[Massimo Ilardi]
This renewed conflict that broke out within the institutions of fascism and anti-fascism is not exciting. Indeed, depressed as all forms of conformity. It 'a rearguard action that moves in the depths of ancient times unable to respond to the harsh replies to this. The crisis of our cultural and political elite here, nell'asservimento at once linear and continuous, the most striking demonstration of its seriousness and its visibility. The same critical thinking to the left than on other occasions has given proof of lucidity and creativity, faced a matter buried for nearly seventy years, can not do better than getting lost in a plethora of platitudes and away from any positions in response to a social reality to say the least 'Martian' compared to those who want to unearth historical sites . On the other hand, when the rage back in history as the eternal presence of the Spirit which wants to wrap himself in the past and the future looms ever-present threat of the risk ' accumulation of events considered to be sacred, because they embody the same spirit, but in fact no longer have any meaning for the lives of men and women.
A good starting point may instead be this: fascism, as fenomeno politico, culturale e sociale, é morto nel 1945 e con esso e nello stesso anno é morto di conseguenza l’antifascismo. Punto. Ora, non c’è dubbio che rientra in un processo naturale il fatto che la generazione che ha vissuto e sofferto queste esperienze le abbia conservate nella sua memoria e tenda a trasmetterle. Non é giusto però che pretenda di perpetuarle come eredità. Perchè se ciò che é stato, afferma Walter Benjamin, “viene celebrato come una ‘eredità’ é più disastroso di quanto potrebbe esserlo la sua scomparsa.” E’ invece proprio come ‘eredità’ che si tenta di celebrare, da parte di istituzioni e gruppi sociali consolidati dalla tradition, the ritual of a 'collective memory'. And, on the other hand, how can we, while living in dell'iperconsumo size, use of ephemeral and relentless destruction of everything and value, while we accept that the life of a man is strictly limited to its individual existence and that the past and future generations will no longer have any importance in his eyes, forming a collective memory outside of the artificial legacy? How would it be possible excess in front of perceptions, the proliferation of visions that the media distribute, imagine the past in a way different from a vast collection of images, from a huge statue photo, in which the history of aesthetic styles took the place of real history?
If so, then the legacy you want to forward to the next generation assumes the colors of a prepackaged identity, a handbook of rules and regulations established, a wealth of feelings and emotional tone, not having any roots in society , we want to perpetuate immutable as a factor of cohesion and order disappeared although the reference group that kept them alive. It 's really a country of old that used their supposed wisdom and arrogant to claim to possess the truth! But then find them as the main character of Lawrence Kasdan's Grand Canyon in a social, and unknown enemy.
of a different nature, in fact, today the risks that threaten our freedom and material to other universes based youth cultures that do not look for any memory or symbol support for their membership. They read not move through space and time, but precisely for this reason refused to shut himself in the precincts of cement manufactured by the identity, especially if sunk in the past. Why do not we try to ask them if they remember a date or perhaps just the name of someone who participated in the civil war seven decades ago? We soon realize that war is not forgotten, simply never existed. At this point, no scandal, no finger accuser or boring chant 'feel-good' may conceal the real truth, which is that no longer have the tools to know what's happening in the Grand Canyon social. Our culture still travels over the territories, linked to the ideologies that belong to the consciousness of intellectual work, of his avant-garde, its clergy, its specializations. E 'territory rather than the unfolding chain of knowledge, attitudes, mobility, work, desires that emanate from the metropolitan cultures with violence. And it is only in the territory and the territory that the social figures themselves as 'part', organize the differences, identify the enemy. Ben
another matter but what would be asked about why visible signs of these cultures are increasingly turning to the right and not left as was the case until a few years ago. Because of signs and symbols is: signs that look at this and symbols that do not dig into the primordial slime of history. They are pure signs without a temporal thickness and a philosophy of history to support them and are only intended to provoke and trigger conflict. Not come from a culture and a tradition that identity based conflict but by a vision that gives absolute membership, both lucid and aware to take any cost to the clash. But because these signs
look right? People just a few reasons but they deserve much more study:
-the first is explained by the contrast between democracy and freedom. The crisis of political mediation and the advent of a consumer society have transformed the territory into a common good, as the left preaching vain, but to an extent and in a form that become visible through the spatial separation between different exclusion diversity. It 's a territory crossed by barriers and a fabric that you play against centrifugal powers and institutions that structure exclusively in connection with various balance of power that each time you practice. E 'in this area that projects directly to the consumer desires of individuals and is always on this territory that the market tries to exert its control action. Trying to counteract this process by proposing utopias ("another world is possible", citizenship) or practice ("doing society," the anticonsumismo, revive the ancient public spaces of the 'city of stone') that move not only in a different direction, it would be legitimate if it were still anthropological account of the changes occurred, but in a completely opposite that re-democracy as a social and cultural model based on a relentless egalitarian and participatory process, it becomes pure political folly. Why let the right hand the ability to manage the conflict between democracy as a form of society and individual freedom as a practice. Freedom that does not want to stop, does not require participation, triggers conflicts, boundary locations, creates differences, seek consensus, would not have imagined symbolic if not materialize immediately, and that shatters the supposed mass democratic groups, minorities, individuals in conflict with each other and acting on the territory;
-the second is 'vice' history of the Left to consider all that evil comes out of the established institutions. Yet the cultural left, at least until the late seventies, and managed to have an essential role in the politicization of Italian society, and that while the city streets were traversed by violent social conflict that translates into political action by their intensity el ' cultural innovation played a vital role to legitimize the radical nature of the choices of the field. However, when the 'reason of state' that is in the genetic code of the parties of the left has once again prevailed up to criminalize an entire generation, the gap between opposing political and social cultures of the statist and legalistic institutional left which could not be consumed;
-il third one refers to the culture right, not recognizing the democratic and constitutional over who founded the Republic, has been the war on anti-institutional culture, deeply subversive and destabilizing than the party system and its rules. This charge, which was maintained over time, despite twists and svoltine, today we find most suitable to represent a microconflittualità that more than ever is sprayed from a social rage and anti-institutional.
[from Charter , 22.10.2008]
0 comments:
Post a Comment