co-authored with Mariateresa Muraca, Annamaria Piussi, Chiara Zamboni. Translated by Caterina Diotto.
The original version, in italian, was published here.
This column stems from a desire to explore issues concerning ecology, which are essential in the times we live in, through the embodied and relational lens of gender difference. We are looking for a method, a way (methodos in Greek) that can help us, first and foremost, to avoid being crushed between the various dualisms that have imposed themselves, or are imposing themselves, in language, discourse and the analysis of situations, both in the past and in our present.
Dualisms that create increasingly distant either/or situations, which trap interpretation and channel questions into a preconceived framework that always returns to itself. A preconceived framework that in many cases we feel is at odds with the reality of things.
The first of these interpretative either/or dilemmas that we recognise in the world around us contrasts the local approach with the systemic vision. Economic, social and political analyses and the solutions they propose are in many cases flawed from the outset, because they are confined either to a vision that is too localised and specific, or to a universalistic and abstract approach that has no connection with individual contingent realities.
The second dilemma concerns the relationship between science and politics. The current situation also offers us opportunities. One of these is the opportunity to recognise the plurality of science, because the opinion of scientists, which we would like to be unified and absolute, instead reveals a complexity for which there are no single answers, especially in the presence of virtually unknown phenomena such as the COVID-19 pandemic. We therefore have the opportunity to think of science not as a set of certain and established knowledge but as an ongoing journey of research. But are we able to take advantage of this opportunity? It seems rather that, when decisions that require scientific knowledge need to be taken, two opposing attitudes prevail: delegation to experts or, conversely, absolute discrediting of scientific opinion. People either express mistrust and progressive alienation towards science or blind obedience, which, when necessary, triggers a “witch hunt” against anyone who dares to ask questions.
The third is the clash between perspectives that focus on public health and the so-called “needs” of the economy. Which economy? The discussion never seems to address the crux of the matter, which is which economic model is at odds with public health, as if the economy were an independent field with its own necessary rules.
This third aspect brings us directly to the question that most strongly demands our attention today: if it is now clear that the emergency linked to the global spread of the coronavirus has triggered an irreversible change, we wonder whether this change will be just another version – perhaps even more ferocious – of an ideal of progress that is leading the planet to collapse, or whether the time has come to begin a radical transformation.
We had already decided some time ago to focus on the writings of Laura Conti, for reasons that are explained in particular in Chiara Zamboni’s text. But in these days when the pandemic is showing its effects on our lives, her words, the issues at the heart of her commitment and her political practices seem particularly valuable to us. Laura Conti teaches us a method for navigating the dualisms we recognise in the world.
The story of the environmental disaster that struck Seveso and other towns in the Brianza area in 1976, which Mariateresa Muraca’s text focuses on, reveals that Laura Conti had a great ability to combine an awareness of the multiple connections that run through reality with a deep rootedness in the context. This ability was reflected in her constant concern to activate decision-making processes – at the time she was a councillor for the Lombardy region – that involved as many of the people directly affected as possible.
Laura Conti also felt involved in the complex relationship between science and politics, and she fostered dialogue between these two dimensions, taking care to expose the supposed neutrality of science. Above all, she was aware that the political horizon of her choices obliged her to live with contradictions without pretending to resolve them, accepting, if necessary, partially satisfactory solutions as long as they were as widely shared as possible.
We believe that the sense of justice so crucial to Laura Conti’s political experience can help us not to lose our way in our reflection.
Originally published as:
A.M. Piussi, C. Diotto, M. Muraca, C. Zamboni, Introduzione al tema Femminismo ed Ecologia, in “Per Amore del Mondo” n. 17 – 2020 L’istante del risveglio, ISSN 2384-8944.
Caterina Diotto 