il Fatto Quotidiano
Renato Perina
The omnipotent drift of psychologism and more generally of the applied social sciences are at the origin of events such as those of bibbiano. The obsession of specialists with the word science, the claim of certain, strong and solid knowledge leads to presumption, arrogance and possibly oppression for good.
But the technique and its linguistic-terminological apparatuses and the knowledge that derive from it always and implicitly impose their own will, and the specialists in the social sciences and humanities do so away with the legitimisation of degrees and certifications similar to the humanities and social sciences in which it now prevails, and absurdly, a transmission of knowledge is more naturalistic than humanistic.
The problem of bibbiano is then also in those formative processes that produce specialists of the human being and of society, of human relationships, framed in devices of knowledge and research that are inspired more willingly by the dsm of the American Psychiatric Association, obsessive methodologies and surroundings, rather than the philosophical tradition, mother of all these alleged sciences. And here it would be interesting to know how many studies of philosophy or existential psychology are today prescribed to obtain titles that allow then evaluations on human behaviors never objectively measurable. I wonder if for example Heidegger, husserl, Jaspers, binswanger, Kierkegaard, Sartre, Pasolini can make a little space between methods, research techniques, analysis, design and evaluation of intervention which are certainly useful if they formalize a substance.
In the name of scientific knowledge it is easier to take a child away from perhaps inadequate families, but they certainly cannot defend themselves against specialist diagnoses that decree the good or evil of a creature in the name of certain knowledge.
Beyond the bibbiano crap, this is the point that generates the possibility to recur in soft forms, less waffle, in good faith and according to the law of such facts. I know many specialists who, far from being ridiculous solons or beautiful souls of the human and social sciences, have not lost their humanity and feed their profession and search for the doubts inherent in their own lives. They are people for whom poverty, social injustice, cultural misery and the resulting problems are not just sociological and economic data, but central questions and continuous provocations to a thought that escapes the omnipotent delirium of the word science.
Contemporary cultural and socio-economic scenarios are, however, hostage to interpretative models increasingly confined to technical-solipsismscientific, harnessed in the paradigms and in the statutes and structures of the humanistic knowledge that monkey the hard science methods and where, in the sure cognitive desire, it is possible to disguise an avid need of control and power (and money).
Nothing to do with real contexts of life, whose understanding demands less specialisms and fragmented knowledge, more doubts and conscience. And they ask for the courage of an indignant denunciation of the lack of cultural quality of a greedy and inept neoliberal system, which risks turning existential suffering into a squalid business.
The omnipotent drift of psychologism and more generally of the applied social sciences are at the origin of events such as those of bibbiano. The obsession of specialists with the word science, the claim of certain, strong and solid knowledge leads to presumption, arrogance and possibly oppression for good.
But the technique and its linguistic-terminological apparatuses and the knowledge that derive from it always and implicitly impose their own will, and the specialists in the social sciences and humanities do so away with the legitimisation of degrees and certifications similar to the humanities and social sciences in which it now prevails, and absurdly, a transmission of knowledge is more naturalistic than humanistic.
The problem of bibbiano is then also in those formative processes that produce specialists of the human being and of society, of human relationships, framed in devices of knowledge and research that are inspired more willingly by the dsm of the American Psychiatric Association, obsessive methodologies and surroundings, rather than the philosophical tradition, mother of all these alleged sciences. And here it would be interesting to know how many studies of philosophy or existential psychology are today prescribed to obtain titles that allow then evaluations on human behaviors never objectively measurable. I wonder if for example Heidegger, husserl, Jaspers, binswanger, Kierkegaard, Sartre, Pasolini can make a little space between methods, research techniques, analysis, design and evaluation of intervention which are certainly useful if they formalize a substance.
In the name of scientific knowledge it is easier to take a child away from perhaps inadequate families, but they certainly cannot defend themselves against specialist diagnoses that decree the good or evil of a creature in the name of certain knowledge.
Beyond the bibbiano crap, this is the point that generates the possibility to recur in soft forms, less waffle, in good faith and according to the law of such facts. I know many specialists who, far from being ridiculous solons or beautiful souls of the human and social sciences, have not lost their humanity and feed their profession and search for the doubts inherent in their own lives. They are people for whom poverty, social injustice, cultural misery and the resulting problems are not just sociological and economic data, but central questions and continuous provocations to a thought that escapes the omnipotent delirium of the word science.
Contemporary cultural and socio-economic scenarios are, however, hostage to interpretative models increasingly confined to technical-solipsismscientific, harnessed in the paradigms and in the statutes and structures of the humanistic knowledge that monkey the hard science methods and where, in the sure cognitive desire, it is possible to disguise an avid need of control and power (and money).
Nothing to do with real contexts of life, whose understanding demands less specialisms and fragmented knowledge, more doubts and conscience. And they ask for the courage of an indignant denunciation of the lack of cultural quality of a greedy and inept neoliberal system, which risks turning existential suffering into a squalid business.
I had it translated by http://www.reverso.net
