Anticlericalism in Mexico’s Revolutionary Project of Social Control: A Historiographical Analysis
Project Case Study: Historiographical Synthesis and Scholarly Curation
Executive Summary: This comprehensive historiographical essay evaluates forty-four years of academic literature surrounding post-revolutionary Mexican anticlericalism and state-enforced projects of social control. Tracking the evolution of historical framing across three distinct scholarly phases, the analysis charts the transition from traditional, state-centric functionalism toward multidisciplinary and intersectional methodologies. The study contrasts macro-level institutional power dynamics against localized microhistories, examining how cultural, feminist, and postmodern frameworks have redefined modern understanding of religious resistance, state legitimacy, and national identity formation during the aftermath of the Mexican Revolution and the Cristero Rebellion.
Note: This research paper was originally developed as a core analytical framework for a Graduate History seminar at Arizona State University.
Antonio D Torres-Moreno
Matthew Casey
HST 598
3/4/2025
Anticlericalism
in Mexico’s Revolutionary Project of Social Control
Anticlericalism during Mexico in
1910 revolution and its aftermath was a pivotal element of the government's
efforts to diminish the Catholic Church's influence, particularly through
legislative measures in the 1917 constitution's articles 3, 5, 27, and 130.
These laws sought to secularize public life, restrict church property, and
nationalize education, which in turn provoked violent reactions from religious
communities. Historians traditionally viewed this period as a clash between the
state's secularizing agenda and the church's entrenched power, with scholars
like Jean A. Meyer emphasizing the state's consolidation of power.[1] However, recent
scholarship, such as Gema Kloppe-Santamaria's work, has expanded this narrative
by exploring the social and cultural dimensions of anticlericalism, revealing
its impact on Indigenous communities, gender roles, and national identity.[2]
This essay evaluates the scope of
the literature on this topic over the past four decades. Early studies tended
to focus on state actions and reactionary events from religious communities. By
the 1990’s scholars began to shift the conversation. Contemporary writers have
adopted an intersectional approach, examining not only the methods but also the
complexity of anticlericalism as a tool of social control.[3] This essay argues that
while early studies focused on state actions, contemporary scholarship
underscores the multifaceted nature of anticlericalism, highlighting its
profound implications for national identity and social order. By analyzing
these shifts in historiographical perspectives, this essay aims to contribute
to a deeper understanding of how anticlericalism shaped Mexico's revolutionary
project and its enduring legacy.
The earliest works on the
state-church conflict in post-revolutionary Mexico established a foundational
framework for understanding anticlericalism as a tool of secular state-building.
Meyer, adopting a functionalist approach in his 1976 analysis, framed
anticlericalism as a pragmatic necessity for the revolutionary government to
consolidate power and modernize society.[4] In contrast, Donald J. Mabry
complicated this narrative by arguing that the state’s oppression stemmed from
both ideological and pragmatic motivations to control civil society.[5] Jrade later shifted the
focus further, employing comparative analysis to highlight resistance not only from
the church but also from diverse social groups, broadening the definition of anticleric
“victims”.[6] Together, these works redefined
the state-church conflict as a dynamic power struggle, rather than a simplistic
ideological clash.
Meyer’s 1978 study of
post-revolution Mexico exemplified his functionalist approach. Analyzing the
state’s consolidation of power, he asserts: “…they succeeded in resolving the
problem of power, in establishing the rules of the political game in the form
in which they have survived until the present day…”.[7] His characterization of
revolutionary leaders as architects of a “modern Mexico” formed by men who “despised
ancient Mexico” reflects his emphasis on institutional power dynamics.[8] Meyer’s political-diplomatic
history prioritizes structural forces, portraying religion as a “necessary
evil” that the state needed to suppress and secure its hegemony. Meyer
concludes that “…history had to pass through the apocalypse of the Cristiada…”-
a claim that underscores his view of the conflict as an inevitable step toward
state consolidation.[9] The precedent Meyer
established in analyzing Mexico’s state-church conflict began with a functional
perspective of the conflict, positing that the emerging atheist government, traumatized
by the old regime, needed to purge any relic of it to survive and thrive in a
legacy. While Meyer’s work established a functionalist precedent, later
scholars critiqued his institutional focus for overlooking grassroots agency
and ideological nuance.
Only two years after Meyer’s work,
Mabry expanded the conversation by challenging functionalist assumptions. Though
he initially mirrored Meyer’s institutional focus—framing the conflict as a
clash between a secular state versus an intolerant church, Mabry introduced
critical complexity. He argued that the state-church conflict was multifaceted
and complex. This is the first shift from the setting Meyer first proposed, a
secular state overcoming a catholic church. He provided that “The conflict was
fought on different levels” and “The fight on the local level was different”.[10] By analyzing regional
variations and weighing competing historiographical interpretations, Mabry
exposed gaps in Meyer’s macro-level narrative. Furthermore, Mabry’s
historiography analyzed authors’ importance to the conversation and weighed
them against each other in proving that the current understating of Mexico’s
social control project needed deeper discussions.[11] Mabry’s analysis hinted at
the start of a shifting conversation on the role of anticlericalism in post
revolution Mexico. His work marked a pivotal shift toward acknowledging
anticlericalism’s multifaceted motivations, laying the groundwork for later
scholars to interrogate the interplay of ideology, pragmatism, and local agency.
While Meyer is argued to have created the foundational historiographical
perspective, Mabry can be seen in this essay as the initial step in a
progressive pattern of critical and alternative thought.
Ramon Jrade’s work, published a
decade after Meyer’s, further dismantled functionalist frameworks through a
comparative regional analysis. Written roughly a decade after Meyer’s work,
Jrade still shared early interpretations of the established power struggle between
the Secular state and Catholic Church. However, like Mabry, Jrade was critical
of the exiting scholarship and in his historiography argued for a bottom-up
approach where he studied the Mexican state of Jalisco using a comparative
regional analysis methodology. The shift in methodology also comes with a
different type of history. No longer just relying on military, diplomatic and important
political documents to explain events, Jrade’s work encompassed social and
economic history with some elements of sociology. His purpose was critically examining
traditional authors and providing a new comparative methodology. He brought different
ideological stances from different authors who covered the Cristero Rebellion
to conclude that, “The Cristero insurrection was not a nationwide phenomenon”.[12] His methodology
challenged Meyer’s top-down institutionalism and Mabry’s dualistic framing,
instead emphasizing fragmented power struggles across Mexico’s diverse
localities.
Building on the foundational work
of Meyer, Mabry, and Jrade, Adrian Bantjes and Marjorie Becker continue the conversation on
Church-State relations and anticlericalism, but with a shift in framing that
emphasizes broader social implications. Writing in 1994 and 1997, respectively,
Becker and Bantjes still provide state-based analysis; however, their
methodologies narrow in focus, incorporating cultural, feminist, Marxist, and
hegemonic perspectives that intertwine more deeply with sociological
explanations.[13]
Becker, relying on a theoretical framework of hegemony and feminism, argues
that the state's secularization efforts in Michoacán did not simply fail.
Instead, she contends that these efforts were instrumental in establishing
post-revolutionary hegemony.[14] In contrast, Bantjes
employs a comparative approach, asserting that secularization was ultimately
proved unsuccessful.[15] Both authors thus reflect
a significant shift in scholarship on anticlericalism and social control,
indicating a more nuanced understanding of these dynamics.
Becker successfully breaks away
from early historiographic perspectives on the state-church conflict by adding a
nuanced understanding of Mexico’s anticlerical project. Early historians like
Mabry and Jrade began gradually moved beyond Meyer’s functionalist perspective,
yet Becker further refines this by employing microhistory as a methodological
tool. This approach enables her to explore how anticlericalism manifested in
the lives of women and peasants—categories largely untouched by her
predecessors and now adding critical depth to the state-church conflict
analysis. An important layer in her work is the application of a critical
paradigm grounded in hegemonic theory. By framing the state-church conflict
through feminist and hegemonic dimensions, Becker sets a new trend in scholarly
discourse. Although she still considers the conflict a power struggle, she
concludes, “Nonetheless, to establish hegemony Cardenas Gambled…Sixty years
later, the hegemonic state Cardenas established remains intact. Who is to say
his gamble did not pay off?”.[16] This assertion highlights
that Cardenismo, underscored by complex social interactions, successfully
contributed to the formation of revolutionary post-revolutionary hegemony. Moreover,
Becker begins to implement the bottom-up approach advocated by Jrade by
analyzing the roles of women and peasants during the post-revolutionary period.
While Meyer illustrated the peasants of Mexico as helpless victims in Mexico’s
power struggle, Becker argues that women actively influenced the hegemonic
project Mexico sought to implement. This represents a transitory shift where
the methodology becomes more multidisciplinary, fostering an evolving, critical
perspective.
Three years after Becker’s publication,
Bantjes continued the shifting trend of evolving interpretations of social
control. However, unlike Becker, he contends that the state’s efforts to
initiate a cultural revolution ultimately failed, employing a cultural and
comparative approach in his analysis.[17] Bantjes carefully
examines the government’s campaigns aimed at eradicating traditional
Catholicism through iconoclasm, the promotion of secular ideals, and the
suppression of church activities. Though Becker and Bantjes may disagree on
whether hegemony was fully established and on the extent of success in
secularization, their works contribute critical perspectives on the
state-church conflict narrative. Together, they create a richer, more layered
history of anticlericalism that acknowledges the complexities of power,
resistance, and social identity in post-revolutionary Mexico.
Beginning with Butler’s work in
2009, contemporary scholarship on anticlerical efforts has shifted toward
emphasizing diversity and complexity, rejecting earlier explanations of the
conflict as a straightforward state-versus-Church struggle. Matthew Butler
contends that anticlericalism should not be framed merely as a clash between
the secular state and the Catholic Church, as earlier scholars suggested.
Instead, he argues that anticlericalism manifested within the Roman Catholic
Church itself, often targeting Mexican Catholics who deviated from orthodox
practices.[18]
Over a decade later, Kloppe-Santamaría further develops this idea, arguing that
the violence in Puebla was not the result of an absent state presence or high
crime rates.[19]
Rather, the state's efforts to secularize public sectors were perceived as
illegitimate, even at the local level, leading to violent consequences.[20] The literature from more
recent authors adopts an almost postmodern perspective, questioning earlier
frameworks that viewed anticlericalism as a conflict rooted in a secular
nation's opposition to the church. Instead, contemporary scholars emphasize case
studies and local interpretations, focusing on the experiences of those
affected in the post-revolutionary era.
Contemporary scholarship, emerging 12
years after Bantjes work, became fully intersectional. While earlier authors
like Becker and Bantjes led the way by integrating nontraditional lenses such
as feminism and Gramscian hegemony to challenge the dominance of revolutionary
functionalism, Butler introduced a distinctly postmodern perspective. Butler’s
critique of previous scholarship on revolutionary anticlericalism he stated as overly
reductionist, Butler asserts “firstly, it obscures the existence of a
dissenting, albeit minoritarian, voice within Mexican Catholicism; secondly,
making anticlericalism the dividing line between reason and faith obscures the
fact that some Mexican revolutionaries, too, were involved in sectarian
struggles with Catholics over religious purity”.[21] Revolutionary
functionalism, highlighted in Meyer’s analysis, involved consolidating power
and maintaining it; here we see Butler contest this perspective.
Kloppe-Santamaría, writing nearly a
decade after Butler, further develops these critical perspectives through her micro
historical study of lynchings in post-revolutionary Puebla. She studied
lynchings post-revolution in the state of Puebla and argued that the violence
was not a product of state absence but rather their presence.[22] Like Butler, she
underscores the complexity and localized nature of anticlerical conflict. By
drawing on archival evidence, including court documents, municipal records, and
newspaper reports, Kloppe-Santamaría demonstrates how local communities
negotiated and sometimes resisted the imposition of state power, reframing
extralegal violence as a reflection of contested legitimacy rather than the
absence of governance. In doing so, she not only reinforces the shift away from
traditional, state-centered narratives but also reveals how religious
identities, communal loyalties, and official policies intersected to produce
highly localized forms of social control and resistance, a key theme that
aligns with the broader argument of this essay.
This essay has argued that
historiographical perspectives on Mexican anticlericalism evolved in three
distinct phases: early works by Meyer, Mabry, and Jrade focused on
state-centric analyses; a transitional shift with Becker and Bantjes introduced
multidisciplinary frameworks; and contemporary scholarship by Butler and
Kloppe-Santamaría underscored the multifaceted nature of anticlericalism.
Spanning forty-four years of scholarship, this progression reveals how Meyer’s
initial functionalist perspective, which framed anticlericalism as a tool for
state consolidation—gradually gave way to counternarratives emphasizing
complexity and local agency.
Meyer’s functionalist approach
established the foundational narrative of the state-church conflict as a
struggle for institutional dominance. Mabry and Jrade complicated this
narrative, reframing the conflict as a dynamic power struggle shaped by regional
and social tensions. The second phase, marked by Becker and Bantjes, expanded
the discourse through feminist, cultural, and hegemonic lenses, highlighting
broader social implications of anticlerical policies. Finally, contemporary
scholars like Butler and Kloppe-Santamaría fundamentally questioned the nature
of anticlericalism itself. By adopting postmodern perspectives, they
prioritized minority voices, localized methodologies, and interdisciplinary
approaches, ultimately redefining the conflict as a fragmented process of
negotiation, resistance, and identity formation.
Bibliography
Bantjes, Adrian A. “Idolatry and Iconoclasm in Post-Revolutionary
Mexico: The De-Christianization Campaigns, 1929-1940,” Mexican
Studies/Estudios Mexicanos 13, no. 1 (1997): 87-120.
Becker, Marjorie. “Torching La Purísima, Dancing at the Altar: The
Construction of Revolutionary Hegemony in Michoacán, 1934-1940.” In Everyday
forms of State Formation: Revolution and the Negotiation of Rule in Modern
Mexico, edited by Gilbert M. Joseph and Daniel Nugent. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press, 1994.
Butler, Matthew. “Sotanas Rojinegras: Catholic Anticlericalism and
Mexico's Revolutionary Schism.” The Americas 65, no. 4 (2009):
535-558.
Jrade, Ramón. “Inquiries into the Cristero Insurrection against
the Mexican Revolution.” Latin American Research Review 20, no. 2 (1985):
53-69.
Mabry, Donald J. “Mexican Anticlerics, Bishops, Cristeros, and the
Devout during the 1920s: A Scholarly Debate.” Journal of Church and
State 20, no. 1 (1978): 81-92.
Meyer, Jean. The Cristero Rebellion: The Mexican People
Between Church and State 1926–1929, translated by Richard Southern. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press, 1976. (Selections)
Kloppe-Santamaría, Gema. “The Lynching of the Impious: Violence,
Politics, and Religion in Postrevolutionary Mexico (1930s–1950s).” The
Americas (Washington. 1944), no. 1 (2020): 101–28.
[1] Meyer, The Cristero Rebellion,
trans. Southern, 17.
[2] Gema Kloppe-Santamaría, "The
Lynching of the Impious: Violence, Politics, and Religion in Postrevolutionary
Mexico (1930s–1950s)," The Americas 77, no. 1 (2020): 101–28.
[3] Butler, "Sotanas
Rojinegras," 535–558; Kloppe-Santamaría, "The Lynching of the
Impious," 101–28.
[4] Meyer, The Cristero Rebellion,
trans. Southern.
[7] Meyer, The Cristero Rebellion,
trans. Southern, 17.
[8] Meyer, The Cristero Rebellion,
trans. Southern, 31.
[9] Meyer, The Cristero Rebellion,
trans. Southern, 32.
[10] Mabry, "Mexican Anticlerics,
Bishops, Cristeros, and the Devout," 88.
[12] Jrade, "Inquiries into the
Cristero Insurrection," 65
[14] Becker, "Torching La
Purísima," 247–264.
[16] Becker, "Torching La Purísima,"
264.
[17] Bantjes, "Idolatry and
Iconoclasm," 87–120.
[18] Butler, "Sotanas Rojinegras,"
535–558.
[19] Kloppe-Santamaría, "The
Lynching of the Impious," 101–28.
[21]Butler, "Sotanas Rojinegras,"
536
[22] Kloppe-Santamaría, "The
Lynching of the Impious," 499
Comments
Post a Comment