The useless arrogance of being groundbreaking

It's surprising how easily, especially in the world of culture, works of all kinds are presented that claim to be groundbreaking, that seek to eliminate prejudices and break down stereotypes, or that boast of expressing themselves "without filters." It's a pretension that's somewhere between naive, very naive, and arrogant, ridiculously arrogant. Two unforgivable vices in culture because naiveté demonstrates ignorance, and arrogance masks a lack of lucidity that leads to self-deception or, worse, the desire to deceive others.

From the outset, any form of communication, if it is to be understood, requires recourse to intelligible forms of expression that are, therefore, inevitably culturally pre-existing. Certainly, certain molds can be broken, but to do so, it's necessary to use other molds that, in addition to being alternative, are also understandable. Otherwise, nothing will have been broken. And of course, deeply rooted, morally harmful, or even execrable prejudices can be questioned, but this can only be done from the perspective of other prejudices and other moral principles from which criticism of the former is possible and, hypothetically, their replacement.

The illusion of systematically critical knowledge, free of prejudices and stereotypes, is a fallacy. Let's take an example. Not long ago, I heard a school principal making the compelling case for critical teaching. Put like this, however, the expression falls short because to be critical, it is necessary to start from an alternative conception of what one wishes to question. And if the expression falls short, it is because it remains silent on the ideological ideal that will be exalted with that criticism. It is possible for someone to be very clear about what they wish to criticize—social customs, institutions, ideas...—but, on the other hand, to have little awareness of the point of view from which they are questioning them. But little awareness does not mean that this does not exist a priori. And it's entirely conceivable that confusion or ignorance about one's own ideology could be conveyed in this nebulous state. However, then—oh paradox!—if the criticism is made without an explicit foundation, it's obvious that the foundation itself will be beyond any possibility of being critically evaluated. Which is perhaps sometimes what is intended...

Let's take this other idea: the possibility of expressing oneself "without filters," which we've also heard. All language, starting with spoken language, is already a filter. And I don't think it's worth emphasizing that all language transmits a way of understanding the world built over time. Subject to change, of course, but with enough stability to ensure that we can understand each other across generations and from different social positions. But if language, which is the social institution upon which everything else is built, is already a filter, imagine the filters added by, say, the use of television language. Or a visual language. Or a literary one. Even music is a powerful filter when it comes to illustrating and conveying emotions, moods... And conscious and involuntary gestures, clothing, are also filters. And, obviously, nudity is also a filter. So the attempt to tell anything "unfiltered" is a foolishness that, at best, betrays a clever commercial strategy to advertise a simply irreverent and shameless product. And, at worst, it reveals expressive poverty and cultural banality.

In my opinion, the only way to have true critical thinking is by making explicit, precisely, the foundation and perspective from which it is done. A truly critical school, therefore, would be one that makes transparent which institutions and ideas it defends and with what reasons, in order to question the others. Similarly, the rational overcoming of a prejudice can only be achieved by explaining the reasons that sustain the prejudice with which, inevitably, it will be replaced. Otherwise, the first prejudice will persist because, if it exists, it is because, rightly or wrongly, it has found greater social consensus. A fertile field for this debate is currently immigration, where certain socially harmful prejudices can only be replaced by a new perspective—I should say, by positive prejudices—if it is supported by solid data and good arguments, and not just by weak moralisms.

Pretending to be groundbreaking without even considering what alternative is being built may have the appeal of provocation. However, if there is no clear alternative, beyond the discomfort it creates, it is logical that the rupture will end in utter futility.