A sua pesquisa

En las páginas que siguen examinaré algunas consecuencias de la inestabilidad funcional del sujeto poético en la poesía actual, entendido este como algo más que una manifestación morfológica o un distribuidor deíctico que operan en el poema para sustentar una determinada cohesión enuncia¬tiva y discursiva. Esos dos parámetros, en concordancia con lo resuelto previamente por la narratología respecto a la figura del narrador en el relato, resultaron largamente privilegiados por las aproximaciones formal-estructuralista y semiótico-sintáctica al texto poético. Lo fueron, es cierto, en un segmento histórico en el que el propio concepto de poema solía ser más restringido en términos formales, elocutivos y culturales que el hoy comúnmente manejado, quizás por ins¬cribirse aquella coyuntura en lo que Jacques Rancière (2005) ha llamado régimen representativo del arte y de la literatura. En él, por cierto, la postulación desde la propia obra de un sentido de comunidad ética se impone a cualquier movimien¬to emancipatorio, algo esto último que para Rancière es más propio de un segundo régimen de identificación actuante en el terreno artístico, el estético. En correspondencia, el público, la audiencia, quienes leen en aquel primer régimen, se recono¬cerían como espectadores antes que como actores en el espacio material y simbólico por ellos ocupado. Justo por esto nos interesará igualmente la proyección que lo anterior introduce en los planos de la intersubjetividad y de lo público. Si bien, para creer que tal proyección resulte en algún sentido efectiva, o por lo menos real, en cualquiera de los dos regímenes de identificación indicados, no es exigible ya la convicción de que la poesía sea un arma cargada de futuro al modo –referencial, temático, retórico, performativo…– en el que determinados programas literarios e ideológicos próximos al socialrealismo comprendieron el lugar político del poema y en general del arte a lo largo de una buena parte del siglo XX.

Este volumen nace con el propósito de producir conocimiento crítico sobre las prácticas poéticas en el espacio público, sus funciones y su eficacia dentro de éste. A la inestabilidad funcional de la poesía y lo lírico en la actualidad se une la noción de espacio público, entendida tanto desde su vertiente conceptual, filosófica y social, como desde su vertiente material, física, ligada a la (re)presentación escénica. Espacios, sujetos e instituciones se redefinen de la mano de esta combinación. Así, la inclusión de la espacialidad en una teoría poética actualizada, la constitución de nuevos sujetos y subjetividades y la identificación de públicos y prácticas en torno a los conceptos de performatividad e intervención constituyen los vectores fundamentales de este libro. Sin acotación de ningún tipo en términos lingüísticos, nacionales o interartísticos, los trabajos aquí recogidos se reparten entre lo teórico-crítico y metodológico, los estudios de caso y las reflexiones en primera persona, teniendo como objetivo último la valoración de la incidencia de la poesía en el espacio público y sus efectos socio-políticos.

En una reflexión general sobre los procesos y prácticas culturales emergentes, Wlad Godzich subrayó la imposibilidad de estudiarlos de acuerdo con las categorías hegemónicas y convencionales, para las que en realidad suponen un desafío. La delimitación de la noción de poesía en nuestro tiempo, habida cuenta de su estatus multifuncional e inestable, es una tarea compleja. Refiriéndonos a la hibridación genérica y discursiva podríamos condensar la mayor parte de sus reformulaciones, causadas también por la aceptación de lo popular, lo masivo o lo tecnológico, y por la potencialidad crítica de la subjetividad y el sujeto. En línea con lo señalado por Godzich, tales cambios exigen nuevas perspectivas y metodologías de análisis, que vayan más allá de las derivadas de genologías de base apenas textual. Las poéticas que son objeto de estudio en este libro no serán acotadas en términos lingüísticos, nacionales o interartísticos; de forma correlativa, se presta atención a sistemas de significación no (solo) verbales, al acoger análisis sobre prácticas performativas, grafiti e intervención, poesía fractal o formatos televisivos, privilegiando siempre la investigación de su incidencia como interacción y mediación pública, además de sus efectos socio-políticos.

En 1990, Llorenç Barber explicaba nun programa de televisión, Sitio Distinto, como todos os seres humanos levamos un campanario na nosa memoria. O conxunto de badaladas que se produce no noso sistema neuronal e social fai que a vida teña sentido, que teña musicalidade. Porén, o conxunto de badaladas poden derivar nun ruído que deriva en confusión. Isto mesmo é extensible na hora de realizar exercicios memorísticos. Ás veces é o ruído o que non nos permite chegar a un produto que non figura no canon ou tamén nos imposibilita a manexar coa maior autonomía conceptos, ideas ou textos dende os postulados que os orixinan. Isto último é o que pretendemos acometer neste artigo. Escollemos facer memoria dun pasado moi próximo, pero á vez moi afastado por descoñecemento. Para tal finalidade, focalizamos un produto pluridisciplinario: o programa Sitio Distinto, dirixido por Antón Reixa e emitido pola Televisión de Galicia (TVG) en 1990. Con el, contemplamos atinxir dous obxectivos. O primeiro é o de describir e dar a coñecer un produto cultural que define un habitus (Bourdieu, 1992) que se desenvolveu na praxe artística do campo entre a Transición política do franquismo á democracia e o seu asentamento nos anos oitenta.

Centred around Antonio Gramsci's concept of hegemony, this paper employs a critical globalisation theory framework to argue that the 1990s notion of ‘changing the world from below', understood as resistance to capitalist globalisation through a ‘transnational civil society', requires re-theorisation in the light of the contemporary developments in Our America. I make a methodological case for a neo-Gramscian approach to argue that ‘counter-hegemony', together with an adequate theorisation of the state and power, should be the preferred concept over the inherently apolitical and under-theorised ‘alter-globalisation'. Whilst the alter-globalisation movement's ideational and normative challenges to hegemony (captured in ex-British prime minister Thatcher's There-Is-No-Alternative-Doctrine, TINA) are undisputed, the transformation of the global geographies of power through local actors alone has remained illusory. Rather, the experience of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America - Peoples' Trade Agreement (ALBA-PTA) strongly suggests that counter-hegemonic globalisation theory will have to consider the roles of both the ‘state-in-revolution' and the ‘transnational organised society'. This will be shown through the analysis and theorisation of the ALBA-PTA as a multi dimensional inter and transnational counter-hegemonic regionalisation and globalisation project that operates across a range of sectors and scales.

Professionalization and political engagement are usually placed as incompatible in the case of journalism and the mainstream press, resulting in an identification of cultural resistance exclusively with alternative/amateur vehicles. I will use the concept of journalistic field as introduced by Pierre Bourdieu to review these assumptions and discuss a form of political resistance that acts in one's own area of knowledge, is not overtly political and whose effects are not immediately accountable for. Drawing examples from my research on two literary newspapers published in the 1950s in Brazil and Uruguay, this paper will focus on the implications of didacticism for literary criticism as a genre of newswriting. The analysis of these newspapers will lead to a reflection on two main issues: a) the conflict between the professionalization and democratization of literature; and b) the definition of resistance as necessarily an action that is against something. The article will reconsider education in journalism as a form of resistance, taking into account its risks of becoming political indoctrination and commercial manipulation, but emphasizing its potential as a way of expanding access to literature.

The poetic space, as I see it, is a space of resistance. Resistance against the media which do not need poetry. Communication among poets is a go-between, a web of messages, performances and presentations, the circulation of books and digital materials. These activities are political, functioning as politics in the Greek sense: discussion in a public arena, exchanges of opinion and criticism, interventions, concerted decisions, group projects, a net of relationships around the production of texts, articulating versions and diversions of language. These activities and exchanges give the participants a sense of fulfillment. In this sense to pass is to think, to question a certain regime, to marvel that it is still there, to wonder what makes it possible, going into its enclaves, looking for traces of the movements which formed it and discovering in those stories apparently in ashes, how to think, how to live otherwise.

In this article, I analyze the notions of sequentiality and simultaneity in Ursula K. Le Guin's science fiction novel The Dispossessed: An Ambiguous Utopia (1974). I extrapolate this analysis to the contrasting epistemic sensibilities surrounding the concepts of ‘revolution' and ‘resistance' respectively. I am particularly concerned with the role these concepts play in contemporary academic production in the humanities. My aim is to understand the implications of the different conceptions of time and representation associated with each of those two concepts, and what their actual ideological operativity is in the context of the present status quo.

This essay is a brief study of translation as a practice of aesthetic resistance seen from a historical and philosophical perspective. Translation is perceived as the process of transition and negotiation within the ‘third space' between various different hybrid cultural contexts and their discursive constraints, and referred to as ‘paratranslation'. It summarises the first attempts to think of translation as an almost ‘holistic' paradigm and the aesthetics of intervention from Romantic philosophy onwards. It attempts to show how Walter Benjamin's master narrative, the utopia of ‘pure language', encourages continuous resistance to the totalitarianism of the idea of the ‘original', to aesthetics (within the sense of the perception of the real) and to dominant discourses. It subsequently defines the idea of ‘progress', which considers translation as aesthetic resistance, as a process of construction in constant deconstruction. It concludes by exemplifying the notion of translation as a paradigm of intervention in modernity with a brief analysis of the transcreation performed by Erin Mouré on Fernando Pessoa/Alberto Caeiro's poetic cycle, O Guardador de Rebanhos (The Keeper of Sheep).

Reprinted as ?In the Place of the Public Sphere? Or, The World in Fragments? in: Public Good, # 1, 2008, pp. 46-55.

The public sphere conception continues to hold center stage in debates and visions of radical democratic society, and Jürgen Habermas’ work continues to be the most popular starting point for developing this conception. However, the Habermasian public sphere has also come under powerful and sustained criticism from many quarters. Here I concentrate upon the critiques of a group of theorists to whom I refer as difference democrats. I examine the three key arguments of these critics:that the public sphere conception involves the exclusion of aesthetic-affective modes of communication and hence the voices of certain groups; that it assumes that power can be separated from public discourse, which masks exclusion and domination; and that it promotes consensus as the purpose of deliberation, which marginalizes voices that do not readily agree. Against these claims I show that the Habermasian public sphere can be read as maximizing the inclusion of difference in deliberative exchange. I demonstrate how the conception extensively accommodates aesthetic-affective modes of discourse, how it accounts for both negative and positive forms of power in discourse, and how it promotes the process over the end-point of rational discourse in public opinion formation.

The "public sphere" is widely debated in contemporary literary and cultural studies circles in the United States. The topic's significance underscores the pressing problem of the location of these contemporary debates: Is the "public sphere" a single authoritative and universal space in which the various positions in these debates compete for recognition, or does it consist of multiple local spaces spread over diverse collectivities? The term "public" has emerged with new urgency in different disciplines and contexts history, cinema and television studies, art criticism, feminist, gay and lesbian, postcolonial, and subaltern perspectives, and is proliferating in titles of books, articles, and college courses. "Public Sphere and Experience" opens the discussion of the material conditions of experience into an arena that had previously figured only as an abstract term: the media of mass and consumer culture, in particular the so-called new media.

This essay is an attempt to map out the territory of the 'public' sphere as both localizable and imaginary, and to discuss the changed and changing possibilities for art production as communicationary toolbox and representational politics in the public realm. I will take my point of departure in conceptions of practice and spectatorship based on the notion of a fundamentally 'fragmented' public sphere, and explore which potentials, problematics and politics lies behind the construction (real or imaginary) of a particular public sphere or space. Where can a public sphere be located today, and how can critical and/or artistic interventions be made in it? How does one perceive and/or construct a specific public sphere and positional and/or participatory model for spectatorship as opposed to (modernist) generalized ones? Does this entail a reconfiguration of the (bourgeois) notion of the public sphere into a different arena and/or into a mass of different, overlapping spheres? Or, put in other terms, what can be put in the place of the public sphere?