After the elections: a look from the psych …

The recent national elections expressed not only the option for one candidate or another, but the dispute between two opposing models: neoliberalism or national and popular democracy. The triumph of the formula Alberto Fernández-Cristina Kirchner will mean a change of government, of model, and also a different, egalitarian and inclusive way of conceiving democracy, another role of the State and different ideological ways of constructing subjectivity.

Beyond the obvious dismantling of the economy of the country that generated neoliberal management, the greatest damage produced was the volume of hatred inoculated to society, through the crack and a segregation device stimulated daily by the media. Hatred, an expression of the death drive, made the culture sick, divided the social and led to racism, xenophobia and man as the wolf of man.

One part of the social consumed the poison of hatred and adhered to the neoliberal model while another part, also affected by the neoliberal virus, resisted and did not transform – as the discipline of power expected – in a victimized or depoliticized body, passive and fearful Contrary to the experts' program, a militant culture was put into play that was able to mobilize political affections, such as joy and enthusiasm, in a democratic direction. With a strong commitment to ties, militancy took a collective bias rarely seen, with multiple expressions and aesthetic forms. A solidarity culture crossed by Eros – friendly ties and companions – that linked bodies and stories, bringing into play an antineoliberal ethic that harbored suffering and embraced. Freedom was not based on neoliberal individualism, but on creativity with others and on the possibility of doing what was not there, achieving a sustained sublimation with the body, intelligence and enthusiasm of the people.

A social unit built from below, to the lung, produced a throbbing and active political body, capable of challenging the spoil and daily death that the Cambiemos government proposed in deeds. This sector understood and experienced that Eros' policy, unity, is the best antidote against the crack of anti-political hatred that destroys the social fabric and constitutes the main strategy of power to perpetuate itself. Without ignoring the institutional framework, it brings a plebeian democracy of bodies and affections in the street, which conceives militancy as a way of life. This model rejects the neo-liberal stance of relying only on individuals represented without political activism, thinking in return to citizenship as an active involvement in the political community, which aims to build a "we" according to the popular will.

The result of the electoral contest exposed problems that, in order to make governance and democratic coexistence possible, will have to be resolved politically. An important sector of the social sector subscribes to neoliberal values, defends private property without considering other rights, asks for a hard hand, affirms that it pays its taxes not to keep vagrants living at the expense of the State, does not adhere to equality and understands the citizen as a consumer and an individual who has rights, whose political activity is limited to exercising the vote. This sector opposes the ideology of the Front for [email protected], which conceives of an inclusive democracy and a protective and supportive State with the social sectors in need. The winning Front promotes a social pact that includes all the productive agents to start up the economy, calls for an active commitment of the citizens, proposing an ethical recovery to end the crack and the installed logic of revenge.

There are two opposing models, two opposite ways of conceiving the common that will be disputed and will be settled in the cultural battle that will have to be given.

The Front of [email protected] defeated in the elections not only a political party or coalition, but the concentrated power apparatus of the media, judicial operations, the IMF and the CIA. However, the electoral triumph and the change of government do not imply that this power is deactivated; Conversely, It continues to operate through hatred and fear in order to destabilize the new government. Giving the cultural battle and defeating the neo-liberal conception politically constitutes a key element to rebuild democracy.

For the treatment of hate and war, Freud proposes two strategies: sublimation, which implies a change in the end of sexual and hostile drives, and appealing to Eros, since everything that establishes affective links acts against war. These strategies applied to politics translate into disinvesting the social sediments of hatred that have become naturalized, reconverting the crack in political conflict between adversaries and judicially denouncing operations. This sublimation means raising the dignity of politics to the centrality of the social, instead of the cold and hard economy where debts are paid but people are left out.

Freud's recommendation to appeal to Eros can translate it into giving rise to a political love or sustaining a love policy. At this point it is worth noting that Lacan, in the Seminar Still, gives love a new approach: it is no longer a matter of the illusory, liar or narcissist that disguises self-love with the mask of love to the other, but that it is a sensitivity, an affinity that does not imply identity. Love is a sign, an affection of the unconscious between two speakers, which recognizes the other. If the symptom designates the relationship of a subject with its enjoyment, a relationship that does not tie, love is the symptom that manages to knot and is able to build the common with the other with whom I have nothing in common. A political love

Nora Merlin is a psychoanalyst and master in Political Science. Author of Lying and colonizing. Unconscious obedience and neoliberalism.

Leave a Comment