concerns get in the way of how they conceive of community and people-
hood as well as how they go about the creation of knowledge. As to the
latter point, the typical American academic, at least in the humanities and
theological disciplines, is often enough cast and sustained as a lonesome
self who researches in the library and writes on a keyboard in a study.
Success is marked by an “original” idea, and its typical pursuit would fi t
well with America’s self-reliant spirit. Bellah and his associates suggest the
following of the American cultural situation, and do so in markedly reli-
gious terms: “Individualism lies at the very core of American culture...
We [Americans] believe in the dignity, indeed the sacredness, of the indi-
vidual. Anything that would violate our right to think for ourselves, judge
for ourselves, make our own decisions, live our lives as we see fi t, is not
only morally wrong, it is sacrilegious.” 12 All of this to say that majority
American voices may fi nd the language of “togetherness” and “commu-
nity” appealing, yet their practices and imaginaries would often enough
suggest something else. Privileged Americans know “community” to be
important at an abstract level, but its embodiment would be another mat-
ter simply because of the tension that theme would have in relation to
this sector’s broader cultural mythos. Overall, one can conclude that these
conditions of majority North Atlantic culture are not necessarily the most
conducive for the realization of a “fi rst theology” based on relatedness and
relationality.
The Latino/a context sustains an altogether different ethos. Although
one should not idealize or romanticize this perspective given its many
different pressures and variables (for instance, the experience of fi rst-
generation Latinos/as is signifi cantly different to the experience of second-
and third-generation Latinos/as), the cultural dynamic of this community
bends toward a different direction. This direction is one marked not sim-
ply conceptually but practically toward a communitarian dynamic. 13 Of
course, Latinos/as in the American context will also be marked by the
individualism of the dominant culture, but to the degree that Latinidad is
on the table as a lived reality, this ethos tends to curb and alter the form of
American individualism in question.
The reasons for this tendency are sundry. Part of the dynamic involves
the context of marginality: Latinos/as on the whole lead lives of struggle.
Often in the face of poverty, inadequate housing and education, and the
like, Latinos/as often are fi ghting not so much for “freedom” per se as sur-
vival. In this, Latinos/as typically do not tend to suffer the self- deception
204 D. CASTELO