nomos

The city of pigs. by Gerardo Muñoz

When describing the ideal archaic and primitive polity of basic needs at the beginning of The Republic (371e-373), Socrates willingly accepts Glaucon’s definition that this society will amount to a “city of pigs”. In the English translation of F.M. Cornford, just after Socrtates says that “(these people) lead such a healthy life in peace, they will naturally to come to a good old age, and leave their children to live after them in same manner”, his interlocutor responds that “That is just the sort of provender you would supply, Socrates, if you were founding a community of pigs” [1]. That the ideal of the polity resembles a community of pigs is bathed in an important irony here, since as Leo Strauss once noted, this animal community is one in which there are no pigs, since this a community that is strictly vegetarian (the influence of archaic Orphic culture should not be ruled out from this passage).

But just like sluggish and stagnant pigs that roam a piece of land, this archaic form of city life is a proto-form of the kallipolis or the beautiful city, whose enchantment does not derive from external garments, but rather from a mediation of Justice that maintains social stasis or harmony within the passions. In this sense, the city of pigs is beyond a regulatory meditation of production understood as accumulation (although there is some exchange between goods and services), and for that matter it is a form of life that is beyond poverty and wealth. In fact, it is absence of a cycle of inequality either in the form of abundance or scarcity that defines the first communities in The Laws. Thus, we read in Book III 679c:

“Because of all of this, they were not intolerably poor, nor driven by poverty to quarrel with each other; but presumably they did not grow rich either, in view of the provining lack of gold and silver. Now the community in which neither wealth nor poverty exists will generally produce the finest characters, because tendencies to violence and crime, feelings of jealousy and envy, simply do not arise. So these men were good, partly for that that very reason, partly because of what we might call their ‘naivete’ [2].

The kallipolis that characterizes the beautiful city is thus the memory of the retreat from the machinery of legal expansion – the “too much law” syndrome that according to the Judge Neil Gorsuch characterizes the current state of empire of the administrative state – that for Plato took the form of continuous lawsuits and party strife in order to “hurt each other by word and deed” [3]. This means that the Beautiful City where pigs roam in the open is oriented towards Justice because everything is under the constraint of proportionality that mediatites between the soul and the body, and between actions and the good inherent in things due to their limitations in use. In other words, the city of pigs is an early emblem of the paradigm of the “rule of proportion”, a condition in order to nurture a healthy politeia. Thus, proportionality is a notion that allows not just for the metabolic organization of social life, but perhaps more fundamentally to the sensible understanding of nomoi as revolving around the territory, the attunement to music, and to the lawgiver’s institutional design to preserve a form of life.

If we can understand the city of pigs as a memory rather than as a construction of a future utopian society, it is because only in accounting for proportionality can the nomoi asymptotically enter in relation to Nature that has long been severed from the experience of human beings and the gods. This is why for Plato the truth of the kallipolis staged by the city of pigs belongs to the memory of the ‘Age of Cronus’ and not to that of Zeus. As the Athenian says in Book IV of The Laws: “The story has a moral for us even today, and there is a lot of truth in it: where the ruler of a state is not a god but a mortal, people have no respite from effort to imitate the life men are said to have led under Cronus; we should run our public and our private lives, our homes and our cities, in obedience  to what little spark of immorality lies in us, and dignify this dispensation of reason with the name of ‘law’” [4]. In this determination, the nomos is a memory of the happy life that strives to organize the community beyond the purpose of hostility and strife, abstract quantification and normative obedience (even though there might be necessary elements of these in the polity). Yes, it is true that law is always backwards looking – the process of adjudication needs a prior norm or principle to consider – but the sense of nomoi here is accounting for a priori of proportionality between separate regions of human experience.

The laws or nomoi as justice is not defined by the attempt to construct morally rational norms for adjudication, but rather to coordinate the proportionality dispensed (dianomē) between reason (nous) and the sensibility of the soul (daimones). Rather than thinking of the good as substance and fact, what is good is only in the proportion between soul and reason. Hence, the possibility of naming (eponamazo) of nomos cannot be understood as mere force of adjudication of any given legitimate authority, but as the mediation that guards against the unrestrained force of sad passions (greed, jealousy, resentment), as well as the disastrous consequence of political injustice through mere the exercise of public force that has been understood as the enactment of police powers to curve illicit actions.

What Plato calls the “little spark of immortality in us” is the very memory of the city of pigs; that is, a nomoi that refuses to conflates the community with the world, and that for this very reason it can imagine life beyond the regime of predatory and service driven social reproduction. If according to Oskar Panizza in his mythopoetic treatise, the pig in Western culture has stood as as paragon of fear, power, and untamable desire, it is not less true that the mythological animal was first and foremost symbol for what appears and shines first: “the pig is the Sun” [5]. And yet, for Plato there is a need for the nomoi because there is an archaic memory of the life beyond time and strife, which is the life of pigs in space (a correspondence to the Gemeinwesen perhaps). It is this paradoxical emblem of archaic illumination and obscure remembrance that Plato registers as the “little spark of immortality”, where ustice survives not in the form of the restitution of a debt or injury (the principle of “owing what is one’s due”), but in the measureless proportion that binds soul and reason in order to keep on playing the music score of justice on Earth.

.

.

Notes

1. Plato. The Republic of Plato, ed. F.M. Cornford (Oxford University Press, 1945), 371e-373a, 60-61.

2. Plato. The Laws, ed. T. J. Saunders (Penguin Books, 2004), 679c, 78.

3. Ibid., 679d, 79.

4. Ibidl., 714a, 126.

5. Oskar Panizza. The pig in poetic, mythological, and moral-historical perspective (Wakefield Press, 2016), 4.

Pascal against the empire of opinion. by Gerardo Muñoz

In the section of the unclassified “pensées”, Pascal’s meditation on the notion of “opinion” is so incandescent that it is hard to imagine that this was, in fact, written in age of deep religious conflict, an epoch increasingly transformed by the fascination of bodies in space (this is the substance of the counter-reformation and the Newtonian thematization of the limit afterall). In particular gloss 554 strikes a tenor for our current epoch: “Power rules the world, not opinion, but it is opinion that exploits power. It is power that makes an opinion. To be easygoing can be a fine thing according to our opinion. Why? Because anyone who wants to dance the tightrope will be alone, and I can get together a stronger body of people to say that there is nothing fine about it” [1]. In the world after the fall, the intramundane system of felix culpa, is already one of dual power.

In many respects, this image is stronger than that of nihilism as the oblivion of walking upwards gazing at the abyss, because it connects the social pressure of “opinion” to that of the common ground that makes out of blindness the legitimacy of vacuous enlightenment. In the very void that truth will carve out for authority, Pascal seems to imply that the imperium of opinion will reign as a dual power of administration and mediation with the world. This is why for Pascal, force without opinion is indocile; but opinion without force amounts to the persuasion of solitude of the last man in the earth. At the heart of the groundlessness of modern legitimacy there is the necessary organization of opinion or doxa that will regulate the community of the living and the dead because ultimately its end is to master the mystery of language in its inability to name. 

Of course, Pascal thought that language could overcome the fictive empire of opinion, which in its modern avatar of propaganda is meant to design apocalyptic tendencies towards self-destruction in the course of historical development. As a “properly speaking wholly animal”, the human can only dwell in a poetic region “entre-deux”, that is, between the abhorrent light and the infinite depth of darkness, where language endures through the symbol well beyond the experience of the fallen corruption of nature. As Lezama Lima reminds us in a short essay on the French thinker, the poetic region in Pascal is ultimately the experience of language as a mystery of creation that refuses to accept the post-mythic condition of nature and human boredom that will euthanize the use of linguistic creation [2]. Now it can be said that the intrusion of the infinite chatter of opinion takes place precisely in the logged forest of speech, which consolidates its rhetorical autonomy of language away from the possibility of distance and self-constrain of the sayable. The statecraft of rhetoric is the infrastructure of the reign of opinion, because here the draining of the depth of being is supplanted by alienated voluntary participation at the very ground of nothingness. Nihilism takes a decisive step forward when language can become any differential sign to communicate what has become impossible to be said outside the cubicle of the enthymeme.

Paraphrasing the ancient wisdom of Pindar’s famous opening verse in Fragment 169 (“Law, νόμος, the king of all”), Pascal assures us of the fragility of this imperium: “An empire based on opinion and imagination resigns for a time, and such an empire is mild and voluntary. That force reigns for ever. Thus opinion is like the queen of the world, but force is its tyrant” [3]. Is it possible to separate, nevertheless, the reign of opinion from that of force; and, secondly, the circulation of force as grounded in a fabric of language that has already descended into the empire of opinion without any trace? In a way, there is no modern politics without the presupposition of the autonomy of a field of opinion integrated into “rational control”, to use the expression of American political theorist Harvey Mansfield. And even if Carl Schmitt could state in his Constitutional Theory (1928) that no democratic secular state could effectively exist out without opinion as a diffused and disorganised form of acclamation, it is now completely obvious to us that the post-liberal state configuration, persists in a constant state of the fluctuation, compartmentalization, and archic steering of opinions. What survives the utter collapse of the category of political modernity is the flattening of language into “opinion” that provides standing to the epochal anomia. 

Following classical philologists we are tempted not to ignore that in the word anomia entails not just the suspension of legislated norms and positive commands, but also the decline of the distance between existence and the divine that in antiquity, in the age of Pindar, subsisted under the notion of eunomia as harmonious attunement of the very lived experience. In other words, the consolidation of opinion is a long historical effect of the erosion of distance and perspective  that restricts the capacity to “ascertain a spiritual excitement…and if worth anything, a language, a witness to reality” [4]. To bear witness in language is a poetic enactment that, at heart of its solitude, refuses the glacial ripples of the force of opinion vested in reality.

.

.

Notes 

1. Blaise Pascal. Pensées (Penguin Books 1995),  192.

2. José Lezama Lima. “Pascal y la poesía”, in Obras Completas. Tomo II (Aguilar Editor, 1977), 564-565.

3. Blaise Pascal. Pensées (Penguin Books 1995), 566.

4. Pavel Florensky. “Reverse perspective” (1920), in Beyond Vision (Reaktion Books, 2002), 254. 

Zoning and the inalienable. By Gerardo Muñoz

The notion of “zoning” in American public law refers to the compartmentalization of land use (residential, governmental, industrial, among others), as well as the “zones” of the administrative framework that dispenses its delegated power. It is a common fact that the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which includes the “Taking Clause”, states that taking territory must always be equitable compensated. The Fourteenth Amendment included during Reconstruction implements a non-discriminatory standard into zoning as division of space for political representation, and what is usually referred as “redistricting” in any given state. This means that the operative semantic and legal field of “zoning” refers simultaneously to both land as property, and territory as a spatial index of political representation. Of course, modern revolutions, whether in 1776 or in 1789, were stealth transformations of space into these two tier units of alienated property and representation, as we know from the territorial census in the aftermath of the French Revolution.

Likewise, the framework of Americanism as a political civilization is that of landsurveying, which ultimately means not just to make coterminous sovereign authority to territorial limitations, but to make transactions between world forms (territory and its inhabitants). If “zoning” has become a fundamental point of contention in all spheres of American life – from housing to development, from political representation to governmental “taking”, from wildlife sites to the circulation of good and services of the metropolis – is because the essence of Calvinism was fundamentally a settler cosmos that reduced life to usurpation of territory. In this sense, Bruno Maçaes is right that in the age of planetary Americanism the predominant form of domination is world-building and world-destroying. The perpetual social war over “zoning” is precisely the movement of building and destroying life-worlds through the linguistic justification of the administrative legal apparatus. 

In his forgotten book Nomos and Physis: Origin and Meaning of One (1945) on the severability of the two notion of “order” in Ancient Greece, Felix Heinimann notes that the triumph of nomos over physis implied a separation from the world of “reality” and “deeds” from that of rhetorical language that came to dominate it (nomos). In the present, the separation between nomoi and physis is the void that is perpetually governed by the attenuation of zoning: the creation of artificial worlds, but, at the same time, the composition of artificial languages. But the paradox is the following: the world of nomoi ceases to have any contact with that of physis; and physis, the natural world, becomes an artificial life world only responsive to irreflexive and undetermined practices of social exchange. This means that zoning is the vector of force that constantly separates human beings from both the world and language, and ultimately stripped its “humanity” from the species-being. 

As the zoning process plunges extensively into all spheres of practical and intellectual relations of human beings, an increasingly grouping of unalienable life emerges in a polar night. Here solitude in language brings forth the warmth of the unalienable. Perhaps it is in this night, where a trivial amor mundi will be cultivated for other generations, as beautifully suggested by Tim Ingold. A vita nota that will only commence on the lines that are invisible and opaque to the shining surfaces of zoning.

Techne alupias. by Gerardo Muñoz

In his Lives of Ten Orators, Plutarch dedicates an entry to the sophist and rhetorician Antiphon who, among other things, allegedly possessed a technique to deal with distress of the human soul (techne alupias) [1]. We know from historical sources that anxiety was already a common psychotic malady in the life of the polis, and it is most probable that Antiphon’s discourse treatment was reacting to this general phenomenon of his time. In the testimonia of Suda and Lucian there is agreement that Antiphon was a sort of language magician, a “speech-cook” (sic), who derived his powers from the interpretation of dreams, and in the words of the second, could unlock “the office of Sleep” [2]. Although his so-called pain-removing lectures have been lost, there is enough evidence that suggests that these rested on the archaic notion of “persuasion” (Peitho), whose main object was neither human psychology nor bodily somatic terrain, but rather psyche or the soul in the state of being. It is an art that has been lost – if something like “techne alupias” can be counted as a technique is plausible, given its irreducibility. In other words, what survives is only a lacuna of a philosophical ascesis that we should locate no so much as a conceptual problem, but as an ethical one. This is a task that today seems more needed than ever if we can agree that the fundamental tonality of social existence today is, precisely, the reproduction and endurance of pain, or what has been called the self-inflicted deaths of despair.

Much of the reflective work in this direction has been lacking, however in 1958 there was a publication entitled La curación por la palabra en la antigüedad clásica by the  Spanish physician and historian Pedro Lain Entralgo, which dedicated a whole section to Antiphon’s “techne alupias” as a fundamental strategy to treat an existential affliction. Recasting the opposition between nomos and physis as a general structure of Antiphon’s teaching, Entralgo seems to advance the hypothesis that the technique to alleviate affliction seeks to revoke the primacy of the normative conventions of the nomos towards the natural consension and causation of physis. In the most elaborate moment of his reconstruction of Antiphone’s techne alupias, Entralgo seems to project unto the opposition of nomos-physis, the rationalization of the sensible and the sensation of the corporeal through language: “Antifonte cree que para tal fin hay una «técnica» (tékhne alypías); más aún, práctica esa tékhné, informándose acerca de las causas de la aflicción y hablando al paciente en consecuencia. Actuando según las causas, la persuasión verbal logra eliminar la pena del alma: el pensamiento y la palabra del retórico sanador —su lógos— ordenan y racionalizan la vida anímica y corporal del afligido” [3]. 

But Entralgo stops short of elucidating what the language of persuasion entails in this specific elaboration. Is it just a form of compensatory mediation between nomos and physics, between soul and body dualism? The German classical philologist Julius Stenzel in an article dedicated to Antiphon in the 1920s had taken the contrary view; mainly, that the sophist’s treatment of pain does not aim at naturalizing the logos, nor at rationalizing nature (physis) for the event of affliction; it was rather an opening through language creating a new reality principle beyond all opposition, an undercurrent in which the taking place of language could only serve as the anemic nutrient [4]. Taking into account Stenzel’s intuition it becomes evident why Entralgo, as he concludes his gloss on Antiphon, seems to be skeptical of an existential techne alupias fully deprived of normative content, that is, situated outside the nomos that founded the polis so lavishly celebrated by Pindar. 

This was totally unconvincing to him, since it would seem to shake a bit the foundation of Western political civilization that needs to maintain the hylomorphism between soul and body, nomos and physis, happiness and deficiency towards a well balanced organic life. The prefix –*lup that derives from –luk should be understood as a lightening of human appearance converted into something ominous that must be contained and differentiated into a political program [5]. In this way, and if “techne alupias” is to be understood as the event of language, it is also the eruption of the involuntary form of language that “can prevent the autonomization of ethical action: pain is the “grace” that is communicated by acting. And it is, at the same time, the muteness that permits the realization of authentic communication: not that of abstract or arbitrary signs, but between souls. The obstinate, irreducible enigmaticity of pain is precisely what prevents Persuasion from falling back on the Christian morality of “sacrifice”, or of acting towards the direction of an end” [6].

This picture drawn by Gianni Carchia should reveal itself as fully contemporaneous, since today the two poles being offered (replicating the nomos and physis duality in updated versions) are on the one hand the moralization of a neo-Christian acceptance towards salvation; and, on the other, the secularized version of salvation in the form of the highly sophisticated techno-medical field. If both positions have as their central aim an offer to end pain, it is also true that they both renounce the ethical dimension of the sayable in language, which renders impossible a techne alupias to come to terms with our current abysmal sentiment. This means that no amount of prescribed pain-killers and medicalized strategies can come to terms with the soul’s angst. By choosing to erase pain from life of the soul, religious-medical integration univocally accepts the triumph of a living death.

.

.

Notes

1. Plutarch. “Lives of the Ten Orators”, in Plutarch’s Morals, V.5 (Little Brown and Company, 1874), 18-21.

2. Antiphon the Sophist. The Fragments (Cambridge University Press, 2002), ed. Gerard J. Pendrick, 96-97.

3. Pedro Lain Entralgo. La curación por la palabra en la antigüedad clásica (Revista de Occidente, 1958), 149.

4. Julius Stenzel. “Antiphon”(1924), in Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen, Stuttgart, 33-43.

5. Hermann Usener. Götternamen (F. Cohen, 1896), 198-199.

6. Gianni Carchia. “Tragedia y persuasión: nota sobre Carlo Michelstaedter”, in Retórica de lo sublime (Técnos, 1990), 38.

The Empire’s garden. by Gerardo Muñoz

The European Union elections this spring restate what otherwise is already felt almost everywhere; mainly, that the destiny of politics has ceased to mean anything historically, and that political representation stands as a compensatory preamble and veneer to planetary conflagration, in which Europe has become a minoritarian and bystander actor. This also means that the histrionic reaction to this reality can only bring out its counters more sharply: both pro-nationalist sovereignty political platforms, and abstract administrative pro-union coalitions are junior partners of the current geopolitical planetary regime, and they merely differ in mild policy nuances, social spending allocations, and rhetorical probing that can also be as flexible as needed  (such is the case of Italy’s Giorgia Miloni who one morning can be in a Vox Party Congress in Madrid, and later in the afternoon receive orders from Ursula von der Leyen and the White House). 

The passage of destiny politics to the gigantism of geopolitics entails not just the erasure of the modern boundaries of enmity recognition, but also the introduction of an administrative plasticity that responds to ad hoc organizational and infrastructural planning, as symptomatic of the collapse of the subject of history into the dominance of the objective. The final stage of the “disenchantment of the world” that characterizes bureaucratic legibility finally appears as the reign of objectivity and the objective. And the concrescence of objecthood as the last avatar of the colonization of forms of life allows us to see how the compensatory constructions of ‘community’ – both the “European Union” and the multiple sovereign communities as reactions to it – repeatedly oscillate between communities of fictive identitarian belonging, and formal political communities devoid of constituent authority. Regardless of their contrasting designs and contrasts, both defenders of national sovereignty and the supra-national EU share the same allure of communitarian integralism: a community for the living, that is, for those integrated into the social apparatus of a well lighted and funded administered world. Respectively, we can see that the debate that took place in the late 1980s about negative community in Europe among philosophers (Jean Luc-Nancy, Maurice Blanchot, Giorgio Agamben) has not lost any of its poignant relevance, as the compensatory communitarian options multiply and spread without ever retreating from the summoned shadow of politica arcana. In a certain sense, the confabulation of communities of belonging and communities of faith are dispensable painkillers to the effective disintegration of the immanence of the social bond. This explains why “people” can only assent to them.

Both community form and political empire are united by a legislative political principle that today remains chattered in the final stage of intrahistorical collapse. There is no communitarian option today that does not end up living negatively on the hinterlands of the nexus of Empire; an exception to the nomic organization of the globe incapable of taking into account the inmates of community form. What is at stake is access to the world; an excess beyond communitarian identification and the administration of the waning politics of Empire.

One can, I think, read Josep Borrell’s words in a speech given at the European Diplomatic Academy in 2020 in this direction, where he calls Europe a well cultivated garden [1]. Obviously if we read it in a political key, Borrell’s address maintains the perennial framework of civilization and barbarism, and in his head the role of the ‘gardener’ is only a metaphoric deployment to exalt the morality of the squalid and humiliated European diplomats on the global stage. However, we know that there is much more to the earthly garden, which retreats already at the moment it is enunciated, since it is a mythic-poetic trope that colors the sensibility of concordia rather than elevating itself as a sociological category of political orientation. 

As Italian historian Flavio Cuniberto notes in his beautiful book Viaggio in Italia (2020), for a poet like Dante the meridional Mediterranean region was the garden of empire (“che’l giardin de lo imperio sia diserto”) which attunes itself to the measureless relation between earth, landscape, and life. Is not this what is preparatory – that is, what must be posited in sensibility and in imagination through style – before any reduction of life into community and political mediation? Have not we felt this dissolving transport before a landscape in the outskirts of Tuscany or Orvieto? And is not this what political ecology (Green New Deals) are after in their effort to foreclose the world? The garden unworks empirical objecthood through its very refusal to be integral to devastation, usurpation and destruction of loci. This is why for Henry Miller the only “ideal community” would have the garden as its evanescent topoi, a “god filled place” even for those that have no gods: 

“Even if it lasts for only a few moments, the privilege of looking at the world as a spectacle of unending life and not a repository of persons, creatures and objects to be impressed in our service, is something never to be forgotten. The ideal community, in a sense, would be loose fluid aggregation of an individual whole elected to be alone and detached to be at one with themselves and all that lives and breathes. It would be a God-filled community, even if none of its members believe in (a) God. It would be a paradise, even though the word had long disappeared from our vocabulary” [2]. 

Looking at the world as a spectacle – of course, this brings to mind Petrarch’s specular heights at Mount Ventoux, in which the possibility of seeing, for once, has the upper hand against the mastering the worldly phenomena at our “service” and proportionality. There is no utopia without this attempt to grasp the spectacle in its taking place, infinitely exceeding the rationality that vests reality into amorphous abstraction. Perhaps the garden is a figure of this necessity of irreducible outlook, which in Marvell’s language touches the ungraspable as it is inwardly felt: “Annihilating all that’s made / To a green thought in a green shade” [3]. The promise of a new life takes resource in the abode of that green shade.

.

.

Notes

1. Josep Borrell. “Les jardiniers européens doivent aller “dans la jungle”, Le Grand Continent, October 2022: https://legrandcontinent.eu/fr/2022/10/16/les-jardiniers-europeens-doivent-aller-dans-la-jungle/ 

2. Henry Miller. Big Sur and the oranges of Hieronomys Bosch (New Directions, 1957), 34. 

3. Andrew Marvell. “The Garden”, Selected Poems (Routledge, 2002), 60.

A memory of Jean Franco (1924-2022). by Gerardo Muñoz

Jean Franco, pioneer of Latin American Cultural Studies and witness to its Cold War gigantomachy, passed away a couple of weeks in December at age 98. She remained lively and curious even at the very end of her scholarly life, and for some of us that saw her in action she embodied the memory of the century. The photograph above is of Jean’s visit to Arcadio Díaz Quiñones graduate seminar in the fall of 2015 where she discussed some of the main arguments of her last book Cruel Modernity (Duke U Press, 2014), a cartography showing the definite closure of the Latin American insomnia for political modernity in light of its most oblique mutations: narcoviolence, the emergence of a dualist state structure, and new global economic forces that putted an end to the vigil of the revolutionary enterprise. I write “definite” purposely, since Jean’s own The Decline and Fall of the Lettered City (Harvard U Press, 2002) already hinted at a certain exhaustion (to borrow the strategic term of Alberto Moreiras also writing during these years), most definitely a thorough disillusion, in the sense deployed by Claudio Magris, of cultural substitution for the belated state-making modernization. The function of “culture” (and its hegemonic state apparatus) was always insufficient, dragging behind, or simply put, unintentionally laboring for the cunning of a project forever postponed in the sweatshop of the newest ideologue, or for the hidden interests of the “local” marketplace of moral academicism. All of this has come crashing down rather quickly even if the demand for culturalist janitorial or housekeeping services are still in demand to sustain the illusion sans reve et sans merci.

What always impressed me about Franco’s scholarship was her intellectual honesty to record, even if through an adjacent detours and academic finesse, the destitution of all the main categories of the Latin American modern wardrobe: developmentalism, state-civil society relations, the intellectual, cultural hegemony, revolutionary violence, the “rights revolution”, and the intra-national spatiality (rural/metropolitan divide). From now on it is hard to say that there is a “task of the critic”, if we are to understand the critic in the Kantian aspiration of sponsoring modern values and perceptiveness to an enthusiastic disposition (definitely optimistic towards action) to transforming the present. As a witness to the twilight of the Latin American modern epoch, Franco univocally resisted the inflationary, value-driven, demand for politicity and ‘more politics’. This is why her attitude remained at the threshold of any given effective political panaceas or half-baked illusions.

Does her biographical experience say anything to this particular inclination? It is difficult to say, although as a witness of the century Jean had lived through the coup in Guatemala in 1954, visited the Cuban Revolution during its most “intense years” of the sugar cane milestone (La Zafra de los Diez Millones), and followed with attentiveness the rise and transformation of the Southern Cone dictatorships in the 1980s coupled with the irreversible social transformation of neoliberalism in the 1990s signaling the effective end to regional integration in the face of planetary unity. All of this to say that I find it hard – at least leaving aside the many nuances – to see in Jean’s scholarly witness an enthusiasm for the Latin American Pink Tide, the communal state, or abstract regional historicizing that could finally bring about the moral universe of the national-popular state (as if said moral realization would be anything worthwhile, which we some of us seriously doubt). If Jon Beasley-Murray once said that John Beverley was the “Latin American unconscious”, I guess it is fair to claim that Jean Franco was an authentic Latin americanist realist; that is, someone that was up to task to see in the face of the tragic, the cruel, and the heinous as the proper elements of the interregnum. Or to better qualify this: she was a worldly realist, leaving aside utopias and its abstractions. At the end end of the day, Leninists are also realists, or at least claim to be so. What places Jean’s earthly realism apart from the Leninist realism is the subtraction from the seduction of Idealization, which even in the name of the “idea” (“the idea of communism”, say) or “immanent higher causes” must bear and render effective the logic of sacrifice at whatever cost, even the real sense of freedom if demanded by the party, the leader, or the community. This is why at the closure of Latin American modernizing enterprise communitarian arrangements, posthistorical subjects / identities, or grand-spaces that mimic the constitution of Earth are foul dishes for a final banquet. It is always convenient to refuse them.


Going back to my conversations with Franco at Princeton, and some exchanges a few months later in a cafe near Columbia University, for her there was remaining only the anomic geography of Santa Teresa in Bolaño’s 2666, a novel that charts the current ongoing planetary civil war in the wake of the crisis of modern principles of political authority. I can recall one remark from Jean during these exchanges: “¿Y quién pudiera mirar hacia otra parte?” This is the general contour of her witnessing: how not to look somewhere else? In other words, how not to look here and now, into the abyss that is no longer regional or national, Latin American or cultural specific, but rather proper to our own civilization? A civilization is, after all, nothing but the organization of a civis, which has now abdicated to both the metropolitan dominium, as well as the campo santo of sacrificed life at the hand of techno-administrative operators (the new praetorian guard) of a well lighted and fully integrated Earth.

There is no alternative modernity, decolonial state, or hegemonic culture that will not serve to the compensatory and sadistic interests of the cruel policing of death and value, as the only masters in town. We are in Santa Teresa as a species of energy extraction. Can reflection be courageous enough to look through and against them? This is the lasting and eternal question that Franco left for those who are willing to see. It does not take much, although it amounts to everything: mirar / to gaze – in an opening where human form is lacking and categories are wretched – is the the most contemplative of all human actions. Whatever we make of it, this practice now becomes the daring task of the coming scholar.

El «kai nomon egno» homérico. por Gerardo Muñoz

En su tardía entrevista con Fulco Lanchaster, Carl Schmitt confiesa que todo su pensamiento puede situarse bajo las palabras del tercer verso de la Odisea de Homero: “pollōn d’anthrôpōn iden astea kai nomon egnō” [1]. Para Schmitt se trata de la escena de un doble inicio: es el comienzo de la gran obra del poeta clásico de Grecia, pero es también una instancia originaria del derecho; esto es, antes de su conversión en “norma” positiva. Aquí Schmitt sigue al pie de la letra una observación de su amigo romanista Álvaro D’Ors, quien en el ensayo “Silent Leges Inter Arma”, había sugerido que fue con Cicerón cuando el nomos griego termina subsumido en el lex latino [2]. El contexto de esta aparición en el transcurso de la entrevista es importante: es la batalla de Schmitt contra la insuficiencia, aunque no la liquidación, del positivismo moderno en el contexto penalista. Aunque a comienzos de los 80s, esto también quiere decir que Schmitt está pensando tras el colapso de la forma estatal que acelerara la “revolución legal mundial” y sus armas de interpretación jurídica.

Por su lado, Christian Meier reporta que Schmitt durante los últimos años de su vida anotaba “kai nomon egnō” en servilletas y papeles de su estudio, a pesar de que no hay referencia del verso en el Glossarium (la única mención siendo a la horkia en una entrada de julio de 1949) [3]. El teorema homérico atestigua no tanto un “giro espacial” en el pensamiento de Schmitt, ni mucho menos un retorno a Grecia; se trata, más bien, del problema de la fuente de la autoridad que había atravesado el saeculum de la filosofía de la historia cristiana, aunque consistente con la convicción jurídica de Schmitt sobre el ordenamiento como realización del derecho ya defendido en Estatuto y Juicio (1912).

La apelación al “kai nomon egnō” también hace una aparición programática al comienzo del ensayo sobre la apropiación, producción, y apacentamiento donde el nomos se define como repartición y ocupación de un espacio concreto de la vida en la tierra [4]. Para Schmitt la insuficiencia del normativismo fue su incapacidad de establecer una relación de ordenamiento concreto con la esfera de la socialización, de modo que allí donde hay una condición mínima de lo social hay un sentido de orden, y, por lo tanto, de amenazas a ese orden. Y por extensión, de la posibilidad de enemigo, quien también pisa la tierra, a quien solo despojándolo de la tierra se vuelve un “enemigo absoluto”. Para Schmitt esta es la amenaza de la tecnificación de los valores de la dominación moderna. En cualquier caso, la atención reiterada sobre el ‘ordenamiento concreto’ (consistente con la jurisprudencia de Romano, aunque con mayores sondeos metafísicos) modifica el supuesto “realismo” de Schmitt. Puesto que ya por “realismo” no entendemos una absolutización moral o política de la esfera del derecho – esto es lo que teme Schmitt y busca neutralizar – sino una “mirada” atenta a la preservación del ordenamiento concreto.

Esta dimensión telúrica es lo que suministra el nomoi homérico, un teorema que también contiene, como ha visto Aida Miguez, la raíz de “ver” y “conocer” para ganar tiempo de nuestra propia psyche [5]. Contra una lectura “trágica” de la distancia griega – al fin y al cabo, Schmitt se opone a la tragicidad de Hölderlin – la comprensión del teorema homérico supone, de principio a fin, una defensa de la perseverancia del derecho como dimensión concreta de la realidad, históricamente situada y espacialmente realizada, que puede impedir la dominación anómica carente de una exterioridad de la mediación política.

El teorema homérico vuelve a validar la convicción (metafísica) de la filosofía del derecho de Schmitt sobre la polaridad entre conflicto y tierra: allí donde se pisa mundo hay conflicto. Y el conflicto exige un concepto del derecho que no puede ser subsumido al “Norm” o “lex”, sino que debe estar arraigado en un orden capaz de tramitar una fuente de autoridad. En este sentido, no hay que ver en la apropiación filológica de Homero (el paso del noos al nomos) un “conceptual overreach”, sino más bien como la apuesta de un axioma que puede responder a la crisis del eón cristiano y su mediación formal, como ya lo había expuesto Schmitt en “Tres posibilidades para una visión cristiana de la historia” citando la sospecha ante la retención paulina del poeta católico Konrad Weiß.

El nomos valida la determinación del derecho, y en este punto Schmitt pareciera dejar atrás el paradigma temporal-histórico de la filosofía de la historia cristiana que se mostraría incapaz impotente de llevar a cabo la neutralización del misterio de la inequidad contra el orden. ¿Se confirma el paganismo de Schmitt en la vuelta al teorema espacial, como piensa Palaver? Es una pregunta que probablemente no puede resolverse sin primero antender a la controversia sobre la separación entre la autonomía del derecho y la existencia pública (hostis) en el mundo. Pero si tomamos en serio el teorema homérico, entonces el “cristianismo” de Schmitt más que sustancia (doctrina) o principios (ius romano), es esencialmente la disponibilidad de una comprensión sobre la crisis del ordenamiento, y en cada “krisis” (que es también juicio) retener la capacidad de responder “en el dominio telúrico del sentido, por penuria e impotencia, esperanza y honor de nuestra existencia” [6]. Aquí podemos marcar el semblante originario de su concepto del derecho.

.

.

Notas 

1. Carl Schmitt. “Un jurista frente a sí mismo: entrevista de Fulco Lanchester a Carl Schmitt”, Carl-Schmitt-Studien, 1, 2017, 214.

2. Álvaro D’Ors. “Silent Leges Inter Arma”, en De la Guerra y de la Paz (Ediciones Rialp, 1954), 29-30.

3. Christian Meier. “Zu Carl Schmitts Begriffsbildung,” en Complexio Oppositorum über Carl Schmitt: Vorträge und Diskussionsbeiträge (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1988). 540.

4. Carl Schmitt. “Apropiación, partición, y apacentamiento”, Veintiuno, N.34, 1997, 55.

5. Aida Míguez Barciela. La visión de la Odisea (La Oficina Ediciones, 2014). 13.

6. Carl Schmitt. “Tres posibilidades para una visión cristiana de la historia”, Arbor, N.62, 1951, 241.

*imagen: ejemplar anotado de Epimeteo Cristiano (1933) de Konrad Weiß de la biblioteca de Carl Schmitt.

La geopolítica como destino. por Gerardo Muñoz

1. Al leer el discurso de invasión de Vladimir Putin pronunciado en la mañana de hoy se comprueba el aire neoclásico de una postura ciegamente aferrada a la soberanía post-Westfalia. Este es el límite de su arcano imperial, puesto que Putin tampoco parece estar en condiciones de negar aquel señalamiento que le hiciera Kòjeve a Schmitt en su intercambio epistolar: desde Napoleón ya no es posible “tomar” territorios en Occidente. En efecto, por eso es que la “invasión” no se asume como “toma”, sino como restauración y encomienda retributiva tras el colapso de la URSS. A tal efecto, el arcano del Oriente es un derroche de conservación, más no de transformación del orden planetario a pesar de los velos de aceleración. Un arcano retardado que no disputa la irreversibilidad del fin de la historia tras la imposibilidad de la toma de territorios. Su pretensión es la eternidad ilimitada.

2. En Glossarium, Carl Schmitt escribe que fue Rusia quien ha extraído hasta sus últimas consecuencias el subjetivismo (romántico) decimonónico hacia una feroz espiritualidad sacrificial sin forma. Mediante la misma dictadura del proletariado, la institución romana pasa a ser un proyecto de universalización del poderoso. Es muy probable que en el fondo Schmitt tuviera a Oriente como emblema de una civilización sin impronta trinitaria; esto es, carente de una teología política, y por extensión abierta a la fuerza absoluta. El mando de los popes ortodoxos no obedece a la dualidad de ciudades, sino que coincide íntegramente con una historia providencial del poder. No hay Katechon si toda forma es parte de una misión espiritual.

3. Espiritualización absoluta y crisis terminal del espíritu. Ese nudo gordiano ata la punta del fin de la compensación del mito y la salida de una tecnificación total entre Oriente y Occidente. La estrategia de la “sanción económica” que emerge como arma (Nicholas Mulder) tras el colapso de los principios de agresión interestatales, pone sobre la mesa la infraestructura como tejido que sostiene al mundo de la vida. Infraestructura: el nuevo campo de la guerra en curso en la unidad planetaria, como decíamos recientemente. Infracturura: la nueva localización del infrapoder. La determinación geopolítica refuerza la racionalidad de la infraestructura como atenuante en las tensiones contemporáneas.

4. La organización del mundo de la vida se organiza en el tablero geopolítico. Esto supone que la política misma ha devenido el campo total de la geopolítica. La conocida apotegma de Thomas Mann en Reflexiones de un hombre impolítico – “el destino del hombre se presenta en términos políticos” –ahora puede ser traducida como “todo destino es geopolítico”. También lo ha confirma hoy Jean-Claude Juncker: “todo es geopolítica”. Esta nueva constitución de la tierra marca el paso de la determinación clásica de la autoridad a la gobernabilidad de la optimización. Pero con una reserva: el destino geopolítico lo abarca todo menos el destino; esto es, la posibilidad de salida.

5. Si asumimos este realismo de la conversión de la política en geopolítica, de autoridad en optimización, entonces la postura infrapolítica como retirada de estas condiciones de dominio asciende como una estrategia contraimperial de pensamiento, en la medida en que su finalidad no es hegemónica. Una transfiguración de todos los valores: la divergencia del dominio de la política de la irreductibilidad de un destino.

Sobre “Praise of Law” (1947) de Werner Jaeger. por Gerardo Muñoz.

En el viejo artículo “Praise of Law: the origins of legal philosophy and the Greeks” (1947), originalmente escrito en ocasión de honor a la obra del jurista norteamericano Roscoe Pound, Werner Jaeger desarrolla la sorprendente tesis que la génesis del derecho se encontra en la Grecia antigua antes que en el imperium romano, y llega a decir que el pensamiento filosófico griego nunca dejó de reflexionar sobre la constitución de una legalidad. Ya en en los poemas homéricos, recuerda Jaeger, encontramos una tematización no tanto del nomos como de la themistes, un conjunto de ordinanzas orientadas a un principio de autoridad mundana aunque proyectada en forma de mito a los dioses. La themis separaba el mundo de la civilización ante el mundo barbaro sin ley (que era el mundo del Cíclope en la Odisea). Ya en Homero y Solón, la distinción entre drecho y justicio se complemetarian para explicar una relación con la naturaleza que cosmológicamente implicaba orden y armonía. La dike en Anixamandro, por ejemplo, se etendía como el orden eterno que componen todas las leyes del mundo. De manera que antes que la concepción de la división del poder de una garantía “positiva” del derecho tal y como lo entendieron los modernos, ya la armonía que a la que aspiraba la diké como balance (isomoiria) de los humores.

Esto implicaba una relación con la salud, pues la “buena salud” capaz de garantizar un principio de igualdad (ison) era solo posible mediante un ordenamiento que limitara “la tendencia hacia el exceso”, como nos recuerda Jaeger (358). De manera que el ideal de la salud para los antiguos no se hallaba en una administración de un cuerpo “enfermo” y al que hay que curar como luego lo asumirá la biopolítica, sino como armonía entre la irreductibilidad de almas. La polis tenia que orientarse hacia la Justicia, ya no como abstracción de un gobierno (como lo entiende el tomismo y el derecho natural), sino diferenciación absoluta entre derecho y Justicia en el ordenamiento del mundo. Lo justo era un medio de la salud, y estar saludable solo podía ser una realización de la j instancia de la justicia.

La consitutcion de la polis como entidad política demótica de alguna manera marca una transformación inédita del principio armónico hacia una concepción de igualdad de representación mediante la comunidad social. La isonomia consolida la máxima pindárica del nomos basilus (el nomos es rey) que para Jaeger es el logro más alto de la civilización griega. La polis “enseña y educa al hombre”, llegaría a decir Simonides quien instala una paideia de la virtud cívica entre iguales. Esto es, la isonomia necesita no solo de una recodificación representativa en la polis, sino que tambien requiere de una paideia como “educación en el espirtu de las leyes” (361). Como demuestra Jaeger, esta concepción civil del derecho hace que la ley se entienda como una “mera funcion del poder” (364). Y así lo entendieron los sofisitas que, como recordamos con Trisimaco en La República de Platón, llega a definir la Justicia (el concepto pivote que busca indagar Socrates) como cualquier cosa que sea definida por quien tenga el poder en un momento dado.

En efecto, no estamos muy lejos aquí del concepto hobbesiano de potestas soberana, donde la armonía queda relegada por una comprensión legal fundada “desde la seguridad y el crédito en la producción de la naturaleza de la realidad” (365-366). Ahora la textura de la polis depende de una ingeniería hidráulica de la legalidad cuya finalidas es el manteninimietno del orden de lo civil. En efecto, la circularidad entre orden y civilidad emerge como un proyecto de “creciente subjetivismo” (growling subjetivism, Jaeger dixit), a tal punto que en Platón el estado se entiende como una gigantesca abstracción pedagógica (366). De alguna manera la paideia del estado orientado hacia lo Justo requiere de un dispositivo educativo hegemónico que termina reemplazando la centralidad del derecho, o al menos volviéndolo secundario.

Pero Jaeger insiste que la palabra final de Platón sobre el derecho no se encuentra en el organización pedagógica de La República, y que al final de su obra el filósofo regresa a la cudestion de las leyes. En Las leyes enfrecerá una noción de derecho positivo mediante un protector guardían del derecho que legisla a partir de un principio de racionalidad del derecho (una integridad interna, tal y como luego lo entendería Lon Fuller en The Morality of Law). Pero será en el diálogo Minos, cuya autoría de Platón es cuestionada, en donde se define el ejercicio del derecho como “technē”. Según Jaeger la technē habilita el descubrimiento de una cosa real contra el dogma poleos de la decisión del estado (370). En otras palabras, es mediante la techné que el derecho se orienta hacia el ser verdadero de las cosas a pesar de la positivización de las leyes de una comunidad política. Esa verdad no es reconocida en la legitimidad de un “pueblo” sino en el logos del guardián.

En este punto reaparece aquí la diferenciación entre derecho y Justicia o “verdad”, que en Platón se tematiza como la diferencia absoluta entre filosofia y derecho en el momento de la consolidación administrative, aunque el estado es el portador de la Ley como medio para la verdad de las cosas. Este es el resto cosmológico en el pensamiento platónico para una época en su momento ya dominada por la visión sofística de la validación del derecho como paradigma subjetivo en la construcción de la realidad; un sentido de realidad que luego la jurisprudencia romana perfeccionará bajo la rubrica de la “-res” [2]. El artificio consistirá, por un lado, en la construcción de un sentido ordenado de la realidad; y, por otro, de una estratificación de valores asumido por la producción de una normatividad. La mirada de Jaeger en la génesis griega constituye, de esta manera, algo así como una urgeschichte de la consolidación del ius romana y del desarrollo clásico del imperium del derecho.

.

.

Notas 

1. Werner Jaeger. “Praise of Law: the origins of legal philosophy and the Greeks” (1947), en Interpretations of Modern Legal Philosophies (New York, 1947).

2. Yan Thomas. L’istituzione della natura (Quodlibet, 2020).

Notas de seminario sobre el pensamiento de Emanuele Coccia (II). Por Gerardo Muñoz

Quiero darle cierta continuidad a la primera sesión del curso con Rodrigo Karmy sobre el pensamiento de Emanuele Coccia. Dada la riqueza de esta segunda sesión, me temo que se me hace imposible hacerme cargo de todos hilos de la conversación, por lo que tan solo quiero fijar algunos de los momentos que a mi me parecen los más estimulantes. Obviamente que yo invitaría a otros participantes a que hagan los suyos. En realidad, si algo meritorio tiene la obra de Coccia es la manera en que deja abiertos estos posibles. En efecto, no es algo que podamos decir de todos los pensadores contemporáneos. De alguna manera decir esto ya nos abre un camino, nos despeja una zona de intercambio. Karmy recordó la importancia del muro en Coccia, donde pareciera jugarse la impronta de la imaginación del poder en toda su fuerza medial. Ya en la primera sesión José Miguel Burgos nos había advertido que Coccia parte de la ausencia de arcanos. Evitar arcanos supone dejar atrás la teología, pero también el ‘contrapoder’, ese artificio mimético tan caro en todas las teorías de la hegemonía.

Pero yo quise insistir que el muro es, además de medio sensible, una frontera. Aparece aquí la cuestión del límite, y por lo tanto, del nomos. Es lo que ha estudiado con un esmero admirable la pensadora Aida Miguéz Barciela en Talar madera: Naturaleza y límite en el pensamiento griego antiguo (La Oficina, 2017), un ensayo sobre la separación de la physis en el mundo griego. Pero esa demarcación es el archê de todo nomoi. ¿Es Coccia, entonces, un pensador que buscar devolvernos al problema de la génesis de la civilización? ¿Es posible, en todo caso, dar un paso atrás del archê civilizatorio? Una vez Coccia me dijo que el lugar del filósofo es el afuera absoluto, donde las ciudades, la civilización, y las leyes ya no tienen sentido (ver aquí). Pero una cosa es decir y otra hacer. Si civilización es demarcación y principio de ley de la tierra, entonces, necesitaríamos un paso atrás con respecto a la función nomica de toda apropiación. Desde luego, en sus libros posteriores Coccia se mueve en esta dirección. Es algo sobre lo que volveremos.

Sin embargo, la cuestión es cómo hacerlo, y no simplemente hacer otra cosa. Aquí el “paso atrás” es importante. Gonzalo Díaz Letelier recordó que el Heidegger lector de Hölderlin (lo hemos comentado aquí) advierte que la esencia de la polis no es política. Hay un problema de distancia y irreductibilidad de los entes. Esto ha sido discutido ampliamente por Alberto Moreiras (ver su ensayo “Cercanía contra comunidad”). En este sentido, Coccia no sería un pensador de la política ni de lo impolítico (cuya sombra comunitaria resta en el munus), sino del éxodo. Por eso es necesario – decíamos en el seminario – llevar a un cuestionamiento sistemático el viejo proyecto de una “antropología filosófica”, que depende irremediablemente de un “principio de realidad”. Para Karmy, en efecto, lo que se juega aquí es una “des-antropologizacion de la imaginación”, que vendría a constatar un principio de ‘hiperrealismo’ normativo. ¿Pero no hay aquí una traza de realismo ya caída hacia la técnica consumada de la hipótesis cibernética? Y entonces, si esto es así, ¿acaso tiene sentido que sigamos hablando de “libertad” dentro de una axiomática regulativa de la acción? En cualquier caso, ¿qué es la “libertad”? Yo creo que a estas alturas interesa bastante poco el viejo debate de la “libertad de los modernos y de los antiguos” (Skinner) de un liberalismo que sobrevive hoy con aparatos respiratorios. Hay que buscar otra cosa.

Dice Karmy: “la vida sensible es la libertad”. Un apotegma importante porque pone la libertad bajo la sombra de otra cosa. Nicel Mellado introdujo aquí una inflexión realmente importante: ¿tienen “libertad” las marionetas? Por ejemplo, el teatro, ¿es realmente un espacio de liberación, o una liberación de la libertad? La figura de la marioneta prepara una salida de la acción, puesto que su región no es “subjetiva” ni “voluntarista” ni “télica”. Como sabia Kleist, la marioneta tiene gesto y voz, movimiento y ritmo. Esta configuración desplaza completamente la primacía del “sujeto político” moderno hacia otros posibles usos. Sin embargo, tal y como lo veo, la medialidad no puede ser un proceso simplemente infinito; no puede serlo si no quiere convertirse en un absoluto. (Recuerdo que Blumenberg escribe en alguna parte que el averroísmo fue alto precio que la filosofía medieval tuvo que pagar por no asumir adecuadamente las cesuras del corpus aristotélico; algo que nos sirve para discutir varias cosas). Habría, entonces, una tercera opción (contra el tomismo de la persona y la medialdiad de todo), que tiene que ver con el uso de la razón. Como sabemos, lo que se usa nos organiza de otro modo, y eso nos piensa. Para habilitar el pensamiento, el uso necesita un corte o una separación con los propios medios que nos atraviesan. No estoy seguro si esta operación esta en Coccia, o si, por el contrario, es algo a lo que nos abre su obra.

Creo que vale la pena ‘presionar’ un poco más sobre este límite. ¿Qué es un medio? Y, ¿cómo entro en relación con la medialidad (metaxy) desde la facticidad de la existencia? De la misma manera que si “todo es política” nada es lo es, si dispongo de “toda la medialdiad” entonces no hay medios que preserven la potencia del uso. Y es en el uso donde entro en relación con el mundo y las cosas. Los medios me llevan a las todas las cosas, pero sabemos que lo esencial es atravesar aquellas cosas que tengo como mis verdades.

Surge otra pregunta, y aquí voy cerrando: ¿es lo mismo cosmos y mundo para Coccia? ¿Habrían trade-offs en estos tropoi para tomar distancia de la reducción de la experiencia en el globo, ya siempre trasladado a la disposición y la intercambiabilidad de todas las cosas que están? Somos cosmos, sí, pero también pisamos tierra. Y pisar tierra tiene nos pone ante lo que brilla, ante el “glamur” en el cual las cosas aparecen en el límite de su diferenciación (Heidegger). ¿Glamur contra lujo? Esto abre cancha para seguir conversando. 

 

 

*Imagen: Emanuele Coccia en la Universidad de Princeton, abril de 2016. Foto de mi colección personal.