Tu sistema del mundo

En lo que fue uno de los mejores programas de televisión que he visto en 2005, Juan Carlos De Pablo conversaba con Jorge Asís sobre los intelectuales y la poca importancia que los argentinos les damos en la sociedad. De Pablo planteó que cada persona, no sólo los intelectuales, debería tener un determinado marco de referencia para poder relacionarlo con las opiniones que escucha y determinar su verosimilitud, coherencia, empatía. Cuanto más arraigados estén mis "modelos del mundo" mejor podré analizar lo que escucho, estar de acuerdo o en desacuerdo, y hasta mejorar mi modelo.

Decía Alberdi en "Bases...":

¿De qué sirvió al hombre del pueblo el saber leer? De motivo para verse ingerido como instrumento en la gestión de la vida política que no conocía; para instruirse en el veneno de la prensa electoral que contamina y destruye en vez de ilustrar; para leer insultos, injurias, sofismas y proclamas de incendio, lo único que pica y estimula su curiosidad inculta y grosera.

No quería Alberdi condenar al inculto al analfabetismo, ¿quería darle además de la capacidad de leer, la capacidad de pensar por sí mismo? No lo creo. O al menos no antes de haberle dado las bases del cambio cultural que pregonaba. Lo que quería era llegar primero, es decir, antes que sus detractores. El país que Alberdi proponía en sus Bases y su Sistema Económico y Rentístico no era invulnerable a las perniciosas ideas sobre las que estaba construida la colonia ni a las que se imponían en Europa, por lo que era necesario hacer llegar sus ideas a todos los ciudadanos de este nuevo país.

Henry Mintzberg, estudioso de las organizaciones, distingue entre los parámetros de diseño de una estructura eficiente la capacitación y el adoctrinamiento:

La capacitación se refiere al proceso por el cual se enseñan los conocimientos y las destrezas relacionadas con el cargo, mientras que el adoctrinamiento es el proceso por el que se obtienen las normas organizacionales.

En síntesis, no puedo contentarme con enseñarte a leer para que después salgas corriendo a leer a Marx, o para que te creas todo lo que dice el Página/12 al pie de la letra.

Arnold Kling escribió dos notas para TCS que se relacionan con estos temas y que recomiendo:

En How Thinkers Influence Us, Kling plantea la diferencia entre las creencias populares y las creencias académicas sobre las ideas de los pensadores más influyentes de la historia:

Regardless of the state of scholarly belief about Keynes, folk Keynesianism is dominant. For example, most people believe that we should worry about whether "the consumer" will spend freely. Everyone fears that if consumers tighten their belts then this will "weaken" the economy. This concern with the mood of consumers is not in the original Keynes. Instead, Keynes himself focused more on business investment as a determinant of economic fluctuations.

Folk Keynesianism holds that the President of the United States manages the economy and is responsible for the unemployment rate.

If folk beliefs were popular music, then one of the biggest rock stars of the 1950's and 1960's was Sigmund Freud, who had died in 1939. Freud dominated the charts, with hits like "Oedipus complex," "sibling rivalry," "phallic symbol," and many others.

In contrast with Freud, the ideas of Friedrich Hayek have yet to penetrate the popular culture. In terms of the music business metaphor, the concepts of "spontaneous order," "competition as a discovery procedure," and "the road to serfdom" pleased fans of the libertarian genre, but they never achieved "crossover appeal" to a wider audience.

Folk Christian beliefs were shaped by Christ's disciples. It was the disciples who ultimately defined what it means to be a Christian. This, too, is common in the process of the dissemination of ideas. A great thinker's impact depends on how his or her ideas are expounded by others.

One question that this raises is whether or not folk beliefs reflect the true ideas of the original thinker. However, the issue of whether disciples are true to their master is relevant only to scholars. Folk beliefs have a life of their own. By the time that Karl Marx reportedly said "I am not a Marxist," he had become just another scholarly commentator, no longer able to affect the folk beliefs that bear his name.

En Folk Beliefs Have Consequences, Kling pone como ejemplos a Locke:

Folk Locke-ism

Seventeenth-century philosopher John Locke's theory of government influenced America's founders. It has become deeply embedded in our culture. Beliefs that Locke helped to encourage include:

-- individuals have inalienable rights
-- those who govern have obligations to the governed (and not just vice-versa)
-- government's rightful powers are limited, not absolute

At the level of folk beliefs, Locke's views have been distilled into a jaunty defiance of tyrants, whether they are actual, potential, or imagined. This can be seen in expressions such as Give me liberty or give me death! or Well there are certain sections of New York, Major, that I wouldn't advise you to try to invade. or "You'll have to pry this gun from my cold, dead fingers."

As Americans, we cannot conceive of ourselves submitting meekly to tyranny. We cannot picture a regime like that of North Korea or Saddam Hussein's Iraq taking root in our soil.

By maintaining our Lockean tradition, we have built a vibrant society and a prosperous economy. Limited government has allowed innovation to flourish in a peaceful, gradual, evolutionary way.

Y también a Marx:

Folk Marxism

Folk Marxism looks at political economy as a struggle pitting the oppressors against the oppressed. Of course, for Marx, the oppressors were the owners of capital and the oppressed were the workers. But folk Marxism is not limited by this economic classification scheme. All sorts of other issues are viewed through the lens of oppressors and oppressed. Folk Marxists see Israelis as oppressors and Palestinians as oppressed. They see white males as oppressors and minorities and females as oppressed. They see corporations as oppressors and individuals as oppressed. They see America as on oppressor and other countries as oppressed.

The folk Marxist view of Iraq is that the United States is the oppressor, and the groups fighting the United States are the oppressed.

If you think about it, the forces fighting America in Iraq consist of former oppressors and would-be future oppressors. But because America is a rich, powerful country, the folk Marxist instinct is to romanticize ("insurgency") the real oppressors and to demonize ("occupation") the real liberators.

The rationale for tax cuts -- "It's your money" -- makes sense to folk-Locke-ism. It drives folk Marxists crazy. They cannot understand why the oppressed do not see the advantages of higher taxes on their "rich" oppressors.

The vast majority of college professors are folk Marxists, even though they do not advocate for Communism. Their folk Marxism is dangerous because they do not even realize the extent to which it colors their world view.

Every day, in big and small ways, academic speech reinforces the view that the world consists of oppressor classes and oppressed classes.

My concern with what I call folk Marxism is substantive, not rhetorical. To me, the danger of folk Marxism in the academy today is that it is implicit and unrecognized -- and therefore unquestioned.

Bases y Sistema Económico y Rentístico, las dos obras fundacionales de Alberdi que generaron el éxito político y económico más espectacular después de los EEUU, no tienen vigencia en el panorama de pensamiento político argentino de hoy. Probablemente, como lo explicaría Kling, por la ausencia de discípulos durante demasiado tiempo.

Por ahí en la biblioteca de mi viejo está Ideas y Creencias, de Ortega y Gasset. Me voy a poner a buscarlo, porque seguro que tiene algo que ver con este asunto.

Tags: argenblogs