Carlos Javier González teaches Philosophy and Psychology to teenagers studying ESO and Baccalaureate, so he knows first-hand what the playground is like in everything related to cell phones and screens. Perhaps for this reason, he has just published A Philosophy of Resistance (Destino) where he advises standing up to ’emotiocracy’ (“the dictatorship of emotions typical of the consumer society”) and cultivating the care of attention to be able to decide. what kind of life we ??want.
Currently, only philosophy seems convinced of being able to save humanity from total idiotization, at least if we stick to the extensive editorial production of a “philosophical” nature in recent years. In ancient Athenian society, González explains, an idiot was someone who only limited himself to his personal adventures, instead of thinking about the common good. In A Philosophy of Resistance, González attempts to light the way, rather than dazzle, to spark debate about whether this is the life we ??want.
Why are philosophers coming out from under the stones? What dangers do they see?
There are many dangers… The fate of our time is that we are aware of some of the dangers that loom, and yet we are not doing anything to solve them.
Against what or who do you recommend resisting?
Before ourselves, because from everywhere we are told that we cannot resist because many of the stimuli we receive are irresistible.
What do you notice in your high school students?
I will point out two or three things. The first is a lack of understanding. And I say this because if you stop wanting to understand reality, what you do is let yourself be carried away by the dynamics that are at your disposal. The second thing I detect is great discouragement due to the feeling of not being able to change anything at all. All of this results in apathy. But what I’m saying is the negative part, because my students are also full of hopes.
What is your opinion of the expression “digital native”?
It is based on a prejudice: thinking that technology is neutral, when it is not, since it responds to economic interests. That said, it seems that kids are being encouraged that, simply because they were born at a certain historical moment, they should normalize the use of digital technologies. But just because there are generations of young digital natives does not mean that they are born with the ability to assess the effects of digital technology on their lives.
He maintains that the technological revolution in the classrooms has been sold to us as progress when, in his opinion, it is representing the most terrible delay in decades…
We are idiotizing entire generations under the conceptual umbrella that they are “digital natives.” With this I do not mean that we should go towards a stupid, ignorant and innocent neo-Luddism that leads us to denigrate technology in general and, in particular, digital technologies. It’s not that. Although we cannot close the door to technology, we must create spaces (especially in schools, institutes and universities) where we question how we are using digital technologies and for what purpose. It is very good that digitalization is a means to achieve an end, in this case pedagogical. The problem is when technology becomes an end in itself.
In the same way that during the conquest of America the colonizers offered mirrors to the Indians, now large corporations trap us in exchange for all the gold we carry inside: our time, our emotions, our tastes…
I couldn’t say if screens are the new mirrors… In any case, we adults are the ones who give mirrors to our children. They copy our way of being in the world. So the headline would be that first of all we must train families so that they know how to educate their children in relation to technology. The problem is that when you are in front of a screen, there are only the possibilities provided by the screen itself. We should think about what we are giving up doing by just looking in the mirrors.
Why is philosophizing so often trivialized?
Fundamentally, because in recent times we have trivialized the possibility of pursuing great ideals, such as justice, truth, kindness, etc.
Anyone who dares to question the benefits of digitalization is branded “anti-progress.” What kind of “progress” are they referring to?
We are leaving everything in the hands of “progress” in order to undermine our freedom, when what we should do is precisely the opposite: put freedom at the top of everything so that no one manipulates what “progress” really means. This is the key. Because right now what they sell us as “freedom” is often slavery…
Are we getting used to seeing shadows, like in Plato’s cave?
When the prisoner leaves Plato’s cave and looks at the sky, and this is a part of the story that is often forgotten, he ends up blinded. Wisdom does not consist in leaving the cave, but in illuminating what is inside it to know what are shadows, what is artificial light and what is natural light. The light that blinds us right now is the one that encourages us to live under the dominance of digital technologies.
The main problem, he explains, is that we think a lot about ourselves and very little about others: since saving the world is taken for granted that it is completely impossible, the only thing to do is try to save yourself.
Indeed. They are making us think that we live alone with our screens and that we can continue living like this perfectly from now on. Now I am realizing something that happens to many teenagers: they are so used to being alone with their screens, even though they are apparently accompanied by their WhatsApp, Instagram, TikTok, etc., that when they spend a lot of time with their peers, they become emotionally exhausted. , since they are no longer so used to talking face to face with their colleagues. When they communicate with friends, they do so, above all, through screens and they can disconnect at any time. On the other hand, when they are with other people they cannot do it in the same way. Young people, but also adults, can tolerate in-person presence less and less.
Many people have no interest in resisting hyperstimulation but, on the contrary, demand more wood, more metaverse, more artificial intelligence, more glasses to be able to make and receive calls, more stories, more reels, more likes, more updates and more reposts…
My book is titled A Philosophy of Resistance (although I was about to title it A Philosophy from Resistance…) because a resistance, in physical terms, is a conductor that supports a certain energy charge. What we are doing is burning the resistance and hence the apathy and discouragement of so many adolescents. All this generates an intellectual meekness, a childlike optimism and what I call in the book a ‘feliciphoid’ dictatorship. But we should not blame this situation on the individual, since individually it is often impossible to realize everything that is happening. Precisely for this reason, from education, philosophy, sociology, anthropology or from any other critical discipline, we must ask ourselves why we have consented to live in resistance, because this should not be normal.
The French resistance opposed totalitarian power. Is this war even more difficult to win than that one?
It will be very, very difficult. As Michael Foucault said, power is everywhere. And also, it is invisible. This means that we are watched from all sides, without being able to point out the culprit. But, since we are so comfortable, since they have designed an amusement park tailored to our enjoyment, we hardly even realize that we are losing part of our humanity.
His philosophy of resistance does not call for revolution, but for awakening. Where do you recommend starting?
The beginning of the solution is to look ourselves in the eyes again, because we look down more and more… I see it, not only in adolescents, but also in adults. To realize what is happening, you only need to travel one day on public transport…
To verify that almost everyone is looking at their cell phone…
We are becoming each other’s enemies. Because if I am all the time consuming pleasure and satisfaction on the screen of my mobile phone, when I look up, I find people who distract me from my delights. Whether it’s my mother, my teacher or whoever. And that exposes us to frustration, because no one wants to be interrupted in this orgiastic enjoyment where, as I explain in the book, we end up becoming ‘Skinnerian’ rats (Burrhus Frederic Skinner was an American psychologist who devised an experiment in which mice They chose pleasure even before food).
What other question would you like to have answered?
What is left for education to do?
And what is left?
First of all, let the teachers do their job. In the same way that doctors and firefighters know what to do in each situation, teachers know it too. However, it seems that families know about education, that politicians know about education, that economists know about education…everyone seems to know about education. But few know what it’s like to sit in a class with 30 teenagers for an hour. We must let teachers do their job because they are the best prepared to educate. At the same time, we must not ignore the voice of our young people, since adults are often the main culprits for them not having their own criteria.
