“Language,” writes Antonio de Nebrija in Gramática castellana , commissioned by Queen Isabel at the dawn of colonialism, “has always gone hand in hand with empire.” 22 Th us, Gutiérrez’s account of the one language of Babel elucidates an important historical characteristic of the nature of domination. Dominative power is not simply realized and sustained through the threat or use of violence. Th e oppressor can dominate simply by controlling the terms of the discourse through which humanity constructs its understanding of reality. Antonio Gramsci alludes to this mechanism of control when he describes hegemony as the moment in which the dominant bloc “also pos[es]
the questions around which the struggle rages.” 23 Within the hegemonic moment, the language of critique eff ectively disappears.
It is with Gramsci’s concept of hegemony in view that the emergence of liberation theology might best be understood. For, in many ways, liberation theology irrupted into history as a reaction against the hegemonic regime of the twentieth-century
“development project” ushered into existence by US President Harry Truman. In order to grasp the signifi cance of this project, it is necessary to consider something of the historical context out of which it emerged.
21 Ibid., 198.
22 Ibid., 197.
23 Antonio Gramsci and Nathan Hoare , Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci ( New
York : International , 1971 ), 182 .
19 Gutiérrez, “Th eological Language,” 197.
20 Ibid.
Liberation Th eology and the Language of Sustainable Development 123
By the end of the Second World War, it had become apparent that the colonial project, begun by Spain in 1492, could no longer be maintained. A new paradigm was needed. It was Truman, presiding over the ascendency of US imperialistic power, who inaugurated a plan for reshaping the relationships between the Global North and South in the wake of colonialism’s collapse. In his inaugural address in 1949, Truman lays out his vision for US foreign policy. 24 Th ere he proclaims, “We must embark on a bold new program for making the benefi ts of our scientifi c advances and industrial progress available for the improvement and growth of underdeveloped areas.” 25 He continues in this vein, asserting,
Th e United States is pre-eminent among nations in the development of industrial and scientifi c techniques. Th e material resources which we can aff ord to use for assistance of other peoples are limited. But our imponderable resources in technical knowledge are constantly growing and are inexhaustible. I believe that we should make available to peace-loving peoples the benefi ts of our store of technical knowledge in order to help them realize their aspirations for a better life. And, in cooperation with other nations, we should foster capital investment in areas needing development. 26
Truman’s charge was soon echoed throughout the nominal First World with the United Nations proclaiming the 1960s “the decade of development.” 27
Th us, by the 1960s, the “language” of development appeared to unify the world around a political economic paradigm aimed, ostensibly, at correcting the injustices wrought by colonialism. With its programs of modernization, the development project would shepherd the former colonies into a new era of fl ourishing. Th us, development, as Pope Paul VI observes in his 1967 encyclical Populorum Progressio , became the “new name for peace.” 28
Liberationists, however, found that this construal of peace appeared more in line with an imperialistic pax Romana than the peace off ered by Christ. For one, the language of development failed to capture the immediacy and decisiveness of the social and cultural transformation required in the regions of the Global South devastated by crushing poverty. Along these lines, Gutiérrez argues, the developmentalist approach was “synonymous with timid measures, really ineff ective in the long run and counterproductive to achieving a real transformation.” 29
24 Harry Truman, “Inaugural Address: January 20, 1949,” Th e American Presidency Project . Online:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=13282 (accessed September 27, 2016).
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid.
27 See UN Intellectual History Project Briefi ng Note 7, “Th e UN and Development Policies” (2010).
Online: http://www.unhistory.org/briefi ng/7UNandDevStrategies.pdf (accessed September 28, 2016).
28 Paul VI, Populorum Progressio: Encyclical of Paul VI on the Development of Peoples , §76. Online: http://
w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_26031967_populorum.html (accessed September 27, 2016). Paul, himself, was critical of the manner in which the development project reduced development to economic growth. For a helpful commentary on Paul’s views, see Donal Dorr , Option for the Poor and for the Earth ( Maryknoll, NY : Orbis , 2012 ), 155–78 .
29 Gutiérrez, Th eology of Liberation , 17.
In truth, according to liberationists like Gutiérrez, who engaged with the relevant critical social theories of their time, the structures and dynamisms of the development project led to the under development of Latin America (and the broader Global South). 30 Seen from this perspective, developmentalism appeared as a form of neocolonialism aimed at “maintaining the disparity” between the Global North and South. 31 Th us, the language of development actually functioned to obfuscate the true nature of the development project. Indeed, in the Marxian sense of the term, the language of development was an ideology that produced an inversion of reality (e.g., development produced underdevelopment; the dissolution of colonialism produced neocolonialism).
For these reasons, liberation theology called for a rejection of the development project. According to Gutiérrez, “only a radical break from the status quo ,” 32 that is, a paradigm shift away from the structures of developmentalism, would bring about the necessary transformation. In Gutiérrez’s view, it was the language of liberation that best captured the urgency and dramatic nature of this break. As he writes, “Liberation in fact expresses the inescapable moment of radical change which is foreign to the ordinary use of the term development . Only in the context of such a process can a policy of development be eff ectively implemented, have any real meaning, and avoid misleading formulations.” 33 Early liberation theology, thus, made use of critical social theory in an eff ort to challenge the hegemony of developmentalism and proclaim the need (and instantiation) of a new historical project.
In light of the foregoing analysis, the character of liberation theology can now be further clarifi ed. Liberationist discourse, as I noted at the beginning of this essay, affi rms that love of God must be expressed especially through love of the poor and oppressed. However, in working to clarify the demands of this love, liberation theology also seeks to elucidate the root causes of poverty and oppression so that the people of God, through the power of the Holy Spirit, might move to confront and transform these realities. In explicating the causes of dehumanizing inequity, liberation theology adopts a critical socio-analytical approach aimed at contesting the hegemony of the dominant powers. Th is fi nal point is observable in the manner in which (especially early) liberation theology sought to challenge and interrupt the “unifying” language of
31 Th is is in reference to the infamous assertion of US Undersecretary of State George Kennan that
we have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population. Th is disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security…. We need not deceive ourselves that we can aff ord today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction. (Emphasis is mine.)
See Section VII in “Review of Current Trends in US Foreign Policy,” in Foreign Relations of the United States , vol. 1 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Offi ce, 1948). Online: https://
history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1948v01p2/d4 (accessed September 28, 2016).
32 Gutiérrez, Th eology of Liberation , 17.
33 Ibid.
30 Th e most famous of these theories is the long discredited theory of dependency; see André Gunder
Frank , “ Th e Development of Underdevelopment ,” Monthly Review , 18 . 4 ( 1966 ): 17–31 . While the theory itself is outmoded, this does not mean that the fact of dependency is false. On this point, see Arthur McGovern , Liberation Th eology and Its Critics: Toward an Assessment ( Maryknoll, NY : Orbis , 1989 ), especially 164–76 .
Liberation Th eology and the Language of Sustainable Development 125
development in the mid-twentieth century. In eff ect, liberationists worked to construct a new language capable of posing critical questions with regard to the crisis of material poverty and, in so doing, raised the cry of those whose voices the architects of the development project were attempting to absorb. With these points in view, it is now possible to begin to consider the ways in which liberation theology, with its critical methodology and its commitment to working to take the crucifi ed peoples down from their crosses, might begin to approach today’s global eco-social crisis.