Descarcă revista în format PDF - idea

mai ales în cazul expulzærilor pentru exces de indisciplinæ, erau pærflile carepuneau cu adeværat în funcfliune mecanisme de îmblînzire øi disciplinare, generîndræspunsul ascultætor la interpelærile sistemului:„Trebuia sæ se gîndeascæ ce va face în vacanflæ, ca sæ spunæ la øcoalæ. Pentrucæ trebuie sæ spunæ ce face în vacanflæ, aøa ca øi în clasa a-ntîia øi a doua.Dar atunci a spus cæ stæ acasæ øi îi ajutæ pe pærinfli. Øi îi era ruøine. Ceimai mulfli se duceau în tabæræ, iar cei care-nvæflau bine, în excursii. Darel avea tabæræ la el în sat øi totuna, umbla pe-acolo øi se uita cum joacæfotbal. Dar ceilalfli spuneau cæ se duc la flaræ, la bunica, dar el nu puteasæ se mai ducæ încæ o datæ la flaræ, dacæ træia la flaræ. Øi îi era ruøine. Poatedacæ ar fi træit în oraø øi s-ar fi dus la flaræ, nu i-ar fi fost deloc ruøine aøacum nu-i era nici lui Catereva, care a zis cæ ultima lunæ se duce la flaræ,la bunica. Ce vacanflæ-i asta sæ te duci la flaræ? Înseamnæ cæ el tot timpu-iîn vacanflæ? Dar nu era el în vacanflæ pentru cæ toatæ lumea rîdeade el“ (Øtefan Baøtovoi, Iepurii nu mor, Braøov, Editura Aula, 2002).Iar Saøa Vakulovki, dupæ ce îndurase ani de-a rîndul umilinfle fiindcæ nu aveaunde sæ spunæ cæ petrece vacanfla, a strîns în pumn zece ruble øi a ræspunsinterpelærii învæflætoarei: va da banii øi va merge în tabæræ, chiar dacæ tabærae... la el în sat. Astfel, s-au pus bazele pentru socializarea lui Saøa – însæ ultimelepagini ale romanului lui Baøtovoi – sæ fie licenfla sa de scriitor? – nu lasæ locvreunei iluzii: cînd vine vacanfla, cu Saøa are loc opusul socializærii: devinesingur mort, se învagineazæ în pæmîntul pædurii din satul sæu.Dacæ înregimentarea periodicæ, în segmente, încerca sæ îmblînzeascæ prininducerea de reflexe periodice – iar taberele nu erau prea eficiente în acestsens –, în capitalismul actual, copilul e expus unui alt mod de interpelare,continuæ, sub presiunea pieflei. Copilul e primul supus miriadelor de mecanismede interpelare ale pieflei, ca øi unui tip specific de limbaj care îl forfleazæsæ se conformeze unei identitæfli dinainte stabilite. E încredinflat zilnic,de multiple ori, cîte unui azil protector cu perefli groøi, bine delimitafli, carei se promite prin oferte binevoitoare øi frumos colorate. E frecvent solicitat,în mod insistent, sæ teritorializeze dorinflele sale de îndatæ ce ele apar,ba chiar înainte sæ se contureze cît de cît. Maøinufle sau pæpuøi? Batman sauSpiderman? Pe cine iubeøti tu mai mult, pe mama sau pe tata? – „Øervetulse pune pe...?“ „Genunchi!“ – ræspunde, în fine, cu precizie, copilul.E un joc la limitæ, însæ anticiparea dorinflelor copilului în dauna potenflærii lor,abundenfla plajelor de ostoire a dorinflelor neformate contribuie la încetæflenireaunei relaflii în care adultul a intrat deja în bula imaginarului infantil,iar copilul este singurul care observæ lucrul acesta. Dacæ ar fi sæ reiau oexpresie a lui Sloterdijk, în societatea capitalistæ, copilului, pe cît de bine închisîntr-o celulæ, pe atît de copios înconjurat de obiecte, i se permite arareorigestul care, zice-se, a marcat saltul antropogenetic: luxul privirii în întinsulcîmpului. Ba, într-o repetiflie comicæ a ipostazei, cel mai adesea i se propteøteîn fafla ochilor un ecran cu animale, luxul fiind definit de astæ datæ delærgimea numitului ecran. De la o inserflie în lume, se trece la o proiecflieîn imagine. Mulflumitæ pieflei, mecanismele de interpelare se insinueazæ chiarîn intimitatea procesului de du-te-vino a dorinflelor între copil øi adult.Iar dacæ punerea bazelor legæturii sociale, socializarea imaginarului infantilse deruleazæ între medierile obiectelor-mærfuri øi întreruperile actelor deinterpelare, ceea ce ræmîne sæ dea legea principiului social, a socializærii, nue chiar animalul?Cel mai iubitor Tætuc din lume, Stalin, numise scriitorii „ingineri ai sufletelorumane“, însæ creatorii de animale ai industriei culturale sînt, færæ îndoialæ,have rather been exercises in indiscipline and disobedience and a kind ofintensive training in socialization and erotism. In a closed society, where thefamilies served as genuine barricades, the camps were a sort of cells turnedinside-out, oasis of freedom and excess. In fact, the access to the camp, aswell as the exit, especially in the case of expulsion for excessive indiscipline,were the parts that really turned on the mechanisms of taming and disciplining,generating the obedient answer to the interpellations of the system:“He had to think about spending the vacation, in order to havesomething to tell in the class. Because he has to tell what he is doing inthe vacation, like in the first and the second grade. But then he had saidhe would stay at home and help his parents. And he was ashamed. Mostof them went to the camp, and those who did well in school travelled.But the camp was in his village and it was the same thing, he walkedabout and watched them playing football. But the others said they weregoing to the country, to grandma, but he couldn’t go to the country,for he lived in the country. And he was ashamed. Perhaps if he had livedin the city and had gone to the country, he wouldn’t have been ashamedat all, because Catereva was not, as she said she would go to the countryfor the last month, to her grandma. What kind of vacation is that, goingto the country? Does this mean that he is always on vacation?But he wasn’t on vacation, because everybody laughed at him.”(Øtefan Baøtovoi, Rabbits Don’t Die, Braøov, Aula Publishing House, 2002)And Sasha Vakulovki, after years of humiliation based on the fact that hecouldn’t tell where he would spend his vacation, got the 10 roubles andanswered to the teacher’s interpellation: he will pay and go to the camp, evenif the camp is... in his village. Thus was laid the foundation for Sasha’s socialization– but the last pages of Baøtovoi’s novel – just a writer’s licence? – don’tmake for any illusions: when the vacation comes, what happens to Sasha isthe opposite of socialization: he becomes dead-lonely, he envaginates himselfin the forest ground of his village.If the periodical regimentation, in segments, was trying to tame by inducingperiodical reflexes – and the camps were not too efficient in that sense –,in today’s capitalism the child is exposed to another way of interpellation,continuous, under the market pressure. The child is the first to be subjected tothe myriads of market interpellation methods, as well as to a specific type oflanguage forcing him to conform to a previously established identity. Thechild is deferred daily, numerous times, to a protective asylum with thickwalls, well circumscribed, that comes with friendly offers and in nice colours.Children are frequently and assiduously asked to territorialize their desires assoon as they arise, or even before they take shape. Cars or dolls? Batman orSpiderman? Who do you love more, mammy or daddy? “You put the napkinon...?” “The knees” – finally answers the child accurately.It is a borderline situation, but anticipating the desires of the child at theexpense of their immanent formation, the abundance of landing territorieswaiting upon unformed desires, are contributing to setting up a relationwherein the adult is already in the bubble of infantile imaginary, and the childis the only one who notices that. If I were to use a formula belonging toSloterdijk, the child, tenderly placed in the capitalist society in cells and generouslysurrounded by objects, is rarely allowed the gesture which, allegedly,marked the leap of anthropogenesis: the luxury of onlooking in the open field.Even more, in a comic repetition of that stance, today most frequently ascreen with animals is placed before the children’s eyes, and this time the luxuryis derived from the size of the said screen. From an insertion in the world,to a projection into image. Thus the interpellation mechanisms of the market122