Descarcă revista în format PDF - idea

+ (copii abandonafli. pærinfli în abandon)rangul de cogito pe care îl capætæ judecæfli antepredicative de genul (øiforma): „aøa îmi place mie“, „(eu) cred cæ“, „(eu) flin morfliø sæ“, „(asta) vreaueu“, „îmi trebuie (neapærat) øi mie“, „pærerea mea e“, „aøa sînt (eu)“ ø.a.m.d.Øi cum acest tipar de subiectivare e ceea ce se reproduce pe scaræ largæprin toate modurile øi canalele de comunicaflie ale societæflii cu ea însæøi, petoate cæile de modelare (de programare) a membrilor sæi, ce altceva amputea transmite, la rîndu-ne, copiilor noøtri ca sæ perpetueze (sæ întæreascæ,sæ agraveze) øi ei pe mai departe? Nu înainte, bineînfleles, ca ei sæ ne prezinte,la termen, nota de platæ.Ceea ce bilanflul acesta poate înfæfliøa ca straniu øi neliniøtitor (subiectivareaextremæ dimpreunæ cu asocialitatea aferentæ øi caracterul ei agenealogic) ebine disimulat deja în figurile familiare ale normalitæflii comportamentelor însocietæflile modern-contemporane, iar el e acoperit, cît priveøte randamentul,în beneficiile pragmatice pe care ni le procuræ.Nu numai cæ bucuriile øi izbînzile noastre etice, atunci cînd sînt aøa ceva,nu au alt resort (de vreme ce tocmai aøa se atestæ chiar suveranitatea, cumnu se poate mai raflionalæ, a voinflei noastre finite asupra ei înseøi – rafliuneapracticæ nu are alt conflinut 8 ), ci înseøi juisærile noastre fundamentale nu sînt,pînæ la urmæ, în diverse feluri, decît scurtcircuitæri compensatorii, descærcæriprin care consumæm, pentru a-l relansa iar øi iar, din tonusul anxiogenal satisfacfliei – de existenflæ, s-o spun din nou – cu care aderæm la condiflianoastræ simultan orfanæ øi adultæ (orfanæ, pentru cæ a priori adultæ, prin necesitateade epocæ evocatæ). Asta se verificæ zi de zi, de pildæ, în cazul plæcerilor(øi, mai ales, al „viciilor“) noastre; fie cæ e vorba de cele triviale,împærtæøite øi încurajate de moravurile noastre puflin austere øi alergice ladædæcealæ, fie de cele mai idiosincratice, solitare, însæ destul de uniforme(de la cele inavuabile, „blestemate“, la cele doar „perverse“). 9 Ele maitoate ajung sæ aibæ curs (iar inconøtientului nostru îi place aøa) fiind decisivincitate, hrænite fantasmatic øi/sau mimetic, de mecanismele culturale dedopare indefinitæ, în masæ, a dorinflei (nu øi ale satisfacerii ei) – mecanismede conivenflæ cu moravurile „blînde“ øi cu ideologiile soft ale „stilærii“ personalistea cotidianului, însæ nu mai puflin viguros susflinute (plætite, deci cumpærate)de o atotputernicæ economie a unei supraabundenfle productive ceforfleazæ cu orice chip consumul. 10 (O abundenflæ menitæ riguros hiperconsumului,ca factor economic programat(ic) în relansarea ciclurilor productive,nu øi „epuizærii“ ei, trecerii ei în „valoarea de întrebuinflare“ ori, mai ræu,refuzului; categoriile penuriei, ale precaritæflii ori ale sobrietæflii au devenitîn timp tabu, stigmatizante, ruøinoase, iar realitatea ce le-ar corespunde –insuportabilæ; aøa cum, de cealaltæ parte, consumul ca puræ cheltuire, ca prædarejubilatorie de resurse øi bunuri e socotit anomic: un comportamentprostesc, nebunesc ori, dimpotrivæ, subversiv.) Or, dincolo de infrastructuraeconomico-tehnologicæ – la drept vorbind, de esenfla ecotehnicæ 11 (Gestell)– a acestor mecanisme, de maniera instalærii lor concentrice, compacte,tot mai insidioasæ, la orizonturile cele mai proxime øi mai ambigue ale nevoilornoastre (øi astfel tot mai dificil de sesizat din chiar miezul desfætærilor pe careni le procuræ) – deh, liberalitate hedonistæ, precum øi larghefle cinicæ a negustoruluicare nu impune clientului nimic, de vreme ce øtie cæ fondul sæude comerfl îi poate satisface orice fantezie, orice „alegere“ (tot atîtea fafleteale omniprezentei injoncfliuni de-a fi adult...) –, regula proceduralæ pusæ lalucru de ele e cît se poate de simplæ. Ele nu înceteazæ sæ ne solicite, sæ neseducæ (dorinflele reale, închipuite – granifla între ele e oricum ambiguæ) øisæ ne flateze ca adulfli decît pentru a ne face sæ regresæm mai lin, mai færæpropositions such as: “that’s the (only) way I like it”, “that’s what I think”,“I believe that”, “I want (or must have) that, too”, “ in my opinion”, “that’show I am”, and so forth. And as this pattern is reproduced at a large scaleon every of the society’s ways and channels of communication with itself,on every way of shaping (and programming) of its members, we cannot butteach our children to perpetuate (to empower, to aggravate) this further on.Not before, of course, they present us the bill, right on time.What may seem strange and disquieting in this review (the extreme subjectivationalong with its a-sociality and its a-genealogical character) is alreadywell dissembled in the familiar figures of normal behaviours in our moderncontemporarysocieties, and it is covered, with respect to the efficiency, in thepragmatic advantages it supplies us with.Not only that our ethical joys and triumphs, when they are so, don’t haveanother reason (inasmuch as that’s exactly how sovereignty itself, as rationalas it can be, of our finite will over ourselves is certified – the practical reasondoesn’t have another content 8 ), but our fundamental enjoyments (jouissances)themselves are, in the end, nothing but manifold compensatory short-circuits,discharges by which we consume, in order to reload it over and over again,from the anxiogenic tonus of the satisfaction – let me say it again, of existence– through which we adhere to our condition, simultaneously adult and orphan(orphan because it is a priori adult, through the evoked epoch necessity).This fact verifies everyday with our pleasures (and especially with our “vices”);either the trivial ones, shared and encouraged by our habits – so little austere,but allergic to jawing –, or the more idiosyncratic ones, the solitary, but prettyuniform ones (from the undisclosable, “damned” ones, to those just “pervert”).9 They all happen (and our unconscious loves this) as they are decisivelyincited, fed, in a phantasmal and/or mimetic manner, by the cultural mechanismsmeant for an indefinite and massive doping of desire (and not for satisfyingit) – mechanisms which are on connivance with the “gentle” mores andthe soft ideologies of the personalist “styling” of the quotidian, but no less vigorouslysupported by an all-powerful economy of productive superabundancewhich forces the consumption at any rate. 10 (An abundance rigorously meantfor hyper-consumption, as an economic factor in the renewal of the productivecycles, and not to its “exhaustion”, to its becoming a “use value” or, evenworse, to be refused; in time, such categories as penury, neediness or sobrietyhave become taboo, stigmatizing, shameful, and their correspondent reality– insupportable; just like, on the other side, the consumption as pure spending,as jubilatory waste of resources and goods, is thought to be anomic: afoolish, crazy or, on the contrary, a subversive behaviour). Or, beyond the economical-technologicalinfrastructure of these mechanisms (in fact, their ecotechnicalessence 11 (Gestell), beyond their concentric, compact, ever moreinsidious establishment, at the most proximal and ambiguous horizons of ourneeds (and thus even more difficult to observe from the very core of the pleasuresprocured for us) – well, hedonistic liberalism, as well as cynical largess ofthe merchant who forces nothing upon the client, as long as he knows that hisstock-in-trade can satisfy any of the client’s fancy, any “choice” (as manyfacets of the omnipresent injunction of being an adult...) –, the procedural rulethey apply is as simple as possible. They don’t cease to solicit, to seduce us(our real and/or imagined desires – the border between them is ambiguous,anyway) and flatter us as adults in order to make us regress smoother, withlesser reserves and guilt, with our full approval, to an infantile “stage”. 12A “stage” which is not at all one (as the analogy with the psychoanalysis lexiswould suggest), because it is the very assumed finality of our most serious andpossessive occupations. In fact, it’s just the other side, the current and mani-113