Ambivalence: fragmentation of Being
15
Apr
In a way contrary to the Other of Martin Buber, Emmanuel Levinas and Paul Ricoeur, the philosopher Zygmunt Bauman’s liquidity
articulates the concept of Other direct with the strangeness, and delivered: “The right of the Other to its strangeness (strangerhood) is the only way which my own right can be expressed, settle and defend yourself “(Bauman, Modernity and Ambivalence, p. 236).
For Bauman ambivalence on the intellectual level would be born of a redefinition of the social order by a “dense sociability” pre-modern, with a view to setting up a secular rational order: “… the modern era defined to itself before more, as the realm of reason and rationality, therefore, all other forms of life were believed to be devoid of the two “(Legislators and interpreters. Modernity, postmodernity and intellectuals, p. 111), but ingenious device liar, Foucault has another theory:
“The eighteenth century was the century of the disciplining of knowledge, that is, the internal organization of each know as a discipline, and, in its own field and both selection criteria which overcome the false knowledge, the not-knowing, ways standardization and hemogeneização of the contents, forms of hierarchy and, finally, an internal organization of centralization of such knowledge in tornode a kind of axiomatization of fact “(Foucault, Il fault défendre a la Societé. Cours au Collège de France, p. 161-162).
Guy Bauman, modern par excellence, is delivered to Panoptical supervision a beleaguered body, which in a perfect society would require exclusion systems that paradoxically would make a “dis-ambivalence” to make possible social life.
Bauman used the Jew as an extreme example of ambivalence, as well the stranger par excellence would be crazy, about which would fall all the exclusion system (Bauman uses the categories exclusion of plant and immobility, when he speaks of globalization).
Criticizing the full form, which would also be somewhat ambiguous, it creates the idea of a body under siege: “The scale of the task, then aggravated by their inherent ambivalence, feeds a besieged mentality: this is the body, and in particular the its full form, threatened on all sides “(Bauman, The fragmented life, p. 127).
Now the very specialization of knowledge has the fragmented life and not the individual who is the victim of it, but today there are many integrators knowledge, see Edgar Morin and complexity.
Bauman decided confusedly reabilizar the new philosophies of world history, for it gave the intellectuals the role of interpreter of the context of pluralism, nothing more idealistic, elitist and improper post-modernity that claims the rights of the common man, the homo sacer, the “crowd” and the fact that democracy (Odio Democracy of Ranciére).
Intend of end of this century some “civilized conversion”, establishing “Intellectual policy tool” not in terms of “science / ideology,” but in terms of a new “truth / power,” which truth and what power? maybe some guru set.
