Summary
Highlights
José Pedro Barrán explains that he uses "history of sensibilities" instead of "history of mentalities" because "sensibility" is a more relatable and understood term in everyday language. His focus is on the dominant feelings and sentiments of a particular era, as well as the values society embraced or rejected, rather than just dominant values. He believes this approach provides a more accurate reflection of his research.
Barrán emphasizes that good historical research, especially cultural history, needs to incorporate anthropology. He sees historians as "failed anthropologists" who must engage with anthropological perspectives to truly understand the 'other' and foster tolerance. He states that anthropology enriches historical inquiry by providing new questions and paradigms.
Barrán discusses the unexpected success of his book, "Historia de la Sensibilidad," which sold 11,000 copies in Uruguay—a rare feat for a historical book. He attributes this to the book's novel thematic approach in Uruguayan historiography, exploring topics like games, carnival, reactions to death, and sexuality. The first volume, set in a youthful society, resonated with young readers, while the second volume, detailing the shift to a more puritanical society, resonated with mature women who saw their own experiences reflected.
The discussion shifts to José Pedro Varela, a key figure in Uruguayan education reform. Barrán describes Varela as the "Uruguayan Sarmiento," who promoted secular, free, and compulsory primary education. Varela, a positivist philosopher, opposed clericalism and advocated for teaching children discipline and modern values to transform them from "indolent gauchos" into disciplined, working citizens. However, Varela condemned physical punishment, emphasizing the importance of internalizing values rather than external force.
Barrán notes that despite ideological differences, the liberal bourgeoisie (represented by Varela) and the Catholic Church in Uruguay shared common ground in their push for puritanism and social control. The church, having historically focused on controlling the 'soul' rather than the 'body,' found commonality with Varela's approach to moral instruction. However, the church’s political influence in Uruguay was significantly less than in other Latin American countries, evidenced by the late establishment of its first bishopric in 1879.
Uruguay experienced a rapid secularization process, visible in the easy approval of divorce laws (1907) and the diminishing role of the priest in favor of the doctor as a moral guide. This modernization, starting in the 1880s, was also driven by external forces and large-scale immigration. Immigrants, though some initially Catholic, brought a new focus on economic advancement and contributed to a distinctively cosmopolitan Uruguayan identity, highly receptive to foreign influences and even celebrating French and Italian national holidays.
Barrán explains how this era of modernization and cosmopolitanism led to a period of intolerance for diversity in social behavior, even as ideological freedom was respected. An example is the 1911-1913 municipal decree in Montevideo requiring all building facades to be painted gray, a stark contrast to the diverse colors of the 19th century. This quest for uniformity and a preference for the 'middle path' or 'mesocratic' tone, where any deviation was seen as a "sin," has deep historical roots in Uruguayan society, contributing to its reputation for being 'gray' and middle-class, even in modern times.