Reflexões breves

Embalado pelo espírito nós-e-eles que, mais uma vez, invade o país, fiquei com um pensamento no ar, sobre o qual gostaria de falar aqui.

De um lado, o discurso de que o nível material de uma pessoa tem a ver, praticamente de modo exclusivo, com ela própria. De outro, o discurso, mais voltado ao lado social da coisa, de que devemos entender a desgraça vivida por muita gente no nosso país como uma reminiscência de um passado de exploração.

No primeiro caso, eco na minha cabeça se faz por ouvir, por mais do que o tempo recomendado pela segurança mental, alguns jornalistas da Jovem Pan (não sei escrever os nomes, mas é fácil deduzir). Paulistas, acreditam, decerto, no mérito, na ‘ousadia’. Devem olhar para o próprio umbigo quando pensam e julgam os outros como “responsáveis” pela sua própria desgraça (pobres, em geral, eu suponho). Claro, se eles deram “tão certo”, graças a tanto trabalho, por que esses ‘brasileiros’ chorões ficam aí pedindo bolsa família e votando no ‘poste’? Vê-se claramente, nessa gente, a espuma do ódio na boca. Vejam o prazer que eles têm ao descrever o que chamam de ‘esquerda caviar’. Ok, sei que isso já está talvez bem velho…

No segundo caso, a mentalidade corporativista mais aliada ao pensamento “sou medíocre, mas, junto de outros, ganho alguma vantagem”. Esse é o quinhão da galera que acha que dinheiro dá em árvore. São os defensores do ‘povo’, da ‘exploração congênita’ e da distribuição ‘comunista’ dos bens (vulgo “propriedade privada”). As cordas vocais desse povo é azeitada por contra-cheques pagos pelo serviço público. Se inquiridos sobre como seu salário é composto, com certeza devem desconversar. Se ouvem a palavra “empreendedor”, têm um ataque intestinal e enegrecem tudo ao redor.

Seria possível ‘juntar’ essas duas versões? Pois, convenhamos, enegrecer o ambiente quando se ouve a palavra ‘empreendedor’ não deve ser lá razão para comemorar. Porém, ficar, diante de um microfone, bravando ‘meritocracia’ num país carcomido pela pobreza e ignorância decerto também não seria algo que a ONU iria recomendar.

Estou te dizendo o seguinte: que minha subjetividade está dividida nesse negócio. Pessoalmente, acredito que há, sim, muito corpo mole por aí. As pessoas, sob a verdadeira justificativa de que não têm nada, acabaram aprendendo apenas 100 palavras da língua portuguesa, e elas têm a ver com ‘direitos’. Discutem a penúria. São aferradas a Maslow: “Meu amigo, não dá para discutir nada se o bucho não está cheio”. Mal percebem que, ao pensarem com o bucho, vão morrer com ele.

A esquerda brasileira, velha e carcomida como bom ‘intelectual’ de esquerda, acha que o mundo é uma colônia onde todos deveriam dividir a mesma escova de dentes. São ontologicamente indignados. Até assumo que devam sofrer à noite pensando na desgraça do brasileiro – sei lá, 80% da população. Mas elas preferem fazer isso no ‘conforto’ do contra-cheque pago com dinheiro do Estado – que, aliás, defendem que deva ser ‘atuante’ (jura?).

A direita brasileira, por seu turno, é composta, predominantemente, por velhos que ganharam muita grana num país de desdentados, e que, por razões obscuras, acham que isso foi mérito deles. Odeiam a eles mesmos, mas não percebem isso, pois não se conformam em ter nascido na colônia. Pois pergunto o seguinte: se, enquanto a esquerda corrupta tem o sonho de fazer o povo ter o que comer (ora, pelo menos é um vestígio de utopia), a galera da direita tem qual sonho? Ser um ‘gigante da América Latina’, ou conseguir comprar o novo iphone nos EUA? Não têm qualquer vontade ou tesão por pensar em construir um país internacionalmente respeitável. Vão seguindo a manada, em geral, a manada das commodities.

Voltando ao início: embalado pelo discurso corrente, só reflito minha covarde incapacidade de superar a ‘dialética da contradição’. Enquanto isso, vamos seguindo nas duas correntes: os ‘empreendedores’, de um lado, e os ‘revolucionários’, de outro.

A JJCC.

After some time here in Denmark, I came to realize a certain Danish cultural trace (at least this is what I’m able to catch as a foreign). Walking down on the street, it is not uncommon to be surprised by someone smiling at you. Yes, people that are completely unfamiliar to you can look at you and … smile to you! It has happened to me at the supermarket, at the park, and at the street. Typically, it is a glance of a smile, but even so a smile.

First, of course, I thought that it was something addressed to me. Then I started to check out which kind of person used to do that more frequently. The result of this rough “survey” was that older woman used to smile more often that the younger ones. Well, but eventually I was also gifted by some young girl smile.

In a self-centered culture, where the face is a proxy to, obviously, the self, I think my first reaction was entirely understandable. The person somehow only exists to the other when she is seen by the other. More specifically, when their eyes meet. Social encounters – like at public spaces – are ruled out by an impersonal code according to which, if my eyes turn out to meet your eyes, immediately I’m supposed to shift them away – for instance, to the sky or the other’s shoes.

But what should I think when in addition to eyes contact, the experience comes with a smile? Both as quick as lightning? When my eyes glance off someone’s eyes as we walk past on the street, a sort of “relationship” is immediately settled. What kind of relationship? Well, you feel like beeing recognized, but not as Pedro, a particular self (even if I’d prefer the opposite), but as a person like the other. Second, you may feel some kind of reciprocity. Levinas, in a book about the Face, said that the face (not necessarily the physical or even psychological one) is a way to “face” the alterity – but, in Levinas’ account, I recognize the other’s suffering face. Here what I’m looking at is a smiling face, something quite different from a suffering face.

Over time, I finally came across with a hypothesis, an explanation for this (I guess) typical Danish behavior. Smiling is as much impersonal as swift eyes away. Here’s my guess: it is the way that the local culture found to regulate the social behavior, the borders between the intimacy/strangeness. In the social encounters, I unconsciously tell you: “Don’t be afraid, I’m a kind person, and I’ll not hurt you.” But, in return, “I hope you do the same to me.”

My question is: what happens when someone wants to demonstrate some particular “interest” in someone else, as when you are trying to get on with someone? There will be a different nuance in the way they smile, or look at one another? Could be the opposite, I mean, if I’m interested in you as a singular person, should I “ignore” you, or maybe could I have any trouble in staring at you?

Plastic is, probably, one of the most ingenious discoveries of our advanced, scientific and industrial era. We depend heavily on plastic to the well-functioning of our daily life – a toothpaste tube, a medicine bottle, all the pieces that compound the computer I’m now using to type this post, plastic bags we use to pack our stuff – there are so many applications to plastic-made objects that would be hard to sum up here. In a word: I can’t imagine our life without plastic.

But is well-known that plastic can be, at the same time, one of the worst enemies of nature. Plastic is difficult to degrade. And if we add to this characteristic the fact people are sometimes irresponsible in the way they throw out their no more useful plastic objects, then we can imagine the problem. Indeed, each year, tons of plastic debris are simply dumped into the ocean – the natural habitat of many species of seabirds.

One of these birds is the Laysan albatrosses. What a gracious creature!

These birds have a long wingspan, and they fly vast distances without flapping their wings. They can also spend years without touching land, living for more than half century. As if were not enough all the threats we human beings are causing to their environment (breaking the balance of their habitats), now they face a new menace: tons and tons of plastic that are dropped into the ocean every year. The problem? A recent study shows that this plastic is confused as their natural prey. This happens due to a chemical process that misleads these birds – the plastic debris generates a dimethyl sulfide signature that is the same trace these birds use to identify their ‘food.’ The result: they swallow this debris and then…. they die as a consequence. The photographer Chris Jordan has captured this tragic outcome in images like the next one.

I know. I know. While this is happening, you are concerned with your life. What is the value of the Albatrosses’ life? Your son is infinitely more important. The paper I’m struggling to publish right now is more important. Even what I’m going to eat next is more important. Who, in the so-called “First World” is concerned with the destiny of the plastic waste they produce? Most of the people have a shit for that. And so we in the “developing countries”.

Human beings are much more close to the ‘early man’ (primitive man) than might be expected. Imagine the following situation. You (or me) work all day long. You arrive at home and expect to have your meal prepared (by yourself our by someone else). You eat. If it is cold, as is the case here where I’m living, you also expect to be heated. Then you sit down on your couch. You may decide to watch the TV, or work a little more in front of your computer. Your mind could be busy – you could be anxious about the bills you have to pay in the next day. Or concerned about your kids (your younger sun is going badly at school), your wife or husband. Or you might be concerned because of an even more frivolous reason: let’s say because your football team lost the last championship. Or you are annoyed because of a bug flying around your head and buzzing in your face.

I’m not entirely sure, but I bet that most of our everyday activities show a degree of inertia. At best, your noblest personal project is raising your kids in the best way possible, or your dog, or help your old mother/father, keep your house, or car, or stuff in general. Or maybe you have put all your energy in your work – you’re concerned with the future of the company to which you work to. You truly desire that the firm goes beyond all its limits, and you’ll probably feel proud of this accomplishment.

Maybe you have an ‘inner’ voice telling you that your actions and achievements are indeed adding some value to the world. Somehow, you feel you are contributing to making this planet a better place to live -at least for the next generations. You throw your rubbish away every day. You pay your taxes. You buy your clothes, the fuel to our car, and eventually, you make the waitress working in your favorite restaurant happy with some generous (although occasional) tip. You think you are a good guy, a good person.

Yes, someone could say that keep our daily life is an act of courage. After all, affording our standards is not an easy task at all. It takes time, effort, labor, patience. However, I think that broadly speaking, we are far, but far, from a life based on, let’s say, ‘political values.’ I’m going to mention only the political surroundings in Brazil: I venture to say that 99% of the politicians decide to go to this life because of the status provided by this position, the money they earn (direct and indirectly). They hardly are concerned with the public good in a romantic point of view – that is to say, seeing beyond their self.

Well, I think that most people are conservative in a deep and unconscious level. They don’t want to ‘fight’ for anything except their personal and all-embracing way of life. I think this is related to the emergence of the ‘affluent societies’ over the past century, at least in the West. If I need something to eat (from the essential provisions to the most exotics products), for instance, I simply go to the supermarket and buy it. I don’t need to go to the forest or whatever to hunt my prey (Unless if I decide to hunt as a hobby or sport…). And we [middle class?] are also got accustomate to a comfortable life, with our little luxuries (a glass of wine, a warm meal, a private house, a private bedroom, etc.). Hard to get, easy to lose.

I’m not saying we are weak or that we became ‘coach potatoes,’ when compared to our ancestors. But maybe we are less prone to engage ourselves in acts that demand courage and, especially, self-sacrifice – perhaps because self-sacrifice is no longer considered as much as necessary to the perpetuation of our species. You could object that raising a kid or work hard in a line-based company or fast-food chain every day is a sort of “abnegation” or endurance (courage?). This could even be true but is an abnegation inside a narrow world: our world and the work of OUR family. Do you believe that each family is a cell of the society? Working in an interdependent and intertwined way? Private vices, public benefits (Mandeville)?

How much would you be ready to, let’s say, work freely for someone else in order to help them? How about receiving immigrants in your country and assist them restoring their lives, even if this implies some degree of self-sacrifice (let’s say, sharing something that belongs to you with them)? The Brexit: Have you ever imagined if, instead of saying goodbye to the Europe, the Britains had decided to remain and help to build a stronger Europe? In Brazil, do you can imagine ourselves helping some child on the street – giving them some food or even inviting them to stay in our house while we help her to find another place to live?

I’m portraying something far beyond a utopia. Engage ourselves in such a kind of abnegation or not interested behaviors challenge the central tenets of your society, our collective, and personal culture. This society relies on a value hierarchy where the individual is placed on the top; then, the proximal other (my relatives); and then the other that belongs to the same community as I do. We rarely can see further. One person indirectly helps another one only in a mediated way – for instance, through her work.

I mean: if I work for the State/Government, for example, and my job implies to assist homeless people, I do that because this is my job and I’m paid for doing that. Sometimes we heard a couple of histories about self-sacrifice from the part of these social workers, but this is not the case for everybody being paid to do something that was ascribed to them as part of their formal activities. Otherwise, we have no time, no physical conditions, and especially no deep and pristine desire to act towards the other in a abnegate way. We are not stupid, you could say.

Well, this is the ‘spiritual’ background behind what I tried to discuss in my previous post. I have no answer regarding how to overcome (if this is possible at all) this state of things. And, yes, I probably oversimplify the issue. It’s because I have no intention to argue based on “proved” facts or high-level theorization. I’d like just to share some current ‘feelings’ about myself, about the world where I live.

As probably you know, the presidential campaign in the US is far from beeing regular according to American democratic standards. It remembers what often happens in Brazil. Specifically, the role played by the media.

Do you remember when, in our last presidential election, a weekly magazine released a feature about the supposed awareness of the Labour candidate about what was going on in the Petrobras?

Now, in the US, the Democratic candidate is accusing the American media of being biased. He has been saying in his rallies that the election is rigged and that the media is producing ‘facts’ against him or his party.

This week, about ten days out from the election, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, acting independently of the Attorney General, had discovered new e-mails that could be potentially relevant in the ongoing investigate process against the Democrat’s candidate.

Do you remember when, at the most critical moment in which the Lower House were judging if they’ll accept or not to open the process that could overthrow the Brazilian Labour Party president, the judge in charge of the “Operação Lava Jato” decided, by himself, disclosure a private (and tapped) conversation between then-President Dilma and the former president (Lula)? Perfect timing, don’t you think?

It’s astonishing to notice that most people don’t care about the truth (especially in an era of ‘opinative journalism’ – I mean, blogs, free comments on the web, and so on). The strategy followed by most candidates or by sectors of the media is disclosure information that can or not be true – similar to a common marketing strategy so-called “weasel” claims. There is no real “truth checker” – because I think that the TV programs attempts to ‘match’ the information that the candidates have provided with the “reality” don’t work (it is fake, actually). Despite that “match” attempt, once told, the words became somehow real. Especially to a large segment of the population so much susceptible to being caught by passion or empty but performative words and apocalyptic scenarios.

However, there are further (and hardly noticed) similarities between these two electoral process. The sharpest one is related to the discourse about immigration in the US election and the “right-left wings” during our last election and especially over the course of the Impeachment undergone for our last President.

Instead of discussing internal or even external current US problems (Medicare, Social Security, the squeeze of the American middle class, social inequality, so on and so forth), the issue of the immigration came to fore. We saw the same in the Brexit rhetoric last June: “We need to take the Country back.”

Fact: the number of immigrants is flattening or even dropping in the US. Even so, there is this idea of building a wall separating the US from the Mexico. Anti-Muslim. They and us (Look this: a woman was attacked in a restaurant in the US because she wasn’t speaking in English but in her native language).

Well, we have long known that sometimes people needs to create enemies to project anything they can’t admit to/in themselves. If the immigrants stop coming, “… we’ll be happier. Our ‘heaven’ must be protected, and we are not willing to share it with you”. The same process is happening right now in Europe, where some countries are refusing to host refugees. I have no idea of the figures, but here in Denmark you barely find someone outside the Nordic ‘visual’ standards. But even a much more mixed country as England was capable of produce a Brexit…

Although we may not have this ‘anti-immigration’ discourse in Brazil (on the contrary – we don’t believe that our country is such a thing as a ‘heaven’ where people would like to move desperately to), we have the same “we-they” mindset. In our case, ‘they’ are all those that supposedly “broken” the country (the “left-wing” supporters). This is the world in which we are living. No matters where you are, the ‘split’ wave is as strong as ever.

In this post, I’m going to briefly comment on a quotation taken from the Danish philosopher S. Kierkegaard. It’s an excerpt focused on the relationship between talk and action. He says that:

Mere gossip anticipates real talk, and to express what is still in thought weakens action by forestalling it.

Here’s the thing. As a result of the widespread internet-base social medias, it’s now possible to everybody says whatever they want. Sometimes we can spend a lot of time only ‘navigating’ on the web and releasing “opinions” (one more amusing that the other). And wen we do that, we have the feeling we’re doing something. But we aren’t. Surfing on the web gives us the impression we’re DOING – when, in fact, we’re only killing time.

But I’d like to advance a different point here. What is the role of talking when you are trying to learn a new language? Well, you don’t need to go so far to realize that is a taken-for-granted believe, widespread, that you must speak as much you can to grasp the new language. Well, I have a huge problem with this.

Even when I’m in my country, speaking my native language, I’ve concerns about the pressure we normally suffer to talking all the time. As a professor, I have to talk all the time. And this, for sure, make me sick. For one simple reason: I think we should open our mouth only if, and only if, we’ve something interesting to say. And, let’s be honest here: only a small parcel of people has something interesting to say. Most of the time, we only gossip. And with what purpose? Killing time.

And to be recognized. Yes. I’m in an academic environment, right? And what I experience all the time? People paraphrasing. In other words: they merely rephrase themselves or someone else. They add nothing new. Just gossip, again. This happens because, otherwise, people fell they are nothing. I mean: if they simply keep their mouth shut, they won’t be noticed by other people.

Would be the silence a proof of weakness? To be ignored is tantamount to be nothing, to be dead? So we talk, talk, talk – as if your life depended on this. I talk, therefore I exist. I’m ‘real.’ Nowadays, my biggest problem is talking. The first point: have you ever tried to speak in a foreign language in the same way (deep way) you do in your mother tongue? My conclusion: when you are in this situation, two options are available to you: one, you are completely fluent, in such a way that you even notice you are talking in a different language. Second: you became aware of the language itself. You can be completely aware of the medium. The form suddenly come to the fore. And then, my dear, you realize you are measured by what you’re able to say.

Remain quiet, in this case, is an ambiguous situation. Is he understanding, someone could ask? What’s the reason for his silence? This is an entirely different situation when you are in our country. There, if you don’t speak, it’s because you don’t see a reason to act differently. Your social status doesn’t depend on your amount of speech. But when you are abroad, the silence has an entirely different meaning. People ‘judge’ you according to your speech – or the lacking of speech.

1. Alguma vez você já ouviu alguém dizer que gostaria de mudar porque estava muito ‘feliz’? Imagine um grande pesquisador/cientista, ou profissional: ele está super-bem estabelecido na carreira – tem reconhecimento, bom salário, progresso (cumulativo), etc. Quer dizer, atende a todos os indicadores do que nossa cultura entende por ‘sucesso’. Você já o imaginou falando consigo mesmo em termos tais como: ‘Preciso mudar minha vida; não aguento mais. Quero fazer algo diferente”? Claro que, na avaliação do ‘sucesso’, contribuem fatores tanto objetivos como subjetivos. Mas há, inegavelmente, uma ‘canalização’ cultural que faria ter pouco sentido uma auto-reflexão como a ilustrada.

2. Mudamos quando algo não vai bem em nossa vida. Mudamos quando não vemos mais (ou muito) sentido no que fazemos. Mas, com tal afirmação eu, obviamente, estou excluindo o que alguns autores denominam de ‘imperativo da mudança’ – uma espécie de ideologia de época, algo que ouvimos em todos os meios institucionais e que, ao termo de tanta insistência, acabam sendo naturalizados. Segundo tal ideologia (ou discurso corrente), a mudança ‘é a regra’, a norma, o aspecto inquestionável de nossa época. Empresas mudam o tempo – são obrigadas a fazê-lo a fim de se manterem ‘vivas’. Pessoas mudam o tempo todo. É muito fácil ouvir coisas assim, ao ponto de eu não precisar ficar me detendo nisso aqui.

3. Muitas vezes, é claro, as pessoas mudam para que nada, simplesmente nada, mude. Exemplo: mudamos de cidade, de emprego, para, no fundo, ganhar um fôlego em relação a nossas questões existenciais centrais, aquelas que nos chamam para nosso próprio interior. Tais questões costumam ter uma gravidade maior do que as outras. Elas chamam para si grande parte de nossa atenção, e cuja não-superação nos leva ao conflito intrapsíquico (ou externo). Quando, por conta disso mesmo, nos esgotamos mentalmente, então podemos optar por mudar radicalmente aspectos periféricos de nossa existência. Com isso, ganhamos tempo. Ilustrando: você tem uma atividade A realizada numa localidade X; você pode continuar a realizar a atividade A, só que numa localidade Y. O tempo de adaptação à nova localidade pode lhe consumir alguma energia, deslocando-a do seu núcleo problemático anterior (quando exercia A em X). Mas, após o efeito adpatativo (e a menos que algo saia radicalmente do controle), você voltará à sua questão (neurótica) central. Daí a máxima ‘Mudar para que nada mude’, alterar o quadro, o cenário, para lhe desviar do ponto principal.

4. Mas a mudança pode ter algum apelo outro. Claro que há muita gente que simplesmente ‘odeia a mudança’. Exemplo: você tem a carreira A. Em que medida, em qual momento, você acha que o espectro, a amplitude, de tal ‘carreira A’ o levaria a algum tipo de exaustão? Digamos, chegar ao ponto de você dizer que não aguenta mais fazer A? Veja: não estamos num mundo fechado. Mesmo ‘dentro’ da carreira A você pode, digamos, atravessar fronteiras, expandir-se. O fato de ter havido, historicamente, um processo de segmentação e especialização do saber não implica em que sua vida deva se restringir a essa ‘gramática’ (até certo ponto, ok?!). A vida é mais do que uma profissão ou mesmo atividade (claro que, quando alguém está ‘satisfeito’, ele não enxerga nada mais: os limites / os horizontes de sua atividade confundem-se com o real ele próprio, isto é, com o campo do possível). Mas, independente desse fato (não vivermos num ‘mundo fechado’), você pode ter, fenomenologicamente, a sensação de que chegou ao LIMITE de A. Você não se vê mais se desenvolvendo nos domínios (ainda que expandidos) de A. Aqui você chega ao ponto de querer uma ‘mudança’. Esse seria o ‘apelo outro’ da mudança: a transferência em bloco para um campo distinto de experiências/vivências não contidas em A, com o intuito de alterar uma delimitação restritiva de sua ‘felicidade’ (independente do que esta última signifique na prática).

a. A mudança que você quer, neste ponto, pode, claro (sempre!), ser um signo hiper-generalizado que o impede de mudar dentro de A. Um signo generalizado, em geral de forte base afetiva, é uma representação vaga ou obtusa que representa, tentativamente, um amplo espectro de seu mundo afetivo-sensorial e empírico. Ele é, numa palavra, um ‘atalho’ cognitivo-afetivo. Ou seja, popularmente falando, uma ‘desculpa’.

b. Mas pode ser uma forma radical de transposição, uma maneira de, radicalmente, alterar o campo experiencial – alterar personagens, seu próprio lugar como ator, a relação entre papéis, e, claro, a base material em que a vida se desenrola. Como saber?

5. Portanto, neste ponto, chegamos a um tipo de embróglio. Mudar porque está ‘dando errado’? [Olha – ‘dar errado’ seria um mundo à parte para a discussão!]. E até que ponto a mudança de tipo vertical é necessária (por contraposição à mudança de tipo mais horizontal, isto é, incremental)?

_ _ _ _

A. No rádio, esses dias eu ouvi (em um propaganda oficial, do governo) que a edução lhe dá ‘liberdade, autonomia’ de ser quem você quiser. Não se explicar, mas isso me encheu de ânimo – você poder mudar quando bem quiser, pois tem recursos internos para isso, isto é, será capaz de se adaptar a novos contextos. A educação conseguiria isso? Quer dizer, uma das consequências da educação seria tornar as pessoas altamente MALEÁVEIS para atingir seus desejos [outro ponto que abriria muito o leque de possibilidades de discussão: QUE desejo seria esse?]?

B. Em outro comercial (desta vez, na TV), ouvi que podemos, sempre, RECOMEÇAR DO ZERO, voltar ao princípio (qual seria – o de nossas escolhas principais, as quais nos trouxeram ao que somos hoje?) e fazermos tudo diferente. E que, em tal ‘gesto’, haveria alguma forma de dignidade, de ‘honra’, produndas. Bom, estariam tais propagandas (vamos esquecer por ora o fato de terem, sub-repticiamente, um objetivo oculto) redondamente enganadas? Podemos abrir mão de ‘tudo’ para RECOMEÇAR?

>> O que digo, neste ponto, é o seguinte: desconstruir, desestabilizar, é muito prazeiroso (mesmo que no sentido lacaniano de ‘gozo’ – sei lá, uma espécie de sintoma). A questão está em conseguir articular isso com uma verdade inquestionável: a irreversibilidade do tempo.