Archives for posts with tag: Berger Luckmann

Reality is tricky.

It includes us. Each of us!

Yet we perceive it as being ‘exterior’. As including the others but not ‘me’. ‘I’ determine what’s real and what not, hence I’m above ‘mere’ reality.

We perceive ourselves as being distinct from the (rest of the) reality yet each of us continuously shares substance and energy with it. We breathe, eat, drink, excrete. We bask in the sun whenever we can during winter and use wind and water to cool ourselves down during hot summer days.

We feel overwhelmed whenever we think about it yet we constantly chip away at it. We build shelters and roads, we grow crops and raise animals, we dig up minerals and transform them into consumer goods. In time, we had displaced most of the ‘Nature’ we have evolved in and replaced it with ‘Man Made’.

Berger and Luckmann had famously – yet somewhat convolutedly, demonstrated that ‘reality’ was a (social) construct.
That what we know about the reality and what we have built based on that knowledge are the consequences of our common effort.

What I’m interested in is the ‘complicated’ manner in which we, each of us, interact with ‘reality’.

We grow up learning about reality. From those around us.
During this process, we simultaneously accumulate knowledge and develop the instrument with which we gauge reality. Our consciences.
Along with this process we also change, together with our teachers and siblings, the very reality we learn about.

Interesting, isn’t it?

We depend, for our dear life, on something we don’t fully understand.
We extract sustenance from it and throw back at it the results of our cravings.
Since our individual knowledge is severely limited, we depend on others – our peers, to complement our understanding of what’s going on around us. Yet in our attempts to fulfill our cravings we mislead some of our siblings.

Reality has been shaped by life from the very first moment. Only in those times, the process was driven exclusively by ‘needs’. The living things of yore did change their reality only they were doing exclusively what they had to in order to survive.
Nowadays, while the rest of the living world continue to follow the ‘time proven traditions’, we – the conscient, and presumably rational, humans, transform the reality according to our wishes.
While we don’t exactly understand what’s going on….

Then how come we’re so snug about the whole thing?

And what’s the meaning of the Adenium Obesum I used to illustrate this post?
I live in Romania. The Desert Rose is a native of the Arabian Desert. Yet one grows, and flowers, in my home.
Only because I afford to heat my ‘shelter’ during winter. And to spend some of my time caring for it.
I don’t really need that plant in order to survive. Yet I’ve changed the reality around me to such an extent that that plant is able to thrive. Almost 4000 km straight North from its native desert….
I’ve been taking care of it for some 4 years now. And I’ve learned only 5 minutes ago that its sap is toxic… What was I telling you about us not being fully aware of our actions?


Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount


Or enter a custom amount


As much as I love writing, I do have to eat.
And to provide for my family.
Earning money takes time.
If you’d like me to write more, and on a more regular basis, hit the button.
Your contribution will be appreciated!
Another very efficient way to help would be to share my posts.

As much as I love writing, I do have to eat.
And to provide for my family.
Earning money takes time.
If you’d like me to write more, and on a more regular basis, hit the button.
Your contribution will be appreciated!

As much as I love writing, I do have to eat.
And to provide for my family.
Earning money takes time.
If you’d like me to write more, and on a more regular basis, hit the button.
Your contribution will be appreciated!

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

„Pleacă, copile chiar dacă mă doare!
Aici nu sunt speranțe de a trai normalitatea promisă!
Nu-ți irosi viața, sperantele, energia pentru cauze pierdute!
In fond, cea mai ușoară cale de a-ți trăi viața este să-ți urmezi visul!”

Încă o confirmare a tezei care ne învață că realitatea este un construct social.
Care ne spune că ne-o facem cu mâna noastră!

Întâi am pierdut vremea. Ca nație. Vreo douăj-de ani.

După care, în loc să ne apucăm de recuperat timpul pierdut, am început să ne sfătuim copiii să plece. De tot!

Una e să-i impingem de la spate să se ducă afară să învețe. Și să se întoarcă. Iar noi, între timp, să facem oarece ordine pe aici, prin bătătura. Astfel încât, odată întorși, să ne putem apuca cu toții de treabă.
Aici, unde sunt atâtea de făcut. Unde totul este la început. Unde jocurile nu sunt, încă, atât de făcute ca afară.

Și cu totul altceva este să-i învățăm, de mici, cu gândul că ‘aici nu mai e nimic de făcut’. Să-i împingem, efectiv, afară. Să-i obișnuim cu gândul plecării. Pe și pe noi, laolaltă.
Adică să ne demobilizăm singuri. Să ne aruncăm, de bună voie, în brațele celor care ‘ne vor proști’.

Scriind chestia asta mi-am adus aminte de cuci.

Adică de păsările alea care își depun ouăle în cuiburile altor păsări. Din care ouă ies niște pui suficient de zdraveni încât să arunce din cuib odraslele perechii gazdă.
Noi facem invers. Ne alungăm singuri puii.
Făcând loc, în felul ăsta, copiilor ‘lor’…. care nu sunt atăt de ‘zdraveni’ ca ai noștri! Că altfel s-ar duce ei să învețe ‘afară’….

Present owes just as much to Reaction, if not more, as it does to Revolution
Ilie Badescu, PhD.

Newton had noticed  that everything, no matter how ‘inanimate’, reacts whenever ‘prodded’. And, maybe even more importantly, that the reaction is exactly balances the ‘prodding’.
Provided that the ‘prodding’ doesn’t actually ‘destroy’ the ‘target’, of course. But even then, some ‘reaction’ is always exerted against the ‘intruder’.
Walking, for instance. Whenever we walk on tarmac, our weight is fully supported by the pavement. When walking on dry, fine sand, our feet leave an impression. Our weight is eventually counterbalanced but not before some local ‘readjustments’ have been made. Finally, when walking in knee deep water, our feet completely ‘destroy’ the layer of liquid before reaching the ‘terra firma’ below. But not without having been met by some hydrodynamic resistance – which is far greater than the aerodynamic one we constantly overcome when walking on dry land.

Darwin had noticed that species either evolve – and survive, or ‘go under’ whenever something changes in the environment they had been accustomed to.
It’s a no brainer to remark that here the reaction is no longer as instantaneous nor as ‘equally opposed’ as in the first case.

Since Berger and Luckman’s The Social Construction of Reality it is tacitly accepted that our fate is heavily influenced by our actions.
Some of those inclined to entertain religious beliefs will now add that it is our actions which take us to hell or to heaven but since there have always been some ‘misunderstandings’ between the various currents …
My point is that in this third case, each specific ‘reaction’ is actively shaped by the individual ‘reactionary’. According to their own projections of the future, to the prevailing, socially adopted and individually internalized, rules and to the individual understanding of the until then discovered ‘natural laws’.

And that our future, as a species/civilization, is being shaped now.
By us.
Using whatever cultural heritage our ancestors have left us and, maybe more important, according to our limited understanding of the world.
And according to our wishes, of course.

It will be our children who will bear the brunt of our current decisions.

Nu-i asa ca auziti foarte des expresia asta? ‘Oarecum’ peiorativa?

Fix acum 51 de ani, Peter L. Berger si Thomas Luckman publicau “Construirea Sociala a Realitatii“.

Simplificand la maxim, se poate spune ca cei doi ne explica cat de profund modificam noi realitatea care ne inconjoara – si in care traim, prin simplul fapt ca discutam intre noi despre aceasta realitate.

La o a doua lectura, vom intelege si cat de determinant este modul in care purtam aceasta discutie.

Pentru inceput, avem nevoie sa sesizam diferenta dintre limbajul diplomatic si cel uzual.

Cel uzual fiind cel pe care il utilizam in mod normal. Adica cel care nu are nevoie de ‘traducere’. Cel cu ajutorul caruia spunem ‘verde-n fata’ ce avem pe inima.

Spre deosebire de limbajul uzual – adica cel explicit prin excelenta, limbajul diplomatic are mai degraba menirea de a pastra deschis canalul de comunicatie. Și abia în secundar pe aceea de a preciza o anumita pozitie.

Cele doua limbaje sunt atat de diferite datorita circumstantelor in care au evoluat.

Cel uzual este folosit de catre interlocutori familiari unul cu celalalt. Atat de familiari incat dau exact aceiasi conotatie cuvintelor folosite, stiu foarte bine ce parere au unul despre celalalt si, cel mai important, stiu cu totii ca relatia dintre ei va continua aproape indiferent de rezultatul episodului de comunicare in timpul caruia este folosit respectivul tip de limbaj.

Ei bine, aproape toti dintre noi – indiferent de nivelul de educatie, stim – chiar inconstient, sa ‘schimbam foaia’ atunci cand macar una dintre conditiile de mai sus nu mai sunt indeplinite.
Indiferent de cat de familiari suntem cu interlocutorii nostri, incercam sa dregem busuiocul atunci cand sesizam ca celalalt chiar s-a bășicat. Iar primul lucru pe care îl facem în astfel de situații este să vorbim ‘frumos’.
Ca să nu mai spun despre cât de grijuliu vorbim cu o persoană ‘de rang superior’! Asta în special atunci când soarta noastră depinde de decizia ce urmează să fie luată de acea persoană în urma dialogului pe care îl purtăm. Și câtă grijă avem ca în timpul acestui dialog să transmitem informația pe care intenționăm să o aducem la cunoștința interlocutorului nostru…. dar mai ales câtă grijă avem ca dispoziția acestuia față de persoana noastră să devină cât mai favorabilă- sau măcar să rămână neutră,… fiind dispuși, la nevoie, să sacrificăm chiar și o parte din precizia comunicării…

Până la urmă, vorbim despre două tipuri complet diferite de comunicare.
După un episod în care a fost folosit limbajul uzual, amândoi interlocutorii rămân cu informațiile schimbate cu acel prilej precum și cu sentimentul că lucrurile vor continua mai mult sau mai puțin neschimbate. Doi ‘dușmani’ vor continua să se dușmănească după fiecare schimb de invective iar doi prieteni vor ști că se pot baza unul pe celălalt chiar și după un episod de comunicare în timpul căruia au făcut mișto unul de celălalt – bineînțeles cu condiția ca miștoul să fi rămas în parametrii obișnuiți.
Ei bine, la sfârșitul unui episod de comunicare ‘diplomatică’ interlocutorii rămân cu mai puține informații și cu mai multe întrebări decât dușmano-prietenii de mai sus. Franchețea limbajului uzual îi face pe aceștia din urmă să pună preț pe informațiile vehiculate – tocmai pentru că cei doi știu la ce să se aștepte unul de la celălalt, în timp ce chiar ‘onctuozitatea’ limbajului diplomatic menține trează vigilența celor care îl folosesc. ‘Oare ce a vrut să spună cu adevărat?’ ‘Câte dintre vorbele lui au fost sincere și câte au fost spuse doar pentru a-mi face mie plăcere?’

Bine, bine… foarte interesantă ‘pregătirea asta de artilerie’… dar ce-ar fi să revii la cestiune? Care-i legătura dintre barbologia asta savantă și ‘interesele politice’ pe care te-ai pornit să contruiești colțul ăsta de realitate virtuală?

Șmecheria este că barbologia asta are sens doar dacă ambii interlocutori sunt cu adevărat conștienți despre ceea ce se întâmplă în jurul lor. Dacă amândoi interpretează la fel cuvintele care zboară dintr-o parte în alta.
Dacă unul dintre ei este setat pe modul diplomatic iar celălalt crede că episodul de comunicare face parte din cotidian… s-ar putea ca realitatea nou creată să fie atât de depărtată de cea precedentă încât să nu existe prea multă congruență între cele două…

Revenind la interesul de moment – acela de a concluziona într-un fel barbologia de astăzi, să despuiem ‘interesele politice’ de vălurile diplomatice care funcționeză ca niște perdele de fum.
Vorbind pe șleau, ‘interese politice’ este un eufemism folosit de ziariști pentru a spune, în mod politicos, “interese de partid”. Și mai precis, “interese înguste de partid”.’Profesioniștii în comunicare’ folosesc această locuțiune din nevoia de a păstra o relație funcțională cu partidele, din servilism sau, poate, pentru că ‘sună mai bine’.

Indiferent de motiv, prejudiciul adus comunității – în întregul ei, este enorm.

Repetat ad nauseam, termenul induce în conștiința populară sentimentul că politica este ‘o curvă’.
Iar când spun ‘conștiință populară’ mă refer la toată populația. Y compris întreaga clasă politică – că doar de pe malurile Senei ne-am învățat să “umblăm cu cioara vopsită”.

cioara vopsita

Oamenii de ‘rând’ s-au lăsat convinși că politica este o chestie extrem de murdară – așă că se țin departe de ea, în timp ce politicienilor – adică cei cărora nu le e frică de mizerie, li se pare din ce în ce mai normal să continue așa cum sau obișnuit deja.

Vorbeam undeva mai sus despre o lipsă de congruență. O din ce în ce mai acută lipsă de congruență.
Clasa politică este detașată de restul oamenilor. Adică realitățile în care trăiesc fiecare dintre aceste două categorii au din ce în ce mai puține lucruri în comun.

Cu toate că distanța dintre cele două realități a apărut ca urmare a ‘eforturilor’ – sau a ‘neglijenței’?, ambelor categorii de oameni…

The scientists act on the assumption that their efforts to un-peel the  ‘onion’ will eventually bear fruit and that ‘the truth’ will eventually be found crouching behind the proverbial ‘last skin’.

The artists keep torturing their souls hoping that theirs will be the one blessed with enough sensitivity to feel the ‘ultimate’ experience and with enough talent to be able to communicate it to the rest of us.

The mystics keep entertaining the proverbially faithful ‘grain of hope’ that their soul will be blessed by their Maker with some ‘insider’ knowledge and with enough stamina to make the revelation known to the rest of the flock.

Meanwhile the rest of us, the ‘regulars’, keep altering the ‘onion’ – otherwise known as ‘The Reality’, sometimes beyond recognition.

Let me elaborate.

As of now it seems that there are a hard core reality – the one feverishly pursued by all those mentioned at the start of my post, a multitude of partial images of what that reality looks to each of us – the ones made up by each of us when trying to make sense of our perceptions about the (hard core) reality, usually without being aware that what we look at is a window dressing composed of the numerous patches pinned by by each of us on the original while acting according to what each if us perceived to be (the image of) the ‘reality’.

And it’s exactly this overgrowth that constantly changes the object of perception at which each each of us stares continuously and tries not only to understand it but alto to adapt to it. Constantly forgetting that our efforts not only adapt us to the (perceived) reality but also alter the reality itself, not only the image we perceive of it.

But hold on. I haven’t mentioned the really interesting part yet.
All of the above constitute the ‘innocent’ side of the whole thing. The natural process that would take place if all of us would act ‘up-front’.

In reality some of us have ‘ulterior’ motives.
Some of us consider that their understanding of the world is not only better than that of everybody else but also that they are entitled to act based on that understanding. Without asking permission from and sometimes even against the wishes of those who will bear the brunt of the consequences brought forth by those actions.

That’s why the ‘patches’ pinned by these callous people fit a lot less to the real reality than those attached by the honest ones among us.

And that’s the catch.
The ‘distance’ between the reality of a fact and our perception/action about it produces a certain ‘energy’. If the distance is small the energy corresponding to it is manageable. People can adjust to it and absorb its consequences.
But sometimes the distance is larger than what can be comfortably absorbed and this leads to the formation of social scars. And if successive ‘distanced’ patches are applied without enough healing time in between, then, eventually, wide ‘gaps’ will have to be dealt with.

And since ‘wide’ produces a lot of ‘energy’ and ‘a lot of energy’ leads to massive upheavals…

The current spate of dissent on this subject has been spurred by this guy, Angus Deaton, being presented with The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel

“A Nobel prize in economics implies that the human world operates much like the physical world: that it can be described and understood in neutral terms, and that it lends itself to modelling, like chemical reactions or the movement of the stars. It creates the impression that economists are not in the business of constructing inherently imperfect theories, but of discovering timeless truths.”

I’m afraid that the author had been so disgusted by the obvious mistakes that have been committed by so many of the supposedly reputable economists of this world that he has become amenable to throwing out the baby along with the bath water.

First of all we must remember that “Science is wrong. By definition.” All theories are imperfect and there is no such thing as ‘timeless truths’.
Ever since Karl Popper introduced the idea of ‘falsifiability’ as the litmus test for determining if any piece of information has any scientific value and Berger & Luckmann noticed “The Social Construction of Reality” it had become apparent both that science is being updated constantly – hence always ‘wrong’, or at least incomplete – and that people are ‘doing science’ on purpose – hence any discussion about reality being ‘described and understood in neutral terms’ is unrealistic, to say the least.

Coming back to Popper, Hermann Bondi had declared that ‘There is no more to science than its method, and there is no more to its method than Popper has said.’
True enough but as any ‘scientific declaration’ this is highly ‘updatable’.

In fact Science is, above all, a human enterprise. It’s a human that picks up – or devises – which method to use in a certain situation when he wants to find out something about a certain subject. Furthermore that method is applied by human individuals, not by robots. The same as those who had chosen it or by others, doesn’t make much difference. And, at the end of the cycle, some other people will evaluate – and sometimes try to replicate – the results.

So the mere fact that a certain set of results could not have been replicated by a certain team of evaluators doesn’t mean that much, by itself. This has been silently acknowledged by Andrew C. Chang and Philip Li in a paper published by the Federal Reserve in 2015: “Is Economics Research Replicable? Sixty Published Papers from Thirteen Journals Say ”Usually Not””. The couple admitted they needed some help from the original authors to replicate the results in a few instances and in some-others they didn’t have access to the same computer software as the first publishers.

But the most interesting fact is that in no instance the authors have been able to positively determine that the results published in any of the analyzed papers are inconsistent with the data presented by the original authors and/with the method invoked. In all instances when they failed to replicate the original results that happened because the original authors didn’t present at all the initial sets of data, they were incomplete or the method/sofware used to  process that data was incomplete, altogether missing or proprietary. And all this despite in some cases the papers being published by journals specifically requesting that all data/methods/software being made available at the moment of publication.

In this situation I find the conclusion reached as being both correct and highly objectionable. And above all lacking any scientific value.
“Because we successfully replicate less than half of the papers in our sample even with assistance from the authors, we conclude that economics research is usually not replicable.”

Yes, it seems that too many papers published by presumably reputable journals are not replicable. But that is due exclusively to the journals themselves not observing their own rules or by some of the authors acting less than ‘over the table’. This phenomenon has nothing to do with ‘economics’ being less of a science than, say, physics and everything to do with humans being… well… human!

Let me go back to where I started, to Joris Luyendijk claim that “Don’t let the Nobel prize fool you. Economics is not a science.”
The author ‘illustrates’ his claim by remembering the infamous LTCM – a hedge fund set up by, among others, a couple of economists who had received a … you guessed it… a ‘Nobel prize for economics’ less than a year before the hedge fund went bust. Kind of ironic, isn’t it?
But the problem remains. The fact that LTCM went bust doesn’t prove anything except the fact that its management was completely inadequate.
The point is that trying to assert that ‘economics’ is not a science only because some guys used a couple of economic theories and failed, abysmally, is akin to claiming that physics is not a proper science because no weather bulletin is 100 percent accurate. Or that biology is not a full blown science because medicine has not yet found a cure for cancer. Or to claim that chemistry is bogus simply because Big Pharma is ripping us off.

At the end of their paper Chang and Li offer some very pertinent advice about how things could be vastly improved. Their main idea being that everything must be ‘above the table’ – both the raw data and the method/software used to process it must be made available for whomever wants to replicate the results. In fact this exactly what science, real science, is about. People have to be able to check thoroughly whatever the proponents of a theory are trying to ‘peddle’. This is the only way for a theory to be proved true or false. Or incomplete so further research might be declared necessary.

Similarly, at the end of his article Joris Luyendijk points his finger at the real culprit.
In reality economics, as a space where people try to gather information, is different from, say physics, only because we, the people, approach them with different attitudes.
Time has taught us, repeatedly, that every-time we’ve tried to deny the obvious we ended up with a bloody nose. The problem is that not all of us are, yet, able to recognize the obvious.
No one in his right mind will pretend, nowadays, that the Earth is flat. Meanwhile some people still pretend that vaccines may induce autism. They don’t. But some of the ‘anti-Vaxxers’ continue to pretend this even after a study partly funded by themselves demonstrated that there is no link between the two.

As suggested by Luyendijk and demonstrated by these examples the real culprit for what is going on, not only in the economic field, is our arrogance.
Arrogance that has led to the survival of what is known as ‘tehnocratic thinking’ despite more and more people learning of the role ideology plays in our decision making.

After all what can be more arrogant than pretending that you have ‘scientific reasons’ for what you do, despite the obvious fact that every one of us acts according to his own ideology?

I’m not going to pretend now that there are good and bad ideologies. I obviously think they can be classified but I cannot pretend that my classification is the correct one.
But I can pretend, and you should too, along with Joris Luyendijk, Andrew C Chang and Philip Li, that each of us should honestly state its point of view along with his opinion when ever discussing something.

After all each of us having an ideology is a reality while pretending that any of us can act as if it doesn’t is a rather pathetic lie.

To conclude I’ll have to keep the promise I’ve made at the beginning of all this and ‘update’ Bondi’s statement about Popper:
‘There is no more to science than its method and there is no more to its method than Popper has said’ but we should always bear in mind that science is exclusively ‘performed’ by human individuals.


Ilie Badescu, unul dintre stalpii sociologiei contemporane romanesti, ne atrage atentia ca “…marile revolutii se dezmiarda in mediul cel mai reactionar cu putinta. Marile reactii, procesele reactionare, sunt tot atat de necesare, ba poate ca acestea sunt, pana la urma, cele care confera sens, atat cat poate fi acesta, oricaror revolutii”. (Enciclopedia Sociologiei, 2005, Vol 1, pg 6)

Spunerea poate parea banala.
Pana la urma despre acelasi concept vorbeste ‘Legea a treia’ a lui Newton: “atunci când un corp acționează asupra altui corp cu o forță (numită forță de acțiune), cel de-al doilea corp acționează și el asupra primului cu o forță (numită forță de reacțiune) de aceeași mărime și de aceeași direcție, dar de sens contrar.”, legea inductiei electromagnetice: “Eu, curentul cel indus, / Totdeauna m-am opus / Cauzei ce m-a produs.“, teoria evolutiei a lui Darwin: ‘speciile supravietuiesc doar in masura in care reactioneaza adecvat la schimbarile din mediul in care traiesc‘ precum si “Construirea sociala a realitatii” de Berger si Luckmann.

Evident ca sunt deosebiri calitative. Daca in primele trei cazuri reactiile sunt de tip ‘automat’ – ‘specificate’ de legile valabile in cazul fiecarui domeniu – in  cea de a patra situatie ‘reactiile’ sunt modelate de liberul arbitru al persoanelor implicate in interactiune.

Ei bine, modul in care Ilie Badescu prezinta acest concept – ‘inainte’ si ‘dupa’ – este extrem de important in intelegerea a ceea ce este ‘schimbarea sociala’. Revolutiile apar in mijlocul si din cauza unor medii reactionare iar in urma fiecare dintre ele ‘supravietuitorii’ reactioneza la ceea ce s-a intamplat si isi recladesc societatea. Cu alte cuvinte daca ‘reactiunea’ initiala ar fi fost mai putin intensa lucrurile ar fi putut fi schimbate treptat, fara sa fie nevoie de o ‘revolutie’ in adevaratul sens al cuvantului. la fel, pentru ca o revolutie sa nu se iroseasca este nevoie ca ‘reactiunea’ sa fie adecvata la motivele care au produs acea rasturnare de situatie.

Genul asta de analiza poate fi facut si pe evenimente mai marunte iar concluziile desprinse s-ar putea sa fie surprinzatoare.

In urma cu aproape un an o fata a fost ‘condusa’ pe un camp unde a intretinut relatii sexuale cu 6 tineri dupa care a fost condusa pe un alt camp unde celor 6 li s-a alaturat un al 7 iar fata a mai indurat inca un calvar. Dupa ce a ajuns acasa tanara i-a acuzat pe cei 7 de viol iar trei dintre ei au recunoscut faptele. Acum toti sunt acasa, sub control judiciar, si isi asteapta procesul.

Fapta mi se pare barbara dar nu despre asta am de gand sa vorbesc acum ci despre modul in care reactiile noastre releva amanunte interesante despre societatea in care traim.

Consatenii agresorilor sar in apararea acestora, „Şapte băieţi de oameni gospodari” si o desfiinteaza pe victima: „Aşa-i trebuie, dacă s-a urcat în maşină cu şapte. Dacă era fată cuminte nu păţea nimic”. Trecand peste ‘amanuntul’ ca fata s-a urcat in masina cu doar doi dintre agresori – unul dintre ei fiind ‘prieten’ cu prietenul victimei – nu pot sa nu ma intreb ce s-o fi intamplat cu mentalul colectiv al oamenilor din satul acela? Pana nu demult actele sexuale in grup erau considerate aberatii… acum oamenii organizeaza campanii de sustinere pe Facebook si cer ‘să nu fie pedepsiţi cei şapte „pentru câteva minute de plăcere””
Ce s-a intamplat cu solidaritatea tipica micilor comunitati?

E adevarat ca mersul istoriei a fost dur cu comunitatile de la ses. Mai intai aparitia arendasilor – ciocoi a produs o intensificare a ‘luptei de clasa’. Acestora nu le pasa de nimic in afara de castigul imediat – vechii boieri, proprietarii pamanturilor, mai aveau o oarecare legatura cu locurile, ciocoii luau in arenda mosia, stateau cativa ani si plecau in alta parte dupa ce il inselau si pe boier. Nici o mirare ca taranii au dezvoltat ‘strategii de supravietuire’ care presupuneau ‘disparitia misterioasa’ a unei parti din recolta.
Dupa colectivizare fenomenul s-a accentuat iar oamenii furau, pentru a supravietui, roadele propriului pamant.

Numai ca genul asta de ambiguitate morala nu putea sa ramana fara consecinte. Chiar si pentru un observator neantrenat exista diferente enorme intre satele cooperativizate si cele ocolite de acest flagel. Nu este vorba aici despre dimensiunea caselor ci despre modul in care sunt gospodarite aceste sate, despre cum unii matura si altii nu in fata curtilor. Despre modul in care oamenii se ajuta, sau nu, unii pe ceilalti. Despre ce parere au unii si altii despre furt. Sau despre viol.

Initial nici restul societatii nu a reactionat mult mai bine. Trec peste faptul ca cei 7 se plimba pe strada si pot da nas in nas in orice moment cu victima lor. Pana la urma acest aspect se va rezolva. Sau cel putin asa sper.
Unii s-au indignat atat de tare incat au propus pedeapsa cu inchisoare pe viata pentru cei 7 – si au folosit pentru a-i descrie termenul de ‘limbrici’.
Apoi si-au facut aparitia comentatori care pun pe acelasi plan exagerarile din ambele tabere. Ca si cum indignarea deplasata ar fi acelasi lucru cu ‘favorizarea infractorului’. Nici una nu este buna dar nu sunt in nici un caz comparabile.
Altii prefera sa nu bage in seama ce se intampla. Dupa principiul ca ce nu stiu nu poate sa-mi faca rau. Ba da, numai ca nici macar nu vei sti ce ti se intampla.

Toate astea nu sunt altceva decat simptomul atomizarii societatii. In loc de o mare comunitate – natiunea – am inceput sa dezvoltam tot felul de loialitati meschine de tipul ‘noi impotriva celorlalti’ – care de cele mai multe ori sunt descrisi ca fiind mult inferiori. Femeile sunt menite sa-i distreze pe barbati, Toata Romania stie ca moldovenii/ moldovencele sunt o buba a societatii noatre

Din fericire incepe sa se faca auzita si ‘majoritatea de obicei tacuta’. Curg mesajele de sustinere a victimei si incep sa iasa la iveala alte si alte cazuri de viol a caror anchetare a batut pana acum pasul pe loc.

Exact asa cum spunea Ilie Badescu, dormim asa cum ne asternem. Avem datoria, fata de noi insine, sa rezolvam problemele inainte sa se instaureze starea de exasperare. Trebuie sa trecem odata peste efectele trecutului pentru ca nu are cine o faca in locul nostru. Altfel ne vom strecura printre degetele istoriei si vom deveni o simpla umbra pe una dintre paginile ei.

%d bloggers like this: