I do not know if you had the opportunity to read the comments related to the two preceding articles. They are dense and extensive, and I thank their respective authors for taking the time to write such detailed reviews. It emerges from their comments a strange mixture of optimism and skepticism. We are all agreed on the urgent need for a transition that is not a face lift or a facelift, more or less covered with cosmetics. The ecological transition may actually be that if, in parallel - and at a depth where the majority of our policymakers are not aware of - an economic transition to post-capitalism.
On the bottom of this agreement, however, lies an all-out skepticism: we just frankly to see what actors are finally credit in the eyes of our reviewers ... The State? Certainly not, especially since (as one of you has just noticed) I myself rarely speaks of the state without adding the word "capitalist" just behind: we are indeed in a Social Democracy capitalist, with its legal and political support for capitalism, seen as "the" unique and irreplaceable engine of social progress. The Commons? Not! No mayor can do in place, if one believes the comments received, tearing at the political cowardice and management of his personal interests or patricratiques. Unions? Okay. Are not they, themselves, too "sold" to the logic with which we would like to break? Did not they eventually be co-opted within the capitalist social-democratic compromise, and they are not depository - into a "social dialogue" where they finally play second fiddle alongside bosses' creators value "and a state" redistributor "- a model of struggle increasingly outdated: Backup purchasing power, defense employees without much consideration of margins unemployed, acceptance of privileges for workers North against the South, etc..?
breathlessnessand ... Who will be the transition in the end? We guess obviously the answer, but worried at the same time: it will be "citizens" themselves. Understood: all those and all those of us who do not participate in social dialogue established, not in the commission of "social partners" who live daily in a system whose logic is managed by others. Citizens, therefore, but enrolled in a larger effort to recreate a new "hegemony" (Gramsci aptly term) that would de facto a cons -hegemony. Because the stakes - as we seem to agree on this - is a broad and deep cultural work. Or rather, because it Do not be afraid of words: a cultural revolution . Ah, here's another word busy, and that others before us (Herbert Marcuse and Theodore Roszak, for example, in the years 60-70) have tried to save the bloody rout Bolshevik-Maoist Khmer Rouge. In the current sociopolitical environment, what is a cultural revolution? And what kind of "new hegemony" would seek such a revolution today? It is my duty to be a tad disappointing, to grasp the real opportunity that exists here and now.
The distrust of politicians is quite legitimate in the current context, but they remained the only player in a possible "synthesis practice" referred to citizens expressed and experienced in the movement. Clearly, it is by politicians (at all levels of power) it will pass sooner or later. It is therefore crucial to question them relentlessly from the base, the media harassment, making them questioning motives if necessary (that's their job to manage them) to show them that we expect from them - as individuals and not just as scholars of electoral votes - a radicalism that they dare not put forward too. Certainly, it will not change because immediate the "Democratic machine" is (and is sometimes beneficial) to relax rather slow and thick into procedures, deadlines and going and coming. So, what are the movements citizens themselves who must réappoprier "making" of the culture. And here we are, so to speak "in cabbages" - at least in principle . For verily, as I already said in a previous article of this blog, our democracies, including Belgium, the blessed land of the gods associative, have a special pool that is the whole area of education Permanent . It is this sector which in fact is the heaviest social responsibility in the current situation: Irrigated (never enough, of course, but still irrigated) in public funds captured the private benefits, and capable (as opposed to private companies that make the "CSR" as a result of cosmetic surgery) of a real social responsibility), the continuing education sector should position itself as the emergency interface of choice between citizen movements and a few brave politicians who now rally to the cause transition. If you're in lifelong learning, ask yourself why you do emergency orient step towards the problems of transition, or at least how your "core business" (the environmental awareness in kindergarten, conferences for senior citizens, literacy of young immigrants, whatever) could be maximally articulated the challenges of ecological and economic transition.
As for the "production" of culture, here again we would not be starting from scratch. Another crucial area, that of the social economy , contains and is already a multitude of experiences and cultural achievements properly: new modes of organization, new behaviors, rooted in new principles of life and (let's not mince words!) new rationales, new and even spirituality. Alas, a lot of promoters of the social economy (whether in parties or as Ecolo in research universities) want to stay in a promotion too vague and perhaps too consensual (because politically harmless) of a "plural economy" where the third sector co-exist with the capitalist economy and the public sector, without giving themselves a goal of radical subversion of social compromises Democrats who now run out. Is not it time to see the social economy as a laboratory for alternative who intended to subvert the current socioeconomic order by generalizing? If you are in the social economy, ask yourself why emergency you do not participate in reflection on, and creating, lifestyles and thinking radically alternative, or at least how your "heart of activity "(helping youth, assistance to elderly, promoting sport in schools, whatever) could be linked more closely to the challenges of transition.
therefore movements citizens could use the intellectual resources and logistical challenge for lifelong learning policies, arguing the many cultural innovations emerging in the social economy. It would in any case come with a "cultural pattern" did everything to impose on players. Locate the emergence of a culture revitalized economic movements at the interface between citizens, lifelong learning and social economy is to maximize the chances that this emergence is truly innovative and ... Revolutionary! Nothing is certain or acquired, but these three sectors most precious of our democratic societies hone their interfaces and synergies, while claiming public funds financed (in spite of themselves) by the profits of private firms, the more courageous politicians (because there are all the same!) will feel to finally grow wings to take their courage in both hands and make their coming-out ! ... (Are we expecting in the wake, a new offensive against the employer education - and then he will probably stop being nice and sweet ...)
Surely those of you who want made answers, recipes change, cultural patterns prefabricated, ready-cooked alternatives and any architectural plans drawn - these will inevitably be disappointed by this "policy emergence. "No doubt they will pay, in desperation, or in a new dream of" Big Night "which would make the State the creator of the new culture, whether in the managerial ideology which would give McKinsey in the formulation of objectives of a company efficiently and effectively ... If we want to avoid both pitfalls and at the same time provide a credible form of "cultural revolution", the combination of players that I have suggested above above seems to me the only one that is both realistic and subversive.
0 comments:
Post a Comment