Not only I came up with the idea;
it came talking to CAPAS' directors, mainly Felicitas and Robert. It was about conceiving the end
and what comes after it in the territory,
which is also symbolic, of Latin America. For us, the notion
of rupture was also a way of thinking about the apocalypse and
the post-apocalypse in Latin America, because it's a continent
and a cultural area ripe with contradictions. At the start of its history
we find a huge rupture which, I would say both our colleagues
fro
m CAPAS and me describe as an apocalypse,
as the end of various worlds. It marked at least the end
of a very important world, judging by the way it
had operated up until then: the indigenous worlds that were persecuted, killed, hurt and abused during the conquest. Indigenous worlds
were radically transformed. This left a mark on our continent; this rupture is very much there. We are the cultural children
of many ruptures, many of which have been
transformative and positive. These days Gastón Gor
dillo talked
about the notion of revolution which is something
we find very appealing. This notion is closely
linked to coloniality and to decoloniality, the ways in which
we can decolonialise our thought. We reflect on rupture
as a harrowing experience that may also become creative. So we thought this notion
created a big space for debate. Today, not only in Latin America,
but in the whole world... which we now interestingly tend
to call planet instead of world, as if the world were
a sort of t
otality of sense which is also in crisis and its material
support, the planet, becomes apparent. I think we live in a planet-wide crisis which we can call various names: one of them is "institutional crisis" affecting al sorts of institutions:
the family, the state or university as the institution
of knowledge, and so on. Institutions have been discredited. Politically, it's a crisis affecting
democracy as an institution, especially liberal democracy. However, there is no alternative. This crisi
s is unlike those
in the 20th century, which preceded an often
structural transformation, and, thus, heralded a fundamental
change, a new world vision. Today it seems crises are here to stay, the end is not something announced,
but the space we inhabit. This end, however,
is not the outcome of a tale. We are not reaching the outcome, be it grim or promising, happy; this end keeps dragging out,
there is no outcome, this is a non-narrative ending. In that sense, the concept
of the end of the world
is, in my opinion, a humanist fault. Like the idea of apocalypse, right?
It means a sort of revelation. It is materially a catastrophic moment, but it is also the moment
that reveals the truth of what was history up to that point. Having that in mind, we are not
living in apocalyptic times. Thinking about an upcoming apocalypse placed 10 or 100 years from now, however paradoxical
clinging to a disaster is, it means holding fast
to a humanist concept of conceiving the course of time. That is, a
conception
which entails a sort of tale. Today, however, we inhabit
an ending without outcome, and this brings
unprecedented problems. The biggest challenge
faced today by academia and thought in general
is developing concepts that allow us to consider what is
unprecedented in our situation. It is very tempting to think
it has been going on for long, that institutions
have long been in crisis, that human condition
as it is expressed was already the topic of philosophers
in the 17th and 18th cent
uries. But I don't think so. Precisely this philosophical trope
is worn out. We resort to those concepts sheepishly,
with quotation marks, when we talk about "revolution"
or even "democracy". It can be clearly seen
in youth language. They constantly mime quotation
marks when using terminology: state, democracy, law, person, etc. As if we were aware that
our vocabulary is unfit, not literal, but unfit to designate
the reality and the times we live in. At the same time, we lack new concepts. So, w
e live in an unprecedented,
dangerous and risky moment and this is my way
of understanding the end. Latin America is a unique
place to think about rupture. That is why we gathered here, because it's a place
marked by ruptures: its peoples had their own
historical continuity and it was interrupted by Spanish
and Portuguese colonisation. That was a constitutive rupture. Latin America is a very suitable place to think about trauma and rupture, but also about the ways
in which its peoples cope with
it, how they handle the fractures not only to survive,
but inventing dignified ways to create from within the loss,
the trauma, the mourning. But it's important to acknowledge
memory, trauma and mourning. That is why many of the work
and exhibitions we have seen refer pretty much to that: the way in which Latin America, given its colonial conditioning, meant we had to cope
with trauma and rupture without getting paralysed
or lost in melancholy, or living in a fake state of happiness
that doesn't
face the trauma. Developing this at a political
and aesthetic level is of course a way of showing the world how to cope with such deep
historical and epistemic ruptures which, in many cases,
came to mean the end of the world, especially for indigenous peoples,
as it has often been mentioned. Native Americans lived through
the end of the world many times, but they are not gone, they keep trying to resist and keep sharing their epistemes, depicted as the ways to get
out of this entanglement and s
omehow cope with rupture; like creating a new social bond, stitching or mending the rupture. Si nos fijamos en la experiencia
de los pueblos indígenas que han sufrido siglos de
genocidio, conquistas y violencia, vemos que experimentaron catástrofes
y el fin de sus mundos desde el comienzo
de la colonización europea. Entonces, es a raíz de esta memoria con la que muchos pueblos ameríndios lideran las protestas por el clima
y exigen una relación distinta con el mundo. Recientemente hubo
episodios
más violentos e incluso olas de violencia genocida, sobre todo durante la ola
de dictaduras militares que gobernaron gran parte de América
Latina durante la Guerra Fría y reprimieron las protestas
y los movimientos revolucionarios en episodios de terror
en Chile, Argentina, Guatemala... en todo el continente. Creo que los activistas
latinoamericanos del presente beben de esta memoria
y de este legado de violencia para reavivar los antiguos
movimientos de activismo. Llevo pocos días en Chile,
per
o me parece fascinante: el recuerdo de la insurrección
de 2019 está muy presente y converge con la memoria
del govierno de Allende en los 70, y de la dictadura militar, el referéndum reciente en el que
se rechazó la nueva constitución y cómo la gente todavía
está asimilando el resultado. Cuando llegué a la universidad,
había protestas: antidisturbios, cócteles molotov,
jóvenes enfrentándose a la policía... Fue una muestra de que la sensación
de malestar y el radicalismo todavía perviven en mucho
s lugares
de América Latina, como Chile. Creo que América Latina... sobre todo ante la ola de gobiernos
llamados de centro-izquierda que hubo en gran parte
del continente los últimos 20 años, América Latina está
en la vanguardia global de los movimientos
por la justicia social y climática. He querido pensar la ruptura en otro sentido del fenómeno porque en Brasil hemos experimentado
otro tipo de ruptura, la que propone la extrema derecha. En Brasil vivimos
una especie de paradoja, ya que la rupt
ura siempre fue
un término utópico y revolucionario, pero ahora en Brasil
y en otros lugares de América Latina,
en Estados Unidos y en Europa, los protagonistas de este
movimiento rupturista son los movimientos de la derecha. Esta realidad debería preocuparnos, y deberíamos intentar
entenderla, reflexionarla y combatirla. We should think in terms... those are some of the theories
I will present today... We should think about
"temporalities" in plural. Not only temporality
as a rupture of lineari
ty, but how a given idea
of contemporaneity is linked to the interweaving
of different times, not only to the mere
persistence of the present, or just being here and now. There are various orders and disorders referring to an interplay
of temporalities which, in cinema and visual arts, is very clear in its implications, as the kind of games that today open
what is known as screen arts: cinema, the world of electronic arts, digital creation on screen, etc. There is an interplay of temporalities,
not a rupture of linearity. The first we should consider is that our continent has been
marked by ruptures. The first one was the colonial rupture; it shaped the perception we have of what we are and will become, what the future can be,
but also of the past, a past that was violated, too. A past that was somehow severed by the power, by the conquerors. So, our birth, our beginning in current terms is found
in this huge rupture which was also a way to obscure
those who were vanquished, men, women
, non-binary... Those who had to fight and find creative ways to break through and open paths to new futures. There are peoples
and cultural frameworks that are strained by
colonial power relations, or as professor
Luisa Angela Martínez said, transcolonial: in many ways
they persist until today. So, in that case, rupture starts to look like
a possible way to create, since one needs to close certain paths
in order to open up new ones. In Latin America there
is also a very strong feeling of being
permanently called to action, called to create alternatives because coloniality shapes
everything and affects the way we operate
in our everyday lives. You have probably seen it these days: when we welcome
colleagues from Latin America the dialogue tends to be very fruitful,
very much in agreement, as we acknowledge the situation
of permanent coloniality we experience. There is a strenght that is
not exclusive to Latin America but is found in the peoples:
they resort to creative rupture to open
up new possible worlds. Voy a recurrir de nuevo a Jameson porque creo que esta crisis
del pensamiento apocalíptico o del pensamiento revolucionario,
si se prefiere llamarlo así, está relacionada con
la abolición del pasado y del futuro, y esta especie de presencia imperialista
del presente en nuestras vidas. En América Latina, pues,
vivimos una paradoja. Hemos tenido movimientos de izquierda
muy importantes, como aquí en Chile, que intentan cambiar
la sociedad desde las raíces. Pero también hay
movimientos de derecha que intentan abolir la idea
de un futuro posible. Entonces, de alguna
manera deberíamos recuperar nuestra forma de imaginar
el pasado y del futuro para poder diferenciar y poder... ir más allá de este presente que marca nuestra vida diaria y política. Esta cita de Jameson es muy famosa y se refiere a una de las paradojas
de nuestro tiempo. El cambio climático genera
cada vez más miedo y malestar y esto se refleja en la gran cantidad
de películas postapocalípticas que nos i
ncitan a pensar
en el fin del mundo. Sin embargo, Jameson
y otros pensadores afirman que parece reinar una incapacidad
colectiva de pensar, más allá de la noción de fin del mundo,
en el fin del capitalismo o en el inicio de algo nuevo más allá de las formas capitalistas
de destrucción medioambiental, el trabajo, la explotación. En mi ponencia quise partir
de esa cita de Jameson para imaginar cómo podría ser
un mundo postapocalíptico en contraposición
a imaginar el fin del mundo. Uno de los térmi
nos más potentes
para hablar de ruptura es "revolución". Sobre todo tras la caída
de la Unión Soviética se ha tenido la sensación de que
las revoluciones son cosa del pasado, que no son algo de lo cual
deberíamos hablar; sin embargo, al mismo tiempo,
hace falta un cambio radical en el contexto
de la emergencia climática y de eso justamente quise hablar. He observado que cada vez hay
más activistas en toda América que quieren redefinir
la idea de revolución. Esto implica aprender
de los errores y
de los fracasos de los proyectos revolucionarios
del pasado, pero también repensar la idea de revolución
para los retos del siglo XXI y, en consecuencia, llegar a imaginar
un futuro postcapitalista en vez de obsesionarnos
con imaginar el fin del mundo sin ser capaces de imaginar
el fin del capitalismo. Mi ponencia se basa en
mi experiencia en Canadá y Argentina e intenta reflexionar sobre estas
distintas nociones de ruptura y sobre el hecho de que
cada vez más activistas intentan imaginar alter
nativas
al capitalismo global. We focus on the politics
of the impossible, how the impossible makes history.
I am very interested in this. In that regard, the impossible
is not that which is not real, but that which makes history
within its impossibility. So it's linked to catastrophes. In my talk I mentioned two events to exemplify this topic. First, the popular government
of Salvador Allende in the early 1970s, a social, political and economical
process, rather than a project, aimed at transfo
rming
society in its structure. This project was only feasible
through a democratic approach. An armed approach
was impossible in that case. However, the military coup of 1973 showed that a democratic approach
wasn't possible either, so that was an impossible project. However, it did happen. The impossible happened. So we could describe it
as our last catastrophe. Our present cannot be understood
without referring to that catastrophe, to the collapse of
the democratic institution which we could
get back in late 1980s and which is today
experiencing a crisis. To think about the present,
we must bear that in mind. Recently, as a result of the riots that not only took place here,
but in the whole world... What happened in Chile
is very interesing because one day the country
was living in turmoil, then there were three
or four determining events and we were suddenly working
on a new constitution. The expectations were high, but in the plebiscite prevailed rejection towards the project
of a
new constitution. I find this is very interestingly
linked to the topic of this conference. Reflecting on the impossible
making history once again because the current unease within the framework of what
is called neoliberalism both in Chile and the whole world,
is actually discontent. But it's an undetermined discontent, it cannot be met by
a specific object, but it's cast towards existence
in its entirety, towards our way
of organising existence, beyond economic inequality,
to mention an examp
le. Transformation, thus,
should be structural, it should change our way of living. That was the expectation
of the draft constitution. It had concrete proposals regarding
economic and social development, but others referred
to the native peoples, feminism, migration, etc. These talked about
a new way of living. The problem lies in translating
this into politics. I think the rejection
towards this project we call draft constitution stemmed from the rejection
towards those proposals related to a
new way of living, directly or indirectly related to what people associated
with gender ideology, cherishing indigenous peoples,
called historical debt, among others. So, if we want to consider ways
of solving the unease, we need a new way of living, but that is impossible, so we constantly swim
within this impossibility. So it's not about no existing, because things start
in a non-existence. What is the apocalypse? We know there is a very clear
and defined matrix that stems from religion:
the B
iblic apocalypse as the womb, the main source that somehow establishes
how apocalypses are conceived as an ending that opens
the possibility of a revelation. In the conference we have seen
there are other ways and narratives dealing with the idea of the end
and the apocalypse anew. Similarly to rupture, it can be understood from subjective
and individual experiences, but also the ever-present
idea of apocalypse in all of humanity and in all cultures. It should be understood as
a strategy to reth
ink the present, marked by a climate crisis that reveals itself as an apocalypse which is no longer part
of a mythical tale or mystique, but very real. It does not belong to the future,
but it's happening now. In the conference we also talked
about this very productive idea: the idea of a creeping,
evolving apocalypse that may seem slow or veiled,
but it's right in front of our eyes, it's right there, happening. The current idea of apocalypse is one of the most urgent
and crucial ideas to think
how we can deal
with a kind of apocalypse which is most similar
to climatic devastation and the depletion of resources
we thought of as endless, and now realise they are not. This brings us closer to the end
of nature and resources, which would mean
the end of everyone. On the one hand, it's interesting that we don't have
to resort to imagination: the sings point to a realist
perception of our environment. So there is no need to think that the apocalypse requires going
much beyond our surroundin
gs. Suddenly, many elements
in our everyday lives, and our sociopolitical,
economic or media realities seem to be linked to signs that belong to the image of turmoil evoked by the mere
thought of the apocalypse; beyond the traditional
idea of revelation, this one requires us
to urgently read the signs which are plentiful
in the lands of Latin America. El mundo ya ha pasado por
varios apocalipsis localizados: el Holocausto en Europa, por ejemplo, fue una especie de apocalipsis. El genocidio de pu
eblos
indígenas en América, el comercio transatlántico
de esclavos... Pero hoy, el cambio climático
y el calentamiento global por primera vez en la historia
de la humanidad plantean un apocalípsis
a escala global. Hay quienes afirman que,
aunque los humanos desaparezcan, la vida en la Tierra continuará,
como ya ocurrió antaño. Es bien sabido y por esto
se habla de la sexta extinción. El planeta ya ha pasado
por episodios apocalípticos: los meteoritos que hicieron desaparecer
a los dinosaurios, p
or ejemplo. Pero sabemos que la vida es resiliente. Es muy probable que, aunque
los humanos desaparezcan, otras formas de vida serán más
resilientes y la vida reflorecerá. Al mismo tiempo, políticamente
debemos reflexionar sobre la resiliencia
y la supervivencia de los humanos en condiciones distintas,
no solo entornos hostiles, sino creando posibilidades
para la prosperidad y la justicia. Antes de mi ponencia, ayer alguien dijo que es importante pensar el apocalipsis
en términos antiapocalíptic
os. Debemos pensar en la posibilidad
de un apocalipsis global si no cesa la explotación y
la extracción de combustibles fósiles porque nos dirigimos hacia él. Pero no caigamos en la desesperación,
el pesimismo y la parálisis. Esta es la respuesta emocional
más habitual ante la crisis climática: estamos condenados,
no podemos hacer nada. Es fundamental luchar
contra estas emociones y pensar el apocalipsis
en sentido antiapocalíptico: mientras sigamos luchando,
las cosas pueden cambiar aunque ahor
a nos parezca imposible debido al pesimismo. En mi ponencia, hablé
de la historia de las revoluciones porque impulsaron cambios que
se habían considerado una quimera. Por ejemplo, la Revolución haitiana. En esa antigua colonia francesa los europeos pensaban que los esclavos
no se iban a rebelar nunca con éxito, pero sí, y fue una de las revoluciones
más notables de la historia y demostró que, lo
que hoy parece imposible no solo es posible, sino que,
como dijo Rosa Luxemburg, antes de cada revolu
ción,
se considera una quimera, pero una vez ocurre,
se considera inevitable. Creo que este es uno
de nuestros retos actuales: cómo podemos enfrentar
los desafíos que acechan y pensar que, mientras luchemos
e imaginemos otros futuros, no hay nada definitivo,
sino potencial para otro futuro, uno que nos depare otro horizonte. Sharing this week with you
has been an incredible experience. We learned a lot and exchanged
very different ideas which are also so interwoven. It was very enriching and
I t
ake with me many ideas not only to think about the end but also, very necessary,
to overcome it.
Comments