WORLD WORLDWIDE EUROPE ITALY SICILY - news journal UPDATE - (en) Italy, Sicilie Libertaria #454 - Internationalism and Critical Libertarian Solidarity (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

 In the article I published in the November issue of Sicilia Libertaria,

I picked up the thread of the controversy that appeared in the
Sciruccazzo column on internationalism and some cultural and ideological
characteristics of oppressed groups with whom one is in solidarity,
which are not consistent with the libertarian ideology, from which
militant internationalism is born. I noted that this problem arises in
parallel also for anthropologists for whom respect for the culture of
others is fundamental but who, nevertheless, end up sometimes finding
themselves trapped in a contradiction between respect for local cultural
practices and attitudes or processes that in their own culture of
origin, fundamentally the West, are negatively stigmatized. However,
there is a difference between the two contradictions that concerns
motivation: the libertarian internationalist is driven by his ideology
to intervene to change the local situation (this also applies to another
form of internationalism, volunteering in international cooperation);
while the anthropologist goes to live in the society of the other to
learn about its cultural difference and then write about it and spread
this knowledge in his society of origin (rarely do the "natives" read
anthropology texts, for example). From the first year of his career, he
is instilled that he must not intervene, otherwise the data will be
falsified (even if his very presence, especially in small societies,
already produces a local disturbance). Whether he succeeds is another
story entirely... Therefore, in the majority of cases, the contradiction
occurs between the forms of his own society, which he has evidently
naturalized, and those of the society he studies. Clearly, there is also
the case of libertarian anthropologists, the most critical, in which
even ideology forces him to look at others critically and not
"shipwreck" in the overvaluation of otherness.

On the contrary, libertarian internationalism is born from a strong
criticism of its own society, from which comes the conscious fight
against exploitation, the inequality between rich and poor, the
indoctrination of children through school or digital networks, the
patriarchy that claims female victims on a daily basis, and so on;
therefore, strong in this ideological baggage, it should be easy for the
internationalist to identify, in the society of popular groups in
rebellion and resistance that he wants to support, those aspects that
clash with his political and social ideas and for which he fights in his
society. For example, let's take the case of Hamas in Palestine, from
which this little controversy arose: on the one hand, the genocide that
Israel is carrying out in the Gaza Strip is evident, so we think the
Palestinian resistance is legitimate, even if we evidently do not accept
what they perpetrated on October 7th. However, any support for the
Palestinians can only be critical, considering the condition of women or
gender diversity, to give two examples. In this sense, it is necessary
to open a dialogue in which it is clear that support, of any kind,
cannot be unconditional. "Snitching" on the other, as was written in the
aforementioned Sciruccazzo, is both a necessity and a duty, in the same
way in which, for example, in Italy the PD is criticized and its support
for sending weapons to Ukraine.

 From these considerations it follows that, while the anthropologist
ultimately tries to control his own cultural influence on the data, the
enthusiastic internationalist does not always perceive that his own will
to help oppressed groups of other societies also comes from his European
culture and like the first anthropologists ends up applying his own
cultural categories on others, even in criticism. Obviously, I am aware
that this statement can produce perplexity and even bewilderment. Let me
explain: the Western world thinks of itself, at least since the 17th and
18th centuries, as the pinnacle of human evolution (hence the secular
notion of progress). This evolutionary concept, which appears to be a
novelty in historical terms, is at the heart of Western modernity,
together with its focus on the individual, the subject who frees himself
from the bonds of tradition, from which also derives the "need" to be
free. The lemma of the French Revolution, liberty, equality and
fraternity, which very theoretically would be at the basis of the idea
of democracy embodied in the bourgeois state born in the 19th century.

Regarding the idea of progress, a scale is developed that typifies the
stages in which to insert societies, a pyramid of "development" at the
top of which we meet the modern West and in the various steps below all
the others, both from the past of the West and contemporary. This idea
is naturalized by Western individuals and imposed on other societies
through communicative, political and economic means. With lesser
results, the idea of the individual also comes forward in other
societies, where other forms of "individualization" resist, such as the
family, clans or religious groups of theocratic societies. This
resistance shows the strength of local identities and also defines
rebellions, from which it follows that the concept of "freedom" does not
necessarily imply that of Western "equality" or "fraternity". In this
sense, one can fight for political freedom, but not for women's freedom,
which, moreover, must be considered as an idea of recent development in
the West and, as we know, of little real implementation. Indeed, one can
also argue that male violence against women in the West derives
precisely from the attempt of these to acquire autonomy and freedom.

My conclusion is that there are no good or bad societies, but each
contains cultural elements that can or cannot protect individuals,
including the West itself. Each produces representations of the world
and none is superior to the others; so everyone can learn from the
others to be able to live better. I think that it is also possible to
learn from the West, even if often the cultural impositions of
globalization produce the acquisition of the most negative parts of the
Western world. Globalization can therefore also allow exchange between
local opposition groups, from which alliances and joint struggles (let's
not forget Porto Alegre), including the revolutionary idea that freedom
is possible, for everyone, political, economic and gender freedom. And
for this it is worth continuing to fight.

Emanuele Amodio

http://sicilialibertaria.it
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca