Undfскачать

Francis publish the mail from a friend ...

WORDS MATT

who says "I state that are left"

is right.

who says "I am neither right nor left"

is right.

Assyrian Proverb .

Before proposing my reflection demagogic use of language identified through a brief analysis of the key terms, I would like to state that it is strictly linguistic analysis, time to highlight how words can be deformed semantic capable of directing the trial of persons. Deliberately neglect then getting into the political merit of the problem, leaving the task to all of you to draw some considerations.

days ago I read in the Corriere della Sera De Francesco Gregori, interviewed on topical issues, he said that Berlusconi would also have proved an asset for Italy, where he proceeded to modernize the country. Use the conditional tense because I do not remember the source and why the one shown is not a literal quotation, but one of my summary. This is important, however, is not here in question the opinion of De Gregori (my fourth grader was very enlightened to say, a few years ago, singer-songwriters who can not become "masters of life"), but the word ha - would have - used to modernize.

The "modernization." The right-wingers more aggressive want to "modernize Italy. The opposition's intention is to "modernize this country" (The use of the demonstration should not be underestimated, is to give an emotional connotation and, as with all deictic, creates the illusion that the country you can almost keep in your hand like a precious object or a chicken heart). But all want to "modernize". But "modernization" is indeed a "word dull," a word that reveals the actual contents and penetrates like a Trojan horse in the consciousness of the listener. What does "modernization"?

should ask first: one can be against "modernization"? If you are against modernization means you are changing back to the past, backwardness, a condition for restoring front. According to a widely held notion of progress, representing a decline - unless the restoration of a more or less distant past is not part of a special ideological project - and, consequently, modernization is an improvement. E 'found that, if someone wants to "modernize Italy" (or "this country"), you can not, reasonably, could not agree more. The word evokes the idea of government more efficient, more rapid release of documents, phantasmagoric computer services and other amenities.

You're done. If we apply the label of the modernization measures invoked or implemented by a political party, their degree of shareability increases - of course, casual observer - significantly. If we are unable to apply the tag mirror "old" to bad ideas and practices, the effect is doubled through a skilful use of ridicule.

very little would be enough to realize that modernization means roughly "dismantle" values and rights, wriggle and have a free hand. But I promised not to enter into the merits.

The other word "opaque" to which I wish to draw your attention is to "reform". A government that "the reforms face", "Structural reforms are needed", "get a table together and make reforms." Even the word "reform" is clearly associated with the idea of improvement. Just that alone means nothing. "Making reforms" without specifying what reforms we are talking about is simply a fraud, because of the implicit allusion to the linguistic practice. Needless to quibble, we all know what are the necessary reforms, so why go into detail? It creates the illusion of sharing large and established. Under the label opaque "reform" so you can smuggle any coup. So, thanks to the "electoral reform" the same people who croak of "bringing politics to the people" fleeing voter to choose candidates. But then again I put my hands in the pot ...

The insistence on the need for reform has another interesting toothing. It generates the general alarm on a general state of decline as the reforms, and they alone, are able to remedy. The alarm status is permanent. The "table of the reforms" (the attribute "institutional" has been dropped for the time) I've heard since my now distant childhood. Usually the call for reform is the prerogative of persons deemed "competent", engineers, economists from their pedestal are enabled to communicate that, to cite an example, we will work until the age of 90 years. But it is precisely for reform, and as such can only be healthy ..

opaque words and expressions are easily recognized: they are usually in itself unquestionable and unassailable and appear with great insistence on the mouths of readers of news, with suspected fixity of words. They serve as vector molecules, carry lumps of ideas and beliefs in the minds of the listeners. There are also negative: the word "ideology", for example. The word simply means a system of ideas and values, and in principle is not in itself negative or positive. However, the ideology is, in the current ideas, always negative, because invariably suffers a fatal slip metonymic (ideology ideology = X, Y - Z hardly ever), but also an attribute of ideology (indeed, ideology: When you hold this systematic bias is the plural) is to be disappeared. False: If ideology we mean a system of pre-fabricated opinions and approval, then the most tangible sign of its widespread presence are just the slogans repeated obsessively. In any case the idea of a collective existence devoid of ideologies is simply ludicrous, unless it is a colony of moss, from which, as we know, ideology has little grip.

Greetings to all

Louis