The art of difference

Mutuality in recognizing and negotiating difference is crucial for people to deal with their past and the future; it is also essential in the process of creating a culture of responsibility. How can this be achieved and what is the role of art in this process?

A vision based on ideologies solves both challenges of sharing - the interpretation of the past and the projections of the future. But ideologies are somehow “total”, if not totalitarian, because there is not much space for serious public negotiation. Individuals, then, lose their integrity or are restricted to their private spheres and, in the end, their memories become part of the dominant identity discourse, their aspirations are delegated. Even in less obvious systems of ideological rule, where individual subscription to the official story line seems to be consciously voluntary and collective memories are willingly encouraged for the sake of collective identities, the negotiation of difference is often not welcome: exclusion happens quickly and non-conformist doubts produce suspicion.

A democratic vision - shared aspirations for the future, based on negotiated interpretations of the past that respect diversity - is necessarily found in complex processes of private and public discourse and participatory and inclusive culture. Yet, politics tends to reduce complexity and engineer the balance between the individual and the collective rather than invest in processes of negotiation. We have learned, though, that this social engineering is a phantasm, largely limited and limiting, and, even if successful, often creates paranoid and fatal structures of homogeneity by trying to mould memories and hopes.

Humankind has gathered impressive knowledge about the limitations of the human will and the failures of such “engineering”. Nevertheless, despite this, and maybe even because of it, we cannot give up trying the impossible: to create conditions for equality and solidarity for individuals to flourish. These conditions should be accompanied by narratives of a just, fair and free commonwealth of all. If history and memory seem to make this dream an unlikely scenario, can art play this part?

The role of art is precisely to keep inspiration alive, to deconstruct ideology, to recall the necessary dream of freedom, of the individual and of the common good beyond the “either/or” and beyond simplicity. In this sense, art in general prevents false hopes, and thus generates hope in the most paradoxical way: the only way of hoping that reaches beyond the private sphere without some kind of ideological distortion.

What makes art so unique? And why? Because the best narratives of art are purpose-free, uniquely non-instrumental, simply human. Art narrates what we don’t understand in enlightened ways. Artists in particular offer a wealth of unseen perspectives and unexpected pathways of human exploration. Art makes us aware that all memories are personal, despite the power of collective narratives. Arts and culture empower people to think freely, to imagine the unimagined, to feel responsible across borders and boundaries. Hopefully, the narratives of the future will be intercultural - and art will be the ally in the art of difference that needs to be further developed. “Art is about difference, art is difference”, as stated by Igor Dobricic*. And it is difference that will be at the origin of the new bonding narratives of confidence.

Gottfried Wagner alliancepublishing.org

*Igor Dobricic - dramaturgo sérvio

Hacia un feminismo innecesario

Hoy muchas mujeres podemos votar, usar pantalón o falda, según la preferencia, sabemos leer, escribir, sumar, restar, podemos tener propiedades y disfrutar de que sea ilegal que el novio o marido nos dé una paliza. En gran parte, todo esto, que muchas mujeres occidentales de hoy dan por sentado, es obra de un poco más de 100 años de movimiento feminista. ¿Por qué entonces un movimiento que nos ha traído tantas ventajas tiene tantos detractores?

Mi primera respuesta es que la palabra feminista resultó asociada con mujeres desentendidas de su aspecto, amargadas y que odian a los hombres, con las que muchas no podemos identificarnos. Sin embargo esta imagen es una caricatura que no representa las premisas básicas que han defendido este movimiento: una igualdad de los derechos de las mujeres con los de los hombres, tan sencillo como eso.

Diversos historiadores están de acuerdo en que el feminismo ha tenido tres olas. La primera comenzó en el Reino Unido y en los EE. UU., en el siglo XIX, y consiguió el voto para las mujeres. La segunda ola, que comenzó en la década de 1960, no se ocupó tanto de iniquidades de facto, sino de rebelarse ante las desigualdades de los roles sociales: las mujeres fueron a la universidad, quemaron sujetadores, se divorciaron y se fueron a trabajar empantalonadas, pero en cierto momento se pasaron de radicales y he ahí el mal sabor que dejó el feminismo.

Esta segunda ola se acaba en la década de 1980, y la tercera ola aparece a finales de los 90. Cito una de sus frases de batalla: “Es posible tener un sujetador seductor y un cerebro, simultáneamente”. Esta última ola del feminismo ya no se cree la idea de un universal de mujer, ya no ataca a las Barbies, sino que las incluye, y sus militantes volvieron a los tacones y al pintalabios rojo, esas cosas, que en la segunda ola se asociaban a la opresión masculina.

La tercera ola se mueve mucho por internet, por eso a veces se le llama feminismo cybergrrl, o simplemente grrl, equivalente cibernético para great girl (chica fantástica). Este es un feminismo que no funciona en términos de “ellos y nosotras” y que no trata de ocultar la feminidad. Y feminidad no es cuerpo de guitarra, feminidad es poder escoger honestamente qué tipo de mujer quiere uno ser (incluso es escoger no ser mujer), por eso este es un feminismo que pelea por la reina de belleza con bigote y la bibliotecaria con silicona, siempre y cuando ellas mismas elijan conscientemente su vida y su apariencia.

Tal vez ahora usted se reconoce en uno de estos matices feministas. O tal vez usted me diga que su vida, y el ambiente en que se ha movido, no la ha discriminado en virtud de su género, y que antes que como mujer, usted se reconoce como individuo o como persona, y que frente a esto el feminismo es innecesario. ¡Maravilloso! Un movimiento se prueba exitoso cuando resulta innecesario, cuando sus luchas no hay que lucharlas más y sus objeciones resultan obvias.

Pienso que feministas o no, las mujeres colombianas debemos reconocer a nuestras antecesoras valientes que pusieron el pecho y los pechos a un mundo que no las incluía. Yo me reconozco feminista porque quiero honrar este legado, y porque pienso que este movimiento todavía puede aportar muchísimo a realizar el ideal de una sociedad diversa e igualitaria. Colombia todavía necesita del feminismo porque falta mucho para un respeto real, porque a muchas mujeres les pagan menos, las menosprecian, en virtud de su sexo. Colombia necesita un feminismo fuerte que desmienta esta idea de que las mujeres se saltan mutuamente a la yugular. Así podremos pensar en un futuro en el que el feminismo sea realmente innecesario para todos.

CATALINA RUIZ-NAVARRO elespectador.com

The art of difference

Mutuality in recognizing and negotiating difference is crucial for people to deal with their past and the future; it is also essential in the process of creating a culture of responsibility. How can this be achieved and what is the role of art in this process?

A vision based on ideologies solves both challenges of sharing - the interpretation of the past and the projections of the future. But ideologies are somehow “total”, if not totalitarian, because there is not much space for serious public negotiation. Individuals, then, lose their integrity or are restricted to their private spheres and, in the end, their memories become part of the dominant identity discourse, their aspirations are delegated. Even in less obvious systems of ideological rule, where individual subscription to the official story line seems to be consciously voluntary and collective memories are willingly encouraged for the sake of collective identities, the negotiation of difference is often not welcome: exclusion happens quickly and non-conformist doubts produce suspicion.

A democratic vision - shared aspirations for the future, based on negotiated interpretations of the past that respect diversity - is necessarily found in complex processes of private and public discourse and participatory and inclusive culture. Yet, politics tends to reduce complexity and engineer the balance between the individual and the collective rather than invest in processes of negotiation. We have learned, though, that this social engineering is a phantasm, largely limited and limiting, and, even if successful, often creates paranoid and fatal structures of homogeneity by trying to mould memories and hopes.

Humankind has gathered impressive knowledge about the limitations of the human will and the failures of such “engineering”. Nevertheless, despite this, and maybe even because of it, we cannot give up trying the impossible: to create conditions for equality and solidarity for individuals to flourish. These conditions should be accompanied by narratives of a just, fair and free commonwealth of all. If history and memory seem to make this dream an unlikely scenario, can art play this part?

The role of art is precisely to keep inspiration alive, to deconstruct ideology, to recall the necessary dream of freedom, of the individual and of the common good beyond the “either/or” and beyond simplicity. In this sense, art in general prevents false hopes, and thus generates hope in the most paradoxical way: the only way of hoping that reaches beyond the private sphere without some kind of ideological distortion.

What makes art so unique? And why? Because the best narratives of art are purpose-free, uniquely non-instrumental, simply human. Art narrates what we don’t understand in enlightened ways. Artists in particular offer a wealth of unseen perspectives and unexpected pathways of human exploration. Art makes us aware that all memories are personal, despite the power of collective narratives. Arts and culture empower people to think freely, to imagine the unimagined, to feel responsible across borders and boundaries. Hopefully, the narratives of the future will be intercultural - and art will be the ally in the art of difference that needs to be further developed. “Art is about difference, art is difference”, as stated by Igor Dobricic*. And it is difference that will be at the origin of the new bonding narratives of confidence.

Gottfried Wagner alliancepublishing.org

*Igor Dobricic - dramaturgo sérvio

The art of difference

Mutuality in recognizing and negotiating difference is crucial for people to deal with their past and the future; it is also essential in the process of creating a culture of responsibility. How can this be achieved and what is the role of art in this process?

A vision based on ideologies solves both challenges of sharing - the interpretation of the past and the projections of the future. But ideologies are somehow “total”, if not totalitarian, because there is not much space for serious public negotiation. Individuals, then, lose their integrity or are restricted to their private spheres and, in the end, their memories become part of the dominant identity discourse, their aspirations are delegated. Even in less obvious systems of ideological rule, where individual subscription to the official story line seems to be consciously voluntary and collective memories are willingly encouraged for the sake of collective identities, the negotiation of difference is often not welcome: exclusion happens quickly and non-conformist doubts produce suspicion.

A democratic vision - shared aspirations for the future, based on negotiated interpretations of the past that respect diversity - is necessarily found in complex processes of private and public discourse and participatory and inclusive culture. Yet, politics tends to reduce complexity and engineer the balance between the individual and the collective rather than invest in processes of negotiation. We have learned, though, that this social engineering is a phantasm, largely limited and limiting, and, even if successful, often creates paranoid and fatal structures of homogeneity by trying to mould memories and hopes.

Humankind has gathered impressive knowledge about the limitations of the human will and the failures of such “engineering”. Nevertheless, despite this, and maybe even because of it, we cannot give up trying the impossible: to create conditions for equality and solidarity for individuals to flourish. These conditions should be accompanied by narratives of a just, fair and free commonwealth of all. If history and memory seem to make this dream an unlikely scenario, can art play this part?

The role of art is precisely to keep inspiration alive, to deconstruct ideology, to recall the necessary dream of freedom, of the individual and of the common good beyond the “either/or” and beyond simplicity. In this sense, art in general prevents false hopes, and thus generates hope in the most paradoxical way: the only way of hoping that reaches beyond the private sphere without some kind of ideological distortion.

What makes art so unique? And why? Because the best narratives of art are purpose-free, uniquely non-instrumental, simply human. Art narrates what we don’t understand in enlightened ways. Artists in particular offer a wealth of unseen perspectives and unexpected pathways of human exploration. Art makes us aware that all memories are personal, despite the power of collective narratives. Arts and culture empower people to think freely, to imagine the unimagined, to feel responsible across borders and boundaries. Hopefully, the narratives of the future will be intercultural - and art will be the ally in the art of difference that needs to be further developed. “Art is about difference, art is difference”, as stated by Igor Dobricic*. And it is difference that will be at the origin of the new bonding narratives of confidence.

Gottfried Wagner alliancepublishing.org

*Igor Dobricic - dramaturgo sérvio

Com base no texto abaixo, responda a questão.

Igual-Desigual

Eu desconfiava: todas as histórias em quadrinho são iguais. Todos os filmes norte-americanos são iguais. Todos os filmes de todos os países são iguais. Todos os best-sellers¹ são iguais Todos os campeonatos nacionais e internacionais de futebol são iguais. Todos os partidos políticos são iguais. Todas as mulheres que andam na moda são iguais. Todas as experiências de sexo são iguais. Todos os sonetos, gazéis, virelais, sextinas e rondós² são iguais e todos, todos os poemas em verso livre são enfadonhamente iguais.

Todas as guerras do mundo são iguais. Todas as fomes são iguais. Todos os amores, iguais iguais iguais. Iguais todos os rompimentos. A morte é igualíssima. Todas as criações da natureza são iguais. Todas as ações, cruéis, piedosas ou indiferentes, são iguais. Contudo, o homem não é igual a nenhum outro homem, bicho ou coisa.

Ninguém é igual a ninguém. Todo ser humano é um estranho ímpar.

CARLOS DRUMMOND DE ANDRADE Nova reunião: 19 livros de poesia. Rio de Janeiro: José Olympio, 1985.

¹ best-sellers - livros mais vendidos ² gazéis, virelais, sextinas, rondós - tipos de poema