Carry an interesting article by S. Luzzatto, released on Sunday de Il Sole 24 Ore . Interesting, because it focuses on the distinction, and lack of communication skills that are Squaderno in disputes and in the reaction of the authoritarian government.
I personally believe that the inability to accept the discomfort of society is the major fault of this political class (the "big babies" really has to do less, showed that output at the bottom of a problem youth), and the capacity of policy to "identify problems and propose solutions ad hoc" there it does little in the face of the inability to "grasp the overall picture" and even the solutions are proposed according to a logic of politics, the self-referential.
Some examples are wrong, otherwise I agree with the basic message: these young people have grasped the situation very well, but fail to translate events in the legislative power, while political cares ...
"The joke about the" big babies ", Mammon Italians who are unlikely to age of parents at home, unmarried, without being self-employed, short, without being great, was perhaps the most unhappy in his brief political career Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa. Pronounced in the fall of 2007 to the Committees of the Senate and House budget, the joke of the former economy minister who died recently has become the paradigm of the inability of our leadership to understand the discomfort of the new generations : generations condemned to a fate not to Peter Pan immaturity or mammismo, but - rather - from something as a social system of cultural and economic insecurity.
If even a civil servant integrity and value of Padoa-Schioppa had trouble understanding the drama of the Italian youth of today, how surprised the dialogue of the deaf which ended up being reduced to the comparison between the Minister and Mariastella Gelmini university students during the final stage of the parliamentary path that has translated into law reform at the University? More than a comparison was, in fact, a very hard fight. But now that the casus belli has failed, the reform Gelmini having been finally approved, it is worth asking if the forms taken by the confrontation itself does not reflect - beyond the contingency - a structural feature of Republican history.
contestation "regardless" of Reform Gelmini explained the historical inability of the student movements and youth to sharpen the eye, recognizing the positive can come from the country experiences of reform, even if promoted by a government discredited as now the Berlusconi government. At the same time, the protest anti-Gelmini has shown the ability of those same movements to look at the big picture, the overview: capturing the essence of the political logic behind the "details" technical. Conversely, the litigation has shown, in our ruling classes, a capacity and an inability to equal and opposite. The ability to identify problems and substantial, and ad hoc solutions, the inability to grasp the overall picture, the macro rather than micro. The dialogue of the deaf
Gelmini reform comes from this: from a problem - we might say - of focus. It is as if, in Italy, the youth movements against a camera with wide angle, the ruling classes a machine with the telephoto lens, and one other failed to achieve proper depth of field.
had happened already at the time of Sixty. So, the ruling classes the center had to collide hard with the youth movements, and had failed to pass a reform inherently democratic system of higher education: a reform which sought to overcome the University "class" model inherited from the Savoy and fascist liberalizing access the different faculties, maximizing system to the right to education, promoting evening classes for working students. Even then, the protest of the students had taken a conservative value objectively. Unable to grasp the virtuality of the reform advocated by the center, the youth movements had inadvertently ended up defending the status quo of a University of "barons", pyramidal, corrupt, inefficient.
Yet, already in Sixty-eight movements were shown to be perceived as the Italian ruling classes are not equal to be a historic challenge that invested through the University, the whole question of relations between classes, between genders, between generations. At a time when higher education tended now to become a mass phenomenon, a university reform requires more than small or large adjustments of the old nineteenth-century and early-twentieth-century model, the German model of Wilhelm von Humboldt and the Italian one Giovanni Gentile. In the absence of a truly new model, the democratization of the university would not be enough to avert the risk (the story has further shown) of a reproduction of the traditional elites.
Today, things seem to recur in similar terms to 1968 and its surroundings. Unable to look at the micro, student movements and youth who took to the streets against the minister Gelmini have not been able to recognize the individual strengths of the university reform. They thus gave the impression of defending, objectively, an unacceptable status quo, without considering the benefits that may derive from an Italian university system renewed governance of universities, on the one enhancing the role of departments as compared to that of right, to be a return to national procedures besides local recruitment of teachers.
At the same time, forty years ago today as the Italian ruling classes seem incapable of looking at the macro. In recent months, their "support" for reform Gelmini was not accompanied with an appropriate reflection of unease about the younger generation: to express unease that a protest against the university reform has been little more than a pretext. It is the discomfort of a "Rebel Without a Cause" (as defined in the recently Barbara Spinelli), which rejects much more than the new governance of universities, the future reorganization of the faculty or the teaching of national recruitment. More profoundly, the youth took to the streets rejects a "reformer" that seems to threaten - to indiscriminate shots budget cuts - the very ideal of a public education system while maximizing a culture of insecurity and accept as obvious the brain drain.
Today, this is the big picture: the real risk is that new generations of Italians grow increasingly impoverished cultural and social resources available to the country system. So the joke of the President anti-Gelmini Berlusconi on students as those "social centers" and "out-going" ("real students are studying at home) can also unhappy joke Padoa-Schioppa on the big babies."
0 comments:
Post a Comment