Isabel Ferreiro
“The typical aspiration of our age (…) seeks everywhere the integration of opposites rather than their exclusion”, Ortega wrote in 1925. It seems like a dream today that this should be the “typical aspiration” of his time; but if he says so, that’s how it would be or at least how he would see it. He repeats this in 1926: “The sensibility of our time seems guided by a desire to integrate rather than to exclude. Instead of «either one or the other», it aspires to «both of them»”. And he points, as proof, to the Socialist Party of that time, which has “leaped with great sacrifice beyond its partisan shadow” to stand for everyone.
And the fact is that “one who cannot always see a country in its entirety is unfit to lead it”, says Ortega of the politician; but he goes on to say the same of the writer, the professor, the historian, and, of course, the intellectual: “The intellectual cannot, in any sense, be a partisan”. “In the long run, the public respects and cherishes only the writer whose thoughts and feelings on a given matter are not known in advance”.
However, today it is rare to find an intellectual or an artist who does not join the ranks of some faction. There is a perverse moral duty that the artist cannot be “just an artist”, but must be a “committed artist” and take a side. And it seems “one of the things that most outrages certain people is that a person does not align with the party they form, nor with that of their enemies, but rather takes a stance that transcends both, irreducible to either of them”; yet this “demand that all men be partisans is one of the basest, most despicable, and most ridiculous obsessions of our time.” “I do not intend to impose my ethical beliefs on anyone; but it so happens that among those I hold in my heart is the belief that it is morally wrong to be a partisan. Whether the party is socialist or traditionalist makes no difference in this case”.
It makes no difference which of the two one favors, because the mission of culture is to unite; just as “the great duty of the sage, historian, or moralist is to attempt the reconstruction of fundamental unity, to gradually reveal, behind the diversity of men, human unity”. And that is why he refers to his work as a “task of fusion and integration”.
An artist’s political or religious preferences —besides how good the artist may be, they are merely personal opinions not ultimate truth—, when expressed publicly, only serve to further division.
For example, all kinds of people used to go to Bruce Springsteen concerts, coming together for a while and setting aside their political affiliations. But now that he has become politically involved, he is contributing to widening the divide and to the proliferation of mockery, contempt, and even incitement to hatred. What was once a gathering brought about by music has turned into a “good versus bad” scenario.
And “it is precisely this struggle that we have grown tired of. It strikes us as a geometric battle between two impossible definitions,” says Ortega. But here’s the problem: it doesn’t seem like we’ve all grown tired of it. We continue to encourage confrontation. Groups form around almost everything. Feminists, Democrats, and even vegetarians often seem to define themselves against an enemy. The enemy sells and serves too many interests; that is why it is constantly kept alive. And if it doesn’t exist, it’s manufactured.
We have seen that “being in favor of” is, above all, “being against”. And “I believe we all have an obligation to overcome the barbaric and inferior tendency within us to become passionate about an idea or person, thereby blinding ourselves to other ideas and people”.
In truth, “there is nothing in the world that is justified in isolation”. Not even freedom; for, while “one cannot live without freedom, (…) many things are necessary for life, and freedom must be made malleable in order to coexist with them. Freedom and everything”. The goal must therefore be “to exclude all exclusion”.
Today we begin to see, as soon as we focus our gaze, that even opposing spiritual modes influence one another, enrich and limit one another, offering us —rather than a choice— a fruitful synthesis. “Instead of «either one or the other», we feel that it would be the best to encompass both”.
Nevertheless, while the other day we saw that saving our circumstance requires not acting as a judge, today Ortega invites us to embrace it as a whole, excluding nothing: to move forward “with these words on our banners: «Both one and the other». Integration, synthesis —not amputations”.
Texts cited:
“Renan” (1909), in People, Works, Things; “The Votes Go to Prison III” (1917); “The Imperative of Intellectuality” (1922); “Ideas from the Castles: Death as Creation” (1925), in El Espectador V; “Vitality, Soul, and Spirit” (1925), in El Espectador V; “The Dislocation and Restoration of Spain” (1926); “Not Being a Party Man” (1930); Rectification of the Republic (1931); “Guillermo Dilthey and the Theory of Life” (1934), in Theory of Andalusia and Other Essays.
Deja una respuesta