ARTÍCULO PUBLICADO EN LAS PROVINCIAS EL 5 DE SEPTIEMBRE DE 2010
Las últimas semanas del pasado mes de julio participé en varios eventos, a partir de los cuales, renové mis convicciones acerca de las características diferenciales del nuevo contexto propiciado por la “Sociedad red” y de las exigencias ineludibles que conlleva. Lo más importante de dichos encuentros cívicos, fueron sus “feed-back” que, además de aportarme reflexiones, me permitieron percatarme de la presencia expansiva de un fenómeno denominado anomia y definido por Émile Durkheim ya en el siglo XIX. Curiosamente, este científico social desarrolló el término en una época de transformaciones sociales originadas por el inicio de las sociedades de la modernidad donde las normas y reglas validadas para la etapa societal anterior, la estamental, estaban dejando de cumplir su papel integrador por lo que se necesitaba redefinir algunos de los conceptos anteriores, desechar otros e introducir principios y reglamentaciones que recondujesen las nuevas relaciones sociales. Es más, Durkheim profundizó en las causas de la anomia en dos ámbitos concretos de la realidad de su tiempo. En primer lugar, en “La División del Trabajo Social” (fue su tesis doctoral publicada en 1893) y en “El Suicidio” (1897), obras claves que siguen manteniendo su pertinencia como modelos analíticos de nuestra época.
Las últimas semanas del pasado mes de julio participé en varios eventos, a partir de los cuales, renové mis convicciones acerca de las características diferenciales del nuevo contexto propiciado por la “Sociedad red” y de las exigencias ineludibles que conlleva. Lo más importante de dichos encuentros cívicos, fueron sus “feed-back” que, además de aportarme reflexiones, me permitieron percatarme de la presencia expansiva de un fenómeno denominado anomia y definido por Émile Durkheim ya en el siglo XIX. Curiosamente, este científico social desarrolló el término en una época de transformaciones sociales originadas por el inicio de las sociedades de la modernidad donde las normas y reglas validadas para la etapa societal anterior, la estamental, estaban dejando de cumplir su papel integrador por lo que se necesitaba redefinir algunos de los conceptos anteriores, desechar otros e introducir principios y reglamentaciones que recondujesen las nuevas relaciones sociales. Es más, Durkheim profundizó en las causas de la anomia en dos ámbitos concretos de la realidad de su tiempo. En primer lugar, en “La División del Trabajo Social” (fue su tesis doctoral publicada en 1893) y en “El Suicidio” (1897), obras claves que siguen manteniendo su pertinencia como modelos analíticos de nuestra época.
En el actual contexto de la globalización con su complejidad y heterogeneidad en cuanto a nuevas formas estructurales de organización del sistema productivo, de la política, la economía y lo social y cuando asistimos a una crisis de civilización que afecta a los individuos y a las relaciones entre economía, cultura y sociedad sigue siendo pertinente el concepto de anomia. Y más en este momento transicional donde se carece de una regulación de los sistemas normativos que determine las relaciones entre funciones sociales cada vez más complejas. Faltan referentes sociales y patrones organizacionales que sirvan de modelos, los individuos manifiestan bajo distintas modalidades y modulaciones un cierto sentimiento de pérdida de sus raíces al tener que ubicarse entre lo local y lo global, la separación entre público/privado se ha difuminado, los criterios de lo ético y lo justo deben ser ajustados nuevamente. Esto es anomia para Durkheim, una etapa transitoria carente de normas, reglas y patrones sociales, donde los ciudadanos carecen de puntos de referencia aceptables para comportarse en un tipo de sociedad que todavía no ha marcado límites a las acciones individuales. Un período caracterizado por la incertidumbre donde las reacciones ante la misma vienen siendo diversas. Durkheim no planteó este concepto de forma negativa sino problemática, al producirse un desajuste entre los ideales establecidos por una sociedad y los medios proporcionados a los ciudadanos para alcanzarlos. Desde mi punto de vista, lo importante para el autor era reorganizar, lo más rápidamente posible, los sistemas normativos para clarificar los límites aceptados a todos los miembros de una sociedad.
¿Es pertinente este concepto en la actualidad, donde los cambios vienen siendo estructurales y no coyunturales?, En una sociedad donde la diversidad se ha convertido en su elemento central ¿Hemos establecido nuevas reglas y normas sociales que proporcionen pautas de actuación a los ciudadanos? Comencemos por comprobar si existiera algo nuevo en un sector poblacional concreto: los jóvenes.
En la década de los setenta la antropóloga más destacada de su tiempo, Margaret Mead subrayaba “Nuestro pensamiento nos ata todavía al pasado, al mundo tal y como existía en la época de nuestra infancia y juventud, nacidos y criados antes de la revolución electrónica, la mayoría de nosotros no entiende lo que ésta significa. Los jóvenes de la nueva generación, en cambio, se asemejan a los miembros de la primera generación nacida en un país nuevo. Debemos aprender junto con los jóvenes la forma de dar los próximos pasos; pero para proceder así, debemos reubicar el futuro.(…) Ahora bien, para construir una cultura en la que el pasado sea útil y no coactivo, debemos ubicar el futuro entre nosotros, como algo que está aquí listo para lo que nazca porque, de lo contrario, será demasiado tarde”. La descripción anterior nos alerta de que, a partir de la emergencia de la sociedad informacional, se origina una ruptura generacional insólita en la historia de la humanidad donde quedan invalidados patrones de comportamiento y se producen cambios profundos en la “naturaleza” del proceso de socialización entre otros (la separación “privado/público” se diluye y se quiebran los filtros que establecen la censura ejercida hasta ese momento por la autoridad paterna en la familia).
Uno de los elementos causantes de dicha fractura es la presencia de la TV. En 1.992 el Prof. de Comunicación de la Universidad de New Hampshire (EE.UU) Dr. Joshua Meyrowitz, señalaba “Lo que hay de verdaderamente revolucionario en la televisión es que ella permite a los más jóvenes estar presentes en las interacciones de los adultos (…) Es como si la sociedad entera hubiera tomado la decisión de autorizar a los niños a asistir a las guerras, a los entierros, a los juegos de seducción eróticos, a los interludios sexuales, a las intrigas criminales. La pequeña pantalla les expone a los temas y comportamientos que los adultos se esforzaron por ocultarles durante siglos”. También el Prof. Martín Barbero insiste en este aspecto “Mientras la escuela sigue contando bellísimas historias tanto de los padres de la patria como de los del hogar (…), la televisión expone cotidianamente a los niños a la hipocresía y la mentira, al chantaje y la violencia que entreteje la vida cotidiana de los adultos”.¿Podemos extrañarnos de ciertos comportamientos de la juventud, cuando han sido rotos sistemas normativos y valores fundamentales, no habiéndose creado otros?, ¿Podemos seguir desconociendo cómo viven nuestros hijos?, Si no tenemos en cuenta la incertidumbre que vienen originando las transformaciones producidas por la Sociedad Tecnológica-Informacional, como bien nos indica el Dr. Martín Barbero “no habrá posibilidad de formar ciudadanos, y sin ciudadanos no tendremos ni sociedad competitiva en la producción ni sociedad democrática en lo político”. Opino lo mismo y reclamaría nuestra implicación para nutrir a la ciudadanía de nuevas normas, principios, valores y regulaciones. Este cometido requiere una cierta urgencia.
GLOBALIZATION, TECHNOLOGICAL REVOLUTION AND NEW RISKS
During the last weeks of the past month of July I participated in several events, from which I then renewed my convictions about the differential characteristics of the new context favoured by the “Network society” and the unavoidable needs that it implies. The most important thing of these civic encounters was their “feedback”, which, apart from giving me their opinions, that allowed me to be conscious about the expansive presence of a phenomenon called anomie and defined by Emile Durkheim already in the XIX century. Oddly, this social scientific developed the term in times of social transformations originated by the beginning of the modern societies where norms and rules validated by the previous society phase, the stamentary one, were stopping to develop their integrator role so it was necessary to redefine some of the previous concepts, throw away some of them and introduce principles and rules that will mark the new social relationships. In addition, Durkheim deepened in the cases of anomie in two specific scopes of the reality of his time. Firstly, in “The Division of Social Work” (his thesis published in 1893) and in “The Suicide” (1897), key works that continue to maintain its pertinence with analytical models of our times.
In the current context of globalization with its complexity and heterogeneity regarding the new structural forms of organization of the production system, politics, economy and social issues and when we assist to a civilization crisis that affects individuals and relationships between the economy, culture and society continues to belong to he anomie concept. And even more in this transitional moment where there is a lack of regulation of the rules systems that determines relationships between social functions
Concerning missing social and organizational patterns that serve as models, individuals manifest themselves in several forms and modulations, a certain feeling of loss of their roots by having to be located between the local and global, the separation between public/private has become blurred, the criteria of ethics and fairness should be adjusted again. This is anomie for Durkheim, a transitional stage devoid of rules, norms and social patterns, where citizens have no reference points acceptable to behave in a kind of society that still did not set limits to individual shares. A period characterized by uncertainty where reactions to the same are being mixed. Durkheim did not raise a negative concept but problems on the occurrence of a mismatch between the ideals set by society and the media provided to citizens for achieving them. From my point of view, the important thing was to reorganize the author, as quickly as possible, a fix de regulatory systems to determine the limits acceptable to all members of society.
How relevant is this concept at present, where changes are being structural and non-cyclical? In a society where diversity has become the central element, have we established new rules and social norms to provide guidelines for action to the citizens? Let's start by checking if there is something new in a particular sector of the population: young people.
In the seventies, the most prominent anthropologist of her time, Margaret Mead stressed: "our thoughts still binds us to the past, the world as it existed at the time of our childhood and youth, born and raised before the electronic revolution, most of us do not understand what it means. The present younger generation, however, resemble the members of the first generation born in a new country. We must learn together with young people how to take the next steps, but for doing so, we must relocate the future. (...) However, to build a culture in which the past is useful and not coercive, we must place the future between us as something that is here ready for whatever is born because, otherwise, will be too late.” The above description alerts us that, from the emergence of the information society, it creates an unusual generation gap in the history of humanity where behaviour patterns are invalidated and a deep change in the "nature" of the socialization process among others (the separation "private/public" is diluted and the filters break down the censorship so far for parental authority in the family).
One factor causing the fracture is the presence of the TV. In 1992, Professor of Communication at the University of New Hampshire (USA) Dr. Joshua Meyrowitz, stated that "what that is truly revolutionary in television is that it allows younger people to be present in the interactions of adults (...) It is as if the whole society had taken the decision to allow children to go to war, to funerals, to play games of erotic seduction, sexual interludes, criminal intrigue. The small screen exposes them to issues and behaviours that adults used to hide for centuries. Professor Martín Barberó also insists on this: "While the school still has beautiful histories of the fathers of the country as the home (...), television exposes children to daily hypocrisy and lies, blackmail and violence that interweaves the daily lives of adults. "Can we be surprised by certain behaviours of youth, where regulatory systems have been broken and core values, not being created others?, can we continue ignoring how our children live?, if we ignore the uncertainty that the transformations are causing by Informational Technology Society, as well indicates the Dr. Martin Barberó, there is "no possibility of forming citizens and non citizens or companies will not compete in the production or democratic society politically.” I feel the same and claim our involvement to nurture citizenship of new rules, principles, values and regulations. This task requires a certain urgency.
GLOBALIZATION, TECHNOLOGICAL REVOLUTION AND NEW RISKS
During the last weeks of the past month of July I participated in several events, from which I then renewed my convictions about the differential characteristics of the new context favoured by the “Network society” and the unavoidable needs that it implies. The most important thing of these civic encounters was their “feedback”, which, apart from giving me their opinions, that allowed me to be conscious about the expansive presence of a phenomenon called anomie and defined by Emile Durkheim already in the XIX century. Oddly, this social scientific developed the term in times of social transformations originated by the beginning of the modern societies where norms and rules validated by the previous society phase, the stamentary one, were stopping to develop their integrator role so it was necessary to redefine some of the previous concepts, throw away some of them and introduce principles and rules that will mark the new social relationships. In addition, Durkheim deepened in the cases of anomie in two specific scopes of the reality of his time. Firstly, in “The Division of Social Work” (his thesis published in 1893) and in “The Suicide” (1897), key works that continue to maintain its pertinence with analytical models of our times.
In the current context of globalization with its complexity and heterogeneity regarding the new structural forms of organization of the production system, politics, economy and social issues and when we assist to a civilization crisis that affects individuals and relationships between the economy, culture and society continues to belong to he anomie concept. And even more in this transitional moment where there is a lack of regulation of the rules systems that determines relationships between social functions
Concerning missing social and organizational patterns that serve as models, individuals manifest themselves in several forms and modulations, a certain feeling of loss of their roots by having to be located between the local and global, the separation between public/private has become blurred, the criteria of ethics and fairness should be adjusted again. This is anomie for Durkheim, a transitional stage devoid of rules, norms and social patterns, where citizens have no reference points acceptable to behave in a kind of society that still did not set limits to individual shares. A period characterized by uncertainty where reactions to the same are being mixed. Durkheim did not raise a negative concept but problems on the occurrence of a mismatch between the ideals set by society and the media provided to citizens for achieving them. From my point of view, the important thing was to reorganize the author, as quickly as possible, a fix de regulatory systems to determine the limits acceptable to all members of society.
How relevant is this concept at present, where changes are being structural and non-cyclical? In a society where diversity has become the central element, have we established new rules and social norms to provide guidelines for action to the citizens? Let's start by checking if there is something new in a particular sector of the population: young people.
In the seventies, the most prominent anthropologist of her time, Margaret Mead stressed: "our thoughts still binds us to the past, the world as it existed at the time of our childhood and youth, born and raised before the electronic revolution, most of us do not understand what it means. The present younger generation, however, resemble the members of the first generation born in a new country. We must learn together with young people how to take the next steps, but for doing so, we must relocate the future. (...) However, to build a culture in which the past is useful and not coercive, we must place the future between us as something that is here ready for whatever is born because, otherwise, will be too late.” The above description alerts us that, from the emergence of the information society, it creates an unusual generation gap in the history of humanity where behaviour patterns are invalidated and a deep change in the "nature" of the socialization process among others (the separation "private/public" is diluted and the filters break down the censorship so far for parental authority in the family).
One factor causing the fracture is the presence of the TV. In 1992, Professor of Communication at the University of New Hampshire (USA) Dr. Joshua Meyrowitz, stated that "what that is truly revolutionary in television is that it allows younger people to be present in the interactions of adults (...) It is as if the whole society had taken the decision to allow children to go to war, to funerals, to play games of erotic seduction, sexual interludes, criminal intrigue. The small screen exposes them to issues and behaviours that adults used to hide for centuries. Professor Martín Barberó also insists on this: "While the school still has beautiful histories of the fathers of the country as the home (...), television exposes children to daily hypocrisy and lies, blackmail and violence that interweaves the daily lives of adults. "Can we be surprised by certain behaviours of youth, where regulatory systems have been broken and core values, not being created others?, can we continue ignoring how our children live?, if we ignore the uncertainty that the transformations are causing by Informational Technology Society, as well indicates the Dr. Martin Barberó, there is "no possibility of forming citizens and non citizens or companies will not compete in the production or democratic society politically.” I feel the same and claim our involvement to nurture citizenship of new rules, principles, values and regulations. This task requires a certain urgency.
