Sociologia della "bandiera bruciata"
.
.
di Carlo Gambescia
Vogliamo parlare delle "bandiere bruciate" dal punto di vista di una sociologia dei fenomeni culturali e collettivi ? Magari tentando di andare oltre le pur giusta indignazione morale e politica per quel che sta accadendo nella striscia di Gaza?
Secondo una certa vulgata occidentalista chiunque profani, magari bruciandola, una bandiera nazionale, o al contrario la esibisca troppo, fino a sacralizzarla, peccherebbe di tribalismo: sarebbe una sorta di troglodita. A differenza dell' homo occidentalis, che proprio perché civile e progredito, sfogherebbe il suo "presunto" bisogno di simboli, solo comprando abiti e scarpe griffati.
Di riflesso ogni comportamento, come è accaduto di recente, che si discosti da questa impostazione etnocentrica, viene regolarmente demonizzato.
La vera questione invece è che un fenomeno così complesso, come il simbolismo di una bandiera, non può essere spiegato, degradandolo a una specie di anello concettuale di congiunzione tra la scimmia e l'uomo.
Prendiamo ad esempio un evento collettivo interessante come quello delle bandiere della pace, esposte su molte finestre. Questo fenomeno spiega, come the alleged need for the identification of cause and tribal flag is very strong, even in environments that make the rational dialogue, not only between individuals but also between people, a philosophical reason and life. An acceptable choice, but sometimes and in an apparently inexplicable, results, even pacifists in the ranks, in unpleasant incidents.
Explaining the persistence of certain collective behavior of a symbolic kind? Flag and rituals related phenomena are not tribal, but refer to a fund "animistic" is still present and active in humans. A "bass" that is innate human capacity to consider all things, animated by the vital spirits. And to believe the "principle" that embodies a kind of higher force.
For example, among the inhabitants of the Pacific islands (according to the ethnographic documentation), as among U.S. citizens (but also among other peoples of "modern"), a drape of fabric on top of a pole indicates the same psychological phenomenon: for first, is a symbol to celebrate the completion of planting operations of edible tubers in a sacred area and collective property, for the latter is such a symbol to celebrate the Fourth of July, the culmination of a process of national independence, which has as its subject area as sacred and collective property: the nation. For the two peoples
any attack on their "flag" is an offense to what is most sacred and inviolable: a shared territory that collectively embodies - that's the bottom animistic - a higher principle of unity and solidarity, with its own power, that coagulates around the flag. It goes without saying, unfortunately, that the natives of the Pacific Americans punish anyone lay the flag, and, of course, in different ways.
But the desecration is a downside: the consecration of its flag does not preclude but often involves the desecration of others. Sacredness and profanity go hand in hand. In fact, only what is considered "sacred" can be profaned. And unfortunately there is not always agreement on the value of their "higher principles".
This explains why, not so much the true peace, as even the staunchest defenders of some pseudo-universalism fundamentalist (whatever its ideological color), while fighting to abolish any act of war, inevitably end up burning the flags of others: a act decisively against any ethical pacifist. But often unavoidable. Since the sanctification of each flag: rainbow, red, black, and assumptions, including that of the Popes, necessarily entails the risk "anthropology" of profanzione.
This does not mean that we should give up at least partially fill in the human being, through appropriate socialization processes that notorious no man's land between nature and culture, we are talking about since the dawn of time. Even for the true peace, in general, is a person who has internalized the very principles he believes.
for now, just understand that it is not easy for anybody, "advanced" or not, giving rise to the top of their flag, and sometimes, "lower" than the other.
Which, given that applies to everyone, paradoxically, it might make everyone more tolerant.
.
Carlo Gambescia
0 comments:
Post a Comment