So says Charly García in that beautiful song that is part of what (perhaps) is his best album: “Part of religion.” Nothing has been, nor is nor will be perfect: we are in a summer carrousel, dealing with the possibility of that dreaded ring touching us – that they put a long swab in our nose that confirms the fear: getting sick from Covid – but knowing that there is no other merry-go-round that we can get on. Democracy carrousel. We all – more, less, half, but all of us – live a life that is different from the one we had before March of last year – when the virus seemed like a dystopian and foreign fantasy – as well as different from the one we could sustain in May – of the zoom to bed and from bed to zoom–.
Saying that nothing is perfect seems simple but it is definitive and may be better formulated like this: When everything is so silver there are colors that cannot enter. Let’s say then: voluntarism and realism organize clumsy pairs that lead to even more confused readings. The “militancy” of the quarantine – as if the same compliance was not requested in the face of enormously unequal realities – or the “realpolitik” – as if the virus were its own government against which politics could not propose, or at least manage. And something else: an underground fever but perhaps more furious, that of the self – which of course is not the use of the first person, but the position of enunciation – as a measure of all things before causes (or criticisms of causes): me and peronism, me and feminism, me and the pandemic. Both I leave little room for the other, and without that “other” nothing can be done about the trios between norms, beliefs and reasons – which are, pulled against the strings, ways of reading the latest interventions that, from different perspectives, are thinking about crowds, youth, vacations, nights, education. The world collapses and we take pictures of ourselves. The personal is political does not oblige us – compulsively – to a politics of selfie.
In the political word there are words key and words plug. The first are those that expand, those that sometimes do not even matter in themselves but in their effects, in what they cause, in what happens to them. The second are those that close, those that are said to stop thinking, those that have so much agreement or disagreement on top that they end up canceling the disputes that they would entail. Furthermore, a priori there are no words key ni plugRather, they operate as situational and relative modalities. The struggles for identity and nomination are organized like this, crisp, overlapping between the two. Art sharpens the language, shows what is still strong or what only groups common places. Although not even because those words cannot be used, but because we continue to use them “despite”. Not as a mere change of words but as slips, as words that help to think different things. The (at times) spent “neoliberalism” and more recently the quarantine, the pandemic (even to the “school” or “albertism”), what do they say, what are they or what do they organize today?
A government is never just a government and not all political imagination is state imagination. A government is not a blank page or a zero minute of mere application of campaign programs: it deals all the time with what it touches – the structural lack of dollars, the previous indebtedness, the international prices of commodities, and the hard core of the problem, the increase in poverty, along with the last ten months of an unprecedented and contagious global disease, Covid 19–. But if a government is what it does with what its time makes of it, politics is not moral – supporting the good and condemning the bad -: it is conflict. And because of what happens, especially, between the orders of the conflicts. Consensus exists because conflict exists; if there were an a priori agreement, the same notion would cease to exist. A political cycle is engraved in rock when it produces an epoch and for that, even in the face of great difficulties or challenges, it is not possible to go from an area of promise to an area of uncertainties.
Create one, two, a thousand albertisms It should not be closed in an “albertism” tailored to each of our own dreams – which only returns to the passion of that self, the little dog in the meme. Although I do return to this: moderation is not a policy in itself, it is a path for transformative policies, as has happened with the management almost like Tetris that Martín Guzmán exercises (even the opposition recognizes that there is no alternative economic plan) and the promulgation – together with the plan of the thousand days plan – of the legalization of the voluntary interruption of pregnancy (IVE). Chance – that of affections, always the greatest chance – has made Vilma Ibarra not “first lady” and now she has entered the pantheon of the most important women in politics in the last twenty years: promoter and architect of this law and that of equal marriage. It matters to win, and it matters how.
Wild accounts: fine-tuning of details with the IMF, bid for the continuity of the rate freeze or the proposal of segmentations, crunches in the relationship with private health services (finally prepaid payments cannot increase fees), crossovers (already placated) for corn exports, claims from sectors that have not yet been able to open or are unable to recover their costs. And Menem lives. But in the face of the calculations – which do not project a return to the IFE or the ATP – Covid-19 once again confronts the State (and society) at its zero degree. Bow your head in front of something bigger than us: more than two million people die from coronavirus worldwide, the first case of the British strain in Argentina has been confirmed and, after the decline in infections after the first peak, Since mid-December the entire country – although with more force in the AMBA – shows cases on the increase. A pandemic is manageable but not manageable: it mutates, grows, expands, defies logic and projections. And it is an X-ray of inequalities that are worsening: geopolitical, federal, economic, gender.
Three vertices of a triangle tense the last days: the arrival of a new Aerolineas Argentinas plane with another 300 thousand doses of the Sputnik V vaccine and the discussions about the application scheme, the debates about the reopening –or the modality of reopening, because education was never closed – of schools and the news that in Sierra de los Padres policemen raided a meeting of couples swinger and they mistook them for a strip show. Outside of the extremes, health policies, as noted, do not have to crack, as if their non-compliance had a unique translation. Many people can demand the right to education without necessarily being “opponents” of either the government or the DISPO measures. Break down “compliance” as a synonym for citizenship (of true citizenship, of course) so that “otherness” is not a to this built to measure of prejudice.
January 15 will be 102 years since the murder of Rosa Luxemburg and this year also remembers 150 years of the birth of who was the best analyst on the “petty bourgeois character”, none black sheep ni rebellious daughter of the bourgeoisie but a true revolutionary of the middle class. Of that same middle class that sometimes produces the “barbarization” that they accuse that same sector of doing toward “the poor” towards another sector of their class. (A “clientelist” thinking of the middle class.) Because also more than a “class perspective” it is a perspective of the class within the class (owners and renters, car owners and users of public transport, whether or not they are able to hiring private house workers to make up for the lack of other forms of domestic organization, and so on). Neither folklorize the “other” nor horizontalize differences. It is the same “barbarism” in front of the beach of the 1940s that is outraged at the “clandestine party” in Mar del Plata: social subjects change but that “other” is “other.” An other is an other is an other. “Making” the class is a process that begins in the wallet, although it does not end there.
Nicolás Viotti, anthropologist and researcher at Conicet, points out: “The ‘normative looks’ point to the lack of adaptation to official norms and binary oppose ‘individualism’ (often associated with the idea of irresponsibility or, at worst the cases, to psychologist interpretations about the “repression”) against solidarity. In their worst versions, these polarizations are folded with supposed political identities, which would make individualism a conservative and right-wing phenomenon and solidarity and respect for the exclusionary norm of the commitment of caring and responsible citizens. The beliefs would be more or less identified with specific groups (the poor, the runners, those from Palermo, those who are going to Pinamar, the young people). To begin with, it would be necessary to moralize less that other person who is trying to convince. There is another view of the social sciences, perhaps more minority, embodied for example in the interventions of Ariel Wilkis and Pablo Semán. There is not a binary between solidarity and selfishness, neither between rational and irrational, but rather a reading about social action during isolation, in which we are all involved and in which we are all a bit of both depending on the contexts. This reading, in turn, also has an associated policy that is not that of the ‘cultural battle for COVID-19’ (battle for representations that would always seem to be half abstract), or in any case yes, but considering and not criticizing the other -interpelling him and assuming his own logic- which is, in principle, not to denigrate his belief as irrational or anti-solidarity. “
We imagined starting a year with the pandemic in retreat, and the future has become precarious, random. The multiple realities make “stay at home (infinitely)” opaque, but the opposite is not crowding, carelessness, or irresponsibility. Between confinement and freedom, risk may arise as a bet. This is how Alexandra Kohan reads Anne Dufourmantelle, “far from those moralisms that push us to live a life no matter what, or pure madness, but rather as that which ‘opens an unknown space’, which rushes as resistance to neurotic life, that which he calculates that he does not put anything at stake ”. It would not be about becoming judges or priests of the “pandemic capital” or of the literacy conditions of the pandemic of others, but rather the construction – always in conflict – of ways of living together. Opposites touch because the arrows point both ways. There are many people with Conicet chinstraps who, when the potatoes burn, we smoke on the public street. Pointing out the paradoxes is not being outside of them.