This week was better to think of writing. Had to pass the time for what seems inexplicable is this more clear and understandable. If allowed to pass the time more clearly drawn lines connecting the different points and let you set, contextually, an interpretation of the assassination of a political militant in a union dispute.
Naturally, they must be careful what you say and what is written in the first place because there is a death and then because the exercise of violence as a means of conflict resolution is not trivial. The Government should keep the first caution and prudence as we are accustomed, saved that part and gave us a sad and shameful spectacle. His newsagents increased, if that's possible, daily shame absurd lies and unwarranted operations.
But I want to take a second to a different dimension. The Government proposes a look at the democratic experience policy in a form defined itself from confrontation and not from the cooperation. Its external authorizer, prestigious and comfortable living in social Europe, we proposed, we, the poor relations, a version of democracy undervalued and stupid. Both intellectuals and journalists and opinion makers, but mainly the presidential marriage itself-here mostly for convenience and psychic empathy for intellectual reasons, chose to praise and a way of raising the policy that has within it many opportunities to exploit the worst human tensions .
Can you think some of the features of the Government and its social results, outside of what happened on the railway tracks between the Union and the Labor Party?
In this blog I said what I think are the salient features of the cultural form Kirchner, confrontational populism, ownership memory and capture the center-left ideology. All these edges promote the creation of antagonistic political adversary. From the official silence behind the words of Hebe de Bonafini, the show of force (is it ever possible that the policy Argentina is allowed to replace this metaphor?) of Moyano River and its own statements about the hypothesis of a Peronist government, to the refusal to extradite Apablaza for trial by the Chilean democratic power, constitute the real proof understanding of democracy that underlies the Government. Populate the shares ideas, ideas have consequences and and l confrontational temperament and their legitimizing discourse generated its own offspring, what and now refuse to recognize.
From where I see things, governments produce a type of society and unless you give up over-the proceduralism, types of democracy that governments draw or use different, more or less explicitly formulated social and cultural temperaments. The company that produces the Kirchner is a broken society, because it regards democracy from a break provoked and stimulated. The different ways in which society deals with the break you need greater reflection and may not be always a sign of greater democratization. In fact, particularly in areas off somewhat, the response to this breakdown is the fear and end up taking more conservative positions that would be taken against a political situation more pleasant.
What I think is, in essence, that can not be stressed to maintain, enhance and glorify union power than about their characteristics, and then surprised because things happen this type. I wonder, in this sense, what will it mean for CFK find the masterminds behind this?
For those interested we think the key conflict in democratic decision-making week in the faculty of Social and peculiar mode of resolution, we made a great learning. For those who think from a philosophical pragmatist register and let us accompany the figure of John Dewey as a sideman, episodes of these days we become somewhat obscure, vague, almost elusive.
not from political science, nor from sociology, let less political philosophy should dull the capacity building of the conflict. The pragmatic attitude proposes closer ties between this conflict and emotion that gives life and existence. Once we do not give conservatism ignore the conflict and not want to admit a nostalgic treat, opens a possible dimension to link the conflict with emotion. Readers know that is not easy to encrypt a kind of pragmatist theory of conflict. We can even agree that it is not necessary, but the truth is that the problem exists and turns on us demanding that we take part in the conversation. Try to work this point while maintaining a pragmatic attitude. I will recovering the discussion about the antagonisms that Dewey held an evening with Jane Addams at Hull House, this magnificent public space intervention Addams founded in Chicago with Ellen Gates Starr. In that discussion, seemingly abstract, lies across a chance to re-enroll the conflict in a different register. Dewey, Hegel still modern and at the same time, argued against Christianity Addams condition, but irreducible, the less vigorous of conflicts between institutional forms. Addams, however, believed that these antagonisms were unreal, that showed "just the injection of attitudes and reactions" delaying the understanding of the meaning of action and human behavior. The impact of this conversation in the philosophical interpretation of Dewey was intense. Led him, after a night of rushing thoughts to himself, to understand the sayings of Addams, a reformulation of the dialectic by which the unit should no longer be seen as the reconciliation of opposites, but that would be useful to perceive opposites as the unity in its growth. This has inevitably lead pragmatists practices if it is understood that the interests that are necessary to save, always mutual interests and not private individuals, even in the posing of a conflict, however strong it was. And this leads to a radicalization liberal dimension of democracy, yet, in strict philosophical terms, allows us to escape from the metaphorical reference to the existence of an "up" and "down", so common in the lexicon of political orthodoxy. A more radical consequence is the possibility of exploring the denial, thanks to this unity of opposites, the discursive supremacy between reformers and reformed, that is, between the political entities that are participants in a reform process. Borges, curiously or not, and no apparent political involvement, holding a status similar criticism against the dialectic, valuing the poetic form. This denial of the dialectic, with the presence of Dewey and Borges, serve my purpose to think of conflict as a consecration of the plurality and imagine claim a new lexicon, always cooperative, which may well be that of a political poetry recursive zigzag rich and full of extravagance.
When we look at Social making from this perspective we are close to nothing, a conflict that escalated without considering the interests of anyone but those who provoked and a violent resolution, irrational and excessive, which, however, was crowned with an undoubted success. Those who carried out a conflict of this type achieved everything they wanted, from highest to lowest and most absurdly banal as the possibility of parties in a building that reported by the precariousness and danger of their facilities. On the other hand, the logic of the authorities really inexplicable, that authority was never, that was politically ineffective and finished granting all after seven weeks of taking, as if he had done the second day, everything was different. The only concern of the authorities was, at all times, not be run by left and they were and over, as a aesthetics revenge, the dean and his assistants in the management showed ending the conflict in the street, as a kind of reconquest public class faculty.
In this conflict, unfortunately, no new players emerge, it generated a different democratic framework, no progress was made in the discussion about the academic quality and we all filled with anxiety. The hope is never empty, go for this interpretation to begin filling the air of arguments.
From the good number of concerns generated by the vision of the conflict that is manifested in the capture of the Faculty of Social Sciences, UBA, one upon another, my attention and I am alarmed.
Entered in the seventh week of taking no relevant actor, or the intellectual, or the journalist or the politician (and there are three specific individuals associated with the faculty) has decided to give visibility to the conflict and to trouble, from the recognition that something important in a college social devoted to what he does.
De ponernos a pensar en la desaparición de Sociales, llegaríamos a la conclusión de que a pocos, demasiado pocos, les importa ese destino. Pensemos un instante porqué esto es así.
Resulta claro que a los que están llevando adelante la toma lo animan espíritus de cualquier naturaleza menos la del conocimiento. Sea el de la revolución, el de la gastronomía (curiosa y repetida muletilla) o el del espíritu santo, el conocimiento en las ciencias sociales no figura dentro del millón de prioridades de los “tomistas”. Mientras Meanwhile, authorities of the faculty took five weeks to realize that something had to do and their first reaction was to write (in some way have to call it) a statement that all that mattered was clearly not run by left .
social power in the long time that there are issues to discuss - and I mean the unique building, and maybe some of them are related to the limited power of attraction that outside the "social universe", is our current state of affairs. Long ago, can begin to be measured in decades, the faculty has taken a dangerous road. On the one hand have been prioritized logic of political aggregation over academics and intellectuals and the other has not reflected enough on the role of social science on the difficult path of building a democratic society. No offense meant, I could never do, the political character of our university, nothing good can happen if we lose sight of the object that enables us to deliver that answer political dimension, in fact, another record. This scheme led by its consequences, in the expulsion of many of the best young teachers and the impoverishment of the academic offerings, both in compulsory and optional. By not think what would happen to surrender so easily to the logic of permanent accreditation no longer think for itself about the problem posed by the tension between massive and generous faculty insists on being thought by others while screams from an autonomous vacuum and simplistic. In the same vein, the lack of thought about the excesses surrounding the professionalization on the one hand and awards are not meritocratic logic on the other, have come to build a mud of difficulties in the form of parallel chairs, ghostly electives that respond to personal tone compensation, friendly or foreign political and asymmetries within professorships.
However, this is not the worst, most painful of all this process is the emotional desresponsabilización that promotes, directly or indirectly, for a long time and the final formulation is a lack of love for knowledge, reading and intellectual work. Reaching here, the question arises, is it so hard to imagine why the invisibility of our problems? When the place where the thoughts arise hypothetically should propose solutions and not for power but for a country, not the least being discussed, you can not ask the rest we pay attention. When the same institution should take care, destroy it, is not unusual morning spent or transferred, the lack of social power to pass entirely unnoticed.
