18Keswani

Not So Positively Positivist How and Why Mexicos Positivism Led to Revolution

Arnosh KeswaniGOVT 303Professor Dani Nedal

Anything in red just needed rephrasing. The writing assumes a lot of prior knowledge; I would have found it very helpful to have more surface level explanations of the various theories and then a detailed explanation of their application to Mexico. Also, a very brief overview of the timeline of the ideas discussed and the Mexican revolution at the beginning of the paper would have helped me to join the dots in the following discussion. I think it would give the piece a clear and explicit direction.

IntroductionAmong the historians, philosophers and sociologists who study political movements, the emergence and use of positivism and positivist ideals has always been a unique subject of note. While developed in Europe and as a distinctly European way of thinking, as most political philosophies of modern times are, positivism and its various offshoots took hold in Latin America, in a way its modern founder Auguste Comte (1798-1856)could never have imagined. However, in studying one of the major cases of Positivism in Latin America, Mexico, historians and scholars have noted that the strongly negative in that country is tied with the positive. For Mexico, positivism is associated with the injustices and social inequality that led to the Mexican Revolution, a remnant of a past Mexico, reviled by most in modern society. In this paper, I will analyze the origins and evolution of Mexicos positivism until 1910. In doing so, it will be seen that positivism in Mexico, underwent a transformation away from its origins that led to the rise of anti-positivist philosophy and therefore, Revolutionary movements. Doesnt read well.

Positivism: Scientific Order and ProgressAfter the days of the Descartes-Bacon debates in the 17th century, it was clear that the scientific method had taken root in Western societys philosophical currents. The need for empirical evidence and observation to understand a concept was something that had come to be accepted, and men like Henri Saint-Simon and Auguste Comte challenged the notion that metaphysics was the way to solve the questions that faced humanity. For Comte and other such men, they believed, in the words of sociologist Jorge Larrain, that scientific knowledge is the paradigm of valid knowledge, a postulate that indeed is never proved nor intended to be proved.[footnoteRef:1] Science, and approaching problems from a scientific method perspective was the only way forward, and was the key to a more advanced and stable society. This was the founding principle, essentially, of modern Positivism and Comtes Positive Philosophy, science was the key to Order and Progress, a phrase today on the Brazilian flag and one commonly associated to Comtian thought. [1: Larrain, Jorge.The Concept of Ideology. London: Hutchinson, 1979. Pg. 179] Personally, I would find it constructive to have an outline/example of the processes involved here. (Types of advancement how would the scientific method bring stability to society)I think its worth making a geographic and/or temporal reference here.

It is key to understand that Comte was not the founder of Positivism himself, as he is sometimes attributed to be. The aforementioned concepts regarding scientific thought had taken root slowly over hundreds of years and Comte himself saw that Bacon, Descartes, and Galileo as collectively the founders of the Positivist Philosophy. However, Comte played an important role in framing Positivist thought in the grand historical framework by writing that society was made up of three stages: the theological, the metaphysical, and finally the positive. In the first, humans sought to attribute what they did not know to supernatural agencies, while in the second humans attributed the unknown to abstract, but poorly understood concepts.[footnoteRef:2] However, in the final positive stage, thought to be the pinnacle of humanity by Comte, humans would fully understand the scientific laws that ruled the world, through experimentation and observation. [2: Mill, J.S, August Comte and Positivism , Project Gutenberg. ] A more detailed explanation of processes is this teleological? What societies did Comte study to reach these conclusions? What stag did he believe his society was in?

However, before we can analyze s addition to Positive Philosophy as an influence on Latin America, we must also focus on two later elements of Comtian work: his creation of the Moral Religion as well as the social sciences, that stemmed out of the basics of positivism for a need to apply scientific principles to every aspect of societal life. Comte sought to espouse that love for others above oneself (otherwise known as altruism) would create order and progress as the basis of his Church of Humanity, which sought to further moral, social and spiritual progress. J.S. Mill, a student of Comtes, found that the latters insistence regarding love as a means towards order and progress to be a result of his mental instability, and essentially refuting his earlier works that called for scientism, yet the moral element of positivism and many sought to incorporate this into their readings of Comte, especially in Latin America. This concept needs explaining. This final sentence is very unclear. Should be about 3 separate sentences?Comtes?

Reference Dr. Barreda as Mexican sooner then you dont have to throw it in later

Positivisms Early Years in MexicoOne such man was Dr. Gabino Barreda, who, while pursuing medical studies in Paris, had the opportunity to take Auguste Comtes classes regarding Positive Philosophy. The words of the French philosopher greatly influenced Dr. Barreda, and the latter sought to devote his life to advancing the Positivist cause in Mexico[footnoteRef:3] after returning to Mexico in 1863. In his famous Civic Oration in 1867, given shortly after the execution of Emperor Maximilian, Barreda caught the attention of President Juarez, by stressing the need for a universal and modern education, in the pursuit of moral, social and spiritual progress, as well as pushing for an increase in nationwide literacy rates.[footnoteRef:4] Soon thereafter, President Juarez appointed Barreda to a committee charged with education reform and in this post; Barreda founded the National Preparatory School in 1868. His goal was to create a curriculum that would follow Comtes teachings and also sought to foster altruism, not through the religion of humanity, but rather through broad national educational reforms.[footnoteRef:5] While rejecting the Moral Religion, it can be seen that in some ways, as Alexander Stehn notes, Barreda's attempt to reform education constituted an attempt to shift the domain of the religion of humanity from Comte's priesthood to the educational agencies of the State.[footnoteRef:6] This was to be done by through his ley organica, a model for education reform throughout Mexico, outlined in his work About Moral Education. [3: Gilson, Gregory D., Irving W. Levinson, and Eduardo Mendieta. "Positively Disastrous: The Comtian Legacy in Mexico."Latin American Positivism: New Historical and Philosophical Essays: pg. 115.] [4: Ibid. 115] [5: Gilson, Gregory D., Irving W. Levinson, and Eduardo Mendieta. From Positivism to Anti-Positivism in Mexico: Some Notable Continuities Latin American Positivism: New Historical and Philosophical Essays: pg. 53.] [6: Ibid. pg.115] 2 points what he said, it caught attention. 2 sentences. You discuss earlier that these two concepts are not distinct? Following Comtes teachings = fostering altruism?

Additionally, Barreda sought to frame Mexican history for his students and followers in the three Comtian stages. The pre-Columbian and colonial eras of Mexico, in reference to both Catholicism and ancient Aztec religions, represented the theological stage. The period that had preceded his speech from 1810-1867, which culminated with the overthrow of Emperor Maximilian and the ascension of Benito Juarez was the metaphysical. This was an era, in which the Mexican liberalism modeled after that Europe emerged as a popular ideology, and by highlighting this stage as the metaphysical, violent and full of incessant conflicts yet necessary for humanitys betterment became more acceptable in public analysis.[footnoteRef:7] This opinion put him at odds with Comte who was strictly against the European liberalism espoused by Rosseau and Montesqieu, which he thought was a negative force and failed to recognize the inevitability of positivism.[footnoteRef:8] For Barreda, Mexican liberals had been essential because their anti-Church reforms had led to the evolution away from the theological into the metaphysical and therefore were paving the way for the enlightened intellectualism that would emerge in the positive stage. As Stehn writes, Barreda interpreted Mexican liberalism as an expression of positive spirit whereas European liberalism represented a negative spirit for Comte.[footnoteRef:9] [7: Gilson, Gregory D., Irving W. Levinson, and Eduardo Mendieta. "Positively Disastrous: The Comtian Legacy in Mexico."Latin American Positivism: New Historical and Philosophical Essays: pg. 115.] [8: Ibid. pg. 115] [9: Gilson, Gregory D., Irving W. Levinson, and Eduardo Mendieta. From Positivism to Anti-Positivism in Mexico: Some Notable Continuities Latin American Positivism: New Historical and Philosophical Essays: pg. 54.] Long speech!So far you have not discussed what Moral Religion how do Comtes teachings pertain to religion? (Both in practice & theory?)

Although Barreda often clashed with liberals regarding his overall philosophy and his devotion to the Comtian framework, Barredas positivism had become increasing popular among the bourgeoisie Liberals who favored his positions regarding education and religion. However, Barreda drew the ire of Mexican Conservatives who continued to yearn for the strict Catholic order that positivism struck the very heart of. For reasons of political expediency as well as a personal rejection of the Church of Humanity as stated above, Barreda avoided the anti-Catholic element of Comtes teachings, and Comtes statement of love as a principle, (thereby rejecting any theological base, and solely referring to love) became liberty as a means for Barreda. Although by doing so, he emphasized freedom of religious conscience,[footnoteRef:10] it was clear that through various educational policies, Barredas main goals were to educate people into altruism and establish love as the basis of a Mexican education. [10: Ibid. pg. 54] Example of these policies?

The National Preparatory School suffered from a lack of resources and Barredas proposed overall education reforms, which still faced great Conservative as well as some Liberal opposition, were never implemented on the national scale. While he was able to train a small group of students in Comtes teachings, Barredas plan for a literate society trained in the principles of scientific inquiry never materialized In 1876, General Porfirio Diaz overthrew Juarezs liberal successor Sebastion Lerdo de Tejada. The Liberal period had come to an end and within two years removed Barreda from his post in the Ministry of Education. At the time of his death in 1881, Barreda had recently returned from serving as Minister Plenipotienary in Germany, sent by Diaz as a kindly courtesy. Although the memory of his efforts to foster educational reform as well as create a Mexico full of order and progress remained, his vision on how to going about achieving this goal slowly was changed by those who followed.[footnoteRef:11] (A clear example of this is that the National Prepatory School or the La Prepatoria as it was now affectionately called, under the leadership of Barredas disciples had become overly concerned with pre-professional studies, rather than a Comtian moral education.[footnoteRef:12]) Soon thereafter, under the reign of Porfirio Diaz, the goal itself would change, leaving Barredas positivism in the annals of Mexican history. [11: Gilson, Gregory D., Irving W. Levinson, and Eduardo Mendieta. "Positively Disastrous: The Comtian Legacy in Mexico."Latin American Positivism: New Historical and Philosophical Essays: pg. 115.] [12: Gilson, Gregory D., Irving W. Levinson, and Eduardo Mendieta. From Positivism to Anti-Positivism in Mexico: Some Notable Continuities Latin American Positivism: New Historical and Philosophical Essays: pg. 55.]

Transition to the CientificismoWhile it was indeed true that Barredas immediate impacts seemed confined to the educational reform, he along with some of his students and followers had come together to form the Asociacion Metodofila Gabino Barreda. This was a group and space in which like-minded Mexicans could come to discuss positivist ideals under Barredas banner, yet the philosophical positions held by the second generation of Mexican positivists differed greatly from Barredas own.[footnoteRef:13] It will come to be seen that this second generation would oversee a transformation of positivism into something truly different: the notorious cientificismo of El Porfiriato. [13: Ibid. pg. 55]

Porfirio Diaz had been under the guidance and mentorship of Benito Juarez as a young man, and as a loyal student and servant of his nation, he joined the military in 1855.[footnoteRef:14] He rose up in the ranks in the armed forces, never shying away from the front lines and gained a hero-like status on Cinco de Mayo, (May 5, 1862) after escaping from a French prison during the Battle of Puebla.[footnoteRef:15] After two unsuccessful presidential races against his mentor, he violently overthrew Sebastian Lerdo de Tejada, with considerable assistance from a small group of American investors.[footnoteRef:16] After coming to power, Diaz disregarded any affiliation with any ideas and/or ideologies of Juarez and other Liberals, and as Irving Levinson writes, I believe that the transition came during the years he spent at war witnessing the effects of constant conflict upon the people and polity of Mexico. In that milieu, he probably came to the conclusion that order and a very harsh order remained a prerequisite for progress. Liberty was not. It is safe to say that his order was vastly different from that proposed by Comtes Moral Religion and Barredas ley organica just a few short years earlier. [14: Gilson, Gregory D., Irving W. Levinson, and Eduardo Mendieta. "Positively Disastrous: The Comtian Legacy in Mexico."Latin American Positivism: New Historical and Philosophical Essays: pg. 117.] [15: Ibid. pg. 117] [16: Ibid. pg. 117]

To understand the way in which the concepts of order and progress transformed under Diaz, we must first look at the intellectual environment of the mid to late 19th century. In understanding Porfirian ideology, Herbert Spencer and Charles Darwin were two of the most important thinkers of the time, and as history has shown, their works and theories have been extremely open to misinterpretation. The new group of Mexican positivists did not shy away from the Social Darwinist beliefs that took hold in this era and this was illustrated through members of the Asociacion Metodofila Gabino Barreda such as Miguel Macedo, wrote that wealth was a means to guarantee moral superiority and Manuel Ramos who saw the survival of the fittest as a way to understand society.[footnoteRef:17] [17: Gilson, Gregory D., Irving W. Levinson, and Eduardo Mendieta. From Positivism to Anti-Positivism in Mexico: Some Notable Continuities Latin American Positivism: New Historical and Philosophical Essays: pg. 55.]

These two men among many other like-minded scholars caught the attention of Diaz, who surrounded himself with a cabinet and advisors well versed in this new manner of thinking, known as los Cientificos. Each of these men would seek to advance the cause of cientificismo, and keep Diaz in control of every facet of society. In looking at Diaz tyrannical, we can look at Comte, who had called for a positivist dictatorship[footnoteRef:18], yet it is important to understand that Diaz truly changed the positivism of Juarez and used his new ideology to stay in power. [18: Gilson, Gregory D., Irving W. Levinson, and Eduardo Mendieta. "Positively Disastrous: The Comtian Legacy in Mexico."Latin American Positivism: New Historical and Philosophical Essays: pg. 118.]

Cientificismo in PracticeAfter the years of 1821-1876 which had seen almost constant struggles as well as disorder and economic stagnation, Diaz knew that promising ordered development, no matter what the means, would be attractive to all sectors of society.[footnoteRef:19] To the Conservative traditionalists who had loathed the liberal reforms of Benito Juarez, the cientificos ordered society appealed to their Thomistic ideal that society must be founded on order.[footnoteRef:20] Additionally, the Social Darwinist belief that some racial groups were inherently superior to others that was essential to the thinking of the cientificos fit in perfectly with the ethnically based and socioeconomic contempt in which so many more lightly pigmented Mexicans had held their more darkly pigmented compatriots since the colonial era. Even many moderate Liberals who decried many of the principles regarding a strict order, saw this racial hierarchy as important to the functioning of society. [19: Ibid. pg. 119] [20: Ibid. pg. 119]

However, it was the promise of progress that appealed to the Liberals, and before it became clear that Diaz was to abandon any and all facets of Liberalism, they gave him the benefit of the doubt, hailing him as the disciple of Juarez, the hero of Puebla and a fine Liberal. Diaz, also brought the support of the Liberals by announcing a No Re-Election policy, a quasi-democratic element that he obeyed only once in 1880, transferring power to Manuel del Refugio Gonzlez Flores, a close confidant of his. Yet, he remained in de facto power, advising Flores until Diaz returned to power in 1884, and took power, almost uninterrupted until 1910. Recognizing the importance of this initial trans-ideological popularity, Diaz also understood, through his own experiences of the previous, the necessity of appeasing certain factions in creating (and/or destroying) a stable government in Mexico City. The first element of establishing such a government, for Diaz, was to establish control, and as written earlier, he did so by reneging on his No Re-Election promise, and over time, creating and enforcing the Porfiriata, a brutal dictatorship. Pan o Palo (bread or stick), which meant essentially accepting the consequences one had to face, on threat of violence, became the norm. However, his main instrument of power was his hierarchy, one that was strictly enforced and became the basis for most societal interactions and governmental affairs:Social Hierarchy Under Porfirio Diaz[footnoteRef:21] [21: Ibid. Pg. 119]

Tier 1: Foreigners (Foreign Investors, in particular)

Tier 2: Landed Elite/Hacienda Owners and their Urban Counterparts

Tier 3: Small and Economically Dependent Middle Class

Tier 4: Factory Laborers/Mine Workers

Tier 5: Peasants (especially Rural)

In order to truly understand Cientificismo as well as the overall structure of Porifirian society, it is important to analyze the way in which the government treated each facet of this aspect of the culture and times. The case of the treatment of foreigners, more specifically foreign investors illustrates the way in which positivism had become Cientificismo. Diaz saw foreigners as necessary to the modernization process, and understood that it was only they who possessed the adequate capital and technology[footnoteRef:22] needed to improve Mexicos standing in the world. Porfirio Diaz, although he was a mestizo with Amerindian blood, believed in the superiority of Europeans and other white foreigners. It is a commonly told tale in Mexico that he admired Europeans [so much] that he would sometimes paint his face to make it look whiter than it actually was. This obsession with being white was only a small part of Diaz [22: Ibid. Pg. 119] Examples of how each of these groups were treated differently.

Diaz mentality stemmed from a system of ideas that obviously placed Europe at the top of the hierarchy, and that Europe/Western society, as compared to the backwards society of Mexico, represented the ideal that countries should strive for. Consequently, this affected Mexicos relationship with the foreign powers of the day, including the United States. The role of stigma is obvious: for Diaz and his cientificos, Mexico was on the lower levels of the world hierarchy, and it is clear that Diaz saw Mexico as always needing to emulate these foreign nations, in both theory and practice. His beliefs were justified by the Social Darwinist thinking of his most trusted cientificos, and each action sought by Diaz was in the quest of making Mexico more European (again, more orderly). This loyalty towards the European ideal can be seen as almost fanatical in some ways, yet it is an apt illustration of what Cientificismo truly was. In short, a more European social order was necessary for the future of Mexico, and for Diaz, this was taken to an extreme degree in matters ranging from concessions to foreign investors to race relations.Although his treatment of foreigners was not the only radical change that Diaz made in trying to crate a more orderly state, it is thought to be a highlight very characteristic of his regime. Foreigners (especially Europeans and Americans), due to their wealth and experience, as well as has their background, whom Diaz felt could contribute to transform Mexico into his ideal state, received significant incentives and concessions. A main example of this was the constructions of railroads by foreigners, something Diaz saw as urgently necessary if Mexico was to emulate Europe. Wealthy Americans often received cash subsidies of 7,500 to 15,000 pesos per kilometer of railroad laid,[footnoteRef:23] often using laborers forced to work under slave-like conditions. Many Mexicans today decry the name of David Doyle Blair, an American businessman who received 8645.45 acres per mile of railroad constructed. Due to the conquest of the railroad Agricultural products could be moved, they could be sold to the highest bidder in the United States or shipped to Europe, rather than sold regionally and locally, and consequently, foreigners were able to establish a dominant business presence. This was the case with the unexploited supply of copper throughout the Sonora region of Mexico, a conquest taken by William C. Greene, who got concessions to mine over 900 kilometers for just over 100,000 dollars. With additional funding from Southern Pacific Railroad and Wells Fargo Bank, who had made significant gains in the area, as well as U.S mining companies, Greene and his partners made initial investments totaling just over 15 million dollars. By 1905, their annual dividends were almost 2 million dollars.[footnoteRef:24] Americans were not only able to secure such ludicrous financial agreements, but were essentially immune from any prosecution as special courts as well as heavy diplomatic intervention put wealthy foreigners above the law. Such special treatment that significantly drained Mexicos already dry coffers and opened it up to exploitation could be seen as unwise, but whatever was needed to appease the foreigners was seen as necessary to create order and progress. Justified through the aforementioned pseudo-science, this appeasement was the epitome of the new positivism. [23: Ibid. pg. 119] [24: Ibid. pg. 120] You keep mentioning an ordered society what does this mean in practice?

Although he put foreigners at the top of the hierarchy, the landed elite of the haciendas, as well as their counterparts who had become an institution was not too far below. However, they posed more of a complex problem as they possessed the financial and military resources necessary to overthrow a central government,[footnoteRef:25] as seen in the 1821-1876 era. Initially, most upper class supported the Porfiriata, due to Diaz promise of order. He also sought to entice them with the concept of added revenues and benefits through access to world markets, stimulated and augmented by foreign technology and assistance.[footnoteRef:26] From a legal perspective, he sought to intervene in disputes between various factions of haciendas, which sought to exert political and socioeconomic influence on the state and national levels. Through his arbitration of such conflicts, Diaz was able to exert his own influence and gain the favor of each group, while maintaining peace. Similarly to his special legal treatment for foreign investors, he afforded the landed elite liberties forbidden to any other Mexicans. This is best seen in the different ways two important dissidents were treated by the Diaz government: Francisco Madero and Ricardo Flores Magon.[footnoteRef:27] The former, a noted member of the Liberal elite was allowed to organized anti-Diaz support and encourage his friends and associates to run against the Porfiriata-favored candidate. Only in 1910, as Madero was on the verge of victory in the presidential election against Diaz, was he arrested. In comparison, Magon, a writer/publisher from humble middle class origins, was arrested multiple times in Mexico City, and faced solitary confinement for more than a month with a single light in the cell.[footnoteRef:28] Additionally, he was banned from publishing, and faced a murder threat from Diaz henchmen. It is clear that Madero received far more lenient treatment due to his socio-economic status. [25: Ibid. pg. 120] [26: Ibid. pg. 121] [27: Ibid. pg. 121] [28: Ibid. pg. 121] Mexican demographic context might be helpful for many readers. Who are their counterparts?

On the subject of the middle class, it is important to understand that they were relatively small, and mostly occupied professions such as medicine, law and engineering. Their opposition came from their purchase of various newspapers, each with their own mildly anti-Diaz message. Such a purchase allowed a citizen to declare their political sympathies and donate some money to the cause. The cientificos caught on to this benign form of resistance, and advised Diaz that he needed to create a positive image of his regime. In doing so, he gave government subsidies to those publications that would help him in the creation of the image (by 1905, there would be only 3 newspapers that did not receive such inducements)[footnoteRef:29] and over time, there were harsh repercussions for the anti-Diaz newspapers. This type of censorship was the image of pan o palo. [29: Ibid. pg. 122]

The factory and mine workers simply did not receive the trickle down effects of the concessions given to the foreign investors who owned the operations. They made fewer wage than their American counterparts and often did not receive any sort of public services, as the factories operated without any sort of federal interference.[footnoteRef:30] When they tried to organize into labor unions, Porfirian forces harshly repressed them, and in one instance, policy shot between 50 and 70 people to restore order after a riot. [30: Ibid. pg. 120]

However, the harshest treatment was reserved for the rural (mostly indigenous/mestizo) poor, who saw vast tracts of their land taken away, as a result of the tierra baldio (wasteland) law. Any land that was not producing cash crops was thought to be wasteland and could be handled in whatever way the Diaz government saw fit. The new owners, who were most likely landed elite or foreign agricultural companies gave very few options to the former villagers, most of which lead back to poverty. The greatest loss of all was the sense of autonomy and independence, and once in control of their labor structure, they were now reduced to a status slightly higher than indentured servitude. Additionally, if there were any violence or hint of uprising by such peasants, they would be brutally repressed by the rurales, a loosely organized police force under Diaz made up of bandits, who were given money to keep order in the rural areas. They acted as judge, jury and executioner on orders of Diaz and the cientificos themselves. Combined with the losses of land to railroad companies, by 1910, more than 96 percent of peasants had lost their land.[footnoteRef:31] While this not only was a economic tactic to repress the poor and continue to help the elites and foreign investors, this was clearly a way to assert the whiteness that he desired. This can be seen as even in the cities, the mestizo and indigenous people were often removed from their slums and off the street, especially in Mexico City, the site of Diaz new European capital. [31: Ibid. pg. 123]

Through Cientificismo, industrialists, both foreign investors and the landed elite, as well as the cientificos alike could point to sharply increased production and profit under this hierarchical system, as well as a newfound stability never seen in Mexico. Yet this order and progress, if it can even called that, came at a steep price, and millions sunk into poverty, as Diaz continued to try to create a more European state.

Anti-Positivism, or Anti-Cientificismo Leads to Opposition and Revolution

By the early 1900s, a diverse group of aforementioned had become opposed to the policies and practices of Porfirio Diaz and his cientificos. Many of those who had supported his purposed positivist ideas were now alienated by various policies, and others were simply could not stand the harsh treatment they received at the hands of this brutal regime. The Mexican elites were angry that their influence over societal and governmental affairs had been eroded by the concessions given to the foreign investor class who were able to hold the Mexican government as their puppet. Additionally, they saw the cientificos obsession with becoming European elites as severely anti-Mexican and an attack on very core ideals of Mexican tradition that they stood for. The advantages they had gained from access to open markets, as well as the peace and order that came through the political stability, simply impressed them of being of lesser value as time went on. For the working class, the lack of any sort of living wage and terrible working conditions in foreign-owned factories as well as the inability to form a union was unacceptable. However, in any revolution, there is widespread popular support as well as intellectual support, and while the aforementioned groups had some role, the middle class and peasants served as the brains and force in the anti-Cientifico movement, which later was manifested in the Mexican Revolution. As the middle classes were not the oft-repressed indigenous poor yet not members of the hacienda elite, they played a unique role as opposition. Many of these people were, due to their roles as educated members of society, were highly intellectual. Many were interested philosophies of Ancient Greece and Rome, and other scholarly works of Europe, and began to use theses works to think about a new vision for Mexico. Young like-minded philsophers/public intellectuals and political activists founded El Ateneo de Juventud (The Athenian Youth), an organization to discuss ideals that were anti-Positivist and how they could be a part of their country. One of its leaders, Jose Vasconcelos, angered at the racist policies of Diaz, wrote La Raza Cosmica, a work that outlined the power of indigenous and mestizo peoples in which he specifically sought to refute and strike out at the Social Darwinist policies of the cientificos.[footnoteRef:32] [32: Lozano, Gabriel V. "EL ATENEO DE LA JUVENTUD Y LA REVOLUCIN MEXICANA." Enciclopedia De La Filosofa Mexicana De Siglo XX Pg. 5] It might be constructive to give more detail as to the history of actions that groups took, history of opposition movements etc.

Most importantly, el Ateneo saw the Porfiriata as a perversion of the very same European theories, (Spencer, Comte, and Darwin) which it claimed to be based on, and instead, called for a society with more humanity, rather than positivistic, scientific influences. This could only be achieved in a democracy, and in seeking to create such a movement towards a more open society, the middle class found a leader, ironically, in a member of the hacienda elite: Francisco Madero.[footnoteRef:33] A longtime opponent of Diaz, Madero sought a democracy that emphasized free elections and social change, something the intellectual middle class had yearned for in the form of new leadership and possibly a Constitution (an obviously Liberal concept).[footnoteRef:34] In Madero and democracy, the middle-class saw an opportunity to establish themselves as a key element of Mexican society, with the ability to create social change and become a part of the fabric. His calls against Diaz mobilized the middle/intellectual class and leading scholars and journalists became prominent figures of the Mexican Revolution. [footnoteRef:35] [33: Benjamin, Thomas.La Revolucion Mexico's Great Revolution as Memory, Myth & History. Austin: U of Texas, 2000. Pg. 1916] [34: Werner, Michael S. "Francisco Madero." Concise Encyclopedia of Mexico. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn, 2001. 345-46.] [35: Ibid. ]

The Mexican Revolution, as a whole, is seen by many to be a revolution of the poor, indigenous peasants, and their struggle for land reform, a concept also advocated for by Francisco Madero. Yet, Pancho Villa and Emiliano Zapata, became the true faces of the Revolution, seeking to fight against the terrible treatment the rural peasants had received in terms of land takeaways. For them, the democracy represented a chance to restore their livelihoods, and return to the way of life that they had once enjoyed before the Porfiriata, as opposed to the more intellectual opposition by Madero and the middle class. The rallying cry for the peasants became Tierra y Libertad, literally land and liberty, the two most important things that they had lost under the regime of Porfirio Diaz and his Cientificismo.

Conclusion

When Auguste Comtes positivism took hold in Mexico, it was first an ideology that sought to create a more progressive society through educational reform under the watch of Dr. Gabino Barreda. For Barreda, what he sought was an emphasis on the process of scientific inquiry, as well as seeking to solve the problems of society through this method to create order and progress. Yet, during the reign of Porfirio Diaz and his cientificos, this emphasis on scientific thought, as well as the notion of order and progress, all parts of Comtes original positivist theories was co-opted into a new ideology: Cientificismo, something far removed from Comtian positivism. In the name of order and progress, some gains were made for the upper class elites, yet the cost was great to most levels of Mexican society. In using pseudo-scientific rationale based on the theories of Comte, Spencer and Darwin through which there was a necessity to Europeanize Mexico, the Diaz regime opened up the nation to increasing amounts of foreign exploitation, took away millions of acres of land from millions of poor indigenous peasants, as well as violated the human rights of countless lower class citizens. Reacting to these policies, and not Positivism in itself, the middle, lower and intellectual classes began to sow the seeds of Revolution against the Porfiriata. Sow the seeds of Revolution One or two sentences detailing how so?

At some stage in the paper perhaps it would be interesting to put Mexico in the context of the international system. You could compare ideological transitions in Mexico to what was occurring in the rest of the international system, particularly the rest of Latin America since you mention the region as a whole at the beginning.

Bibliography"Auguste Comte - Biography."Auguste Comte. European Graduate School, .Benjamin, Thomas.La Revolucion Mexico's Great Revolution as Memory, Myth & History. Austin: U of Texas, 2000.Chasteen, John Charles.Born in Blood and Fire: A Concise History of Latin America. New York: Norton, 2001.Gilson, Gregory D., Irving W. Levinson, and Eduardo Mendieta. From Positivism to Anti-Positivism in Mexico: Some Notable Continuities Latin American Positivism: New Historical and Philosophical EssaysGilson, Gregory D., Irving W. Levinson, and Eduardo Mendieta. "Positively Disastrous: The Comtian Legacy in Mexico."Latin American Positivism: New Historical and Philosophical EssaysKrauze, Enrique, and Hank Heifetz.Mexico: Biography of Power: A History of Modern Mexico, 1810-1996. New York, NY: HarperPerennial, 1998. Print.Larrain, Jorge.The Concept of Ideology. London: Hutchinson, 1979.Lozano, Gabriel V. "EL ATENEO DE LA JUVENTUD Y LA REVOLUCIN MEXICANA."Enciclopedia De La Filosofa Mexicana De Siglo XXMill, J.S, August Comte and Positivism , Project Gutenberg, 1865.Ramos, Samuel, Peter G. Earle, and Thomas B. Irving.Profile of Man and Culture in Mexico. Austin: U of Texas, 1975.Reinhardt, Kurt F., Positivism in Mexico El Positivismo en Mxico. Primer Tomo by Leopoldo Zea (Review) The Americas, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Jul., 1945), pp. 93-98.Schneider, Ronald M.Latin American Political History: Patterns and Personalities. Boulder, CO: Westview, 2007.Werner, Michael S. "Francisco Madero." Concise Encyclopedia of Mexico. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn, 2001. 345-46.