It seems that our moment is epoch, it is not limited to temporality, but marks it by a before and a after. There appears to be a change in each feature. Sexuality, nutrition, social control (freedom), health, international relations; culture in the anthropological sense, demography, spatialization beyond the earth; work, energy, nothing like in the past. The new man in a new world. In the long essay about Journal of International Political Studies, directed by Maria Grazia Melchionni, I took care of it. Are we in the perspective of a new man in a new society? Do we have the conscious purpose of a constitutive subject for the society of the future?
From the dominant human “type” to the obscure
Civilizations have built a representative human type. We say: aristocrat, bourgeois, proletarian, peasant, serf, slave, each with precise designations. There was almost generally a dominant “type” that characterized the time. The ruling class makes the view of itself and the era dominant. To the aristocracy, the aristocrat, the lord, the rich man without work, the heir set a magnificent example of bravery. As individuals emerged who enriched themselves with their work, not inheritance, he became well-respected. And the vacant aristocrat was put in second place. The citizen, the self-created man, proud of rising from nothing, came to the stage. Subsequently, he tried to put the worker on the field, the one who possesses his own power in his own arms: and claimed that from him came the wealth which the bourgeoisie said stemmed from his ingenuity.
The relationship between art and the bourgeoisie
For a long time, the bourgeoisie had a relationship with culture, with art. And not just to use art as a source of additional wealth for other sources. But of heartfelt pleasure and to become an “aristocrat”: an educated man not only rich. But the relationship between bourgeoisie and culture was not attractive, the artist regarded the bourgeoisie as a stunning businessman; the bourgeoisie regarded the artist as an irregular exclusion, not always and not entirely obvious. As for the proletariat as a subject or recipient of art, there were hypothetical ignitions of it; an art of the proletariat and against the proletariat branched out without roots. Art had and has had a difficult life for some time, it sought alternative paths from reality. O tried to be completely realistic, but was taken over by ideology, later by the market. Ideology made art above all progressive ideology (not only); the market added value to art according to sales. In both cases, the art was not valued as expressive.
When art rejected media “noise”
When the communication systems were established, the art fell back to media noise. But no mistake is that society has no ideal types, there is no “bourgeois”, there is no proletariat: we are in the generic undifferentiated. Admittedly, the generic undifferentiated is in itself an ideal type, a characteristic, but it is a characteristic of the missing connotation, a characteristic that penetrates the new human being. What does it mean? That the “character” of the future could be a man-woman eating laboratory steaks; speaks all languages that have implanted a translation mechanism that even understands the language of the animals; that it is heterodirected by a central who knows everything about everyone; with replaceable parts (heart, spleen, possibly even sex, whatever it may be); citizen of a place inside the sea, from which he travels by microplane fixed on his back; very ignorant, but with tools that give him omniscience; deprived of stable union with woman-man, certainly not of an exclusive sexuality; unemployed as robots replace it, maintained by the state robot. And the travelers of space, the real future conquest.
Cancellation of art
This fantasy is not unrealistic. We turn to this disubjectivized subject. It will be like this, A RADICAL REPLACEMENT OF INTERIORITY. We want “nanotechnology”: infinitesimal organisms will constitute (replace) our identity. To have favored science degraded to triumphal technology WITHOUT HUMANISTIC CONTROL has aroused, awakens this social reality. Man taken from within. Humanistic civilization was, is man in man, the resonant percussion of emotions, relational passions between people, between people and nature. But the moment inserted microorganisms direct me, I have no reactions like I, I am not I, there is no I that feels by itself. Art disappears with the disappearance of the personal sensing life. The external media and the injected microorganisms will reduce us properties where they want to lead us. The new man is a steered vehicle. As long as there is a remnant of time, it would be necessary to rehumanize the humanistic, aesthetic cure-man, especially when the man had an “inside” that resounded from the outside and an inner that came out, and if he sang, was that he who sang, not a diskette stuck in the brain. Empty. As long as we have time!