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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment