from The Open News

by Uma Wright

January 18, 2019 

 

Between 2005 and 2009, Jorge Majfud wrote two different books that explain the world we are currently living in which, in 2016, began to be perceived as an unexpected novelty.

The first book, published in 2005, is titled La narración de lo invisible. Una teoría política sobre los campos semánticos (The Narration of the Invisible. A political theory on semantic fields), an essay and analysis book [Second edition EAE], and the second book, published in 2009  and titled La ciudad de la Luna (The City of the Moon) is a novel. 

Contradicting the classic precepts of economic materialism, La narración de lo invisible analyzes the importance of the semantic struggle and social narratives as determinants in our world’s social and political outcomes.
It draws a definition of the positive semantic fields (what is) and the negative fields (what is not) defined by the association of the established/consolidated social valuations (ideolexicos) to outline the meaning of the disputed/still uncrystallized social valuations.

In the novel La ciudad de la Luna (The City of the Moon) (anticipated by the same author for years in different journalistic articles and in short stories), he describes, in a metaphorical way, a city in the Sahara desert called Calataid, inhabited by European immigrants since the Spanish Reconquest.

The city is surrounded by thick walls, and its inhabitants, divided into sects that hate each other, are considered, as a whole and with a strong patriotic pride, the moral reserve of the world. Calataid hates immigrants and every new idea that comes from outside, such as the secular thought of Enlightenment, to the point of eliminating his only contact with the outside world, a train that arrived once a month with almost no passengers. Finally, with another reference that reminds us of the current drama of climate change and the rising sea levels, the inhabitants of Calataid deny the growing threat of desert sands that will eventually sink the arrogant city, blinded by its fighting and self-indulgent narratives.

These two books, published more than a decade ago, offer two global perspectives from different literary genres. They both warned us, long ago, what we were going to live through from the second decade of the 21st century.

Today, just a few people recognize this reality. The rest simply do not see it or refuse to see it.

Translation of Jorge Majfud’s The Walled Society by Bruce Campbell

Traducción automática de Google al español here:

Una teoría política de los campos semánticos» by Jorge Majfud explores the political theory of semantic fields, engaging in an analysis of how narratives, symbols, and meanings are shaped in social and historical contexts. It contrasts two major ideological texts: Eduardo Galeano’s «Las venas abiertas de América Latina» and Carlos Alberto Montaner’s «Las raíces torcidas de América Latina.» Both works reflect opposing interpretations of Latin America’s social and historical realities.

Here’s a key concept clarity analysis:

Main Ideas from the Paper:

1. The Nature of Semantic Fields:
   The study examines how semantic fields are constructed, contested, and wielded in socio-political narratives. Majfud emphasizes the dialectical struggle over meanings and symbols as a central theme in shaping history and identity.
2. Binary Oppositions in Ideology:
   Drawing from Derrida, the text discusses binary oppositions (e.g., development vs. underdevelopment, materialism vs. culturalism) and their ideological roots. It critiques these dichotomies as artificial yet impactful constructs that influence interpretations of history and society.
3. Comparison of Galeano and Montaner:
   • Galeano’s «Las venas abiertas» critiques the external exploitation of Latin America, attributing its challenges to historical and economic subjugation by foreign powers.
   • Montaner’s «Las raíces torcidas» focuses on internal cultural and educational deficiencies as the root causes of Latin America’s issues.
   • Majfud situates these texts within broader ideological debates, noting their contrasting methodological approaches: materialist vs. culturalist.
4. Cultural Identity and Symbolism:
   The author highlights the problematic nature of defining «Latin America,» both as a geographical and cultural entity. It discusses how historical colonization and global narratives have shaped perceptions and simplified complex identities into monolithic representations.
5. Dialectical Complexity:
   The paper argues against linear cause-effect models in understanding socio-political phenomena. Instead, it advocates for recognizing the symbiotic relationships between economic structures, cultural norms, and ethical systems.
6. Ethics and Economic Systems:
   The interaction between ethical values (e.g., anti-slavery, gender equality) and economic necessities is explored. Majfud posits that ethical advances often emerge from economic transformations but also influence these systems reciprocally.

Would you like further elaboration on any specific section or additional analysis?

Critical Inquiry Questions:

1. Question on Ideological Construction:
   Majfud critiques binary oppositions as ideological constructs that simplify complex realities (e.g., development vs. underdevelopment).
   • To what extent do these binaries limit alternative perspectives, and how might one construct a more inclusive framework for understanding historical narratives?
2. Question on Semantic Fields and Power:
   The text discusses the struggle over semantic fields as a political and historical phenomenon.
   • How can marginalized groups effectively reclaim or reshape dominant semantic fields to better represent their realities and resist hegemonic narratives?
3. Question on Comparative Analysis (Galeano vs. Montaner):
   Majfud contrasts Galeano’s materialist interpretation of history with Montaner’s culturalist view.
   • Are these two frameworks inherently contradictory, or can they be integrated into a cohesive model for understanding Latin America’s socio-economic challenges?

For Perspective Research (Method 6), I’ll review and synthesize diverse viewpoints on the key themes of Jorge Majfud’s «Una teoría política de los campos semánticos» to enhance understanding. This will include exploring perspectives on:

1. The construction of semantic fields in historical and ideological contexts.
2. The ongoing debate between materialist (e.g., Galeano) and culturalist (e.g., Montaner) approaches.
3. The implications of binary oppositions for understanding social and historical realities.

Let me start gathering academic perspectives for a well-rounded analysis. Please hold on for a moment while I conduct research.

Diverse Academic Perspectives on Semantic Fields and Political Theory

1. Contextual Dependence and Complexity in Semantic Fields:
   Maton’s work in Legitimation Code Theory highlights how the complexity of semantic fields depends on their socio-political and disciplinary context. He emphasizes that academic discourse often uses «semantic waves,» oscillating between abstract and concrete concepts to make knowledge accessiblens with Majfud’s exploration of how binary oppositions (e.g., materialist vs. culturalist interpretations) simplify nuanced socio-historical dynamics.
2. Reconstruction of Political Languages:
   Richter’s analysis in History and Theory discusses how semantic fields are shaped by historically defined contexts, influencing political thought and action. He underscores the role of language in constructing political ideologies . This perrelevant to Majfud’s comparison of Galeano’s and Montaner’s ideological frameworks, showcasing how semantic tools can be wielded for contrasting political purposes.
3. Ambiguity in Semantic and Political Concepts:
   Diner’s reflections in The Jewish Quarterly Review focus on how political and legal theories are imbued with semantic ambiguity, particularly in culturally entangled contexts . This complements Maque of the reductive nature of binary ideological constructs, suggesting that ambiguity can foster broader, multifaceted understandings of social issues.
4. Semantic Evolution in Historical Contexts:
   Vydaichuk et al. analyze the semantic evolution of lexemes in historical settings, emphasizing the interplay between meanings and their contexts . This resonates with Majfud’s a historical narratives are not static but evolve as they are contested within semantic fields.
5. Conceptual History and Political Theory:
   Ihalainen’s research in Journal of Historical Pragmatics bridges historical semantics with political pragmatics, demonstrating how reconstructing semantic fields provides insight into historical political thought . This perspective underscores Majfud’s focuological contestation of Latin American historical narratives.
6. Semantic Frames and Action:
   Nerlich and Clarke explore the interface between language, action, and cognition through the lens of semantic fields and frames. They highlight the historical origins of these concepts and their application in understanding social actions . Majfud’s work similarly investigates how socio-politire framed within and influenced by constructed semantic fields.

Integration with Majfud’s Analysis

The above perspectives enhance Majfud’s arguments by:

• Providing a deeper theoretical foundation for the critique of binary oppositions in socio-political narratives.
• Highlighting the role of ambiguity and context in shaping ideological debates.
• Offering methods to reconstruct semantic fields for a more nuanced understanding of historical and political phenomena.