In her book, Katherine Gordy has produced a well-written, highly accessible study of Cuban ideology in which she probes the sometimes painful and contentious discussions in Cuba’s public spaces. She explores revolutionary debates among the country’s leaders and intellectuals regarding the framework of conduct and the purposes and goals of high culture—poetry, literature, art, music, and film. Gordy argues that especially throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the nature of the revolution’s ideology remained somewhat suspended within ongoing negotiations, primarily among the island’s revolutionary elites, over its continually changing focus. Virtually all involved in this communal probing of the “living” ideology understood well the fundamental rule clearly outlined in Fidel Castro’s 1961 Words to the Intellectuals: “Within the Revolution, everything; against the Revolution, nothing.”
In Living Ideology in Cuba we see the revolutionary leadership clearly delineating the parameters of this debate. The regime ensured that deliberations took place firmly in the context of consensus—the end goal was committed conformity and not diversity of opinions. Although Gordy correctly notes that this debate over strategy and “everyday practice” (p. 4) at times included the average Cuban, the deeply substantive debates revolved primarily around decision makers and intellectuals, most of whom, at least initially, were committed to the Marxist version of the revolution. The regime viewed both intellectual neutrality and intellectual autonomy as suspect. Likewise, the Cuban press understood well that “investigative” reporting necessarily avoided any form of ideological diversity. Thus, for instance, reporters dared not question the validity of official statistics or reports. A Union of Journalists in Cuba 2000 report illustrates this position: “The Cuban press proclaims with pride that it is objective, but not impartial” (p. 96).
Gordy has provided us with a lively, engaging book. It is both informative and provocative, and it raises as many questions as it answers. A number of analytical issues caught my attention. For instance, the author never clearly defines the term “ideology.” She argues that ideology provides structure—that it is never static, that it is “living” and evolving. But we are still left pondering precisely how she defines this concept, which can be elusive and, in some usages, loaded and controversial. For some thinkers, an ideology offers an interpretation of human behavior in the state of nature. It then provides a framework—drawing on its interpretation of the individual in his or her natural state—for creating a just society. Viewed in this way, ideologies provide differing interpretations of human nature and differing definitions of justice. They instruct regarding the proper and just role of the state in society and the proper and just role of the individual vis-à-vis the state.
Proponents of classical liberalism, for example, generally view the individual in his or her natural state as selfishly motivated and competitive, yet capable of selfless acts of generosity. Liberals thus envision a society that draws upon the human inclination toward self-interest and competitiveness to promote a resourceful, productive society of self-sufficient citizens. Moreover, a liberal model often offers incentives that draw upon the generous and empathetic side of the human spirit. Classical liberalism also views the state suspiciously, as inherently inclined to abuse power, and it envisions a just state as limited in its reach and constrained by law in its authority.
Karl Marx, however, interpreted the individual in his or her natural state as inherently more communal oriented, less self-absorbed, perhaps more generous and ultimately even perfectible. Marxism thus envisions a society in which, ultimately, once citizens learn their appropriate role, the state would vanish altogether, and citizens would live in such a way that comes natural to them—in an egalitarian environment of selfless, communal-oriented individuals. To achieve this, however, Marx believed that “ideologies” (like liberalism)—understood as self-interested weapons wielded by the bourgeoisie at the expense of the proletariat—had to be overcome.
Until 1959, most Cuban elites, including José Martí and Ignacio Agramonte y Loynaz, were steeped in classical liberalism. They envisioned Cuba as becoming a society centered on a recognition of natural rights, limited government, and an unfettered and competitive market. Castro himself, throughout the 1950s and into the first year of the Cuban Revolution, embraced many of the most cherished goals of liberalism. The challenge for the Cuban regime, then, was to transition with intellectual and political leaders favorable to liberalism, but also with citizens accustomed to authoritarianism and abuse, into a Marxist society. How could this be done, and how could that transition be justified in the eyes of the citizens?
Cuba thus witnessed a decade of intense elite discussion about what elements from the old couplet of liberalism and authoritarianism would fit within the Marxist model and what would not. Put more simply, what would qualify as “within” the revolution and what would not? In fact, as this book documents in fascinating detail, this discussion continued over the next half century. In the end, the principles of classical liberalism were wholly discarded; however, many forms of authoritarianism were firmly preserved. Thus, as Gordy argues throughout the book, the regime drew heavily upon portions of Cuba’s historical legacy. “Ideologies,” the author writes, “are always adjusting to circumstances . . . to reflect popular experiences and the principles that arise from them” (p. 39).
I would suggest, however, that strategies that regimes adopt to inculcate an ideology are constantly evolving and adapting to new circumstances in an effort to operationalize a particular vision of that ideology. But the underlying ideology itself—its understanding of the essential nature of human beings, its values and priorities, and its goals—is more resistant to change than are the political strategies to operationalize it. Much of politics in revolutionary Cuba involved the process of transforming institutions and culture—values, attitudes, beliefs—to try to make them more appropriate and supportive of the ideology of Marxism. To my eye, the evidence laid out in this book shows quite clearly that the regime engaged elites to debate the strategies—what to allow, what to prohibit, what to prioritize—and less to debate the ideology itself.
Ultimately, however, Cuba faced the prospect that the ideology around which it had built its revolutionary society itself would collapse. What makes the case study of Cuba so enthralling is the rigid unwillingness of the Cuban government to alter any aspect of the Cuban model that would jeopardize the ideology. This unyielding view came under its greatest threat in the late 1980s when Cuba was cast adrift by the former Eastern-bloc countries and the Soviet Union. Although communist China in the 1970s and communist Vietnam in the 1980s sacrificed their ideology when they introduced into their societies a rapidly expanding market, Castro resolutely refused this economic policy option.
Yet for Cuban leaders, the introduction of market reforms became increasingly unavoidable. Although Che Guevara had written in 1979 that the leadership rejected material incentives as a “primary instrument of motivation” because that would impose the power of economics “over man’s relationships” (p. 111), the regime recognized the desperate need to persuade Cubans to raise labor production levels dramatically. One possibility discussed was to label extra work “voluntary” and pay workers accordingly. The leadership understood that once Marxism is coupled with the market, the ideology becomes something else. The great conundrum for Cuban leaders was that by the end of the twentieth century, Marxism appeared, more and more clearly, to be a failure. It profoundly misinterpreted the individual in the “state of nature” and overestimated the malleability of culture. Most Marxist states had closed their borders, forcing people to live under their ideological terms.
Gordy’s book is especially interesting since, even today, while ever more fully embracing a tightly controlled market economy, the Cuban government struggles to define and justify its ideology to its citizens. The relation of ideology to Cuban politics continues to fascinate onlookers, and Living Ideology in Cuba helps us to understand it.
