“Calling things by their own name”, an open letter from the literature teacher Michele Ghiotti
I believe, like perhaps others, that the time has come to call things by their name.
Let’s stop talking about “freedom of choice”. Let’s call it instead: rejection of science and distrust of the medical community. Or inability to distinguish objective facts from experiences and fantasies. Above all, let’s call it: individualism.
Let’s stop talking about “discrimination”. Let’s call it, instead: an opportune need to distinguish situations, to differentiate, to dare to each his own. Above all, let’s call it: accepting the consequences of one’s choices.
Let’s stop talking about “social partners” and “categories”. The categories, those truly to be listened to (such as, for example, the association of cancer patients) were ignored. Instead, ample credit was given to the others, to those who are not categories, but lobbies, gangs, factions.
Let’s stop talking about “political concertation”. Let’s call it instead: tightrope walking so as not to upset those who scream in the square and in the newspapers. Let’s call it fearfulness in choices. Let’s not even call it too underground cronyism. Let’s call it shirking one’s responsibilities as legislators.
Let’s stop talking about “rights”. It is a heavy word to disturb and handle for those who are often used to treating things in a simplistic way and usually only from their own point of view. Let’s call them, instead: senseless claims. Let’s call them privileges, arrogantly exact. Let’s call them delusions of presumption.
Let’s stop talking about “discriminated health care”, “non-aligned teachers” and the like. Let’s call them: doctors and nurses who are little (or not at all, some would say) responsible, imprudent teachers (if you find it difficult to tolerate certain adjectives, ask for some synonym from pupils or colleagues who are immunosuppressed or with fragile family members at home), professionals who close a eye on some aspects of their professionalism (ethical sense? value of example?), public officials who put private convictions (perhaps incompatible with certain roles) in front of their public function.
We call things by their name.
A government that presents Green Pass and Super Green Pass to access the restaurant and the theater, to serve at the tables, but not to work at school, in the police or in public offices, perhaps in contact with fragile subjects, is a short-sighted government. (It would be interesting to know which political forces and which Secretariats have advocated certain measures and prevented others.)
An opposition that, while the majority does not see or close their eyes, foments and rides the no vax fringes in the hope of picking up a few votes, is irresponsible.
We call things by their name.
Because despite so much confusion, there is, you can clearly see, a clear difference.
Among those who, their doubts and fears, rely on science and medicine and try to respect the rules (not always unassailable, not always pleasant, sometimes very stressful) that in such a complex situation seem the most like everyone or if not other less absurd. In short, who, without who knows what heroism, tries to do his little, even a very small part.
And who, proudly, stubbornly, for the most diverse reasons (fear, frustration, ignorance, but also profit), row against. Who sees everywhere plots to be exposed and crimes against humanity to be denounced. Who really does not want to hear about duties and responsibilities. Those who reject the basic grammar of civilized life immediately shouting at the dictatorship. Who in the name of a misunderstood conception of freedom evades any minimum duty and thinks he has the maximum right to do whatever he wants without having to answer for it. In short, who would like to live in a world where everything is valid, where all behavior is indiscriminate, where there are no consequences, where no one is responsible for their choices and actions.
The pars construcens are fortunately the majority of the citizens. A silent majority (for now), but still a majority. (And in this democracy it will have a weight, or not?)
The pars destruens, however, is very good at undermining, demolishing, sowing discord: it leverages fear, individualism and discontent. And above all it makes a lot of noise. But it is the minority. A minority – it is time to say it dangerous – dangerous, antisocial, undemocratic, which should not be listened to. Because it would be like daring to listen to a capricious child who taunts, insults his classmates and throws objects around the room.
Of this it would be different, between those who try to keep what is left and those who have the vocation to undermine and destroy everything that does not please them, now that politics become aware. Indeed it was time. Months ago. Now it’s late, but – as they say – better late than never. Better late than when certain movements should perhaps have formed a party or a civic and will sit in Parliament.
Of course, to be optimistic (and perhaps it is appropriate to be), maybe the emergency will return soon, the virus will weaken it will be, it will become endemic there will no longer be such stringent measures. We all hope so. In any case, politics and citizenship will have perhaps lost the last opportunity to test the social and collective responsibility of everyone and rediscover the profound meaning of true participation in civic life.
I would like to close – professional distortion – with some lines by Leopardi. Even if poetry is no longer so fashionable, perhaps something to learn from Ginestra: even today, in fact, there are those who, instead of binding themselves to “human company”, withdraw into their angry egocentrism, deny the “common war ”And hides behind“ superb tales ”.
She calls inimica; and to meet this together, being thinking, since it is true, and human company ordered in the first place, all among themselves confederates esteem men, and embraces all with true love, offering valid and ready and waiting for help in the alternating perils and anguish of common warfare. […] So thoughts when fien, as fur, evident to the vulgar, and that horror that first against the impious nature squeezed mortals into social chains, is led back in part by truthful knowledge, honest and upright conversation, and justice and piety , another root will have then other than superb tales, where founded probity of the vulgar so wont be on foot as can what is in error the seat. (G. Leopardi, La Ginestra, 1845)
[Nobile è l’animo di chi] calls nature an enemy; and thinking that human society was created and organized from the beginning against nature, as is the truth, it considers all men to be a pact of covenant and embraces all with sincere love, offering and expecting effective and immediate help in the dangers involved. alternate and in the anguish of common war. […] When, as they already were, all these thoughts and that horror which first squeezed men in the social chain against unholy nature are noticed, righteous and honest civil relations, and justice and piety at that point owes a very different foundation than fables full of pride, founded on which the loyalty of the people stands can do so that is based on an error.
Michele Ghiotti