A distanza di una settimana dalla partecipazione al Pride nazionale di Bologna riteniamo di inserirci nel dibattito che si è scatenato in conseguenza dei fatti di piazza VIII agosto.
Abbiamo visto nell'evoluzione della costruzione di questo Pride la possibilità per noi, collettivo biopolitico che da un paio d'anni lavora sull'autodeterminazione e sulla decostruzione del concetto stesso di genere come identità fondamentale, di partecipare alla giornata tradizionalmente dedicata all'orgoglio omosessuale aderendo allo spezzone Queer.
Non facendo parte del movimento bolognese ci siamo ritrovati a leggere nel primo comunicato di Arcigay successivo al Pride delle accuse direttamente rivolte a Facciamo Breccia e ai suoi militanti che ci appaiono decisamente inquietanti se riportate nell'ambito di una realtà quotidiana come quella in cui stiamo vivendo oggi dove discriminazioni, razzismo, omofobia e fascismo si stanno intensificando rapidamente. La continua offerta di controllo sociale mascherato da pretestuosa sicurezza è la forma con cui oggi ogni dissenso, differenza, identità altra rispetto a ciò che è il modello tradizionale oramai putrescente, prova ad essere soppresso e ridotto a silenzio.
Perché durante un appuntamento come quello del 28 giugno qualcuno, nascondendosi dietro alla sigla "organizzatori del Pride", ha ritenuto suo compito stabilire chi ha diritto o meno di parola?
L’utilizzo di formule come “la non violenza è la discriminante per poter appartenere a pieno titolo al movimento lgbt” sono chiarificatrici di qual è il ruolo che qualcuno vorrebbe provare ad avere, ma nessuno può arrogarsi il diritto di stabilire quali sono le discriminanti per far parte di un movimento! Andrebbe ricordato che per essere movimento non sono necessarie – né auspicabili – tessere di alcun genere.
L’origine dell’arresto di Graziella sta nella scelta di non permettere ad una parte consistente del corteo di prendere parola sul palco, nascondendosi dietro al fatto che quello striscione “non era previsto”. Apprendiamo dal comunicato di Facciamo Breccia che anche l’area dietro il palco era presidiata dalla polizia.
Ma quando mai, voi pretesi rappresentanti del movimento LGBT, avete visto un servizio d’ordine gestito dalla polizia? (peraltro, qual è lo scopo di un servizio d’ordine ad un Gay Pride?)
Quali pratiche di movimento prevedono “immediate e ferme conseguenze in tutte le sedi politiche e giuridiche”?
Ci sembra che Arcigay e Arcilesbica stiano utilizzando nel modo più becero l’accusa di violenza contro chi ha tentato, come ogni giorno, di manifestare il proprio dissenso già reso noto durante la costruzione del Pride e fondato sulla neutralità dell’appello proposto dagli organizzatori, dissenso in cui ci siamo ritrovati anche oltre le posizioni di Facciamo Breccia, diverse dalle nostre negli specifici contenuti che abbiamo voluto portare al Bologna Pride.
Quest’accusa di violenza è quella che sempre da esponenti delle stesse associazioni e degli stessi partiti ci siamo sentit* fare anche durante le contestazioni a Ferrara dei mesi scorsi. E cos’è più violento? La scelta di mettere i propri corpi in gioco nelle strade oppure imporre ai corpi delle donne decisioni di altri?
Non è questo il modo di porsi davanti al movimento italiano LGBTQ. Non è accettabile l’uso del paradigma securitario in un ambito che forse era tra gli ultimi a non esserne ancora contagiato. Questo non può che confermare a chi, come noi, non vuole rinunciare ad esprimere le proprie posizioni, che dobbiamo continuare a costruire dal basso un’opposizione forte perché effettivamente nemmeno un Gay Pride è più “sicuro”.
Chi ha fatto la scelta di far intervenire le forze dell’ordine per dirimere un problema strettamente interno al movimento sembra non rendersi nemmeno conto delle conseguenze che questo modo di fare può avere; il nostro modo di prendere decisioni è assembleare, non gerarchico, né poliziesco, ci dispiace doverlo far notare, ma è proprio questo che vi impedisce di rappresentare un movimento: non vogliamo, né abbiamo bisogno di essere rappresentati!
Ancora una volta l’associazionismo legato ai partiti ha dimostrato quanto più gli interessa fare i conti con i propri tesserati piuttosto che con la partecipazione dal basso, ontologicamente eterogenea e quindi sorgente di dissenso.
Sconcertati da questa querelle avremmo voluto che le discussioni successive al Pride bolognese vertessero sui contenuti, a nostro parere nuovi e stimolanti che proprio in questa occasione, per la prima volta ritroviamo più vicini al nostro percorso politico. Vorremmo ripartire da una discussione interna al movimento sulla questione queer, che sta cominciando a trovare spazi anche in appuntamenti nazionali com’è stato quello di sabato scorso.
Alla luce di tutto questo, la nostra scelta non può allontanarsi da quelle fatte finora: continueremo a costruire un movimento libero, laico, autodeterminato.
martedì 8 luglio 2008
lunedì 7 luglio 2008
…LibreMente en un cuerpo libre…
Aborto, fecundación asistida, unión civil de parejas homosexuales...una vez más temáticas que atañen al control de nuestros cuerpos y a la posibilidad de autodeterminarnos se representan en un escenario político, de pseudos debate, que ha intentado colmar – o bien cerrar- un discurso.
Derecha e izquierda en una competencia que tiende a realzar la censura, negación, prohibición, contención y ordenamiento de la libertad de elección y de la ingobernable búsqueda de satisfacción de los deseos que atraviesan, y se producen a nivel social.
Nuestros cuerpos, una vez más, se inscriben como mercancía y son objeto con valor de cambio en campañas electorales y juegos de poder, cuyo objetivo es gobernar la vida y prevenir la posibilidad de “nuevos conflictos”, negando –a través de un discurso anacrónico y metafísico- aspectos de la autodeterminación indiscutiblemente presentes –o ya conquistados- en la realidad.
Han intentado marginarnos en batallas de resistencia y censurar la reivindicación de libertades ya en acto: han competido un grave error!
Mientras el residuo de la izquierda italiana aceptaba sentarse a discutir, sobre el destino de gran parte de nuestras libertades, en un escenario burdamente hegemónico, fuera de los palacios de gobierno se desplegaban y representaban conflictos que han traspasado los límites de la dialéctica de la diferencia de género, de los derechos, de la identidad.
Estamos proponiendo al debate político una perspectiva diversa, que parte desde la autonomía como toma de posición sobre la cual ninguna norma civil o penal puede decidir por nosotros. Partimos desde la autodeterminación como apertura de una infinidad de posibilidades, de deseo y de formas de relacionarnos, desde el laicismo como conflicto irrenunciable de frente al poder y legitimación de dogmas oscurantistas y censuradores.
Nuestra propuesta política se dirige a una superación de las identidades estáticas e impuestas, de los estereotipos morales y jurídicos que nos representan y controlan, para experimentar nuevas formas de autodeterminación –irrepresentables- y mantener abiertas todas las posibilidades de expresión, cambio, crítica y deconstrucción de nuestra subjetividad.
Aún cuando algunas dediciones legislativas puedan parecer necesarias y abiertas a los cambios que la sociedad experimenta, la voluntad de normar cualquier aspecto del nuestro vivenciar personal/íntimo/sexual/subjetivo corre el riesgo de portar una voluntad de especular, contener y limitar la libre posibilidad de elección. Cualquier dispositivo de comando biopolítico contiene inevitablemente formas de discriminación, de exclusión y represión de la diversidad, de imposición de modelos de vida homogéneos y homologables.
Las leyes que gobiernan la vida y la reproducción signan roles públicos y privados, y definen la legitimidad y los límites de las relaciones, cuestión que compete a tod*s y que tienen un impacto en la posibilidad, que tiene cada sujeto, de autodeterminarse y elegir libremente la forma en que desea vivirse su sexualidad.
No es posible hoy aceptar la reducción de las diferencias -inclasificables e incalculables- a categorías identificables e identitarias que reproducen un orden, un esquema “natural” y jerárquico de las relaciones humanas.
Precari*, gay, migrant*s, lesbicas, trans…y todo aquello que cada un de nosotros desea expresar...los limites flexibles de la ciudadanía no son sólo sexuados. Se mueven continuamente definiendo lugares de inclusión y exclusión, legitimidad y trasgresión, peligrosidad y victimización. Categorías que insisten sobre el temor y la exclusión del diverso, y que se nos presentan como una decisión obligada: encerrarnos en “reserva indígena” para preservarnos y tutelarnos o vivir en ciudades-cárcel para controlarnos. Este es el orden y la seguridad de la cual todos hablan como inevitable camino hacia la protección; pero la única seguridad que tenemos es que sea cada sujeto que se autodetermina, a partir de sus propios deseos y exigencias, desde sus propias inclinaciones temporales o permanentes, que debemos intentar definir y ejercer una nueva ciudadanía no identitaria, es decir flexible, mutable y, por lo tanto, resistente a las transformaciones subjetivas e históricas de las cuales somos protagonistas, y no espectadores, en cada momento de nuestras vidas.
FUXIA BLOCK
JUNIO 2008
www.fuxiablock.blogspot.com
Derecha e izquierda en una competencia que tiende a realzar la censura, negación, prohibición, contención y ordenamiento de la libertad de elección y de la ingobernable búsqueda de satisfacción de los deseos que atraviesan, y se producen a nivel social.
Nuestros cuerpos, una vez más, se inscriben como mercancía y son objeto con valor de cambio en campañas electorales y juegos de poder, cuyo objetivo es gobernar la vida y prevenir la posibilidad de “nuevos conflictos”, negando –a través de un discurso anacrónico y metafísico- aspectos de la autodeterminación indiscutiblemente presentes –o ya conquistados- en la realidad.
Han intentado marginarnos en batallas de resistencia y censurar la reivindicación de libertades ya en acto: han competido un grave error!
Mientras el residuo de la izquierda italiana aceptaba sentarse a discutir, sobre el destino de gran parte de nuestras libertades, en un escenario burdamente hegemónico, fuera de los palacios de gobierno se desplegaban y representaban conflictos que han traspasado los límites de la dialéctica de la diferencia de género, de los derechos, de la identidad.
Estamos proponiendo al debate político una perspectiva diversa, que parte desde la autonomía como toma de posición sobre la cual ninguna norma civil o penal puede decidir por nosotros. Partimos desde la autodeterminación como apertura de una infinidad de posibilidades, de deseo y de formas de relacionarnos, desde el laicismo como conflicto irrenunciable de frente al poder y legitimación de dogmas oscurantistas y censuradores.
Nuestra propuesta política se dirige a una superación de las identidades estáticas e impuestas, de los estereotipos morales y jurídicos que nos representan y controlan, para experimentar nuevas formas de autodeterminación –irrepresentables- y mantener abiertas todas las posibilidades de expresión, cambio, crítica y deconstrucción de nuestra subjetividad.
Aún cuando algunas dediciones legislativas puedan parecer necesarias y abiertas a los cambios que la sociedad experimenta, la voluntad de normar cualquier aspecto del nuestro vivenciar personal/íntimo/sexual/subjetivo corre el riesgo de portar una voluntad de especular, contener y limitar la libre posibilidad de elección. Cualquier dispositivo de comando biopolítico contiene inevitablemente formas de discriminación, de exclusión y represión de la diversidad, de imposición de modelos de vida homogéneos y homologables.
Las leyes que gobiernan la vida y la reproducción signan roles públicos y privados, y definen la legitimidad y los límites de las relaciones, cuestión que compete a tod*s y que tienen un impacto en la posibilidad, que tiene cada sujeto, de autodeterminarse y elegir libremente la forma en que desea vivirse su sexualidad.
No es posible hoy aceptar la reducción de las diferencias -inclasificables e incalculables- a categorías identificables e identitarias que reproducen un orden, un esquema “natural” y jerárquico de las relaciones humanas.
Precari*, gay, migrant*s, lesbicas, trans…y todo aquello que cada un de nosotros desea expresar...los limites flexibles de la ciudadanía no son sólo sexuados. Se mueven continuamente definiendo lugares de inclusión y exclusión, legitimidad y trasgresión, peligrosidad y victimización. Categorías que insisten sobre el temor y la exclusión del diverso, y que se nos presentan como una decisión obligada: encerrarnos en “reserva indígena” para preservarnos y tutelarnos o vivir en ciudades-cárcel para controlarnos. Este es el orden y la seguridad de la cual todos hablan como inevitable camino hacia la protección; pero la única seguridad que tenemos es que sea cada sujeto que se autodetermina, a partir de sus propios deseos y exigencias, desde sus propias inclinaciones temporales o permanentes, que debemos intentar definir y ejercer una nueva ciudadanía no identitaria, es decir flexible, mutable y, por lo tanto, resistente a las transformaciones subjetivas e históricas de las cuales somos protagonistas, y no espectadores, en cada momento de nuestras vidas.
FUXIA BLOCK
JUNIO 2008
www.fuxiablock.blogspot.com
Fuxia Block: free mind in free body
Abortion, fertility treatment, marriage between gay and lesbian couples…
Self-determination and control over our own bodies has been a crucial issue for months in Italy and has now ascended to a political no-holds-barred fight .
In the past few years we have watched a race between right and left wing parties, both using different approaches to marginalise those who challenge gender roles. We have seen a combination of propaganda and restrictions on freedom of choice, despite the clear societal resistance to patriarchy and unstoppable nature of gender liberation.
Our bodies have been turned into commodities for electoral campaigns and political power play. Their objective is always the same: to rule people’s life choices and resist well-established currents of social change.
There is always a big gap between social currents and laws. Politicians have tried to roll back freedoms people had already started living, even without a legislative approval. But they have made a big mistake, while some left wing parties stooped to playing the political power games used by the right wing parties, a new kind of fight had already started outside the political centre, and it aims to break the mainstream social confines of gender rights and identity.
An alternative to the mainstream political debate has arisen encompassing radical perspectives on these issues, starting with individual autonomy and self-determination as an open road for realising an infinite spectrum of desires and relationship practices within society. The realization of laicism (the process of making clerical controls on social institutions impotent) in society will destroy the powerful but illegitimate religious dogmas which ruin lives daily.
We can liberate ourselves from identities imposed by authorities to marginalise and divide us. We can experiment with new ways of self determination, permitting every form of self-expression, growth, and change. We can question society and our perception of our own identity. However we need to be wary of legislative acts which appear to be in line with the will of the people, these are often loaded with hidden agendas to curtail gender and sexual freedoms while giving the illusion of political change.
Those in power make use of propaganda to subjugate minorities, they use moralistic arguments, stigmatization, and perpetuation of guilt complexes to marginalise such groups. These practices sow the seeds of discrimination and are used to justify and pander support for restrictive reproduction laws.
These laws which rule and restrict our reproductive rights, which assign ‘public’ and ‘private’ roles, that define the limits and the approbation of OUR relationships affect every person within society. It is not possible to reduce the rainbow of human diversity to recognisable categories, the uniqueness of each human being is unclassifiable.
40 years ago the raising of women’s consciousness forced the concept of gender equality in to the mainstream, and the contradiction of universal citizenship in a world favouring the white, christian man became self-evident. This opened a fracture in society where women could fight for their right to be represented as citizens. Nowadays these fractures have multiplied as people representing innumerable gender roles and identities are willing to fight for representation whilst forming a unified solidarity movement.
Within society people should be able to choose their own identity, a hybrid of concepts and ideas as they so wish. However society and common culture is continuously defining what people should and should not be; what is forbidden and what is sanctioned. As a result it is safer for people to stay within these imposed identity confines in order not to suffer stigmatisation or the wrath of the law.
The moralising imposed by authority does not just apply to sexual orientation any more, many groups are affected whether they are people in precarious jobs, gays, migrants, lesbians, transgender, or bisexual. Authority continually defines inclusion and exclusion, legitimacy and deviance, ‘danger’ and victimisation.
This is the current order, a divide and rule strategy used under the guise of “reassuring” society from what those in power see as a threat. These categorisations plays on people’s fears and serve just to exclude those who are different.
On the contrary, we retain that to build a new society free from assigned roles, we need to start with self-determination and nurture the desires and needs of every human being. This new way of living out relationships will be flexible, adaptable, autonomous, and so resistant to political currents in which we are the protagonist and not just audience, in every moment of our existence.
Self-determination and control over our own bodies has been a crucial issue for months in Italy and has now ascended to a political no-holds-barred fight .
In the past few years we have watched a race between right and left wing parties, both using different approaches to marginalise those who challenge gender roles. We have seen a combination of propaganda and restrictions on freedom of choice, despite the clear societal resistance to patriarchy and unstoppable nature of gender liberation.
Our bodies have been turned into commodities for electoral campaigns and political power play. Their objective is always the same: to rule people’s life choices and resist well-established currents of social change.
There is always a big gap between social currents and laws. Politicians have tried to roll back freedoms people had already started living, even without a legislative approval. But they have made a big mistake, while some left wing parties stooped to playing the political power games used by the right wing parties, a new kind of fight had already started outside the political centre, and it aims to break the mainstream social confines of gender rights and identity.
An alternative to the mainstream political debate has arisen encompassing radical perspectives on these issues, starting with individual autonomy and self-determination as an open road for realising an infinite spectrum of desires and relationship practices within society. The realization of laicism (the process of making clerical controls on social institutions impotent) in society will destroy the powerful but illegitimate religious dogmas which ruin lives daily.
We can liberate ourselves from identities imposed by authorities to marginalise and divide us. We can experiment with new ways of self determination, permitting every form of self-expression, growth, and change. We can question society and our perception of our own identity. However we need to be wary of legislative acts which appear to be in line with the will of the people, these are often loaded with hidden agendas to curtail gender and sexual freedoms while giving the illusion of political change.
Those in power make use of propaganda to subjugate minorities, they use moralistic arguments, stigmatization, and perpetuation of guilt complexes to marginalise such groups. These practices sow the seeds of discrimination and are used to justify and pander support for restrictive reproduction laws.
These laws which rule and restrict our reproductive rights, which assign ‘public’ and ‘private’ roles, that define the limits and the approbation of OUR relationships affect every person within society. It is not possible to reduce the rainbow of human diversity to recognisable categories, the uniqueness of each human being is unclassifiable.
40 years ago the raising of women’s consciousness forced the concept of gender equality in to the mainstream, and the contradiction of universal citizenship in a world favouring the white, christian man became self-evident. This opened a fracture in society where women could fight for their right to be represented as citizens. Nowadays these fractures have multiplied as people representing innumerable gender roles and identities are willing to fight for representation whilst forming a unified solidarity movement.
Within society people should be able to choose their own identity, a hybrid of concepts and ideas as they so wish. However society and common culture is continuously defining what people should and should not be; what is forbidden and what is sanctioned. As a result it is safer for people to stay within these imposed identity confines in order not to suffer stigmatisation or the wrath of the law.
The moralising imposed by authority does not just apply to sexual orientation any more, many groups are affected whether they are people in precarious jobs, gays, migrants, lesbians, transgender, or bisexual. Authority continually defines inclusion and exclusion, legitimacy and deviance, ‘danger’ and victimisation.
This is the current order, a divide and rule strategy used under the guise of “reassuring” society from what those in power see as a threat. These categorisations plays on people’s fears and serve just to exclude those who are different.
On the contrary, we retain that to build a new society free from assigned roles, we need to start with self-determination and nurture the desires and needs of every human being. This new way of living out relationships will be flexible, adaptable, autonomous, and so resistant to political currents in which we are the protagonist and not just audience, in every moment of our existence.
Iscriviti a:
Post (Atom)