Rock
Democracies, Paper Freedoms, Scissors Securities
By Jorge Majfud
10 February, 2007
Countercurrents.org
Ten
years ago, contradicting the postmodernist wave, we developed in Crítica
de la pasión pura (Critique of Pure Passion) the idea of morality
as a form of collective conscience. In the same way that a school of
fish or a swarm of bees acts and develops as one body, in the same way
that James Lovelock understood Gaia – Planet Earth – as
one living body, we could also understand Humanity as one conscience
in development, with some common and basic values that transcend cultural
differences.
These values are based, overwhelmingly,
on the renunciation of the individual in favor of the group, on the
conscience that supercedes the more primitive precept of the survival
of the fittest, as mere individuals in competition. That is how the
representation of the hero and of any other positive figure emerges
throughout history.
The problem, the betrayal,
is produced when these values become myths at the service of classes
and sects in power. The worst thing that can happen to freedom is for
it to be turned into a statue. The “conflicts of interests,”
normally presented as natural, from a broader perspective would represent
a pathology. A culture that supports and legitimizes this betrayal of
the conscience of the species should be seen – to use the same
metaphor – as a self-destructive phobia of that species conscience.
Probably a form of radical
democracy will be the next step humanity is ready to take. How will
we know when this step is being produced? We need signs.
One strong sign will be when
the administration of meaning ceases to lie in the hands of elites,
especially of political elites. Representative democracy represents
what is reactionary about our times. But direct democracy will not come
about through any brusque revolution, led by individuals, since it is,
by definition, a cultural process where the majority begins to claim
and share social power. When this occurs, the parliaments of the world
will be what the royals of England are today: an onerous adornment from
the past, an illusion of continuity.
Every time “public opinion” changes brusquely after an official
speech, after an electoral campaign, after a bombardment of advertising
– power that always flows from the money of a minority –
we must understand that that next step remains far from being consolidated.
When publics become independent of the speeches, when the speeches and
social narrations no longer depend on the powerful minorities, we will
be able to think about certain advance toward direct democracy.
Let’s look briefly
at this problematic of the struggle over meaning.
There are words with scarce
social interest and others that are disputed treasure, territory claimed
by different antagonistic groups. In the first category we can recognize
words like umbrella, glycemia, fame, hurricane, nice, anxiety, etc.
In the second category we find terms like freedom, democracy and justice
(we will call these ideolexicons). Reality and normal are also highly
conflictive terms, but generally they are restricted to philosophical
speculation. Unless they are instruments – like the definition
of normal – they are not direct objectives of social power.
The eternal struggle for
social power creates a partisan culture made visible by the so-called
political parties. In general, it is these same parties that make possible
the continuity of a particular social power by creating the illusion
of a possible change. Because of this culture, we tend to adopt a position
with respect to each social problem instead of a dispassionate analysis
of it. Ideological loyalty or self love should not be involved in these
cases, but we cannot deny that they are fundamental pieces of the dialectical
dispute and they weigh on us all.
All conflict is established
in a present time but recurs obsessively to a prestigious, consolidated
past. Recurring to that same history, each antagonistic group, whether
in Mexico or in the United States, will seek to conquer the semantic
field with different narrations, each one of which will have as a requirement
the unity and continuity of that narrative thread. Rarely do the groups
in dispute prove something; generally they narrate. Like in a traditional
novel, the narration does not depend so much on facts external to the
story as on the internal coherence and verisimilitude possessed by that
narration. For that reason, when one of the actors in the dispute –
a congressional representative, a president - recognizes an error, this
becomes a greater crack in the story than if reality contradicted him
every day. Why? Because the imagination is stronger than reality and
the latter, generally speaking, cannot be observed except through a
discourse, a narration.
The difference lies in which
interests are moved by each narration. A slave receiving lashes of the
whip and giving thanks for the favor received is not the same as another
version of the facts which questions that concept of justice. Perhaps
objectivity does not exist, but the presumption of reality and, therefore,
of a possible truth will always exist.
One of the more common methods
used to administer or dispute the meaning of each term, of each concept,
is semantic association. It is the same resource that allows advertising
to freely associate a shaving cream with economic success or an automotive
lubricant with sexual success.
When the value of racial integration found itself in dispute in the
social discourse of the 1950s and 1960s in the United States, various
groups of southern whites marched through the streets carrying placards
that declared: Race mixing is communism (Time, August 24, 1959). The
same placard in Poland would have been a declaration in favor of racial
integration, but in the times of McCarthy it meant quite the contrary:
the word communism had been consolidated as a negative ideolect. The
meaning was not disputed. Anything that might be associated with that
demon was condemned to death or at least to failure.
Recent history tells us
that that association failed, at least in the collective narration about
the value of “racial integration.” So much so that today
the banner of diversity is used as an inarguable axiom. Which is why
the new racists must integrate to their own purposes narratives of diversity
as a positive value in order to develop a new narration against immigrants.
In other cases the mechanism is similar. Recently, a U.S. legislator,
criticized for calling Miami “third world,” declared that
he is in favor of diversity as long as a single language and a single
culture is imposed on the entire country, (World Net Daily, December
13) and there are no “extensive ethnic neighborhoods where English
is not spoken and that are controlled by foreign cultures.” (Diario
de las Américas, November 11)
All hegemonic power needs
a moral legitimation and this is achieved by constructing a narration
that integrates those ideolexicons that are not in dispute. When Hernán
Cortés or Pizarro cut off hands and heads they did it in the
name of divine justice and by order of God. Incipiently the idea of
liberation began to emerge. The messianic powers of the moment understood
that by imposing their own religion and their own culture, almost always
by force, they were liberating the primitive Americans from idolatry.
Today the ideolexicon democracy
has been imposed in such a way that it is even used to name authoritarian
and theocratic systems. Minority groups that decide every day the difference
between life and death for thousands of people, if indeed in private
they don’t devalue the old argument of salvation and divine justice,
tend to prefer in public the less problematic banner of democracy and
freedom. Both ideolexicon are so positive that their imposition is justified
even if it is intravenously.
Because they imposed a culture
by force the Spanish conquistadors are remembered as barbaric. Those
who do the same today are motivated, this time for sure, by good reasons:
democracy, freedom – our values, which are always the best. But
just as the heroes of yesterday are today’s barbarians, the heroes
of today will be the barbarians of tomorrow.
If morality and its most
basic extracts represent the collective conscience of the species, it
is probable that direct democracy will come to signify a form of collective
thought. Paradoxically, collective thinking is incompatible with uniform
thinking. This for reasons noted previously: uniform thinking can be
the result of a sectarian interest, a class interest, a national interest.
In contrast, collective thinking is perfected in the diversity of all
possibilities, acting in benefit of Humanity and not on behalf of minorities
in conflict.
In a similar scenario, it
is not difficult to imagine a new era with fewer sectarian conflicts
and absurd wars that only benefit seven powerful riders, while entire
nations die, fanatically or unwilling, in the name of order, freedom
and justice.
February 2007
Translated by Bruce
Campbell
Jorge Majfud,
Uruguayan writer, 1969. From an early age he read and wrote fictions,
but he chose to major in architecture and graduated from the Universidad
de la República in Montevideo, Uruguay in 1996. He taught mathematics
and art at the Universidad Hispanoamericana de Costa Rica and Escuela
Técnica del Uruguay. He currently teaches Latin American literature
at the University of Georgia. Hi has traveled to more than forty countries,
whose impressions have become part of his novels and essays. His publications
include Hacia qué patrias del silencio/memorias de un desaparecido
(novel, 1996); Crítica de la pasión pura (essays, 1998);
La reina de América (novel, 2001), El tiempo que me tocó
vivir (essays, 2004) and La narración de lo invisible/Significados
ideológicos de América Latina (essay, 2006). His stories
and articles have been published in various newspapers, magazines, and
readers, such as El País and La República of Uruguay,
Milenio of México, Jornada of Bolivia, Tiempos del Mundo of Washingtonn,
Monthly Review of New Yor, Resource Center of The Americas de Minnesota,
Rebelión, and Hispanic Culture Review of George Mason University.
He is a regular contributor to Bitácora, the weekly publication
of La República. He is a member of the International Scientific
Committee of the magazine Araucaria in Spain. He was distinguished with
Mention Premio Casa de las Américas, in Habana, Cuba in 2001,
for the novel La Reina de América and Excellence in Research
Award, UGA, United States 2006. His essays and articles have been translated
into Portuguese, French, English and German.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights