Independence and the modern project (1)
José Ignacio López Soria
Traditionally, studies on the independence of Latin American countries not only emphasize the processes of formation of nation states but to address the subject study from the perspective of nation-state.
The first is self-evident. Just remember the abundant literature on how they will constitute the nation-state in its various dimensions: political and territorial, in the first place, but also economic, social, cultural and institutional. Privileged attention to one of these dimensions, with corresponding methodological and conceptual apparatus is precisely what distinguishes stages and perspectives in the historiography of independence.
The second is that the dominance of nation-state perception of historical processes is as natural to us, as common sense, which ultimately fail to clear Serna. She guides our perception straining our eyes but also reducing the perceptual field. What I mean is that the construct "state-nation" is not just a set of expectations and finally an objective reality more or less successful but a perceptual structure, axiological, normative and practical representative directs our gaze, forms, shapes and meaning-to our historiographical praxis foreshadow their results and even affects our daily lives leading us to assume identities, loyalties, solidarities, imaginations and ways of life compatible with the nation-state.
While recognizing the historical and philosophical importance of nation-states, I am interested here to discuss alternative perceptual let us free ourselves from the limitations that perception involves nation-state.
Three are, in my view, the trunking limitations of the nation-state perception: visual field reduction to the territorial boundaries of nation-state privileged attention to the issue of the formation of states with manifest disregard other variables historical process, failure to follow internal processes are not consistent with the dynamics of nation-state building.
I have looked to me that the process of independence from the perspective of the modern project would allow an extension visual field and greater attention to the many variables that constitute the historical reality.
This is necessary to remember, even in broad terms, what the draft statement and as modern as carrying.
The modern project, illustrated by a pregnant statement, is in transformation processes that affect both the world of culture and the society and everyday life.
In the world of modern culture, the project aims, first, demystify the culture, separating it from its metaphysical-religious foundation to give it a rational basis. And, secondly, it tends to be areas autonomous cultural (objectivity, legitimacy and representation), each equipped with a logic of its own, its own experts and even specific pathways for the formation of such experts. Are formed, and, science and philosophy (sphere of objectivity), ethics and law (area of \u200b\u200blegitimacy), and symbolic systems, language arts and modern (sphere representation). The expert is defined in terms of mastery of these logics and languages. To qualify as an expert is necessary to go through learning systems are increasingly patronized and school. The culture is going to evolve, so, everyday life to become a knowledge expert. Occurs, therefore, a profound impact divorce between culture and popular culture expert and life-world.
For society, the modern project promises a transformation of social life based on the rationalization of social practices. Are created, so-called (Weber) subsystems of rational action with respect to the end: representative democracy macro management, the market for the exchange of goods and services, the industrialization of production and reproduction of such goods and services; the standing army, police and judicial system for safety and legal use violence, the school subsystem for the production and dissemination of knowledge and expert training, etc. These subsystems curdle or objectified in institutions (nation-state, market, business, standing army, school, etc.) That constitute the institutional framework or institutional dimensions "(Giddens) of modernity.
Modernity is stated as "project", ie a promise made in the cismundanidad for whose realization requires the commitment rational and free of "citizens." Key components of this project are, as we know, ideas of citizenship, social progress and unlimited material, contract, agreement, historia universal unilineal y periodificada, teleología, etc. Como meta se vislumbra un mundo inteligible de individuos iguales ante la ley que arreglan sus diferencias a base de contratos y consensos y de una comunicación racional y argumentativa (Habermas) en contextos “libres de violencia” (Arendt). El proyecto encierra en sí mismo las fuentes de su propio dinamismo, entre las cuales cabe mencionar con Giddens la reflexividad o capacidad no sólo de producir lo nuevo sino de asimilarlo y el desanclamiento de sus dimensiones institucionales con respecto a sus orígenes históricos y, por tanto, la posibilidad de su anclamiento en contextos históricos diversos.
En la realización del proyecto de la modernidad tended to privilege only certain aspects of the cultural world of scientific knowledge, by its relation to industrialization, and the legal rules for their relationship with the legitimization of power, and two of the subsystems of rational action: that of macro-management through representative democracy and the production through industrialization. Of all of them even favored-nation status, making it not only paradigmatic model of social organization but in the horizon of meaning, expectations and providing direction for both the perceptual action, axiological, normative and representative to social practice and even self-possession of ourselves and the definition of identity, solidarity, loyalty, etc.
Hence the importance we attach to the nation-state not only in practice but as individuals and as members of a particular community, the national state.
argue that this perspective limits our view, leads us to understand others as the other but as the opposite, put obstacles in the path toward finding and understanding and not let us recognize the diversity of life forms that enrich our environment.
More rich, varied and potentially integrating our historical narratives would if we understood and asumiésemos the stage of transition from colony to republic in terms of enunciation and implementation of modern project in all its complexity.
This would lead, for example, to study the process of demystification of culture and constitution of the cultural sphere as an autonomous domain and to analyze the training of experts and investigate the process by which the official or cultural was divorcing expert knowledge and cultural practices the world own life. From this perspective the concept of independence, if by this we mean the change in a world essentially prescriptive another essentially elective, would be applied to a process that began in the mid eighteenth century and probably not over yet.
And we would also, in the domains of society, to study the formation and institutionalization of the various subsystems of rational action, which would allow us to speak of independence if and only if these subsystems, the macro management, the security , control and surveillance, the production of goods and services, of trade, production and dissemination of knowledge and appropriation of powers, etc .- have been released from previous practices to orient themselves by the principles of modern rationality.
Last but not least, taking the perspective of the modern project invite us to approach the world of life to discuss it if the customs, forms of recognition, the ways to assume the identity, understanding of another, the definition of loyalty and solidarity, the horizons of meaning and expectations, argumentative practices, and even intimacy lifetimes are governed by modern or premodern. Independence in this respect involves a respectful but not mandatory, but elective with their own traditions.
After this brief presentation, I do not give more value than a working hypothesis, I know that there are many loose ends. Just wanted to invite you to glimpse the rich and complex landscape of possibilities open to the historiographical work on independence from the assumption of the project of modernity as a theoretical and practical perspective.
Notes (1) In: Martinez Garnica, Aermando and Guillermo Bustos (ed.). The Idependencia in the Andean countries. New Perspectives (Proceedings of the First Module Traveling Chair of History of Latin America. Quito, December 9-12 2003). Bogotá, OEI, 2004, p. 219-222.
0 comments:
Post a Comment