Lately I've been reading about identity formation and the dialectical problems that "minority" literature encounters when resisting homogenic culture.
I have found a large amount of theorists asking from which position the writer writes and from which position the reader assimilates the text, and on the top of that, there are a great deal of intellectuals who debate the existence of agency.
Well...Of ocurse there is agency. The difficulty resides in finding which factors contribute to its creation. And it is not an insignificant problem because, for a humanist like me (I incline mysef for the kind of secular humanism Said talks about), it means to take into consideration (or not) how culture defines nationalism, taking into account its singularities but avoiding the problem of separatism and exclusion.
How to go from the indiviual to the collective without leaving anything behind? How to embrace a kind of universalism that remains faithfull to the original idea and values of progress acknowledging the previous silences, domination and exploitation many commited on its name? Is it possible to achieve an objective reconciliation with the Enlightement idea or are we condemned to be always "possitioned" in Foucaultian terms? Where FREEDOM FOR HUMAN SPECIES SHOULD COME FROM?
I don't know. Probably the most we can do is keeping our minds opened and try to support governments which imperfections let us freely specualte about which utopia we would like to live in, allowing us the space to walk the way there.
For me, it's extremely important not to give up the possibility of Imagining. To keep that space inside free from any chains.
It's important to be constantly curious and very critique with our own convinctions. And dont' fear failure.
If you are scared of highs, you should know that climbing a mountain is a personal challange of testing how far your willingness can take you; it's a good way to find out if your limits are determined by your fears or your resolutions.
There is only one way of getting a view from the top.
After 15 years, I discover now why I love so much that song from the Stones. Well, I always knew why, but now it acquired a new meaning (that's my possition as listener evolving through time, while my passion remains the same. It's quite difficult...Ok, imposible for me to be passionless about the Stones).
Conclusion, I can't get satisfaction either, because there are far too many assholes out there. That's a reality that deserves to be cried out with clarity and no use of jargon.
The truth is that no matter what I do, it's difficult to be myslef, entirely free. And I've alwaya tried to be faithful to "what you see is what you get" but I guess some people feels and is better off blinded.
It's difficult to be alert all the time, to be aware and to know so well what I don't want(still trying to find out what I want).
To have a mind of your own is almost a hazard nowdays.
It's a fact that majorities were always scared of minorities. It's a kind of irrational fear that sometimes assaults me too which makes me feel angry with myslef.
To be part it feels nice sometimes (if so many things didn't spoil the moment), but to follow the whole becuase it's a "must do" and rutine...Well...That sucks.
Key words: Balance. Truthfulness and flexibility. Tolerance and critique. Imagination and relfexivility.
Un cigarrillo por favor.
No comments:
Post a Comment