Descarcă revista în format PDF - idea

cenzuri øi færæ vinovæflii, cu deplinul nostru asentiment, la un „stadiu“ infantil.12 Un „stadiu“ care nu e defel unul (aøa cum ar sugera analogia cu lexiculpsihanalitic), fiindcæ e chiar finalitatea asumatæ a ocupafliilor noastrecelor mai serioase øi acaparante. E, de fapt, doar cealaltæ faflæ, reversul curentøi la vedere, nu numai cotidian (în ritmul zilelor øi sæptæmînilor de lucru, înalternanfla muncæ/repaus, activitate/relaxare, acumulare/cheltuire), ci absolutdiurn øi „mediocru“ (durchschnittlich) al vieflii adulte, expus færæ secret,færæ disimulare. Øi deci gratificaflia cum nu se poate mai licitæ (de vreme cee chiar norma færæ opfliune alternativæ) a felului cum avem a ne bucura de(în) propriul efort de existenflæ. Nu e vorba, prin urmare, nici de vreo stareregresivæ a existenflei, ci, mai degrabæ, contractatæ (de la ea) sub forma unuileasing nedefinit constrîngætor – øi cu ea însæøi stipulatæ ca obiect: ca „bunulde (cel mai) larg consum“ –, de-a dreptul de împlinirea folosului pe care nepricepem a i-l da.*Dar ne amintim nu doar de simpatia unanimæ pentru felul în care pærea sæne reluæm colectiv soarta în mîini øi care contribuia øi ea la mîndria scuturæriide tiranie. Ne amintim, de asemenea, øi cum acelei simpatii i-a urmat curîndøocul – în care se amestecau mila øi oroarea – suscitat øi apoi ani buni întreflinutcu complezenflæ de (øi prin) mass-media (iaræøi de pretutindeni), denenumæratele relatæri despre infernul copiilor abandonafli læsat în urmæ, seexplica, cu insistenflæ morbidæ pe detaliile cele mai monstruoase (tocmai,cele pretabile de minune la obscenitatea mediaticæ), de „biopolitica“ natalistæa comunismului de penurie. Ar fi fost în mod cert mai util ca, dincolode „bunele sentimente“ morale – zgîndærite aøa, excitate, stoarse, prin øantajemoflional, isterizate –, sæ fie abordatæ cît de cît explicitarea mai frontalæa situafliei prin care eøecurile mortifere ale acestuia (denunflate altminteri purpropagandistic) urmau a fi predate în gestiune øi astfel „moøtenite“ de otranziflie postsocialistæ avînd o cu totul altæ agendæ de prioritæfli. (Bunæoaræ,sub numele pompos moralizator de „trecere la o economie de piaflæ funcflionalæ“,privatizarea prædalnicæ, rapace a oricærei avuflii sociale rentabile øi/saulegitime ori dedicarea aplicatæ discreditærii, pe toate cæile, a unei nofliuni publicinstituflionalizate a solidaritæflii colective træite public, alta decît caritateafilantropicæ ori religioasæ; øi, la urma urmei, sabotarea de-a dreptul, prinpolitici guvernamentale de refletar, de aiurea øi de nicæieri, dar „implementate“cu religiozitate – cînd n-a fost vorba pur øi simplu de abandon deliberat–, a înseøi posibilitæflii øi a resurselor pentru a o gestiona în fine eficient,dupæ dezastrul læsat în urmæ de ultima perioadæ a fostului regim.) Desigurcæ, în raport cu percepflia acestui infern, amintirile atîtor foøti copii „crescuflicu cheia de gît“, între blocuri, se dovedeau benigne, chiar constructive întrucîtva(pentru o socializare mai puflin anomicæ) øi avînd astfel dreptul, eventual,la o oarecare nostalgie înduioøatæ. Øi bineînfleles cæ fie øi asta, deja, meritasæ ne împingæ la o reflecflie mai adîncitæ, ceva mai mult în orice caz decît eventualajenæ încercatæ din pricina noului oprobriu abætut în felul acesta asuprasocietæflii noastre. Adicæ, mai precis, în cazul dat, asupra sociabilitæflii caatare ce ne caracterizeazæ societatea, tocmai ca legæturæ – genealogicæ saunu – traversînd apartenenfla la generaflii diferite a membrilor sæi.Sæ mai reculæm atunci încæ o datæ, pentru un ultim tur de orizont al chestiuniicæreia pînæ acum i-am explorat articulafliile generice, færæ însæ ca vreunmoment sæ fi pæræsit în fond solul de experienflæ localizatæ social-istoric dincare ea se pune.fest back side, not only ordinary (in the rhythm of days and weeks of work,in the alternance work/repaus, activity/relaxation, accumulating/spending),but absolutely diurnal and “mediocre” (durchschnittlich) of the adult life,exposed without any secrets, without dissimulation. And thus the gratification,as licit as possible (as long as it is the norm, without an alternative),of the way we have to enjoy (in) our own effort of existence. So we are not talkingabout a regressive state of existence either; but rather, as by a sort of contractof an indefinitely compelling leasing (with it as such as the provider)– and having itself as the object (of that contract): as the commodity of the mostlarge utility –, about the fullfilment of the very use we are able to get for it.*But we not only remember the unanimous sympathy for the way we seemedto take our destiny into our own hands and which contributed as well to thepride of ending up with tyranny. We also remember how this sympathy wassoon followed by the shock – wherein pity and horror mixed – stirred, andcomplacently maintained by (and through) mass-media (as well from everywhere),of numberless reports about the hellish life of the abandoned childrenleft behind, the explications went, with a morbid insistence on the most horriddetails (the most perfectly fit for the media obscenity) by the natalist “bio-politics”of the penury communism. It would certainly have been more helpfulthat, beyond the moral “nice feelings” – raked up, stirred, extorted throughemotional blackmail, turned hysterical –, someone approached a more frontalexplanation of the situation by which its mortifying failures (denounced as justpropagandistic) were to be handed over and thus “inherited” by a post-socialisttransition with quite another agenda. (For instance, under the pompousname of “shift to a functional market economy”, the predatory, rapacious privatisationof every profitable and/or legitimate social wealth or the dedicationused to discredit, by all means, of a publicly institutionalised notion of the collectivesolidarity publicly experienced, other than the philanthropic-religiouscharity; and, after all, the sabotage itself through governmental policies,devised from who knows where, but religiously implemented – or simplythrough intended abandon – of the possibility itself and resources to efficientlymanage it, at last, after the disaster left behind by the last period of the formerregime.) Of course, against the perception on such a hell, the memoriesof so many children “raised with the key hanging by the neck”, betweenthe blocks, proved to be benign, even constructive to some extent (for a lessanomic socialisation) and entitled, perhaps, to some kind of sympathetic nostalgia.And of course, this only should make us think more deeply, somethingmore, anyway, than maybe the embarrassment felt because of the new dispraisedescended upon our society. More precisely, in our case, on the sociabilityitself which characterizes our society, just as a bond – genealogicalor not – between the affiliation to different generations of its members.Then let’s go back, for a last review of the issue we have been exploring so farthe generic articulations, without for a moment leaving the ground of socialhistoricallocated experience which raise it.So, not quite recovered from the state of juvenile grace in which, like an exorbitantChristmas gift (it was before the Coca-Cola Christmas!), we seemed toregain a re-opened history, a sense of it (quasi-miraculously inverted: innocent,freshened) –, and therefore a kind of collective subjectivity to be reassumedautonomously –, without realising that, along with that, along withthe regained liberties and the common sovereignty would also come theirresponsibility; and at the same time unprepared for the forced resignations,for the new exclusions and the hopeless jams – for the neglect of entire areas114