8

"The history to be made is always an indeterminate history"



Journal of Unicamp - Left/right polarization spanned the 20th century. There are those who say that ideological utopias are dead. Is the statement valid?

Bonaventure - The left/right divide will continue, without a doubt. It is transfigured as problems emerge that until now were not accounted for in this dichotomy. I do not mean, however, that this dichotomy can cover everything. We have many movements that fight for a better world, but that refuse to recognize themselves in this left/right polarization, especially movements that come from Africa and India. Left/right is a form of cleavage often coined by Western politics itself. But the cleavage between those who are in favor of forms of inclusion and forms of exclusion will persist. I understand that ideological cleavages are deepening, contrary to what was thought. Neoliberalism bet on single thinking, on the idea that history has come to an end. On the contrary, today ideologies return, but in another form, not as large systems. They come back through social experiences and initiatives that take place all over the world. They are interconnected via the Internet, they learn from each other without, however, having a single category, without having a manifesto that unites all these forms of resistance. In some way, they signify the idea that a critical utopia is possible. We are in a world where it is more important to affirm the idea of ​​utopia than to define it. Precisely because we are in a world that has simply put an end - or wanted to put an end - to any idea of ​​critical utopia. We must now try to see if this utopia needs richer content.

Zolo - Certainly, today the left/right polarization is less significant than in the past. In Europe in particular, and in the United States as well, political parties are very little identified with specific ideological bases. In general, the convergence of parties towards the center is a tendency, as a moderate position has more electoral appeal, therefore there is a certain deflation of this polarization. But there is no doubt that it can be said that the left is more about those who uphold values ​​of social cooperation, peace and respect for life. And the right, as is the case with Berlusconi and Bush, is associated with media power, economic power and military power.

Olive tree - Great utopias experience transformations. Even though they are utopian, they are social constructions. The great utopia of communism, for example, came from the 19th century and was largely projected into the 20th century, with well-known attempts to create utopian systems. This great utopia was greatly shaken by the experiences of the 20th century, which makes it a bit anachronistic in the 21st century. But it is restored and remade in another way - in solidarity, one of the matrices of the socialist movement itself. Now, for example, to fight against globalization hegemonized by the centers, to fight against this tendency of general commodification, we have the utopia that occurs in registers such as the solidarity economy. The time of great utopias is not over. They are constantly updated. Even when all material misery is swept from the earth, which is far from happening, men will certainly create other utopias. The greatest of them is the utopia of the happy man.

Laymert - We live in a moment that could be described as a negative horizon. The utopias in a certain way happened, but we are living the utopias in a negative way. The future has arrived, but in the negative. At the moment, there is no utopia to put in place. We have to go through this phase to see what the signs are of what is coming, other than just the catastrophic ones.

Leila - I do not agree. Some authors even see ecologism as a new ideology, as an option to neo-conservatism and the neo-socialist perspective. It would be, for these authors, a third ideological option. In fact, I see it as a new look for old ideologies. I don't think ideologies are dead at all.

Ridenti - Evidently there are those who advocate this thesis of the dilution of left and right positions, which partly indicates that today's world is very complex and sometimes certain simplifications are not appropriate. There are class societies and positions in the world that aim to maintain this status quo and criticize this status. This points to positions that we could generically call right and left, associating the right with the conservation of the status quo, even with changes within the order, from the point of view of maintaining political and economic power, and there are those very diverse ideas of criticism of today's hegemonic political and economic power, not only in Brazil, but also abroad. There is indeed continuity and relevance in talking about left and right.

Pochmann - I do not agree. At the same time, I believe that we are experiencing a certain social malaise in which some fads emerge, but they have a very short life cycle. Ideas emerge as capable of responding to certain situations, but they lose importance very quickly. This is nothing new either. Hobsbawm draws attention to the fact that in certain moments of capitalism, as was the case in the 19th century, classical interpretations of certain phenomena are questioned and there is a space in which ideas emerge that do not last. This causes a reaction from the point of view of knowledge that allows entry to another level. Knowledge is a kind of wave in which there are moments in which there is a certain crisis of perception and identification. This generates the emergence of various ways of partially seeing that are not sustainable over time.

Maria Arminda - We live in a post-utopian world, which does not mean that these left/right distinctions have disappeared. The problem is that some identities have been established that are debatable between socialism and actually existing socialism, as in the Soviet Union. Socialism as a conception of the world, as a possibility of world projection, did not occur. What happened is that there was this identification. This has effects on the construction of utopian visions. The entire 20th century was fundamentally haunted by this distinction between the great socialist utopia as Soviet socialism entered into crisis. With this, the false identification was established that socialism disappeared from the world. It's a fake identity. The world is post-utopian, especially because we have great perplexity. There is always a focus on utopia, at the same time on a construction that is comprehensive. We do not live in a world where this is clearly on the horizon. A world without utopia is a sad world.

Ortiz - I neither believe that the right/left opposition has disappeared, nor do I believe that the meanings of right and left are the same today. If I read it in this light, I would say that the right/left position remains a different connotation due to an opening, a transformation of contemporary societies. I am sure of one thing: that firstly, there is no end to either ideologies or utopias. This topic was widely debated in the 20th century by several authors and to me it seems like a false problem. In what sense? The story that opens is a story that opens to the future. And the question of what the future will be like is a constant question for society as a whole. Therefore, both ideologies and utopias flourish in this terrain. On the other hand, it is important to understand that, as long as capitalism exists, there will be criticism of capitalism. And the critique of capitalism opens a window to the future, to something else. Who knows, perhaps unrealizable, but it is permanent to the very existence of capitalism. Hence the opening of imagination and utopias that are necessarily critical of capitalism. Let's say that the success of capitalism does not bury utopias. It only reveals new contradictions and new openings. The story to be made is always an indeterminate story. And, in this field of indeterminacy, utopias occupy a place.

Ornament - The terms in which the political debate has been framed have, in a certain sense, become old. At the same time that you say that there is no longer a way to talk about right/left, we also no longer have a way to discuss that old alternative, reform or revolution. I think we have to return to Marx's old axiom: society does not set itself problems that it cannot solve. And the problems that society is solving are problems that it itself proposed. The political struggle no longer fits into that image in which there is a right wing with its very clear conception of what the market and power are, and on the other hand the left wing that opposes these interests. Today, the traffic between these positions is evidently confused. This will certainly result in a rebuilding of relationships. It is necessary to avoid the trap of dualities and polarizations. And, at the same time, emphasize the differences, the nuances, the multiplicity. The moment this becomes more relevant, it is clear that these polarizations tend to be reduced. This does not mean that a new meaning of current moments cannot perhaps rethink a recomposition of another order.

Journal of Unicamp - What is the impact of new technologies on the world stage?

Bonaventure - The impact of new technologies is dubious and ambivalent. On the one hand, this is a negative impact as technology is one of those responsible for social exclusion in the world. In fact, the digital divide today is perhaps one of the most tenacious as 93% of Internet circuits occur in developed countries, which means that we are witnessing an extremely harsh and difficult form of exclusion. On the other hand, we also have to say that the entire struggle against neoliberal globalization is based on new technologies. Without the Internet, it would not be possible to carry out all this movement. The new technologies will be exactly on one side and the other, they are instruments that can be used in several ways. They can obviously also be systematized by other intramedia and popular technologies, which are old but which will increasingly be important for there to be a relationship between technology and the well-being of populations.

Zolo - The fundamental core of the globalization process is identified with the intensification of the application of technologies, whether in the media or in information technology. This nucleus is the one that gives the contraction of space and time and is an irreversible aspect of globalization. And it is fair that there are international movements that combat all of this.

Olive tree - The impacts are very strong. New technologies are changing the fundamental roots of sociability, of coexistence between people. They change everything, radically. They change the way of producing, the entire understanding of the world. Production today requires less physical effort, there is almost no contact with machines. This impact is just beginning and could be devastating if not democratized in a radical way. We can approach a world à la Huxley. I see it as a decisive impact, which cannot be underestimated. The world of life and the world of science are today almost the same thing. It will change our perception of what the world is, of what the other is.

Laymert - The impacts are very large, especially in digital information technologies and genetics. Technological acceleration is a fact that needs to be recognized in all its dimensions. And the consequences of this acceleration are that there is a bullet train that takes some countries and some populations; others are being spat on and are already outside. The problem now is knowing what to do with those who have already missed the bullet train.

Leila - This is also one of the great themes of contemporary sociology. I think there are some authors who show us scientifically that new technologies are actually the biggest problem in contemporary society. Ulrich Beck, for example, shows, in “The Risk Society”, what a science and technology society would be like, posing as a problem. On the other hand, there are authors who show that seeking new technologies can minimize our social problems and, particularly, our environmental problems. I would say that we are in the intermediate phase, between this more negative perspective of reality that is in “The Risk Society”, and this optimistic perspective of only thinking about new technologies. I think the political component mediates between these two perspectives.

Ridenti - The impact is enormous. The end of the Soviet Union is an example. It was largely linked to the inability of the Soviet system to incorporate new technologies to take a new leap forward. They were unable to do so, as they invested heavily in weapons due to the Cold War, failing to keep up with the investment capacity of the capital that made the technological leap of the computer age. In Brazil, we have people living almost in the stone age, unable to even extract what they need from the earth to survive, and we have extraordinarily developed technological hubs. I would say that this access to new technologies adds elements to this profound inequality and these profound contradictions that cement contemporary societies. One of the important social struggles is for the population to have access to these innovations.

Pochmann - The impact was already identified two decades ago. In my view, the countries that invest the most in technology are those that experience the least unemployment, as opposed to the countries that invest the least, which currently have the largest number of unemployed people and at the same time generate very precarious occupations. The future of employment is precisely associated with the ability of countries to invest in technology, which has allowed, on the one hand, to generate jobs with higher quality and a higher level of income. On the other hand, it allows the expansion of new technology activities to be captured by the state through public funds and, thus, allowing a new segment of income transfer.

Maria Arminda - It will change everything. I have no doubt that the so-called information society has a brutal impact. The forms of coexistence change. There is also immense discomfort. There is no way out, you have to be connected all the time. It may be possible to use the information in a way that we are not exploring.

Ortiz - It is a theme that affects everything from the work sphere to the cultural sphere. Without the development of digital technology, it would be difficult for us to have the agility of so-called transnational cultural goods. It's a question that touches on a range of issues - from digital literacy to democracy. It is an additional and very important element in this context. The question of democracy cannot be exclusively linked to the problem of technology. If not, we sometimes fall into an idyllic vision of various authors who want to solve political problems based on technical issues, for example, cyberdemocracy, as if everything would be solved if we moved in that direction. Evidently, techniques and technologies are decisive in the contemporary world. Without them, much of the globalization process would not exist. However, it is also necessary to be careful not to embark on a "leaky canoe". The political issues of democracy, the public sphere, well-being, justice, are not issues that entirely coincide with technology. These are questions that go beyond and touch various fields of social life.

Ornament - It's not a new issue. In fact, we are having a very pronounced impact story. Sometimes I make an effort to think with the head of ordinary people from the 18th century. The industrial revolution was a thing of the devil. The problem is the meaning of this impact. We have to study the effect of this on contemporary sociability patterns, which circulate in public space, where people somehow show themselves to be shown. With these new technologies, there is increasingly a focus on oneself, in fact a disregard for the care of others. This could have an impact on future generations in terms of their identity profile, in terms of their interest in social solidarity. We are unable to predict the scope of this change. You will certainly train generations of professionals and workers that are very different from the old generations. Perhaps many values ​​built on work ethics and a society that preserved social justice are compromised.

Top