed.), KarlMarx:EarlyWritings New York: McGraw-Hill.
1964(1845)“Theholyfamily,”inT.B.Bottomore(ed.), KarlMarx:SelectedWritings.New York: McGraw-Hill.
1964(1846)“TheGermanideology,”inT.B.Bottomore(ed.), KarlMarx:SelectedWritings New York: McGraw-Hill.
1964(1847)“Thepovertyofphilosophy,”inT.B.Bottomore(ed.), KarlMarx:Selected Writings. New York: McGraw-Hill.
1964(1859)“Prefaceto AContributiontotheCritiqueofPoliticalEconomy,”inT.B. Bottomore (ed.), Karl Marx: Selected Writings. New York: McGraw-Hill.
1964(1867) Capital,Volume1,inT.B.Bottomore(ed.), KarlMarx:SelectedWritings.New York: McGraw-Hill.
1964(1875)“ThecritiqueoftheGothaProgram,”inT.B.Bottomore(ed.), KarlMarx: Selected Writings. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Marx, Karl and Frederick Engels
1978(1848) The Communist Manifesto. New York: Pathfinder Press. Merchant, Carolyn
1992 Radical Ecology: The Search for a Living World. New York: Routledge. Metz, Johannes
1969 TheologyoftheWorld.TranslatedbyWilliamGlenDoepel.NewYork:SeaburyPress. Miranda, José
1974 Marx and the Bible. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
1981 Communism and the Bible. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. Moltmann, Jurgen
1984 On Human Dignity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Niebuhr, Reinhold
1964“Introduction,”inKarlMarxandFrederickEngels, OnReligion.NewYork:Schocken Books.
Novak, Michael
1986 Will It Liberate? Questions about Liberation Theology. New York: Paulist Press. Omang, Joanne and Aryeh Neier
1985 PsychologicalOperationsinGuerrillaWarfare:TheCIA’sNicaraguaManual.New York: Vintage Books, Random House.
90LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES
Osborne, David and Ted Gaebler
1992 Reinventing Government. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Paul VI
1968 PopulorumProgressio (OntheDevelopmentofthePeoples).Boston:St.PaulEditions.
Peffer, Rodney
1990 Marxism, Morality, and Social Justice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Petras, James
1997“AlternativestoneoliberalisminLatinAmerica.” LatinAmericanPerspectives 24(1): 80–91.
Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal
1984 Instruction on Certain Aspects of Liberation Theology. Vatican City: Vatican Press. Rich, Bruce
1994 MortgagingtheEarth:TheWorldBank,EnvironmentalImpoverishment,andtheCrisis of Development. Boston: Beacon Press.
Rifkin, Jeremy
1991 Biosphere Politics. San Francisco: Harper Collins.
Saint-Germain, Michelle
1995“ProblemsandopportunitiesforcooperationamongpublicmanagersontheU.S.Mexico border.” American Review of Public Administration 25 (2): 93–117.
Schleiermacher, Friedrich
1969(1768–1834) OnReligion:AddressesinResponsetoItsCulturedCritics.Richmond, VA: John Knox Press.
Schillebeeckx, Edward
1970 “La teología,” in Los católicos holandeses. Bilbao: Desclee de Brouwer.
1987 OnChristianFaith:TheSpiritual,Ethical,andPoliticalDimensions.NewYork: Crossroads.
Schnailberg, Allan and Kenneth Gould
1994 Environment and Society: The Enduring Conflict. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Schumacher, E. F.
1973 SmallIsBeautiful:EconomicsAsIfPeopleMattered.NewYork:HarperColophon Books.
Segundo, Juan Luis
1976 The Liberation of Theology. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Sen, Amartya
1964 “Size of holdings and productivity.” Economic Weekly 16: 323–326.
1973 On Economic Inequality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Sigmund, Paul
1990 LiberationTheologyattheCrossroads:DemocracyorRevolution? NewYork:Oxford University Press.
Sobrino, Jon
1984 TheTrueChurchandthePoor.TranslatedbyMatthewO’Connell.Maryknoll,NY: Orbis Books.
1985 Theology of Christian Solidarity. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
1993 Jesus the Liberator. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
1994 ThePrincipleofMercy:TakingtheCrucifiedPeoplefromtheCross.Maryknoll,NY: Orbis Books.
2001 Christ the Liberator: A View from the Victims. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Martin / LIBERATION THEOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT91
Solow, Robert
1993“Sustainability:aneconomist’sperspective,”inRobertDorfmanandNancyDorfman (eds.), Economics of the Environment. 3d edition. New York: W. W. Norton. Stivers, Camila
1995“SettlementwomenandBureaumen:constructingausablepastforpublicadministration.” Public Administration Review 55 (6): 522–529.
Subramanian, Victor
1990 PublicAdministrationintheThirdWorld:AnInternationalHandbook.Westport,CT: Greenwood Press.
Tamez, Elsa
1982 BibleoftheOppressed.TranslatedbyMatthewO’Connell.Maryknoll,NY:Orbis Books.
Torres, Sergio and John Eagleson (eds.)
1976 Theology in the Americas. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. United States Catholic Bishops
1983 TheChallengeofPeace:God’sPromiseandOurResponse.Washington,DC:The National Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Wallerstein, Immanuel
1975 World Inequality. Montreal: Black Rose Books.
1992 “The West, capitalism, and the modern world-system.” Review 13 (Fall): 287–293.
1997“Theunintendedconsequencesofcoldwarerastudies,”pp.195–232inNoam Chomskyetal., TheColdWarandtheUniversity:TowardanIntellectualHistoryofthePostwar Years. New York: New Press.
Wamsley, Gary and James Wolf (eds.)
1996 RefoundingDemocraticPublicAdministration:ModernParadoxes,Postmodern Challenges. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Weber, Max
1958 The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Scribner. Wrong, Dennis (ed.)
1970 MaxWeber:MakersofModernScience,SociologyofReligion.EnglewoodCliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Zeitlin, Maurice and Richard Earl Ratcliff
1988 LandlordsandCapitalists:TheDominantClassinChile.Princeton:PrincetonUniversity Press.
Zinn, Howard
1992 APeople’sHistoryoftheUnitedStates,1492–Present.NewYork:HarperPerennial.