With a couple of friends who have also studied sociology, we visited three Vitarte Human Settlements, Villa El Salvador and Comas. In fact one of our yoke (college friends) is doing his masters thesis on the popular imagination against Ollanta proposal. And we asked for support.
With some surprise we find, among other things, that not only perceived hatred, resentment, vengeance, and generally "bad vibes" between Ollanta voters but also find something that analysts are not seeing, or if you are seeing do not tell, or if you say the media did not broadcast. Indeed, mixed rage against a political system, and against a "political class" are positive desires, hope, contained, and an illusion hidden by project Humala.
People who vote for Humala told us of a hidden desire that has nothing to do with the destruction and hatred, but with the hope that his miserable situation is reversed, and that better days are open for them too.
seems to me natural and healthy that marginalized people feel hatred against politics and politicians. Because the opposite is insane. It is sickening that people who have been marginalized and excluded defend the system that has prostrated. The healthy thing is that marginalized people reject the system that marginalizes them. I do not think it is indisputable that the attitude of people in this regard. On the contrary, it seems so normal and healthy.
rant I smile when some people "ignorant", "thoughtless" and so on. What do you want, the marginalized defend the system that marginalizes them? What do, what means of communication that transmit programs and violence controversial bulk and then ask him to require people to give one vote "reflective", "smart", etc..? Excuse me but that's a tall order. The right has never understood the common people, that's why people hate the right and the right despises humble people. The right is necessary for the progress of a country, but we have a right selfish, racist and incompetent to understand people. They should learn a little of the Chilean right and the English.
Les said that the people expressed in the vote for Humala, not only resentment and revenge but also, a hope for change that benefits them, is a hope for a kind of change happens to take him out of misery in which they are prostrate. There in the vote to Humala a hidden desire for a better future than what they have today. This we saw in these days of field work I was surprised not by what we saw but by the consequences this might have.
just now I could understand the hard vote for the candidacy of former military. Just could understand why even though he is accused of murderer (by accusations of My Mother) cynical (collect rich in the system while ranting on him), not being prepared (for some), if part of a family almost bordering on insanity, and so on., accuse him of everything, but people still clinging to Ollanta Humala. Yesterday, I realized that not only marginalized people express anger in his vote but also hope. A hidden hope. Now, that hope becomes reality or betrayed that's another thing. People do not have a magic ball to see if your wishes will comply, they do know is that with the other candidates have more of the same. Whether true or not, the latter would be the feeling in the people sector Humala.
This is then either seems to be the former military links with the underclass: resentment and anger while excitement and hope. That also happened with the phenomenon may Fujimori in 1990, I was very minor at that time and I know the truth, but I can assume that it was. So Rafael Rey analysis, and advice given to Lourdes, to capitalize on anger against the government of Toledo, it seems a good idea, except that it restricts the government rabies Toledo while the entire system Humala, a matter of strategy that part of his political position and its political position in the ideological spectrum. Fallen king is no rot. It
"measure" the intensity of this anger and this hope, the factors that feed it, etc., That Humala's opponents can counter it. Exactly the same should do to advance Humala.
I still have people we visit, also checked an amazing phenomenon that has to do with the weakness and impotence of the left today: the people have suffered a kind of castration, to question their misery. And this thing strange I link directly to the cultural hegemony of neoliberalism. The neoliberal discourse allows people to speak directly and openly about their status as poor, marginalized or excluded. The neoliberal discourse that cultural hegemony is to shame people to talk about their poverty and exclusion. And this embarrassment caused to function as a kind of "self-gag. A speech that rewards people "successful" and punishable by humiliation to the "losers" and directs his post by the mass media like TV and newspapers do that poor people have believed as a neoliberal discourse . And so the poor find it difficult talk, including himself about his unfortunate socioeconomic status. Because it would accept that they are losers and that is insulting in the context of neoliberal culture as currently hegemonizes our society. Complaints are dissolved by the media "on air" and not allowing it to become part of the political agenda. In this context is that the unemployed get them to sell anything as "named" Sales Manager "and other cheap, sentimental things like that. This communication work in Peruvian society. People do not communicate, does not communicate his feelings as the media have told them that's losers. And this phenomenon link it with the weakness and impotence of the left today.
leftist discourse can not permeate people while neoliberal hegemony to dominate the scene. Now I understand what I thought was irrational. Before asking me how is that poor people do not give ball left left knowing that supposedly represent their interests.
But, despite that people see irrational or been compelled to see how irrational leftist discourse, at the same time has the ability to reject neoliberalism "irrationally." Poor people believe in because you better believe Humala not believe their situation will change. Because, think-if Humala wins, maybe my situation will improve, even if there is the possibility. Better than nothing. Humala Without that possibility does not exist or is much smaller. It seems that our brains are adapted to think in a rational irrationality larger, or vice versa. And something, I think, is about religion in this way of thinking so elastic. But that is another matter.
is a success of Humala having failed to emphasize in his address poverty, but point to the angry people. Emphasize not poverty but inequality. Not to forget about poverty, but the emphasis is elsewhere: in retaliation. This makes me suspect that there are people behind that advice very sociologically.
What they call "emotional vote" seems to actually be an understatement. The poor have had to adapt to the times and transform the discourse of the left in a speech in protest at being compelled to talk about their troubles in a context of neoliberal hegemony. And that's what analysts call 'emotional voting. " I disagree with that terminology. Well, calling him "emotional vote" what they do is devalue the vote of the marginalized, is to place a vote of the marginalized outside the bounds of rationality. The "emotion" is different from "reason", and analysts see no rracionales as those who vote for the former soldier called his score "emotional vote" and covering up what they really mean: "votes irrational." This is also a sign of contempt concealed that some analysts have towards marginalized people. Sociologically
not good to call "emotional vote" to those who vote in protest. I think that a sociologist should look for the rationality of voting and that has to reject that term. We must find the rationality of the vote for Humala. They will know how to fight and Humala know how to advance and solidify their votes. Everyone wins, but if we call "emotional vote" everyone loses, because it works in the dark. Best Regards Edson
Baldeón
@ All rights reserved
0 comments:
Post a Comment