Individual memory and group history are the anchors for building the
reality in which we are immersed and, at the same time, maintaining ourpsychological and social identity. This applies, once the controversyabout peoples with history and peoples without history has beenovercome, for all societies, of the past and present, which not onlyhave a history but also produce narratives about it, using their ownregister systems and, above all , in different forms: mythical andrealistic, sometimes mixed. In the choice of expressive form, theconcept that each society has of time comes into play: static, circularor linear, to give three documented examples. These forms of organizingpast events are consistent, in general, with the social structure of thelocal society, so that small segmental and egalitarian societies opt fora static representation of time and history, while stratified societiesuse semicircular or linear forms , as is the case in the West, from theGreeks and Jews onwards, cultures from which our current one descends.Certainly things are not so clear-cut, so much so that so-calledsegmental societies need historical time in their daily life, in thesame way that stratified societies can contain social groups with a timethat is more mythical than historical, without considering that evenhistorical events linear often function as a mythical referent.The last observation allows us to understand, for example, how in statesocieties, generally with a linear time, the dominant classes constructtheir past in such a way as to highlight their legitimacy to dominatethe social system; and every new group that comes to power needs tochange the past to have value in the present. This applies both to theChinese genealogists of the Ming dynasty, as to the new right that is inpower in Italy: see, for example, the attempts to deny the Holocaust orthe controversies over the Bourbons; but also the recent war conflictbetween Russia and Ukraine where each party claims a different past, tojustify invasion or defense. Unfortunately this also seems to apply tothe conflict in Palestine, manifested by the attacks of a large part ofthe West against the UN secretary, when he pointed out that Hamas'attacks on Israel also derive from more than fifty years of repressionagainst the Palestinians. But it is even more valid for the reasonsgiven by the Zionists, who claim a right to Palestinian lands... becausetwo thousand years ago their ancestors lived in that territory. Withthis justification, Spain could claim to annex Sicily, since for fivehundred years it was part of their territory!These attempts to control the past work largely because hegemonic groupsimpose their historical narratives through ideological stateapparatuses, such as schools, if they are in government; or through themedia, if it concerns economic groups, this applies to the televisionmedia of one or the other (in the current Italian case, both publictelevision and a large part of private television are controlled by thesame power groups). This progressive and continuous imposition of thehistorical narrative, aimed above all at the new generations, allows thedominant groups to prepare the ground for imposing their version ofhistory; a terrain that tends to be uncritical, if not actually lackingin data, given that in Europe the time dedicated to history in schoolsis decreasing. In this way, to paraphrase the Marx of German Ideology,the version of the past of the hegemonic groups becomes the past of thewhole society, even if the processes of telematic globalization caninsinuate, albeit wildly, other versions: in an open society , forexample, the nationalist historical discourse can be weakened bydifferent versions of neighboring countries, these too with their ownnationalist version of the past.However, it is necessary to ask ourselves who produces the narrativesthat serve as justification for politicians to elaborate theirsimplified and highly ideological version of the past. The obviousanswer is that they are professional historians, that is, more or lessorganic intellectuals, even if we increasingly encounter other types ofprofessionals who transform themselves, without real training, intohistorians, as is the case with journalists. In this case, one becomesan "expert" by reading a few books and without ever visiting thearchives, where the documents necessary for the development of aplausible narrative rest. The problem, to put it in some way, is thathistorians are also individuals immersed in their culture of origin, aswell as being characterized by their ideology, so much so that theirreconstructions are partialized by it, ending up defining in the presentboth categories such as the contents chosen to narrate the past. Thecase of the history of subordinate groups or disregarded subjects of thepast, such as women or homosexuals, is exemplary in this sense: first ofall, we must not forget that the archived documents have alreadysuffered from an interested characterization from which they areexcluded mostly subordinate groups, except in repressive processes;secondly, the research is characterized by the theory that everyhistorian, automatically or consciously, has of the unfolding ofhistory. In this sense, dominant theories still today indicate thathistory is determined by dominant groups through political institutionsand "great men", literally! From here it follows that the narrativeconcerns politicians and soldiers, battles and thrones, etc., while thesubordinate groups are relegated to secondary notes or completelyabsent. Furthermore, biographies of important social actors of the pastcontinue to be reconstructed, most often decontextualized from thesocial and cultural environment in which they operated, also meetinggreat acceptance among the public who buy books or watch the historicalsoap operas they generate.The previous conclusions must be partly relativised, at least inacademic circles, considering the emergence of new historiographicalparadigms which from the 1930s, with the French school of the Annals,passing through Italian microhistory, have broadened the field ofresearch including non-wealthy sectors of the societies studied and,above all, the topics investigated to the point of including, throughthe influence of anthropology, economic and cultural aspects, such asnutrition or popular religions. Furthermore, it is in this context that,under the pressure of progressive interests and ideologies, importantlines of investigation have been produced on subaltern groups and theircultures, as is the case of English "history from below" (Eric Hobsbawm)or the " subaltern studies" that arose in India (Ranajit Guha). In fact,common people traditionally appear on the historiographical horizon onlywhen they rebel; however, as Hobsbawm wrote in 1997, its importance isevident "not only in moments of exceptional popular mobilization suchas, for example, revolutions, but at all times or during most of thetime". Hence an important change in the historiographical paradigm, evenif, it must be reiterated, these are always narratives produced byintellectuals, most often stimulated by ideological and not classfactors and, above all, their circulation does not include thesubordinate groups of the present . As for these, by overcoming oralityand taking writing as a tool for transmitting knowledge, they will haveto do the narration of their past themselves. But this is alreadyanother story!Emanuele Amodiohttps://www.sicilialibertaria.it/_________________________________________A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C EBy, For, and About AnarchistsSend news reports to A-infos-en mailing listA-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten