The ultimate objective of the polarization is the rupture. About our stolen country.

The ultimate objective of the polarization is the rupture. About our stolen country.

“Clash as a mean of resolution forces a inescapable structure where victory comes only over the loser’s expenses.”

We’re divided. It’s impossible to pass a day without dealing with at least some kind of polarization. A conversation that for sheer lack of touch ends up in a critical subject in which you (and the other) will discover if the civilized person talking to you is a disgusting ignorant or a illuminated friend. The poles exist to include and to divide, left, right, liberals, socialists, feminists, machos, activists, homofobics, conservatives. In everybody’s mind there’s the idealized human being and also it’s imperfect counterpart, that person who agrees with evertyhing you think or the person who draws anger and resentment due to their foolishness, defending what can only be unthinkable.

This judgement by oposition, rushing to judge people based only in how they get close to our ideas is a childish and improductive way of recognize ourselves as part of certain groups and deny other people’s approaches. The pettiness lies in the fact that this behavior reinforces the idea of non communicant groups, penalize those who are open to change their minds and, if we consider the collective space, it’s also clear that the negotiations are out of question. The lack of interaction and flux of ideas suffocate the collective imaginary, limitating diversity and preventing alterations due to an ambient where everybody hold desperately to partidary positions that arise more from a midiatic and electoral game than from a real interest for the complexity involving bigger issues.

"Trees". Ai Wei Wei, 2009.

In the dicotomy terrain the only things thriving in all their charm and inconsequence are the leaderships, gathering the constant tension to idealize and therefore, to obscure the real problems and it’s nuances to create a well rounded story about good guys and bad guys where, be they a nazi right or a stalinist left, the outcome is a blind course of action in face of what’s, almost always a scarecrow. This way of acting becomes, due to a complete avoidance of the intelectual debate, sometimes mistaken by shallow screaming and Facebook posts (or even lower, columns of the big media), a script defining both the position and the level of engagement of it’s followers.

Clash as a mean of resolution forces a inescapable structure where victory comes only over the loser’s expenses. Without space for debate and negotiation the discourses are always the most radicalized and simplistic, common place and obvious, even if it’s disastrous, specially for those who have no space in the decision making proccess. However, the intensification of this scenario comes from a mixture of interests, prejudices and fears that were instaled over the years and now broke loose over our society still recovering from a sordid amputation.

The polarization can only be disputed in the political space since the other channels are closed, reinforcing the power of the official institutions making it easier to dominate both sides by those who can dominate the most powerful positions inside the pre-established structure. It was interesting to see these very institutions being used to disarm the entire society and then being responsible for their own social political subversion, a metamorphosis that goes way beyond the usual in moments of transition.

By Banksy.

What happened was a profound rupture through the intentional and organized dismembering of the social, political and economical model that guided the country in the last years. A model developed over years of democratic decisions with all the agregated influences that arised from the power dinamics of the country, always dependent of certain respect to the institutions – even with all the expected troubles – not only as the law guided, but also as it existed on the nation’s imaginary and according to the project of nation that, for good or evil, was kept legitimate.

As the dichotomy allows the articulation of the assailants it becomes a duty to think the scenario as a whole in order to hold back this general structure that’s failing brazilians. Even a victory by strong opposition, as it was for them, wouldn’t not mean a return anymore, nothing will erase from our history, both in short and in the long term, this ideological shock. Fighting for a return if not conservatism is at least a dangerous longing that can leave us unable to act when action is needed the most.

The only option is to resist, to call out the lack of legimity and demand reparations for the damage being done to Brazil. However, we must have in mind that a return is impossible. It´s urgent the rise of a new objective, that also won’t come rescued from our past as a mask to the present. Our past struggles must stay there as history for now we have to organize a new action plan. Fighting is essential but we have to think, to elaborate not only the next steps but also the future goals and to do this we must not forget what was taken from us. What we lost wasn’t a project of nation, we lost the very own hability to project and no fight will be enough if we keep asking for the past to come back, because it will not come, they made it impossible. What’s to come is uncertain, a sad uncertainty for all of us who had any optimism with Brazil prior the coup. As consolation there’s only the possibility, because our uncertainty is also theirs.