Archives

Progressistes socials i retrògrads tecnològics: nostàlgics (1era part)

Aquest és un tema que sempre m'ha sobtat. Com és que hi ha tanta gent que és molt progressista socialment (nous drets, ecològics, noves idees, participació social i en associacions, activistes, feministes, antiglobalització, pacifistes, pro medicina alternativa i palestina, matrimonis homosexuals, d'esquerres, 0.7, etc.) però al mateix temps tenen una por/odi tant gran a les noves tecnologies?

Bons exemples són la Tele, el Microones, les xarxes socials i Internet en general, els telèfons mòbils i ara els smartphones, que utilitzen amb recança (fins que s'hi acostumen) i que no dubten en demonitzar. Són gent que amb cada nova innovació tecnològica posen el crit al cel dient que s'acaba el món, que s'acaba la societat, que els tractes humans es perverteixen, etc.

Una possible explicació és que potser la terminologia de "progressistes" socials no és del tot certa. I és que actualment molts d'aquests valors i discursos "progresssistes" tenen ben poc de novedosos i són més aviat nostàlgics (retrògrads fins i tot en alguns casos) que van néixer en un context molt diferent de l'actual. Alguns exemples podrien ser la defensa de l'Estat del benestar (un Estat que cuida als ciutadans com a nens), del discursos anti-nuclears dels anys 70, del progres dels 90s, de Greenpeace, de l'ajuda al desenvolupament, de les lluites feministes de principis de segle, del comunisme, dels hippies i Woodstocks, etc...

Tot això no té res de nou, són idees que en el seu moment van jugar un paper progressista i moltes d'elles van tenir un impacte important i notori en la societat, és més, algunes d'elles van arribar a ser (i continuen sent) mainstream, ni alternatives ni progressites. Ser pro-Palestina, tenir certa consciència ecològica, defensar certes condicions laborals, etc... és avui la norma en aquesta societat.

Una altra opció és que de fet, tot i que remugint tant contra aquestes noves tecnologies i potser es puguin considerar early adopters (especialment tenint en compte la seva classe social i nivell educatiu). És a dir,  a mig plaç i tenint en compte tota la societat, en el fons també acaben essent dels primers en tenir mòbil, gps i el què faci falta.



LES DONES COBREN SALARIS MÉS BAIXOS PER LA "MATEIXA FEINA"? NO. SIMPLEMENT TENEN PITJORS FEINES

Avui ha tornat a sortir la dada de que existeix un diferencial del 22% entre homes i dones que fan la mateixa feina i m'ha tornat a picar la mosca al nas. A veure, en cap moment vull posar en dubte que hi ha desigualtats estructurals persistents de gènere a Catalunya, Espanya i a tot el món, però el què no acabo d'entendre és com es pot aconseguir aquesta dada sobretot si tenim en compte el tema de "per la mateixa feina". I és que això de la mateixa feina és molt relatiu. S'ha de tenir en compte el sector, l'escala, quin tipus d'empresa (gran, petita, multinacional, etc.), l'antiguitat, les hores que es treballen, els plusos, etc... amb la qual cosa segurament no hi ha dues feines iguals.

Així doncs he començat una investigació per descobrir com s'ho fan per calcular això i pel què sembla, la veritat és que no es pot fer, i que el què ens venen com a desigualtat salarial per la mateixa feina és més aviat la desigualtat salarial mitjana (independentment de la feina) i que s'explica per moltes coses i no només per la discriminació de genere.




IAIN M. BANKS: CIENCIA FICCIÓN MUY REAL

Soy un gran admirador del escritor Iain Banks que descubrí ya hace unos años por la magnificamente terrible nobela "The Wasp Factory" (La Fábrica de Avispas) y después por la extraña "The Bridge" o la negra "Complicity".
Y lo que más me sorprende es lo muy olvidado que está este escritor (ecologista e independentista escocés) multipremiado en las traducciones al castellano y en las librerías . Sin duda el potencial de sus novelas es enorme!!!


Pero por si no fuera suficiente, además el mismo escritor per bajo el nombre de Iain M. Banks ha publicado también magníficas novelas de ciencia ficción de las que destaca la saga de The Culture que no se debería perder ningún amante del género y que me gustaría que Hollywood pasara a la gran pantalla.

En The Culture se pueden encontrar influencias de los grandes clásicos de la ciencia ficción com Isaac Asimov o Arthur C. Clark, en el que la tecnologia casi nunca es el centro de la história, sino más bien la política (com en la sagrada trilogía de La Fundación). Así crea un mundo limitado por la galaxia en el que las diferentes civilizaciones son clasificadas en una escalera del 1 al 7, con tan solo 5 o 6 en el nivel máximo. No hay nivel 8, porque en este estadio la civilización "trasciende" y desaparece. Una de estas civilizaciones de nivel evolutivo máximo es The Culture, que se caracterizan por su buenismo, por ser superhightech, muy ociosos, hiperindividualistas, un tanto ingenuos, excéntricos y banidosos, despreoucupados però obsesionados por la seguridad,... y sí, son un poco como occidente/anglosajones/EEUU del mundo actual, siempre metiendose en embrollos político/diplomáticos para conseguir el bien pese a que no siempre sea así ni con buenas maneras. Además estan dirigidos por hubs informáticos conscientes y con personalidad, androides, glandulas salivares que puedes secretar drogas a voluntad, pueden cambiar de forma, cuerpo o sexo, pueden hacer backups de sus personalidades por si acaso, etc... ¿Necesitas todavía más?  Pues en las dos últimas novelas se incluye una visión muy original de la muerte y el cielo y el infierno (como un software)!!!

ALAIN DE BOTTON's "RELIGION FOR ATHEISTS". WE SHOULD LEARN FROM GOOGLE INSTEAD

Alain de Botton is a well known philosopher that recently published a new book called "Religion for Atheists". I have not read the book yet (I just ordered it and Amazon shipments are quite slow in Spain) but I would like to give some thoughts about its mains arguments as they appear in its very interesting TED Talk about it.




Alain de Botton thinks that beleiving in God is not ridicolous, I'm not that sure about it, what I am sure and probably thats Alain's point, is that religions as institutions are not ridicolous. They were and somehow they still are powerful giants. So, as far as I understand, the main topic is that just because religions are wrong that does not mean that we can not learn many things from them.

FIRST POINT: Right now religions as institutions are in decay, not good as an exemple were to learn from. The main failure of current religion institutions is THE FAILURE TO ADAPT, to new social circumstance, to new tecnology, political and social ideas, etc... To be rigid, jerarquic, static, etc. could be a good point before, but nowadays it's really bad. You must be flexible, adaptative, responsive, etc...

SECOND POINT: Nowadsay main RELIGIONS LOST THEIR MONOPOLY ON FAITH, and that's not easy to reverse. They have been very successfull in the past bc they had the monopoly on education, adoctrination, ideas, art, culture in general, and faith. Once there is competition (thanks globalization and secularization) there are many more (and new) religions, and churches, etc... than ever before and the old ones. In fact, the main problem for old religions as institutions are new religions, not atheism.

THIRD POINT: Religions have very DIFFERENT INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES. I think that the conference should be better called "What we can learn from the Church or Christianism". What about Islam? The institutionalization of Islam is very different from Christianity or Hinduism, actually they don't have the rigid, jerarquic and monolithic structure others have. Islams seems to be doing better than the Catholic Church right now (maybe I'm wrong with that). But the main point is that they are different in its institutional structures.

CONCLUSION: So, religous institutions show many differences and are in decay because they are failling in adapting to new technology and social changes (globalization). And what we can learn from them we can also learn it from many other political and social institutions (not only organized, monotheist, religious ones); that are certainly more successfull right now. Every political leader knows how important is to have rituals and brands (rituals, flags, names, founding fathers, etc), how important is to communicate well (that's why they have directors of communication, and press cavinets, etc...) and how important is repetition (slogans, propaganda, etc.) and oratori, and art and artists, and... And the same could be said by the CEO of a multinational company, or the President of a Football Team, a Labour Union, or the General of an Army, etc... So yes, because religions have been very important and succesfull institutions we can learn from them, but I think that if they are in decay is just because other institutions have become more efficent and succesfull so we can learn from them even more. Nowadays, if you want to learn from institutions IT'S BETTER TO LEARN FROM GOOGLE, APPLE, THE STATE, CITY COUNCIL, etc.., or if you prefer very old ones, choose the FAMILY, much more successfull and old than monotheistic religions.


----------------

Some points in detail:

1-"I DON'T BELIVE IN RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE, BUT I LIKE THE RITUALS": rituals are social, of course you like them, we all like some of them, bc we are used to them. But, remember how light are nowadays those christian rituals if we compare on a century ago.
2- "BE HAVE SECULARIZED BADLY" I don't agree but I understand I'll have to read the book for further explanations (hopely). And so, point 3.

3- "RELIGIOUS GIVES US ASSISTANCE, GUIDANCE (AS CHILDREN), UNIVERSITIES DON'T"- True! But, should they? Or should this be done at schools and highschools? But the main problem is, how this should be done? What is to be teached/learned? Can we agree about a subject that includes values, thinking, spirtual guidance? Alain believes we are in a moral crisis, we need guidance, maybe some people do have this needs, but have to be all this imposed to everyone?. I see it from another point of view... We accept adoctrinantion for children about relgion and football, we think that's right to convert our children to christian, islam or Real Madrid's faith (and identity, of course) but we don't think its good for exemple to make them join the communist party. Why? Open dabate on eduacation. My point would be values have to be part of the education system, sure, not necessarily religious ones. Human rights, civism and responsability are a must, but I also should be mandatory to learn about rights and duties (children should learn how democracy works and their rights in its system).

4- "SERMONS WANT TO CHANGE YOUR LIFE AND CONFERENCES JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME INFORMATION": Not sure about that either. Sermons sometimes just want you not to change anything. Second, every political speech, commercial, etc.. is trying to make changes in your life. Third, and most important, information can change your life, can't it? It has happened to myself in many issues and I saw it happen many times in my students. When you learn about the global warming you are more oriented to behave ecologically. That's what learning is about.

5-REPETITION IS THE WAY TO LEARN: "We learn by repeating 10 times the same". I don't agree, we don't have time to think when we keep on repeating! That's what commercials are about, and adocrtrination. I don't think that's good. What about divergent or critical thinking? That's not moral decay!!!

6-CALENDARS: Of course calendars are very important. That's why there is the national day, the day against cancer, the labours day, etc..

7-LOOK AT THE MOON: if you are obligated to look at the moon there is no chance that you see anything. They need you to want to look. Soft power, batlle for hearts and minds, even Bush knew that. Commercials know how to do that much better, again.

8-ORATORI:"Convincing way of saying it, talk well". Form over information. Well, I think that all CEOs and TEDtalkers, and commercials know it. It tooks centurys for the Catholic church to accept messis not in latin and now I have not seen any with powerpoints!

9-ART IS ABOUT PROPAGANDA: Well, I think Andy Warhol already noticed that. Sad thought! Not all modern art is abstract and difficult, pop art knows it. But good idea to re-arrenge art exhibitions!!!

11- ORGANIZATIONs AND INSTITUTIONS: "They are powerfull, massive, multinational, collborative and highly disciplined." Religious became institutionalized and then they became political, not only moral and spiritual ones. As institutions they want to survive, to expand, to win, to impose. Like enterprises, football teams, banks or labour unions. I think that enterprises are much better at it than religions right now.

12- PILGRAMAGES: Travel, etc... Backpacking is about that! The Apalachian Trail, mountain hking,etc. Traveling is not a religous invention!!! If you say pilgrimages are good as an excuse for traveling I would say there are many more (and better) excuses for doing so.

13: RELIGIONS ARE TOO IMPORTANT TO BE LEFT TO THE RELIGIOUS ALONE: I understand it sounds good and plays with the "catch phrase" (war is too important to be left to generals), but I don't see the point. Nowadays religious institutions are in decay, we should learn from the successfull ones and left the decaying ones, decay in peace!



I can't wait to read the book!!!