What Is The Most Reliable Washer And Dryer

"OTHERS" (I): SOLIDARITY EXCLUSIVE AND INCLUSIVE

We said language, or rather, the categories of thought expressed and reproduced through language, determines-or-largely determine what we think, feel and do. We continue to maintain the materialist assertion apparently, but not necessarily, cynical ideals that made our representations are built on the skeleton of our immediate interests palpable. But it is also true that "our" interests depend on the construction of a "we" and "them" and therefore, the categories through which we perceive social reality. Although we consider our interests "individual" outside the people around us, we know that this is only a half truth because we are animals that live in society and that "society built for living" in constant interdependence. We are genetically and culturally programmed to make common cause with others, to build ties of "solidarity."

"Solidarity" is to dissolve the symbolic boundaries that separate us from the "Other" from the empathy and understanding to perceive that we are part of the same "whole" ( solidum) , if these barriers are dissolved, our "altruism" is paradoxically "concerned", egocentric, even if it is actively seeking self-satisfaction. When you break the barrier that separates the "Other" there is not exactly "selfishness" and "altruism", but our experience of solidarity arises spontaneously as the love of parents for the children, there is no purpose or purpose, but simply a way of being. Tao says the book with its distinctive message vagrancy "Abandon all desire common good and the good becomes as common as grass ." We tested both (spontaneous altruism and solidarity interested) but, of course, we are almost always in a messy compromise between two extremes. This is, among other things, because we are continually building and crossing social boundaries that demarcate the space of our interest. "I" versus "others" or to "other", "Us" vs. "The Others" or to them, we open a door and closed it. But to build these categories or collective identity (regardless of the experience deeper or forced), there are basically two mechanisms: the prospect exclusive and inclusive perspective. The second is as prettier and more necessary today in the context of the general theme of this blog, but the former is also part of human life is important.

The exclusive perspective of solidarity is the dimension characteristic of open conflict, war, the "class struggle", the radical opposition of interests, competition. Build a "We", generate collective interests, produce a collective identity, to make us stronger and to deal successfully with a "They", a common "enemy", we "pineapple" against the real or imagined threat of "Other", the exclusion of strangers builds and strengthens the group identity. As the Arab proverb says " I against my brother, me and my brother against my cousin, me, my brother and my cousin against the foreigner ." The best example of this mechanism is that of the soldiers in a battle to adequately face the "enemy" must maximize solidarity within the group, sometimes giving their individual interest. In the particular context of a battle (in-depth analysis beyond), the conflict of interests between contending groups is very radical, as it is difficult to find common interests first sight. The separation is, therefore, very sharp and exclusive.

very careful, because what I say is not an absolute exclusion is often not total. From an emotional perspective, cognitive capacity for empathy and the recognition of others can (and actually comes) to the most terrible enemies. In these cases, despite the importance of conflict, which radically separates the different groups that organize behavior, recognizing a "we" that encompasses both "us" as "the Other." We can say you can not do anything to harm enemy soldiers (Or with the terrorists, enemies of society) that there are some "limits", however "Others" might be. From the perspective of interests, if we dig a little, we can often find a certain common interests even among the bitterest enemies. This is because the real interdependence tends to deviate from the illusion of the exclusive categories (I point this idea for now and later.) For example, the "rules of war" appearing in various historical periods are not only based on individual empathy, but also and especially in consideration of a war without rules or scruples of any kind causes considerable the Members of both sides. Beyond the formal rules of war, the contestants can create their own spaces, so it seems that in World War I soldiers formed spontaneously between opposing sides, a certain solidarity, a certain language (nonverbal or direct) , a certain unwritten rules of the attacks and the truce in the trenches. We will not enter the "prisoner's dilemma " or the complexities of the binomial cooperation / competition, it suffices to note that there may be interdependence and common interests in even the most traumatic split.

The experience of empathy, identification with the other to become solidum may comprise at least potentially any member of the human species. Moreover, the interdependent arising from the social production of labor can be expanded to virtually all humanity. The historical process we observe is indeed expansive. Alexander the Great to the "globalization" today, to the equally important "globalization" of the sixteenth century, there is a progressive trend towards global interdependence. The continuing need for art to break the barriers of our personal and collective identities contributes to solidarity mechanisms inclusive. In these cases, the group is the reason for leaving us themselves and to build a "society", all, as says the poem by Benedetti " Perhaps my only notion of homeland / is the urge to say We ." In turn, the larger group becomes a way out of the limited boundaries of the smaller group, to broaden horizons of solidarity, and so on, until reaching, at least potentially to all humanity as one solidum interdependent. Montesquieu explained it very graphically: " If I knew something I was helpful, but that would be detrimental to my family, banished from my mind, if I knew something useful for my family but not was for my country, try to forget it if I knew something useful to my country but that would be detrimental to Europe, or be useful for Europe and bad for mankind, I would consider a crime and never reveal it, because I'm human by nature French and just by chance. "

The" imaginary groups "on which collective interests are articulated, however imaginary they may be, are never arbitrary. Regardless of the valuation that we deserve or the existence malfunctions, all strengthened cultural pattern has a certain rationality (otherwise it would fail to be shared and reproduced). When you have set a "We", yet so exclusive, it is because this category serves a specific interest. Often these interests have to do really with the members of the group. To not get too abstract, let's put an example with the issue, hot day of the regional financing.

Around the regions (as in surrounding states) ideologies or feelings can exist at least partially exclusive. For example, I would think, although I do not think-that the welfare of an "Andalusian" is more important than a "Madrid", or the welfare of a "English" is a priority over the "Uruguay"; the sake of the "Other" may be somewhat valued, because there is a dynamic inclusive, but in practice is forgotten subordinated to the group "own" that will never be fully satisfied, we must "first home sweep" and never finished it sweep of everything. Despite the distortion with operating these exclusive ideologies, there is a target fund of interest. "Nations" ghostly separate the Autonomous Communities are very real political structures which are units of public expenditure but in general there are units of income, this implies that there is a "division of the pie" collected by the state that affects me and presumably the people closest to me, regardless of the intensity of exclusionary ideology (which tends to be an expression of interest), it is easy to store to defend the interests of my "group." Similarly, "nations" ghostly separate political structures States are very real and it makes sense that the English authorities called to defend the interests "of Spain" in international forums.

However, the crystallization of cognitive functional categories for the defense of these interests may cover us a good part of reality. For example, we naively believe that "wealth" generated "in the Autonomous Communities" or "Spain." While is a real political structures largely articulate social relations (eg, markets), it is also true that flows of social, communicative, economic, political, fully transcend political boundaries and so it is, in fact, markets. It goes without succumbing to simplistic versions and less nuanced the statement "the wealth of some automatically mean poverty of others" to detect that there are plenty of connections, links, relations of power and domination, exclusion, etc. That is, beyond interdependence, as we have said, our categories and you may need to transcend them to build solidum new, a new whole.

These two mechanisms, inclusive and exclusionary solidarity are not incompatible, despite appearing as opposites. Even when life drags us to build groups against other groups, we can at the same time the inclusion movement, which displays many beneficial effects (over the more authentic is the experience of breaking the barriers). In fact, both in war and in argument, tend to be more successful those who understand the enemy and know better fall into place. In any case, next posts I want to emphasize one thing: the inclusive solidarity can overcome some perceptual distortions leading to the exclusive categories.

How To Load Snowmobile On Truck

politically correct language MIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION AND UNION

In the postmodern world ideologies are not dead, far from it. If anything has been decaffeinated for a little scope. One of these ideologies decaffeinated of our time is the emphasis on "politically correct language." I am of the opinion that this way of putting things can and should be criticized and argue later. But that does not mean you agree with the most common and topical reviews that are made. In fact, I think another decaffeinated ideologies of our time equally superficial and not very committed to the gut reality-is the systematic and thoughtless opposition to the "politically correct language" in these cases we adopted a pose, a mask that makes us assume that more interesting, more intelligent, aware and independent, furthest from the platitudes and the "thinking dominant. " But in many cases it is a superficial position and also topic, linked to the "bias of the oppressed majority" that will discuss another time, there is no thought more dominant than the obligatory ideological rebellion who is believed to outwit the masses. To avoid falling into this error, I think we should examine two considerations: first, why is it criticism ideology politically correct language? Second what about truth in it? For all ideologies, like all myths, they have a really interesting background that may be interesting to unravel and sometimes exploit.

First, we could criticize the politically correct language as it is euphemistically. The categories that designate the subordinate groups tend to take on a pejorative connotation, but the truth is that words are many twists throughout the story. Some words originally neutral acquired over time insulting tone did not come as standard ("moro" natural = Roman province of Mauritania), others, however, arise loaded with the most cruel contempt, but are then taken, and reclic subverted by minority groups, who take the word for their own use (as has happened with "gay" and more recently with "queer.") Some categories are so variable that you never know what the politically correct fashion, and what that has become abusive (like the multiple ways of referring to "blacks" or "elderly"). Sometimes we do not stop looking for three feet to the cat, because all the words seem to pose problems ("handicapped" "disabled" and not say "moron" or "moron"). The truth is that sometimes we behave as if there were any magical virtue in the words themselves rather than on the social meanings attributed to them. In my opinion, this is one case where "the intention is what counts, not the word used (although it's always good to have a certain touch to avoid confusion), the desire or not to insult, feeling, contempt, tone, context, meaning. That's enough, without having to obsess about finding less ugly euphemism, do not forget the euphemisms try to hide or disguise a reality that is perceived as negative and therefore, in these cases usually have a point " excusatio non petita ... " When one does not assume the normal ending of "negritude" pronounce the word "black" seems to produce some discomfort, which is sublimated perhaps with the desire not to bother and you end up saying "colored", although made to look for the three-foot cat, would be a category error, because attributes the "color" only to the category selected.

In any case, I can dig a little deeper in the critique of ideology light politically correct language. In fact, I think it can sometimes look like a ritualistic religion or self-righteous that rewards those who meet a set of external requirements and condemns the unbelievers who "do not meet the law", even without asking too much the reasons that gave meaning to these precepts. Thus, the contradictions arising from inequalities of power that occur in social reality can be mapped to a field magically imaginary constructed through language. And apparently can be solved in these imaginary realms by simply saying magic words. Why Anglophones call tokenism and that we could translate as "front" or more graphically as "burial money." "Everything must change" (in the world of language) "to continue business as" (in the social reality). I'm not saying that this always occurs, but I think it is an inherent tendency to purism (Puritanism) in examining the "correctness" language policy.

But what is interesting about these demands for political correctness? For the reasonable assumption that, to some extent, are determined by our cognitive categories and by language. We speak the language, but we are also spoken by language. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis states that our "life world, our universe of perceptions, is determined by the language with which to construct the social world. This is what is called linguistic relativism. " It is a reasonable assumption if not taken to the tremendous. Who came first, the chicken or the egg? "Language constructs to society or is society that builds language? "At the very beginning was the Word?

Some forms of vulgar materialism of the world despise the human symbolic value, which automatically judged as "superstructure" (they would say in Marxist terms) as if things were as such "infrastructure" or "superstructure", nothing more Platonic less materialistic. I suppose then disregard the value of money or stock transactions, purely symbolic elements and "soft." I think from the "reasonable materialism" must mean something else. Indeed, the society builds language and language is largely a reflection of actual social relations. The language has an ideological dimension, in the worst sense of the word when used to build imaginary worlds where they are projected to solve real problems magically distorted and that everything remains as is, as stated above. This function ideological or superstructural, incidentally, is not far from negligible or trivial, but it really affects the reproduction of social relations. But on the other hand, language is the main substrate or instrument through which social relationships are built them, through which the work is divided socially and relations are of domination and exclusion.

So, what is important is not words but the bottom surface, and the effects they produce. Words can be magic words, to the extent that cause social effects. In this context, the important thing is not the word that finally we use, but make timely reflection for us not thoughtlessly affect the automation of our mental categories. I said once that I prefer to speak of "migration" rather than "immigration" as a constant reminder that migrants "came from somewhere " and that international migration should be seen in the context broad as possible. But then I do not mind the word that people prefer to use, the important thing is to have succeeded in making this analysis.

Now that I have explained roughly what I think about the issue, perhaps we can focus on some specific aspect. In the next post is surely how we construct the categories of "them" and "us" at the present time. Here the language is the area through which we can detect the use of mental categories to play a subordinate social status.

[ The image is the cover of a book of politically correct fairy tales parody key from here recommend, and its sequel "more politically correct fairy tales" ]