To understand the violence that surrounds us – from the words chosen by the media, from the lines of political communication, from the topics of films and TV series, from the constantly reported news to sell hard copies, online views and television ratings, from the violence of opposing interests been leading them to total answers – we should take a step back.
The dominant discourse in the Western mass media depicts a “Other far” in a generic way, which coagulates in close threat whenever episodes of violence occur: however, these are more linked to a complex international geopolitical context articulated by many interests, stratified since before the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon in 2001, than to verbose explanations on human capacity to do evil .
Feeding the sense of helplessness of those who see or read seems to be the fundamental public service, which nourishes the new sense of identity towards an enemy external capable of uniting collective consciences internal.
There are very few services that, to go beyond the discourse of fear and controversy that make users vulnerable, propose analyzes that put everyday stories back in the wider contexts of which they are emanations.
Furthermore, for an interpretation of the interconnected global context in which the violence occurs, different keys are needed to read the meanings, keys that also allow Western positions and interests to be questioned.
At a conference on “Gramsci, cultures and the world“(In 2007) Ursula Apitzsch made us reflect on the usefulness of re-reading Gramsci in an intercultural key, for example the question politics of the use of the veil:
“Religion and ethnicity are not only linked in a structural way: many phenomena of religious fundamentalism, such as the use of the veil (for example) of the daughters of lay families of immigrants, are interpreted as forms of preservation of traditional habits. Instead, they are claims of cultural identity against forced secularization or the impending privileges of the Christian religion, typical of European societies, often unable to guarantee tolerance. The dialectic of the European model of secularized organization foments and forces the secularized to develop forms of cultural identity of a religious matrix ”.
Thus, in the manifestations of the external forms of religious belonging, one can read a discourse of resistance to forms of social exclusion, which probably have more financial and socio-economic matrices (read hegemonic vs. subordinate), than purely religious ones.
For this we must question and question the hegemony of a violent, devious, insidious, partial, anxious communication, which constructs, simplifies, uses and reuses distant identity elements to build more or less dangerous enemies towards which everything becomes legitimate.
Sources: Antonio Gramsci, Prison notebooks, Einaudi, 1975, link to the book
Antonio Gramsci, Letters from prisonEinaudi, 1971, link to the book
Image: Lamia Al-Ansi on Pinterest
Source cited: “Gramsci, cultures and the world”Summary of the interventions of the conference, link here.
Gramsci, cultures and the worldinternational conference promoted on 27-28 April 2007 by the Fondazione Istituto Gramsci in collaboration with the International Gramsci Society Italia, organized in four working sessions (Gramsci in Indian studies on the lower classes; Gramsci in British Cultural Studies; Gramsci in North American cultural and postcolonial studies; Gramsci and Said in the Islamic world and in the Mediterranean), focused on authors such as Guha, Hall, Said rather than on the overall meaning of Gramscian thought.
#Hegemony #violent #communication