Rodolfo Casadei
03/05/2011
Explain Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose that if you can laugh at anything, it must be possible God's laughing too, and this is the ultimate guarantee against any dogmatism. According to an old Yiddish proverb, things are exactly backwards, "the man thinks, God laughs." The humor must only decide which of these two positions want to start. If the first move will be a nihilistic humor, profanity and violence. If you remain in tune with the second, will perform its function as anti-dogmatic, di relativizzazione dei poteri terreni, sia quelli secolari che quelli clericali; servirà a difendere il popolo e gli individui dalle pretese di altri individui e altri popoli che si atteggiano a divinità incarnate. Se darà retta a Umberto Eco, partorirà i Vauro che cercano di far ridere coi cadaveri dei terremotati dell'Aquila, il Calvario ridotto a macchietta, i preti etichettati come tutti indistintamente pedofili, o le analoghe bassezze dei Daniele Luttazzi. Se darà retta alla saggezza ebraica, produrrà i Rabelais, i Montaigne e, venendo al giorno d'oggi, i Paolo Cevoli e i Gioele Dix.
Il vero umorismo prende le mosse dalla risata di Dio che ride dell'uomo, non dalla risata dell'uomo che deride Dio. Dio ride della presumed to govern human events with the thought of the man's claim to understand and explain the divine action, laughs illusion of man to be always at the center of what is happening. The warning of Yahweh through Isaiah, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, your ways are not my ways" sounds a bit dramatic and solemn 'grim. The rabbinic wisdom has brought to light the ironic content. God laughs the man who thinks who knows who, who believes fully embody Reason, History, Power, Freedom, Faith, etc.. Who thinks he's God or that God is at his service. If the man could hear the laughter of God, would be more modest, understand that other people created and are not at his disposal, would show more empathy. And if the man who hears the laughter was a king or a pope, a pastor would govern better or better. If the king or the pope's ears are tough, the humorist comes to the rescue of mankind, who shall make all heard the laughter of God.
When Montaigne writes that even the king fart, or when he writes that no matter how high the throne on which sits the king, sitting there with his ass, the aim is to relativize the earthly powers, to help not to confuse the human with the divine. Milan Kundera said getting the Jerusalem Prize for literature almost thirty years ago: "I love to imagine that one day François Rabelais has heard the laughter of God, and so is the idea the first great European novel. (...) The art inspired by the laughter of God is, in essence, no tax, but contradictory ideological certainties. "
You can argue endlessly on the warm piety of Montaigne and Rabelais, but it is certain that their humor was not directed before its time to downsize God, but to scale back the man who tends to get especially if God is a man of power. Proponents of the mockery of God as a necessary premise of the satire against the powerful say that laughter of God is necessary to overthrow the dogma. But the dogmatism did not invent God, men have invented to defend their positions of power. Therefore, the mockery of God does not free us from dogmatism, but rather by respect for everything that has value, the very idea that something is true and therefore deserves respect. In the contemporary satire desecration is not a means but an end. Through the desecration shows that there is nothing worthy of respect and awe. And how could there be, if you have polluted the source of the sacred (God)? Destroyed the source of the sacred, nothing is more sacred.
As soon as you scratch a bit 'flashy paint the political satire, what is a fundamental nihilism. An all-encompassing nihilism and will stop at nothing. The heavy emphasis on the character of our body, that Plautus in Rabelais svolge la funzione di moderare l'orgoglio umano, precipita nella profanazione di cadavere. Per fare satira sul proposito governativo di stimolare l’economia con un provvedimento sospettato di sanare abusi edilizi, l’aumento delle cubature delle unità immobiliari di residenza, Vauro evoca l’aumento delle cubature dei cimiteri intorno all’Aquila, pochi giorni dopo il rovinoso terremoto, con il disegno di una bara smisurata. Per satireggiare su Berlusconi, che anche dopo morto potrebbe occupare gli schermi televisivi con messaggi pre-registrati, Luttazzi scrive: «Sei morto, Silvio. I vermi ti stanno mangiando. Per una volta, lascia che parli qualcun altro». E degli omaggi alla salma: «Le spoglie di Berlusconi dovrebbero arrive tonight at the Quirinale, where they will remain on display until the smell or permit Maurizio Costanzo. "
No one, from Plautus to Rabelais, had never done this. It took the humorists of the XXI century nihilists. Which I defend themselves against accusations claiming their historical role of guard dogs against the excesses of power. The point is that history has walked in the meantime, the time of absolute monarchies is over, as well as that of the oligarchic republics. We are in democracy, however imperfect it may be in its execution policy, it is undoubtedly a cultural hegemony: the idea of \u200b\u200babsolute equality of individuals, which involves the continuous criticabilità and infinity of holders of governmental responsibilities, even when the criticism is exercised in the manner of a necrophiliacs Vauro or Luttazzi dominates unchallenged. Because if it were not unlimited criticism, so goes the reasoning, the man the government would no longer be equal, but privileged than other individuals. The Constitutional Court rulings that have rejected all or most of the laws that put limits on the processability of the high offices of state have confirmed the hegemony of the idea also egalitarian in the legal field. In the name of democracy is the idea of \u200b\u200bequality which underlies the political satire must have no limits, and in fact has none.
But this, paradoxically, creates a situation where the egalitarian principle is violated: the humor is allowed what no one else is allowed. If an ordinary citizen insulting politicians in the same way they do it, would be sued and eventually convicted. Instead any attempt to punish or restrict the freedom of expression of humorists is rejected. Since 1997 in Italy there is no virtually no judicial decision of final sentence of humor for jokes or cartoons on political or religious. The only problem you may have is to be removed from television for fear of losing advertising revenue of broadcasters or of having to engage in costly litigation (although it is certain that ended with the acquittal of the complaint). Heavyweights such as Silvio Berlusconi and Massimo D'Alema had to withdraw their complaint or have lost their libel case. Vauro got away with a week of TV time for his cartoon on post-earthquake cemeteries Aquila, Daniele Luttazzi was removed by La7 for attacking Giuliano Ferrara, who collaborated with the same TV, not the content of his jokes .
The judiciary ruled that Italian politicians are not entitled to any form of immunity, even when holding high institutional positions, but the authors of satire does. Sounds outrageous, but non strano, perché ciò interpreta perfettamente la deriva nichilista e profanatrice dello spirito democratico del tempo. Gli autori di satira sono diventati divinità intoccabili perché assolvono una funzione carissima allo spirito del tempo: mostrare che non esiste alcuna eccellenza da riconoscere come tale, alcuna superiorità a cui inchinarsi, alcuna grandezza davanti a cui arrestarsi. L'egualitarismo non tollera infrazioni al suo ordine omologatorio, e gli umoristi sono gli inflessibili azionatori della ghigliottina democratica che ristabilisce identiche misure per tutti.
Scrive Alain Finkielkraut: «Il riso contemporaneo proclama alto e forte l'ideale della de-idealizzazione. Che l'uomo superi infinitamente l'uomo, che he may have a spiritual calling, which is not reduced to its physiological functions, here is a chance that this rice will disappear from the world. It rages against the transcendent, can not tolerate any kind of eminence, arms the size of whatever form it occurs, avenges the mediocrity of facing that superior's deals (...) The buffoons who once had the duty of resistance to King, are now feared and flattered the king of radical democracy. They propagate in the rubble of the communist promise, the heat of revenge of the common baseness. "
Now you understand why the political satire and anti-religious satire, go hand in hand. Faults and errors dei politici sono solo un pretesto per negare il simbolismo del loro ruolo: l'essere un'incarnazione dell'autorità, il loro rimandare a un'idea di ordine gerarchico della realtà. E questo vale a maggior ragione per il sacro e i suoi rappresentanti terreni. Che sono quanto di più contrario si possa immaginare alla democrazia intesa come “comune bassezza”. Scrive Roger Scruton: «La dissacrazione è una specie di difesa dal sacro, un tentativo di distruggere le sue pretese. Nella presenza di cose sacre le nostre esistenze sono giudicate, e per sfuggire a quel giudizio noi distruggiamo la cosa che sembra giudicarci».
Dunque bisogna dire che tutti i preti sono pedofili e che il Papa è il loro complice al fine di inattendili inincidenti and make the judgments of the Magisterium of the Church. It does not matter if the price of relief amoral can escape the kind of reviews is that everything will be made profane and defiled: the bodies of the living members of the deceased, religious symbols, etc.. And if you turn the humorists, from critical awareness of the powerful, professionals in the lynching. Finkielkraut writes, the suppression of the sacred satirical coincides with yet another resurrection of the more primitive mechanisms sacred, the sacrifice of the scapegoat, "Rice upsets the sacred union of humor, the laughter of fools today indicates the sacrifices, the first challenge the pack, according to the triggers. "
0 comments:
Post a Comment