The self-criticism of self-criticism

Beware of the simplistic interpretation of "distraction." Suddenly, everything has become a "distraction." Of course, in a government like Jair Bolsonaro's, everything seems to be a "distraction," especially since their focus is not on the country or its real problems.

The entire Bolsonaro government is, in itself, a "distraction."

But, within this scope, bizarre statements from ministers, such as that of Minister Damares Alves about "boys and girls," are not a "diversion." They are extremely significant and expose the unimaginative sub-politics of the new government. They are the focus, the thematic focus of the "lack of issues."

These reactive pills of anti-Bolsonarism (I dare to introduce this concept), a field in which I include myself, being excessively prescriptive, end up functioning as vectors of paralysis.

It is necessary to "feel" politics, not treat it like a scientific paper. The reactions to the statements of Damares, Ernesto Araújo, Velez Rodrigues, and even the unparalleled Bolsonaro are important; they mobilize, clarify, and combat the basic political struggle.

Perhaps it's time to reflect on the excess of self-criticism. The left, in essence, has ended up cheaply accepting the demand for self-criticism that the ultraconservative right has been pointing out to it for years. Leftists have a fetish for self-criticism (and this text is self-criticism, the self-criticism of self-criticism).

Under normal conditions (conditions with 'democracy', for example), excessive self-criticism is fundamental. It illuminates.

But in this situation of rhetorical violence, it is paralyzing.

We need to trust intuition more than prescriptions. Lula is like that not because he is special. It's simply because he trusts in the collective and in the capacity that each and every citizen has to formulate solutions to crises and historical impasses.

We all have this ability; we just need to exercise it. Intuition can also be "trained."

The sheer volume of violations and imbecility being enunciated by Bolsonaro's supporters, therefore, is relevant fuel for a reactive synthesis that qualifies, possessing its historical and political legitimacy.

In other words: the discursive mass of absurdities from the group that comes to power can be its ideological "shield," but it can also be its Achilles' heel.

Tensive semiotics, the theory of meanings that permeate discourse, can shed some light on current political perceptions. For this field of knowledge, everything is a matter of "time." Furthermore, it is telling that this statement, "everything is a matter of time," has both popular and theoretical relevance – this affirms its "validity" and its connection to reality.

Based on this theory, it is possible to say that the rhetorical and discursive gestures, actions, and reactions of the opposition require "time" to be properly processed and consolidated as political and historical meanings.

There is, in fact, a phobia of time, which has paralyzed the political response to Bolsonarism. Everything is wanted immediately, in a childish movement similar to Bolsonarism itself. If an action doesn't seem to work, it is abandoned immediately – to put another equally doomed to the same supposed failure in its place, thus, in an endless process (the denial of time, once again).

This mastery of the "time of discourse" is much more likely to be achieved through historical intuition than through movements imbued with "strategism." And it is paradoxical that I invoke a theory to defend the abandonment of theories in the current political field. It is part of the traps of language and discourse, in their muddled production of meaning.

The thesis presented here is relatively simple: when discourses (and society) are highly disorganized, there is no subjective force (individual, programmatic) that can reorganize them. In these cases, they are overtaken by a spontaneous force of discursive and historical reorganization. In other words: frank and spontaneous debate has a greater chance of re-establishing some kind of socio-political logic than impulses of technical control.

This is where intuition comes in – but not an erratic, transcendental intuition, rather a discursive, social intuition: the statements we are able to produce in the face of such a chaotic configuration of discourse act spontaneously as elements of reorganization. They follow a “collective” logic of meaning production, precisely because they are apparently “unstoppable,” “unreflective.”

The key detail in this process is precisely time. It is necessary to allow time to act in the encoding of discourses and statements so that they regain historical and political consistency (lost with Bolsonarism, which basically denies meaning and history).

This movement – ​​which Bakhtin would call “responsive” – is projected in what we call “political passion.” It is necessary to engage in politics with passion; otherwise, technocratic immobility takes over both individuals and pronouncements.

It is in this context that Lula's political omnipresence also comes into play. Lula is the historical figure who created the conditions to "break through" certain 'normative' tendencies of discourse and, at the same time, "sense" the moment and make use of his immense intuition (which is a "worked," "elaborated," "social," "collective" intuition).

The key to success is to "feel" where the universe of social discourse is leading us and to follow that trend, while also elaborating on additional meanings, whether through catchy phrases, slogans, or suggestive theses.

This is the origin of all political force: the sensitivity to sense where the world of language and discourse leads us, while simultaneously carrying out a delicate (subtle) and patient (respecting the timing of social and historical meaning) planned action.

In short: political passion has never been more necessary (in fact, the word passion has temporal connotations, because its etymology implies suffering, a gradual journey: the "passion of Christ"). Only sentiment properly expressed with all its historical truth can overcome this cycle of enunciative aberrations that 'block' meaning and 'dam up' time.

There is still time to do this.