Andrea Breda
Models and experiences
I start now expressing a chord with the basic ideas and concepts expressed in the article by Andrea Staid in the last issue. Obviously the fact that I agree does not stop me from trying to highlight some critical points in an attempt to draw the boundaries of our reasoning and, perhaps, to overcome them. First things first, we need to identify some points that give form to our "border. "
The first point is certainly the view of culture as a "product of communication between humans, always open to negotiation, which involves the difference in a positive and structural constantly subject to contamination and inexorably linked to the biological limits of human beings.
Immediate corollary of the first point, it is impossible to define the culture once and for all, as it evolved from the agreements between the parties, has its own laws.
The second milestone is the structure of my awareness of the relativity of our own vision of anarchism, as well as cultural and political process, even if our choices do we have to think in absolute terms.
The third milestone is the choice of dialogue and participation as a means to address and resolve, with awareness and responsibility, the tension between this absolutism and relativism individual structures.
All of these considerations is summarized well when you say "... giving only one meaning anarchy a dynamic, communicative, negotiation, inventive, confrontational, even to herself, [that] this idea can still live and act to change society, domination and authority. "
Now that we have delineated the boundaries of our reasoning is possible to lay the foundation for the fulfillment of our thinking. Personally I think it is necessary to move forward to address some issues that are virtually unexplored in the libertarian and anarchist thought, you want to superficiality, for fear of not finding the answers. First emergency arises with the need to develop a discourse that seeks to reconcile the subject refractory to the society domain, and prone to change, with the need for security and to rationalize the unknown. Need I think is always present in humans, albeit in different degrees according to individual specificity. I think one of the major difficulties that the anarchist movement has met in the course of its history, in terms of communication and therefore participation, are due to a significant extent this deficiency, as well as the relations of domination draw lifeblood from this lack, as insecurity is a strong weapon against the change.
Another step forward in this direction, in my opinion should be done with regard to definition, not so much the goals, but goals. I think it's realistic to think that in addition to shared goals are the current "proliferation resistance and the multiplication of spaces removed from power," I would say to the domain. But we must try to be as concrete as possible when talking about goals in terms of external communication, otherwise the rising uncertainty in people with whom we are trying to communicate, resulting in a rejection of our alternatives and the closure of our stakeholders. In this sense we are at an advantage, as practical experience in this field are numerous, for once, the theoretical discourses and provide a large store of practical arguments, practical and achievable in the present. But we must still develop a conceptualization that allows all these experiences to network and association in a functional manner to the need for certainty expressed by the social body. And I want to emphasize that in this case the practice is well ahead of theory.
The two passing lines that I tried to highlight scream loudly a clear need: models for change. My hope is that the contemporary debate to take charge of developing models that will underpin the experiences that already exist, allowing new experiences to materialize, while ensuring a margin of certainty that will push the parties to abandon the vortex of change without fear of drowning. Perhaps this column will provide some answers ...
Andrea Breda
A.sperimenti
A proposal to be read
As a fitting conclusion of the study carried out in recent months, the group A.sperimenti decided to publish the reports of the seminar held on November 6, 2010 entitled "Revolution?" which saw among others the participation of Thomas Ibanez and Eduardo Colombo.
The seminar was organized in collaboration with the Centro Studi Libertari / Archivio Pinelli and was held at the new headquarters of the Centre in Milan.
Last year the group of studies A.sperimenti has investigated some libertarian issues whose analysis has raised, quite naturally, some questions of character ... revolutionary. The route that we developed led us from the speeches on self-power, the question inherent in human nature to that of change and cultural change. It seemed natural, at this point, addressing a seminar on the theme of "revolution. "
The need we have is a side to re-enacting the debate about the idea and the revolutionary practice, in the light of our present and theoretical developments in recent decades, from analysis of the diffuse power and power relations to the psychosocial analysis that analyze the relationship between individual and social body in order to formulate concrete solutions and practical proposals that respond to our need for equality and freedom. Second, it seems essential to deal with those who struggle in their path, research and testing has already tried to update and give practical meaning to the ghost and myth of the Revolution, by inquiring about the semantics that contains multiple and different sectors of imagery that has occupied in the past and occupies currently. The intention is to give an account of the richness of the positions taken in the revolutionary debate.
Many issues that we wanted to address all at once along with studios*, compagn* with different visions, knowledge and approaches.
While the multi-discipinariety that characterized the meeting has had the positive effect to enrich the debate, from the other also had its "negative" to open many doors and close a few. There is also to say that the meanings of the word wealth revolution in itself creates "confusion", a term too significant risks not mean anything.
Despite these difficulties, we think that the day of the November 6 has been a significant experience that has provided the audience an opportunity to sow the seeds of a practical and theoretical projects that will hopefully go beyond the topics covered.
For those who were there and who was not there for those who wanted to be there and who knew nothing, for the curious and the skeptics ... anyone can request a paper copy by writing an email or download it from the comfort of our blog .
anno
41 n. 360
