English please (some badly translated texts)

Separate the artist from his work (and how it is made)
(Originally Posted on April 21, 2019)

You have probably heard the expression “separate the artist from his work”, to refer to the cases in which an artist has committed a crime or other illegal act (generally of a sexual nature, such as harassment or rape), and who is wanted continue listening to your music, enjoying your movies or your paintings.

Appreciating the work and not the artist, may be the first idea that comes to mind, especially if it is an artist who does things that we like; but if we think about it better, how is that done? How do you know if you have already separated the artist from his work? What is said, what is done? Does the way of enjoying change? Is it about listening to him or seeing him, without thinking about his crime, and then, seeing him in court, not thinking of him as an artist? Everyone mentions it but does not tell us how to do it.

But, if as Heidegger refers:
The artist is the origin of the work. The work is the origin of the artist. Neither can be without the other. But neither of them supports the other separately either. The artist and the work are in themselves and reciprocally through a third that comes first, that from which the artist and the work receive their names: art. [1]
So, in this order of ideas, separating them requires dissociating art between things (the work) and people (the artist): Things to consume without appreciating their origin, since they come from a person with desires, passions and secrets, without thinking about how much of their illegal acts influenced the work. In the same way, people of whom we must annul their creations, or forget and downplay them, because they were made by criminals.

The industry has shown that it cannot separate them, as it has been “eliminating” actors, producers and directors (generally men) and their creations and legacy from the scene. He expelled and forgot them, condemning his being and his passions, whether for business or political correctness. They expelled art and its creator, they could not do one or the other. In the case of cinema, it is more complex, since it is an artistic expression that involves a large number of people, but is ultimately collaterally affected. Although this is not new, it is enough to refer to history to find similar cases, especially in the literature; It has become relevant, especially for movements to denounce the abuse of artists (understanding their hierarchical position), against women. Which somehow requires us to take a stand, either in reference to the feminist movement or to art itself.

On the other hand, the public and the fans, the further away they are from those affected, the easier it will be to continue enjoying the work and the artist, because his work means something to them and even reminds them of significant events in his life. Thus, the artist does not lose all of his fans, unless his “crime” [2] means something to them, that is, that some demographic sector (gay population, women, children, etc.) is directly affected.

We can ask ourselves, how much of an artist’s work refers us to his crime? It is not surprising when a singer, who talks about crime or drugs, is blamed precisely for those kinds of acts in his personal life; But it does surprise when an artist who sings about saving the world is accused of child sexual abuse.

In case the artist has had a legal process and has served some time in jail or paid another type of sentence, it seems that the crime is forgiven, but there is something that does not allow the artist to be the same again, the public perceives it different; his reputation is stained by more than the industry modifies his image. The crime is forgiven but it is not forgotten what happened and precisely in this “not forgetting”, another stage of the artist’s sentence is developed.

But even, the artistic contributions can interfere with the processes of judgment, one can even bequeath to have more considerations with some artists, because a criminal without a work is more despicable and we have no consideration for him. Of course, there will be an audience that defends their favorite artists, something that happens in all areas, be they work, family or ecclesiastical.

In the case of some crimes, those affected will enter history as brave or liars, (because there is always a veil of doubt about the victims), to be later forgotten by wider and more distant audiences.
With all of the above, advocating the separation of the artist and his work, denotes a certain insensitivity to those affected, is like saying to them: “I am going to listen to their songs, but not like those of your victimizer, but as things that someone else created.” It is like an intellectual imposture, postures or concepts that do not make sense and that try to explain something, but that only sound interesting.

Finally, we can infer that art is going to be preserved despite the victims, which I do consider possible, or I think is what happens, that what we separate is: The victims from us.

Violence (already) is normal. (Writings of a paranoid old man)

 (Originally Posted on April 5, 2019)

(Clarification: This writing is intended for those who have not suffered a significant loss due to violence; for all of them, this reflection will be non-comforting talk. People who are victims of crime or the families of disappeared people suffer devastating consequences that modify their lives forever. They have the difficult task of restructuring or rebuilding it despite the pain – I can’t say anything that captures or describes that experience.)

Long ago, a post was circulating on social media, where a young man described his discomfort to walk behind a woman and think that she thought that he was a threat. Many other young men commented feeling the same, as they walked behind a woman on a lonely street, some slowed down, others began to check the cell phone, so that the woman noticed that they were not following her. This assuming as a possible victimizer, both in the woman’s mind and in her own, is uncomfortable and undesirable, especially, when perhaps, a few streets ago, the feeling of the man was that he is possible victim, due to violence [1] in streets.

The modification of behaviors and the impact on social relations in public spaces, with strangers, has generated insecurity, positions us in a stage of the development of society in which violence is normal, understanding the norm as a precept to follow , rules or models of behavior. We know that there are security rituals (and measures) that we individually carry out, such as putting chains, locks, canes on cars, placing alarms, looking for lighted streets and changing routes, neighborhood security groups, etc. That somehow denote a state of alert. I am going to emphasize some behaviors, which more than security rituals, show how insecurity (caused by the climate of violence), has permeated social relationships to the point of becoming normal.

First, it is becoming more and more common for people to allocate certain assets for an assault event: Carry a low-end cell phone or a small amount of money to have something to give to thieves and that they do not harm them. Second, when it happens that a person is assaulted, it is also common to hear them say: “It was my turn” or “the day has come.” However, despite the above, there are crimes that we never think (or hope) that could happen to us, for example: The disappearance of a family member, who despite being a phenomenon that has been around for many years, and which continues to grow alarmingly, we refuse to accept that it will happen to us.

Generated by IJG JPEG Library

Violence is not normal … right (?)

I consider that saying that violence is not normal, places us in a position in which each violent event (one of those that occur every day, assaults, shootings, deaths, femicides, etc.), causes us to be in a state of constant shock, Because some people say that violence is not normal and that we should not stop doing our daily activities, not stop going out on the streets or stop going out at night; that we should not cede our spaces to criminals. That no person should be skipped, violated, disappeared, murdered and a long etcetera … But criminals are not interested in “how things should be”, since in fact, there are favorable conditions that support and give continuity to violence and insecurity. Violence as an event, insecurity as a subjective condition.

The point is, that certain crimes have shaped our society and have been placed in an important place and that they give it functioning: From informal vendors, piracy vendors and on higher scales, illegal financing of electoral campaigns, tax evasion; illegal purchase and sale of gasoline by the same gas station companies. These illegalities (among many others), create lasting social relations that prevail and that when the power tries to combat them, generates imbalances in the population and in our way of life.

The violent institution

Social institutions, as a mechanism for the administration of goods and control of individuals, are largely responsible for defining the individual and his needs. They dictate the characteristics that a person must have, either to receive some type of help, to carry out any procedure or even to consider them guilty of a crime. It is no longer the subject who defines their needs, but the Institutions, which, at the same time, are the ones that harm society due to their discriminatory practices, omissions and lack of will towards people. From denying medical attention, or not following up on a complaint, to making people creditors due to their particular conditions, such as, for example, the case of fines for motorcyclists who transport minors. These people operate under these conditions, because that is how they can cope with them.

Elías Dobry, in his study “structural violence and social violence” (2004), defines institutional violence as “all arbitrary or illegitimate use of force, exercised or permitted by the public force; it is a form of exercise of power through the use of physical, psychological, political or economic force, expressing the existence of an up and a down¨. We can include here, the criminalization of poverty and social protest.

For these reasons it is that the individual decides to get away as long as possible from the institutions that involve some instance of government and carries out acts of corruption to avoid this institutional violence. They are standardized and sometimes more convenient illegalities.

The bad boys (bad boys)

The loss of values ​​by the individual is said to have led society to a state of degradation; understanding that what has been lost are moral values, what separates it from the nobility and interests of the human being. Not because he doesn’t know them, but because they don’t mean anything to him. All the values ​​that society pursues such as work, respect for others, solidarity, empathy; for some people they are just concepts that they learn to define, but that in their personal development, they never manage to identify. They are not convinced of them and they do not mean the same to them as others, which is why these people are classified as bad.

Philosophy tells us that evil does not have a consistency independent of good and that it is only understood in terms of good, that is, that where there should be good, there is no considering that society tries to educate for good, based in a bipolar system. This may seem like verbiage, but aren’t these same criminals who commit heinous acts, are themselves husbands, fathers, friends, etc., and who sometimes do charitable acts in their communities?

In this same order of ideas, in 1961 Hannah Arendt defined as “the banality of evil” (referring to the holocaust), the phenomenon that occurred with the participants in the genocide, in which normal-looking people were able to carry out heinous crimes. According to these, they were only fulfilling an order, they did not see themselves within the collective evil, but only their individual acts. Thus, in our context, organized crime is seen by its members, as a company, with codes, rules and loyalties. The leader gives the order and the hit man executes it. What I used to consider as the hitman’s conscious decision to kill is nothing more than the conscious decision to carry out an order; whether he obeys it out of necessity or out of obligation.

As for the psychological phenomenon of the individual, within the criminal group (as a group), he acts as a social facilitator, where the subject is sheltered by the others, kills or tortures, accepting that it is common and that it must be done as part of the job. Of course, the personal characteristics and thought structure of the subject influences the affiliation to said groups, however, in other cases, the members are forced to enter.

Even the identification of the subject, with some character, can serve as psychic protection, that is, living their acts as a fiction playing some important character of crime. Let’s remember that, in the song “Sanguinario”, by the altered Movement, they compared the mentality of the drug traffickers and hitmen with Pancho Villa: “They bring the minds of several revolutionaries, like Pancho Villa fighting in guerrillas…” The same thing happens with the new movie characters and television series. I do not mean by this that these productions generate criminals, but they are used as a protective fiction.

Each of the previous examples has been the subject of research, studies and books, but here it was important to remember them.

Terror in the palm of your hand

The constant report of violent events through the Internet, give us the note at the moment or shortly after the event occurred and from the same place of the events. Precisely this immediacy prevents us from knowing what happened before and what will happen next, leaving us with a feeling of bewilderment. Later the television news programs, usually offer more information or at least some more data, due to their reporters who continue to investigate to better structure the story. But going back to the internet reports, they alter us and provide a space for opinions and interpretations in real time, of other viewers who try to explain or complain and make jokes in the comments section. And there is no lack of those who argue with others, adding more elements to the confusion: anger and boredom.

To function within violence

I no longer dare to say that violence is not normal, I have learned to experience the insecurity caused by violent acts and crimes without guilt. In a kind of internalization of violence, I have transformed it into courage, to be more careful, to strengthen and strengthen social ties. Of course it is scary to know that there are criminals operating from anonymity; it is heroic to go out, and distressing to think that something could happen the next minute.

We are living in a dangerous stage where our rulers and authorities have not been able to decipher it. If their strategy is to create the conditions so that it is urgent to militarize the country, they are doing well. Well, who will not agree on “a solution” to violence. It seems a doctrine of shock2, so that the population accepts the need for control by the State.

Thus, we went from fear of criminals to fear of the law. Our sense of security is no longer achieved as before. That feeling has changed its origin, that’s why, in looking for something that does not exist, or where it is not known, people tend to avoid and the only way to forget insecurity for a moment is by distracting ourselves, locking ourselves in our houses with our electronic devices. Distractors are already the only way to feel safe, to forget about ourselves until we no longer remember ourselves, until we no longer know who we are. Soon, it will be a way to disappear.

1 “The deliberate use of physical force or power, whether in a threat or effective degree, against oneself, another person or a group or community, that causes or is highly likely to cause injury, death, psychological damage, disorders of development or deprivation. ” According to the WHO Global Report on Violence and Health

2 Term coined by Naomi Klein, to refer that when there is a crisis, a state of vulnerability is generated that is used to impose new policies, which generally would have had opposition and rejection by the population


Originally Posted on March 1, 2019

Our daily life generally runs the same way: We share with the same people from our jobs, whether we work in an established place or we have to move. Our personal work relationships are generally with people in a similar or equal position to ours and if we work on the street, we are even more equal. In our city routine, our relationships are mostly horizontal (few descending and few ascending), that is, in the anonymity of public transport or walking on the street, we all share the same social class, and few are poorer than us .

These people in poverty are the ones who are cleaning windows at traffic lights, juggling, selling candys, asking for money on the streets or in the bus, etc. Now, if we assume our group as the salaried class, how is our relationship with the poorest, who belong to another group that is not ours? The answer is mostly short and dismissive. For a few seconds or a few minutes, they are an interruption of our reality; They appear to show us places we don’t want to belong to. We provide them with monetary aid or we consume their products or services.

In this interaction, prejudice is activated, understanding it as the “attitude towards members of specific groups, which directly or indirectly suggest that they deserve a lower social position” (1). But sometimes we do not realize our prejudice, or we do not consider it as such. When we reject or ignore, especially adults in poverty, we do so by resorting to supposed particular characteristics (they are lazy, they do not like to work, etc.) but not to the social conditions that promote poverty and so we justify their situation.

By rationalizing it this way, we do not consider it prejudice, but rather, that we are hard-working people and that we contribute something to society. But in all of the above, prejudice is working even if we do not realize it, since this is one of the bases of the structure of thought, which is built from childhood, with the information we receive; So, somehow we believed that the poor did not want or want to work and that is why he is on the street; that a person with some type of disability is not productive or that an indigenous person is poor precisely because of that, because they are indigenous and that in a certain way (the capitalist way) they are “inferior” to us wage earners.

It is important to make a clarification: Given the labor conditions that impoverish people in a way, there are those who do not accept those conditions and find asking for money or cleaning windows their way of earning money, but it is not only making money, (because sometimes they earn more than formal workers) but the social conditions inherited by those who keep them in poverty. (Customs, managing their economy, addictions, accidents, age, attitudes, academic preparation, etc.)

It´s worth mentioning that prejudice is even against people of high social status, that is, to revile the wealthy person because, “he did not have to make an effort to have what he has because he inherited it”, or that “it´s successful because the money helped him. ” Although sometimes this is the case, we do not really know, since the conditions of wealth also have to do with living conditions. (Social capital, way of generating more wealth, “talent” for business, saving habits, etc.)

Acting in accordance with our prejudice, results in discrimination and although there are prejudices against people of high social position, they are not victims of discrimination, of that discrimination that threatens dignity.

Try to defend with prejudice

Sometimes, the same prejudice gives us arguments to try to show admiration towards someone, and here it´s difficult, both to utter an argument in favor, as to listen to it; that is: When we see characters interacting in situations that do not correspond to the dominant model, for example: an indigenous woman trying to be an independent candidate, for the country’s presidency. In addition to the open criticism of their preparation or capacity, there were those who were trying to defend, it seemed that they confirmed that the indigenous peoples, being “inferior”, needed someone to represent them in power. No lower, but of course more disadvantaged.

We are prejudiced towards those furthest from our social condition, of course, there may be appreciation or identification with our social group, but stigmatized groups seem to be condemned forever, because this stigma transcends them; stigma is a discrediting attribute, thus, being indigenous, or being overweight, being poor or having some type of disability, will continue to be an obstacle for the individual because whatever he does, he cannot stop being indigenous, or poor, or sometimes (for biological reasons) stop being overweight. When someone with any of these conditions is part of our reality, we can have a greater sensitivity to prejudice.

As I mentioned at the beginning, our interaction with disadvantaged sectors is limited to seeing them on the street for a few minutes, our thinking creates (that is, adopts) categories that seek to explain their lives and thus, stereotypical thinking is produced that acts as a facilitator of a kind of “psychic saving”, with which we can “direct our mental energy to more pressing cognitive activities” (2). That is, we do not invest time in reflecting on his condition, it seems unsuccessful because the situation will not change at all, but a reflection is an internal event that can change the subject and lead him to relate differently with others, and that is, a Stereotype is a discourse generated by ruling classes or from a higher position, which reveals the nature of relationships with other groups. It is imperative to decipher the message that resides in the stereotype.

The foundations of discrimination

Discrimination is an action (either personally, institutionally, or in the private sector) that violates the individual. As previously discussed in the blog (4), there is what Johan Galtung defines as ´cultural violence´ as “some aspect of culture, capable of being used to legitimize violence, direct or structural; the direct one as an event, the structural one as a process and the cultural one as a constant ”. (Galtung 1989). Thus, as violence and discrimination are founding elements of culture, they no longer see themselves as such, giving way to a kind of ‘blindness’ with which the individual does not know, who is discriminating or acting according to their prejudice.

The media, especially television and marketing, have caused a weakening of national identity (3), and that is, if characteristic traits are shared with that of the “dominant” groups (to put it in some way): For a Male / Catholic / White / Young / Professional, the probability of suffering from direct discrimination is unlikely, at best, the security staff of some bar will not let you in. On the other hand, someone who does not have these characteristics, but who is also poor, is generally the target of mistrust and repeatedly (we have seen it in the media), they are asked to withdraw from the vicinity of convenience stores. or departmental because they “make customers uncomfortable” (managers decide that) and customers feel more comfortable when they leave. We rarely consider it as an act of discrimination, but as a security measure. So a “well-dressed” criminal causes more surprise, since you don’t expect me to steal from you; Of course, in this time of violence, insecurity and crime, it is not superfluous to take preventive actions, even if this implies social acceptance of discrimination.

With all this, we can infer that the definitive creators of prejudice are the media managed by people from the ruling classes, who have created “social subjects” (5) from an understanding of the world from their position, that is , they create “identities”, such as the indigenous or the poor, the ugly, or the obese; through what they are supposed to do, feel, think, say and react; they build identity from outside the subject, which weakens their own identity.

At the same time, they create the image of the “successful” woman and man: slim, white, well-dressed and sometimes with some refined upbringing. Therefore, this is the image they request in jobs; it is the image that we are used to seeing in the media; It is the image that we expect when we see the manager of a store. And if someone were from the aesthetic image of the “successful”, dressed as a “successful”, they will be the target of ridicule, especially on social networks.

Finally, and without pretending to be a sobering article, I consider that recognizing prejudice in us and reflecting on where it comes from and recognizing it as such, will help us understand why we feel what we feel when seeing people in an unfavorable situation, beyond rejection that causes us to think: They are poor because they want to.

How do you do this? Being alert to our thoughts in order to identify them … and how are we alert to our thoughts in order to identify them? Precisely: Wanting to identify them.

(1) Glick and Hilt (2000) Social Psychology. Chap. 8

(2) Franzoi, S. (2003) Social Psychology. Chap. 8

(3) Esteinou, J. (1990) Communication and Society, num. 9


(5) The idea of ​​anonymous and unknown individuals who invariably possess negative, generally stereotypical characteristics and attitudes.

The theater of the social media

(Originally Posted on January 14, 2019)

In the field of social networks, we can also talk about them as if it were a staging: A scenario in which we interpret ourselves (which also happens in our real life), but is it our virtual identity , the one that most coincides with our identity outside the social media or is it totally opposite?

We can begin to respond, mentioning that, with the evolution of networked societies, the way of presenting ourselves has also changed; our interactions are mediated by information, complaints, tests, jokes, comments and opinions of others; In addition to the fact that these interactions do not occur at the same time, that is, one can join a discussion, leave, and then return. But, above all, our personal publications, (those that we share or write and that are answered by our contacts), are at the same time a benchmark of our interests and also, a bit of our personality.

Understanding the concept of <Personality>, from the etymology of <Person>, as that mask used to act and also, to be perceived in a certain way. An element to add from Psychology is that the personality (which does not refer to quantity [much or little] but rather to types), groups individual, permanent, and even predictable characteristics; With the above, we can detect that each post will have a consistency with the person (if it is known) or if it is unknown, they are constant.

Imagen: Internet

On the other hand, we can understand that, there are those who are in a social network just to have fun or have fun, and then all the time publish and share funny content, but this does not mean that in reality they make jokes all the time. Also, there are users who constantly share news and express their opinions, it´s not necessarily someone who talks all the time about these topics, what I mean is that also in social networks we try to shape the impression that others have of us, because Among the various options we have, we decide to please or dislike, be an informant or a comedian, etc.

It´s even common for someone to share a meme with a position with which they do not entirely agree, but who found it funny the way it was presented; humor is used as a strategy to deal with certain issues. The individual may refer to “disagree” and claim that it´s only a joke, but it could also be that it´s uncomfortable to agree, so the meme is functional in terms of certain hidden truths of the individual.

To be or not to be a “Character”

The question of whether you are a character or whether you create a character for the networks, continues to be defined by our personality; Why do you choose to play a certain character? This other character will continue to be a product of our mental content. And it´s that, even in a false profile, it is not so false after all, because again, it is a self-presentation. But in this way, things can be said that we do not say so as not to displease, a cathartic digital place is created.

The networked masses

in massive events, as well as there are in-person attendees, there are also virtual participants: Spectators who from some screen participate in the (virtual) discussion. Trendig topics and real-time discussions bring people together and that, as in a face-to-face mass, self-regulation is hampered and passion is exalted; For this reason, the insults and threats against other participants, because, based on their opinions, we attribute to the others certain (negative) characteristics that we confirm (sometimes), when reviewing their profile. We investigated and reviewed their previous posts to find out how to attack. There is pleasure in “hating” the different, because he confirms to me that, not being like me, he is wrong and I am correct.

We are weak

There are those who, when having contact with content that is outside the limits of their thinking, and given the limited or no possibility of debating on social networks, react with an insult or anger; the ability to contain anger is reduced. Do not leave a discussion, do not ignore a post. You need to respond, it is imperative, even if the topic is somewhat neutral. There is no strength for first, not getting angry and second, to keep silent. Again, negative emotions hinder self-regulation.

The above is understandable, because in the face of the constant flow of information, in the same minute, something we liked, something we loved, then something surprised us, then something made us sad and something also angered us. There is a dismantling or a deterioration of our psychological resources, we are altered, emotions and feelings are appearing and disappearing, merging and separating, making us feel guilty for laughing and also, making us laugh for being guilty.

We are acting ourselves; we act up to our emotions, (but the script provided by the networks indicates limited emotions); we are protagonists and extras at the same time. We are the publication that generated many comments, but also, we are one comment among many others.

First as a tragedy, then as a farce, then as a Trendig Topic.

(Originally Posted on May 16, 2018)

Tragedies, farces and tragic farces.

Hegel says that the great events of history occur twice or that we can infer when he speaks of the evolution of history (1). Perhaps when he said it they had happened only twice, but until now they have been repeated throughout history. That is to say, events such as the Jewish exodus, the positioning of man at the center of history (Socrates, Kant … The Selfies), the revival of the arts, retro fashion; Industrial revolutions have had at least one aftershock.

Marx refers first as tragedy, then as farce (2), in the sense that the first moment arises as part of natural development, for just or unjust causes and that the second moment is a spawn of the first, where “the original cause lost vitality ”and only the reproduction remains as a fiction, for example:

In 1968, in Tlatelolco, the army was used to mitigate the student movement, since it was a “destabilizer of the country” and “a communist threat”, a threat that was considered as real; then, on October 2, a massacre, a tragedy. It was all a sum of errors by both the CNH (national strike council) and the Government of Mexico. On the one hand, the CNH and the denial of dialogue and the demand for compliance with their demands, as well as the intention to become “the critical conscience of the workers” (3). And on the other hand, the repression and authoritarianism of the State. Luis González De Alba, leader of the student movement, says in his book Las Mentiras de mis Maestros: “Our awkwardness does not exempt the Government from responsibility.” Everything was an infinite combination of errors that generated a tragedy: The firing of the Olimpia Battalion is taken as aggression by the Army, who answers the aggression.

The farce that (in the hope of not sounding forced in my analysis), meant the use of the Army to fight drug trafficking in the so-called War on Drugs. Punitive actions for a topic with many edges. The war, without defined victory conditions, did not stop the activity of the cartels. The production of marijuana, heroin and amphetamines did not decrease (4).

Under the argument of the defense of the nation, as well as in 68 ‘, it was due to the conditions that the government itself had created.

The Army’s action in response to the EZLN’s (Zapatista Army of National Liberation) armed uprising in 1994, that is, the farce lies precisely in the fact that the solution is the use of the army, instead of improving the conditions of indigenous communities. On the contrary, the entry into force of the FTA was to the detriment of the living conditions of the majority of the peasants and indigenous people.

In everything, the Government justifies the action with the speech and today the farce and the tragedy go hand in hand, whether it be defending ourselves from the communists, drug traffickers or guerrillas. The army is used to defend us. But this is no longer surprising, and although the definitive farce was about to occur with the so-called Internal Security Law, which, today, was determined to be unconstitutional. But in Mexico, we know that this does not stop the Government, and they will find arguments to continue waging a war against Mexicans within Mexico.

Fotografía: El Universal

Whoever does not know their history is condemned … and other fallacies.

The common place that prays that the one who does not know its history is condemned to repeat it. It´s unsustainable, since it makes the individual responsible for things that are not in his hands to change. The political Class, the Entrepreneurs and The economic system, produce and sustain the conditions so that they are repeated; even if you know them, even if you don’t want to.

We already know our history (that of the country) and some even understand it. When something that we don’t like happens to us, we make sure that it doesn’t happen again, but sometimes, there are external forces that are repeated throughout our lives and throughout history; It is no longer enough just to know it, you have to understand it and we will know why it is repeating itself cyclically.

There is much theory and many philosophers who have addressed the repetition of history: Hegel explains how historical events generate similar events; Marx with a deeper explanation of what Hegel refers to, the tragedy and the farce; Freud, on a more unconscious level, and repeating so as not to remember, remembering not to repeat (5); Bourdieu explains how in class relations they are perpetuated and preserved both between different classes and within the same class fractions. Likewise, the reproduction of schemes and relationships, cause that above (in power) things change continuously so that below everything remains the same or sometimes worse. This is confirmed by the reforms, be they educational, energy, telecommunications, security, etc.

The owners of capital, of the means of production of both merchandise and culture, ensure their own reproduction. Thus, “asymmetrical relationships are created to hold someone permanently and these relationships are officially recognized as legitimate under the law” but this cannot succeed without the complicity of the entire group; This social group conserves and reproduces itself and inherits these relationships from the next generation. And although the ideal of social promotion exists, in each generation, the powerful change the rules, so that everything remains the same.

A philosopher raised the idea of ​​the “eternal return”, that things are repeating themselves countless times. The myriad of forces and conditions, (both personal and historical), are combining in all ways and with all possible variations until these combinations are exhausted and occur again, generating the same reactions or similar events. This thesis by Nietzsche (6), goes in an individual sense, but I consider it explanatory for historical events, and that in Mexico they are being repeated more and more frequently, as if these forces were in a circle that we can well define as all the conditions conducive to their recurrence: Impunity that causes more and more crimes to occur without the culprits being caught; corruption that causes money destined for social services programs that does not reach those who need it, directly affecting the population; laws that protect the interests of a few to the detriment of the majority.

Thus, in Mexican politics the same things occur six-year-after-six-year period, but due to a question of control brought about by the same system of government, capitalism, neoliberalism and institutions; consequently, the things that happened to our parents will somehow happen to us and then somehow to our children.

But it is not enough to say that things repeat themselves, that history is cyclical, etc. But we must analyze why. Since not only the great events are repeated, but also the smallest and most trivial, it is important to understand the causes, their historical implications, the relationship between social actors, and even analyze the use of discourse, its concepts, and its descriptive function in certain historical moment.

The end is already over.

When Fukuyama (7) proposes his thesis on the end of history, he makes the clarification that he refers to the end of ideologies. With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the triumph of capitalism, says Fukuyama, everything that follows is a consequence of Capitalism. This sounds like dogma, in which everything that happens confirms his hypothesis. I think that within its limits it is a success. However, the so-called postmodernity and the death of the great stories, the new struggles for equal opportunities between men and women and the so-called gender ideology, contribute to continuity and the creation of new realities not as a consequence of capitalism (but if with economic implications).

These events that, although they have already been present, are presented today in a new way and with combinations unheard of in history, this tells us that there are still new social forces and new combinations that cause unprecedented phenomena to occur. What can generate a shock of reality, events that have no comparison and that are explained by their own elements.

The great social movements, more than new, are, appropriately, revivals, since they have never ceased to exist, but they do lose intensity. The permanence and success of a movement or ideology lies in the victories it adds up to; When it stops having them, it disappears, becomes extinct or enters a period of low intensity. Thus, feminist movements, or movements for the rights of the LGBTTTIQ community, have victories, defeats and breaks.

There are phenomena that are revitalized when capitalized (that is, someone capitalizes them), an example is Facebook, before this platform, there were chats, before that, pen pals. Of course, technological development gave a greater push, but always, contact with distant people, friends, family or strangers, has been a common practice of people.

Something that we can say is that the story progresses on the more expensive side, for example and with a very frivolous example, which Zigmunt Bauman (8) poses in a remarkable way: It is how fashion, that which changes each season, is a constant becoming implies renewal, even if that means reusing the clothes that were used 50 years ago. Bauman clarifies, life is not renewed for the individual, life is worn out. “Life is a physical fact, fashion a social fact”. Life is a finite line, fashion an infinite circle.

And then, why is there no other revolution?

It seems that the conditions for a revolution to occur, thinking of a revolution in which the united people rise up in arms and fight against power and improve things for the people; The political class is cynical, openly contemptuous of the population; his scams and robberies are millionaires; They lie blatantly, they keep us poor, afraid and it seems that they do nothing to improve living conditions. More than once I have heard the question: Why is there no revolution ?, in other people’s conversations and in some of their own.

The reasons that I can identify is that we would first need a radical national movement with a certain ideological burden, that seeks structural changes for the benefit of the majority. Here we have problems. The big themes are:

1. Social organization for the search for a common good. With the division of the middle class, sectors have been generated with greater opportunities and benefits than the capitalist system offers: Opportunities for employment, to buy things, to study, to have access to certain entertainment activities to a greater or lesser extent. Even the living conditions are not terrible for all the fractions of the middle class. For the poor, of course, their most difficult condition.

2. There is no totalitarian regime that subjects us all equally. There is no dictatorship; There are more disadvantaged sectors and oppressed by the authority.

3. At the moment there are no revolutionary struggles. The last armed movement is that of the self-defense groups. But that his fight is precisely a defense of his life against a direct threat. For its part, the EZLN was primarily a movement for indigenous demands.

4. There is no power dispute within the national territory, nor foreign interests for a change of regime.

5. The sophisticated form of domination today. The disqualification of social movements by the political class manages to have an echo in sectors of society that, adopting the discourse of the powerful, undermine the spirits of those who take action and the streets to demand justice. Apathy and indifference to the pain of others and lack of class consciousness are defeats of the middle class.

6. New revolutions do not come from below. An armed revolution sounds archaic when the companies are awarded the new revolutions; now any breakthrough is revolutionizing history, revolutionizing people’s lives, revolutionizing the way of driving, of communicating, of watching television,… of making orange juice, etc… ”These new revolutions are a farce.

This pessimistic position does not prevent me from evaluating demonstrations, marches, rallies or any other type of social organization; it is imperative to raise your voice in the face of injustice and ignominy, violence and corruption. Just causes are defended. Maybe nothing is going to change (or change for the better) and that everything remains the same, but that does not stop the revolutionaries.


(1) The science of logic

(2) The eighteenth brumaire of Luis Bonaparte

(3) The Lies of my teachers

(4) The antinarco war, the great farce of calderón. Process magazine 17/0/2012

(5) I remember repetition and elaboration. Complete works volume 11.

(6) Thus spoke Zarathustra.

(7) The end of History.

(8) Culture in the world of liquid modernity.

How is it that, I said something, but afterwards I was no longer speaking for myself.

(Originally Posted on May 7, 2018)

Remember when Nicolás Alvarado was fired as General Director of TV UNAM, for saying that he did´nt  like Juan Gabriel? Or when Aleks Sintek had to resign as UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador, because his statements about the Godínez(1) were inconsistent with respect for human rights?

Now it happens with Ricardo Alemán and a meme with an allusion to murder. The television stations canceled their programs and ended their employment relationship.

Here the link to the development of the events: https://www.laotraopinion.com.mx/minuto-a-minuto-del-lichamiento-a-ricardo-aleman/

The higher the rank on the social scale (or level of fame), the statements and personal feelings become relevant, that is: The statements are considered as an incitement to his followers to perform an act. In the mouth of someone who does not belong to the media, they are taken as a joke and cause grace, and even the share button is given.

But sometimes this can happen to anyone, even if he is not a famous person. Someone is condemned when what is said is not well seen, offends or denigrates, incites violence; and a punishment is sought, this punishment is generally economic, either as a fine or as the loss of income, that is, dismissals.

Because we are no longer us, we are no longer individuals, now we are the personification of the Company that hired us, of the place where we work; be it a television station, a shopping mall or a convenience store. The individual no longer speaks for him, now he speaks for an entire company. And these separate themselves from what is done wrong and end contracts with workers who offend the population. We stop being (in fiscal terms) a natural person, to be a moral person, forced to be good and please everyone (as if it were a product or a brand).

We can come to feel a kind of depersonalization, in which I am no longer myself, but a company; who speaks is the company, who tweets is a brand, who posts is a transnational company. Although I am not a spokesperson, or someone of high rank and I am just an employee, I am the face and voice of a Company.

So once again society accepts the need for repression and the punishment of passions. The private, an idea, a comment if it is not well seen by society is denounced. Of course I think that inciting or insinuating a crime is not correct, no matter who says it; famous or not famous. But there are occasions when the Other, the one who thinks differently, is the enemy that must be removed from public view without concession, by whatever means necessary.

If what worries is that an individual thinks in a certain way and the only solution available is to fire him; it’s just moving the problem out of the public sphere. There is no possibility or place or need for understanding … For what?

(1) Refers to office workers

the fractional crowd (or the obligation to act in public, as if you were alone).

(Originally posted on February 5, 2018 )

Everything happens simultaneously, both in reality and in social networks; but there are strange occasions, in which things happen first in reality and then in social networks. This gives us the opportunity to contrast the social behavior of the individual.

In reality: At the concert the character is cheered on stage for things such as raising his hand or saying “Houla méxicou”; in the soccer stadium a goalkeeper is shouted fucking; in a riot stores are looted. The crowd is understood only by being inside it. The behavior is modified by being within the mass; This social behavior is far from our individual behavior is modified by a “collective mentality”.

A few days ago, a video was released where Singer Alex Lora, ordered to expel some people from his concert who, according to him, were causing problems and repeatedly had been asked for calm. With insults and derogatory references to the appearance of these people, the public supported Lora and chanted his insults. The opinions on the networks were not long in coming, the majority reproving the insults of the Singer.

Of course we can note that, by reviving the issue in networks, most people who think, disapprove or approve; They were not present. So, the barrenness of the comments is that: They reject collective behavior, precisely because no one acted as one would act individually. That is, the people present, each of them should have reacted as if they were alone.

The idea is then, a fractional crowd; a social space where individuality prevails, as if it were a question of creating a social network (internet) dynamic, precisely in reality, that is: giving a 180 ° turn to things. That the social network (which pretends to be a reflection of society) becomes the real society.

In networks there is no passion, only failed morality; there is no throw into the world, only reasoning; there is no courage, only words that simulate value; What do the opinion makers know of being thrown into the world, of being consumed by passion until, disappearing in the mass.

A digital summary of A real book.

(Originally posted on December 22, 2017)

In his story “The Sphinx,” Edgar Allan Poe recounts how the protagonist enters a state of shock, when his senses deceive him, and interprets a fact based solely on his sensory perception. The story ends when they explain that the monster he saw in the mountains from the window, is nothing more than an insect that descended through a spider web.

Currently, this state of shock is repeated again and again before reality; when something happens, the lack of information and the urgency to interpret the facts, gives us erroneous readings.

It is not until the truth is stated, that we find calm, not because it is satisfactory, but because it gives us the exact words to name reality … the truth is the only one that heals us of reality.

And while we are here, real things are happening; drive home, have a cup of coffee, the hug of a loved one, a loud laugh; the loss of a love, the loss of a relative or even a tooth. They are such real events, such as planes crashing into the twin towers, the disappearance of 43 Ayotzinapa students or the protest of Enrique Peña Nieto.

We inhabit reality, and it can be threatening and incomprehensible. But it can also be satisfying and full of pleasure, and it is not until it is stated that we understand it, that we incorporate it into ourselves, that we make it ours. But it is not stated with any statement, but with a statement that tells the truth.

The above is the main theme of the book. My intention is to describe in a clear way, the different positions of the individual in the face of reality and how to approach the truth.

I start with a comparison between a solar eclipse and the experience of reality. Which is more or less as follows:

The sun illuminates everything, nothing escapes its rays, likewise, no one escapes reality.

The moon, when interposed, only reveals a halo of light. Likewise, language, speeches, social constructions and symbols help us capture reality. We can identify it.

The next element that is present in an eclipse, are the filters that you recommend to use to see it. I mean the crystals or special lenses, through them we can see the sun and the moon in this stellar event.

I make a simile with electronic devices, such as television, cell phones (ie all screens). In them, we see the event and listen to the speech.

The last element of this comparison is the individual; that is, once the information reaches us and the truth is stated, we gather around it. The truth unites us, it is common for all

The truth is what stands between us and reality. It is an explanation of why things happen. We seek the truth to protect ourselves, to be able to distance ourselves from the event.

And think about it, when a shocking event occurs, we have no words, there is nothing we can say or hear that helps us understand the event.

I remember seeing in a History Chanel documentary about September 11 at the World trade center; After the towers fall, a reporter meets a priest and asks him to say a few words to the American people; The priest, without stopping his walk, replies: “I can’t say anything, I don’t have the words.”

We know that the shock is enormous and we expect a priest to speak of God or some Bible verse, but at that time, all categories, all concepts, all teachings, were surpassed by reality, the father had stayed speechless and the reporter wanted to hear something that would help him process the moment.

Imagine a place where nobody knows what to say, because he can’t, and nobody knows what to think, because nobody says anything.

The same goes for the death of a loved one. There is nothing that they tell us, that makes us feel good, at the same time, there is nothing that can be said, the reality of losing someone is overwhelming.

But after the shock, the truth comes, being able to talk about the event, the events are assimilated; they are shaped in our mind and an explanation is articulated. If this does not happen, when the truth is not stated, the individual may fall into madness. Being in front of reality without being able to put something between her and us is overwhelming, we need words that protect us.

A final example of this, in everyday life. Have you seen that there are some newspapers, with violent images, and how do they usually come up with a joke header? that is, they make a joke of the situation. Precisely this funny heading helps us to assimilate the news that would otherwise be more difficult to assimilate. We can say that reality makes us sick and the truth is the cure.

As the book progresses, we also talk about how knowledge helps us when we get closer to the truth. Our knowledge places us in a place, from where one speaks and gives an opinion. That is, one speaks from a position in the world; Teacher, mechanic, bank manager, etc. From there, the information is received.

This naturally creates obstacles among people, these are obstacles to knowledge; The most visible in these times is opinion. There have always been people giving opinions, or opinion leaders; But now, these opinions are poured into social networks, because anyone, even if they do not know the subject, or have not even read the news, can comment.

This confuses, generates misinformation and rumors and prevents understanding, because you have totally opposite arguments and both sound convincing. We of course accept the argument that confirms our beliefs.

And today, every day we learn about events, around the world; There are some that we fail to understand, either because of cultural differences or because we do not know the background. This causes our opinion, is not the most accurate and if we think in a social network of things that we do not understand, we are paying for the confusion, own and of others.

But as I mentioned, reality requires us to understand and state it. That is why it is understandable that everyone gives us a poinion.

This brings us to the last part of the First part, where I speak of thought and its limits. That is, why do I think what I think and not something else?

Growing up in context builds our thinking. We are provided with cultural capital (customs, objects, knowledge and finally, academic degrees). Our thinking makes us different, collective thinking makes us part of others.

We are different, and we begin to notice this difference when we identify things that are unthinkable to us, thoughts that are not part of us. Therefore, a conservative from the extreme right and a narco corridos singer, think things that we do not, things that are beyond our limits.

And both the conservative’s thinking and the singer have an influence on reality, that is; marches are carried out against adoption by same-sex couples or they are held late. Here, I think that thought has limits, reality does not.

Now, it is important to clarify that thinking differently must be understood from the social group and the moment, not from a hierarchy, there is no superior or inferior. That is, you are not more, or less intelligent, to think differently.

We are not equal, each one belongs to a fraction of society, which has its specific problems; from single mothers who need to go out for fun, to people who ride bicycles and obstruct the bike paths.

Society is increasingly dividing, so it is important to be able to think about universalities. These are not determined by the social group to which they belong, but rather to something that is essential for people. It is a unifying element.

The unifying element par excellence is the economic capital, be of the social class that you are, and belong to the fraction of class that is, the money is essential. Another element that I dare to point out as a unifying element is the truth. We need her, and we gather around her.

Out of these universalities, we find the conflict that others represent us, different ones and especially those that are even more different than the others. That is, minority groups that suffer discrimination.

It is important to remember that discrimination is, by definition, the separation of different elements according to their characteristics. But when this discrimination has its basis in prejudice, it is when it becomes harmful.

It consists of three elements that I will briefly mention:

1.- The difference is verified (by a visible element) skin color, disability, race.

2.- Positive evaluation of my characteristics and negative evaluation, if someone does not have them.

3.- This difference makes me superior.

It is important to be aware that we are different, because in this way, and only then, can we recognize that outside the limits of our thinking, there are other ways of life, other conceptions of the world, of good and evil; of the valuable and the useless; of the beautiful and the grotesque.

That there, beyond my limits, there are unthinkable things and recognize that there, I am the unthinkable.

The second part is made up of a kind of short essays, where I reflect on diverse topics, but always from Psychology and a little philosophy, for example, the importance of play in children, and how to play is a language, that says things that the child still does not know how to name.

A fun topic is one where I do an analysis of the so-called Memes, from psychoanalysis; based on a text by Freud, about the joke and its relationship with the unconscious. Since the memes are finally a joke, which generates pleasure and psychic savings, that is, we avoid thinking about the subject, and just laugh at it.

Also, another essay, about how the end of the world is a kind of internal motor, which moves us, that is; the idea of ​​death as a reason to do things.

Perhaps the most introspective theme, is the one that talks about personal identification with a celebrity, and how this generates a kind of protective screen when acting. We can remind the boy that, playing as a goalkeeper, he intended to be Jorge Campos and threw himself recklessly as Campos did.

Another example is the young girl who in her fifteenth years, to surprise dance, choose a certain song by a certain artist and does the steps of a music video; At that moment, that young woman becomes the celebrity she admires, and not only that, she has an audience to prove it to.

However, it is important that the individual is placed at a distance from the fantasy, what does this mean?

That, since there is no space between me and fantasy, you run the risk of suffering from a psychic disorder or worse, life is at risk. Do you remember the case of the Pirate of Culiacán? Was it used or was the young man convinced to be powerful and untouchable? Or the problems with the Mexican justice of Kate Del Castillo. Although she denies it and says that when the director shouts Corte, the character ceases to exist, his actions were of a true Queen of the South.

Moving on to other issues, there is a part of the Book that becomes Marxist. Where I deal with issues such as the purchase of cell phones at high prices. Since much of the cost of these, is an imaginary value that brands attribute to their equipment. And so, customers in addition to paying, raw material, labor, technology used, transfers and propaganda; We end up paying an arbitrary cost for the idea.

Also, an analysis of the calls, Godínez, and how they are the result of a defeat of the proletariat, in the class struggle.

Finally, I make a point to the society of harassment, and how it generates Lord’s and Lady’s, which translates as the requirement of society, to punish those who break the rules.

This book is a reminder, so that these issues are not forgotten, so that we do not miss them and take them for granted.

I describe current events, and above all I talk about reality and truth, with the aim of paying in their understanding and being able to understand them differently, and that, thinking about these issues, helps us to understand other issues that have not been in this book.

This book, breaks into reality, to write down all these questions, which are obvious, so obvious that you stop thinking about them, you forget; It only acts accordingly. Therefore, here is a reminder to extract ourselves and observe ourselves from outside.

See yourself inserted in reality, see how you influence it; and so that, in an unfolding and explosion of consciousness, you can see what you are seeing.

Thank you so much.

“Of cultural violence, the far right and the multiple genres”

(originally published on May 30, 2017)

In his work “Cultural violence”, Johan Galtung, defines it as “some aspect of culture, susceptible to be used to legitimize violence, direct or structural”; the direct as an event, the structural as a process and the cultural as a constant. (Galtung 1989). With the above, we can specifically identify a hidden cultural violence that is there, but sometimes does not seem like it: Discrimination, as an event, as a process and as a constant.

We have all suffered discrimination at some specific time, at some specific place; however, it is discrimination in its innocuous state, since by definition, the concept refers to this differentiation that exists, either by physical, cultural, or any other type of characteristics, which confirm, precisely, a difference.

For example: We may not be allowed to enter a bar because of our appearance; we can have a derogatory treatment in a restaurant, for our manners; even, the exclusion in some conversation, for not belonging to any guild or academic lineage. In a sensible way, we can understand it, because it is only an event, it is not a constant, and if it is a heterosexual-white-Catholic-man of middle / upper class, the probability of being discriminated against decreases.

On the other hand, there are sectors of society that suffer harmful discrimination, to those who pretend to deny them rights, because they are considered inferior, deviant, sick … crazy.

This discrimination, according to Norberto Bobbio (1994), is based on 3 stages:

– Verification of a difference. Whether physical or cultural.

– Positive evaluation. The characteristic that I possess is positive, if someone lacks it, I consider it negative.

– Judgment of superiority. If it does not have any characteristics, it is legitimate to dominate, submit, use, etc. the other.

When these 3 stages are completed, a “Social Subject” emerges, guilty of all the evils that afflict society.

The following is the articulation of a discourse and its use, in the media, in rallys and in the daily life. These discriminatory discourses are part of a cultural, latent and disguised violence, which becomes visible at a time when these, social subjects or these discriminated minorities, demand rights.

When the Conservative groups, they organize themselves, they become more visible and audible, and then, what they do in the privacy of their homes, they replicate it in public spaces, to defend themselves from the aforementioned Social Subject, which in this case is The Homosexual community, It threatens the existence of the far right.

This social subject is, at the same time, an anonymous individual. He has no face and does not recognize in him a value of a person; it is valued only in terms of behaviors, that is, these behaviors define it, its motivations, personal history are not considered; and all the  individual features.

Thus, a homosexual person is not valuable to the conservative, does not know him, knows nothing about him or his life and does not care, with the assumptions, it is enough to dress him with a veil of sin and depravity.

For example, and to clarify the above, when you know of a Priest who incurred in acts of pedophilia, he has some protection, because he is an important figure for people and with value for the church. He is not condemned in the first instance, but is defended; The same applies to the acts of corruption of the political class and the protection provided by their peers. This contact between people, confers a certain value of “human being”, even if it is incomprehensible to outsiders.

That said, the specific case we are going to address and will be the topic to be developed is that of conservative groups and their conflict with sexual diversity. However, it is imperative to clarify that what is mentioned here does not exclude other social issues and groups in conflict.

Conservative or right-wing groups have developed and perfected an  discourse of exclution, in which the LGBTTTI community, feminist groups and pro-abortion groups are wrong, that is, they do not believe in the psychic experience of gender, they are against union between two people of the same sex, against abortion; and everything else we know.

In the field of discourse, and in its say, rank or scope, external persons are accepted only if they accept the discourse; that is, conservatives will accept the homosexual, only if he accepts that he is wrong, that loving someone of the same sex is wrong and this would mean the total annulment of the subject in his own reality, but existing as a being annulled in the reality of the other , a being annulled, wrong and now accepted as someone who regenerated.

This not only happens with the conservative right. In any situation, in which you want to convince another, it is an attempt to defeat him, to annul him, to enter the reality of the other, like a foreigner. Sometimes there is also a simulation of understanding, where expressions such as: “I understand you, but I disagree.” This is normal, but at the same time, groups organize and go against the rights of a social group, making it clear that they do not understand and are not interested in understanding.

It is worth mentioning that the objective of this text is not to preach love to the other, nor peace among men, but to extract the expressions of violence that, under slogans and standards, seem not to be.

Values? Yes, but conceptual values

One of the crucial points in the conflicts of speech, are the concepts The so-called “loss of values”, this, can be understood as the modification of the concept; It is the same value, but with a wider range or, to put it another way, more holistic. For example, the discussion of whether the term “Family” refers to a man, a woman and children or two people and children. They denote a struggle for the modification of the concept and therefore of the “value” Family.

When talking about Values, we can also talk about Freedoms; for example and continuing with the example: according to conservatives, we can love, but not someone of the same sex; we can have a family, but with man and woman; You can have sex, but only with your partner and after having married; You can educate your children, but not sex education. We can emphasize that, all the examples are of the sexual scope; This is because it is the theme that mobilizes and organizes the conservative right, in its nostalgia and desire for simple things.

They live and inhabit concepts where nobody is welcome if they want to expand the concept. They cover it with a protective aura, they are owners and guardians of the concept, they walled in it, because outside the concept, they inhabit monsters. They defend the Concept and to defend it, they go to where the concept is in danger and position themselves in front of each other and thus, the battle continues, mutates and divides, is forgotten and remembered again.

Conservative groups, who are very attached to the Church, have chosen as their favorite battle what concerns Sexuality. It is not war, it is not bullfighting, it is not sexual slavery in the country; because, precisely, regarding sexuality and specifically sexual practices, they are what gives them identity.

An enemy is chosen by way, someone who is directly on the opposite side. Because our enemies confirm who we are, what we defend and what we believe. The enemy has the precise arguments, the precise aspect and the precise practices. The sexual openness of others diametrically opposed to that of conservative groups. To the conservatives, enjoyment is restricted, this makes the homosexual community, the perfect enemy.

The “trieb”*

With the advance of societies, achievements for oppressed minorities, seemingly irrevocable achievements, inclusive laws are being conquered. A universality is achieved, in which being different, you have the same rights, privileges and obligations.

Therefore, asking for a setback on issues such as abortion, the union of people of the same sex, is practically asking for impossible; and it is precisely this desire impossible to fulfill, the engine that moves the marches and generates cohesion in the conservatives. It would be a catastrophe if those wishes were fulfilled, a catastrophe for all. For them and for others.

When the freedom to enjoy, (which the other has) is a freedom that conservatives do not have, (even when this is of their own accord), they demand that the other not enjoy.

The enjoyment of sexuality in conservative groups, moved to another place, leaving a void that is sometimes filled with guilt. And a discourse is generated that is that of a controlled body. For an enjoyment only to procreate; for a specific enjoyment of a single erogenous zone; for a mandatory enjoyment of pregnancy; for a pleasure of the flesh without latex barriers. Speech that reveals the incomplete.

The conservatives inhabit a beyond, yearn out something real  to  being able to be close to it. So, where there are feminists, abortion, sexual diversity; they will throw themselves on it, to demand the impossible: That it disappears. They need the bad ones, to recongnice the good in them.

The universality among the genders

Both the far right and the sexual diversity community,  are important figures of culture. Conservatives enjoyed the monopoly of behavior and little by little the diversity advanced, to the point of taking away that hegemonic power.

The messages on television, radio, internet and rallys, are an example that social groups, seeing their way of life threatened, will do what is necessary to preserve and perpetuate it, whether they are conservatives or the LGBTTTI community.

With the division of the homosexual community and other expressions of sexuality and their specific problems and characteristics, they provoked again the need to find “universities”, elements in common, both with conservatives and neutral population.

Its the goverment that has this responsibility, to give the same rights and obligations to all, since equality resides in the laws (and in the words of Slavoj Zizek, in economic capital). But, this intention to ridicule the other, generates absurd speeches, which incredibly, become dominant speeches.

A fraction of the conservative right, see these movements, whether feminist; pro-abortion; or of sexual diversity, as an instrument of populist governments, to obtain and / or retain power. Sounds like something possible, even business sectors can capitalize on these movements. But in parallel, these movements become more visible, local boundaries are crossed, specific issues of oppressed minorities come to light.

Let us keep in mind that Corporations, companies and brands, appropriate culture; talk about drug trafficking (with soap operas, series and music), sexual diversity, (television programs, music), including public spaces (shopping malls, green areas). When corporations appropriate something from culture, they legitimize it in a certain way while capitalizing it and vice versa.

The conservative right refers to the manipulation of the masses or certain sectors, in an attempt to discredit the movements of the oppressed sectors.

Finally, they say that gender ideology is another strategy for domination. This fear of the right, of the expansion of the term “gender”, is for the loss of heterosexual hegemony and they have adopted the term Heterophobia, to explain the existence of the various expressions of sexuality.

If gender is in simple words: ways of relating, and socio-cultural experiences; Homosexuality and the various expressions of sexuality, (it is proposed) are other genres, with their characteristics and their specific sociocultural experiences.

And the disputes will never end

When Francis Fukuyama proposes “the end of history”, he did so in reference to the end of ideologies (capitalism and communism); said that after the fall of the Berlin wall, everything that comes is a consequence of Capitalism; Today with the “gender ideology”, which I have my doubts about whether or not it is a product of capitalism (but that it, finally participates to generate profits), generates new struggles, social changes, new concepts and the expansion of existing concepts and even the disuse of others.

Societies must develop, in order to provide equality between the genders, that is, guarantee universality, regardless of the class fraction or the expression of sexuality; Because we are different, we need universalitys, beyond the biological sex.


* Freud defines the trieb as psychic energy directed towards an end, but without the need to fulfill it.

Galtung, J. (1989) Cultural violence. Peace Research Center. Oslo, Norway

Salazar L. (2008) Democracy and discrimination. Notebooks of equality no.5. CONPADRED.

Image taken from: Political Animal: The story behind the Gay flag.

There is no longer (double) standard

(originally published on October 3, 2016)

Before getting lost in the labyrinth of subjectivity and with the aim of trying to be clear, we will use the concept of Moral, as we understand it in our culture. It is the set of rules and modes shared by society, for its well-being and operation. So, we have the notion that morality represents good customs and good manners. It refers to the kindness and generosity of people.

However, there are various moral codes, some opposed to each other, others with small differences, others more current than others. Here, we can name for example two moral values:

To give information about sexuality to minors, to generate informed people. Or on the contrary, the moral value of the prohibition of such information to minors.

Even so, whenever the moral word is heard, it refers us to a conservative posture. But then, how do you know if you are immoral? For this, it is important to differentiate and identify the amoral from the immoral.

The Immoral, deals with conscious acts that go against what is established by society; on the other hand, the amoral, are acts that escape consciousness or will.

Now, by making aware that our moral values ​​enter into a social group, it does not mean that it is a kind of moral independent of the morals of others, it is not that there are 1,2 or 3 types of morals. But, although we are in favor of contraceptive methods, abortion or union between two people of the same sex; We can share the moral values ​​of not stealing and being honest.

It is impossible for us to talk about morality without thinking about the Catholic religion, since it is a fundamental part of our roots. Culturally we are Catholics, although individually, we are atheists, Christians, Jews or worshipers of satan.

Double standard?

We understand that the term “double standard” refers to a person (or society) who claims to do good, be kind and love everyone, and that in practice is the opposite. But consider this: No individual has two morals, it is only one, the same. Then you may think that it is an Incongruent. Understanding incongruity as the lack of harmony of what is thought, what is said and what is done.

Although congruence, it is also a misunderstood issue. Imagine a situation in which you are facing a person who happens to be your boss and you hate and think you are an idiot. You will not tell him, not because you are hypocritical, but because by codes, or rules or morals, you are not someone who insults people. Although there are people, of course they would.

When another is told that it is double-standard, it is because, or we dislike it or because we consider ourselves to have a higher morality. Even if the same moral codes are shared, we tend to consider the morality of the other inferior, of the one who is wrong or does what we do not dare, for our supposed superior moral.

Photography: Liliana Bern

When being “Lady” or “Lord” is a bad thing.*

Now that privacy is in danger of disappearing, we find out events in someone’s private life, famous or not famous. And it is “viralized”, that is, it becomes a topic of common interest and incidentally, he also finds out who does not care.

And what goes viral, let’s accept it, they are generally events that don’t matter to us, don’t concern us, don’t affect our life in any way, and besides, we don’t understand the context.

But, once the interest is aroused, the actors are always condemned (because most of the time, what is viralized is an unfortunate event) and those involved are required not to make “mistakes”, understanding this as: Do not do what others do not, do not say what others do not say or do not think as others do not think.

And under the protective layer of the speech “we must display it so that it does not do it again”, it is judged equally to who committed a crime and who only made a decision in his personal life (that is, I only make a decision) and It is condemned by some and defended by some, thus generating the phenomenon of the viral. Because the phenomenon of the viral, begins with an event that generates speeches in favor, against and neutral. Speeches that are useless. Thus creating a viral side effect: False problems. We are exposed to a stalking society that exhibits and exceeds its punishments.

Watch (upload to the network [and punish] and punish) and punish.

Foucault in ” Discipline and Punish,” reveals this progression of (public) punishment from the body of the accused, to the punishment of his soul and life, rather than his body. Now the punishment continues to be the existence of the accused, what he is, what has been and what will be, but has returned to the sphere of the public; likewise, “passions and desires are punished” 1

The “viral phenomenon”  is part of a ritual of harassment, it is what Foucault called “the servitude of power” 2. Not only does the State, or the Police or Companies, watch over us; now we are also watched by citizens, who can become more cruel in their punishment, because “in punishing, there is a cruel pleasure” .3

Speaking specifically of surveillance through video cameras, there are different layers of surveillance, the highest one, it is precisely made up of government surveillance cameras, they are located on all streets, they follow the surveillance of companies, they monitor us from the moment we are about to enter their establishments and finally, social surveillance, carried out through personal video capture devices. This surveillance, unlike the first two, aims at public exposure.

Digital Panoptic

The architectural figure of the Panoptic, reaches a point where his presence in the physical space is no longer necessary, that is, a tower with someone inside who is constantly watching us is no longer necessary. Now we are being watched all the time and we don’t know where this surveillance is taking place or who does it. We learned of our “lack of morals”, as soon as the punishment for the social media exhibition begins.

I do not question the effectiveness of the citizen complaint, the questionable is its excessive and absurd use. Finally quoting Slavoj Zizek, society “accepts the need for repression, to preserve social stability.”


* In Mexico, when a person is caught in a situation that involves problems, discussion or even a crime, is named in the media as “Lord” or “Lady” (referring to royalty) and is complemented by a word that refers to his “crime”: for example, if a man argued with a waiter “Lord restaurant”, or if a woman crashed his car and began discussing “Lady accident”

1,2,3. Foucault, M (1975) Discipline and punish.

Memes and the ultimate conquest of pleasure

(originally published on February 9, 2016)

The supremacy of the image is a fact, and the increasingly wide variety of screens and the range they cover is increasing. Now, digital images, a photograph, whether they contain a poem, or a phrase from some historical or literature personage, or from television or a joke, you find them plaguing social networks.

Above all, image jokes have been widely accepted in broad sectors of the active population in social networks (even if their activity is minimal). And although we will not address the creation of the term Meme, nor its history and popularity in social networks; We will address the Meme and its participation in the social act.

From (who tell a) joke to (who does a) Meme

At a party, someone with oral and histrionic skills, used to ask the attention and tell jokes, one after another and with natural grace; there were also other individuals who try hard, however, did not have the grace to be able to convey the grace of the joke; Sometimes the joke was the same rapporteur and his clumsy and messy way of telling jokes.

Today with the penetration of the screen in the most intimate corners of existence, telling jokes has been reduced to comment: Have you seen the Meme of this or that person? And you will get a favorable response and laughs just remembering it. In case the answer is negative, the screen to generate laughter will immediately be displayed.

The characteristics of a Meme (generally) are the following:

*Familiar images Fragments of films, cartoons, photographs of some character; or of a specific situation.

*A phrase or comment that refers us to the current event that is being popular. Or failing that, a phrase that compares it to reality is ironic.

*They are mutable. You can make use of a Meme in different scenarios, or refer to it.

*They are ephemeral. Caused by the rapid transit of information, the Meme has prompt expiration.

On the one hand we have the urgency of the interpretation of new facts and on the other, the urgency of making the joke faster and more funny, which leads us to the approach of Sigmund Freud (The joke and his relationship with the Unconscious. 1905) as to that the joke, is a “saving in the psychic expense”. The proof that could confirm this is obvious: You don’t need to know the fact, you just have to know the Meme to be able to laugh and assume that you know what the joke is about.

A large part of the news agencies, or journalistic portals, publish their headings on social networks, and due to the speed of the Internet, the only thing that is read is just the headline , the reader will assume that he understands the situation, most of the time wrong way, just by reading the manifest message.

Memes condense an entire event; the understanding of the joke causes it to “go through” at the end of the information, (that attention is directed to a certain interpretation in a straight line), making the “viewer” believe that he knows the final consequences or that he has awareness of each of the implications of the event in question. The Meme is a shortcut to find out about unread events. By understanding the joke, it is assumed that we know what they are talking about.

It is increasingly common to hear comments such as: “I only read the header” or “I have only seen the Memes”. And if you can think that Memes, in a way, fulfill a function as a means of information, it is not so. (maybe disclosure in any case).

Within the category of Memes, (as there are philosophical, literary, historiographic, psychoanalytic, [all {of course} with a watermark], medicine, lawyers, etc.) it usually contains a literal, simplistic joke, which plays only a little with the words, with the situation or two-way; jokes that occur in the realm of immediate thoughts. They require little explanation; Once again: Psychic spending savings.

The Meme, is fast, (a fundamental quality of the joke), but, as previously mentioned, it is ephemeral, fleeting; It blooms, it is decadent and it is forgotten. Giving way to the next event.


In today’s societies, it is common to find Social Affront events: Impunity, White-collar thieves, the precarious work, the transformation of the Proletariat to Precarious (term created by Guy Standing), theft of large capitals, the privatization of services, corruption and endless situations that outrage and fill with anger.

However, this anger is repressed, then, the one who experiences these situations closely is not heard and the one who is not in direct contact becomes angry at the Political Class; but as the Political Class are many and at the same time nobody, we get angry at nothing, having to suppress those feelings of anger, and despair. (Usually).

The joke is that mechanism that helps us disguise this repressed anger (among some other repressions) and be able to release it. Thus, we can make fun of the President in turn, or drug lords, or statements of the Famous Class. In the face of constant ignominy, the search for pleasure is constant. Another function of the joke described by Freud, is precisely that the joke is a source of pleasure. Provide enjoyment. He enjoys the joke, repeating it, sharing it; we enjoy hating Legarreta and the President; we enjoy the humiliation of the different, we enjoy because we understood the joke, we enjoy because it is our revenge, it is our victory!

The pleasure is in the one who does the Meme (with watermark of course) and in the one who sees it, understands it, and shares it.

Finally and to clarify that, it is not a discourse against this, lets say, form of expression. Of course we enjoy a good joke, or a vulgar joke, or make fun of Authors that we will never read. Memes are another form of pleasure, in the society of  pleasure

It is recommended to read:

 Freud, S. (1905), The joke and its relationship with the Unconscious

The purpose of the ends

(originally published on October 27, 2015)

World’s End?

After December 21, 2012, we no longer have a global prophecy about the end of the world … all those prophets and seers failed us, made fun of us leaving us condemned to existence. Where are those who promised us an end and more important, where is the brave one to save us (by killing us)?

Just as it is necessary to know that there was a beginning, (that is, a specific point of existence where everything began), it is also necessary that there be an end. The church gives us its arguments of where everything began and even gives us its theories of its endings (if only the end of suffering), the pre-Socratic philosophers spoke of the origin of life, Nostradamus the end of the world.

It´s discussed the end of civilization, the end of an era, that the world ends for the one who dies, of atomic bombs, of Third World Wars, of Holocausts, earthquakes, horsemen of the apocalypse, of the coming of the savior, ; And what happened? Here we continue as race and as individuals.

But The end of which I speak also implies death, this death that is hard, which is loved, denied, dressed, given face and even given a day to celebrate; Jokes are made at her expense to make her more bearable. Death means going to another world (better or worse), a journey of the soul, leaving the body, of that body that feels pain, that produces pain and that causes pain to others. We all suffer, they make us suffer, we make suffer; the body and the soul are punished and it is necessary to know that someday this suffering will stop. In the movie “Martyrs”, the body is put to the test and torture the soul, it makes us want the end and when it arrives we are revealed the truth: “Today we all suffer, now we need martyrs.”

When Lacan asks: If you didn’t know you were going to die, could you have the life you lead? We can answer: “I am very happy, that’s why I want to live forever.” And it is an understandable answer since we live in this culture in which it is almost obligatory to be happy. (But not much, and not for so long).

This immediate and ephemeral happiness is always new and is updated every moment but sadly, the body is not updated and in certain situations (secretly) we want our own death. You no longer know (or you can’t [or don’t want to] or you´re not capable) deal with sadness.

Here is the time to talk about violence (all violence), so exalted, so alive and imminent, so rational, so irrational; It can cause hopelessness, confusion, fear, even pleasure. And the forced question: What about the world? (The same has always happened with the plus that we now learn more about violence anywhere in the world, that there are already more violent cataloged behaviors and the new prohibitions of the law).

We already love more, so we suffer more: “We have never been so at the mercy of suffering as when we love” (The malaise in the culture. S. Freud) and not only just love people, we love the dog, the cat, the white tiger that is about to become extinct, to electronic devices, etc.

The end of the history. (No, the end of ideologies) No, the end of stories?

If “the engine of history is the class struggle,” then it is understood that history will not stop (for this and technological advances of course). It is understood that the term “class” designated (among many other things) an ideology and each class has a different and most likely contrary; one using the other and as a consequence of the other.

When Francis Fukuyama speaks of the “end of History” (1988), it was in the sense that, as well as with the triumph of the French Revolution (which proclaimed that the ideological evolution of humanity ended with the ideals of the Revolution French ”), With the fall of the Berlin wall, ideologies would collapse and run out and this would bring the end of history.

Thus, if the end has already been experienced, then we can understand what we find in a “post-historical” moment or rather: NEOHISTORIC, known for this tendency to not only reaffirm capitalism as a dominant ideology and that we love, but also to tear down the columns of history, refute what has been said, deny it, even change to another direction contrary to historical events.

They break down with the new theories, and with the help of science, today everything is refutable. You can think of any event in history and find that there is already an argument that cancels or modifies it.

 Now Jesus, Judas, God; They are no longer what they were before.

On the most personal level, more immediate to us, more everyday; Any idea exposed to another is born with its opposite, not as a product of this (idea) or as a counterpart. The other seeks an opposition to eliminate it. It seems that an idea from someone else is no longer accepted and mental resources are used to prove to the other that he is wrong. Intellectual progress stops itself, eliminates itself. (Or so it seems to be).

The end of mankind?

Today, many (concepts) are dead; God, the devil, the man, the rock, the grunge, the father, the state, the cinema; and in the future (maybe) television, radio and even the internet. And at the same time (and on another plane) Pedro Infante is not dead, Elvis lives, Tupac Shakur is not dead, Kurt is not dead, Andy Kaufman is not dead; Even Yeny Rivera is alive. (And Chabelo … still alive).

There are no longer solid figures, concepts or ideas, everything fades, so the end of the world is already necessary (in order to be solid), but let’s not be so optimistic, the world is not going to end.

Goodbye to the Kelloggs family (New facts about television)

(originally published on October 20, 2015

Over time, new phenomena are generated and some others that already existed come to light; The purpose here is to briefly address some television phenomena, because each one separately is complex, extensive and with its particularities, however, it is connected in one way or another with all other television phenomena.

As mentioned in the previous paragraph, some are new phenomena that may even be inevitable, which dictate new trends (cartoons or new program formats, ways of speaking, expressing or thinking) and even necessary for the survival and adaptation of people to society; others are phenomena that have arisen but were already there (hidden), but there was no adequate analysis for their interpretation, or it was simply not the time for them to come to light, for social or commercial reasons.

Television has generated a lot of bibliography, studies and postures; there will be those who think: “and where is the family?” and although we know that the family is the first guard of the child, we will leave it aside (for this occasion) with the desire to highlight just the phenomenon of television.

Life (also) is in HD

In a study conducted by Antonio García and Isidro Moreno in 2006 called “Multimedia Guide: Healthy Screens”, among many other things, it is mentioned that television has currently lost its followers due to the so-called “screens”, which are nothing more than these new portable gadgets that give the “viewer” a more active role in terms of content selection.

These devices, which have content preloaded by the same user, let us see a bias of their psychic reality, because they decide what to “load and download” on their computers, however these contents are not far from what is go on television and the people who do not have the access to a certaint technology see.

And I mention the word “must” because it seems to be an obligation to have the television on, although there is no interesting content for the viewer and even knowing that the content is absurd, the answer is the same when questioning the reason for the television turned on and is: “Well, there is nothing else to see.”

If our mind functions with images, are the screens thinking for us?

It`s Giovanni Sartori who mentions “the thought goes as far as the image begins”.  The thought stops producing to just start receiving. So how do we expect after the child to conceptualize independently, if he is used to seeing more than 4 hours a day of screens, and is not taught anything worthy?

Of these 4 hours that are seen, at least 1 of those hours are commercial, and although it is not the central issue, it`s important to mention that, if the commercials are analyzed, at the beginning of their history the commercials showed and taught how to use the product and the benefits that the products provides us and they gave us the order to buy, take smoking, etc.

Later, the commercials showed us that sensational, unforeseen and fun things happened if we had in our possession this or that product; (Also at this time is where the perfect [and impossible] kellog’s family was radiant, happy and fun). Today the commercials say that our existence (and the world) will be better if we buy.


In this era full of stimuli such as advertisements in the streets, noise, television, the Internet and all other screens; concentrating is more difficult; We move from one focus to another for brief periods of time. After a while, the thought is configured to work like this, by zapping (that’s why it costs us so much work to read, because it requires focusing our concentration on a single stimulus.)

The cartoons are becoming faster in their development and shorter in duration; in a 15-minute episode there is a beginning, a development and the end; all this at a dizzying pace that does not give opportunity for analysis or reflection. The child will not filter anything, only an accumulation of images will be given in his mind, to which he will give an interpretation based on his limited mental tools.

Currently there are no animated series that have a continuity or with a story that goes beyond two chapters, the chapters are independent and you don’t miss anything if you didn’t watch the one from a previous day and you can watch tomorrow’s without any problem. The cartoons used to be long stories with characters that were growing and constantly changing, coming and going between situations, containing scenes without dialogues but suggesting that something was happening, were a type of more contemplative scenes.

Now a video of more than 4 minutes is difficult to see from beginning to end and reading a text with more than 5 paragraphs is a great feat.

Reality or fiction.

The child considers that what happens on television is real and that it can happen to anyone; In part he is right, because the situations that arise on television are usually real, but they are not really happening, all this is fiction but the child does not know it and it takes time to understand it.

What television does is rubbing popular culture in our faces, which is not questioned by adults and much less by children. We are shown and educated for irrationality; the screens do it and the parents (absent at home and on TV) either follow the same line of behavior or don’t care.

The reality of the screen becomes the real reality and no one (or at least not many) wants to live outside of reality, they want to be able to talk with others about the chapter last night in the soap opera at 10, or the fashion news, or the Spanish soccer league match in which the best player in the world plays, or the cartoon of the moment. Moreover, nobody wants to stay out of history which is available on the screens.

And the family?

Another issue is that it is inevitable that children watch television and even more inevitable, is that they watch it without adult supervision, and what is it currently seen on television? The answer is (among [many] others), they see a way of life in which the family does not exist or they are a bunch of idiots. This message is repetitive, systematic and constant 24 hours. 365 days a year, that adults are a limitation for their fun.

Children’s programs lack parental figures, a situation that is explained sporadically in some chapter, however the child does not understand, because he sees only the actions more “does not understand the motivations of the characters” (C. Popper. “Television is bad teacher “), because at an early age (and even some [ so called] adults) have a limited understanding of the world.

Television is not the first to “get up in arms” against the family, Ariel Dorfman (1971) in his book: “To read Donald Duck”, he touches the subject, however he does not delve into it and shows us that, it is in the Disney comics where for more than 40 years, the nuclear family has been completely eliminated; there are no fathers or mothers, only uncles and the only mother that exists is “Bad Mom” ​​along with her bad boys for giving a brief example.

It can be said that television is being given full power (and as a factual power [another complex subject] of course it has) and that it set aside the television family, and at the same time the family in real life He has stepped aside to make way for television.

The child must know that what he is seeing is not real, that everything is a lie, that everything is due to a script and that everything was planned with premeditation; he needs to know that on television you see, what they want us to see, and for this to happen and the child knows it, it is necessary that the adult also knows and tells him

Since its inception, television and its screen, was destined to be influence, to modify people’s lives, to show the world to everyone, to make the “show” a “monster”, to watch over us, to exercise power, to show what they want us to see, to take care… to teach.

However, it does not teach anything that the individual does not already have within himself and that is part of his mental tools, (in any case he reinforces knowledge with programs like Dora the Explorer); That is why it is NECESSARY to learn to watch television, in order to make a critique and an appreciation of television. It would not be wrong to establish in schools a subject that exclusively teaches the child or the young man to watch television.

Finally, and quoting Carl Popper: “If television were a person, would you let it be near your children?

To play, is a serious thing

(originally published on October 19, 2015

Even with the proliferation of electronic equipment with demand from children (cell phones and Ipads), the sale of action figures, dolls or countless toys for the manipulation of children continues; Of course they are sold with specific themes, such as adolescent monster dolls that attend high school, which are fashionable, or there are princesses or action figures such as super heroes, planet defenders or cartoon heroes.

You could think of the limitation of the imagination with this type of toys (of television characters) and that the child will only end up playing some television chapter previously seen, however for the child, this game (whatever) is of utmost importance for your mental health.

All (absolutely all) children in normal conditions play. From a simple game, to an elaborate one, even through the grotesque, which gives us signs of the child’s physical development and mental healt. We can remember our years as children and rediscover those worlds created by the imagination in which we were a kind of little gods controlling the universe; We were there, safe … and everything always went according to plan.

Why do kids play?

One of the best answers that exist is that which tells us that the child, at an early age, does not have enough language to express himself, and even more, certain emotions cannot be explained, since he dont have the words to connect with some emotions, and what does the child do? … Play, and thus, without speaking, expresses freely.

There could be a problem in the form of a “symptom” replacing the words that the child does not know how to say, this will be maladaptive behavior, but that the child will help (as it were in some way) as a form of expression. Express himsself trough a sickness

Returning to the game, the child will have in his hands a means of expression motivated by “something” that is in there but that he cannot name and that works as a game generating mechanism.

An example of this can be found in the movie Totoro, where we see this enormous being that does not speak, but that produces a monstrous sound and that would come to represent what the child cannot designate because he does not know, but that it is there … as a Dumb and playful monster.

What does the child play for?

Fulfillment of desire:

When you play you can access a fantasy, in which the child experiences satisfaction and gets pleasure from having what he craves; it could be having a family, having super powers or performing incredible feats.

It`s a serious job that gives the child security, gets immediate pleasure, it is not necessary to wait to see a cartoon if he can be the director and write a chapter of his favorite series in his mind. He has a desire to show his creativity and be applauded for it, that’s why he always has to show his father, mother or brother, his creation with pride. Seek approval and thus confirm that he has done a good job.

Problem solving:

As we see in Lego (the movie), the little one poses a real problem; a father who threatens to end the fun and eliminate the playfulness of the lego pieces. The child`s creativity is threatened, so he plans to cover the glue.

The child reproduces his world within the game, ideas and solutions, moves pieces and analyzes what to do and how to do it; He turns his mind out trying, with his resources, to find a solution (or an explanation).

It`s an important part of the child’s mood, it is the metaphor of his life. It reproduces the conflict, real or imaginary in which, the child demonstrates its evolutionary development. It helps to externalize any situation that experiences and at the same time develops, to some extent, social skills; You can see a bias in his attitude towards life.

The game will help the child learn a role, develop thinking and ideas, and I do not talk about the (outdated) stance of whether playing with dolls or tools will make little girls slaves or little boys chauvinist . In the game, also a social function is played (mom, dad, nurse or mechanic).

A positive attitude of the adult to the child’s play is important, as it is the prelude to cultural, personal, social and psychic development; It`s important to respect the game, believe and trust the children. The childrens play what they think, what they see, what they experience, what they believe, what they want; The childrens faces the world with toys in their hands as their only weapon.

For our Chris Crocker … inside of us and outside of us

(originally published on October 15, 2015

It is common that at some point in your life you try to dress like a television character, actor or singer and you could also have thought that you had some resemblance to him or that you shared the same ideas or gestures; You researched his personal history with the desire to connect the events of his life with yours and to prove to yourself (and others) that you were (or are) the living image of the chosen character (can be consciously or unconsciously). It is a phenomenon that occurs, and depending on the history of his life (and several factors), a role model will be chosen and could be repeated more than once in its existence.

Young children and adults identify in some way with someone, as a way of doing things, of seeing life; at least in an imaginary way, like a fantasy and like every fantasy, the further from reality it is better and more satisfying. It is an escape within ourselves where only what we want to happen happens.

In our minds we are singers, soccer players, broadcasters, pilots, narcos, doctors, teachers, superheroes, soap opera stars, reggaeton singers or even actors or actresses of films. (even pornfilms, maybe)

There is a thin line that separates us from that; It is not strange to know of someone who does not know that mediating distance and merges with his fantasy, which makes him believe that it is what it is not, what happens what does not happen.

From children’s parties to parties of XV years (great celebration for Mexican girls)

At an early age, boys and girls celebrate birthday themed parties, in which everything, from plastic cups to piñatas, is of a specific character. (Perhaps chosen by the parents and the child believes he wants it too).

The disguised child destroys, eliminates and tears his chosen character;

Here, with the fear of being paranoid, exaggerated and overly analytical, the child will become the only and authentic character, once he ate (in cake) and destroyed (in piñata) his equal.

He assaulted and destroyed a loved one. Now, saying this will not turn a child into a beater of their loved ones, nor will mistreating an animal make him a murderer (unless he enjoys animal abuse, then if it becomes a focus of attention).

In other occasions, the child will feel nostalgia and love towards the character, refusing to split the cake (because there is the admired image) or to hit his piñata.

Something similar at the parties of XV years, when the young woman in her “surprise dance” imitates the choreography and will dance to the rhythm of a song by (for example) Lady Gaga. For an instant she is, in her imagination, Lady Gaga; although the young woman has a totally Hispanic morphology.

Teen Egocentrism

In the adolescence stage an identity begins to form, a becoming of the personality; However, this process does not start here and in no way ends here, but it is a process that is tied with other processes of mental development.

As thought becomes more complex, many concepts become abstract; the adolescent is now more critical and idealistic and for example: what was once tought god was, now as a teenager is a more extensive and divided conception; The same happens with the love, war and friendship. Now they are dedicated to creating an identity for themselves.

At this stage there is a phenomenon that David Elkind (1) calls “adolescent Egocentrism”, characterized by being the exact science of themselves; and it divides it into two types: the imaginary audience and the personal fable.

Broadly speaking, “the imaginary audience” occurs when the young man is convinced that he arouses the interest of other people, as well as with the same interest he has; Therefore, a pimple or a bad hairstyle will be visible miles away. Similarly, they will have behaviors to attract attention and be noticed.

On the other hand, the personal fable consists in that “thought of being unique, invincible and sometimes misunderstood; and therefore, everything that happens to them is unique and nobody can understand it ”.

From Aimeé to Miley Cyrus. (going through [leave] Chris Croker [alone])

In his Ph.D. thesis, Jacques Lacan exposes the abnormal development of Aimeé (Marguerite Pantaine 1892-1981) and his paranoid psychosis and also helps us in the field of identification, since Aimeé in an episode attacks with a knife a famous Actress: Huguette Duflos in the year 1931. This is because Mrs. Pataine was convinced that Duflos threatened her son’s life.

Without going into the case, the election by Aimeé implies an identification, since he had tried to be successful writing novels; and Being Huguette Duflos the famous woman who leads a lifestyle desired by Mrs. Pataine, and she not having it, represented a threat to her current lifestyle, so she must eliminate the actress.

in a modern case is the one of the Young Chris Croker, who in 2007, uploaded to youtube a video where he appears clearly altered against the ones who attacks or makes hurtful comments to singer Britney Spears; screaming and crying says: “whoever messes with her messes with me”. This alteration is because the attack on Britney is also for him. There is no distance between Young Chris and the singer. “Leave Britney alone. It means: leave me alone.

In the 2001 movie “Rockstar”, Mark Walhberg plays a Young Singer from a “Steel Dragon” tribute band; wears the same clothes, the same hairstyle and imitates the same gestures of the band’s vocalist. For situations that obey the script, Walhberg becomes the singer of Steel Dragon and thus can live in the context of his rock star.

Let’s take the opportunity to deviate a little and talk (a little) about fame. If we understand it as the social behavior of a famous person (which is generally far from individual behavior), we can explain the beautiful illusion that makes us feel; since the famous person has the privilege of doing and saying things that capture our imagination and that sometimes we try to imitate.

So we can see Lady Gaga wearing extravagant dresses with the banner of: “Accept as I am” or Miley Cyrus as a “model” of freedom of expression and demonstrating, not a “wake up of your sexuality”, but a regression to a primitive state of his sexuality, (so to speak) in which he rubs, strips and sticks out his tongue. (And it is not that I am shocked, I only note that, contrary to what is thought, the physical growth of cyrus is diametrically opposed to their sexuality.)

(As a comment) The Makeover

In an article of “Self-referential system”, Juan Larrosa briefly exposes the work of Katherine Sender and his book “The Makeover: Reality television and reflexive audiences” (2), in which, contrary to what is thought about the Reality shows and the viewers, “many of the people who watch these programs are aware of the (epistemological) trap that embodies the concept of tele reality.”

They are programs with people with common problems and that easily catch the viewer’s attention; The audience will find an answer, a fashion tip, health advice or even paternity advice.

It is worth mentioning that it is not necessary to feel identify to emulate or imitate certain aspects of another person. We are in a process of constant change and there are few things defined in our personality.

Fantasy is necessary at any age and know how to position ourselves at a distance from them; to be free among fantasy, so then (paraphrasing Lacan) “Madness is the limit of freedom”

(1) Santrock, J. (2006). Developmental Psychology: The Life Cycle.

(2) https://autorreferencial.wordpress.com/?s=the+make+over

The class struggle. (The Proletariat VS. The Little Bourgeois)

(originally published on October 14, 2015)

The little bourgeois

The proletariat, those who sell their labor power to the Employer, do not have the necessary or sufficient means to produce or generate profits; It is the class to which the majority belong. With this definition (quite small) we can distrust this definition, since we all fit into it, and yet we do not consider ourselves to be equal to the public transport driver, or the school teacher, or the young man who He sells us tortillas.

So we are or we are not?  The answer is that we belong to a specific class fraction. It is what is called Medium low, medium high, etc … Now, each fraction has its own characteristics: thoughts, perceptions, aspirations, language and, above all, ways of relating to each other and others. Each fraction does what is necessary to perpetuate, preserve or transform; It is where we can locate the one who Pierre Bourdieu defines as the Little Bourgeois:

“The little bourgeois is a proletarian who dwarfs to become bourgeois. Renouncing the prolific nature of the Proletariat … it must dwarfs itself to pass through the narrow door that gives access to the Bourgeoisie. “

The little bourgeois, as Bourdieu mentions, “unable to increase their income, has to reduce their expenses.” And in addition to this, he has clear the need for certain cultural resources for his social ascent.

Taxi (driver) s

Every social need generates goods and / or services that have, in the case of the taxi service, a use value. This value is shaped by the physical wear of the Driver and the material wear of the Vehicle. The users add to the value, the trip and the good service that the Driver must provide. When the Citizenship considers that the Taxis services are not adequate, they will opt for other means to move.

With the arrival of Uber or Cabify, creates the offer of a private taxi service and like any private service, it is the decision of the User to contract or not such service. Of course, it is necessary to have certain individual characteristics to be able to hire this service, as is well known: a smartphone, credit card (and even debit card) and move to certain areas. (It is not the same to move to a poor area, than to a commercial plaza).

Preserve or improve

On the one hand, an individual who wishes to improve his travel experience, with air conditioning, bottled water, friendly service, a fair charge, security and even his own music; After gathering what was necessary, he could do it. On the other hand, a taxi driver clearly sees a threat to his lifestyle, (to his economy and even his work, since it generates an expectation of service from the Uber service).

And after this, the confrontation: verbal, opinion, institutional and (of course) physical confrontation. The opinion is divided, the fractions find valid arguments both for the preservation of the taxi service and for the improvements. If it is legal or illegal and if you must regularize Uber, and also if taxis should use a meter, if taxi divers need to be protected against theft and kidnapping and an extensive etcetera.

It is mentioned that, only a small sector of the population uses the services of private taxi (at the moment approximately 10%) and that it does not represent a great loss for the taxi drivers’ union; but with an economic situation that all the time threatens to push us to the bottom of the ravine, any event that stands between the money and us is a threat. Taxi drivers have family to whom to respond (among other things in an economic way) the Uber drivers too; so it is natural that the subject is polarized, and if we add the third element that are the Users, there will be supporters, defenders or detractors of each service.

We understood that taking a taxi usually worked as follows: A Taxi Driver travels through the streets and a Passenger requests the service, wondered a fee, both negotiate and finally the service was finalized or not; or on the other hand, only the unit was approached and the meter was allowed to calculate the cost of the service.

You could also request the taxi service by calling, or a card previously provided by a driver and waiting for the taxi driver to arrive; It was understood that this service would increase the cost of the trip.

Currently with the ease of an application on the mobile device, you can also request a taxi service, but private. Despite the fact that other private services already existed, the arrival of the platforms for these services has aroused in taxi drivers the idea that they are taking their jobs away, or  that the platforms are are illegal and that obviously, (in a bureaucratic society) they must be regulated , adhering to labor and business laws.

The (taxi) violence (does not wait)

In the highest strata of society (Businessmen and State workers), the problem will be solved through regularization and insertion into the structure of private taxi services. While this happens, the delay in the response and the null capacity of the Authorities to control the situation, has generated the (un) expected: Violence.

As already mentioned, the strategies of the various social groups are aimed at preserving or changing, to maintain their practices. This negotiation interaction between Taxi Driver and User is what they want to keep, as well as the interaction between vehicle owners and Drivers. And on the other hand this evolution is an improvement for another sector of the population, which through its cell phone, wants to establish a commercial transaction.

When the stability of the group is threatened, they can try to convince the rest of the population of the fairness of their demands, and even (as has been seen) to exercise direct violence against those they consider a threat; We have seen images of taxi drivers preventing the passage of private drivers, hitting them (men and a woman), destroying their vehicles, deceiving them requesting a service and then stopping these private taxi drivers, who are also working.

The simple suspicion of meeting the enemy is enough to destroy him, no matter if he is a woman or a man, whether he is a private taxi driver or not. Another option is to improve your own service, but it is always easier to destroy the other, than to offer something better. (or improve your own.) The relationship between User-platform-taxi driver, will be incorporated into the vehicle mobility structure or disappear.

Commercial interests to regularize Uber or Cabify, will result if these services prove their usefulness to society (or the [small] sector that uses them), as something useful always prevails. The authorities will be in charge of what Bourdieu calls “legitimizing the relationship” between Users and private taxi platforms, and in turn, these platforms with the Authorities.

Regularization is a matter of time and it is also a matter of time that this gets out of hand and blood (or gasoline) is spilled. Hopefully, the taxi drivers’ conscious decision to harm others, will become in the conscious decision to improve their transportation services.


(originally published on October 14, 2015)

(Note: The ideas expressed here are not mine; they belong to Karl Marx and Pierre Bourdieu; I only make attempts to make them modern by mentioning I phones and LED screens.)

Everyone can buy an IPhone or a LED tv, but such purchase will mean something very different for individuals, depending on their economic status. Is obvious that it´s not the same situation for an Employee who earns a minimum wage and that would currently cost 292 Daily wages to can buy an iPhone, that an Employee who can buy it with his 30-day job.

According to Marx, the value of the goods is generated as follows:

Firstly, there is the acquisition of raw materials, secondly, the hiring of the labor force (which generally receives little economic compensation). Third is the technology necessary to program and manufacture the pieces, as well as the place where this will take place and finally (this is pure deduction), the advertising campaign and all the logistics. This gives us a production value and advertising expenses.

The remainder is the “imaginary value” that the Companies decide to assign to the objects. As the iPhone has a high use value (it seems to be very useful), people consider that this amount is worth it. We can observe then that the value of the merchandise, as Marx mentions it, has a social origin.

We can say that certain goods are considered as symbols of modernity and abundance. (Call them flat screen TVs, smart phones, [electronic] tablets or any other gadget.)

When a merchandise is useful, it obtains a “use value”, and in the case of the cell phone that is so useful to us (apparently), the value is quite high because it determines our emotional, romantic, erotic, labor and social relationships around it.

There is a kind of competition to see who is the first to acquires a good, either through whatever mechanisms (for the middle class this means credit purchases). Acquiring them, is considered a kind of “social ascent”, but is it really an ascent to position oneself alongside others? Or rather a practice not to be left behind in the competition.

Faced with so many purchase offers in the market, which can be considered a potential capital flight and a threat (for those who want the social ascent), the Little Bourgeois (named after Pierre Bourdieu) becomes a proletarian who “dwarfs himself” in order  to become a bourgeois, it loss as it were, of the proletariat’s honeys.

The decision to buy products is finally an “individual decision.” So let’s buy and stick to the consequences.

An afternoon with Sophocles, Foucault and Peña Nieto

(originally published on October 07, 2015)

“I think there is really an Oedipus complex in our civilization. But this complex has nothing to do with our unconscious and our desire, nor with relationships between one another. If there is something similar to the Oedipus complex, it does not occur at the individual level but at the collective level; not for the purpose of desire and the unconscious but for the purpose of power and knowledge ”(Michel Foucault)

In order to understand each other, we will briefly (and [very] superficially) address the dramatic play “Oedipus king” by Sophocles (which in itself is a trilogy) and its descriptive power as to the different instances of truth, (which is not the goal of Sophocles), but that Foucault clearly described in “The truth and legal forms”

As you know, it tells the story that Laius (King of Thebes) and Jocasta will have a son who, according to the oracle, would kill his father and marry his mother. When the little one is born, the King, taking into account such a prophecy, decides to hand him over to one of his subjects to get rid of the child.

This man cannot end the life of the infant, so he leaves him in a field where he is found by a shepherd, who in turn takes him to Polibo, King of Corinth, and his wife, who did not have an heir and decided to keep and baptize the child with the name – Oedipus.

When the child comes of age, he finds out that the king and queen are not his real parents. At that point, he decides to go with the oracle to reveal the truth, thereby obtaining only a dramatic foreshadowing: You will kill your father and will marry your mother. Terrified, he decides to run away, so that this prophecy was not fulfilled.

The summary of the story is, that Oedipus kills Laius (his Biological father) in a battle, solves the riddle of the Sphinx, is proclaimed king of Thebes, and marries Jocasta. With the prophecy being fulfilled, a plague falls upon the people.

Oedipus, seeks help of the oracle, and learns that he has actually killed his father and married his mother and thus, the people suffering from that fateful destiny. Jocasta commits suicide, Oedipus takes his eyes out, is exiled, and their children inherit the kingdom.

Now we have here our points of interest: The truth (and its versions). First, we have the truth that the GODS announced to King Laius; then follow the truth of the KING, who by knowing this truth, transfers it anonymously to a SERVANT, to hide it or run away from it; and then consequently, this truth is known by an INHABITANT of the village.

The truth was changing forms because they are not equal; there’s the celestial truth, the truth of royalty, and the truth of the people. The same truth is spoken, however, the statement is different.

For example, let’s think about Mexico, 2012 elections and we will find clear similarities between our history and that written by Sophocles: A truth announced by the gods (about an unavoidable reality) through oracles; known and denied by kings (it is accepted and made into deception); and finally known by the people. It may seem familiar if we think of presidents imposed by an all-powerful political class, with TV stations who deny the facts, and people who know what they see (like the shepherd who found the baby in the field). Different layers of truth.

It’s not about comparing President Enrique Peña Nieto with Oedipus, but his victory was something that showed itself as a fateful prophecy. Since 2008 (or maybe years before), it was clear that Peña Nieto was emerging to be the President of Mexico.

The television stations gave us Peña in the nightly news (like a servant leaving the baby in the forest) and we the people, saw (or those who managed to see) him like that handsome doll, that shouldn´t be president, being president.

When the fateful prophecy is fulfilled, the tragedy of the people of Thebes now floats over Mexico.

Translator: Chris Martin.