In his recent utterances on the school Silvio Berlusconi was able to argue in the way disparate and seemingly unconnected. On the one hand, in a context of "Catholic reformers" (maybe "against"-reformists), embraced Sanfedists thesis. It is incredible that is performed in the polemic against state schools. The public school that subtracts the children for families, to educate them to values \u200b\u200bopposite to those in which they were born and in which they are grown up - and then actually "not educated" -. It was this, the argument brought by the reactionary Catholicism - in France and Italy - against the modern state at the time of its settle and consolidate. An obscurantist argument, the son of a closed and organismic view of society as a natural body of families held together by faith. Compared this scenario, the modern state, through the state public school brings young people out of closings local interests and educates them to rational civic principles of universal citizenship - however tentatively applied in practice - is an intolerable threat, an unacceptable abuse of power .
On the other hand, to correct misunderstandings of the usual left-wing press, Berlusconi has unlined, the day after, an ultra-liberal approach. He argued that the families have the right to have a wide range of public schools, public and private, to choose free education for their children. Like the first scenario was hostile to the state in a manner so to speak pre-modern and organic, this one is the other way, that is, with abuse of topics individualistic & Marketing. The first was appealing to the continuity between family and school in the name of tradition, and the second explicitly invokes the idea that the education of children is a private matter for families, which - pay - can afford to choose the "pattern" preferred. The first refers to a compactly Catholic country, the second supports - beyond the patriotic rhetoric that sometimes the government indulges - a country fragmented along many lines (wealth, ideology, and of course religion and "culture") and not reassembled: indeed, social fragmentation is lovingly cultivated in special schools.
In the first perspective, the state school and de-legitimized without appeal - and its radical right has pushed the church hierarchy to take at least formally the miles - and in the second, however, is more subtly treated as "public" to other types of schools as' public - because for the general public of users - that the schools are actually "private" (whether religious and / or secular, but predominantly the former). In short, the state and its school of social work with its equal democratic citizenship is an option among many, as another review, at least theoretically, which is always the decisive one. Once passed the thesis that schools would be equally "out there" - thesis which is already shared by the center - it is then easy to remove those who are in government funding to the school of the State (and pitiable at the same time the teachers underpaid! A true virtuoso communication), and give them to private ones, and thus disqualify the first and only encourage those who can afford to enroll their children in the second, protected from degradation. What is the result of conscious and deliberate act of this government to all schools, and also to the University, to an ideological choice, as has been observed on these pages, is neither the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution that gives priority to the case from the point logically and regulatory practices, the state school.
choice ideological anti-state, one that denies the right and down his past (by Casati a Gentile), and that has nothing to do with liberalism, if not with a interpretation homemade, particularistic, qualunquistica. One choice available in two different ways and opposite, as a shrewd bid commercial aimed at target constituencies from each other (Catholic ultras, and postmodern individualists) that only in him, in Knight protean as Zelig, are consistency and credibility. Precisely because he was able to submit its views on the school in the most pleasant and gentle way, that is sacrosanct as a polemic against the left-wing indoctrination that would be given at school by now pubblicostatale sessantottino vintage men professors. It is riding on this injury right-thinking background, this long-term resentment, this political ghost that terrorizes its many anti-political voters, that the right of Berlusconi wins, it is through this posthumous victory that sull'odiatissimo Sixty passes the victory today over what remains of the school of the state and its political function in a broad sense - not partisan, of course, not ideological -. What is to train young people, with firmness and rigor, the public spirit and critic, and do not let the republican democracy in this country evolve, result in the dismantling of the state school, in a democracy, a 'la carte soulless and without a future. CARLO GALLI
0 comments:
Post a Comment