At the bottom of the pioneer party of sex and drugs was a member of the UDC Cosimo Mele, back in July 2007, but few remember it. Instead, the case Marrazzo may well stick to the bottom of collective memory, and staying there for long.
And this for a simple reason: none of the various characters in recent months have fueled the scandal machine has based his career on the popular show "Mi Manda Rai Tre-'champion of small and defenseless, like many of the rest, but unique because heir dell'antesignana" Mi manda Lubrano, "inextricably linked to the figure of a gentleman of yesteryear, prototype model citizen, polite but strict. Marrazzo had the good fortune and misfortune of inheriting the transmission, but if the cable, and so the first chance he could jump, successfully, on the bandwagon of politics.
But the legacy remained stuck on the skin because it is true that television is ephemeral, they are not the sentiments of the people to whom it feeds. To undermine the political credibility in a microsecond of Marrazzo were not incriminating recordings or videos, but it was the rupture of an unwritten agreement between the audience and what he intended to represent.
In fact, the real question is why the common sensibility still seems so interested in behavior that today should not shock any more? Certainly we are not heirs of the Victorian era. On the contrary, we come from decades of steady dismantling of taboos. In sexual matters, we are all more or less suffering from an incurable "semantic satiation" anesthetizing effect of mass produced by decades of media exposure.
In the beginning was the private TV, then the old Internet and finally the Web 2.0, which floods the world of images and words that finally disintegrated the concept of decency, and one connected to purity. Moreover, generations of comedians, writers, progressive intellectuals have consistently lowered the bar of the speakable and the displayable, with the declared goal to destroy the hypocrisy of 'reveal' the man in all its mundane humanity. If this pincer
strangulation has had its effect, and had them, then nobody would turn up their noses in front all'escort duty or some transsexual in transit in the ways of politics.
Instead these "scandals" belong to an order of phenomena much more universal. It is for example the psycholinguist Steven Pinker, authorities in the field of cognitive processes. In events words, the last his last book, just published by Mondadori, among other things, Pinker examines in depth the language and sexual content all the more its effect on the media. The theme for the accuracy of the final part of the book is bad language: its functional matrix, its social significance, its relative universality of language and much more. But extending, you understand that the limit case of language 'color', voluntary and involuntary, is situated on a large substratum of knowledge common to the very concept of impurity, and inevitably related to the ignominy. So, beyond the theoretical problem of linguistic exquisite, the theme is expanded in the territory of associative behavior, the relevant provisions and penalties, and the inevitable political implications. More generally, the issue is not what you do between the sheets, but what is said about what you do, let alone what they say but you do not, then it denies. The sexual matters are ultimately performative acts of a very particular, but when cruising the magnifying power of the media they even become explosive. Merely private matter between consenting adults.
Pinker notes that the persistence of stereotypes regarding of sexual taboos contradicts many clichés, for example the idea that by ceasing to stigmatize sexuality eliminate shame and ignorance, and consequently reduce sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies and other hazards of sex. History has instead shown the opposite: The more you spread the licentiousness and more illegitimate births have increased, infection, rapes, pedophilia, not to mention the consequences on the models that generate adolescent bullying and anorexia. Of course, finding an indisputable correlation between the two phenomena is impossible, but the point is another. Common sense does not care about the scientific graphs and relies instead on the "certainty" of analogies.
People instinctively know that the sphere of sexuality is the most fascinating but also the most risky that you can imagine. Hence the surveillance of various pipelines. But if the surveillance is de-legitimized by widespread practices, and discourses that take place around them, then emigrated to the supervision in other areas, and aims high.
happens in short, a sort of involuntary transfer highly semantic personal representative. And therein lies the trap. The sociologist Erving Goffman noted that the words we use and the staging that we use to guide our audience are meant to reassure social actors about the seriousness of our intentions, the fact that people are reliable, respectable, balanced and competent. Even more so if we are people endowed with great responsibility and if we won these positions taking advantage of the wind behind the TV audience.
So, if a politician married with children and defends the value of the indissoluble family, he only confirms his own social image. But if the same hotel in organizing a coca-party consistency of its communication is broken, and a sort of generalized semantic transfer in the public eye all his actions and all his words will automatically become dishonest. On the contrary, no one has ever crossed my mind to punish Ilona Staller, aka 'Cicciolina', although parliamentary simply because the public announcement coincided with his social image, so that the message was very clear in the final. According to the same semantic mechanism seemed clear therefore also its political action and only the obvious limitations of the cultural character for the failure to fully exercise the political sphere such a huge credit of trust. Cicciolina
The case has made school and was in fact understood by many and various characters as well equipped, that have ruled on the Italian political scene, and not only Italian, which, instead of hiding, have quietly performed the unnamable, using then a second and equally important mechanism media: mirroring. In fact, there is always a part of the public who want to reflect and identify with his representative.
Instead, the case Marrazzo has the same value of the Apple case, but cubed. The old champion of the weak and honest media has crumbled without wanting his image as a Robin Hood in a suit and tie, but in the public mind has replaced it with an image of a nameless darkness of a basement that spends vast sums pleasures in doubt. The mind races to the prototypes of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, which have become stereotypes through the immense mass of popular culture that is layered over a century. And the stereotypes, especially if propagated by the power of the multiplier media, in general, the mind reacts as if they were so many switches. Also because, if so much time - supports the vox populi - then where is the limit? Sorry for him, but his sad example would perhaps be salutary in the future.
And this for a simple reason: none of the various characters in recent months have fueled the scandal machine has based his career on the popular show "Mi Manda Rai Tre-'champion of small and defenseless, like many of the rest, but unique because heir dell'antesignana" Mi manda Lubrano, "inextricably linked to the figure of a gentleman of yesteryear, prototype model citizen, polite but strict. Marrazzo had the good fortune and misfortune of inheriting the transmission, but if the cable, and so the first chance he could jump, successfully, on the bandwagon of politics.
But the legacy remained stuck on the skin because it is true that television is ephemeral, they are not the sentiments of the people to whom it feeds. To undermine the political credibility in a microsecond of Marrazzo were not incriminating recordings or videos, but it was the rupture of an unwritten agreement between the audience and what he intended to represent.
In fact, the real question is why the common sensibility still seems so interested in behavior that today should not shock any more? Certainly we are not heirs of the Victorian era. On the contrary, we come from decades of steady dismantling of taboos. In sexual matters, we are all more or less suffering from an incurable "semantic satiation" anesthetizing effect of mass produced by decades of media exposure.
In the beginning was the private TV, then the old Internet and finally the Web 2.0, which floods the world of images and words that finally disintegrated the concept of decency, and one connected to purity. Moreover, generations of comedians, writers, progressive intellectuals have consistently lowered the bar of the speakable and the displayable, with the declared goal to destroy the hypocrisy of 'reveal' the man in all its mundane humanity. If this pincer
strangulation has had its effect, and had them, then nobody would turn up their noses in front all'escort duty or some transsexual in transit in the ways of politics.
Instead these "scandals" belong to an order of phenomena much more universal. It is for example the psycholinguist Steven Pinker, authorities in the field of cognitive processes. In events words, the last his last book, just published by Mondadori, among other things, Pinker examines in depth the language and sexual content all the more its effect on the media. The theme for the accuracy of the final part of the book is bad language: its functional matrix, its social significance, its relative universality of language and much more. But extending, you understand that the limit case of language 'color', voluntary and involuntary, is situated on a large substratum of knowledge common to the very concept of impurity, and inevitably related to the ignominy. So, beyond the theoretical problem of linguistic exquisite, the theme is expanded in the territory of associative behavior, the relevant provisions and penalties, and the inevitable political implications. More generally, the issue is not what you do between the sheets, but what is said about what you do, let alone what they say but you do not, then it denies. The sexual matters are ultimately performative acts of a very particular, but when cruising the magnifying power of the media they even become explosive. Merely private matter between consenting adults.
Pinker notes that the persistence of stereotypes regarding of sexual taboos contradicts many clichés, for example the idea that by ceasing to stigmatize sexuality eliminate shame and ignorance, and consequently reduce sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies and other hazards of sex. History has instead shown the opposite: The more you spread the licentiousness and more illegitimate births have increased, infection, rapes, pedophilia, not to mention the consequences on the models that generate adolescent bullying and anorexia. Of course, finding an indisputable correlation between the two phenomena is impossible, but the point is another. Common sense does not care about the scientific graphs and relies instead on the "certainty" of analogies.
People instinctively know that the sphere of sexuality is the most fascinating but also the most risky that you can imagine. Hence the surveillance of various pipelines. But if the surveillance is de-legitimized by widespread practices, and discourses that take place around them, then emigrated to the supervision in other areas, and aims high.
happens in short, a sort of involuntary transfer highly semantic personal representative. And therein lies the trap. The sociologist Erving Goffman noted that the words we use and the staging that we use to guide our audience are meant to reassure social actors about the seriousness of our intentions, the fact that people are reliable, respectable, balanced and competent. Even more so if we are people endowed with great responsibility and if we won these positions taking advantage of the wind behind the TV audience.
So, if a politician married with children and defends the value of the indissoluble family, he only confirms his own social image. But if the same hotel in organizing a coca-party consistency of its communication is broken, and a sort of generalized semantic transfer in the public eye all his actions and all his words will automatically become dishonest. On the contrary, no one has ever crossed my mind to punish Ilona Staller, aka 'Cicciolina', although parliamentary simply because the public announcement coincided with his social image, so that the message was very clear in the final. According to the same semantic mechanism seemed clear therefore also its political action and only the obvious limitations of the cultural character for the failure to fully exercise the political sphere such a huge credit of trust. Cicciolina
The case has made school and was in fact understood by many and various characters as well equipped, that have ruled on the Italian political scene, and not only Italian, which, instead of hiding, have quietly performed the unnamable, using then a second and equally important mechanism media: mirroring. In fact, there is always a part of the public who want to reflect and identify with his representative.
Instead, the case Marrazzo has the same value of the Apple case, but cubed. The old champion of the weak and honest media has crumbled without wanting his image as a Robin Hood in a suit and tie, but in the public mind has replaced it with an image of a nameless darkness of a basement that spends vast sums pleasures in doubt. The mind races to the prototypes of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, which have become stereotypes through the immense mass of popular culture that is layered over a century. And the stereotypes, especially if propagated by the power of the multiplier media, in general, the mind reacts as if they were so many switches. Also because, if so much time - supports the vox populi - then where is the limit? Sorry for him, but his sad example would perhaps be salutary in the future.
0 comments:
Post a Comment