O poder das palavras - por Nuno Serras Pereira

01. 01. 2014

Já escrevi por mais de uma vez que se tem que dizer das coisas aquilo que elas são, e se agora torno a insistir no mesmo é por me parecer que muitos, incluindo eu mesmo, ainda não se dão conta da importância do assunto. De facto, abalizados e argutos sociólogos têm vindo a declarar cada vez mais repetidamente que a transformação da cultura não depende tanto da persuasão ou mesmo conversão individual mas sim do poder de nomear as coisas e de se organizar e trabalhar em rede.

Não tratarei agora da “rede” mas limitar-me-ei a dar algumas dicas sobre alguns termos que julgo deverem ser usados não somente para nós ganharmos uma consciência maior dos problemas com que nos defrontamos mas também para desmascarar as manipulações dos inimigos da Família e da pessoa humana, impedindo-os assim de induzirem as mentes em erro.

Não dizer:

Embrião, nem embrião humano (o que já é melhor), mas sim: pessoa humana na sua fase (ou etapa ou estado) embrionária.

Feto, mas sim criança ou bebé nascituro (ou em processo de nascimento).

IVG, mas sim aborto propositado (ou provocado). Com a banalização que impera nos dias de hoje a palavra aborto perdeu muito do horror que evocava. Por isso, ao falar do aborto provocado deve-se dizer homicídio/aborto ou homicídio na forma de aborto (cf. S. João Paulo II, Evangelium vitae, 58).

Grávida ou mulher grávida, mas sim Mãe grávida.

Vou ser pai, ou mãe (ou avô ou avó), quando sabem da concepção de um novo filho/a, mas sim sou pai ou mãe, ou sou de novo pai e mãe, etc.

À espera de um filho deficiente ou portador de deficiência, mas sim gerei ou gerámos, ou, melhor, Deus deu-nos um Seu predilecto, um amigo particular de Jesus, participante de uma missão especial.

PMA – procriação medicamente assistida, quando referido à fecundação extracorpórea, mas sim procriação tecnicamente substituída – os pais são substituídos pelos médicos, pela técnica, no acto de fecundação. Deverá também usar-se a expressão de Ortega y Gasset, a este propósito, “terrorismo dos laboratórios”.

Embriões excedentários, mas sim pessoas humanas na sua fase mais vulnerável, totalmente indefesas e inocentes, que são condenadas ao horror de um concentracionário inferno gelado.

Experimentação embrionária, mas sim cruéis experiências mortais em pessoas, em debilidade extrema, no início das suas vidas. 

Abstractamente, defesa da vida, mas sim defesa da vida de cada pessoa humana desde a sua etapa unicelular até à morte natural.

Dignidade da pessoa, mas sim dignidade, isto é, valor excepcional e transcendente, de cada pessoa.

Uniões homossexuais, mas sim emaranhados (depravados) homossexuais (ou melhor sodomitas).

Casais homossexuais ou do mesmo sexo, mas sim cumplicidades depravadas (legalmente reconhecidas); ou simetrias sexuais incompatíveis.

Divorciados recasados, mas sim pessoas em estado objectivo (independentemente da culpabilidade subjectiva) de adultério. De facto, ou houve casamento rato e consumado ou não o houve; se existiu é impossível contrair novo matrimónio; se pelo contrário não existiu, não houve recasamento nenhum.

Claro que havia muito mais a acrescentar mas não vos quero cansar, prolongando maçudamente a lista. Espero, no entanto, que não só fique claro o que no início dizia, a recordar, a guerra cultural em que nos encontramos será vencida por quem diz a verdade sobre a realidade, nomeando-a adequadamente, mas também que tem sido uma enorme falta de Caridade e de Misericórdia deixarmos que este magnetismo mentiroso a que os nossos inimigos recorrem submeta as multidões e os próprios que a ele recorrem.

À honra e glória de Cristo. Ámen.

Boosters of same-sex parenting rely heavily on sociologists’ surveys. But do these really prove their case? - by Walter R. Schumm

In MercatorNet 

As a sociologist my life is all about creating, taking and interpreting surveys of attitudes and opinions. So I sometimes feel a bit depressed at how knuckle-headed the media can be when reporting about research on same-sex marriage. Let’s look at a slogan which is being repeated over and over: Same-sex parents are just as good at parenting as heterosexuals. This looks simple -- but its simplicity is deceptive. Let me unpack it for you.

What is meant by “same-sex”? 

Two sisters living together to save money, raising children from former husbands who died at a young age? Two bisexual women with children from previous marriages to men? Two lesbians who have each conceived a child by sperm donation? Two gay men who have adopted a child jointly?

Different situations can impact children very differently; thus, it is risky to subsume them all under the one label of “same-sex parent”. Does it mean that one parent had some same-sex experience as a teenager but now is heterosexual? Does it mean that one parent identifies as heterosexual but engages in gay affairs just for the sex? Sexual orientation is defined by attraction, behavior, and identity, with all combinations in between. Does it mean a woman who was raped at age six and became lesbian out of a hatred for her rapist? Does it mean a woman who feels she can be a better mother with another woman at her side rather than a man? Or, are we talking about someone who identifies as a “gay” man because he has found he has no sexual attraction to women or to men?

What is meant by “good”?

Does it mean they are provided adequate nutrition? Does it mean they are growing up with no plans on having sex until they marry? Does it mean they plan on cohabiting before they marry? Are they being raised to believe that they can marry a man or a woman when they marry? To what extent do the children believe in and practice delayed gratification? Are their gender roles distinct from those of the opposite sex? Are they growing up to love and serve God, putting that before personal pleasure or satisfaction? Does it mean they are academically prepared to succeed at the university?

What is meant by “just as”?

Does it mean that in a comparison of two biased non-random convenience samples, small in size, that there was an effect size difference that was moderate in magnitude but not statistically significant? Does it mean that there was a national random sample from which groups were compared with adequate statistical power to detect even small effect sizes? Were appropriate statistics used to make the comparisons?

What is meant by “parenting”?

Does it mean the parent is biologically related to the child? Does it mean that the parent spends only one day every two weeks with the child because of custody disputes? Does it mean that the father is the child’s biological father but the father has long ago disappeared and has not seen the child in the past ten years? Does it mean that the parent is “around” but for all practical purposes the child is being raised by a nanny? Does it mean that the parent has so much money that paid employees are, for all practical purposes, raising the child?

What is meant by “heterosexuals”?

Are these folks legally married? Cohabiting? In a civil union? Is the parent heterosexual but parenting alone because of the death or separation from the other person? Are the parents heterosexuals with a per capita family income (two parents earning $40,000 a year with six children) of a tenth of what the per capita family income of the comparison group (eg, one lesbian parent earning $100,000 a year with one child) happens to be?

What does the research say?

What may look simple on the surface can be pretty complicated. Research has been very limited in the past but is getting better. So what do we know?

First, despite continued denials, it appears that children of gay-lesbian-bisexual (GLB) parents are more likely to grow up to engage in same-sex sexual behavior, at least on an experimental basis, or to identify as GLB, than children of heterosexual parents.

This may be related to the evidence that GLB parents are much more flexible about or tolerant of their children adopting a non-heterosexual orientation than are most heterosexual parents. There is some evidence that sexual behavior by heterosexual children of same-sex parents is less traditional (cohabit sooner, more likely to have sex before marriage).

Second, if same-sex parents have long-term stable relationships, their children may do as well in some areas (psychological adjustment, school success), at least as reported by the parent (we have less information in terms of child reports or independent observers). However, same-sex parents (in contrast to same-sex couples, whose relationships may be as stable) appear to have far less stable relationships than heterosexual married, even cohabiting couples. That is, instability may be a problem for children, for both same-sex and heterosexual families. But the risk is greater for the former and their children on average may be disadvantaged.

Third, there is growing evidence that the gender roles of the children of same-sex couples, including adoptive same-sex couples, are more “flexible”. What that means in practice is that among the children of heterosexuals, the most masculine girl scores well below the average score for boys while the most feminine of boys scores well above the average score for girls. Among the children of same-sex parents, it is not uncommon for the most masculine girls to score above the average for boys and for the most feminine of boys to score below the average for girls (ie, much greater overlap of the distributions, which are also closer to each other).

Fourth, there is growing evidence that the children of same-sex couples may be more likely to use or abuse illegal drugs. This may reflect greater such drug usage by homosexuals in general or may reflect less parental training in delayed gratification by same-sex parents. Evidence is mounting that same-sex persons are more likely to have a background of childhood sexual abuse, which might or might not play into how they parent, if they become parents.

Because of selective reporting by most media, it is likely that most readers have never heard of much of this information.

If parents have a DNA relationship to a child, they take better care of the child. (I am referring to research that live-in boyfriends tend to abuse their girlfriend’s children more than do biological fathers.) In the traditional marriage, both parents have a DNA relationship to all of their children. This creates a quandary in that while we want to be supportive of all families and may need to be more supportive of non-DNA families, we really want as a society overall to encourage parenting by stable-relationship parents who are the biological parents of the child.

Who is doing the heavy lifting?

From another angle, we want to reward those in society who do the most difficult “emotional work”. Anyone who has ever tried living with a member of the opposite sex knows that it is emotional work and that it is not always easy.

There are numerous ways in which gender makes for conflict in heterosexual relationships. In terms of happiness in heterosexual relationships, if there are differences, it is most often that the woman is less happy.

It is clear that one result of no-fault divorce has been the feminization of poverty in which women lose much of their socioeconomic status after a divorce, even though they are more often responsible for the care of the children. If we begin to treat same-sex lesbian marriages as the same as heterosexual ones, what are we really telling young women? Go ahead and marry a man because this is good for society (both of you will have a DNA relationship to the child and your relationship will be more stable, which is good for the child) but you will have to accept the risk of a greater likelihood of being unhappy and of being ruined financially if your unhappiness leads to divorce, not to mention all the gender-related or sexuality-related conflicts you will have to endure even if you do not divorce.

But, we will grant the same benefits and respect to other women who bypass all those risks and dangers by hooking up with another woman. Will not this make women who marry men look and feel a bit like fools?

And what about men?

Research is clear that gay men usually feel OK about sex outside a civil union or marriage, often by mutual consent. How often will a heterosexual married man get “mutual” consent from his wife to have an affair? Some recent research with lesbians has found that some of them look forward to marriage precisely because marriage would make having sex outside the marriage easier on the relationship. This is the exact opposite of what occurs for most heterosexual couples. That is, how many heterosexual women look forward to marriage so their husband can start having sex with other women or so they can start having sex with other men?

In other words, one cost of marriage for heterosexuals is sexual restriction, which may involve personal sacrifice. With same-sex marriage, that social norm will decline further in strength, in my estimation.

Thus, heterosexual men and women are doing what society calls for -- but we will be punishing them for it. It’s like telling a soldier: we need you to go and fight the enemy face-to-face 24 hours a day and to risk maiming and death. But we, in order to be “fair”, are going to grant the same respect, rank, promotions, or veterans benefits and privileges to soldiers who stayed home and worked only eight hours a day out of air conditioned buildings.

The challenge of proving the “harm”

The evidence, including my own research, suggests that same-sex couples are happier than opposite-sex couples. And why not? Sociology can only capture part of the spectrum of human happiness. If a survey defines it as fewer hassles, less conflict over gender-related issues or sexuality issues, more disposable income and less fretting about children, what would you expect?

But if we grant same-sex couples equality, we will create a grander inequality for the far larger proportion of society who accept the “challenges” (ie, the greater risks and costs) of living heterosexually while providing society with greater benefits in terms of greater stability and care for their own biologically-related children.

If you say “prove the harm”, I say, OK, how would you prove harm if all combat pay and decorations were eliminated in order to be “fair” and to create equality for non-combat soldiers? After all, some soldiers may not feel they were “born for” combat, may not feel attracted to it, may feel unsuited for it, yet they are soldiers. Surely they deserve the same respect, honor, and compensation?

If all benefits were “equalized”, and the military found it more difficult to get volunteers for battle, it could always be blamed on something else. If re-enlistment rates went down, it would be blamed on inadequate retention pay. The military could demand that all soldiers face combat. If the soldiers who were forced into combat against their will didn’t perform well, it could be blamed on bad leadership at the unit level.

I am not sure you could ever prove harm to the satisfaction of those who demanded the elimination of all differential pay and benefits for combat veterans versus non-combat veterans.

Proving the “harm” of same-sex marriage is similar. No matter what you find in the research, it will be denigrated and dismissed by those in favor of same-sex marriage. The reality is that US states are aligned on a sexual freedom continuum that includes a number of matters (sex before marriage, cohabitation, same-sex marriage, acceptance of divorce, etc.) related to the so-called Second Demographic Transition. Trying to separate the effects of same-sex marriage from the entire cluster of changes is like asking which bee of the five that stung you did the most damage. No matter what, the other four bees can almost always be blamed more than the fifth bee.

It is my opinion that for a social system to work optimally, everyone should play by the same rules, with a few exceptions (eg, disabilities). Marriage has traditionally meant sexual fidelity, at least in principle. It has meant two people of different genders working through gender conflicts. It has meant two people committing themselves to each other for a lifetime. It has meant having children that are biologically related to both parents or being supportive of others who have such children. It has meant raising children who are not ashamed of being a boy or a girl.

If we are to begin saying that sexual fidelity is not really all that important, that having children is not all that important, that accepting gender role conflicts is something to bypass if possible, that gender roles are not all that important for children, or that long-term relationship stability is not all that important, we are really saying this: people can pick and choose which rules to play by with the right to reject any rules, restrictions, or limits that they don’t like.

Allowing everyone to make up their own rules may sound like a wonderful freedom, but consider what would happen if football was played with no rules or no referees? What if the Geneva Conventions for warfare were handled that way (it’s up to each soldier to follow or not follow them, with no consequences either way)? What if children could choose what homework assignments to do or not do? Even those who are pro-gay recognize this principle latently when they criticize how some places allow same-sex marriage and others do not (ie, the rules/laws change from place to place and are not the same for everybody).

If folks want the same benefits of marriage, they should be willing to play by the same rules. Research tells us that this is not the case at present and logic suggests it may never be. If the rules do not matter any longer or if everyone can make up their own rules as they go along, the meaning of marriage changes substantially from what it has been traditionally.

As a sociologist my life is all about creating, taking and interpreting surveys of attitudes and opinions. So I sometimes feel a bit depressed at how knuckle-headed the media can be when reporting about research on same-sex marriage. Let’s look at a slogan which is being repeated over and over: Same-sex parents are just as good at parenting as heterosexuals. This looks simple -- but its simplicity is deceptive. Let me unpack it for you.
What is meant by “same-sex”?
Two sisters living together to save money, raising children from former husbands who died at a young age? Two bisexual women with children from previous marriages to men? Two lesbians who have each conceived a child by sperm donation? Two gay men who have adopted a child jointly?
Different situations can impact children very differently; thus, it is risky to subsume them all under the one label of “same-sex parent”. Does it mean that one parent had some same-sex experience as a teenager but now is heterosexual? Does it mean that one parent identifies as heterosexual but engages in gay affairs just for the sex? Sexual orientation is defined by attraction, behavior, and identity, with all combinations in between. Does it mean a woman who was raped at age six and became lesbian out of a hatred for her rapist? Does it mean a woman who feels she can be a better mother with another woman at her side rather than a man? Or, are we talking about someone who identifies as a “gay” man because he has found he has no sexual attraction to women or to men?
What is meant by “good”?
Does it mean they are provided adequate nutrition? Does it mean they are growing up with no plans on having sex until they marry? Does it mean they plan on cohabiting before they marry? Are they being raised to believe that they can marry a man or a woman when they marry? To what extent do the children believe in and practice delayed gratification? Are their gender roles distinct from those of the opposite sex? Are they growing up to love and serve God, putting that before personal pleasure or satisfaction? Does it mean they are academically prepared to succeed at the university?
What is meant by “just as”?
Does it mean that in a comparison of two biased non-random convenience samples, small in size, that there was an effect size difference that was moderate in magnitude but not statistically significant? Does it mean that there was a national random sample from which groups were compared with adequate statistical power to detect even small effect sizes? Were appropriate statistics used to make the comparisons?
What is meant by “parenting”?
Does it mean the parent is biologically related to the child? Does it mean that the parent spends only one day every two weeks with the child because of custody disputes? Does it mean that the father is the child’s biological father but the father has long ago disappeared and has not seen the child in the past ten years? Does it mean that the parent is “around” but for all practical purposes the child is being raised by a nanny? Does it mean that the parent has so much money that paid employees are, for all practical purposes, raising the child?
What is meant by “heterosexuals”?
Are these folks legally married? Cohabiting? In a civil union? Is the parent heterosexual but parenting alone because of the death or separation from the other person? Are the parents heterosexuals with a per capita family income (two parents earning $40,000 a year with six children) of a tenth of what the per capita family income of the comparison group (eg, one lesbian parent earning $100,000 a year with one child) happens to be?
What does the research say?
What may look simple on the surface can be pretty complicated. Research has been very limited in the past but is getting better. So what do we know?
First, despite continued denials, it appears that children of gay-lesbian-bisexual (GLB) parents are more likely to grow up to engage in same-sex sexual behavior, at least on an experimental basis, or to identify as GLB, than children of heterosexual parents.
This may be related to the evidence that GLB parents are much more flexible about or tolerant of their children adopting a non-heterosexual orientation than are most heterosexual parents. There is some evidence that sexual behavior by heterosexual children of same-sex parents is less traditional (cohabit sooner, more likely to have sex before marriage).
Second, if same-sex parents have long-term stable relationships, their children may do as well in some areas (psychological adjustment, school success), at least as reported by the parent (we have less information in terms of child reports or independent observers). However, same-sex parents (in contrast to same-sex couples, whose relationships may be as stable) appear to have far less stable relationships than heterosexual married, even cohabiting couples. That is, instability may be a problem for children, for both same-sex and heterosexual families. But the risk is greater for the former and their children on average may be disadvantaged.
Third, there is growing evidence that the gender roles of the children of same-sex couples, including adoptive same-sex couples, are more “flexible”. What that means in practice is that among the children of heterosexuals, the most masculine girl scores well below the average score for boys while the most feminine of boys scores well above the average score for girls. Among the children of same-sex parents, it is not uncommon for the most masculine girls to score above the average for boys and for the most feminine of boys to score below the average for girls (ie, much greater overlap of the distributions, which are also closer to each other).
Fourth, there is growing evidence that the children of same-sex couples may be more likely to use or abuse illegal drugs. This may reflect greater such drug usage by homosexuals in general or may reflect less parental training in delayed gratification by same-sex parents. Evidence is mounting that same-sex persons are more likely to have a background of childhood sexual abuse, which might or might not play into how they parent, if they become parents.
Because of selective reporting by most media, it is likely that most readers have never heard of much of this information.
If parents have a DNA relationship to a child, they take better care of the child. (I am referring to research that live-in boyfriends tend to abuse their girlfriend’s children more than do biological fathers.) In the traditional marriage, both parents have a DNA relationship to all of their children. This creates a quandary in that while we want to be supportive of all families and may need to be more supportive of non-DNA families, we really want as a society overall to encourage parenting by stable-relationship parents who are the biological parents of the child.
Who is doing the heavy lifting?
From another angle, we want to reward those in society who do the most difficult “emotional work”. Anyone who has ever tried living with a member of the opposite sex knows that it is emotional work and that it is not always easy.
There are numerous ways in which gender makes for conflict in heterosexual relationships. In terms of happiness in heterosexual relationships, if there are differences, it is most often that the woman is less happy.
It is clear that one result of no-fault divorce has been the feminization of poverty in which women lose much of their socioeconomic status after a divorce, even though they are more often responsible for the care of the children. If we begin to treat same-sex lesbian marriages as the same as heterosexual ones, what are we really telling young women? Go ahead and marry a man because this is good for society (both of you will have a DNA relationship to the child and your relationship will be more stable, which is good for the child) but you will have to accept the risk of a greater likelihood of being unhappy and of being ruined financially if your unhappiness leads to divorce, not to mention all the gender-related or sexuality-related conflicts you will have to endure even if you do not divorce.
But, we will grant the same benefits and respect to other women who bypass all those risks and dangers by hooking up with another woman. Will not this make women who marry men look and feel a bit like fools?
And what about men?
Research is clear that gay men usually feel OK about sex outside a civil union or marriage, often by mutual consent. How often will a heterosexual married man get “mutual” consent from his wife to have an affair? Some recent research with lesbians has found that some of them look forward to marriage precisely because marriage would make having sex outside the marriage easier on the relationship. This is the exact opposite of what occurs for most heterosexual couples. That is, how many heterosexual women look forward to marriage so their husband can start having sex with other women or so they can start having sex with other men?
In other words, one cost of marriage for heterosexuals is sexual restriction, which may involve personal sacrifice. With same-sex marriage, that social norm will decline further in strength, in my estimation.
Thus, heterosexual men and women are doing what society calls for -- but we will be punishing them for it. It’s like telling a soldier: we need you to go and fight the enemy face-to-face 24 hours a day and to risk maiming and death. But we, in order to be “fair”, are going to grant the same respect, rank, promotions, or veterans benefits and privileges to soldiers who stayed home and worked only eight hours a day out of air conditioned buildings.
The challenge of proving the “harm”
The evidence, including my own research, suggests that same-sex couples are happier than opposite-sex couples. And why not? Sociology can only capture part of the spectrum of human happiness. If a survey defines it as fewer hassles, less conflict over gender-related issues or sexuality issues, more disposable income and less fretting about children, what would you expect?
But if we grant same-sex couples equality, we will create a grander inequality for the far larger proportion of society who accept the “challenges” (ie, the greater risks and costs) of living heterosexually while providing society with greater benefits in terms of greater stability and care for their own biologically-related children.
If you say “prove the harm”, I say, OK, how would you prove harm if all combat pay and decorations were eliminated in order to be “fair” and to create equality for non-combat soldiers? After all, some soldiers may not feel they were “born for” combat, may not feel attracted to it, may feel unsuited for it, yet they are soldiers. Surely they deserve the same respect, honor, and compensation?
If all benefits were “equalized”, and the military found it more difficult to get volunteers for battle, it could always be blamed on something else. If re-enlistment rates went down, it would be blamed on inadequate retention pay. The military could demand that all soldiers face combat. If the soldiers who were forced into combat against their will didn’t perform well, it could be blamed on bad leadership at the unit level.
I am not sure you could ever prove harm to the satisfaction of those who demanded the elimination of all differential pay and benefits for combat veterans versus non-combat veterans.
Proving the “harm” of same-sex marriage is similar. No matter what you find in the research, it will be denigrated and dismissed by those in favor of same-sex marriage. The reality is that US states are aligned on a sexual freedom continuum that includes a number of matters (sex before marriage, cohabitation, same-sex marriage, acceptance of divorce, etc.) related to the so-called Second Demographic Transition. Trying to separate the effects of same-sex marriage from the entire cluster of changes is like asking which bee of the five that stung you did the most damage. No matter what, the other four bees can almost always be blamed more than the fifth bee.
It is my opinion that for a social system to work optimally, everyone should play by the same rules, with a few exceptions (eg, disabilities). Marriage has traditionally meant sexual fidelity, at least in principle. It has meant two people of different genders working through gender conflicts. It has meant two people committing themselves to each other for a lifetime. It has meant having children that are biologically related to both parents or being supportive of others who have such children. It has meant raising children who are not ashamed of being a boy or a girl.
If we are to begin saying that sexual fidelity is not really all that important, that having children is not all that important, that accepting gender role conflicts is something to bypass if possible, that gender roles are not all that important for children, or that long-term relationship stability is not all that important, we are really saying this: people can pick and choose which rules to play by with the right to reject any rules, restrictions, or limits that they don’t like.
Allowing everyone to make up their own rules may sound like a wonderful freedom, but consider what would happen if football was played with no rules or no referees? What if the Geneva Conventions for warfare were handled that way (it’s up to each soldier to follow or not follow them, with no consequences either way)? What if children could choose what homework assignments to do or not do? Even those who are pro-gay recognize this principle latently when they criticize how some places allow same-sex marriage and others do not (ie, the rules/laws change from place to place and are not the same for everybody).
If folks want the same benefits of marriage, they should be willing to play by the same rules. Research tells us that this is not the case at present and logic suggests it may never be. If the rules do not matter any longer or if everyone can make up their own rules as they go along, the meaning of marriage changes substantially from what it has been traditionally.
- See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/unpacking_the_slogans#sthash.ZutCXwtB.dpuf

Alla ricerca del corpo perduto - Michaela Liuccio

ROMA, sabato, 12 novembre 2011 (ZENIT.org).- Chiudiamo il nostro Speciale con la conferenza “Alla ricerca del corpo perduto: il corpo nella società contemporanea”, di Michaela Liuccio, professore aggregato di Sociologia dell'Università “La Sapienza” di Roma.

***

Fattori sociali ed economici hanno creato una dimensione nuova dell'intero sistema scienza-salute-benessere: alla soddisfazione dei bisogni primari si è progressivamente affiancata la ricerca del benessere fisico e mentale. Attraverso un crescente processo di democratizzazione dell'informazione scientifico-sanitaria si è diffusa una consapevole partecipazione dei cittadini alla conoscenza e all'utilizzo dei determinanti della salute, intesi non solo come contesti salutari ma come prodotti e servizi.

Oggi la vita e il corpo si possono gestire. La vita si produce, si costruisce nel mondo della tecnica e del progresso. Dopo l’era della natura e del destino, dunque, si scopre l’era della scelta che è poi anche quella del mercato. L’uomo medio del XXI secolo è chiamato a gestire un capitale di lunga vita di cui sarà responsabile, di cui porterà avanti il consumo e di cui determinerà la fine. Quella della produzione dei corpi e della produzione della vita è senza dubbio la sfida più notevole del nuovo secolo, che abbraccia la sfera politica, sociale, economica e scientifica della condizione umana.

La trasformazione della condizione umana passa dai confini progettuali della politica, ormai svuotata, alle mani della scienza e del mercato. Sterilità, invecchiamento, menopausa, male di vivere, passione: tutto si può riparare se viene posto un prezzo e se viene offerto dal mercato. Si tratta di una nuova economia che si diffonde, un’economia che ha come oggetto e come ragione il corpo. Questo mercato della riparazione e della trasformazione si avvicina più a quello della cura del proprio corpo, della rimessa in forma, anche con l’uso dei cosmetici, che a quello della salute vera e propria. Del resto anche la concentrazione dei budget della ricerca scientifica in questi settori conferma il trionfo del mercato dell’immagine di sé. Nel campo della lotta all’invecchiamento o di quello del trattamento della sterilità, campi limite della salute, o a volte anche fuori della salute stessa, si sono compiuti ultimamente numerosi progressi. Possiamo scegliere quello che siamo, abbiamo la libertà nei confronti del corpo, del sesso, della razza, per poter in ogni luogo e tempo affermare il nostro diritto di essere non quello che si è ma quello che si vuole. Ognuno oggi è “il designer o l’architetto di se stessa”, e opera evidentemente sul proprio corpo, dando vita ad una sorta di self-packaging.

In tutti i paesi sviluppati, progressivamente la spesa sanitaria per il confort e per il benessere sta diventando superiore a quella del PIL e dell’inflazione. Certo la predilezione per le spese di salute rispetto agli altri consumi cresce parallelamente all’età media della popolazione e alla libertà dei prezzi, delle offerte e della concorrenza. Nel corso di dieci anni più di un quarto del PIL mondiale potrebbe dipendere da un settore economico formatosi grazie a unioni tra società private ed enti pubblici in questo campo, tra fabbriche di cosmetici, ad esempio, ed enti sanitari, tra industriali dell’agro-alimentare e centri di fitness, tra colossi dell’elettronica e centri di apparecchiatura per il corpo (protesi, sistemi sottocutanei di ricevimento, ecc.). Questo settore aumenta di pari passo con il reddito e occupa il primo posto nella struttura dei consumi personali. Per altro, se si dovesse tener conto di tutte le spese di salute che rientrano nella definizione fornita dall’Organizzazione Mondiale della Sanità, ovvero che mirano ad assicurare in modo durevole “il benessere fisico, mentale e psichico della persona”, si dovrebbero aggiungere alle spese per la sanità pubblica quelle mediche di comfort, come la chirurgia estetica, le spese per la forma fisica e la cura del corpo, le spese per le cure di bellezza che contribuiscono all’immagine e alla soddisfazione di sé. Senza poi dimenticare le spese che riguardano la pratica di uno o più sport, le spese per le terapie analitiche e per le droghe legali che calmano i tormenti interiori.

Sempre più spesso oggi gli individui percepiscono quotidianamente di non avere sufficiente tempo per poter stare al passo con lo sviluppo ipertrofico della società. La percezione di una carenza di tempo e la tendenza a dormire sempre meno producono l’insonnia. Ma dormendo poco, l’organismo non libera la leptina (l’ormone che inibisce la sensazione della fame), bensì la grelina, che stimola invece l’appetito. Ne deriva che l’individuo tende progressivamente a ingrassare. Anche il Dai (disturbo da alimentazione incontrollata) è un importante segnale in questo senso. Altra conseguenza è l’assenza di limiti, perché l’esperienza della mancanza è considerata dagli psicologi fondamentale per lo sviluppo di una solida personalità individuale. La formazione di una personalità in un contesto in cui i divieti sono sostituiti dai godimenti può produrre nell’individuo una condizione di angoscia. L’angoscia del bambino si crea soprattutto per un’eccessiva disponibilità del seno materno, che crea l’inadeguato sviluppo di un processo di autonomizzazione.

Inoltre l’organismo ha la necessità fisiologica di alternare continuamente attività piacevoli e attività non piacevoli. Se ciò non avviene nasce negli individui il bisogno di fare ricorso a stimoli esterni forti per spezzare la routine della quotidianità e per ricreare una parvenza di alternanza (droghe, alcol). E’ una conseguenza della crescita senza limiti anche l’impegno eccessivo nel lavoro o nello sport per raggiungere risultati sempre più elevati. Se, nonostante l’iperattivismo, gli obiettivi fissati non vengono raggiunti, si produce malessere perché subentra la frustrazione. Da ciò nasce il ricorso a psicofarmaci, droghe, alcol, ma nasce anche la sindrome da stanchezza cronica, cuoriosa malattia dell’ipersviluppo.

Secondo alcuni studiosi americani (Gilman 2006) l’ossessione per il grasso si nutre di ragioni morali molto più che di motivazioni scientifiche. Oggi saremmo di fronte ad un nuovo tipo di maccartismo, una demonizzazione moralistica del grasso che ha l’implicito scopo di isolare e controllare le minoranze etniche e i meno privilegiati. D’altro canto gli appartenenti alle minoranze etniche spesso mangiano di più e peggio proprio per compensare il fatto che sono disprezzate ed emarginate dalla società. Esiste dunque una relazione tra ricchezza, cultura e salute, e non solo per l’accesso a strutture sanitarie e prestazioni mediche qualitativamente migliori, ma anche perché il livello socio culturale implica un rapporto più equilibrato con l’offerta alimentare e una maggiore resistenza allo stress della vita d’oggi. Nella società più avanzata del pianeta si assiste ad una sorta di discriminazione nei disordini alimentari: interessano poco i Wasp e molto le minoranze. Ma il problema non è solo degli Stati Uniti. L’International Obesity Task Force ha recentemente definito l’ambiente della società occidentale obesogeno. In Europa si assiste ad un netto distinguo geografico tra zona settentrionale ed area mediterranea. Il distinguo geografico è confermato anche in Italia, segno dello stretto intreccio tra gestione del corpo e fattori socio-culturali.

Il corpo del migrante, più nella sua veste di immigrato che di quella di emigrante, è per l’immaginario medio privo di una qualsiasi soggettività essendo ritenuto piuttosto un oggetto, una non-persona il cui corpo viene definito dalla percezione e dalla posizione che la società di accoglienza gli accorda. I corpi degli immigrati sono corpi abitati da uomini e donne che si muovono fra altri corpi di uomini e donne alla ricerca di un lavoro e dove l’agognato concetto di benessere e prendersi cura di sé, imperativo categorico onnipresente nelle società del capitalismo avanzato, si traduce semplicemente nella speranza di non ammalarsi per poter lavorare o nella possibilità di una qualche rassicurazione se a quel corpo succede qualcosa. Questo corpo, dunque, diventa per l’immigrato uno strumento, un mero utensile di e da lavoro in termini biologici che è assolutamente estraneo come corpo sociale ma che, al contrario, viene spesso esteticamente definito (Sayad 2003). Ma proprio su questo corpo il disagio intanto si in-scrive, un disagio che forse solo il corpo può narrare.

Come detto in precedenza, il corpo, che in ciò che ha di più naturale in apparenza è un prodotto sociale del processo incorporativo, non può essere studiato che nelle sue rappresentazioni per come viene abitato e quindi utilizzato, modellato, tagliato e ricostruito. Ma se è vero che per molti, evidentemente quelli che vivono in una certa parte del mondo, il corpo si è liberato, affrancato e realizzato, anche se forse solo apparentemente, o quanto meno vi sono strade percorribili per mettere in pratica un progetto sul medesimo (vd. la chirurgia estetica o le nuove frontiere dei trapianti); è altrettanto vero che per altri, ossia gli immigrati, le strade percorribili sono quelle dei percorsi assegnati, dove anche un cambiamento verso l’omologazione può realizzarsi solo a caro prezzo, in termini di energie ma anche in senso economico. In sostanza, mentre per gli uni si tratta di appagare desideri o forse di far vivere un’illusione, per gli altri si tratta di ripiegarsi verso una posizione di annullamento e di invisibilità della soggettività senza trovarsi mai completamente rieducati e disciplinati.

Una delle maggiori contraddizioni della emigrazione e della relativa immigrazione, sta proprio nella relazione della persona con il proprio corpo, inteso quest’ultimo sia come oggetto di presentazione e rappresentazione di sé, sia come luogo degli affetti e dell’intelletto, sia come strumento di lavoro. Rispetto alla relazione che esiste fra l’immigrato, il suo corpo e la società di accoglienza, non possiamo non rilevare quanto il corpo dell’immigrato divenga, talvolta, non solamente “estraneo” ma assolutamente “incomprensibile”. Questo perché ciò che entra in conflitto sono, da un lato, i processi di incorporazione legati all’esperienza socio-culturale nel contesto di provenienza e, dall’altro, il modello che la società “di accoglienza” vorrebbe che l’immigrato incorporasse, nella forma dell’integrazione, spesso semplice acculturazione forzata: una vera e propria rieducazione travestita sotto le mentite e celate spoglie di una interculturalità di superficie che non incide sui caratteri della disuguaglianza. Per comprendere meglio tutte queste dinamiche è necessario mettere a fuoco proprio questo spostamento di attenzione dal corpo-sé al corpo-altro.

Nella società contemporanea emerge sempre più l’importanza e il peso per la medicina dello human enhancement, ovvero del miglioramento umano. Spesso la medicalizzazione nel proporre la cura patologizza la normalità, e le azioni migliorative si innestano sulla normalità per ottimizzarla. Si diffondono farmaci, droghe e interventi per migliorare il corpo. In molti casi i mass media divulgano questo genere di notizie in modo semplicistico, alimentando false aspettative, e, per altro, uno dei rischi maggiori dei discorsi sull’uso di tecnologie per il miglioramento è : l’obliterazione dei fattori sociali ed economici nel disegnare le traiettorie di benessere, salute e malattia delle persone. Si creano così circoli viziosi di scelta, responsabilità, gap, disagio soprattutto a discapito delle classi più deboli culturalmente, socialmente ed economicamente.

Il progetto riflessivo dell’identità personale richiede che il corpo divenga assoggettabile alla volontà e manipolabile, si può dire “mobilitato riflessivamente”. I fattori strutturali del passato tendono a perdere forza (famiglia, welfare state, sindacati, burocrazia amministrativa, classi sociali), e sono stati sostituiti in larga misura dalle strutture dell’informazione e della comunicazione. Ai gruppi ben attrezzati ad impegnarsi nella riflessione su di sé si oppongono gruppi svantaggiati. Chi non è in grado di recepire i nuovi tipi di informazione e non ha accesso ai flussi del sapere, o non è nelle condizioni di apprenderli, è destinato a diventare un “perdente della riflessività”.

Per altro l’industria farmaceutica è, infatti, pronta a cogliere i vantaggi di un nascente mercato bisognoso di strumenti che soddisfino sogni e bisogni, tenendo lontane paure e malattie. Le nuove lifestyle drug americane smaltiscono l’eccessiva dose di alcol, aiutano a superare la timidezza, aumentano la performance sessuale e lavorativa, spostano sempre più la soglia del dolore e della vecchiaia, senza nessuna differenza di età (Critser 2005). Non è un caso che i giovanissimi rappresentino l’ultima conquista del marketing farmaceutico, del resto sono la prima generazione a ricevere informazioni circa il funzionamento di corpo e mente umana dai media anziché dai professionisti.

Infine anche la maternità ben si inserisce in questa complessa gestione del corpo nella società contemporanea. Partorire e mettere al mondo un figlio sono eventi sociali perché hanno a che fare con la funzione sociale di riprodurre la società. Ogni problema/tema che le donne incontrano con la maternità costituisce un problema/tema sociale. Certo per comprendere questi eventi in profondità dobbiamo contestualizzare l’identità sociale della donna che oggi intraprende un percorso procreativo. Le donne partorienti di oggi sembrano meno in grado di trovare da sé la propria forma e modalità di partorire, sono più dipendenti dal parere medico e anche più propense al parto chirurgico, rese convinte di conquistarsi così un ottimo prodotto alla nascita e un corpo (e forse una mente) meno segnata dalla naturalità del dolore.

Il complesso rapporto con la maternità per la donna contemporanea risiede anche nell’ambivalente gestione del proprio corpo. Il corpo della donna di oggi non è più un corpo produttivo per la procreazione, ma è un corpo per sé, performante, identitario che acquista valori e fattezze diverse solo attraverso lo scambio-approvazione con l’altro, nella apparente liquidità dell’assordante immaginario collettivo. Il corpo è oggetto di una costruzione sociale e culturale, e quotidianamente mette in gioco la sua sensibilità a due livelli: quello della percezione sensoriale e quello dell’espressività. In entrambi rientrano l’esperienza della maternità e gli effetti, a breve e lungo termine, che essa porta con sé. Non esiste un esserci corporeo che non sia accompagnato a un tempo da un sentire, un sentire emotivo che si accompagna alle sensazioni corporee e registra, con un senso di benessere o malessere, la qualità dell’ambiente circostante. Parti cesarei e medicalizzazione crescente versus parto a domicilio, parto in acqua, rooming-in in ospedale, campagne di incoraggiamento all’allattamento. Parto naturale versus parto cesareo, con l’uso generalizzato dell’epidurale come modalità per l’espulsione del dolore da corpo della donna. D’altro canto la maternità, durante e dopo, provoca una serie di modifiche sul corpo femminile che mal si conciliano con il narcisismo odierno e la bellezza normativa che lo accompagna. Il modello di corpo contemporaneo è fermo-immagine nella sua giovinezza, molto lontano da tracce di sofferenze, dolore, rigonfiamenti, cambiamenti che la maternità comporta.

BIBLIOGRAFIA

-CRISTER, G., Generation Rx – How prescription drugs are altering American lives, minds and bodies, Mifflin, Houghton, 2005

-GILMAN, S.L., Fat boys: a slim book, University of Nebraska Press, 2006

-SAYAD A., La doppia assenza. Dall’illusione dell’emigrato alle sofferenze dell’immigrato, Raffaello Cortina, Milano, 2003