Descarcă revista în format PDF - idea

subiect al subiectului modern (aøa cum a øtiut a ni-l înfæfliøa în amænunt, exhaustiv,toatæ filosofia modernæ).Ceea ce iese continuu la ivealæ de aici – øi chiar asta se reproduce socialmente– este, prin urmare, ceva descriptibil la propriu ca o manieræ egoistæde însuøire, pe fondul rezultatelor de societate generate prin suveranitateaautotelicæ a miøcærii emancipatoare, a beneficiilor ei prelevabile individual(bunæoaræ, toate „libertæflile“ øi licenflele de tot felul pe care adultul de aziøi le acordæ în cæutarea „fericirii personale“). O privatizare a emancipærii care,inevitabil, e pentru omul de masæ al modernitæflii noastre mature – reprezentantal acestei umanitæfli a subiectivitæflii plastice, proteice, neîngrædite nici mæcarde ea însæøi øi pe care n-o moøteneøte de la nimeni – totodatæ un fel de ase dezasuma (cît priveøte, de exemplu, conflinutul generic al misiunii de emanciparepe care i-o încredinflau Luminile, matricea modernitæflii), dar færæ catotuøi asta sæ-l scoatæ de pe fægaøul deja trasat al propriei subiectiværi. E maidegrabæ un fenomen de dezinvestire (cu contrapartea sa de repliere pe„sinele personal“) din tot ceea ce depæøeøte prea mult sfera vieflii sale cotidiene(cu activitæflile, relafliile umane øi preocupærile acesteia), ca øi din dimensiuneaveritabilæ a solidaritæflii cu semenii; nu atît pe linia comunitæfliinaturale sau a celei spiritual- ori moral/afectiv-organice (dimpotrivæ, solidaritæflilede trib, pe de-o parte, iar pe de alta ligi, cluburi, asociaflii, partide,grupuri de interese, ONG-uri – toate asocieri în jurul cîte unui interes particular– sînt cît se poate de vii), cît pe aliniamentul unei aceleiaøi griji purtateîn comun – o grijæ nu identicæ, ci de împærtæøit în feluri numeroase –pentru coabitarea, la acelaøi ceas istorial, a sensului existenflei proprii (modurilede partaj nu sînt numærabile, nu sînt epuizabile într-o listæ, cæci ele ar fitot atîtea cîte felurile posibile de comuniune liberæ, de aflat sau de cæutat,pe diversele meridiane ale solidaritæflii de existenflæ) 7 ; în acest sens, ar fi vorbadespre o desocializare, într-un sens esenflial, doar aparent paradoxalæ în niøtevremuri cînd expunerea indivizilor la comunicare, la circulaflie (a lor øi a informafliei),în fine la sociabilitate („în reflea“) øi la „socializare“ (de citit în sensulamerican al vocabulei) e mai intensæ ca oricînd. Dar asta merge mînæ în mînæ,bunæoaræ, cu tendinfla cæreia individul nu i se poate opune de unul singur,nici dacæ ar vrea, de a abandona tot ceea ce, pe calea „liberei realizæri desine“, resimte ca balast – moral, relaflional, afectiv, practic – flinînd de o stare(væzutæ ca) revolutæ a apartenenflelor sale (familiale în sens larg, deci øi restrîns,de grup social etc.).În sfîrøit, bilanflul naøterii øi generalizærii acestui tip de subiectivitate hipertrofiatæ,cotropitoare, dar totodatæ atît de puflin generos deschisæ înspre lumeøi ceilalfli în focalizarea ei pe cercul strîmt al vieflii personale a omului actual,a cærui umanitate o ilustreazæ, mai poate fi indicat øi într-un alt fel: prin evidenfliereaei în diseminarea ubicuæ a efectelor sale monotone pe suprafaflaraporturilor sociale – la interfafla lor. Condiflia pentru ca aceastæ percepfliesæ izbuteascæ e una simplæ. Sæ admitem cæ aøa sîntem noi înøine, fiecare,pentru a ne putea astfel recunoaøte în reflexia pe care ne-o întoarce (maioricare) „celælalt“ în practicile noastre de relaflie. Prin chiar ceea ce ne-ar „diferenflia“la nesfîrøit øi ne-ar diversifica într-o puzderie de profiluri individualizate,idiosincratice, pretins ireplicabile, sæ (admitem sæ) vedem cum sîntem„profund“ asemænætori într-o privinflæ crucialæ. Aceea care face ca sæ nu fie,de fapt, vorba decît de miriadele de versiuni ale unuia øi aceluiaøi exemplarde interioritate subiectivæ; de acelaøi subiect supus – subjugat – efectelorcumulative ale aceluiaøi proces de subiectivare, cel care ne face sæ øtim omologatot mai puflin laturile multiple ale existenflei, profuziunea ei, altfel decît dupæerences transitive to anything else but itself – the “egotistic” way of beinga subject of the modern subject (as all modern philosophy presented to us indetail, exhaustively).What keeps emerging from this – i.e. what is socially reproducible, precisely –may, therefore, be literally described as an egoistic way of appropriating, onthe background of the societal results generated by the autotelic sovereigntyof the emancipatory movement, of its benefits, individually deductible (like allkinds of “liberties” and licenses which the adult of today allows himself in thepursuit of “personal happiness”). A privatisation of emancipation which,inevitably, for the mass man of our mature modernity – representative of thishumanity of the plastic, protean, subjectivity, constrained not even by itselfand inherited from no one – is a way of des-assuming, as well (in regard, forexample, to the generic content of the emancipation mission assigned by theEnlightenment, modernity’s matrix), without getting him out of the alreadydrawn path of his own subjectivation. It’s rather a phenomenon of des-investing(with its counterpart, the retreat on “personal self”) from all that falls outsidehis everyday life (with its activities, human relations and concerns),as well as from the genuine dimension of the solidarity with his fellow humans;not so much in the line of natural or spiritual- or moral/afective-organic community(on the contrary, tribe solidarities, on the one hand, and leagues,clubs, associations, parties, groups of interest, NGOs – all which are associationsaround a particular interest – are as lively as possible), but in the lineof the same commonly taken care – not identical, but to be shared in variousways – for the cohabitation at the same histori(c)al hour of his own existence’ssense (the partake kinds cannot be counted, cannot be erased from a list,because they are as many as the possible ways of free communion, to befound or looked for, on the various meridians of the existence solidarity) 7 ;in this respect, it would be a de-socialisation, in an essential sense, onlyapparently paradoxical in such times like ours, when the individuals are moreexposed than ever to communication, to circulation (of theirs and of information)and, finally, to sociability (“networking”) and to “socialization” (in theAmerican sense of the word). But this goes hand in hand, for instance, witha tendency which the individual cannot resist by himself, neither if he wantsto, of abandoning everything that, on his way to “self-realisation”, he considersto be a – moral, relational, affective, practical – ballast, belonging toa state of his affiliations (familiar – broadly speaking, and at the same timerestricted, of social group, etc.) (regarded as) past.Finally, the summing-up made for the birth and the generalisation of this kindof hypertrophic subjectivity, invasive, but, at the same time, so little generouslyopen to the world and the others while focusing on the narrow circle of thepresent man’s personal life, whose humanity it illustrates, may be indicatedin another way, too: by emphasising it in the ubiquitous dissemination of itsmonotone effects on the surface of the social relations – at their interface.The request for the success of this perception is very simple. Let’s admit thatthis is how we ourselves are, each and everyone, in order to be able to recognizeourselves in the reflection returned by (almost every) “other” one in ourrelation-related practices. By the very thing that could endlessly “differentiate”us and diversify us in a lot of individualized, idiosyncratic, allegedly notreplicable profiles, to (allow to) see how much, how “deeply” we are alike ina crucial aspect. It’s all about the myriad versions of the same copy of subjectiveinteriority; about the same subject subjected – subdued – to the cumulativeeffects of the same process of subjectivation, that which allows us tohomologate ever lesser the unnumberable sides of existence, its profusion,in other way than with respect to the cogito rank attained by ante-predicative112