|
|
We
tend
to
forget
that
all
social
life,
including
politics,
is
language.
These
are
not
realities
which
exist
only
on
this
verbal
level,
but
for
human
beings
life
is
language.
And,
on
the
contrary
to
the
Hegelian
idea
that
history
is
an
objective
concurrence
of
rational
or
rationalized
forces,
human
social
life
is
entirely
made
up
of
the
language
it
bears
within:
in
both
rational
content
as
well
as
in
that
other
something
which
we
call
"the
irrational".
 For
contemporary
Westeners
the
word
"irrational"
carries
with
it
suspicious
stigmatized
overtones,
things
which
must
b
fought
against.
But,
by
not
trusting
and
fighting
against
this
area
of
life
which
we
call
"the
irrational",
an
area
made
up
of
symbolic
and
mythical
forms,
what
we
are
really
doing
is
to
show
a
type
of
self-hate,
a
disdain
towards
the
most
valualble
part
that
we
possesses:
our
emotional
world,
the
primordial
and
the
most
profound
part
of
us.
This
deep
division
into
two
parts
which
fight
against
each
other,
this
struggle
between
Jekyll
and
Hyde,
is
one
of
the
legacies
of
the
Enlightment
and
of
Modernity.
This
Modernity
which
breaks
down
the
myth
is
that
which,
after
the
historical
experiences
of
Communism
and
the
Fascism,
tries
to
reduce
social
life
into
a
concurrence
of
forces
in
conflict
within
certain
pre-established
laws.
It
tries
to
turn
life
into
a
dialogue
between
logical
propositions.
But
human beings
do
not
define
themselves
through
logical
thinking,
which
is
a
simple
part
of
our
thought
process,
but
rather
through
their
spiritual
and
mental
world:
all
through
language.
A
language
which
transmits
our
rigid
reasoning,
and
also
our
emotions:
multiform,
mobile
and
ever
changing.
Language,
through
the
different
languages,
is
more
than
anything
else
for
each
and
every
one
of
us
accumulated
memory:
the
memory
of
a
community
and
also
personal
memory.
And
memory,
Mnemosine,
is
also
the
imagination.
Language
allows
us
to
to
travel
backwards
or
forwards.
Because
a
human
being's
social
life
has
its
logical
side
situated
in
the
present,
which
tries
to
find
solutions
for
the
conflicts
between
different
interests,
and
it
also
has
a
side
which
is
conditioned
by
language
and
imagination,
situated
in
the
past
and
in
the
future,
which
takes
us
backwards
und
forwards.
This
other
side
where
the
memory
accumulated
by
the
community,
with
its
traumas,
fears
and
anxieties
is
expressed,
is
where
we
can
work
more
or
less
obsessively
with
the
illusions
and
dreams
of
this
community
and
of
this
indiciduals
and
groups
of
individuals.
This
is
the
specific
field
of
writers.
We
can
also
say
that
political
life
has
two
different
sides;
it
expresses
personal,
class,
national
interests...,
it
expresses
reasoned
demands.
On
the
other
hand,
it
shows
the
so-called
"theatrical"
side.
This
side
is
the
one
of
expression
and
representation
of
the
individual
and
collective
feelings
and
emotions.
Not
only
must
a
good
politician
be
a
manager
but
also
an
interpreter
showing
social
emotions
and
working
with
it
prudently;
a
good
politician
is
not
just
a
good
organizer
but
also
a
good
actor
and
a
psychodrama
therapist.
No
doubt,
this
side
of
politics
is
related
to
literature.
Under
these
circumstances,
what
we
might
call
a
"necessary
literature"
ermerges
when
politics
are
unsuccessful,
when
politicians
are
unable
to
sort
governmental
problems
out,
when
definitely,
they
cannot
face
collective
emotions.
It
is
then
when
writers
and
artists
emerge
to
express
once
again
the
primordial
word
of
collectivity.
When
rational
politics,
regulated
and
institutionalized
speech
are
unsuccessful,
when
Hegelian
reasoning
fails,
it
is
then
that
there
is
a
prepolitic
regression
and
writers
forget
their
bourgeoise
profession
and
turn
to
wear
the
tunic
of
the
tribal
bards
to
remember
the
reasoning
and
emotion
of
the
tribe.
It
is
evident
that
this
situation
is
momentary,
unstable
but
also
tragic
and
decisive.
Bourgeoisie
society
and
illustration
have
created
the
"intellectual",
which
many
times
is
joined
to
the
figure
of
the
literary
writer.
Every
writer
is
an
intellectual,
but
many
writers
are
only
creative
in
words
of
fiction
and
pure
artistic
language.
They
cannot
have
a
perspective
of
their
own
task,
they
cannot
analyse
the
reality
surrounding
them.
But,
being
unconscious,
these
writers
also
modify
language
and
social
life
with
their
own
work.
They
introduce
thought
figures
in
the
collective
imagination,
they
update
myths,
they
express
fear
...
There
are
more
analytic
writers.
They
can
express
themselves
making
use
of
languages,
the
rational
and
the
irrational.
There
are
also
intellectuals
who
are
not
just
literary
writers
and
work
also
with
speculative
language.
These
ones
are
able
to
acutely
see
the
present
and
imagine
possible
futures.
We
confirm
that
the
figure
of
the
intellectual
becomes
practically
confused
with
the
"man
of
letters/Arts".
It
has
a
charismatic
personality:
preferable
a
severe,
academic,
mature,
authoritarian
and
"of
letters"
male.
And,
really,
what
this
comes
to
mean
is
"someone
who
ignores
what
is
related
to
science
and
technology".
And
this
ignorance
of
the
world
of
the
experience,
where
social
transformations
take
place,
is
a
complete
risk
since
it
takes
us
to
speculate
in
a
purely
ideological
world,
a
stand-alone
world
made
of
language
and
spinnig
over
it.
This
world
of
ideas
tends
to
paranoia
and
immobility.
This
being
so,
the
intellectuals
specially
literary
writers,
are
able
to
properly
make
a
part
of
their
work,
they
object
to
social
transformations
(technological,
economical,
cultural
...).
However,
they
do
not
always
know
how
to
deal
with
the
other
side;
they
do
not
propose
new
ways
out
or
ways
to
follow.
To
sum
up,
generally
speaking,
they
do
not
know
how
to
reconcile
their
reason
as
to
the
rational
with
state
reasons
and
with
technological
reason.
Perhaps,
this
happens
because
there
is
no
possible
reconciliation.
The
interllectual
is
a
citizen
who
offers
himself/herself
to
the
society
als
a
tool
of
the
collective
intellectual
lab.
From
a
positive
point
of
view,
we
can
say
that
his/her
role
is
that
of
being
a
"stone
to
be
touched"
(litmus
paper),
detecting
errors,
and
analysing
defects.
From
a
negative
point
of
view,
we
can
see
the
intellectual
as
a
clumsy
creating
problem
in
labs
and
technical
jobs.
I
think
he/she
is
both
of
them.
No
doubt
the
intellectual
has
a
certain
power
and
he/she
is
conscious
of
it.
This
power
is
not
democratic;
it
is
won
in
a
battle
against
other
intellectuals.
And
this
bellicose
and
narcissist
condition
frequently
characterizes
his/her
acts,
struggling
with
ideas
and
opponents.
The
ideological
fight
may
become
hegemonic
in
society
and
it
leads
the
intellectual
to
become
a
very
active
part
of
any
social
conflict.
We
can
say
that
intellectuals
are
the
one
who
prepare
the
army
the
way
in
their
internal,
ideological
and
political
wars.
It
is
a
pity,
sometimes
also
soldiers.
Anyway,
society
must
know
this
reason
as
to
the
rational
that
the
writer
must
cultivate.
This
is
a
radically
individual
reason,
since
literature
in
contrast
with
social
science
is
the
field
of
whim,
arbitraries,
diversity,
...
individuality.
It
is
precisely
over
the
human
being
that
democracy
must
be.
Every
democratic
dream
is
born
from
a
vindication
of
the
individual.
Against
the
reason
of
the
State
the
writer
must
try
to
say
the
voice
of
Antígona,
the
voice
of
the
human
being
who
is
alone.
It
is
just
there,
in
this
line
that
joins
the
reason
of
the
State
with
the
personal
reason,
that
the
figures
of
the
writer,
"dichter",
old
poet,
who
was
a
priest
first,
and
the
figure
of
the
bourgeoisie
intellectual
who
defends
the
necessary
collective
reason,
the
survival
of
the
community,
of
the
State,
find
themselvers
and
also
separate
themselves.
Sometimes
this
may
lead
to
pain
and
indignation.
The
writer,
that
people
possessed
by
language,
the
melancolic
people
who
looks
back,
express
memory.
And
memory
is
necessary
counterweight
for
the
very
fast
social
life.
And
also
express
a
part
of
the
individual
and
collective
life
that
only
may
be
understood
through
the
myth,
the
dream
and,
many
times,
the
delirium.
And,
in
this
way,
making
all
it
public,
the
writer
makes
whole
again,
reintegrates
that
dark
part
to
the
collective
conscience.
When
the
myth
is
denied,
remains
hidden
but
it
becomes
wild
and
cannibal.
The
myth
denied
it
never
disapears,
it
becomes
Mr.
Hyde.
In
social
democratic
life,
intellectuals
are
necessary
poison
who
help
to
heal.
When
writers
who
create
imagination,
dream
and
prophetic
myth
act
also
as
intellectuals
they
can
heal
twice
as
much;
however,
they
can
also
become
toxic,
dangerous,
Dionisiacs.
They
must
be
used
in
small
doses
since
they
may
help
us
bring
heaven
or
even
hell
or
apocalypses.
It
is
likely
that
dangerous
stuff
is
somehow
necessary,
and
no
doubt
necessary
stuff
is
dangerous.
Die
Veröffentlichung
erfolgt
mit
freundlicher
Genehmigung
von
Suso
de
Toro.
Alle
Rechte
sind
beim
Autor
und
unterliegen
dem
Urheberrecht.
Die
Wiedergabe dieses
Textes,
ganz
oder
teilweise,
in
jeglichem
Medium
ist
ohne
ausdrückliche
Zustimmung
des
Autors
nicht
gestattet.
 Autorenportrait: SUSO
DE
TORO,
1956
im
galicischen
Santiago
de
Compostela
geboren,
zählt
zu
den
wichtigsten
zeitgenössischen
Schriftstellern
Spaniens.
Er
verfasste
zahlreiche
Bücher,
Essays,
Theaterstücke,
Artikel
und
Liedtexte,
und
zwar
sowohl
in
Galicisch
als
auch
in
Spanisch.
Er
wurde
mit
zahlreichen
Auszeichnungen
geehrt.
|
::
