Page 1565 of 1683
1 1.563 1.564 1.565 1.566 1.567 1.683

Diez películas para celebrar el día de la madre

Drama, comedia y hasta terror son los géneros que han protagonizado mujeres que harían cualquier cosa por sus hijos y que invitan a reflexionar sobre cuánto las comprendemos realmente.

Marié Scarpa 07 de mayo del 2016 / La Tercera.com

El primer domingo de mayo es el espacio dedicado a las madres. Variopintas, sacrificadas y complejas, su figura ha sido representada en varias producciones cinematográficas y continúa encantando al público. Para conmemorar la fecha próxima, te dejamos un listado de filmes para disfrutar en familia.

«Una mamá en apuros»

La primera película nos sitúa en Manhattan, donde Eliza prepara la fiesta de cumpleaños de su hija. Con Uma Thurman como protagonista, esta comedia muestra el sinfin de contratiempos y obstáculos que toda madre debe enfrentar sin importar que la tarea «se vea sencilla».

«Todo sobre mi madre»

Considerada por muchos como la joya de Almodóvar, este filme nos cuenta sobre la dedicación absoluta que Manuela tiene con su hijo Esteban y cómo oculta la identidad de su padre buscando ocultar el pasado. Mezclando drama y juego con la identidad de género, «Todo sobre mi madre» fue la primera película española en ganar tanto en Globo de Oro como el Oscar y dos BAFTA.

«Una suegra de cuidado»

Como el título lo advierte, esta historia nos narra la clásica batalla entre una mujer enamorada y su despiadada suegra que, en un afán por no dejar ir a su hijo, le hace la vida imposible. Cuenta con las actuaciones de la reconocida Jane Fonda como Viola -madre del novio -, y de Jennifer López como la nuera protagonista.

«Mamma Mia!»

¿Qué pasaría si el día de tu boda no sabes quién te llevará del brazo al altar? Con un elenco querido por el público y buenas críticas, esta comedia musical nos cuenta cómo Donna le oculta a su hija la identidad de su padre hasta que, ella misma, encuentra el diario de su madre e invita a los tres candidatos.

«El Intercambio»

Con Angelina Jolie en la piel de una madre soltera, la película nos cuenta la desaparición de su hijo mientras ella trabaja para sacarlo adelante. Basada en una historia real ocurrida en la década de 1920, la producción abarca la cruenta realidad del intercambio de niños que tuvo lugar en Los Ángeles, Estados Unidos.

«Quédate a mi lado»

Isabel intenta que los hijos de su novio se encuentren cómodos junto a ella, pero los niños se resisten a aceptar a otra mujer que no sea su madre. Todo se complicará para la protagonista cuando, además, aparezca la ex mujer de su pareja.

«El Orfanato»

Como representante del género thriller español, el filme narra la vida de Laura quien, junto a su marido e hijo, decide regresar al orfanato donde ella creció para volver a abrir sus puertas.

«Un sueño imposible»

Basada en hechos reales y protagonizada por Sandra Bullock, la película nos cuenta cómo el amor desinteresado de una madre le cambia la vida a un joven que ha vivido en diferentes familias de acogida.

«Bailando en la oscuridad»

Este filme danés, que cuenta con la actuación de la cantante Björk, muestra el sacrificio que está dispuesta a correr una madre por su hijo. La protagonista ahorra todo lo que puede para que él no corra su misma suerte: sufrir de una ceguera progresiva.

«Ponte en mi lugar»

Una comedia de culto. La película juvenil protagonizada por Lindsay Lohan y Jamie Lee Curtis, muestra cómo madre e hija intercambian cuerpos para comprender mejor a la otra luego de varios conflictos tras el divorcio de la mayor.

BONUS

En cuanto a animación, tanto «Bambi» como «Valiente» exponen el fuerte vínculo que la figura protagonista tiene con su madre y cómo éste les hace crecer a medida que se desarrolla la historia.

Fuente: http://www.latercera.com/noticia/portada/2016/05/653-679729-9-diez-peliculas-para-celebrar-el-dia-de-la-madre.shtml

Fuente de la imagen de cabecera: https://pixabay.com/static/uploads/photo/2016/03/15/03/20/mother-and-son-1256829_960_720.jpg

Comparte este contenido:

Bernardine Dohrn y Bill Ayers: «Violencia es quedarse en casa viendo la televisión mientras fuera se cometen injusticias»

Publicado por y

Bernardine Dohrn y Bill Ayers para Jot Down 0

La intervención militar de Estados Unidos en Vietnam durante los años sesenta y setenta dejó como mínimo tres millones y medio de muertos. Un historiador y periodista, Nick Turse, ha denunciado en Dispara a todo lo que se mueva (Ed: Sexto Piso, 2014) que las matanzas que se produjeron en la contienda no fueron errores, sino una estrategia organizada. Al menos, los estragos que continúa causando el agente naranja con el que se defolió la selva siguen siendo escalofriantes.

La Weather Underground fue una organización terrorista que se opuso a la guerra en la efervescencia ideológica de los años sesenta. Decidieron pasar a la acción directa, colocar bombas, para llevar el conflicto a suelo estadounidense. Siempre sin causar víctimas, las llamaban acciones simbólicas. Bill Ayers y Bernardine Dohrn fueron dos de sus militantes más destacados. Ella fue calificada por el FBI como la mujer más peligrosa de América.

Les atrapamos en un viaje que están haciendo por España presentando su nuevo libro Días de fuga (Hoja de Lata) y una novela gráfica sobre educación, Enseñar. Un viaje en cómic (Ediciones Morata). Queremos conocer sus motivaciones para llevar su movilización y su lucha a la clandestinidad, si creen que consiguieron algo y si se arrepienten de alguna cosa. Que nos cuenten su vida.

Vuestros padres son de la generación que vivió la Gran Depresión y la II Guerra Mundial. ¿Qué os contaban de aquella época?

Bernardine: Sufrieron. Mis abuelos, a los que yo nunca conocí, eran todos inmigrantes de Suecia, Rusia y Hungría. Imagínate lo que pasaron. Una experiencia tan dura como esa sirvió para que luego solo quisieran vivir con humildad y no dejar nunca de ahorrar.

Bill: Esa época fue tan sumamente dura que nuestros padres no querían ni hablar del tema, nunca mencionaban nada sobre el pasado. Como desde que nosotros nacimos todo había ido más o menos bien, ya estaba. Punto y aparte. Era un comportamiento que formaba parte de la cultura del momento: todo está bien ahora, vivimos sin grandes dificultades, así que no vamos ponernos ahora a hablar de recuerdos desagradables. Querían olvidar.

Bernardine: Y no solo fue la Gran Depresión, sobre la II Guerra Mundial crecimos sin que nos dijeran tampoco demasiado.

Bill: El inicio de los años sesenta que vivimos nosotros fue una época privilegiada, pero también de negaciones. Digamos que estábamos sumidos en un sueño profundo, no tenías conciencia de lo que había fuera de tu casita. Era todo como muy tranquilo… [risas].

El american dream.

Bill: Eso que llamaron american dream era en realidad un gran letargo en el que estábamos todos sumidos. Fue un fraude, pero era lo que había. Por eso cuando cumplimos dieciséis años y explotó el movimiento de liberación negro, a mi generación se le abrieron los ojos, apareció otro camino al margen del convencional, podías tomar la decisiones distintas sobre tu vida, elegir algo completamente nuevo.

Bernardine: Para mí empezó todo con un profesor en el colegio que nos hizo escribir sobre la guerra de Independencia de Argelia. Investigué y descubrí lo que era una guerra colonial, las torturas y demás… De modo que cuando luego entré en la facultad entendí rápidamente el significado de los movimientos por los derechos humanos que estaban apareciendo a nuestro alrededor.

Bill: También hubo una cosa más en los sesenta, el rock and roll y el béisbol. Los únicos dos ámbitos de la cultura popular donde podías ver que los negros existían.

¿El rock and roll fue una verdadera revolución?

Bernardine: Sí, en primer lugar porque los músicos eran negros. Luego aparecieron Elvis y otros blancos, pero la cultura negra estaba detrás del rock and roll. Con el rock entendimos el significado de la sensualidad en una sociedad muy reprimida.

Bill: Que el rock and roll estuviese inspirado en la cultura negra fue fundamental para romper la barrera que existía entre blancos y negros. Es interesante cómo el arte puede derribar muros hasta entonces infranqueables y enseñarte cómo es realmente la vida, el mundo y las posibilidades que tienes como persona. Tras el rock todo fue más vibrante, más intelectual, más creativo y de eso trata una revolución, ¿o no? Es un cambio político, pero también cultural, psicológico, imaginativo…

¿Cómo percibíais lo que era el capitalismo antes de entrar en contacto con los movimientos sociales?

Bernardine: Yo ni sabía lo que era el capitalismo cuando estaba en el colegio ¿Y tú, Bill? Algo sí, ¿no? Porque tu padre era capitalista… [risas].

Bill: Yo estaba en un colegio interno de cierto nivel y en las clases de Historia teníamos que leer a Marx, pero por supuesto desde la interpretación de que sus ideas conducían a la esclavitud. Sin embargo, solo con algunos puntos uno ya podía deducir que la vida era distinta de lo que nos habían enseñado. Recuerdo cómo nada más leerlo le pregunté a mis padres por qué teníamos una asistenta y por qué ella ganaba menos que mi padre. Mi padre me contestó que él trabajaba mucho para conseguir su sueldo y yo le contesté que la asistenta también trabajaba duro [risas]. ¿Cuál era la diferencia entonces?

¿De qué iban las primeras manifestaciones a las que asististeis?

Bernardine: Las primeras manifestaciones a las que yo fui fueron antinucleares, cuando iba al instituto. Recuerdo ir, alucinar con la que estaba montando la gente que tenía alrededor y no saber ni lo que había que hacer.

Bill: Ir por primera vez a una manifestación suponía romper con la comodidad del pasado. Eso era muy excitante. Aunque también daba miedo salirse de repente de lo que para ti había sido hasta ese momento la «vida normal». Y el hecho de que las primeras manifestaciones a las que fuimos fueran antinucleares es interesante porque, primero, nos dimos cuenta de que el único país que había usado ese armamento era el nuestro y eso era muy duro de asumir. Se supone que nosotros éramos los luchadores de la libertad, los que traíamos la paz, pero fuimos nosotros los que tiramos esas bombas en las ciudades japonesas.

Bernardine: El mes pasado me fui de viaje con mi hijo a Hiroshima y volví a sentir una indignación que no te la puedes ni imaginar.

Bernardine Dohrn y Bill Ayers para Jot Down 1

Bill, lo dejaste todo y te enrolaste en la tripulación de un barco mercante.

Para mí supuso una gran experiencia. Estuve por primera vez en contacto con la clase trabajadora, un tipo de personas con las que nunca antes había convivido. Hacerme amigo de ellos fue genial, era uno más entre blancos y negros. Lo más didáctico de la experiencia fue comprobar que el propio barco estaba organizado como la pirámide social que dejábamos en tierra. Los negros hacían las labores más ingratas, los marineros algo cualificados eran de todo tipo de origen y los oficiales, todos blancos.

Cuando regresaste del barco empezó tu militancia.

Bill: No fui un militante precoz. Tardé en tomar conciencia. En esa época estaba estudiando Derecho y todos los estudiantes éramos blancos y todos menos seis chicas éramos hombres. Empecé a acercarme a movimientos sociales por afinidad, pero lo que supuso un verdadero cambio fue que Martin Luther King vino a Chicago. Antes, no reuní el valor suficiente para irle a ver al sur, pero cuando apareció por mi ciudad pensé que iba a arrepentirme toda mi vida si no me involucraba. King vino con diez activistas del sur. Nos preguntó a mí y a otros estudiantes si sabíamos quién era el propietario de la mayor parte de los pisos que se estaban arrendando en la ciudad a los pobres. Lo investigamos y nos fue imposible encontrar nada, todo iba por compañías y no logramos dar con un nombre, con un responsable. El problema era que los pisos estaban en muy mal estado. No eran siquiera habitables. No tenían ventanas, calefacción ni agua caliente. Estaban llenos de ratas y cucarachas. Así que nos pusimos a trabajar en poner de acuerdo a los vecinos para que reunieran dinero en una cuenta y pudieran reparar los edificios.

Bernardine: También nos dedicábamos a parar desahucios. Nunca olvidaré un día muy concreto en el que no pudimos detener a la policía, fallamos, y lograron entrar en el piso de una familia. Hacía mucho calor, recuerdo. Y los agentes empezaron a bajar los muebles, su ropa, las cosas de la cocina. La gente se puso muy furiosa, cada vez más. Yo estaba ahí metida en mitad de la masa rabiosa cuando de repente me empujaron, alguien enorme, miré arriba y se trataba de Muhammad Ali. Él me miró también, me pidió que le sujetase su chaqueta azul de mil dólares, se fue directo a los muebles que estaban tirados en la acera, cogió un sofá, se lo echó al hombro y lo volvió a subir al piso. Cuando la gente le vio hacer eso alucinó. Nos pusimos todos a imitarle y subimos las pertenencias de esa familia de vuelta a su hogar. La policía entonces volvía a cargarlas y las bajaba otra vez, pero, conforme las dejaban en la acera, nosotros las volvíamos a subir. Fue increíble. La acción directa en los barrios negros para mí fue una gran experiencia. Muchísimos vecinos se dirigían a mí a preguntarme cómo librarse de la guerra de Vietnam. Hubo un momento en el que empezaron a juntarse los mismos problemas: el racial, la pobreza y la guerra. Al final de verano ya empezaron a presionar a King para que se marchara de Chicago.

Bill: Ese gesto de Muhammad Ali de volver a subir el sofá y lo que supuso ha llegado hasta hoy. La gente se sigue oponiendo a los desahucios y hemos conseguido que muchos policías se nieguen a ejecutarlos.

El pretexto de Estados Unidos para su intervención en Vietnam fue la Teoría del Dominó. ¿Qué opinión os merece?

Bernardine: El capitalismo le tenía pánico a la revolución social en el tercer mundo. China y Vietnam les aterraban incluso más que la Unión Soviética por la cuestión latinoamericana y lo que les había sucedido en Cuba. Se sentían amenazados. Pero no creo que ellos se creyeran la Teoría del Dominó tal y como la formularon. Para ellos, más bien, con la demostración de fuerza que hicieron sobre Vietnam, persuadían a los demás países de no llevar a cabo una revolución social.

Bill: Para mí la Teoría del Dominó fue un mito en muchos aspectos. Aunque como metáfora era válida: la liberación nacional, el antiimperialismo, la emancipación de los trabajadores eran ideas peligrosas para el poder que no debían extenderse. Incluso tres años después de la ocupación de Vietnam, aunque estaban perdiendo, seguían matando; seguían los campos de concentración en el sur, arrasaron la poca infraestructura que el país pudiera tener. ¿Y por qué, para qué? Para que cuando los demás países vieran cómo había quedado Vietnam de destruida se lo pensaran dos veces antes de intentar ser libres, que liberarse tenía un precio inasumible. Y efectivamente, al final Vietnam ganó la guerra, pero las pérdidas fueron enormes.

Tengo aquí el libro de Nick Turse, Dispara a todo lo que se mueva. Es un estudio que detalla todos los crímenes que se cometieron allí. ¿En los sesenta teníais acceso a esa información?

Bill: Ese libro es fantástico. Explica perfectamente lo que ocurrió en Vietnam: Un genocidio.

Bernardine: La información nos llegaba a través de periodistas jóvenes que iban a cubrir la guerra. Sabían que las autoridades estaban mintiendo sobre el desarrollo de la guerra, en especial con las cifras de muertos. Por otro lado, teníamos a los soldados. No eran profesionales, eran de reemplazo, de leva, fueron obligados a ir. Y esta gente cuando volvía te contaba todos los horrores de la guerra de los que habían sido testigos. Contaban la verdad. Con lo que revelaban los periodistas y los veteranos ya sabíamos que estaban masacrando a miles de personas. Por eso se generó un pánico a la guerra, muchos jóvenes sabían que tarde o temprano iban a ser reclutados para ir a esa barbaridad.

¿Sabíais también lo de los campos de refugiados que, de facto, terminaban siendo campos de concentración?

Bernardine: Sabíamos algo, pero en realidad esa información no salió hasta 1969.

Bill: También obteníamos mucha información de Francia, de Europa, donde se contaba la guerra desde otro punto de vista.

Bernardine: Yo conocí vietnamitas en viajes que hice a Canadá y Cuba. La verdad es que llegó un momento en el que estábamos tan apasionados que llegamos a obsesionarnos con el conflicto de Vietnam. Teníamos mapas colgados en las paredes de casa, cocinábamos platos vietnamitas, leíamos a sus poetas. Llegamos a sentirnos muy identificados con ese pueblo. Por cierto, que en uno de estos viajes, conocí a un revolucionario español. Fue la primera persona que conocí que vivía en la clandestinidad.

Bill: Con toda la información que recibimos, al dejar de estar bajo la esfera de influencia del New York Times, tomamos conciencia de cuál era la situación real y nos propusimos como compromiso mostrar a nuestros compatriotas cuál era la cara humana de los vietnamitas, hacerles ver que se trataba de gente normal, con sus familias y sus amigos, y no una especie de seres extraños.

Bernardine Dohrn y Bill Ayers para Jot Down 2

¿Habéis visto la entrevista a Robert McNamara de Errol Morris?

Bernardine: A mí McNamara me saca de quicio. Verle llorar en esa entrevista…

Bueno, él cuenta tranquilamente cómo lanzaron miles de bombas sobre la población civil japonesa, cómo arrasaron Vietnam. Admite que murieron cientos de miles de personas por sus decisiones, que podría ser considerado un criminal de guerra, pero con lo que llora es cuando recuerda el asesinato de Kennedy.

Bill: Esa es su personalidad. Es uno de esos hombres que piensan todo en términos de números y categorías. Incapaces de pensar en términos de seres humanos que tienen sentimientos. Pasa lo mimo con Kissinger, que acaba de sacar un libro y en el New York Times hablan de él tranquilamente, como si fuera un intelectual más, cuando es un criminal de guerra. Posiblemente uno de los más grandes del siglo XX. De hecho, no puede viajar a ciertos países porque lo meterían en la cárcel, pero en Estados Unidos se le considera como un cerebro privilegiado de la política exterior. Lo que demuestra que es muy fácil justificar torturas, asesinatos, bombardeos y matanzas de civiles cuando eres tú el que las cometes. Si las hace otra persona entonces resulta que es terrorismo. McNamara y Kissinger son dos ejemplos de ese nacionalismo repugnante. Y ahora, en la actualidad, tenemos a John Kerry como ejemplo de esa brillante línea de pensamiento.

Bernardine: Aunque eso no quita que para nosotros siga siendo muy importante apoyar a los veteranos de guerra. No solo a los que cambiaron su opinión, sino también a los jóvenes que han pagado un precio muy alto por entrar en combate pensando que están cumpliendo con su deber o con una obligación moral. Además, muchos de ellos fueron a Irak o Afganistán respondiendo al 11S, y una buena parte solo para poder conseguir una vía económica para financiar sus estudios universitarios. De repente se encontraron metidos en una guerra de once años de duración…

Bill, en tus memorias, comentas que la primera vez que te pegó la policía te sentiste «en el paraíso».

Bill: Es una ironía, pero fue así. Nunca me había sentido tan libre. Es difícil de explicar. Cuando estuve en la clandestinidad, por ejemplo, también tenía miedo, pero la sensación de libertad que sentía era más intensa que si me encontrase como un ciudadano más. Aunque te pegue la policía o te detengan, cuando te defines ideológicamente, cuando tomas tu elección de vivir por una causa superior, te emocionas tanto que los golpes no los sientes, aunque te puedan doler.

Llegas a decir en tu libro que en la cárcel no podías sentirte más libre.

Bill: En la celda me sentía más libre que los que están en su casa viendo la televisión zampando del frigorífico. Os lo aseguro. Y no solo yo. Leí que entre los miembros de la resistencia francesa, tras la II Guerra Mundial, sentían que al acabar la guerra habían perdido su tesoro, el subidón de libertad que es la lucha clandestina. Se habían quedado vacíos tras perder el motivo de su lucha. Suena duro, pero ellos estaban plantándoles cara a los nazis, contraatacándolos, y cuando eso se acaba, te debe absorber de tal manera que parece como que has perdido algo.

Bill, por curiosidad, en tus memorias citas mucho Ann Arbor. Por aquellos años, en esa ciudad, estaba el grupo MC5. ¿Les conociste?

Bill: Sí, claro que sí. Éramos muy buenos amigos de John Sinclair, su manager. Cómo olvidar que le metieron diez años de cárcel por llevar encima dos porros. Él predicaba que la marihuana era una forma de liberación y se lo hicieron pagar. Los MC5 estaban llenos de energía, además era un grupo mitad político, mitad rock and roll, eso era muy inspirador. También andaba por ahí Iggy Pop, pero MC5 estaban siempre tocando en todas las fiestas que organizábamos. Luego solíamos terminar con ellos en la cocina bebiendo vino y fumando marihuana, hablando tranquilamente. Eran muy buena gente y muy buenos amigos.

Os sentíais parte de una revolución global contra el capitalismo.

Bernardine: Claro, nos sentíamos identificados con los movimientos de descolonización africanos, seguíamos de cerca la guerra de liberación de Angola. Apoyábamos la lucha del pueblo vietnamita. Estábamos con los movimientos pacifistas de todo el mundo. Considerábamos que la lucha del tercer mundo era la nuestra, solo que nosotros la librábamos desde dentro.

Bill: Luchábamos por la descolonización, éramos antinucleares, pacifistas, estábamos con los movimientos negros y creíamos que Estados Unidos era responsable de todos los problemas contra los que luchábamos.

Bernardine Dohrn y Bill Ayers para Jot Down 3

Qué opináis de las nuevas generaciones, ¿son tan combativas como la vuestra?

Bernardine: Son mucho más globales de lo que nosotros éramos. Nosotros hicimos un cambio, digamos, hacia una mentalidad internacional. Pero ellos han crecido pensando de forma internacional. También creo que leen mucho y que están muy bien informados. Veo que son muy inteligentes. Mira cómo se organizaron este verano cuando la policía mató a un chico negro en San Luis. También han hecho triunfar a los movimientos gay…

Bill: Sobran los ejemplos. Ahora mismo hay jóvenes luchando por los derechos de los inmigrantes, por los derechos de las mujeres, contra la violencia de la policía, por el medio ambiente. No se puede comparar. Los años sesenta se han mitificado. Hay quien dice que en esa época pasaron todas las cosas buenas. La mejor música, las mejores manifestaciones, el mejor sexo. Y nosotros siempre respondemos que no, que el sexo sigue siendo bueno [risas]. No, incluso aún hay buena música y muchas cosas interesantes. Que no se engañe a los jóvenes metiéndoles en la cabeza que todo terminó con los años sesenta.

Bernardine: Los jóvenes cambian el mundo. Pasó en nuestra época, pasó después y ocurre ahora. Aunque haya una represión masiva, siempre son los jóvenes los que protagonizan los cambios. En nuestros tiempos, los medios siempre decían que los movimientos estudiantiles estaban muertos. Hasta en el año 68 lo decían, mientras el mundo explotaba y no encontrábamos espacios lo suficientemente grandes para poder reunirnos.

Bill: El poder siempre hace eso. Primero ignora al movimiento y luego lo ridiculiza.

En vuestra época había un libro de Mao en cada cajón de cada mesilla.

Bill: Sí, en algún momento todos tuvimos nuestro pequeño romance con el maoísmo. Pero para nosotros el Partido Comunista nunca fue interesante. Tampoco nos considerábamos una nueva izquierda. No éramos anticomunistas, no nos importaba que nadie viniese a nuestra organización siendo comunista.

El nombre de vuestra organización venía de una canción de Bob Dylan.

Bernardine: Estaban siendo asesinados seis mil vietnamitas por semana y la policía estaba asesinando a los miembros destacados de los Panteras Negras. Discutimos en una reunión de urgencia qué estrategia seguir y redactamos un documento de muchas páginas, como un informe interno de la organización. Después de leerlo, teníamos que ponerle un título y Terry Robins, gran fan de Bob Dylan, eligió ese título.

La primera norma de vuestra organización: sexo libre.

Bernardine: No fuimos solo nosotros. Pasó en muchos movimientos. Las píldoras anticonceptivas acababan de cambiar nuestros esquemas morales sobre el sexo, que la mujer podía tener placer formaba parte de su liberación. Dimos un paso adelante rechazando la monogamia.

Bill: Pensábamos que todo lo viejo, lo antiguo, lo anterior, tenía que ponerse en duda. Digamos que fue una idea experimental.

Bernadine: Pero no fue inútil. Con la propuesta del sexo libre muchos se encontraron a sí mismos; muchos amigos nuestros, por ejemplo, descubrieron que eran gais. Funcionó de maravilla porque conseguimos que cada uno fuese capaz de vivir su propia sexualidad, que es diferente en cada persona. Yo no quería casarme nunca [risas] y aquí estoy, pero porque consideraba que el matrimonio suponía para las mujeres convertirse en propiedad del marido.

Bill: También hay que decir en defensa del sexo libre que antes éramos jóvenes y guapos. ¡Quién quería ser monógamo!

¿Había muchos miembros de vuestra organización que provenían de familias acomodadas?

Bernardine: Había de todo. Mucha gente que vivía de familias ricas, otros eran de clase media. Otros inmigrantes. Pero en general la mayoría veníamos de las universidades, aunque también había gente que solo tenía la educación secundaria. Éramos una gran mezcla. El punto de ruptura fue cuando decidimos convertirnos en una organización que iba a vivir en la clandestinidad, a realizar acciones ilegales. Rompimos con la ley y las manifestaciones en las que participamos empezaron a ser violentas, con destrozos de mobiliario. Pero tenéis que entender que Estados Unidos es uno de los países más violentos que te puedas encontrar. En vuestra sociedad, en Europa, la gente no va armada. En nuestro contexto, estábamos ya rodeados de violencia de modo que hay que valorar en su justa medida que en nuestras manifestaciones hubiera actos vandálicos. En aquellas fechas estaban muriendo seis mil personas a la semana en Vietnam, dime ¿qué ibas a hacer, qué podías hacer para pararlo? Los grupos católicos de izquierda, curas y monjas, iban por ahí quemando cosas con gasolina. Que las autoridades nos consideraran violentos a nosotros era como de broma. Nunca matamos a nadie. Solo hicimos acciones que se pudieran entender como un mensaje.

Bill: Violencia es quedarse en casa viendo la televisión mientras fuera se cometen injusticias. La mayoría de la población americana piensa que si no hacen nada no están siendo violentos. Nosotros apoyamos la acción directa. Es otra cosa. Si le preguntas a Martin Luther King te diría que nuestra acción directa contra el militarismo o el racismo no es violencia.

Bernardine: Cuando salió el documental sobre nosotros se presentó en Sundance. Fuimos invitados al estreno y recuerdo que una periodista del LA Times nos preguntó que cómo podíamos ser violentos si nos gustaban Gandhi y Mandela. Yo le dije: ¿Cómo? ¿Mandela? En Estados Unidos la gente se piensa que fue un gentleman que estuvo en la cárcel y él solito acabó con elapartheid. Pensé: «Anda, vete a casa y lee un poco aunque sea en Google sobre lo que hizo Mandela y luego seguimos esta discusión». En Estados Unidos tenemos una imagen muy distorsionada de lo que es la verdadera violencia.

Bill: Es como cuando el presidente de Estados Unidos dice que King fue un ejemplo a seguir, un hombre recto. Y yo pienso que no, que no actuaba solo. Él era parte del movimiento. King no creó el movimiento, el movimiento creó a King.

Bernardine: Me gustan los movimientos juveniles actuales que se niegan a tener un líder.

Bernardine Dohrn y Bill Ayers para Jot Down 4

Bernardine, el FBI dijo que eras la mujer más peligrosa de América.

Bernardine: Ya me gustaría…

Bill: ¡Esa es mi chica! [risas]

Bernardine: Antes de mí, ¿sabes quién dijeron que era la mujer más peligrosa de América? Jane Addams, una feminista que era socialista y lesbiana. Se había opuesto a la I Guerra Mundial. Edgar Hoover, que estaba empezando, dijo que era la mujer más peligrosa de América y después de unos años la dieron el Premio Nobel de la Paz  [risas].

Bill: A Bernardine la pusieron en una lista de los diez delincuentes más buscados. Las listas de los más buscados habían estado siempre llenas de criminales, mafiosos, de asesinos terribles y, a partir de los setenta, se empezaron a llenar de estudiantes guapos [risas].

Bernardine: Fracasaron. Iban de organización poderosa, pero les pillamos por sorpresa. Durante años mandaron a gente a que preguntara por mí de puerta en puerta. Creían que nuestros padres o nuestros compañeros de la universidad iban a decirles algo, pero nuestra campaña de convencer a la gente de que no colaborase en absolutamente nada funcionó.

Bill: Incluso en la investigación del FBI podías ver reflejada la pirámide social. Cuando fueron a hablar con mi padre, un profesional considerado, le pidieron una cita para verle en su oficina. Cuando fueron a hablar con el de Bernardine, que era un inmigrante, aparecieron en mitad de la noche en su casa diciéndole que tenían un cuerpo en la morgue que querían que identificase a ver si era su hija. Le intentaron aterrorizar, mientras que a mi padre le guardaron una distancia y un respeto.

Bernardine: Como sabéis, una vez conseguimos robar los archivos del FBI. Ahí vimos que había dos estrategias. Para los negros, asesinar a sus líderes; para los blancos, infiltración y destrucción desde dentro.

Bill: Sí, con los movimientos negros hicieron eso, matarlos. Tardó siete años en salir a la luz, en que los abogados lograran demostrarlo, pero al final se vio que eran ciertos algunos asesinatos.

Bernardine: Pero ya os digo, nadie colaboró con ellos para atraparnos a nosotros. Porque, además, no éramos los únicos que estaban en la clandestinidad en aquel entonces. Había mucha gente indocumentada, traficantes de LSD, insumisos que huían de la mili, desertores, no estábamos solos. Estados Unidos estaba lleno de gente furtiva.

¿Cómo era la vida en la clandestinidad?

Bernardine: Trabajábamos. Yo lo hacía de camarera, limpiando casas, recogiendo fruta, vendimiando. Y entretanto, muchas reuniones. Mientras, sabíamos que parte importante de la sociedad nos apoyaba, tenían ese gran romance americano con losoutlaws, como si fuésemos Bonnie & Clyde.

Un antes y un después en vuestra organización fue cuando le explotó la bomba en Nueva York a unos militantes de vuestro grupo, una bomba que iban a colocar en un baile de oficiales para matar al mayor número de ellos posible. Ahí decidís no atentar contra vidas humanas.

Bill: Unos del grupo decidieron hacer ese ataque en una base militar. Prepararon la bomba, les estalló y murieron los tres. Pero ya habíamos pasado a la clandestinidad y esta decisión la tomó un grupo por su cuenta porque funcionábamos de forma descentralizada. De todas formas, lo que pasó en ese edificio donde explotó la bomba no lo sabe nadie. La bomba estaba hecha con metralla para matar personas, no para hundir un edificio. En lo que a nosotros respecta, cuando descubrimos lo que habían planeado, fue un shock. Estábamos muy asustados. Horrorizados. Nos reunimos para decidir si apoyábamos esa clase de violencia y, tras meses de discusiones, optamos por realizar acciones meramente simbólicas, sin víctimas. ´

Bernardine: No queríamos ser una fuerza militar, asesinar a gente, sino una fuerza política. Los que estuvieron de acuerdo se quedaron y los que no, abandonaron la organización. Nos llevó un año definirnos.

¿Qué acciones realizasteis según ese modelo?

Bernardine: Los objetivos de la Weather Underground, donde pusimos bombas, fueron todos militares. El Pentágono, comisarías… La verdad es que no tengo un atentado favorito. [risas] [Lista de todas sus acciones N. del R.]

Aparte de las bombas, organizasteis la fuga de prisión de Timothy Leary.

Bernardine: De eso sí nos arrepentimos, de no haber hecho más acciones donde estaba presente el sentido del humor como en esa, que fue una operación tan divertida. Nadie nos lo ordenó jerárquicamente, simplemente vimos que era una buena oportunidad y lo hicimos. Timothy Leary era un intelectual que experimentaba con LSD y promovía esta droga como forma de romper con las costumbres e iniciar una nueva forma de vida, encontrar una nueva manera de ver el mundo. Él tonto no era, entendía nuestra lucha contra la guerra de Vietnam y el racismo. Era un activista más. Sencillamente, estaba en la cárcel por el asunto de la droga, como tantos otros, y quería escaparse. Su gente se puso en contacto con nosotros, nos pareció bien, nos financiaron y desarrollamos el plan. Fuimos capaces de sacarle de la cárcel y del país.

¿Cómo hacíais las bombas, qué materiales empleabais?

Bernardine: De eso no hablamos.

¿Conocíais a la Baader Meinhof?

Bill: Sí, sabíamos que existía, fue un fenómeno más de los sesenta. Formaciones revolucionarias que intentaban luchar. Entonces tenías ese tipo de resistencia en todas partes, en Inglaterra, en Francia, en Japón, en Alemania, en España…

Bernardine: Pero nosotros tomamos la decisión de nunca abandonar nuestro país. Éramos hijos de América. Veíamos lo que hacía la Baader Meinhof por televisión, pero nuestras estrategias, las decisiones que tomamos, fueron diferentes.

Bernardine Dohrn y Bill Ayers para Jot Down 5

Decís en el documental que en los setenta vuestra vida en la clandestinidad y vuestros atentados empezaron a ser como una rutina. Decidisteis dejarlo.

Bernardine: Teníamos una regla que no era muy habitual en las organizaciones que operaban en la clandestinidad. En Weather Underground los militantes podían irse cuando quisieran. No había consecuencias por abandonar. Durante los setenta unos entraron, pero también muchos se fueron. Cuando acabó la guerra de Vietnam, la cuestión de seguir siendo fugitivos se puso sobre la mesa. Hubo diferentes opiniones, unos querían seguir y otros queríamos volver a disfrutar de una vida privada normal, tener familias e hijos. Muchos lo dejaron pero se unieron al movimiento gay, otros al sindicalismo… Yo odiaba tener que rendirme y entregarme, pero Bill fue adorable y me dejó tomarme mi tiempo. Al final nos entregamos cuando nació nuestro segundo hijo.

Bill: Estábamos también deseando militar en una organización más grande. Fuimos a Chicago, resolvimos nuestros problemas legales y no entendimos que nuestra reinserción fuese en contra de nuestras ideas revolucionarias.

Bernardine: Yo hice mi discurso militante: «Me niego a entregarme, pero aquí estoy» [risas]. No sabíamos qué iba a pasar. Teníamos dos críos. Le dijimos a nuestro hijo mayor lo que pasaba y al menos se quedó con que íbamos a cambiarnos los nombres, nunca habíamos ido por ahí con los verdaderos. La noche siguiente vimos a los padres de Bill por primera vez en once años y luego fuimos a que yo le presentara a los míos.

Bill: Lo que más me gustó es que el primer comentario de mi padre al verme fue que necesitaba un buen corte de pelo. Y lo primero que dijo el padre de Bernardine fue «¿Estás casada?». Seguían siendo unos padres como los de toda la vida.

Bernardine: Ahora bromeamos con eso pero la verdad es que los pobres pasaron por un auténtico infierno. Pero bueno, llegado el momento estaban muy felices de ver a sus nietos.

¿No tuvisteis problemas con la ley?

Bernardine: Yo tenía cargos por las manifestaciones violentas, unos dieciséis o diecisiete. Cargos federales por destrozar propiedades públicas. Pero el FBI había llevado las investigaciones de forma tan claramente ilegal que no pudieron acusarnos de nada. Tampoco tenían muchas pruebas a esas alturas, la verdad. De todas formas, muchos militantes de Weather Underground sí que terminaron en la cárcel, pero por otros cargos al margen de nuestras acciones. Por no querer revelar nada sobre mis compañeros yo ya me había chupado en su momento siete meses de cárcel.

Bill: Las acusaciones fueron muy débiles. Nos acusaban de haber planeado acciones pero no tenían pruebas de que las hiciéramos. Con esas acusaciones ridículas nos habían puesto en la lista de los diez más buscados. Además, el FBI pretendía secuestrar al hijo de la hermana de Bernardine y retenerle hasta que nos entregáramos. No llegaron a hacerlo, pero con esos métodos ningún juez les hubiera podido haber dado la razón.

Bernardine: Los agentes que planearon eso terminaron condenados. Tras el final de la guerra de Vietnam y la guerra sucia del FBI América estaba en shock. Nos colamos por la puerta que abrió el presidente Jimmy Carter, aunque nos entregamos justo cuando Reagan fue elegido presidente [risas].

Hoy en día seguís recibiendo amenazas de muerte.

Bill: Es que uno de mis libros lo publiqué justo el 11 de septiembre de 2001. Esa misma mañana el New York Times llevaba en portada de su sección cultural una foto de nosotros dos con la reseña. El diario salió a las seis de la mañana y los atentados contra los Torres Gemelas fueron a las nueve. A raíz de eso, nos llovieron más amenazas que durante la guerra de Vietnam. En esos días de auténtica paranoia con el terrorismo, nosotros nos convertimos en los terroristas domésticos de Estados Unidos. Recibimos amenazas de muerte prácticamente todos los meses. Si vamos a dar un discurso a algún lado, siempre hay amenazas, pero no las tomamos en serio. Es solo gente muy ruidosa pero nada más. Nos los imaginamos como el típico tío bebiendo demasiado whisky delante del ordenador, quién sabe si viviendo en el sótano de la casa de su madre [risas].

¿Qué habéis hecho contra la guerra de Irak y Afganistán?

Bill: Estuvimos en muchos movimientos. En especial en un movimiento colectivo en Chicago [Movement Building Colective] Pero creemos que no puedes limitarte solo a estar en un movimiento ni quedarte en tu casa sentado. Hay que hacer algo más. Por eso hemos estado profundamente involucrados en proyectos pacifistas que van de la educación a la justicia, aunque la guerra sea la idea central.

Bernardine: Yo también estuve en el movimiento en contra de que la OTAN se reuniera en Chicago hace dos años.

Bill: Esas manifestaciones fueron un gran éxito. Vimos cómo el Gobierno se lo tomaba como un ensayo general para la represión. Nunca habíamos visto la ciudad tan vacía. Los únicos que quedamos fuimos nosotros, los manifestantes, y la policía y los militares. Todo lo demás, drones, helicópteros, quitanieves ¡en mitad del verano! Hacía un calor infernal, pero los trajeron.

Bernardine: Lo más impresionante es que los que más daban la cara en las manifestaciones eran veteranos de la guerra de Irak. Los líderes de estos movimientos habían estado en la guerra. Iban los primeros, encabezaban la protesta y lo más espectacular fue cuando les lanzaron sus medallas a los generales de la OTAN, fue una imagen imborrable.

Bill: Estados Unidos tiene una larga historia de ocupaciones militares y guerras. Invasiones de terceros países que no solo son injustas e ilegales, sino que además acaban con las aspiraciones de paz y justicia de todos los ciudadanos del planeta. Lo más grave de todo, además, es que las guerras por petróleo no responden a una causa política, que implique a mucha gente, sino solo a los intereses de un 1%. En este contexto, nosotros no podemos influir en el Congreso, pero sí en nuestras áreas de influencia más cercanas, como es la educación. Por eso tratamos de organizarnos de abajo a arriba. Promovemos nuestros valores en la comunidad, en las aulas, en la iglesia, en la universidad. No te creas que esto no le preocupa al Gobierno. Si miras la historia de todos los grandes cambios, siempre vienen desde abajo.

Bernardine: De hecho, en política, nunca harás nada bueno sin el poder de abajo.

¿Ha cambiado algo con Obama?

Bill: Obama en 2008 dijo que era pragmático y moderado. Pero la derecha dijo que era un musulmán encubierto, que estaba con los terroristas, que tenía una agenda socialista. Y ya veis, creo que iba en la buena dirección, pero al final no tardó en disgustarnos con todas estas guerras.

¿Os arrepentís de algo?

Bernardine: Ahora, hablando como una mujer de setenta y tres años, creo que no nos equivocamos. No me arrepiento de nada.

Bill: Nunca causamos muertos. Como dice Bernardine, no nos arrepentimos de haber causado destrozos con bombas de una forma simbólica. No nos arrepentimos de haber luchado contra un Gobierno que llevaba a cabo un genocidio en Vietnam y pretendía acabar con la cultura negra por la violencia. Con setenta años, por supuesto que me arrepiento de muchas cosas. Políticamente, el arrepentimiento más profundo que siento es el de haber formado un movimiento tan sectario. Desde ese punto de vista, tan reducido, nunca actúas bien. Ahora hemos aprendido más y crecido como personas.

Bernardine Dohrn y Bill Ayers para Jot Down

Fotografía: Begoña Rivas

 

Enlace original en: http://www.jotdown.es/2014/11/bernardine-dohrn-y-bill-ayers-violencia-es-quedarse-en-casa-viendo-la-television-mientras-fuera-se-cometen-injusticias/

 

Comparte este contenido:

A conversation with Jürgen Habermas

Critique and communication: Philosophy’s missions –A conversation with Jürgen Habermas

Decades after first encountering Anglo-Saxon perspectives on democracy in occupied postwar Germany, Jürgen Habermas still stands by his commitment to a critical social theory that advances the cause of human emancipation. This follows a lifetime of philosophical dialogue.

Michaël Foessel: It has become commonplace to link your work to the enterprise that the Frankfurt School initiated in the 1930s: the elaboration of a critical theory of society capable of breathing new life into the project of emancipation in a world shaped by technocapitalism. When you began your university studies after World War II, a different image of philosophy was prevalent in Germany: the less heroic image of an impotent philosophy compromised by National Socialism. What motivated you to choose this discipline? Did the pessimistic judgement on reason expressed in Horkheimer and Adorno’s Dialectic of Enlightenment play a role in your initial choices in philosophy (the study of Schelling)?

Jürgen Habermas: No, that’s not how it happened. I didn’t go to Frankfurt until 1956, two years after the completion in Bonn of my doctoral thesis on Schelling. In order to explain how I came across critical theory, I’ll have to go into a bit more detail. At German universities between 1949 and 1954 it was in general only possible to study with professors who had either been Nazis themselves or had conformed. From a political and moral standpoint, German universities were corrupted. There was, therefore, an odd divide between my philosophy studies and the left-wing convictions that had developed in discussions night after night about contemporary literature, the important theatrical productions, and film, which was dominated at that time above all by France and Italy. As early as my last years at the gymnasium, however, I’d obtained the works of Marx and Engels and addressed the subject of historical materialism. In view of these interests, the obvious choice of study would have been sociology, but this subject was not yet taught at my universities in Göttingen and Bonn. After my studies, I was granted a scholarship for an examination of the «concept of ideology». During this time, I familiarized myself with the theoretical literature on Marxism from the 1920s and above all with the Hegelian-Marxist tradition – and I was then electrified when Adorno published Prisms in 1955. I already knew the Dialectic of Enlightenment by Horkheimer and Adorno, but the tenor of this thoroughly «dark» theory did not correspond to the attitude towards life of young people, who finally wanted to do everything better.

But Prisms made a completely different impression on me. It was a collection of Adorno’s great essays from the 1940s and early 1950s on Oswald Spengler, Karl Mannheim, Thorston Veblen, etc. Today, it’s no longer possible to imagine the contradiction between these sparkling texts and the mixed-up, clotted climate of the Adenauer era. The start of the Cold War was characterized in Germany by an anti-Communism that fostered the forced suppression of the perceptibly hushed up Nazi era. Into this ambiguous silence burst the sharply articulated words of a brilliant mind, who – undeterred by the anti-Communist zeitgeist – captured the mood of the day in dusted-off Marxist categories. The radical terminology and the complexity of the dark style pierced the fog of the early German Federal Republic. It was also the gesture of «absolute modernity» that hooked me. But in Adorno’s essays I was confronted above all by someone who overturned the historical distance – which up to that point had been taken for granted – between the ongoing Cold War and the Marxist social theory of the 1920s, because he dealt with these categories in a very current, very contemporary way! If you recall: even Jean-Paul Sartre, who dominated the post-war stages with his theatrical plays, was at that time not yet really political as a philosopher. For us students, The Second Sex by Simone de Bouvoir struck a political chord far more than Sartre’s Being and Nothingness.

When Adorno, who had read a few things of mine, then – via a journalist, Musil’s editor Adolf Frisé – invited me to come to the Institute of Social Research, there was no holding me back. My wife still says today that I rushed to Frankfurt «with banners flying». I still regard it as a stroke of luck that I became Adorno’s first assistant in 1956.

MF: You often portray your own intellectual career as a «product of re-education». After the German catastrophe, you were determined from the outset to re-evaluate the (generally negative) philosophical view of democracy. To what extent did this necessity play a role in your assessment of the figure of Heidegger, who – at least in France – has strongly influenced contemporary philosophy, which has borrowed a great deal from him? If we look for a moment beyond the personal involvement of Heidegger: doesn’t the point at issue also touch upon the appeal of philosophy in a world that is threatened by irrationalism?

JH: To this day, Kant and the French Revolution are decisive for my understanding of democracy. In the immediate aftermath of the war, we lived in the British occupation zone and learned more about the Anglo-Saxon democracies. Against this backdrop and in light of the fractured history of German democracy, we attempted at the time to comprehend the incomprehensible regression into the abyss of fascism. This infected my generation with a deep self-distrust. We began to search for those nagging, anti-Enlightenment genes that had to be hiding in our own traditions. Before any preoccupation with philosophy, that was for me the elementary lesson to be learned from the catastrophe: our traditions were under suspicion – they could no longer be passed on without being subjected to criticism, but only acquired reflexively. Everything had to be passed through the filter of rational examination and reasoned approval!

When, in the summer of 1953, that is, still during my university studies in Bonn, I read a recently published lecture by Heidegger from the year 1935, theIntroduction to Metaphysics, the jargon, the choice of terminology and the style told me at once that the spirit of fascism was manifested in these motives, thoughts and phrases. The book really unsettled me because I had regarded myself up till then as a student of Heidegger. The newspaper article, in which I poured out my great political and philosophical disappointment the same weekend, is therefore entitled: «Thinking with Heidegger against Heidegger». At the time it was impossible to know that Heidegger had written anti-Semitic letters to his wife as early as 1916 and that he had become a convinced Nazi long before 1933. The fact that he had remained an unrepentant Nazi, however, could be known by 1953 at the latest.

Since then, the uncritical reception in France, and the USA for that matter, has always struck me as strange. It seems to me completely absurd that today theBlack Notebooks are treated like something new – and that some colleagues even attempt to sublimate Heidegger’s anti-Semitism and the rest of his dull resentments into the history of being! On the other hand, I’m still convinced that the arguments of Being and Time, if read with the eyes of Kant and Kierkegaard, retain an important place in the history of philosophy. In spite of the political ambivalence of the style, I regard this work as a result of the long history of detranscendentalizing the Kantian subject: by appropriating the methods of Husserlian phenomenology in his own way, Being and Time also digests an important legacy of American pragmatism, German historicism and the kind of philosophy of language that originates from Wilhelm von Humboldt. Some critics read the book only from the perspective of a historian of political ideas. But then the reader overlooks the relevance of philosophical arguments and the waywardness of long-term philosophical learning curves. My friend Karl-Otto Apel always insisted that only in 1929 with Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics did Heidegger set the course for his fatal late philosophy – and subsequently assigned to himself a privileged access to the «destiny of truth». From that point on, Heidegger increasingly abandons philosophical argumentation and becomes a private thinker. The transition from the Marburg Lectures, which he gave jointly with the theologian Rudolf Bultmann, to his inaugural address as rector in Freiburg was a shift from the individualistic interpretation of «existence» (Dasein) to the collectivist (or völkisch) reading, to the «existence of the people». This turned Heidegger into a propagandist in 1933 and – after 1945 – into an apologist for the Nazi regime, or even into a spin doctor for Nazi crimes.

MF: Later, in The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, you apply to contemporary French philosophy your criticism of unilateral incriminations of reason. In this context you make reference, especially with Foucault and Derrida, to the potential alliance between postmodernity and neoconservatism. Could you briefly recall the background to this verdict, as well as the reasons that later moved you to change it (think of the book you wrote with Jacques Derrida or your homage to the Foucault of Enlightenment)?

JH: In my generation there have been many misunderstandings between the philosophers on this side of the Rhine and those on the other side, and few attempts to get on instead of ignoring one another. One of the few exceptions is the admirable Paul Ricoeur. One explanation for this unfortunate situation is surely the Germans’ strong orientation towards Anglo-Saxon philosophy. Added to this are linguistic and accidental misunderstandings. Your question reminds me of the confusion over the terms «young conservative» and «neoconservative». I referred to Foucault and Derrida – admittedly in a polemically exaggerated and thus unfair way – as «young conservatives». I was attempting to make them aware that German authors, whom they invoke above all others, are placed in a politically poisoned context. Heidegger and Carl Schmitt drew on deeply German, namely militantly counter-revolutionary sources, which stand in stark contrast to the intentions of a reflective Enlightenment and, indeed, left-wing traditions in general. In Germany these young conservatives were characterized with the slogan «left-wing people from the right-wing» because they wanted to be «modern». They wanted to force through their elitist ideas of an authoritarian society welded together in uniformity by means of anti-bourgeois gestures. This activist mentality nourished itself on resentments against the Peace of Versailles, which was regarded as a humiliation. Carl Schmitt and Heidegger became intellectual pioneers for the Nazi regime not by chance, but as a result of motives deeply embedded in their theories. I was always aware of the contrast with the intentions of Foucault and Derrida. My affective attitude can perhaps also be explained in that it was precisely distinguished French left-wingers who fixated on such people. Admittedly, I should have done a better job of controlling my emotions.

But you asked me about the reasons for the disagreement regarding the Enlightenment. As far as I understand, this controversy is not about the indisputable ideological role repeatedly played in the history of western modernity by the selective application of our western standards of egalitarian and individualistic universalism. They often served, and still do serve, to cover up the practice of double standards – both in the hypocritical justification of repressive regimes, and in the imperialist destruction and exploitation of foreign cultures. The dispute is rather over the correct philosophical explanation of this fact. We must recognize that any criticism of a hypocritically selective application of universalist standards must appeal to the standards of this very same universalism. To the extent that the discourse on moral universalism is carried out at the conceptual level of Kantian arguments, it has become self-reflective: it self-consciously realizes that it cannot criticize its own flaws but by an appeal to its own standards. It was Kant who overcame the historical kind of so-called «universalism» that is centred upon itself and limited to its own fixed perspective. Carl Schmitt had in mind this political «universalism» which was typical of the ancient empires. For these empires, only barbarians lived beyond the borders. From that rigid perspective one’s own supposedly rational standards were applied to everything foreign without taking into consideration the perspectives of the foreigners themselves. By contrast, only those standards can withstand criticism that can be justified from a shared perspective developed in the course of an inclusive deliberation requiring themutual adoption of the perspective of all those affected. That is the discourse-ethical interpretation of a universalism that has become self-reflective and no longer assimilates the other to oneself. Universalism properly understood proceeds from the premise that everyone is foreign to everyone else – and wants to remain so!

In 1982, Foucault invited me to the Collège de France for six weeks. On the first evening we spoke about German films: Werner Herzog and Hans-Jürgen Syberberg were his favourite directors, whilst I spoke out in favour of Alexander Kluge und Volker Schlöndorff. Later we told each other about the curriculum of our respective years of philosophical study, which took something of a different course. He recalled how Lévi-Strauss and structuralism had helped him to liberate himself from Husserl and «the prison of the transcendental subject». With regard to his discourse theory of power, I asked him at the time about the implicit standards on which his criticism was based. He merely said: «Wait for the third volume of my History of Sexuality«. We had already arranged a date for our next discussion about «Kant and the Enlightenment». I was very shocked when he died in the interim. In the case of Derrida, fortunately I took the initiative just in time to clear up the misunderstandings between us. I subsequently visited him several times in Paris and he visited me in Frankfurt. We also met in New York and remained in telephonic contact – until the very end. I’m grateful for the cordial relationship of those final years. But since Bourdieu also died, it’s become lonely for me in Paris. Whom should I meet for lunch? I was all the more pleased about the interest shown by my young French colleagues when Jean-Francois Kervégan and Isabelle Aubert invited me late last year to an interesting conference in Paris.

MF: Your book The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (1962) laid the foundation for your philosophical standing in Germany and abroad. To what extent does this book, which attempts a re-evaluation of the bourgeois ideology of the Enlightenment and the ideal of the «public sphere», express a distancing from orthodox Marxism? Does this distancing require the renunciation of the project of «Realizing Philosophy» in favour of a reflexive method that rejects any «position that towers above» society?

JH: From its inception the Frankfurt Institute was anti-Stalinist – and all the more so after the war. There are also other reasons why I was never tempted by orthodox Marxism. For example, I was never convinced by the centrepiece of political economy, the theory of surplus value, in view of the intervention of the welfare state in the economy. During my youth I was certainly more closely aligned with left-wing activism than I was later. But also the early project of «Realizing Philosophy», to which you’re alluding, was more idealistic and inspired by the young Marx. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, which was my post-doctoral thesis under the supervision of Wolfgang Abendroth, the only Marxist to hold a chair at a German university, at best points in the direction of socialist democracy. If you like, I was always a parliamentary socialist – in this respect I was in my early days influenced by the Austrian Marxists Karl Renner and Otto Bauer. My attitude to Theory and Practice has not significantly changed since I wrote the introduction to the new edition of this book in 1971. Academic studies are always written with the reservation that all research is fallible. This role must be clearly separated from the other two roles of a left-wing intellectual – from his involvement in political discussions in the public sphere and from the organization of joint political action. This separation of roles is necessary even if the intellectual attempts to combine all three roles in one person.

MF: One can say that your philosophical project, as it can be found in its provisional completion in The Theory of Communicative Action, strives to find a way out of the «battle of the gods» and of value relativism, which Max Weber spoke of in characterizing modernity. To what extent is this project linked to a new understanding of the term «reason»? To what extent do you think today’s condemnations of instrumental reason, given that they are once again finding a broad echo, are still inadequate for the purpose of avoiding the impasses of modernity?

JH: Max Weber’s «battle of the gods» cannot be reconciled with arguments, as long as it’s a question of competition between «values» and «identities». One culture brings values, in which it recognizes itself, into a different transitive order than other cultures. The same applies to the identity-building self-conception of people. In both cases existential questions of a good or successful life can only be answered from the perspective of the first person. But the dispute about moral universalism concerns issues of justice; and these issues can in principle be resolved when all parties are prepared to assume the perspective of the respective other in order to resolve the conflict in the equal interests of all sides.

A little different is your question about the criticism of instrumental – I would rather say functional – reason. This question arises today, for example, in view of financial capitalism, which has gone wild and is beyond all political control. To put it in a nutshell: from a long-term historical perspective, with the rise of a capitalist economy a clotted piece of «second nature» has emerged within society, namely an economic system that regulates itself by obeying exclusively the logic of a profit-orientated self-utilization of capital. Marx recognized this result of social evolution as the real engine of societal modernization. As we know, in view of its unleashing of productive forces, he enthusiastically welcomed this fact. But at the same time he examined and denounced the tendencies inherent in capitalism that demolish social cohesion and make a mockery of the self-conception of democratically constituted societies.

During the second half of the twentieth century such tendencies were to some extent tamed by means of the welfare state in the countries belonging to the OECD. By contrast, in our increasingly interdependent but still nationally fragmented world society, global financial capitalism, which has taken on a life of its own, still largely escapes the grip of politics. Behind democratic façades the political elites technocratically implement the imperatives of the markets almost without resistance. Trapped in their national perspectives, they have no other choice. Thus, they prefer to uncouple the political decision-making processes from the political public arenas, which are in any case dried out and whose infrastructure is crumbling. This colonialization of societies, which disintegrate from within and take up right-wing populist positions against each other, will not change as long as no political power can be found with the courage to take up the cause of achieving the political aim of universalizing interests beyond national frontiers, if only within Europe or the eurozone.

Neoliberalism insists on the rationality of leaving market mechanisms to their own devices. Your question now enquires as to how «rationality» or «reason» must be understood if one is not satisfied with the exclusive reference to patterns of rational choice or the functional rationality of self-maintaining systems. Social theory in the classical sense is distinguished from the individual disciplines of the social sciences not only by virtue of its relation to the whole but by virtue of its critical aspirations. With The Theory of Communicative Action, therefore, I’m attempting to explain the base for critical standards that are often hidden in pseudo-normative assumptions. My proposal is to seek out the traces of a communicative reason rooted in processes of communication in social practices themselves.

In the routines of their everyday actions, the acting parties mutually presuppose that they are acting responsibly and speaking about the same objects. They conventionally and tacitly presuppose that they mean what they say, that they will keep the promises they make, that the claims they make are true, that the norms they tacitly assume to be valid are indeed justified, etc., etc. These naive everyday communicative actions operate in a space of reasons which remain latent in the background as long as the reciprocal claims to validity are accepted as credible. But criticizable claims to validity can be negated at any time. And every «no» interrupts the routines; every contradiction mobilizes latent reasons. I term as «communicative reason» the capacity of social actors to operate in this space of reasons with a critical probe instead of fumbling blind. This ability manifests itself in saying «no», in loudly protesting or in quietly annulling an assumed consensus. Furthermore, in the refusal to follow conventions for the sake of convention, in the revolt against intolerable conditions or in the tacit withdrawal – whether out of cynicism or apathy – on the part of the marginalized and the excluded. All social orders and institutions are established on the basis of reasons. We would not even bother to go to court in intractable conflicts if we did not expect a more or less fair trial. We would not take part in democratic elections if we did not assume that every vote «counts». These are admittedly idealistic and often counterfactual assumptions but – from the perspective of the participants – necessary ones. Today we see what happens when these assumptions are obviously refuted by post-democratic conditions – increasing rates of election abstention. If the social scientist reconstructs such necessary assumptions from the participants’ perspective, he can base his criticism, for example of post-democratic conditions, on a form of reason that emerges in social practices themselves.

MF: All your work is characterized by the attempt to detranscendentalize philosophy, i.e. to renounce the paradigm of the subjective awareness of the certainty of oneself and one’s faculties. The surrender of the transcendental point of view reveals in particular themes such as discourse, intersubjectivity and the necessity to combine philosophy with the social sciences. Does this mean for you that the concept of «subjectivity» has lost any normative validity?

JH: With the paradigm shift from the philosophy of the subject to the philosophy of language you touch upon an important issue. Hegel was already aware of the symbolic and historical embodiment of reason in the forms of the «objective mind», for example in law, state and society. But Hegel then sublates this objective mind after all in the dematerialized thoughts of the absolute mind. By contrast, J.G. Hamann and Wilhelm von Humboldt or the young Hegelians, i.e. Feuerbach, Marx and Kierkegaard, regard the transcendental achievements as being realized only in the performative acts of subjects capable of speech and action and in the social and cultural structures of their lifeworlds. For them, apart from the subjective mind there is only the objective mind left, which materializes itself in communication, work and interaction, in appliances and artefacts, in the living out of individual life stories and in the network of socio-cultural forms of life. But in the process, reason does not lose the transcendental power of spontaneously projecting world-disclosing horizons. This «creative» power of imagination expresses itself in every hypothesis, in every interpretation, in every story with which we affirm our identity. In every action there is also an element of creation.

Photo: Európa Pont. Source: Flickr

Pragmatism and historicism were involved in the development of this detranscendentalized concept of reason just as much as phenomenology, philosophical anthropology and existential philosophy. I myself would grant a certain precedence to language, communicative action and the horizon of the lifeworld (as the background context of all processes of communication). The media in which reason is embodied, i.e. history, culture and society, are symbolically structured. The meaning of symbols, however, must be shared intersubjectively. There is no private language and no private meaning that can be understood only by a single person. This precedence of intersubjectivity does not mean, however, that – to return to your question – to some extent subjectivity would be absorbed by society. The subjective mind opens a space to which everyone has privileged access from the perspective of the first person. This exclusive access to the evidence of one’s own experiences may not, however, belie the structural correlation between subjectivity and intersubjectivity. Every additional step in the process of the socialization of a person, as they grow up, is simultaneously a step towards individuation and becoming oneself. Only by externalization, by entering into social relationships can we develop the interiority of our own person. Only by marching in step with the communicative entanglement in social networks does the subjectivity of the «self», i.e. of a subject that assumes relationships to itself, deepen.

MF: During the course of the 1980s you began a long-term debate with Anglo-Saxon philosophy, both on the front of political philosophy (Rawls, Dworkin) and on the front of the philosophy of language (Searle, Putnam, Rorty, Brandom, etc.). How would you characterize the contribution of the diverse Anglo-Saxon schools of thought to the awareness that philosophy has of itself and of its own limits?

JH: In political theory, for which you mention the names of John Rawls and Ronald Dworkin, the gap between continental philosophy, dominant in France and Germany, and Anglo-Saxon philosophy was never as pronounced as it was in the philosophy of language or in the philosophy of science, the two core areas of analytical philosophy. In all these fields I learned a lot from my collaboration and friendship with American colleagues, who belonged to the pragmatic school of thought in the widest sense – above all the connection of a fallibilist mentality with a non-defeatist concept of discursive reason. It certainly helped to be able to refer to a common background. Via the Emersonian Transcendentalism of the early nineteenth century, American pragmatism is namely also rooted in German traditions – in Schiller, in German idealism, in Goethe’s view of nature, etc. If you’re asking in general about the contribution of the Anglo-Saxons to the self-understanding of philosophy and the necessary limits of post-metaphysical thinking, however, then it’s necessary to differentiate more. Today, a deep split runs through analytical philosophy itself.

The hard, scientistic core of the analytical philosophy was always alien to me. Today, it comprises colleagues who take up the reductionist Programme of the Unified Sciences from the first half of the twentieth century under somewhat different assumptions and more or less regard philosophy as a supplier for the cognitive sciences. The advocates of what we might call «scientism» ultimately view only statements of physics as capable of being either true or false and insist on the paradoxical demand of perceiving ourselves exclusively in descriptions of the natural sciences. But describing and recognizing oneself are not the same thing: decentring an illusionary self-understanding requires recognition on the basis of a different, improved description. Scientism renounces the self-reference required to be present in every case of re-cognition. At the same time, scientism itself utilizes this self-reference performatively – I mean the reference to us as socialized subjects capable of speech and action, and who always find themselves in the context of their lifeworlds. Scientism buys the supposed scientification of philosophy by renouncing the task of self-understanding, which philosophy has inherited from the great world religions, though with the intention of the enlightenment. By contrast, the intention of understanding ourselves exclusively from what we have learnt about the objective world leads to a reifying description of something in the world that denies the self-referential application for the purpose of improving our «self»-understanding.

MF: In view of an increasing distrust of the promises of democracy, and confronted with what you call the «colonization of the lifeworld» by the logic of the market, what is philosophy still capable of in this respect? To what extent is philosophy quite rightly still part of the emancipation project of the Enlightenment?

JH: As I said, philosophy, which, by the way, in its platonic origins constituted something of a religious world view, similar to Confucianism, inherited the important, even vital task of self-understanding, albeit with the intention to enlighten the self-understanding of man in a rational way, i.e. on the basis of improved knowledge about the world, including us as something in this world. I would like to expand on this sentence in two respects.

Under premises of post-metaphysical thinking, philosophy today, unlike myths and religions, no longer has the power to create a world view of its own – in the sense of an image of the world as a whole. It navigates between religion and the natural sciences, social sciences and humanities, culture and art, in order to learn and to dissolve illusions. No more, but also no less than this. Today, philosophy is a parasitic enterprise feeding on foreign learning processes. But it is precisely in this secondary role of a reflexive connection to other, already extant forms of the objective mind that philosophy can critically take into account everything we know or think we know. «Critical» means «with the intention to enlighten». This curious ability to lead to a decentred view of the world and of ourselves, by the way, was acquired by medieval Christian philosophy during the course of long-lasting discussions about «faith and knowledge». Philosophy can enlighten us regarding an illusionary self-conception by making us aware of the meaning that an increase in knowledge about the world has for us. In this way, post-metaphysical thinking is dependent on scientific progress and new, culturally available perspectives on the world, without itself becoming another scientific discipline, though it remains an academic activity pursued in the scientific spirit. Within universities philosophy has established itself as a subject, but it belongs to the scientific expert culture without assuming the exclusively objectifying perspective of a discipline that is defined by the focus on a methodically limited subject area. On the other hand philosophy, unlike religion, which is rooted in the cult of religious communities, must fulfil the task of rationally improving the self-understanding of mankind through arguments alone that, according to their form, are permitted to lay fallible claim to universal acceptance.

I furthermore regard the function of self-understanding as vital, for this was always coupled with a socially integrative function. This was the case as long as religious world views and metaphysical doctrines stabilized the collective identities of religious communities. But even after the end of the «Age of World-Views», the pluralized and individualized self-understanding of citizens retains an integrative element in modern societies. Since the secularization of state authority, religion can no longer meet the requirement of legitimizing political rule. As a result, the burden of integrating citizens shifts from the level of social to the level of political integration, and this means: from religion to the fundamental norms of the constitutional state, which are rooted in a sharedpolitical culture. These constitutional norms, which secure the remainder of collective background consent, draw their persuasive power from the repeatedly renewed philosophical argumentation of the rational law tradition and political theory.

Today, however, the increasingly high-pitched appeal by politicians to «our values» sounds ever emptier – alone the confusion of «principles», which require some kind of justification, with «values», which are more or less attractive, irritates me beyond all measure. We can see our political institutions being robbed more and more of their democratic substance during the course of the technocratic adjustment to global market imperatives. Our capitalist democracies are about to shrink to mere façade democracies. These developments call for a scientifically informed enlightenment. But none of the pertinent scientific disciplines – neither economics nor political science or sociology – can, in and of themselves, provide this enlightenment. The diverse contributions of these disciplines have to be processed in the light of a critical self-understanding. Since Hegel and Marx it is precisely this that is the task of critical social theory, which I continue to regard as the core of the philosophical discourse of modernity.

Fuente de la noticia : http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2015-10-16-habermas-en.html
Fuente de la noticia: http://www.eurozine.com/UserFiles/illustrations/habermas_life_468w.jpg
Comparte este contenido:

México: Inicio examen de promoción docente en educación básica

América del Norte/México/Mayo 2016/Fuente y Autor: Monitor Económico de Baja California

Inició en Baja California el Concurso de Oposición para la promoción a cargos con función de Dirección, Supervisión y Asesoría Técnica Pedagógica en Educación Básica ciclo 2016 – 2017, implementado en toda la República por el Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación (INEE) y aplicado en la entidad por la Delegación de la Secretaría de Educación Pública en Baja California.

Desde las 7 horas del día de hoy los mil 640 sustentantes se dieron cita en los 22 planteles destinados para la aplicación del examen. De ellos 612 son de Mexicali, por Tijuana 660, y por Ensenada 224.

Con esta jornada, en Baja California se da cumplimiento a lo establecido en la Reforma Educativa, la cual señala que los procesos de ingreso, promoción, reconocimiento y permanencia en el servicio educativo han de regirse por dichos instrumentos de evaluación, los cuales garantizan que los mejores docentes estén al frente del servicio docente.

El SEE reconoce que en el Estado la cultura de la evaluación educativa está muy arraigada, de ahí la concurrencia de los maestros quienes se dieron cita puntualmente, y en un ambiente de tranquilidad, a realizar sus evaluaciones correspondientes durante el día de hoy y mañana.

El día de hoy se aplicaron exámenes para promoción a Subdirectores, Supervisores, Inspectores, Asesores Técnico Pedagógicos, Jefes de Enseñanza y el domingo 8 de mayo se aplicará el examen para promociones a Directores.

La aplicación del examen fue simultánea en el país y comprende un examen de conocimientos y habilidades para la práctica profesional y otro de habilidades intelectuales y responsabilidades ético-profesionales.

Fuente de la noticia: http://monitoreconomico.org/noticias/2016/may/07/inicio-examen-de-promocion-docente-en-educacion-basica/

Fuente de la imagen: http://uniradioserver.com/media/news_thumbs/201605/20160507140254_3.jpg

Comparte este contenido:

El experimento

Hugo Aboites

Qué ocurre cuando en una institución de educación superior el máximo órgano de conducción y gran parte de la estructura institucional queda en manos de estudiantes y profesores? El caos, dirán quienes defienden la importancia de una junta directiva o de gobierno que elija rector y todos los directores académicos; un Consejo Universitario integrado en parte importante por funcionarios; una rectoría fuerte; una determinación vertical de los criterios de ingreso de estudiantes y de las colegiaturas. Sin embargo, paradójicamente, esta manera de estructurar el ejercicio del poder ha propiciado fuertes conflictos (caos): en 1986-87, 1996 y 1999-2000 en la UNAM; en 1998 y 2002 en la UAM; en 2012-2013 en la UACM; en 2014 en el IPN (y, muestra de que ese esquema produce caos también en otros ámbitos), desde 2013 el incesante conflicto en torno a la reforma educativa. En todos estos conflictos una estructura vertical genera decisiones unilaterales en temas claves (aumento de cuotas, evaluación-ingreso, evaluación-despido, expedición de reglamentos, nombramiento de funcionarios). Es decir, en la educación, el esquema en que se ejercita el poder es fundamental para entender la conflictividad y para plantear la necesidad de buscar una alternativa.

Un ejemplo de alternativa es la Universidad Autónoma de la Ciudad de México (UACM). Ahí no existe junta directiva o de gobierno; al rector y algunos otros funcionarios los nombra un consejo, integrado básicamente por decenas de estudiantes y profesores, más el rector, sin veto, y tres representantes del sector administrativo y, por ley, es el máximo órgano de gobierno. Las comisiones de consejo ejercen una supervisión constante sobre la administración y preparan iniciativas de reglamentos, normas o acuerdos sobre prácticamente cualquier aspecto de la vida universitaria. La organización académica descansa en tres grandes colegios o áreas de conocimiento, cuyos coordinadores e integrantes de los consejos respectivos deben ser electos por profesores y, en su caso, estudiantes. Cada plantel tiene su propio coordinador, electo también por la comunidad correspondiente e, igual, el consejo de plantel. Todo esto significa que la autonomía entendida como autogestión se expresa en prácticamente todos los ámbitos y cada esfera se relaciona con otras en formas de coordinación. La administración central no establece una relación vertical con las demás, salvo las dependencias del ámbito central. Todo esto da lugar a una tupida red de relaciones y conexiones, como las neuronales, que se activan de distinta manera según el tema. Y esto obliga a establecer constantes relaciones de coordinación y, se puede agregar, obliga a hacerlo con cautela, pues un tema puede hacer concurrir distintas áreas normativas, disciplinares o de competencias. La tendencia entonces es a una horizontalidad que alcanza también el aula y las relaciones con los estudiantes y sus organizaciones. Las tendencias centrífugas que genera este modelo se acotan con la ley interna de la UACM, los estatutos, normas, acuerdos que aprueba el CU para toda la institución y, por supuesto, con el paquete de leyes y normas nacionales y locales que aplican

Efectivamente, frente a una institución neuronal, la perspectiva vertical vería sólo un pantano sin reglas, y extrañaría el terso fluir de instrucciones desde la cúspide hasta la base de la pirámide. Por otra parte, es un tejido institucional que puede dar lugar a redundancias, y a gasto de energía para construir acuerdos, pero por ser una red que tiende a lo horizontal y difuso tiene escasos focos de conflicto. De hecho, en uno de ellos (el laboral) ni siquiera se ha dado alguna vez una huelga. La única confrontación intensa y larga que sufrió la institución (2012-2013) surgió precisamente a partir del intento de crear una rectoría fuerte, con relección y manipulación de la elección del consejo.

Este esquema ofrece ventajas adicionales. La primera es que se trata de una estructura que impone menores trabas a la creatividad y que genera, por tanto, un dinamismo que emerge desde abajo, y que le da mayor solidez a las decisiones (aunque se requiere mayor representatividad de los órganos colegiados). La segunda es un más acendrado sentido de comunidad, porque el otro aparece continuamente como una presencia con la que se debe interactuar, confrontando así el aislamiento de todavía no pocos estudiantes y profesores. La tercera ventaja es que esta malla de instancias y decisiones constituye, para un buen número, un ejercicio cotidiano de ciudadanía y democracia. Algo sistemáticamente ausente en la trayectoria de un sistema educativo, característicamente vertical.

Finalmente, este modelo genera una enorme vitalidad: una matrícula y número de titulados creciente, programas de licenciatura en cinco planteles y cinco reclusorios, profesores de tiempo completo, proyectos estudiantiles, cientos de investigaciones y actos culturales, reconocimientos, absoluta gratuidad y ausencia de examen de selección. La UACM es hoy una propuesta al mundo de la educación superior y, ante el desolador panorama creado por la autoritaria reforma en la materia, también al sistema vigente. En la educación hay otro mundo posible que desde el autoritarismo es difícil percibir. Felicidades, comunidad UACM, porque al cumplir este mes quince años, es claro que el experimento se ha transformado en una dinámica y sólida institución.

  • Rector de la UACM
Comparte este contenido:

Maestro: educarse en la autonomía o desaparecer con la reforma educativa

Lev Moujahid Velázquez Barriga

Las instituciones formadoras de docentes y las encargadas de la profesionalización, así como actualización del magisterio, han sido ocupadas por el discurso economicista de los órganos financieros, éstos imponen, por medio de la violencia física, laboral y judicial a través del Estado, una visión alejada de la escuela, las preocupaciones sociales y del desarrollo humano.

opinionLa reforma educativa carece de una propuesta de formación para los maestros. Lo que oferta es un “estatuto laboral” llamado servicio profesional docente, que pobremente incita a la capacitación técnica para uso de las tecnologías de la información y la comunicación (TIC), a la memorización de leyes y reglamentos laborales y administrativos para la funcionalidad de la escuela. Eso fue lo que priorizaron sus falsas “evaluaciones” que a falta de legitimidad y fundamentos pedagógicos, impusieron a sangre y fuego contra los docentes.

En este marco de acontecimientos, propios de un régimen fascista, no podemos ya pensar en que la formación de docentes con altos compromisos éticos y sociales pueda ser un acto dirigido en la verticalidad y el autoritarismo. Es necesaria una ruptura que recupere la capacidad autónoma de los maestros para constituirse como verdaderos educadores con autonomía para definir desde su condición social el tipo de sociedad y el modelo educativo que se requiere construir para detener el avance de un Estado antidemocrático.

No es posible que la sociedad siga confiando a los organismos de la globalización económica, a la iniciativa privada o empresarial, la formación de los docentes, porque sencillamente los proyectos son opuestos al desarrollo colectivo, a los intereses plurales de la nación, pero una alternativa sólo adquiere sentido en tanto se materializa, es decir, se llevan a cabo las prácticas de empoderamiento de los subalternos. En este caso hablamos de los educadores que alienadamente han transitado sobre caminos hechos para que otros logren sus intereses particulares y hegemónicos.

Esta alternativa para la formación docente sólo puede venir de los educadores mismos, y tendrá que desinstalar los sistemas meritocráticos de profesionalización que se han configurado con base en escalas de trabajo gerencial al estilo McDonald’s y el fetichismo por la medición de resultados a través de la “evaluación”; tendrá que evidenciar la propuesta oficial para reformar las normales, por su carácter “minimalista” en la reducción de saberes, cuyo objetivo central es el desarme cultural de la formación didáctica, ética, pedagógica, filosófica, histórica y política, incluso, hasta desaparecer la profesión docente.

El gran reto es descolonizarse, desaprender, no formarse más como docentes para repetir las mismas tesis de la educación empresarial, porque el resultado será igual al que se necesita cambiar. Estamos frente al desafío de proclamarse en la independencia educativa, en la autonomía y descolonización cultural de la clase en el poder; esta perspectiva obliga al reconocimiento de las raíces latinoamericanas de nuestras formas propias de entender lo pedagógico como un proceso de educación popular para la emancipación social y la afirmación de una identidad arraigada en los excluidos, desde sus diferentes formas de opresión racial, sexual, económica o política, pero identificando una sola raíz de la dominación, el sistema-mundo capitalista.

La herramienta principal de los docentes en el terreno ideológico para empezar a ser educadores populares, sin renunciar a la resistencia de las movilizaciones pacíficas, debe ser precisamente la “razón crítica”, con base en ella tendrán que enfocar el análisis educativo. Se trata de hacer visibles las relaciones de poder, control y dominación en el ámbito microsocial de la escuela y el aula; de someter a juicio reflexivo los planes y programas de los sistemas educativos, enfoques y didácticas, políticas y marcos jurídicos reproductores del poder, este es un paso fundamental para la elaboración de propuestas alternativas.

La crítica al currículo es, sin embargo, sólo el parteaguas para la deconstrucción de la escuela como aparato de reproducción ideológica, material y cultural de los dueños del dinero, lo que sigue es hacer de ella un campo de disputa de lo que ahí se enseña y se aprende, de cómo se organiza y para qué fines, de otro modo sólo habrá protesta y no propuesta, la resistencia será negación sin un proyecto educativo viable que haga posible un mundo mejor; en otras palabras, la invitación es a no sólo ocupar las calles y plazas públicas, sino también las escuelas, las bibliotecas escolares, las instituciones de formación docente, los libros de texto, las reuniones de consejos técnicos escolares, los planes y programas de estudio, con un proyecto que materialice lo que se escribe en cada manta o pancarta como demanda educativa, lo que se repite en cada consigna recomo aspiración colectiva de lo que debe ser la educación pública, científica y popular.

El nuevo educador que demanda este proceso de ocupación ideológica y empoderamiento pedagógico no debe ser lineal, ni enarbolar el pensamiento único, mecanicista y productivista de la reforma educativa. Los maestros que en ella se forman para educar en competencias, medir los conocimientos con instrumentos de estandarización y organizar la escuela como empresa para lograr la “calidad”, están totalmente limitados, son incapaces de explicar el mundo en su complejidad y fomentar el desarrollo integral de los alumnos.

Los docentes tendrán que formarse en la comprensión de una realidad natural y social que tiene muchas facetas y dimensiones con relaciones estrechas entre sí, en la atención de alumnos también diversos, irreductibles al individualismo competitivo, a números estadísticos o a su sola capacidad laboral; por el contrario, los alumnos se definen en múltiples facultades éticas, estéticas, políticas, económicas, sociales, culturales, creativas, emocionales, racionales, existenciales y demás que tenemos los seres humanos y que jamás podrían desarrollarse en la cuadratura de las competencias o medirse con exámenes estandarizados.

Junto a los tiempos y espacios de movilización y protesta social, deberán crearse otros en los que los educadores se formen en la conciencia crítica, en el conocimiento de las pedagogías liberadoras, en los principios de la educación popular; pero de manera sistemática, práctica, teórica, académica, rigurosa, estratégica y consciente, para saldar los vacíos y compromisos de la educación neoliberal con el pueblo, pero sobre todo para formar educadores que sean constructores de sueños, de sociedades libres, de hombres y mujeres críticos.

A esta instrumentación violenta de la reforma para despojar a los maestros de su identidad histórica como forjadores de la patria y convertirlos en reproductores de la escuela-fábrica, proponemos la conceptualización que Paulo Freire elaboró para referirse al maestro como “educador”, es decir, como un sujeto que enseña y aprende a su vez, revestido de conciencia crítica, sentido ético y compromiso colectivo; pero que es también “popular” porque se reconoce como pueblo, como parte de una clase social que no es opresora y por tanto su papel liberador es inherente al de su profesión educativa.

Está claro que los nuevos educadores populares no se harán en la espontaneidad, no existe una conciencia social que surja de la nada, adquirida de modo automático en la experiencia o preconstituida, y que pueda simplemente trasmitirse, tampoco instalarse como un dispositivo desde fuera de cada persona, esto se hace en el diálogo, en el intercambio de experiencias, en la lectura crítica de los textos y contextos, en la reflexión y la práctica. La gran tarea de las maestras y maestros de México es abrir esos canales de diálogo, materializar cada propuesta y desmantelar las bases que dan sustento a la reforma educativa de los empresarios.

Comparte este contenido:

Sexual Self-determination in Cuba and the Decolonial Epistemic Turn

Antonio Carmona Baéz

Globally, the concept of self-determination in sexuality is used in legal theorywith reference to the rights of individuals to be free of rape, coercion, forcedprostitution and abuse; it implies reproductive rights in some societies, while inothers it is the right to exercise free will over one’s sexual functions (Jansen, 2007;Munro, 2008; Smith, 2007; Walsh and Foshee, 1998). In Cuba, the term ‘sexual self-determination’ (autodeterminacio´ n sexual )1

is associated with the process of emancipation that is linked to the construction of socialist society, and the useof sex education as established by the country’s feminist movement, in order totranslate the political discourse on gender and sexuality, specifically Lesbian, Gay,Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) sexuality, into social policy (Figueroa, 2009). Morerecently the concept has been used as a counter discourse to the pathologicalapproach to transgender experiences and identities and it is recognized as a fun-damental human right.
In this article, we suggest that the use of ‘decolonial’ and ‘border thinking/epistemologies’ as developed by Walter Mignolo (2000, 2007) and ‘epistemicturn’ as elaborated by Ramon Grosfoguel (2007), based on the critique of the‘geo-politics of knowledge’ (Dussel, 1977; Fanon, 1963, 1967), can help us under-stand the changes associated with sexuality, ethics and public policy that sprangout of Cuban feminism and its emphasis on sex education.
Considering that literature on the intersections of race, class and gender is his-torically rooted in radical feminist and latterly queer critiques of Western capitalistsociety, the political nature of the use of emancipatory discourse in Cuban socialinstitutions comes as no surprise (Glenn, 1985; Lugones, 2007; Namaste, 1994;Wolf, 2009: 19–20). In a similar vein this discourse and recent changes in Cubansocial policy pose a challenge to global conceptions of sexual health in the medicalsciences, the idea of emancipation of sexual identities, and a dissonance in theformation of ethics and human rights discourse internationally. What is particu-larly novel is the institutionalization of such critique and discourse at the statelevel. In addition, the autochthonous Cuban critique of homophobic society andself-evaluation promoted by militants and leaders of the Communist Party of Cuba(PCC), have exposed a narrative that is bent on the decolonisation of politics,policies and practices. The Cuban experience regarding social policy on sexualdiversity is in no way free of contradictions. Sexual self-determination is not anaccomplished project but part of a continuous process.
We do not intend to place a value judgement on these processes, but instead tomap debates and controversies. We will do this by briefly presenting the concept of  epistemic decolonial turn, by reviewing the genealogy of Cuban homophobia andthe history of sexual emancipation, and by showing how policies concerning sexu-ality that are assumed by the Cuban state and applauded by broad sectors of itscivil society is based on a discourse that embraces the epistemic turn presented inthis article. The implications of this turn for ethics in medicine and science inter-nationally will be elaborated.We have found that the decolonial project of sexual emancipation in Cuba ismanifested in three essential aspects: (1) Sex education as envisaged by the feministmovement of subalterns; (2) Depathologization of non-heteronormative genderidentities and (3) Sexual self-determination presented as a human right.Ultimately, the Cuban experience presents a dual dynamic: first, decolonizingCuban post-revolutionary politics through the changes in sexual codes, publicpolicy and health ethics on the one hand, and on the other, a  displacement of  medical-scientific authority over gender and sexuality. Alongside this last issue, theestablishment of new centres of knowledge production in both science and socialtheory will be identified as a challenge to conventional bodies of authority.
Decoloniality and the epistemic turn
There is a growing body of literature in the humanities and social sciences thatlooks at the production of knowledge and its institutionalization as part and parcelof the modern world system of hierarchies (Walsh, 2012). Starting with the premisethat colonialism or coloniality is the flipside of modernity, those who challenge thecentres of power in knowledge production by recognizing other epistemologies,attempt to decolonize knowledge and call their perspective  decoloniality .Mignolo (2003), Maldonado Torres (2004) and Grosfoguel (2008) for instance,have concentrated their efforts on, first, recognizing the epistemological violencecommitted by dominant power structures in suppressing or excluding other narra-tives and, secondly, uplifting and taking into consideration the excluded/subalternnarratives, giving them equal if not more value when it comes to socio-politicalphenomena. Decolonial thinkers challenge the universality of modern knowledge,describing it as a ‘provincial pretense’ or largely Eurocentric, and introduce theconcept of the geo-politics of knowledge (Mignolo, 2007: 493). Mignolo, followingLatin American liberation philosopher Dussel (1977), refers to  geo-politics  in orderto argue for the importance of locating the construction/production of knowledgeand its dissemination. Starting from the premise that all geographies and historiesare local, these recognize that some – specifically those of modernity – have a globaldesign, albeit controlled by certain types of local histories (Mignolo, 2000: 66). Thecontrol of both the local and universal can be found in academia, what Grosfoguel(2012: 9) refers to as Westernized universities – as well as in law, political institu-tions of the state, social movements and political projects for transforming society. Additionally, the decolonial school of thought foregrounds  border thinking, whichis an attempt to rescue and employ narratives and histories that have been inten-tionally supressed precisely because they challenge the universal project of euro-centric modernity/coloniality (Mignolo, 2000: 739–45).
Decoloniality looks specifically to the place where knowledge is produced.In order to decolonize knowledge, the geo-political location of theology,European secular philosophies, and later scientific reason (including scientificsocialism which is dependent on European epistemologies exclusively) must beunveiled, and the principles and modes of knowledge that have been ignored byChristianity, Western – i.e. subaltern epistemic perspectives (ethnic/racial/sexual/territorial), must be uplifted along with the epistemic decolonial turn (Mignolo,2007: 463; Grosfoguel, 2007: 212).
For the purpose of this article, we should emphasize that it is not so muchEurocentrism that needs to be underscored in understanding coloniality. Rather,it is the unequal structure of governing bodies of knowledge that have determinedthe course in which ethics have been developed. Cuban social policy has not shed  itself completely of colonial epistemologies. At the same time, the striking resem-blances between the trajectory by which Cuban social policy regarding sexualityhas developed and the epistemic decolonial turn, as suggested by Dussel,Grosfoguel, Maldonado Torres, Mignolo and others, merits attention.

To analyse the changes being made in Cuba regarding social policy towardssexual diversity, health and ethics, it is worth looking at where knowledge has beenproduced prior to and under the current political regime. In order to accomplishthis, the genealogy of trans/homophobia can be reviewed from both local andglobal historical frameworks, the transformation of social policies and sexual pol-itics can be considered, and the conceptualization of  sexual self-determination examined. Since education throughout the process of social transformation iskey to this study, it is appropriate to identify the influence of Paulo Freire(1970) in understanding popular education and the

 pedagogy of the oppressed ,whereby the teacher–student relationship is broken down in order to facilitate adialectics of emancipation (liberation), and to recognize this Latin American heri-tage as an essential tool in the process of decolonizing sexuality, science, humanrights and health.
For Freire, those who are in a position of power must constantly go through aprocess of self-examination (Freire, 1970/1996: 64), contemplating their own role ina world of inequality. Parallel to this is the issue of building an ethically soundrelationship between those who are ‘treated’ by state institutions and the scientificcommunity, including health professionals working with those identified as trans-gender or intersex. While commenting on the question of good treatment of transpersons in the age of de-pathology, Judith Butler concludes: ‘the question is notsimply would you, the authority, permit and recognize my change; rather, wouldmy request produce radical changes in your practice and in your ethical self-under-standing as a professional or practitioner’ (Butler, 2010: 12). Today, as will beargued, the re-education of Cuban society was an essential breakthrough in thatcountry’s experience of depathologization. We identify an epistemic decolonialturn within science, ethics and the Marxist-Leninist-Martiano discourse of egali-tarian socialism. This turn is presented as a challenge to what we call the
 religious-modern-socio-scientific bloc  that until recently has dominated Cuban society and itsmanagement of sexuality.
Human rights is also a field of study that has undergone critical review from thedecolonial perspective. Mignolo (2009) notes that the notion of human rights fol-lows a modern/colonial trajectory in both theoretical and practical applications.Human rights, reserved for white men of privilege first, and later extended to therest of the world’s population, continues to be shaped by discourses and epistemol-ogies based on the Western experience. The socialist experiment in Cuba, as inmany other places, has challenged universal conceptions of human rights, payingmore attention to socio-economic rights as access to food, housing, health services,education and employment. In 2008, the government of Cuba hosted an inter-national conference of intellectuals, politicians, lawyers, artists and activists,entitled ‘The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: 60 years later’, where in a final statement participants recognized the incompatibility of what they called‘predatory, exclusive, exploiting, racist and patriarchal capitalism’ with the repro-duction of life and the meeting of human needs. In this context, participants upheldcivil, cultural, economic, political, social and sexual rights (MINREX, 2008). Aswill be demonstrated further on, this re-framing of human rights requires a deco-lonial reading of the institutional treatment of non-heteronormative genders andsexualities.
A genealogy of homo- and transphobia
The critique of homophobic society in Cuba stems from two distinct groups of narratives, that are similar only in that they are both politicized. On the one hand,there is the critique of ‘communist state-homophobia’, originating in the politicaldiscourse of Western liberal democracy in opposition to Cuban experiments of radical social change. The reading largely depends on anecdotal documents, vari-ous forms of journalism found in Western media, the writing of biographies andfiction (Epps, 1995; Young, 1981; Sanchez, 2011), and sometimes Western, radicalsocialist discourse which dedicates a considerable amount of attention to the hor-rors of Stalinism and other authoritarian experiments (Farber, 2011: 184–221).Reference is made to ‘concentration camps’ for gays, the maltreatment andforced hospitalization of persons infected with HIV, and the deportation of homo-sexuals and transgendered people, together with the mentally ill or handicappedand individuals prosecuted for anti-social behaviour, petty crimes and religiousfundamentalism (Bejel, 2001; Capo´, 2010; Negro´n-Muntaner, 2008).
The other trajectory of critique of Cuban homophobia is grounded in anautochthonous re-evaluation of social policies and public culture concerning sexu-ality and hegemonic masculinitiesthroughout that nation’s history. 4
This readingis closely faithful to the methodology of decolonial thinking, linking historic-colo-nial (modern) constructions of dehumanizing exclusion and compartmentalizationson sexual identities with prejudices, attitudes, and popular and state positionstowards sexual diversities. Here, the story begins with the European, specificallySpanish-Catholic, colonization that brought to Cuba a series of codes, norms,typographies and ideas concerning sexuality that generally prevail throughoutmodern times: ideas about the family, masculinity and exclusive male–femalegender identities. Otherness in sexuality was often racialized and attributed to‘inferior’ cultures, ethnic groups and civilizations.Thereafter, with the replace-ment of religion by secular science and its reach to the Americas (Grosfoguel,2008), some of these norms were reinforced by academia and medical science. 6

Marxism-Leninism, as an imported ideology of European origin (albeit with Martiano  adjustments made in Cuba), in its ‘anti-reactionary’, anti-religiousstance depended heavily on medical science which was evident at the time inEurope, the United States and the Soviet Union, to create an ideological andsocietal-normative response to sexualities.These are found in the pathologizationand treatment of homosexuality, transexuality, and the biomedical treatment of  cases of intersexuality. Below, we expose a narrative that takes into considerationthe role of the feminist movement, its emphasis on education and the evolution of astate policy to combat trans/homophobia.

Revolution and emancipation
When it comes to understanding social policy on sexuality, it is important to con-textualize the Cuban revolution within the framework of the Cold War, wherebythe socio-economic, domestic and foreign policies adopted by revolutionary forcessituated the country and its post-revolutionary development trajectory within whatwas called the Soviet bloc. The composition of the Communist Party of Cuba(PCC) and the formation of civil society groups, the Constitution of 1976 and allthe laws and political structures that shaped public policy, education and everydaylife, were largely influenced by the Soviet experience (Carmona Ba ´ez, 2004: 72–9).Although some elements of Soviet-styled public policy proved to be progressive,especially in the advancement of women’s rights, other areas of concern, such asthe pathologization of non-heterosexual practices continued to reinforce the colo-nial and scientific reasoning that perpetuated trans/homophobic postures.Nevertheless, the 1959 Cuban revolution unleashed a complex process of socio-economic and cultural change that provided the basis for dialogue and(violent) confrontation between generations and social classes. During andthroughout that process a reconfiguration of gender relations also, questionedhegemonic masculinities (Castro Espı ´n, 2011a).
In 1960, the Federation of Cuban Women (FMC), an organized mass movementof women participating in the national political process, became the vehicle thatarticulated a project of women’s empowerment as subjects entitled to rights andparticipation in the process of socialist construction. The incorporation of womeninto the field of work outside the home had an impact upon both sexuality andreproductive patterns. Women took on a new public role, including participation innational defence during times of US aggression (Nun ˜ez, 2011; Sa ´nchez Parodi,2011; Waters, 2012).
By 1965, abortion had been legalized and institutionalized as a service providedby the national healthcare system free of charge and, on demand performed byspecialist medical personnel in hospitals with the women’s consent. This measurenot only contributed to the reduction of maternal deaths but also ensured women’srights over their bodies. (Espı ´n Guillois; Sosa, 2008) The initiatives taken up duringthe 1960s were institutionalized in the Family Code of 1975, which advocated equalresponsibilities for the education of children and for household tasks (Stone, 1981:182–200).
This repositioning of women in Cuban society cannot be divorced from otherrelated processes of emancipation, including the partial repositioning of Blackpeople and, the uplift of social sectors such as the unemployed, provincial migrantsand prostitutes (Garcı ´a, 2009). All of these claimed a stake in the revolutionaryprocess and were able to situate themselves in the context of building a radically new society. But it was the new position of women that enabled the questioning of hegemonic masculinities and practices. What it meant to be a ‘man’, a ‘woman’ anda ‘revolutionary’ were topics that enjoyed or suffered decades of public debate.
It was also the country’s feminist movement that brought about changes inattitudes towards sexuality both in the public sphere and in state institutions. Aparticularly remarkable breakthrough was the FMC initiative of facilitating thepublication of numerous scientific books by foreign authors, including  El hombre y la mujer en la intimidad (Mann und Frau intim) and En Defensa del Amor (Pla ¨ doyer fu ¨ r die Liebe) by German sexologist Siegfried Schnabl, in 1979. For the first time inCuba, it was possible to read the uncensored opinion of a scientist asserting thathomosexuality was not an illness. It was not until Cuban scientists had access tothese foreign documents that a thorough re-evaluation of state positions on homo-sexuality began, and it was not until after the de-penalization of homosexuality inCuba in 1979, that these documents were made available to the general public.
Sex education
One of the principal actors in organizing feminist demands was chemical engineerand MIT student Vilma Espı ´n Guillois, who headed the FMC from its foundationuntil her death. In 1972, Espı ´n Guillois set up a multidisciplinary National SexualEducation Group (GNTES) to establish the National Programme of SexualEducation, which was recognized as state policy by the first Congress of theCuban Communist Party in 1975 under two resolutions: ‘On the formation of children and youth’ and ‘On the full exercise of the equality of women’ (Rojas,1978: 529–610). These emphazised the eradication of all forms of discriminationagainst women and included sex education in school curricula.Despite great resistance by the Ministry of Education, subjects related to repro-ductive function were formally introduced in school textbooks during the 1970sand 1980s. Still, it was not until 1996 that the Sexual Education Programme inSchool was established under the name of   For a Responsible and Happy SexEducation
, with state support for research and publication (Castro Espı ´n, 2002:4–9).
In 1989, GNTES established the National Centre for Sexual Education(CENESEX), a state-financed institution under the Ministry of Public Health,whose mission was to coordinate a permanent but dynamic national programmeof sex education involving both central state administration and civil society organ-izations. The agenda and projects of the national programme were established bythe ministries of Public Health, Education and Culture and by the FMC and theUnion of Communist Youth (UJC). Since then, CENESEX has established a net-work of provincial and municipal working committees to carry out and monitor itsgoals and impact. As will be elaborated later on, its activities are focused ondeveloping sex education strategies in schools and more publicly, promotingsocial research and therapy, the provision of care for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexualand Transgender (LGBT) community, as well as victims of violence and sexual abuse, and the production of educational materials. Cuba’s national sex educationpolicy evolved from an emphasis on women and their reproductive rights to a morecomprehensive outlook including gender diversity and the rights of individuals todecide over their bodies and identities (Castro Espı ´n, 2011a).
Combatting homophobia
Cuba continues to be a country where male chauvinism and homophobia is dom-inant in popular culture. These characteristics have been endorsed by RomanCatholic doctrine, the legacy of the Spanish Code of Social Defence – later theRepublic of Cuba’s 1938 Code of Social Defence (Roque Guerra, 2011: 218–26)and by modern scientific knowledge that stigmatized homosexuality, and otherbehaviour deviating from the heterosexual norm.
Literature produced in Cuba throughout the 20th century, including postrevolutionary literature concerning sexuality, only enforced homophobic ideas inpsychology, medicine, sociology, ethics and law. A notable exception waSexologı´ a I,  by Angel Arce Ferna ´ndez (1965) (Horta Sa ´nchez et al., 2011) aBlack revolutionary communist and physician who was later recognized as thefounder of Cuban sexology. Fernandez promoted the idea that homosexualitynot be considered an aberration or illness. According to a recent reflection writtenby his daughter, he was harshly criticized and censured (Arce Henderson, 2012).His work and experience provides evidence of debate and confrontation aboutsexual diversity, within medical and political communities of the time.
The existing medical sciences in Cuba acted at the time of the revolution as abloc against practices that were considered as signs of illness, the prelude to insan-ity and a mark of social moral decay. This  religious-modern-socio-scientific bloc inhibited the process of shedding the colonial legacy of homophobia. The Cubanvariant of socialism, in which Che Guevara’s ‘new man’ became the central subject,was impotent in resolving this colonial legacy (Roque Guerra, 2011: 218–25). Therevolutionary project of breaking down social structures remained trapped in ahomophobia that was sustained by universal science. Arguelles and Rich (1984:691) attribute this, in part, to the influence that the pre-revolutionary, Stalinist,Popular Socialist Party had on the formation of political discourse regardinghomosexuality. They place responsibility on the ‘lesbian and homosexual intelli-gentsia’ concentrated in the National Union of Cuban Writers and Artists(UNEAC), which provided no public counter critique. However this displacementof blame masks essential structural aspects of homophobia in Cuban society,ignoring the colonial continuities that are to be found in state socialist positionsand social policies concerning sexual diversities.
The religious-modern-socio-scientific bloc favoured discriminatory towards les-bians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people for years. It gave rise to the estab-lishment of the Military Units for Production Support (UMAP) in 1965. Acompulsory civil-military service of forced agricultural labour for idle youth, religious dissidents and homosexuals in a context of continuous aggressions by theUS government, the UMAP was known for its reproduction of homophobia.UMAPs were closed three years later in 1968, as a result of an in-depth militaryinvestigation starting in the province of Camaguey and protests launched by asso-ciates of the UNEAC (Ramonet, 2006: 225).
Recently, Maria Isabel Alfonso, writing on racial dynamics in state policies of the 1960s, noted that the closing down of publishing houses and the censorship of certain authors by institutions like the UNEAC, aided the silencing of homosexu-ality in public culture (Alfonso, 2012). This can be seen as a form of epistemicviolence committed by the revolutionary state against Afro-centric writers, as wellas those belonging to non-heterosexual communities. It is only now, in criticalspaces like the journals  Temas  (on Culture Ideology and Society),  Casa  (onLetters and Ideas from Casa de las Americas) an Sexologı´ a y Sociedad  (onSexuality and Society, produced by CENESEX) that the extent of the injusticescommitted are being exposed and debated.

The elimination of groups like the UMAP three years after its inception exem-plifies the huge contradictions prevailing during that period. It testifies to the factthat homophobia was contested by some of the progressive sectors of the revolu-tionary leadership. Nevertheless, discrimination resurfaced in other spaces such asthe First National Congress of Education and Culture in 1971. The final declar-ation of this meeting called for depriving homosexuals of the possibility of workingin the areas of education, culture and the media given their substantial influence onchildren and youth (MINED, 1971: 203). This was at a time when medical sciencesconsidered homosexuality to be a mental disorder, and the reinforcement of thismeasure was later called the ‘ parameterization’ (Fornet, 2006: 16). The Ministry of Education’s resolution was annulled in 1975 by the Supreme Court, which con-sidered it unconstitutional, and in 1976, the policy was changed on the initiative of the Ministry of Culture. It was not until 1979, however, that Decree-Law 175 liftedthe penalization of homosexuality in private, although public display of homosex-ual acts was still punishable until 1987 (Fornet, 2006: 19).

Throughout the 1990s, CENESEX carried out public education campaigns, thescreening of queer films and rallies against homophobia. In 2007, CENESEX ledthe first national International Day Against Homophobia, which has become anannual week-long campaign filled with activities and commemorative acts thatpublicize the state’s intention to eradicate homophobia. Central to their educa-tional campaign is the participation of non-heterosexual and transgender personstrained at CENESEX to carry out workshops on discrimination and HIV preven-tion at workplaces and schools. Following methods inspired by Brazilian Marxistpedagogue Paolo Freire, the activities are based on a needs-assessment defined bythose sectors of society most affected by discrimination. What has become veryvisible through these campaigns is the intersection of discrimination from gender,class, racial and territorial (provincial) perspectives, and a recognition that indi-viduals from poorer areas of the country and places where there is less care and support of LGBT people, are more disadvantaged and have greater complexitiesto deal with in their personal development and integration into society. Throughout the provinces, participants in the workshops have identified theneed to work closely with families, especially in the case of transgender individuals,in order to create a support base in the immediate geographical community(Rodriguez et al., 2008: 105–48). Focus groups composed of transgender personsin urban areas have identified problems related to transphobic attitudes exhibitedby the police force (Castro Espin, 2011). Cuba has begun a process of pathologiz-ing sexist and trans/homophobic society. Including the voices of those traditionallypathologized, along with their communities and families, has constituted a shift inthe geo-politics of knowledge. This is where we can identify striking resemblancesbetween the reconstitution of Cuban social policy regarding the LGBT communityon the one hand, and decolonial thought and practice on the other.
Since 2008, the FCW has advocated for a bill modifying the Family Code,including new articles concerning respect for a free sexual orientation and genderidentity, as well as the legal recognition of same-sex couples. (Castro Espı ´n, 2011a)Cuba also signed the UN Declaration on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identityin 2008, an initiative made by the Republic of France (Worsnip, 2008).
Another institution that has been essential in the work to eradicate trans/homo-phobia has been the Cuban Multidisciplinary Society for the Study of Sexuality(SOCUMES), a professional association that through its working commissionsprovides a scientific framework for national public policy. The Commission forSexual Diversity is an associate organization of the International Lesbian, Gay,Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA) and like CENESEX adheres tothe Yogyakarta Principlesfor the application of International Human Rights inrelation to sexual orientation and gender identity (O’Flaherty and Fisher, 2008).

In January 2012, the Communist Party of Cuba (PCC) held a first-time nationalconference as a follow up to the sixth PCC Congress held in April 2011. In the finaldocument which was approved at this conference, the Party adopted a policy forthe active confrontation of racial, gender, religious, sexual orientation and other prejudices that may give rise toany form of discrimination or limit the exercise of people’s rights, among them publicpositions and those who participate in the political and mass organizations and in thedefence of the country. (PCC, 2012: 6)

This was the first time that a PCC document made an explicit statement concerningdiscrimination as regards to sexual orientation. Paragraph 69 of the same docu-ment speaks explicitly to public policy, encouraging the production of audio-visualmaterials and the orientation of the media, to reflect Cuban reality in all its diver-sity, specifically including sexual diversity the and diversity of sexual orientation(Garcı ´a, 2012). The inclusion of gender and sexual orientation in this clause reflectsthe government’s intention of implementing a social policy favouring the rights of LGBT people within the framework of Cuban socialism.
Contradictions and inconsistencies
The evolution of Cuba’s social policy regarding sexual diversity and self-determi-nation has taken an uneven course throughout its national institutionalpractices. This became evident in November 2010 when the UN GeneralAssembly’s Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Affairs Committee held its biennialvote on a resolution condemning extrajudicial, arbitrary or summary executionsbased upon discrimination. The resolution was amended by a number of Africancountries and supported by Caribbean, Asian and Arab States, alongside theRussian Federation. It sought to eliminate the term ‘sexual orientation’from the document and replace it with ‘discriminatory reasons on any basis(Acosta, 2010). The Cuban delegation voted in favour of the amendment, contra-dicting Cuba’s vote in 2008 for the same resolution. Outraged by this act,a host of Cuban LGBT activists expressed their disenchantment with theMinistry of Foreign Affairs.
SOCUMES, headed by Dr Alberto Roque, together with LGBT activists andrepresentatives from different organizations10 successfully secured a meeting withForeign Minister Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla, who had to explain Cuba’s vote andlisten to grievances. Communist militant and blogger, Francisco Rodriguez Cruz(2010a), pointed out the contradictions between Cuba’s domestic policy and itscompromizing postition in diplomatic manoeuvres. Taking it a step further,Rodriguez Cruz (2010b) stated that professionals and activists had to workharder within Cuba to ensure that all national laws explicitly prohibit andpunish acts of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation so that the countrycould maintain ‘a leading, coherent and steadfast position at the internationallevel’. One month later, at the 65th UN General Assembly meeting, where theresolution was finally approved, the Cuban delegation read an explanatory notereiterating Cuba’s interpretation of ‘discriminatory reasons on any basis’, whichexplicitly included discrimination against people according to their sexual orienta-tion (Republic of Cuba, 2010).
Scenarios such as the 2010 UN vote and the subsequent debate provideevidence to suggest that sectors of civil society composed of self-identifiedLesbian, Gays, Bisexuals, Transsexuals and Transgender persons are engagedat different levels of the state bureaucracy, combatting the marginalization of these groups in Cuban society and internationally. At the same time, the inter-pretation of official social policy continues to be an arena that presents a chal-lenge to the concept of sexual self-determination and emancipation in thisCaribbean country.
Transgender care and the decolonial epistemic turn 
If the production placement and institutionalization of knowledge to be consideredpart and parcel of the modern world system of hierarchies, at few moments is thismanifested more than in the pathologizing of sexualities by governing bodies of  scientific/medical authority. Until recently, the hegemonic paradigm for the treat-ment and care of non-conforming sexualities and gender identities was dictatedglobally by institutions vested in the medical sciences. By non-conforming we meanthose sexualities and gender identities that conflict with the modern societal normthat adopts the male–female dyad replicated within scientific literature and clinicalpractices. The most important of these institutions is the American PsychiatricAssociation (APA), which, since 1952 has produced the Diagnostic andStatistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), a text widely used as an authori-tative reference for the diagnosing pathology. Due to debates carried out in themedical communities of Western societies, the DSM has seen the elimination, add-ition and re-articulation of pathologies related to gender and sexuality; amongthese, the pathology and de-patholigization of homosexuality and the separatecategorization of ‘gender disorder’ and gender dysphoria in children and adults(Jorge, 2010).
Within the family of the United Nations, the World Health Organization hassince 1948 endorsed the International Classification of Disease (ICD), also a widelyused text, which has likewise gone through various revisions concerning sexualpreferences and gender identities. The ICD, currently the ICD-10, continues touse the term ‘gender identity disorder’ and ‘transexualism’ to classify a variety of psychiatric disorders related to the incongruences between gender identity assignedat birth and identities assumed by children and adults, i.e. gender non-conformity(WHO, 2102). Finally, there is the World Professional Association for TransgenderHealth (WPATH), previously the Harry Benjamin International GenderDysphoria Association, that publishes and updates its non-diagnostic Standardsof Care (SOCs) and Ethical Guidelines for Health professionals but continues todepend on the DSM and ICD for medical reference and WPATH (2012: 4–20).

Throughout the last decade, the first two governing bodies, APA and WHO,which prepared the publication of revised versions of the DMS-V in 2013 and ICD-11 in 2015 respectively, have had their authority questioned by trans-activistsgroups and various professional associations worldwide, including associates of WPATH (Misse and Coll-Planas, 2010: 15–16). With much media attention,these institutions became the target of campaigns by those who reject the path-ologization of their sexualities. A crisis, of sorts, in the hegemonic paradigmadopted by most contemporary societies has opened the stage to new actors chal-lenging those authorities, that have often committed epistemic violence against thesubjects of scientific debate, i.e. those diagnosed, labelled, treated or cared for. 11

In a country where health care is considered to be a human right and thereforecovered completely by the state, all illnesses and perceived threats to health con-sidered by modern Western medicine are to be treated indiscriminately by health-care professionals. This is also the case with what, in Cuba, was previously called‘gender identity disorder’.
In 1979, at the behest of the FMC, the Cuban Ministry of Public Health createda multidisciplinary workgroup coordinated by GNTES – later CENESEX, for thediagnosis and treatment of transsexual persons. After the team conducted an international comparative study in different countries, it recommended that theMinistry of Public Health adopt the standards and protocols of care suggestedby the Harry Benjamin International Association of Gender Dysphoria (CastroEspı ´n, 2011c). In 1988, Cuban surgeons performed their first (male to female) sexreassignment operation. This action caused uproar at different levels of society andmost importantly within the National Health System, which disapproved the med-ical action (Castro Espı ´n, 2008). It was not until 20 years later, in 2004, that asecond sex reassignment surgery was permitted. Between those years, the multidis-ciplinary team took legal initiatives in assisting 13 individuals to change their firstnames and their identity card photos. It was impossible to change their sex onofficial documents, since during that time legal sex was to be determined accordingto the individual’s genitals (Castro Espı ´n, 2008: 24).
In 2004, CENESEX broadened the composition of the multidisciplinary work-group in charge of diagnosis and care for transgender persons, redefining its object-ives and bringing forth a national care strategy. Initially, this workgroup was calledthe National Commission for Gender Identity Disorder Care. But after havingconducted in-depth research in Cuba and other countries, and leading to the con-struction of a national narrative reflecting a Cuban need to depathologize, thegroup changed its name to the National Commission for Integral Care forTranssexual Persons. Mariela Castro (2008) notes:
We can confirm that transsexual people demanded that they be considered healthymen and women, socially responsible and therefore do not accept that they be treatedas people who are ill and much less as a threat to the social order. (2008: 24)
Currently, the Commission is composed of professionals from the various fields of medicine, psychology and the social sciences. The objectives of this Commissionare to: develop the protocol of care and integral health treatment for transsexualpersons; promote interdisciplinary research on dysphoria; develop educationalcampaigns directed at fostering respect and understanding among the public fortransgender individuals; propose a legal mechanism concerning Transcare; and,implement educational programmes for transgender persons and their families. Anational Strategy for Integral Care has been implemented through dialogue andconsultation with the Supreme Court, the Attorney General’s Office, and theNational Organization of Law Firms, as well as political and civil society organ-isations, including groups associated with the Trans community (Castro Espı ´n,2008: 15–43).

From 2004 onwards, CENESEX and SOCUMES began working from the per-spective of Human Rights, as they started to document the testimonies of trans-gender persons who had conflict been in with the law, police agents and reactionaryelements among the civil population in Havana. Many of those who testified andsought help from CENESEX were found in precarious situations. With the par-ticipation of transgender volunteers, CENESEX developed a needs assessment thatset the stage for depathologization. These same transgender volunteers, formed focus groups and became agents within the national educational strategy, settingup committees throughout the country.

Second only to France, Cuba became among the first in the world to depatho-logize transgender and the first in Latin America to incorporate all transgendercare into an equally accessible national healthcare system. Along with this, thepolicies and strategies adopted by the multidisciplinary Commission since 2010reverses pathologization, looking at hetero-normativity, sexist and traditionalhomophobic postures rampantly existing in contemporary society as the rootcause of gender dysphoria. This is what constitutes the decolonial epistemic turnin Cuba regarding social policy on sexual diversity. Both CENESEX and theabove-mentioned host of organs, commissions and civil society organisations con-tinue to work on the complete institutionalisation of depathologization through thelegal recognition of sex and gender change.
The underlying principle, as has been repeatedly recorded in Cuba, is sexual self-determination. It is the subject who should be empowered to decide over his/heridentity as male, female or other, without having any pressure from the medicalcommunity to modify his/her body. The role of professionals is to ‘accompany’ theindividual in his/her process of self-identification and possible change (CastroEspı ´n, 2011c). Education, which becomes a shared task between professionalsand those affected by trans/homophobia, is geared towards the transformationof society through laws, codes and shared values concerning gender and identity.
Global relevance
Writing on transgender care in the Netherlands, Kuyper (2012: 129) concludes thattransgender needs are not sufficiently taken into consideration and that a signifi-cant portion of the transgender population in the Netherlands does not feel suffi-ciently understood by the medical-scientific community and Dutch societygenerally. This is noteworthy, if one considers that the Netherlands is a countryknown for its advances in the treatment and care of transgender persons. Althoughthere is no room here for exhaustive comparisons of countries, assertions such asthat provided by Kuyper make the Cuban experience much more significant. Theepistemic turn in Cuba is remarkable in that the decolonial critique of sexual andgender pathology is now being incorporated into political discourses as well as theinstitutional treatment of transgender people. This process signals an acknowledge-ment and acceptance of sexual diversity on behalf of the representatives of theCuban state, its army of health professionals and sectors of society.
The consensus to depathologize non-confirming sexuality and gender in Cuba,especially transgender individuals, has had a significant impact upon the debatesthat have occurred worldwide, although this is not always recognized by health careprofessionals or activists in mainstream media. Since 2006, CENESEX andSOCUMES have organized an annual Congress on Sex Education, Orientation andTherapy that is attended regularly by scientists, professionals and activists from over30 countries, including representatives from WPATH, which in 2010 finally issued a declaration urging de-psychopathologization among the global medical community,and producing the WPATH (2011) Standards of Care for the Health of Transsexual,Transgender, and Gender Nonconforming People. WPATH President Dr Lin Fraser(WPATH (2012c)) observed that the 2012 symposium was significant in that it pro-vided a synopsis of their DSM, ICD and SOC consensus process, demonstrating theclinical application of WPATH’s evolution and a snapshot of their human rights andpublic policy work. Furthermore, Cuba has proven to be a bridge linking the work of this international association with professional groups and organizations throughoutLatin America and the Caribbean.
Argentina followed Cuba in the depathologization of transsexuals and trans-gender persons but took it a step further in the legislative field, recognizing andrendering complete sexual and gender-self-determination. The 2012 Argentine Lawof Gender Identity recognizes depthologization, allowing for citizens to decide theirown gender identity and thereby entitling them to change their sex on officialrecords by judicial declaration without the need for any medical intervention what-soever (FNLIG, 2012). The changes in legislation have come under the discourse of human rights, citing the Yogyakarta Principles. US-based physician and ExecutiveDirector of Gender Rights Maryland, Dana Beyer, has remarked that ‘[I]t is arecognition of innate human variation, and the ability of human beings to knowthemselves sufficiently, to live free and pursue happiness. It is the new standard forglobal human rights’ (IGLHRC, 2012).
Finally, on 1 December 2012, the APA announced that its Board of Trusteesapproved the publication of the DSM-V to be published in 2013 (APA, 2012). Thisnewly revised edition has proven to be a step forward in the depathologization of transsexuals and transgender persons, replacing the term Gender Identity Disorderwith Gender Incongruence. While applauding APA efforts, WPATH (2012a) akesissuewiththetermGenderIncongruenceasitcontinuestosuggestthat‘congruenceisthenormandthatincongruenceisperdefinitionproblematic,whichisnotnecessarilythe case’. The professional association prefers the term Gender Dysphoria, the termnow used in Cuba, in order to recognize that diagnosis is only needed in cases wheretransgender individuals experience significant distress associated with their gendervariance. The stress is recognized as fundamentally induced by society and culture.

The call on behalf of transgender persons worldwide to healthcare professionals,as well as to legislators and other governmental authorities, to radically changetheir practices and ethics, as Butler has suggested in 2010, found allies in Cuba’snational health care system. As has been demonstrated, this was made possiblethrough a long process of decolonizing knowledge, drawing on a Cuban feministperspective with an emphasis on popular education and the principle of sexual self-determination.

Final considerations
Our intention here has been to provide a conceptual framework for understandingpublic policy on gender and sexual diversity in Cuba and how it was shaped. Key to this study has been the principle of sexual self-determination as a human right,allowing for each individual to define his or her own orientation, condition andgender identity without the stigmatization proposed by psychiatric pathology orthe religious-modern-socio-scientific bloc that until recently has dominated Cubansocialism and its management of sexuality. This process of emancipation, whichhas its roots in Cuban feminism and its influence upon sex education, cannot beseen as an accomplished deed but as an ongoing process that at times finds itself caught in a battle with state bureaucracy domestically and with internationalbodies.Border thinking, the rescuing of epistemologies of subalterns marginalized bymodernity/coloniality science, medicine and law, has, in the case of Cuba, provento be a useful tool in the reformulation of ethics. What the Cuban experience sug-gests is that universal ideas of emancipation and good treatment cannot be exclu-sively contained in definitions provided by Westernized, scientific hierarchies.Contrarily, the solutions to the problematic of non-conforming identities, sexualor otherwise, can be found in a decolonial reading of the institutions and socialrelations that constitute contemporary society. This requires Cuban policymakersto reconsider the political trajectory of the country, recognizing and denouncing thehorrors committed against non-heterosexual communities, and to shed itself of sci-entific dependency on Western pathology and the legacy of Cold War alliances thatbring to the fore inconsistent positions in the area of human rights.The methodology used in educational programmes and in shaping social policyfocuses on the needs assessment carried out among communities and families of LGBT individuals, exercizing the means proposed by Paolo Freire, and reveals thepossibilities that are to be located within the current political framework.Paramount to this work is an intersectional approach that considers trans/homo-phobia to be related to other forms of discrimination; namely of race, class andgender.What we have found is that the changes in social policy and health care practices,which the Republic of Cuba is now undergoing in its legal application of sexual self-determination, has been guided by the narratives of diverse autochthonous groups,educators, social activists and professional health care providers within a highlypoliticized context. Leading figures of the LGBT community saw to it that socialpolicy fell into the framework provided by the country’s ruling Communist Party.For nearly a decade, between the fall of the Soviet bloc in 1990 and the buildingof friendly relations between Cuba and Venezuela since Hugo Chavez’ rise topower in 1999, Cuba was isolated politically. It is interesting to note that preciselyduring this time of seclusion, social policy regulating gender and sexuality madegreat advances in favour of non-heterosexual communities. These developmentsreceived scant attention in academic journals in North America and Europe. Thepoliticized nature by which the case of Cuba has been studied, however, should nothinder the expansion of research on sexuality and social policy in this country.

The authors of this article recommend that rigorous ethnographical research beconducted in order to assess the impact of the changes in social policy and the way  it is experienced by the concerned population in Cuba. This can be done by takinginto consideration the work that has already been achieved by Cuban institutions,which throughout the last two decades have built stronger ties with both scientificbodies that are willing to revise or at least question their own standards, as wellas with LGBT communities internationally. A cross-sectional study of the impactof social policy change, depicting improvement in the quality of life, may prove tobe beneficial in concretizing the notion of sexual self-determination. To this end,the authors also endorse further analysis of the operationalization of new ethicalstandards in clinical practices and research endeavours in Cuba, so as to criticallyidentify areas that need more support in carrying out social and public policy-making regarding gender and sexuality.

Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial,or not-for-profit sectors.
Notes
1. Also called,
 Libre orientacio´ n sexual e identidad de ge´ nero  [Free sexual orientation andgender identity]. See Castro Espı ´n (2008: 172); CENESEX Code of Ethics: http://www.cenesex.org/socumes/codigo-de-etica-para-profesionales-de-la-sexologia-en-cuba/(accessed 27 July 2014); Declaracio ´n Hombres por la Diversidad para la Vta JornadaCubana Contra la Homofobia: http://hxdcuba.blogspot.nl.
2. Martiano thought refers to the legacy of Cuban national hero Jose Marti, as stated in theConstitution of the Republic of Cuba.
3. In the late 1980s, Canadian intellectual and bioethicist Blye Frank introduced the conceptof hegemonic masculinities to political economy, arguing that heterosexuality and mas-culinity are ‘social accomplishments of political nature located within a larger set of political, economic and social relations’ (Frank, 1987: 160–1).
4. In 1984, Arguelles and Rich argued: ‘The need for a distinctively Cuban socialist counter-critique on behalf of homosexuality is increasingly evident. It must reconcile lesbian andgay male experiences with the island’s realities and offer the international gay communitycritical insights into the immensely complex, rich, expressive and problematic nature of those experiences. Until such a countercritique exists, the manipulation of the Cuban gayissue by anti-Cuban interests will remain largely unchallenged, and homosexual experi-ence will continue to be marginalised within Cuban society’ (1984: 684–685).
5. For a good read on the racialization of sexual practices and codes, see Stolke (1992).
6. The first documented statement on the need to pathologise homosexuality in Cubawas from Dr Luis Montane ´, author of infamous article ‘La Pederastia en Cuba’, whichwas presented at the first Regional Medical Congress of the Island of Cuba inJanuary 1890.

7. It is particularly the influence of Stalinism in both Cuba’s pre-revolutionary Communistparty (PSP) and the political organisations, which were consolidated into the PCC in 1968that is regarded as the source of politically charged persecution of non-heterosexuals inCuba during the first two decades of the revolution. See Roque Guerra (2011) and Evans(2011). Lilian Guerra (2010: 270) provides the counter argument that assault against homosexuality as well as youth culture in general ‘was intrinsically connected to essen-tialist standards of judging what made a citizen ideologically reliable and worthy of inclusion in the category of ‘‘revolutionary’’’. The problem with this line of argument isthat her depiction of totalitarian society leaves absolutely no room for the changes thatare taking place now, which are rooted in debates that can be found throughout theentire revolutionary period. The debates, other than scant mention of denunciations bywell-known public figures in the article’s abstract, are not documented.

8. It might be interesting to note here that in a 2011 interview conducted by the authorsof this article, CENESEX director Mariela Castro Espı´n commented on the absence of aGay Pride parade in Cuba: ‘We do not have a gay pride parade. We make a   Congaa Cuban dance form that is very satisfactory and more pleasuring from a rhythmicand sound standpoint, visualising among the population the need to work-off prejudice.We do not uphold ‘gay pride’ because there is also heterosexual pride, lesbian pride,the pride of trans people, we do not see just gay. We focus the eyes of the population onhomophobia, that is what we believe should be changed; you must unravel homopho-bia in order to articulate the full respect for the dignity of individuals. Furthermore,homophobia is closely linked to other forms of discrimination that LGBT peoplealso experience, namely: racial discrimination, discrimination by geographical area,between those living in rural and non-urban areas, in being an immigrant and notnative, as a non-white person, as a woman, age, etc. Thus, there are many forms of discrimination and we identify homophobia as a form of discrimination that has notbeen sufficiently dealt with, and it is not yet contemplated by international and nationallaw; and where it is recognised, it is not sufficiently treated by law.’ (Castro Espı ´n,2011b).
9. In 2006, in response to well-documented patterns of abuse, a distinguished group of international human rights experts met in Yogyakarta, Indonesia to outline a set of international principles relating to sexual orientation and gender identity. The result wasthe Yogyakarta Principles: a universal guide to human rights which affirm bindinginternational legal standards with which all States must comply. They promise a differ-ent future where all people born free and equal in dignity and rights can fulfil thatprecious birthright: http://www.yogyakartaprinciples.org/principles_en.htm
10. In Cuba there are over 17 organisations and online blogs promoting sexual diversity andproviding service to sexually diverse communities. See CENESEX website: http://www.cenesex.org/.

11. See Manifesto of the International Network for Trans Depathologization, on StopTrans Pathologization: http://www.stp2012.info/old/en/manifest

Comparte este contenido:
Page 1565 of 1683
1 1.563 1.564 1.565 1.566 1.567 1.683