Page 372 of 394
1 370 371 372 373 374 394

Youth Resistance Unleashed: Black Lives Matter

“Those who kill their own children and discriminate daily against them because of the color of their skin; those who let the murderers of blacks remain free, protecting them, and furthermore punishing the black population because they demand their legitimate rights as free men—how can those who do this consider themselves guardians of freedom?”

Che Guevara
Before the United Nations
12-11-1964

In my lifetime young people rose up to challenge and change the world in Little Rock and Birmingham, in Soweto and Tiananmen, in Palestine and Chiapas. In the last decade we saw the rise of Arab Spring and Occupy, and now we are in the midst of vivid mass resistance to the police killing of unarmed Black men and women spurred by the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. Now and historically, it is the youth who reject taken-for-granted injustices.[1] In this moment, young people are the social actors – the leadership, catalysts,  the activists, and the organizers – who seized and defined a continuing travesty of North American life: the police murder of Black lives. Rising up against the thickening layers of institutionalized white supremacy, young people are insisting that Black Lives Matter.

Black Youth Project 100 action to #DecriminalizeBlack (Photo Credit: Sarah Jane Rhee)

With their radical impulse to revolt, that spirit of hopefulness and possibility, the laser-like insight of adolescents into the hypocrisies of the adult world, propel youth to break the rules, resist together, and transcend the immoral status quo. Inspired by the courage and determination of Ferguson youth, young people across the nation walked out of schools, sat-in, died-in, blocked highways and bridges – becoming the fresh, searing forces for equality, racial justice, and dignity.

Youth were not unaware of the risks they were taking by challenging police violence. In fact, it is young people who were painfully and brutally aware of the police targeting of Black youth, and pervasive US institutionalized de-valuing of Black lives.

Though many young activists had already been challenging police violence and the criminalization of Black lives in their own communities, the harrowing, police stalking and shooting of unarmed teenager Michael Brown on August 9, 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri, became the spark that generated a fresh wave of youth uprisings. This new movement in the long struggle for racial justice brought young people together across the country to become more than the sum of their parts.

The activism of the Black Lives Matter movement not only illustrates the brilliance and clarity of young people, but also flies in the face of popular currency that children and youth are less competent, less thoughtful, less wise and more dangerous than adults. The continuing reality of young people as social actors stands in opposition to official policies of silencing, suppressing, expelling and punishing our youth, depriving them of an education and denying their creativity and right to be heard.

Think of young peoples’ loss of rights, for example, through truancy laws; school censorship of high school newspapers, email communication and graduation speeches; the banning of books; relentless harassment and violence against LGTBQ and trans youth; school locker searches and drug testing without reasonable suspicion or due process; school zero tolerance policies that include punishments, school suspensions and expulsions, gang terrorism profiling, stop and frisk, and the calling of police for minor misbehavior. Control, cameras, drug searches, testing, arrests, and school exclusion have replaced dignity.

Rights vs. protections and the myth of the “Superpredator”

Children and youth, in fact, are whole persons who bear human and constitutional rights. They are inevitably an active part of their time and place, their culture and community, their race, class, and ethnicity, and their extended family. Simultaneously, they may also be more vulnerable, more easily manipulated and used by adults, such that they must be, to the extent possible, protected, sheltered and insulated from serious harm, both from their own impulses, and adults who might prey upon them or use youth for their own purposes. This is why human rights activists, for example, advocate for children to be protected from the harshest consequences of war and hazardous labor and family violence.

Of course, young people are becoming-persons, not yet fully adults; but what kind of a person is a child? In considering children as social actors, this contradiction is worthy of continuing deliberation and nuance. How can society heed this paradox – rights versus protections – and tilt toward children as bearers of rights while taking the responsibility for providing youth with equal access, due process, Constitutional rights, economic rights, and human rights? Are youth not right to see the adult world as compromised, duplicitous, and worst of all—indifferent to the crimes and suffering around them?

Children were acknowledged as Constitutional persons almost fifty years ago in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case of In re Gault.  Yet the with the subsequent repressive wave to restrict their active whole personhoods, U.S. courts and legislators have shrunken the Constitutional rights of children by constricting or eliminating their rights to speech and expression, association, action, education, privacy, health care, due process, equal protection, and their right to liberty (by depriving them of liberty). This has been done in the name of either protecting them and “saving” them from themselves, or by constructing some children as superpredators, fearful, larger- than-life monsters, wolf-packs and gangs out to rob, rape and even kill (white) adults. Consequently, specific populations of children are seen as dangerous and capable of destroying civilization.

The diabolical invention of the 1990s youth predator by law enforcement, academics, and the mass media resulted in the harsh criminalization of youth of color– subjecting them to arrests, incarceration, trials in adult criminal courts, and extreme sentencing. The profound echo of young Black men as “superpredator” would arise again with the Ferguson grand jury testimony of Officer Darren Wilson, who saw in Michael Brown someone enormous, looming up and becoming larger even after being stalked and shot by Wilson six times.

It looked like a demon,” Wilson told the grand jury.

Fully 75% of youth who are locked up are confined for non-violent offenses. Racial and ethnic disparities are unconscionable, but the naked disproportion of who is arrested, beaten, and killed characterize the entire youth justice system.[2]

At its best, contemporary analysis of children and adolescents recognizes the dialectical nature of youth: being and becoming, categorically less culpable than adults, and with enhanced prospects for recovery, rehabilitation, and “attaining a mature understanding of [one’s] humanity.”[3]  Diminished culpability is not, however, the same as lesser competence or capacity.  Culpability is commonly misunderstood, and the current conversations about adolescent development research frequently becomes an imprecise discourse that easily collapses into language of lesser adolescent competence or moral action.

Military arsenal deployed against Ferguson protesters

The story of the Aug. 9, 2014 police killing of Michael Brown stayed in the news because the young people in Ferguson refused to leave the streets. And although the protests there and nationally was one of the broadest and most sustained radical coalitions in decades, the protesters themselves were largely young, black, queer, poor, working-class, secular, women and trans.

The young people of Ferguson did not back down in the face of a highly militarized small town police force armed with federally-funded Kevlar helmets, assault-friendly gas masks, combat gloves and knee pads, woodland Marine Pattern utility trousers, tactical body armor vests, some 120 to 180 rounds for each shooter, semiautomatic pistols attached to their thighs, disposable handcuff restraints hanging from their vests, close-quarter-battle receivers for their M4 carbine rifles and Advanced Combat Optical Gunsights[4].

There are scattered reports of stun grenade use in Ferguson, also known as flashbangs or flash grenades. This weapon of choice for American SWAT teams (and Israeli soldiers) originated within British Special Forces more than four decades ago. Ostensibly less than lethal, stun grenades have been known to kill or severely injure numerous victims, and the device was recently in the news for burning a 19-month-old baby in Georgia, resulting in a coma, during one of the thousands of domestic police raids this year. They are designed to temporarily blind and deafen, thanks to a shrapnel-free casing that is only supposed to emit light and sound upon explosion

The grenade launchers used against unarmed youth in Ferguson included the ARWEN 37, which is capable of discharging 37mm tear gas canisters or wooden bullet projectiles. The police used tear gas unsparingly in Ferguson. The Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993 actually bans the gas as a permissible means of warfare. Then again, it is allowed for domestic riot control, and nations like Turkey, Bahrain, Israel and the United States who have exploited the loophole to great avail. Tear gas sucks out your organs, hogs your oxygen and burns you inside and out. Interim blindness and extended coughing fits are common, as well as an overall sense that you are dying or dead. These are police weapons against an unarmed, Black, civilian, domestic population.

The use of “pepper balls” is lethal; the Boston Police Department banned them after a young woman was killed by one which passed right through her eye and skull to the brain. She was guilty of being present in a rowdy crowd after a Red Sox/Yankees game in which the former won. The same goes for the rubber bullets, wooden bullet projectiles, and beanbag projectiles on view with the police in Ferguson

Contemplate the Ferguson police department’s possession of the BEARCAT G3, the SWAT team’s version of the military’s Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle, or its MRAP All Terrain Vehicle. This armored tank was donated to the Ferguson police by the US Department of Homeland Security.  There are no known mines or IEDs in Ferguson, an ambush is unlikely, so the decision of the St. Louis County Police Department to roll out (or even own) one of these tanks is apparently the contemporary version of fire hoses and dogs.

K-9 dogs. Yes, the 2014 St. Louis County and Ferguson Police Departments also used growling German shepherds to threaten demonstrators. In addition, these police forces had access to the Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD), which emits a sound so pain-inducing that is causes bleeding from the ears. LRADs were also on display (though not used) during the Chicago anti-NATO demonstrations in 2011. On top of all this, the police department of Ferguson – a police force that is 94% white, in a town that is 67% Black – not only possessed an armored personnel carrier and weapon loads to intimidate demonstrators, carried out surveillance of the protesters from an MD Helicopter 500 Series in the sky above Ferguson.

Vibrant transformation of the possible

The fierce young, unarmed and highly disciplined young people who dared to stand up against police violence are to thank for revealing to the US public that the war-making hardware, paid for by our tax dollars, is coming home to police forces for use against the Black, Latino, indigenous communities and to patrol US borders.

This military-grade weaponry of the police in Ferguson was not about riot control during the long months leading up to the grand jury verdict in the murder of Michael Brown. It was the arsenal of white supremacy and racial oppression.

In the face of this violent intimidation, young people continued to peacefully demonstrate in Ferguson and to document their struggle at websites like Ferguson Action and using Twitter hashtags like #SHUTITDOWN.

Created in the crucible of Black Lives Matter is a new generation of young, African American organizers and activists, with experience in strategy development, tactics, decision-making under pressure, coalition building, and clarity about long range, radical goals, about their vision. They are savvy and wise, filled with love and caring for each other and for everyone who has suffered the terror of police violence: youth, their families and loved ones, allied people of color, trans and LGBTQ youth, native and Palestinian people, victims of police violence and whole communities.

Thus the Chicago struggle for city reparations for those who suffered police torture and subsequent decades on death row or juvenile life without parole before they were exonerated utilizes art, performance, persistence and unlikely allies. New York activists agitate for divestment from corporation that construct and operative for-profit prisons. There are movements to end solitary confinement from California to Rikers Island, and renewed efforts to commemorate and open old cases of lynchings across the nation.  The struggle for dignity and justice continues in immigrant rights struggles and the fierce, elegant courage of the youth and dreamers who have seamlessly embraced their queerness, their multiple heritages, and their human rights.

All this indicates a vibrant transformation of the possible. Police torture and killing of African Americans is visible, no longer background normal, as Black youth resist being branded as criminals at birth. Their resistance is communal, shared, and collective.

Can we hold the moment? Do we have the knowledge that young people are capable of seeing and seizing what adults cannot imagine?  In the uncertainty and complexity of civil strife and disciplined rebellion, shall we see children and young people capable of being agents of their own liberation?


[1]   Sources for the Ferguson story include: Darryl Pinckney, Ferguson and Resistance Against the Black Holocaust, © 2015 The New York Review of Books, Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate;Chris Crass, SpeakOut | Op-Ed; Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers, Ferguson Exposes the Reality of Militarized, Racist Policing, Popular Resistance | News Analysis; Adeshina Emmanuel, Ferguson Case Highlights Need for National Data on Police Shootings, The Chicago Reporter .

[2]  See the website of the W. Haywood Burns Institute, at www.burnsinstitute.org for racial and ethnic disparities at every stage of the youth justice system.

[3] See the trilogy of U.S. Supreme Court cases and the accompanying Amicus briefs: Roper v. Simmons(2005) , Graham  v. Florida (2010), and Miller v. Alabama (2012).

[4] See Radley Balko’s Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces (2013) for this research, photos, and the following details of Ferguson police weaponry.

 

Comparte este contenido:

The scourge of illiteracy and the authoritarian nightmare

At the present historical moment, Americans live in a society in which thinking is viewed as an act of stupidity, and ignorance is treated as a virtue. Literacy is now regarded with disdain, words are reduced to data, and science is confused with pseudo-science. For instance, two thirds of the American public believe creationism should be taught in schools and most of the Republicans in Congress do not believe that climate change is caused by human activity, making the U.S. the laughing stock of the world. News has become entertainment and echoes reality rather than interrogating it. Popular culture revels in the spectacles of shock and violence. Unsurprisingly, education in the larger culture has become a disimagination machine, a tool for legitimizing ignorance, and it is central to the formation of an authoritarian politics that has gutted all those public spheres in which thoughtfulness, critical exchange, and informed dialogue can take place.

Illiteracy has become a scourge and a political tool designed primarily to make war on language, meaning, thinking, and the capacity for critical thought. Illiteracy no longer simply marks populations immersed in poverty with little access to quality education; nor does it only suggests the lack of proficient skills enabling people to read and write with a degree of understanding and fluency. More importantly, illiteracy is about what it means not to be able to act from a position of thoughtfulness, informed judgment, and critical agency. It suggests not only learning the skills and knowledge to understand the world but also to intervene in it and change it when necessary. Illiteracy has become a form of political repression that discourages a culture of questioning, renders agency as an act of intervention inoperable, and restages power as a mode of domination. It is precisely this mode of illiteracy that both privatizes and kills the imagination by poisoning it with falsehoods, consumer fantasies, data loops, and the need for instant gratification.

This is a mode of manufactured illiteracy and education that has no language for relating the self to public life, social responsibility or the demands of citizenship. It is important to recognize that the rise of this new mode of illiteracy is not simply about the failure of public and higher education to create critical and active citizens; it is about a society that eliminates those public spheres that make thinking possible while imposing a culture of fear in which there is the looming threat that anyone who holds power accountable will be ignored or punished. At stake here is not only the crisis of a democratic society, but a crisis of memory, ethics, and agency.

What role might education and critical pedagogy have in a society in which the public goods disappear, emotional life collapses into the therapeutic, and education is reduced to either a private affair or a kind of algorithmic mode of regulation in which everything is reduced to a market-based outcome. What role can education play to challenge the deadly claim of casino capitalism that all problems are individual, regardless of whether the roots of such problems lie in larger systemic forces? In a culture drowning in a new love affair with instrumental rationality, it is not surprising that values that are not measurable — compassion, vision, the imagination, trust, solidarity, care for the other, and a passion for justice — wither.

One of the challenges facing the current generation of educators, students, progressives, and other cultural workers is the need to address the role they might play in educating students to be critically engaged agents, attentive to addressing important social issues and being alert to the responsibility of deepening and expanding the meaning and practices of a vibrant democracy. At the heart of such a challenge is the question of what education should accomplish, not simply in a democracy but at an historical moment when the United States is about to slip into the dark night of authoritarianism. In a world in which there is an increasing abandonment of egalitarian and democratic impulses, what will it take to educate young people and the broader polity to challenge authority and hold power accountable? How might we construct an education capable of providing students with the skills, ideas, values, and authority necessary for them to nourish a substantive democracy, recognize anti-democratic forms of power, and to fight deeply rooted injustices in a society and world founded on systemic economic, racial, and gendered inequalities? What will it take for educators to recognize that the culture of education is not simply about the business of culture but is crucial to provide the conditions for students to address how knowledge is related to the power of both self-definition and social agency? What work do educators have to do to create the economic, political, and ethical conditions necessary to endow young people and the general public with the capacities to think, question, doubt, imagine the unimaginable, and defend education as essential for inspiring and energizing the citizens necessary for the existence of a robust democracy?

.

Henry A. Giroux is a widely published social critic and McMaster University professor who holds the McMaster Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest, the Paulo Freire Distinguished Scholar Chair and is a Visiting Distinguished University Professor at Ryerson University. Born in Rhode Island, he held numerous academic positions in the U.S. and now lives in Hamilton.

Comparte este contenido:

India: How UoH and JNU Have Taken Us From Public Protest to Public Pedagogy

Fuente: thewire.in/ Por Pramod K. Nayar/ 27 de Abril de 2016

In the public debates around key concepts raised by the students, democracy finds its greatest strength: the right to speak, the right to be heard and the right to plurality

Fotografia: Two spaces in India have been radically transformed since January 18, 2016: the educational institution and the public space of the town/city.

January 18, 2016 saw the first protests over the suicide of the Dalit student-scholar, Rohit Vemula, at the University of Hyderabad (UoH), driven to despair over his suspension from residential areas of the educational institution by a university order, allegedly at the behest of a ruling party’s local member of parliament, and unfairly tried before being convicted. On February 12, 2016, Kanhaiya Kumar, president of the Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union (JNUSU) was arrested on sedition charges for allegedly raising anti-India slogans at a student gathering. Widespread protests across the country resulted, and we saw a merger of both ‘causes’ in the protests.

Numerous public intellectuals, activists, jurists, educationists, and politicians gave interviews, wrote opinion pieces, joined campaigns and signed petitions. Processions and protests also included, expectedly, shut-downs of educational institutions, street protests and online campaigns across Indian cities. Heated debates on television were accompanied by letters to respected newspapers from parents, former teachers, alumni of these institutions and others. Worldwide coverage came in the form of BBC and CNN reportage and signature campaigns by academics, submitted to the Indian government, the president and others.

What do the protests congealing around Rohit/UoH and Kanhaiya/JNU mean for the landscape of ‘public pedagogy’ and how might they transform the scene of education itself, if followed through?

Public pedagogy, as theorists such as Henry Giroux have defined it, is an essential system of education that works outside institutions:

learning and education happening outside of formal schooling systems and position informal spaces of learning such as popular culture, the Internet, public spaces such as museums and parks, and other civic and commercial spaces, including both old and new social movements, as sites of pedagogy containing possibilities for both reproduction and resistance.

The protests around Rohit/UoH and Kanhaiya/JNU moved out of public educational institutions to public spaces: the streets. The streets and open spaces outside public offices, government buildings in the campaigns such as ‘Chalo UGC’become, I propose, spaces of education.

There is, in other words, an educative force and appeal in the protests. Pedagogy, said Henry Giroux, ‘is not simply about the social construction of knowledge, values, and experiences; it is also a performative practice embodied in the lived interactions among educators, audiences, texts, and institutional formations’. We saw these interactions in the above protests.

Public pedagogy as embodied in the protests is essential to India’s democracy for several reasons.

First, it takes theories and ideas, ideologies and ideologies from the classroom to the public space of debate. Point-counterpoint, the clash of ideologies (SFI/ABVP, Congress/BJP, Marxist/Neoliberal) were embodied in the speeches and discussions outside the institution and thus explicated in real-time in a real-life situation. This is a pedagogy that emerges from outside the institution as well, when thinkers and commentators as diverse as protesting mothers and lawyers (Teesta Setalvad) inform the public of what wrongs have been perpetrated and, more importantly, what is at stake.   This is therefore a pedagogy of the public, emerging from outside the licensed scholarly world of academia and is more akin to cultural work around social justice and ideas of democracy.

Second, ideas of nationalism, continuing discrimination, identity, patriotism, freedoms (of various kinds) were articulated in ways that these became, at least for the duration of the protests, a public lingua franca. Here protests that debated key concepts were pedagogic for the public (okay, the public that cared to listen, exactly as in a class room). It brought to public attention issues of academic freedoms, the right to protest, the modes of social integration, the subtleties of discrimination and the education policies around, say research programs in universities. This pedagogy for the public is an important development in Indian democracy because it is not a set of state-governed instructions as to what to think or how to think. Public pedagogy cohering around Rohit/Kanhaiya and concepts of discrimination or freedoms mobilizes public sentiment through the instruction generated by the protests.

Third, the protests around identity and concepts such as freedom or nationalism altered the polis. The polis, wrote Hannah Arendt, ‘is the organisation of the people as it arises out of acting and speaking together’. Thus, the polis was a pluralised space, with arguments and counterarguments around abstract ideas of nationhood and identity being articulated in a blurring of advocacy, education and activism.

Fourth, it expanded the public educational institution to encompass the street at a time when the space of public institutions is shrinking. Judith Butler writing about the Occupy movement: by “performatively laying claim to public education … precisely at a historical moment in which that access is being shut down”, through budget cuts, censorship and fee-hike, the protests symbolically lay claim to “buildings that ought properly, now and in the future, to belong to public education.” The public institution where debates around abstract concepts and concrete social inequities may be debated extends into the public space of the city when these protests move out of the walls. The public institution is then projected as a space where these inequities are institutionalised, even as they are spaces segregated from the surrounding city or context. The protests in these two cases demonstrated how the institution only reflects its surrounding social realities, as the nation yet again learnt what it meant to be inside places of higher learning devoted, ostensibly, to ideas of equality, freedom and justice. The protests also underlined the need for public institutions to be truly public and not subject to ideological regimentation, to be truly public and plural.

Fifth, the direction in which protests such as these move is not determined by an agenda from the outside or from within an educational regime. It emerges from within the very recognition of what is at stake: freedom from discrimination, freedom to access equality and social justice, etc. We can see the protests as public pedagogy for the political learning they disseminate about what it means to be a part of the Indian public. These protests took a crisis within public institutions into the public outside the institution so that they fed off each other.

Sixth, the public pedagogy the protests embody is about publicness, about being a concerned public. By drawing attention to structures and regimes of exclusion – including censorship, which is a process of excluding words – the protests educate us on what is at stake in being a public, a polis. This is not to say that politics replaces education. Rather, from a theoretical standpoint, education for the public is drawn from a political campaign and thereby it, the public, understands itself better as a public.

The Rohit/Kanhaiya protests are important because of these pedagogic effects they can potentially generate, for the ideas around which they cohered and for the political learning they offer to the ones who heard them. In the public debates around key concepts, democracy finds its greatest strength: the right to speak, the right to be heard and the right to plurality.

Pramod K. Nayar is a Professor at the University of Hyderabad

 

Enlace original:  http://thewire.in/

Comparte este contenido:

EEUU/ Nancy Fraser: Clinton defiende un tipo de feminismo neoliberal, solo para mujeres privilegiadas

Fuente: ctxt España/ 27 de Abril de 2016

ÁLVARO GUZMÁN BASTIDA / TRADUCCIÓN: ADRIANA M. ANDRADE

Nancy Fraser (Baltimore, 1947) milita al frente de la lucha feminista y la teoría crítica desde finales de los años 60. Crítica de lo que ella denomina “feminismo neoliberal”, sus teorías sobre el reconocimiento y redistribución como términos para entender las desigualdades sociales son muy influyentes. Fraser recibe a CTXT en su oficina del departamento de filosofía de la New School for Social Research, en el East Village de Manhattan, para hablar de la preeminencia de las políticas de identidad, la importancia de Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump y Hillary Clinton, y las razones por las cuales sintió la necesidad de introducir un tercer concepto — el de ‘representación’ en su último libro Fortunas del feminismo(Traficantes de sueños,  2012) para explicar los males de la sociedad contemporánea y dónde debería centrarse la lucha para arreglarlo.

Hace veinticinco años escribió sobre el término “reconocimiento”, que tomó prestado de Hegel, explicando que fue la palabra clave de aquella época a la hora de entender cuestiones de diferencia e identidad. ¿Cómo lo entendía Hegel y por qué es importante para entender el presente?

En Hegel tenemos, esencialmente, dos actores que se encuentran y que son sujetos; pero para ser un sujeto completo, cada uno de ellos debe ser reconocido por el otro. Cada uno reafirma al otro como sujeto en su propio derecho, que es a la vez igual y diferente de mí mismo. Si los dos pueden afirmar eso, entonces hay un proceso de reconocimiento recíproco, igualitario y simétrico. Pero, como es sabido, en la dialéctica amo-esclavo se encuentran el uno al otro en términos desiguales y asimétricos, en términos de dominación y subordinación. Entonces hay un reconocimiento no recíproco.

¿Por qué está tan en boga desde el principio de los años 2000?

Tiene que ver con lo que en ese momento llamé la condición postsocialista. Fue el momento de la historia de las sociedades de posguerra en el cual la problemática de la justicia distributiva había perdido la capacidad hegemónica de articular la lucha y el conflicto social de las mayorías. Hasta ese momento, durante la posguerra, el paradigma de la redistribución había sido hegemónico, y casi todo el discurso social y el conflicto se organizaban en esos términos. Esto significaba que era difícil que muchos problemas salieran a la superficie. Muchas reivindicaciones fueron relegadas a los márgenes porque no encajaban con la gramática distributiva. Básicamente, lo que vemos ahora al mirar atrás es que las políticas del reconocimiento coinciden con el auge del neoliberalismo. El neoliberalismo está, de hecho, desplazando el imaginario socialdemócrata y su ataque contra la justicia distributiva igualitaria está destruyendo el modelo socialdemócrata; si no completamente, al menos se está deteriorando y perdiendo su influencia, su habilidad para organizar el espacio político y el discurso; y de alguna manera esto abre un espacio a las diversas reivindicaciones y luchas del reconocimiento.

¿Se le ocurre algún ejemplo de esto?

Después de 1989*, tras el colapso del comunismo y el bloque soviético. ¿Qué pasó? Muy rápidamente hubo un aumento del antagonismo religioso, del antagonismo nacionalista – y ahí entramos en el terreno del reconocimiento. Antes, esas reivindicaciones se reprimían –se excluían. Por tanto, existía una versión comunista del discurso distributivo, que quedó destruida. En Occidente, supone la derrota de la hegemonía socialdemócrata. Aparte del ascenso del neoliberalismo, parte de esto tiene que ver con los nuevos movimientos sociales que estallan en los años sesenta. La Nueva Izquierda tenía un ethos radical, o mejor dicho anticapitalista; ponía énfasis en la redistribución y el reconocimiento de manera muy radical. Pero cuando el tiempo pasó y el espíritu radical anticapitalista de la nueva izquierda empezó a desvanecerse, los movimientos sucesivos –un nuevo tipo de feminismo, un nuevo anti racismo, las políticas sexuales del movimiento LGTB– tendieron a ignorar la visión política económica y a centrarse en las cuestiones que yo definiría en términos de status o reconocimiento.

Usted conecta estas cuestiones con las políticas de identidad. ¿Hasta qué punto es un término peyorativo?

Una parte de lo que intento hacer en mi análisis es evitar una identificación rápida entre las políticas de identidad y las de reconocimiento. Lo que he tratado de explicar es que las políticas de reconocimiento son una dimensión legítima de la justicia, y que las reivindicaciones para superar las injusticias del reconocimiento son importantes; y que simplemente no se pueden reducir a reivindicaciones de redistribución como lo haría el marxismo común, de brocha gorda. Quería defender la importancia, la legitimidad, la autonomía relativa de las reivindicaciones del reconocimiento. Intento sugerir que hay más de una manera de entenderlas – que no tienen por qué adoptar la forma de políticas de identidad. Es cierto que, con frecuencia, las reivindicaciones de reconocimiento adquieren formas de políticas de identidad. Y esto, desde mi punto de vista, es desafortunado. Crea todo tipo de problemas, y normalmente es mejor si se puede encontrar una visión no identitaria de lo que significa la lucha por el reconocimiento.

¿Y qué debería significar?

Un movimiento como el feminismo no debería luchar por la idea de que hay una identidad o ethos feminista diferente, que requiere de un reconocimiento afirmativo para equipararse con la masculinidad. No; diría que las políticas del reconocimiento en un movimiento feminista deberían ser las luchas contra las formas del estatus de desigualdad ligadas a los términos de género. Y eso deja muy abierta la posibilidad de revalorizar “lo femenino”, sea lo que fuere. Por eso intento desligar las políticas de reconocimiento de las políticas de identidad.

Mirando atrás, me da la sensación –corríjame si es un análisis equivocado-  de que en Estados Unidos ha habido un gran avance en términos de reconocimiento, como el matrimonio homosexual, e incluso en temas de visibilidad, como tener un presidente negro. ¿Ha habido demasiado de eso y muy poco énfasis en la redistribución? Sigue habiendo mucha desigualdad, y no parece que esté mejorando…

No es una cuestión de demasiado o muy poco, sino de que no ha habido un equilibrio. Ha habido un desequilibrio y mucha parcialidad. Por ejemplo, el movimiento homosexual y el movimiento LGTB se centran en la igualdad en el matrimonio y en el acceso al servicio militar. No me parecen las mejores opciones para enfocar la lucha. En cualquier caso, las dos tienen, y eso es interesante, un elemento distributivo. El Ejército es una de las pocas vías que tienen los trabajadores para pagar las matrículas universitarias, por ejemplo, o sea que genera beneficios económicos. Y tener el derecho a casarse conlleva derechos económicos y sociales, además de los simbólicos, de reconocimiento…

¿Cuáles habrían sido las rutas alternativas? 

Hubiera preferido luchar para conseguir que los derechos sociales básicos fueran simplemente derechos individuales, independientemente del estado civil; hubiera preferido una sociedad que no enfatizara el hecho de estar o no casado. En vez de decir “¡nosotros también queremos casarnos!”, ¿por qué no decir, “te damos derechos sanitarios, fiscales y todos los demás beneficios por ser simplemente una persona, un ciudadano, un residente en el país?”.

Entiendo que se refiere a que esos derechos están en pie de igualdad en términos de redistribución, pero ponen el acento en el estatus. ¿Es por eso por los que los prefiere? 

Sí. Porque la cuestión igualdad en el matrimonio introduce odiosas comparaciones de estatus entre los que están casados y los que no. No debiéramos reforzar eso…   

A principio de los años 2000 escribió sobre el problema del “desplazamiento”, en el cual “las cuestiones de reconocimiento se usan para marginalizar y ‘exclusivizar’ las luchas redistributivas”. Han pasado ya casi dos décadas. ¿Qué balance hace de este periodo?

El paisaje del conflicto social y de las reivindicaciones, al menos en Estados Unidos, es muy diferente de cuando escribí aquello. El ejemplo más espectacular es la campaña electoral de las primarias presidenciales, donde por un lado está Bernie Sanders, que se presenta como un “socialista democrático”, y está lanzando un discurso de clase abrumadoramente centrado en la desigualdad. También apoya todas las buenas causas progresistas de reconocimiento, pero el verdadero centro de gravedad lo pone en la cuestión de la clase billonaria, el uno por ciento y todo eso…

¿Le sorprende que Sanders haya llegado tan lejos en las primarias enfatizando su discurso sobre las clases sociales?

Si. Es una sorpresa fantástica. Estoy muy contenta; nunca lo hubiera pensado, y demuestra lo lejos que hemos llegado desde el final de la Guerra Fría. El hecho de que puedas usar el término socialismo y que eso ya no implique o inspire la locura y la estigmatizacion de los ‘rojos’ que imperaba entonces es muy interesante. En el otro lado, está Donald Trump, que presenta un cierto tipo de populismo autoritario, nacionalista de derechas que evoca también una problemática de clase pero la colorea de una manera excluyente, cuasi racista, y ciertamente nacionalista. Es como si estas dos figuras difirieran considerablemente sobre las políticas de reconocimiento –así como en sus propuestas programáticas– pero los dos expresan la relevancia de la distribución. Esto es nuevo. Cuando escribía a mediados de los noventa la distribución estaba en los márgenes, y todo era reconocimiento, reconocimiento, reconocimiento. Esto ya no es así. El reconocimiento no desaparece, y no debería hacerlo, pero creo que ahora estamos ante un equilibrio muy diferente.

Ya que ha hablado de las elecciones, ¿qué hay de la otra candidata demócrata, Hillary Clinton? Varias feministas de la ‘segunda ola’ como Gloria Steinem han declarado que las mujeres deben votarla porque es una mujer y la candidata feminista. ¿Lo es?

Yo no diría que es la candidata feminista. Pero está pasando algo muy interesante. Clinton lleva décadas presumiendo de ser una feminista de carné. Empezó su carrera abogando por las mujeres y los niños; es famosa por su discurso en el que equiparaba los derechos de las mujeres y los derechos humanos ante la ONU; y ha defendido con consistencia el derecho al aborto. Entonces, si eso encaja con la parte del reconocimiento, ella ha estado en eso de una manera más explícita y central que Sanders. Pero, por otro lado, ¿qué tipo de feminismo es ese? Clinton representa un tipo de feminismo neoliberal centrado en romper el techo de cristal. Eso significa eliminar los obstáculos que impiden a mujeres más bien privilegiadas, con buena formación, y que ya poseen grandes cantidades de capital cultural y de otro tipo, subir en los escalafones de gobiernos y empresas. Las principales beneficiarias de este feminismo son mayoritariamente mujeres privilegiadas, cuya posibilidad de ascender depende en buena medida del enorme grupo que se encarga del servicio doméstico y el cuidado familiar, también muy feminizado, además de muy mal pagado, muy precario y racializado. Y a la vez, Hillary Clinton, como su marido, está muy implicada con Wall Street, con la desregulación financiera y la neoliberalización de la economía. Así que el tipo de feminismo que Sanders representa tiene más posibilidades de ser un feminismo para todas las mujeres, para las mujeres pobres, para las mujeres negras, para las mujeres de la clase obrera… Y esto se acerca más a mi tipo de feminismo.

En su libro Fortunas del feminismo introduce un tercer término; ya no solo habla de reconocimiento y redistribución sino también de representación. ¿Por qué sintió esa necesidad?

Porque conceptualiza, de una manera explícita, la idea de que más allá de las cuestiones de la distribución, estatus y reconocimiento, hay una serie de cuestiones que tienen que ver con lo político como dimensión fundamental de la sociedad. Creo que en este momento la cuestión de quién tiene standing político en un mundo de refugiados, solicitantes de asilo, inmigrantes sin papeles se convierte en una cuestión muy importante. Esto no es específico del reconocimiento o la redistribución, aunque esté interrelacionado. También tiene que ver con tener voz política.

¿Hasta qué punto trascienden fronteras esas ideas?

Cuando pensamos sobre la voz política, sobre quién la tiene y quién no, creo que deberíamos pensar en una comunidad política acotada a un determinado estado- nación, como Estados Unidos u otros, pero también en un contexto más amplio, internacional, transnacional y global. Vivimos en un mundo en el que los estados están empoderados muy desigualmente. Imagina que eres un ciudadano de Somalia, y que tienes, si no un estado fallido, un estado muy frágil sometido al yugo de los poderes y las instituciones financieras globales, como el FMI –hay cuestiones sobre la voz política que tienen que ver con un nivel más alto, no solo en tu propio estado sino en el sistema mundial. Creo que la única manera de atacar eso es a través del concepto de representación. Ahora habría que pensar en las tres dimensiones de la justicia — o tres formas diferentes de injusticia, si prefieres: una pobre redistribución, el des-reconocimiento y la mala o inexistente representación. No hacerlo supone afrontar los problemas políticos desde el marco equivocado.

¿Y cómo se articula esto en términos de movimientos sociales o políticos? Estoy pensando en Europa, por ejemplo, dónde hay un debate sobre cómo articular las subjetividades políticas, sobre si esto puede pasar sin que las políticas de identidad se afiancen, o incluso se impongan. Usted introduce el concepto de representación o transnacionalización. ¿Se puede construir poder político en un mundo globalizado sin enfatizar la identidad y poniendo de relieve, por ejemplo, la representación? ¿Cómo cree que se podría hacer?

Creo que de alguna manera la estructura y el problema de la Unión Europea es en parte una cuestión de representación. Me refiero al hecho de que el Banco Central Europeo y las instituciones financieras globales, en conexión con lo que comúnmente se llama Troika, tienen en sus manos una gran cantidad de poder, tanto que tienen la capacidad, a través de la imposición de medidas de austeridad, de invalidar elecciones. Pueden decirle a los griegos: “¡No nos importa a quién votasteis, no podéis poner en marcha esas políticas!”. Hay cuestiones básicas sobre dónde  reside el poder y la voz política en la Unión Europea, ya que interactúa con el orden financiero global. Todo esto está por encima, o al menos se cruza con problemas de reconocimiento y redistribución. Hay un tipo de problema de reconocimiento en Europa dónde los países ricos del norte miran por encima del hombro a los llamados PIGS — los países del sur– por ser vagos y evasores de impuestos. Esta es una vieja historia familiar de reconocimiento. Pero se convierte en letal cuando interactúa con el problema estructural –que por supuesto tiene que ver con la misma creación del euro– en el que se impone la austeridad sobre la voz democrática.

——————-

English version

1.En la entrevista original Fraser dice «leaning in», en referencia al libro Lean In (Vayamos Adelante: Las Mujeres, el Trabajo y la Voluntad de Liderarde Sheryl Sandberg, directora operativa de Facebook y Nell Scovell, escritora y directora de televisión.

*En la primera versión, se decía 1999. La fecha correcta es 1989.

Enlace original: http://ctxt.es/es/20160420/Politica/5507/Nancy-Fraser-feminismo-Hillary-Clinton-Bernie-Sanders-reconocimiento-Hegel-redistribucion-representacion-Estados-Unidos-Entrevistas-Elecciones-en-Estados-Unidos.htm#.Vxz3_3f1a9Q.facebook

Comparte este contenido:

Venezuela: Realizarán I feria virtual para estudiar con becas en el exterior

Venezuela/ 25 de Abril de 2016/El Nacional

La nueva tendencia de las ferias virtuales se trasladó al sector de educación a través de cursos de inglés para complementar la formación universitaria, técnica, prácticas profesionales o programas que combinan trabajo y estudio al mismo tiempo.Esta feria es organizada y promovida en Venezuela por LAE Estudios Internacionales con el apoyo de más de 40 universidades australianas.

Australia, Canadá, Estados Unidos, Nueva Zelanda, Inglaterra y Malta son los destinos favoritos de los jóvenes venezolanos que han solicitado información relacionada con el ámbito educativo.

LAE Estudios Internacionales dispone de vínculos con más de 500 instituciones en el mundo, muchas de ellas presentes en esta Feria Virtual, a la que por primera vez se podrán conectar en línea desde cualquier punto de Venezuela y aprovechar una gran promoción de becas con 25% de descuento en cursos de inglés.

Durante la jornada los interesados podrán hacer sus preguntas y recibir la asesoría gratuita de los consultores estudiantiles de LAE en Caracas, Valencia, Barquisimeto y Maracaibo.También se ofrecen importantes oportunidades en carreras cortas de dos años para una rápida incorporación al mercado de trabajo.

Fuente: http://www.el-nacional.com/economia/contacto_empresarial/Realizaran-feria-virtual-estudiar-exterior_0_836316510.html

Comparte este contenido:
Page 372 of 394
1 370 371 372 373 374 394