 | Ration light to illuminate consciousness
Laymert Garcia dos Santos hopes that the Brazilian people wake up from their torpor ALVARO KASSAB   energy crisis came to illuminate. This is the opinion of sociologist Laymert Garcia dos Santos who, paraphrasing Clarice Lispector, sees disillusionment as the reason for the population to wake up from their torpor. Lethargy, in this case, fueled by the blind confidence that the country had stamped its passport to modernity throughout the 90s. And the citizen groped for the bedside table looking for the switch, but the alarm clock was under the stump of candle, in the shadow of the lamp. An immediate return, compares Laymert, to the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution.
This is where the paradox produces its first effect: after the perplexity, the Brazilian begins to think about the lesson to be learned. Furthermore: the government's failure to recognize its responsibility for causing the crisis leaves citizens alone in the ever-widening gap that separates them from the First World. A ditch from which, in addition to revolt and maturity, new forms of civil disobedience can emerge. “The government should have admitted that this crisis was announced; having recognized that there was a lack of investment”, assesses Laymert, professor at the Department of Sociology at the Institute of Philosophy and Human Sciences (IFCH) at Unicamp. Not only did it not do so, it filled the vacuum of political strategy with the sweet stuff of marketing. In official discourse, the crisis takes on picaresque, fable-like contours. The “being taken by surprise” and the heavenly floodgates of Saint Peter say so.
And, in this perverse rule, the roles were reversed. “The solution to cover up this irresponsibility is an attempt, all the time, to translate any gesture from the population into support”, he analyzes. Manichaeism, he says, reaches its highest level when, in addition to pushing the problem onto the population, the government begins to threaten “transgressors” with all sorts of punishments – from fines to surcharges – and plays hard on the Judiciary. . Image is everything – For the IFCH professor, the “civic crusade” had the always “diligent” help of the media, support that fostered a diffuse and illusory atmosphere, as if society as a whole had adhered to rationing. “The media is not public opinion. The reason why people are rationing is very far from the same as that shown by television images”, he ponders. The professor believes that two aspects need to be highlighted: 1) it is necessary to separate blind obedience to the government from self-protection arising from widespread distrust in relation to the State, since citizens either organize themselves or are condemned to servility; 2) the crisis entered people's daily lives through the front door, forcing them, in the smallest of gestures, to reflect on the degradation to which they were subjected and, consequently, to save with the meager means at their disposal. In Laymert's assessment, the exchange rate crisis of January 1999 was the first sign of what was to come. It was part of the downgrade that permeated the “absence of politics as politics” and the “dismantling of institutions” recorded in the 90s, with the difference that the burst of the real was “abstract”, unlike the energy crisis. “In a way, that gigantic bill was remote, it didn’t appear in people’s daily lives.” For the sociologist, today's situation must be seen as unprecedented and, therefore, cannot be circumvented by the manageable marketing processes devised by the technocrats of FHC's team. “The implications of the crisis go far beyond the issue of the image of the government or the president. It is not yet possible to know what form this revolt will take. It does not mean mess or rebellion; it could be understanding the process. And building this doesn’t happen overnight.” ------------------------------------------ Train that goes nowhere In the analysis carried out by Laymert Garcia dos Santos, the “blackout” brings to light discussions about the “modern vocation” of Brazilians, addressed by authors such as Darci Ribeiro, Sérgio Buarque de Hollanda, Gilberto Freire and Caio Prado, among others. In this sense, there was an expectation that Brazilians would become an autonomous people, and not just be used as labor to be exploited. This perspective of modernization, of building the future, according to Laymert, had its last phase in globalization. “Already at the opening Collor tried to sell, at least to the urban middle class population, that this portion could join the First World, gain modernity”. As the selection criteria were established, as the heralds of globalization already knew, it became clear that the mass of excluded people would be immense. “There is the abandonment of a large portion of the population who cannot get on the train. And those who got on the high-speed train now discover that they too have no future.” In this scenario, he adds, the situation becomes quite “complicated” as the limits of this proposal are made clear. Laymert believes that “the tables are being drawn”, and the gap between developed nations and these “modern” segments of the country will grow even wider from now on. “They continue at their pace of development, while we are going to buy lamps”, he compares. In this scenario of dismantling of institutions, Laymert classifies the role of the FHC government as “pathetic” due to the fact that, in the wake of globalization, it has given up the possibility of implementing a political strategy by submitting to the rules dictated by market doctrines and becoming tied to to other bodies, including the IMF and the World Bank. “There was no investment, as Francisco de Oliveira recalled, because it was not in the State’s plans and, although he knew he needed to do it, he chose to follow the neoliberal guideline”. Laymert recalls that, when the effects of the lack of investment became clear, it was found that the absence of a policy for the sector was also a policy. The professor points out the contrast between speech and action as emblematic of this line of action. On the one hand, the rhetoric that preached entry into the First World; on the other, the dismantling of institutions. “It is a contradiction that has now been made clear.” The train doesn't go anywhere anymore.
|  |
