A friend and colleague made an interesting observation in the office the other day. We were talking about how to react in different situations, and the difference between British people and Argentines in terms of how we approach things. From her experience of Brits, she saw that we had entirely different behavioural patterns depending on the situation that we were in: we behave differently at work to how we do at home, we don’t have the same way of treating our friends as our family, we act one way if we are at dinner and quite another if we are in a bar.
Surely the same is just as true of Argentines, I said, to which she agreed, but said that the contrast between how an Argentine reacts in different social situations is barely noticeable when compared to the entirely variable behaviour of a Brit. Her conclusion was that in order to maintain a healthy balance between so many different personalities, we have to be basically schizophrenic.
On the face of it, this seems like a facile observation made from the point of view of a country where psychoanalysis is the norm. I think that she is right, that this an aspect of our national identity, if one can be defined, because we exist in so many contrasting social environments that we have to be able to vary our approach to the realities that we encounter. Our upbringing, childhood, growing experiences and education all lead us to react to things differently - but this is a human trait, surely, not a British one. I think what stands us apart is that we entirely believe, have it written into our being, that our ability to successfully express ourselves and convey meaning is inextricably linked to accurately gauging different situations. Relating to different people in different environments is the goal. In order to achieve this, we sometimes can appear a little schizo.
22/7/10
15/7/10
Gay Marriage
After a prolonged and sometimes fraught debate in the Senate, gay marriage is now all but legal in Argentina. Besides the arguments that this is a step forward for Argentina, now one of ten countries that has legalized same-sex marriage, and the only country in Latin America to have done so, the political power plays that have brought this about are also interesting, as pointed out today by The Economist.
On the one hand, CFK still has to prove that her party has power in an increasingly anti-K environment, and picking the controversial but well-supported same-sex marriage bill was a no-brainer: after the first marriages were approved by judges last year, this was always going to snowball into something bigger.
However, what I find more interesting is what this whole discussion says about the role of the Catholic Church in contemporary Argentine society; it really is in a bit of a muddle at the moment. An eroding institution at best, constantly beset by the charges that afflict Catholicism around the world, the Church is often forced to take unpopular and eventually damaging positions due to its very nature. The march of parents and their children to Congress on Tuesday, organized by the Church to demonstrate the integral family unit, came hot on the heels of violent proclamations of “the devil’s work” in Sunday masses. It also severely disrupted traffic, to the point where my taxi driver at the time dismissed them all as anti-human lunatics who should “burn in hell”.
So the Church picked the side it had to pick, and lost. Just. The vote was close, the arguments were tense; the result is undeniable. The fact is, the Church must have known it was always on to a loser, if not now then later, as it has always known ever since the debates about civil marriages, divorce, etc. A colleague today told me that he had read an article comparing the Church’s arguments against civil marriage, divorce and even female suffrage to the arguments employed recently against same-sex marriage, and said that, word-for-word, they were almost identical. Thus the Church, in what remains an officially and openly Catholic country, must face each fresh advance of progress with the same, weary acceptance of inevitability. The Church does not modernize. The Church does not debate. Therefore, the Church will always lose, bit by bit, until it is no more.
On the one hand, CFK still has to prove that her party has power in an increasingly anti-K environment, and picking the controversial but well-supported same-sex marriage bill was a no-brainer: after the first marriages were approved by judges last year, this was always going to snowball into something bigger.
However, what I find more interesting is what this whole discussion says about the role of the Catholic Church in contemporary Argentine society; it really is in a bit of a muddle at the moment. An eroding institution at best, constantly beset by the charges that afflict Catholicism around the world, the Church is often forced to take unpopular and eventually damaging positions due to its very nature. The march of parents and their children to Congress on Tuesday, organized by the Church to demonstrate the integral family unit, came hot on the heels of violent proclamations of “the devil’s work” in Sunday masses. It also severely disrupted traffic, to the point where my taxi driver at the time dismissed them all as anti-human lunatics who should “burn in hell”.
So the Church picked the side it had to pick, and lost. Just. The vote was close, the arguments were tense; the result is undeniable. The fact is, the Church must have known it was always on to a loser, if not now then later, as it has always known ever since the debates about civil marriages, divorce, etc. A colleague today told me that he had read an article comparing the Church’s arguments against civil marriage, divorce and even female suffrage to the arguments employed recently against same-sex marriage, and said that, word-for-word, they were almost identical. Thus the Church, in what remains an officially and openly Catholic country, must face each fresh advance of progress with the same, weary acceptance of inevitability. The Church does not modernize. The Church does not debate. Therefore, the Church will always lose, bit by bit, until it is no more.
14/7/10
Commute 2
A few months ago I posted an entry that talked about a puddle of vomit on a bus on the daily commute and how one unfortunate lady sat in the puddle without realising. To my surprise I found myself on the exact same bus both today and yesterday, and the stain of the long dried sick remained. It suddenly occurred to me this morning, after a fairly long evening in Boedo, that perhaps this was no accident – perhaps some unidentified soul, possibly the driver himself, was marking his territory. Or maybe all the buses have the same stain. Whatever the case, the familiarity of the stain, on the routine commute, made me feel quite at home on a journey that is often long and always tedious. My gratitude pours out to you, unknown vomiter.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
