Desigualdades de género y brechas estructurales en América Latina

Por Nicole Bidegain Ponte

En América Latina, los índices de feminidad de la pobreza, los sesgos de género de las políticas fiscales, las brechas salariales por género y raza/etnia y la división sexual e internacional del trabajo dan cuenta de que las políticas públicas implementadas en la región siguen siendo limitadas. Por lo tanto, se requiere actuar sobre los determinantes estructurales de las brechas de desigualdad de género y evitar que, en el actual contexto de desaceleración económica y de aplicación de políticas de ajuste, se profundicen los niveles de desigualdad y se reviertan los avances obtenidos.

El carácter estructural de la desigualdad de género y su intersección con otras brechas de desigualdad basadas en la clase, raza/etnia, edad, orientación sexual y territorio no han sido cabalmente abordados por el enfoque actual de las políticas públicas en América Latina. Los datos en la región demuestran que las políticas de desarrollo, fiscales, de empleo y sociales, sin un enfoque sistémico basado en derechos humanos de las mujeres, tienden a perpetuar y reproducir la desigualdad de género en vez de revertirla. A continuación se presentan algunos ejemplos regionales que resultan ilustrativos.

Concentración del ingreso, pobreza de tiempo y monetaria

Durante la última década, en algunos países de la región, la reducción de la desigualdad de ingresos y de los índices de pobreza se produjo simultáneamente con el aumento de la feminidad de la pobreza. El índice de feminidad muestra las disparidades en la incidencia de la pobreza en mujeres y varones (de 20 a 59 años), medida en términos de ingreso. Es posible afirmar que las políticas tendientes a reducirla no han impactado de la misma forma en hombres y en mujeres. Desde 2012, la tendencia a la reducción de la pobreza se ha estancado en América Latina, mientras que el índice de feminidad sigue aumentando. Es decir que tanto en periodos de reducción de la pobreza como en periodos de estancamiento, la pobreza sigue afectando en mayor grado a las mujeres que a los hombres, en edades críticas en términos productivos y reproductivos. En 2014, por cada 100 hombres que vivían en hogares pobres en la región, había 118 mujeres en la misma situación1.

Cabe señalar que la reducción de la desigualdad de ingresos registrada en la década pasada no se vio acompañada por un reparto más equitativo en la apropiación del capital y el trabajo2. La distribución funcional del ingreso muestra la participación de la masa salarial en el pib total, por lo cual este indicador permite capturar bien las desigualdades en la región, pero debe ser complementado con indicadores que visibilicen no solo la contradicción capital-trabajo remunerado, sino también la contradicción «capital-vida». La sobrecarga del trabajo no remunerado y de cuidados sobre las mujeres es consecuencia de relaciones de poder desiguales de género. Las encuestas de uso del tiempo y los indicadores como la pobreza de tiempo han intentado poner en evidencia este rasgo estructural de la desigualdad. La pobreza de tiempo considera los hogares pobres no solamente por su carencia de ingresos, sino también por la carencia de tiempo para llevar adelante el conjunto de las tareas del trabajo no remunerado y de cuidados, que realizan principalmente las mujeres. Se estima que si se tuviesen en cuenta conjuntamente la carencia de ingresos y la de tiempo (en lugar de únicamente la de ingresos), la pobreza se incrementaría de 6,2% a 11,1% de los hogares en Argentina, de 10,9% a 17,8% en Chile y de 41% a 50% en el caso de México3.

Brecha fiscal y sesgos de género

El impacto redistributivo del gasto social en la región es considerable, pero sigue siendo limitado y esto se debe en parte a las estructuras tributarias regresivas con sesgos de género que prevalecen en varios países de la región. Para tener una visión integral del impacto de las políticas fiscales en la reducción de la desigualdad, es preciso analizar no solo cómo se gasta, sino también cómo se recauda.

Más allá de la heterogeneidad latinoamericana y de las reformas tributarias implementadas en diferentes casos, la carga tributaria es insuficiente para los niveles de desarrollo de los países. Además, las estructuras tributarias de la región son regresivas y existen dificultades para controlar los altos niveles de evasión. En promedio regional, menos de un tercio de la recaudación corresponde a impuestos directos, mientras que el grueso de la carga recae en los impuestos sobre el consumo y otros impuestos indirectos4. La recaudación a partir de impuestos indirectos, como el impuesto al valor agregado (iva), es regresiva porque implica una carga desproporcionada sobre las personas en situación de pobreza y afecta especialmente a las mujeres, que están sobrerrepresentadas en los estratos de menores ingresos de la población. Como señala el informe de la relatora especial de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas (onu) sobre extrema pobreza y derechos humanos, las mujeres tienden a utilizar grandes porciones de sus ingresos en productos de primera necesidad debido a que las normas de género les asignan la responsabilidad del cuidado de las personas dependientes, por lo que cargan con el peso regresivo de los impuestos al consumo5.

Por otro lado, los altos niveles de evasión6, y especialmente la salida de flujos financieros ilícitos de la región7, limitan la posibilidad de cerrar la brecha de financiamiento para la igualdad de género y se implementar las políticas públicas necesarias para garantizar los derechos de las mujeres8. A su vez, de acuerdo con un estudio reciente9, cuando la capacidad de los Estados de controlar los flujos financieros ilícitos es limitada, las estructuras tributarias tienden a compensar la falta de recursos mediante mayores impuestos a pequeños y medianos contribuyentes y a las personas. Las mujeres resultan afectadas de manera desproporcionada, ya que están sobrerrepresentadas entre cuentapropistas, pequeñas y medianas empresas y trabajadoras informales.

Dada la desigualdad primaria de los países de la región, el carácter regresivo de los sistemas tributarios y el acceso segmentado a la protección social y empleo, no sorprende que la desigualdad de ingreso no se reduzca considerablemente después de la intervención del Estado a través de impuestos y transferencias. En América Latina, el coeficiente de Gini cae, en promedio, nueve puntos porcentuales después de los impuestos directos y las transferencias en efectivo y en especie. Esta cifra no es tan significativa si se compara con la reducción de los niveles de desigualdad en los países de la Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económico (ocde), que alcanza los 23 puntos porcentuales10.

  • 1.«Índice de feminidad en hogares pobres» en Observatorio de Igualdad de Género de la Cepal, http://oig.cepal.org/es/indicadores/indice-feminidad-hogares-pobres.
  • 2.Cepal: Horizontes 2030. La igualdad en el centro del desarrollo sostenible, lc/g.2660/Rev.1, Naciones Unidas, Santiago de Chile, mayo de 2016.
  • 3.Rania Antonopoulos, Tomas Masterson y Ajit Zacharias: «La interrelación entre los déficits de tiempo y de ingreso. Revisando la medición de la pobreza para la generación de respuestas de política», pnud, Panamá, 2012.
  • 4.Cepal: Panorama fiscal de América Latina y el Caribe 2016, Naciones Unidas, Santiago de Chile, marzo de 2016.
  • 5.«Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights, Ms. Maria Magdalena Sepúlveda Carmona, on Taxation and Human Rights», sesión 26 del Consejo de Derechos Humanos, a/hrc/26/28, Ginebra, mayo de 2014.
  • 6.Según la Cepal, la evasión del iva representa dos puntos del pib, y la del impuesto sobre la renta, 4,1 puntos. Esto implicaba alrededor de 320.000 millones de dólares en 2014. Para más información, v. Cepal: Estudio económico de América Latina y el Caribe 2016, Naciones Unidas, Santiago de Chile, julio de 2016.
  • 7.Las estimaciones varían considerablemente según la fuente. Según Global Financial Integrity, entre 2004 y 2013 América Latina y el Caribe perdieron 1,4 billones de dólares en flujos financieros ilícitos. Sobre ese total, 88% corresponde a falsa facturación en el comercio entre empresas (abusos con precios de transferencia y sub- o sobrefacturación) y 12% proviene de hechos criminales y corrupción. Según la Cepal, para el mismo periodo los flujos financieros ilícitos representaron 1,8% del pib regional en el promedio de los diez años considerados, lo que implica 765.000 millones de dólares en el acumulado 2004-2013 (dos tercios se deben a la sobrefacturación de las importaciones y un tercio a la subfacturación de las exportaciones). Dev Kar y Joseph Spanjers: Illicit Financial Flows from Developing Countries: 2004-2013, Global Financial Integrity, Washington, dc, diciembre de 2015.
  • 8.Es necesario destacar que en la región, de acuerdo con la Cepal, las tasas efectivas que paga el decil superior son muy bajas como consecuencia no solo de la evasión y la elusión, sino también de las exenciones, las deducciones y el tratamiento preferencial de las rentas del capital, que en algunos países no están gravadas y en otros tributan a una tasa más baja que las rentas del trabajo. Esto también tiene un impacto significativo en la desigualdad y en la brecha de financiamiento.
  • 9.Verónica Grondona, N. Bidegain Ponte y Corina Rodríguez Enríquez: The Role of Secret Financial Jurisdictions in Undermining Gender Justice and Women’s Human Rights, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Berlín, en prensa.
  • 10.

Fuente: http://insurgenciamagisterial.com/desigualdades-de-genero-y-brechas-estructurales-en-america-latina/

Comparte este contenido:

Andragogía y salud mental: Andragogía violenta vs. Andragogía terapéutica

Por:  Manlio Alcides Soto Paiz

  1. Andragogía violenta

En muchos salones de clase universitarios, se cree aún que la siguiente formula es ingrediente básico para una buena educación:

Autoritarismo+ ardua exigencia+ castigo por el error + represión +ansiedad= aprendizaje efectivo

Es notorio que los elementos anteriores, considerados por muchos docentes y alumnos como un buen sistema educativo, son los mismos elementos que han mantenido reprimida la capacidad de pensamiento crítico en los países latinoamericanos. Entonces, estamos ante una andragogía negra  -su equivalente con los niños sería la pedagogía negra–  basada en el miedo y el abandono como elemento motivador para el aprendizaje. (Sarkissoff, 1996)

De esta manera, se hace posible el supuesto que podría descubrir una cultura de violencia, posible reminiscencia de una convulsa historia sociopolítica, internalizada en las mentes de los padres, hijos y universidades; a tal nivel que ese mecanismo de miedo y represión es considerado como algo que funciona y es idóneo en materia de aprendizaje y educación.

Es sabido que algunos alumnos no se sienten bien cuando un curso no les causa miedo o ansiedad, acusando que no es un curso exigente y, por ende, es deficiente. ¿De dónde viene ésta entrega masoquista? ¿De dónde viene la creencia que dicta, sufriendo se aprende?

Ante la anterior interrogante, planteo la siguiente hipótesis: existe un estado psicológico en el alumno que se acomoda fácilmente al régimen de una andragogía violenta: el estado regresivo del yo niño. Éste es un yo que, en muchos aspectos, depende de la autoridad, desea su aprobación y teme el rechazo, pero mucho más, teme la independencia, el pensamiento libre, y no se diga, las libres acciones que conllevan responsabilidad. El docente o profesor cumple entonces sus fantasías de poder sobre el sumiso alumno/niño.

El docente que practica la andragogía violenta manda el mensaje siguiente “hazlo únicamente como yo digo, cuando yo lo digo y como a mí me gusta. No puedes discutir las reglas, ni salirte de mis lineamientos; solamente si me agradas, aprenderás”.

Lo anterior es muy parecido a las exigencias parentales que condicionan el desarrollo de la individualidad del niño, en el ámbito familiar. Entonces, no sería extraño que, en el aula universitaria, se revivan traumas psicológicos de una delicada índole y de cierta cualidad inconsciente, muchas veces relacionadas a conflictos con las figuras de autoridad y la autonomía emocional no resueltos durante el desarrollo del estudiante; esto es lo que Freud llamó transferencia.

Son notorias, las implicaciones psicosociales de la andragogía violenta. Con este escrito, se desea evidenciar que muchos docentes aplican la andragogía violenta, ya sea por falta de capacitación o falta de introspección y salud mental. Tales docentes asocian el aprendizaje con estados de ansiedad y estrés como sine qua non del proceso enseñanza-aprendizaje.

  1. Objetivos de la Andragogía violenta

Desde un punto de vista psicológico, la andragogía violenta es un aprendizaje patológico o mórbido. Esta andragogía patológica está basada en los siguientes objetivos:

Incrementar la vergüenza por cometer un error en el aprendizaje

Debilitar el ego del estudiante y empoderar al docente

Fundamentar el pensamiento rígido y unilateral, desde un dogma didáctico

Incrementar la ansiedad como señal de buen aprendizaje y prestigio del docente

Continuar el mito que dice por las malas se aprende mejor, lo cual promueve un estado regresivo del yo, dependiente de la autoridad.

Promueve la obediencia intelectual como prueba de aprendizaje.

Es así como se hace evidente plantear una andragogía integrada con los supuestos de la salud mental; utilizando los enfoques más efectivos dentro de las teorías disponibles, con el objetivo de hacer del aprendizaje una experiencia constructiva, enriquecedora y, además, terapéutica, debido al alto contenido de reminiscencias psíquicas que se juegan en el salón de clases.

  1. Efecto terapéutico del aprendizaje

Considerando lo anterior, el aprendizaje puede dejar de ser traumático y apuntar a su potencial terapéutico. Muchos de los grandes temores y problemas psicológicos, ya sea de índole existencial, biográfico, cognitivo o emocional, pueden sanarse en gran parte a través de la experiencia que brinda un aprendizaje verdaderamente efectivo, significativo y enriquecedor.

Por ello, se propone que el aprendizaje debe ser no solo efectivo y constructivo de acuerdo al currículo de estudios y el incremento de las habilidades mentales del alumno; también debe ser sanador desde un punto de vista psicológico e integral.

Es así como debe diseñarse una estrategia de aprendizaje que no tenga como objetivo el dolor y el miedo del estudiante, al contrario, debe brindar oportunidades en las cuales pueda trascender sus inseguridades y problemas de auto estima.

El futuro de la salud mental preventiva no está solamente en las clínicas psicológicas, puede ocurrir también en las aulas, para evitar un funesto pronóstico educativo que trae generaciones de alumnos educados bajo patrones de andragogía patológica.

  1. Andragogía terapéutica

Con la idea de un diálogo interdisciplinario, el término aquí propuesto como andragogía terapéutica, considera que desde el comienzo de la académica con los griegos, y el aprendizaje discipular con maestros errantes de oriente, el aprender libera al ser humano de sus limitantes; puede hacerle libre pensador y a la vez responsable de su propio desarrollo.

Estos principios coinciden con los principios del tratamiento de la mente a través de la psicología y la filosofía. Por ende, la enseñanza de adultos puede y debe ser también un tratamiento para la mente, el cual le está brindando al alumno adulto en su presente, herramientas para lograr ser una persona libre y responsable de su propio desarrollo.

Es necesario dejar claro cuáles son algunos de los principios más aceptados de la andragogía hasta principios del siglo XXI. El concepto de Andragogía fue presentado por Malcolm Knowles. Esta idea se basó en que los niños y los adultos aprenden de maneras diferente, este principio fue innovador y desató mucha controversia e investigación. La andragogía en sí misma, tuvo bastante influencia de la psicología clínica, por ejemplo los aportes de Freud y la influencia de la mente inconsciente, Carl Jung, y sus conceptos de introversión y extroversión, Erik Erikson, y las ocho etapas del desarrollo humano, Maslow con su visión de la autorrealización humana y Carl Rogers con la educación centrada en el estudiante.  (Knowles, Holton, Swanson, 2005).

Es necesario para el presente trabajo revisar brevemente la estructura del modelo andragógico el cual se basa en varias concepciones diferentes al modelo pedagógico. A continuación, los principios del modelo:

La necesidad de aprender: los adultos necesitan saber porque algo tiene que ser aprendido y cuál es su propósito antes de empezar la tarea.

El autoconcepto del alumno: Los adultos tienen un autoconcepto de sí mismos el cual los hace responsables de sus propias decisiones y de sus propias vidas. Cuando han llegado a desarrollar este autoconcepto despierta una profunda necesidad psicológica de ser apreciados por otros y ser tratados por los otros como personas capaces de autodirigirse.

La experiencia de vida del alumno: los adultos llegan a la educación con una gran cantidad de experiencias de su juventud la cual varía tanto en calidad como en cantidad y ello tiene un impacto en su aprendizaje. Estas experiencias deben ser tomadas en cuenta y apreciadas.

Disposición hacia el aprendizaje: los adultos se disponen rápidamente a aprender aquellas cosas que necesitan saber para poder desempeñarse efectivamente en situaciones de la vida real.

Orientación hacia el aprendizaje: a diferencia de los niños y adolescentes, los adultos están centrados en la vida dentro de su orientación de aprendizaje. El adulto estará motivado en medida que perciba que lo que aprende le ayudará a realizar mejor su tarea en situaciones de la vida real.

Motivación: los adultos responden a motivación externa, como trabajos, promociones y aumentos salariales, pero el más potente motivador son sus presiones internas entiéndase como el deseo de incrementar su satisfacción, autoestima, calidad de vida y autorealización. (Knowles, Holton, Swanson, 2005).

Debido a lo anterior, la andragogía terapéutica puede facilitar la necesidad de aprender como parte de la autorrealización humana, puede favorecer que el alumno construya un autoconcepto funcional por medio del aprendizaje y ser responsable de su propia vida.

En lugar de miedo y ansiedad, el alumno podría descubrir en el aprendizaje mismo, una motivación existencial y profunda satisfacción. De no lograrse un efecto sanador en la andragogía, estaremos educando generaciones de profesionales rígidos, con una esterilidad intelectual que no les permitiría trascender sus límites y zonas de confort. Además, es muy posible que estos estudiantes algún día sean profesores que transmitan la andragogía del terror como único patrón de aprendizaje.

  1. Objetivos de la Andragogía Terapéutica

A continuación, propongo algunos objetivos de la andragogía terapéutica, esa que busca el efecto sanador y catalizador del potencial humano.

Promover la consciencia sobre el error y la ansiedad únicamente para aprender de ello y trascender esas limitantes.

Reforzar el yo del estudiante y empoderarlo desde una visión constructiva.

Fundamentar el pensamiento crítico desde una didáctica abierta, participativa, inclusiva, constructiva y significativa para el alumno.

Disminuir la ansiedad del aprendizaje y facilitar el placer como efecto de aprender algo nuevo.

Condicionar el aprendizaje con placer y autoestima, promoviendo la autonomía e independencia intelectual.

Facilitar la autonomía intelectual y el pensamiento crítico como evidencia de aprendizaje.

Más que una postura contestaría a los modelos caducos de enseñanza-aprendizaje, la andragogía terapéutica busca conciliar el aprendizaje de los adultos con la profunda satisfacción de construirse a sí mismo, facilitándose la libertad y autonomía a través de la profesión que se estudia y el placer del libre pensamiento.

Bibliografía

Brown, D. (2001). Teaching by Principles. Estados Unidos: Adisson Wesley.

Knowles, H. y. (2013). The Adult Learner. USA: Elsevie, Butterworth, Heinemann.

Sarkissoff, J. (1996). Cuerpo y Psicoanálisis. Bilbao: Desclée de Brouwer, S. A.

Artículo enviado por su autor a la redaccion de OVE

 Imagen tomada de: http://www.noticiasfides.com/img/news/i_organizan-ii-congreso-de-cultura-de-la-paz-que-busca-erradicar-la-violencia_18091.jpg

Comparte este contenido:

Brasil:UnB e ONU debatem violência contra mulher nas universidades

América del Sur/Brasil/Abril 2016/Fuente: y Autor: Nodal

Resumen: La Universidad Nacional de Brasilia y la ONU sostuvieron un encuentro para discutir propuestas entre la comunidad academica para la conscientización, prevención y penalización de la violencia hacia las mujeres en la institución.

O Decanato de Assuntos Comunitários da Universidade de Brasília (UnB) discutiu propostas da comunidade acadêmica para a conscientização, prevenção e enfrentamento à violência contra as mulheres na instituição.

O debate ocorre após a morte da estudante de biologia Louise Ribeiro, 20 anos, assassinada na UnB em 10 de março pelo ex-namorado e colega de curso, e em meio a relatos de machismo e violência contra mulher dentro dos campi.

A reunião e as ações propostas têm apoio da ONU Mulheres no Brasil. Segundo a decana de Assuntos Comunitários, Thérèse Hofmann, a ideia é otimizar todas ações e competências que a universidade tem e organizar uma rede para atender à comunidade acadêmica, incluindo parcerias externas.

As ações propostas hoje foram pensadas a partir de demandas das alunas, professoras e funcionárias. “Ficamos muito felizes com as novas contribuições. Partimos de uma base que poderia ser rejeitada, mas teve um bom acolhimento. Mas a Reitoria não vai fazer nada sozinha, o pressuposto da criação de uma rede é isso, agregar as competências”, disse.

Segundo a coordenadora da campanha da ONU Mulheres “Valente não é violento”, Amanda Kamanchek, a agência das Nações Unidas e a UnB assumiram o compromisso institucional de atuar para prevenir a violência contra mulheres por meio de um memorando de entendimento assinado em outubro de 2015, e algumas ações já foram desenvolvidas de lá para cá.

“Isso foi reforçado agora, com a morte da Louise, quando vimos a importância de trabalhar esse assunto e quanto os homens ainda precisam ouvir essa mensagem de que valente não é violento”, disse.

A UnB também já aderiu ao Movimento ElesPorElas (HeForShe) de Solidariedade pela Igualdade de Gênero, proposto pela ONU Mulheres, para mobilizar especialmente os homens e meninos na defesa dos direitos de mulheres e meninas.

Propostas para a UnB

Segundo Thérèse Hofmann, algumas propostas já podem ser efetivadas em 2016 e devem ser continuadas e repetidas a cada semestre, quando a universidade recebe mais de quatro mil novos estudantes. As propostas recebidas da comunidade acadêmica durante o debate serão analisadas e articuladas com os demais entes da universidade.

A primeira sugestão apresentada nesta terça-feira foi a de um curso de extensão sobre masculinidade para homens, incluindo docentes e técnicos administrativos.

“A ideia é que os homens possam refletir quais são as atitudes e comportamentos que levam à violência contra as mulheres. Para que eles entendam e possam desconstruir valores machistas. É um espaço para que eles se modifiquem”, disse Amanda, da ONU Mulheres.

Outras iniciativas de formação incluem cursos de extensão sobre feminicídio; formação de professoras e professores em gênero e relações raciais; criação de disciplina sobre pensamento social brasileiro e relações de gênero; e realização de um ciclo de palestras sobre direitos das mulheres.

Entre as propostas administrativas estão a auditoria de segurança das mulheres nos campi da UnB; campanha pelo fim da violência contras as mulheres, preparadas e discutidas pelos próprios estudantes; concurso de vídeos de um minuto com o tema da campanha da ONU Mulheres; promoção de trote sem violência, racismo, sexismo e lesbohomotransfobia; e inclusão do tema diversidade na revista ParticipAção, do Decanato de Extensão.

Acolhimento

Para a professora Lourdes Bandeira, do Núcleo de Estudos e Pesquisa sobre a Mulher, a violência contra mulher tem se acirrado não só na universidade mas na sociedade brasileira.

“E como universidade temos que contribuir para que essa violência deixe de existir, como o caso que tivemos recentemente [da morte da estudante Louise], sem contar o cotidiano que é pautado por assédios e violências simbólicas, além do estupro”, disse.

Segundo Lourdes, as atividades propostas no debate de hoje são positivas, mas devem ser articuladas para ter visibilidade e abrangência maiores. A professora sugere que a UnB tenha um centro de acolhimento, com equipe multidisciplinar, para prestar informações, alertar e atender a mulheres e homens que sofrem ou sofreram violência de gênero.

“Quando a Louise recebeu o e-mail do ex-namorado dizendo que ele queria se matar, se ela tivesse passado em um centro desse teria sido mais difícil aquilo acontecer.”

 

Fuente de la noticia:http://www.nodal.am/2016/04/brasil-universidad-y-onu-discuten-propuestas-para-erradicar-las-violencias-hacia-mujeres/

Fuente de la imagen:http://www.nodal.am/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/size_810_16_9_mulher-luta-pelos-seus-proprios-direitos-e-pela-vida.jpg

Comparte este contenido:

Gun Culture and the American Nightmare of Violence

Henry Giroux

_______________________________________________________________________________

OVE Prensa. La violencia armada en los Estados Unidos ha producido una cultura empapada en sangre – una cultura que amenaza a todos y se extiende desde las muertes accidentales, suicidios y violencia doméstica a fusilamientos masivos. A finales de diciembre, una mujer en St. Cloud, Florida, fatalmente disparó a su propia hija después de confundirla a ella con un intruso. A menos de un mes antes, el 2 de diciembre, en San Bernardino, California, ocurrió el tiroteo que dejó 14 muertos y más de 20 heridos. Y  tan sólo dos meses antes de que, el 1 de octubre, nueve personas murieran y siete resultaron heridas en un tiroteo en un colegio comunitario en Roseburg, Oregón.

Muertes masivas por armas se han convertido en rutina en los Estados Unidos y ello nos habla de una sociedad que se basa en la violencia para alimentar las arcas de los mercaderes de la muerte. Teniendo en cuenta los beneficios obtenidos por los fabricantes de armas, la industria de defensa, los comerciantes de armas y los grupos de presión que los representan en el Congreso, no es ninguna sorpresa que la cultura de la violencia no pueda abstraerse de la cultura, ya sea de negocios o de la corrupción existente en la política.  De ello nos habla en este artículo Henry Giroux

___________________________________________________________________________

 

 

activistas 1
 Gun violence in the United States has produced a culture soaked in blood – a culture that threatens everyone and extends from accidental deaths, suicides and domestic violence to mass shootings. In late December, a woman in St. Cloud, Florida, fatally shot her own daughter after mistaking her for an intruder. Less than a month earlier, on December 2, in San Bernardino, California, was the mass shooting that left 14 people dead and more than 20 wounded. And just two months before that, on October 1, nine people were killed and seven wounded in a mass shooting at a community college in Roseburg, Oregon.

Mass shootings have become routine in the United States and speak to a society that relies on violence to feed the coffers of the merchants of death. Given the profits made by arms manufacturers, the defense industry, gun dealers and the lobbyists who represent them in Congress, it comes as no surprise that the culture of violence cannot be abstracted from either the culture of business or the corruption of politics. Violence runs through US society like an electric current offering instant pleasure from all cultural sources, whether it be the nightly news or a television series that glorifies serial killers.

At a policy level, violence drives the arms industry and a militaristic foreign policy, and is increasingly the punishing state’s major tool to enforce its hyped-up brand of domestic terrorism, especially against Black youth. The United States is utterly wedded to a neoliberal culture in which cruelty is viewed as virtue, while mass incarceration is treated as the chief mechanism to «institutionalize obedience.» At the same time, a shark-like mode of competition replaces any viable notion of solidarity, and a sabotaging notion of self-interest pushes society into the false lure of mass consumerism. The increasing number of mass shootings is symptomatic of a society engulfed in racism, fear, militarism, bigotry and massive inequities in wealth and power.

Guns and the hypermasculine culture of violence are given more support than young people and life itself.

Over 270 mass shootings have taken place in the United States in 2015 alone, proving once again that the economic, political and social conditions that underlie such violence are not being addressed. Sadly, these shootings are not isolated incidents. For example, one child under 12 years old has been killed every other day by a firearm, which amounts to 555 children killed by guns in three years. An even more frightening statistic and example of a shocking moral and political perversity wasnoted in data provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which states that «2,525 children and teens died by gunfire in [the United States] in 2014; one child or teen death every 3 hours and 28 minutes, nearly 7 a day, 48 a week.» Such figures indicate that too many youth in the United States occupy what might be called war zones in which guns and violence proliferate. In this scenario, guns and the hypermasculine culture of violence are given more support than young people and life itself.

The predominance of a relatively unchecked gun culture and a morally perverse and politically obscene culture of violence is particularly evident in the power of the gun lobby and its political advocates to pass laws in eight states to allow students and faculty to carry concealed weapons «into classrooms, dormitories and other buildings» on campuses. In spite of the rash of recent shootings on college campuses, Texas lawmakers, for instance, passed one such «campus carry bill,» which will take effect in August 2016. To add insult to injury, they also passed an «open carry bill» that allows registered gun owners to carry their guns openly in public. Such laws not only reflect «the seemingly limitless legislative clout of gun interests,» but also a rather irrational return to the violence-laden culture of the «Wild West.»

To read more articles by Henry A. Giroux and other authors in the Public Intellectual Project, click here.

As in the past, individuals will be allowed to walk the streets, while openly carrying guns and packing heat as a measure of their love of guns and their reliance upon violence as the best way to address any perceived threat to their security. This return to the deadly practices of the » Wild West» is neither a matter of individual choice nor some far-fetched yet allegedly legitimate appeal to the Second Amendment. On the contrary, mass violence in the United States has to be placed within a broader historical, economic and political context in order to address the totality of the forces that produce it. Focusing merely on mass shootings or the passing of potentially dangerous gun legislation does not get to the root of the systemic forces that produce the United States’ love affair with violence and the ideologies and criminogenic institutions that produce it.

Imperial policies that promote aggression all across the globe are now matched by increasing levels of lawlessness and state repression, which mutually feed each other. On the home front, civil society is degenerating into a military organization, a space of lawlessness and warlike practices, organized primarily for the production of violence. For instance, as Steve Martinot observes at CounterPunch, the police now use their discourse of command and power to criminalize behavior; in addition, they use military weapons and surveillance tools as if they are preparing for war, and create a culture of fear in which militaristic principles replace legal principles. He writes:

This suggests that there is an institutional insecurity that seeks to cover itself through social control … the cops act out this insecurity by criminalizing individuals in advance. No legal principle need be involved. There is only the militarist principle…. When police shoot a fleeing subject and claim they are acting in self-defense (i.e. threatened), it is not their person but the command and control principle that is threatened. To defend that control through assault or murderous action against a disobedient person implies that the cop’s own identity is wholly immersed in its paradigm. There is nothing psychological about this. Self-worth or insecurity is not the issue. There is only the military ethic of power, imposed on civil society through an assumption of impunity. It is the ethos of democracy, of human self-respect, that is the threat.

The rise of violence and the gun culture in the United States cannot be separated from a transformation in governance in the United States. Political sovereignty has been replaced by economic sovereignty as corporate power takes over the reins of governance. The more money influences politics, the more corrupt the political culture becomes. Under such circumstances, holding office is largely dependent on having huge amounts of capital at one’s disposal, while laws and policies at all levels of government are mostly fashioned by lobbyists representing big business corporations and financial institutions. Moreover, such lobbying, as corrupt and unethical as it may be, is now carried out in the open by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other individuals, groups and institutions invested in the militarization of US society. This lobbying is then displayed as a badge of honor – a kind of open testimonial to the lobbyists’ disrespect for democratic governance.

But money in politics is not the only major institutional factor in which everyday and state violence are nourished by a growing militarism. As David Theo Goldberg has argued in his essay «Mission Accomplished: Militarizing Social Logic,» the military has also assumed a central role in shaping all aspects of society. Militarization is about more than the use of repressive power; it also represents a powerful social logic that is constitutive of values, modes of rationality and ways of thinking. According to Goldberg,

The military is not just a fighting machine…. It serves and socializes. It hands down to the society, as big brother might, its more or less perfected goods, from gunpowder to guns, computing to information management … In short, while militarily produced instruments might be retooled to other, broader social purpose – the military shapes pretty much the entire range of social production from commodities to culture, social goods to social theory.

The militarization and corporatization of social logic permeates US society. The general public in the United States is largely depoliticized through the influence of corporations over schools, higher education and other cultural apparatuses. The deadening of public values, civic consciousness and critical citizenship are also the result of the work of anti-public intellectuals representing right-wing ideological and financial interests, a powerful set of corporate-controlled media agencies that are largely center-right and a market-driven public pedagogy that reduces the obligations of citizenship to the endless consumption and discarding of commodities. Military ideals permeate every aspect of popular culture, policy and social relations. In addition, a pedagogy of historical, social and racial amnesia is constructed and circulated through celebrity and consumer culture.

A war culture now shapes every aspect of society as warlike values, a hypermasculinity and an aggressive militarism seep into every major institution in the United States, including schools, the corporate media and local police forces. The criminal legal system has become the default structure for dealing with social problems. More and more people are considered disposable because they offend the sensibilities of the financial elite, who are rapidly consolidating class power. Under such circumstances, violence occupies an honored place.

Militarism provides ideological support for policies that protect gun owners and sellers rather than children.

It is impossible to understand the rise of gun culture and violence in the United States without thinking about the maturation of the military state. Since the end of the Cold War the United States has built «the most expensive and lethal military force in the world.» The defense budget for 2015 totaled $598.5 billion and accounted for 54 percent of all federal discretionary spending. The US defense budget is both larger than the combined G-20 and «more than the combined military spending of China, Russia, the United Kingdom, Japan, France, Saudi Arabia, India, Germany, Italy and Brazil,» according to an NBC report. Since 9/11, the United States has intensified both the range of its military power abroad while increasing the ongoing militarization of US society. The United States circles the globe with around 800 military bases, producing a massive worldwide landscape of military force, at an «annual cost of $156 billion,» according to a report by David Vine in The Nation.

Moreover, Vine adds, «there are US troops or other military personnel in about 160 foreign countries and territories, including small numbers of Marines guarding embassies and larger deployments of trainers and advisers like the roughly 3,500 now working with the Iraqi army.» Not only is the Pentagon in an unprecedented position of power, but also it thrives on a morally bankrupt vision of domestic and foreign policy dependent upon a world defined by terrorism, enemies and perpetual fear. Military arms are now transferred to local police departments, drone bases proliferate, and secret bases around the world support special operations, Navy SEALs, CIA personnel, Army Rangers and other clandestine groups, as Nick Turse has shown in Tomorrow’s Battlefield. Under such circumstances, it is not surprising, as Andrew Bacevich points out, that «war has become a normal condition [and the] use of violence has become the preferred «instrument of statecraft.»

Violence feeds on corporate-controlled disimagination machines that celebrate it as a sport while upping the pleasure quotient for the public. Americans do not merely engage in violence; they are also entertained by it. This kind of toxic irrationality and lure of violence is mimicked in the United States’ aggressive foreign policy, in the sanctioning of state torture and in the gruesome killings of civilians by drones. As my colleague David L. Clark pointed out to me in an email, voters’ support for » bombing make-believe countries [with Arab-sounding names] is not a symptom of muddled confusion but, quite to the contrary, a sign of unerring precision. It describes the desire to militarize nothing less than the imagination and to target the minutiae of our dreams.» State repression, unbridled self-interest, an empty consumerist ethos and an expansive militarism have furthered the conditions for society to flirt with forms of irrationality that are at the heart of everyday aggression, violence and the withering of public life.

Pushback Against Gun Control Efforts

Warlike values no longer suggest a pathological entanglement with a kind of mad irrationality or danger. On the contrary, they have become a matter of common sense. For instance, the US government is willing to lock down a major city such as Boston in order to catch a terrorist or prevent a terrorist attack, but refuses to pass gun control bills that would significantly lower the number of Americans who die each year as a result of gun violence. As Michael Cohen observes, it is truly a symptom of irrationality when politicians can lose their heads over the threat of terrorism, even sacrificing civil liberties, but ignore the fact that «30,000 Americans die in gun violence every year (compared to the 17 who died [in 2012] in terrorist attacks).» It gets worse.

As the threat of terrorism is used by the US government to construct a surveillance state, suspend civil liberties and accelerate the forces of authoritarianism, the fear of personal and collective violence has no rational bearing on addressing the morbid acceleration of gun violence. In fact, the fear of terrorism appears to feed a toxic culture of violence produced, in part, by the wide and unchecked availability of guns. The United States’ fascination with guns and violence functions as a form of sport and entertainment, while gun culture offers a false promise of security. In this logic, one not only kills terrorists with drones, but also makes sure that patriotic Americans are individually armed so they can use force to protect themselves against the apparitions whipped up by right-wing politicians, pundits and the corporate-controlled media.

Rather than bring violence into a political debate that would limit its production, various states increase its possibilities by passing laws that allow guns at places from bars to houses of worship. Florida’s «stand your ground» law, based on the notion that one should shoot first and ask questions later, is a morbid reflection of the United States’ adulation of gun culture and the fears that fuel it. This fascination with guns and violence has infected the highest levels of government and serves to further anti-democratic and authoritarian forces. For example, the US government’s warfare state is propelled by a military-industrial complex that cannot spend enough on weapons of death and destruction. Super modern planes such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter cost up to $228 million each and are plagued by mechanical problems and yet are supported by a military and defense establishment. As Gabriel Kolko observes, such warlike investments «reflect a pathology and culture that is expressed in spending more money,» regardless of how it contributes to running up the debt, and that thrives on whatanthropologist João Biehl has described as «the energies of the dead.»

Militarism provides ideological support for policies that protect gun owners and sellers rather than children. The Children’s Defense Fund is right in stating, «Where is our anti-war movement here at home? Why does a nation with the largest military budget in the world refuse to protect its children from relentless gun violence and terrorism at home? No external enemy ever killed thousands of children in their neighborhoods, streets and schools year in and year out.»

There is a not-so-hidden structure of politics at work in this type of sanctioned irrationality. Advocating for gun rights provides a convenient discourse for ignoring what Carl Boggs has described as a «harsh neoliberal corporate-state order that routinely generates pervasive material suffering, social dislocation, and psychological despair – worsening conditions that ensure violence in its many expressions.»

As the United States moves from a welfare state to a warfare state, state violence becomes normalized. The United States’ moral compass and its highest democratic ideals have begun to wither, and the institutions that were once designed to help people now serve to largely suppress them. Gun laws matter, social responsibility matters and a government responsive to its people matters, especially when it comes to limiting the effects of a mercenary gun culture. But more has to be done. The dominance of gun lobbyists must end; the reign of money-controlled politics must end; the proliferation of high levels of violence in popular culture, and the ongoing militarization of US society must end. At the same time, it is crucial, as participants in the Black Lives Matter movement have argued, for Americans to refuse to endorse the kind of gun control that criminalizes young people of color.

Moderate calls for reining in the gun culture and its political advocates do not go far enough because they fail to address the roots of the violence causing so much carnage in the United States, especially among children and teens. For example, Hillary Clinton’s much publicized call for controlling the gun lobby and improving background checks, however well intentioned, did not include anything about a culture of lawlessness and violence reproduced by the government, the financial elites and the defense industries, or a casino capitalism that is built on corruption and produces massive amounts of human misery and suffering. Moreover, none of the calls to eliminate gun violence in the United States link such violence to the broader war on youth, especially poor youth of color.

A Culture of Violence

It would be wrong to suggest that the violence that saturates popular culture directly causes violence in the larger society. Nevertheless, it is arguable that depictions of violence serve to normalize violence as both a source of pleasure and as a practice for addressing social issues. When young people and others begin to believe that a world of extreme violence, vengeance, lawlessness and revenge is the only world they inhabit, the culture and practice of real-life violence is more difficult to scrutinize, resist and transform.

Many critics have argued that a popular culture that endlessly trades in violence runs the risk of blurring the lines between the world of fantasies and the world we live in. What they often miss is that when violence is celebrated in its myriad registers and platforms in a society, a formative culture is put in place that is amenable to the pathology of fascism. That is, a culture that thrives on violence runs the risk of losing its capacity to separate politics from violence. A.O. Scott recognizes such a connection between gun violence and popular culture, but he fails to register the deeper significance of the relationship. He writes:

… it is absurd to pretend that gun culture is unrelated to popular culture, or that make-believe violence has nothing to do with its real-world correlative. Guns have symbolic as well as actual power, and the practical business of hunting, law enforcement and self-defense has less purchase in our civic life than fantasies of righteous vengeance or brave resistance…. [Violent] fantasies have proliferated and intensified even as our daily existence has become more regulated and standardized – and also less dangerous. Perhaps they offer an escape from the boredom and regimentation of work and consumption.

Popular culture not only trades in violence as entertainment, but also it delivers violence to a society addicted to a pleasure principle steeped in graphic and extreme images of human suffering, mayhem and torture. While the Obama administration banned waterboarding as an interrogation method in January 2009, it appears to be thriving as a legitimate procedure in a number of prominent Hollywood films, including Safe House, Zero Dark Thirty, G.I. Jane and Taken 3. The use of and legitimation of torture by the government is not limited to Hollywood films. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump announced recently on ABC’s «This Week» that he would bring back waterboarding because it «is peanuts compared to what they do to us.» It appears that moral depravity and the flight from social responsibility have no limits in an authoritarian political landscape.

Gun Violence Is Just the Tip of the Iceberg

The United States is suffering from an epidemic of violence, and much of it results in the shooting and killing of children. In announcing his package of executive actions to reduce gun violence, President Obama singled out both the gun lobby and Congress for refusing to implement even moderate gun control reforms. Obama was right on target in stating that «the gun lobby may be holding Congress hostage right now, but they cannot hold America hostage. We do not have to accept this carnage as the price of freedom.» Congress’s refusal to enact any type of gun control is symptomatic of the death of US democracy and the way in which money and power now govern the United States. Under a regime of casino capitalism, wealth and profits are more important than keeping the American people safe, more worthwhile than preventing a flood of violence across the land, and more valued than even the lives of young children caught in the hail of gunfire.

In spite of the empty bluster of Republican politicians claiming that Obama is violating the US Constitution with executive overreach, threatening to take guns away from the American people or undermining the Second Amendment, the not-so-hidden politics at work in these claims is one that points to the collapse of ethics, compassion and responsibility in the face of a militarized culture defined by the financial elite, gun lobbies and big corporations. Such forces represent a take-no-prisoners approach and refuse to even consider Obama’s call for strengthening background checks, limiting the unchecked sale of firearms by gun sellers, developing «smart gun» technologies, and preventing those on the United States’ terrorist watch list from purchasing guns. These initiatives hardly constitute a threat to gun ownership in the United States.

Guns are certainly a major problem in the United States, but they are symptomatic of a much larger crisis: Our country has tipped over into a new and deadly form of authoritarianism. We have become one of the most violent cultures on the planet and regulating guns does not get to the root of the problem. Zhiwa Woodbury touches on this issue at Tikkun Daily, writing:

We are a country of approximately 300 million people with approximately 300 million firearms – a third of which are concealable handguns. Each one of these guns is made for one purpose only – to kill as quickly and effectively as possible. The idea that some magical regulatory scheme, short of confiscation, will somehow prevent guns from being used to kill people is laughable, regardless of what you think of the NRA. Similarly, mentally ill individuals are responsible for less than 5% of the 30,000+ gunned down in the U.S. every year.

In the current historical conjuncture, gun violence makes a mockery of safe public spaces, gives rise to institutions and cultural apparatuses that embrace a deadly war psychology, and trades on fear and insecurity to undermine any sense of shared responsibility. It is no coincidence that the violence of prisons is related to the violence produced by police in the streets; it is no coincidence that the brutal masculine authority that now dominates US politics, with its unabashed hatred of women, poor people, Black people, Muslims and Mexican immigrants, shares an uncanny form of lawlessness with a long tradition of 20th century authoritarianism.

As violence moves to the center of American life, it becomes an organizing principle of society, and further contributes to the unraveling of the fabric of a democracy. Under such circumstances, the United States begins to consider everyone a potential criminal, wages war with itself and begins to sacrifice its children and its future. The political stooges, who have become lapdogs of corporate and financial interests, and refuse out of narrow self- and financial interests to confront the conditions that create such violence, must be held accountable for the deaths taking place in a toxic culture of gun violence. The condemnation of violence cannot be limited to police brutality. Violence does not just come from the police. In the United States, there are other dangers emanating from state power that punishes whistleblowers, intelligence agencies that encourage the arrests of those who protest against the abuse of corporate and state power, and a corporate-controlled media that trades in ignorance, lies and falsehoods, all the while demanding and generally «receiving unwavering support from their citizens,» as Teju Cole has pointed out in The New Yorker.

Yet, the only reforms we hear about are for safer gun policies, mandatory body-worn cameras for the police and more background checks. These may be well-intentioned reforms, but they do not get to the root of the problem, which is a social and economic system that trades in death in order to accumulate profits. What we don’t hear about are the people who trade their conscience for supporting the gun lobby, particularly the NRA. These are the politicians in Congress who create the conditions for mass shootings and gun violence because they have been bought and sold by the apostles of the death industry. These are the same politicians who support the militarization of everyday life, who trade in torture, who bow down slavishly to the arms industries and who wallow in the handouts provided by the military-industrial-academic complex.

These utterly corrupted politicians are killers in suits whose test of courage and toughness was captured in one of the recent Republican presidential debates, when candidate Ben Carson was asked by Hugh Hewitt, a reactionary right-wing talk show host, if he would be willing to kill thousands of children in the name of exercising tough leadership. As if killing innocent children is a legitimate test for leadership. This is what the warmongering politics of hysterical fear with its unbridled focus on terrorism has come to – a future that will be defined by moral and political zombies who represent the real face of terrorism, domestic and otherwise.

Clearly, the cause of violence in the United States will not stop by merely holding the politicians responsible. What is needed is a mass political movement willing to challenge and replace a broken system that gives corrupt and warmongering politicians excessive political and economic power. Democracy and justice are on life support and the challenge is to bring them back to life not by reforming the system but by replacing it. This will only take place with the development of a politics in which the obligation to justice is matched by an endless responsibility to collective struggle.

Note: Parts of this article were drawn from an earlier version published at CounterPunch.

Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission of the author.

Comparte este contenido: