I think that one of the reasons why I feel fascination for the old editorial cartoons of the Spain under Generalísimo Franco and during the transition to the Constitutional Monarchy such as La Codorniz and Hermano Lobo is because I am convinced that the way of exerting authority, power or strength in the years of democracy is still tainted by the old dictatorial categories of thought. In the times of the Spanish 'Organic Democracy' people were classified in groups by their ideas, activities, loyalties, personalities and let's call it 'vices,' 'tendencies,' 'inclinations' or 'looks.' Nobody could face the risk of earning the reputation of being 'difficult' or 'insociable' because this meant running into potential trouble any time this person had a conflict with the 'authority.' Many decisions and talks were secretive and rumour and gossip about people, families and social groups were the way of the world. These satirical magazines by means of witty and quite often arcane and highly symbolic language and expression pointed a the masked reality of a political, cultural, religious and social control (Falange, the Catholic Church, the Army, the Franquists) which could always make itself visible by direct action (censorship, fine, legal process) or by influence (outcasting people, oblivion). I am fully responsible for this very sketchy remarks, but I think that I could find a good number of references (from different ideological sources) which would confirm and precise what I have simplistically written here. They say that Caudillo Franco himself controlled these jokes, made comments and gave orders, even though if I recall correctly they say that he was not the worst of censors, that the real dangerous and influential people were behind. In my view it was a sadistic intellectual game which punished those transgressions that were considered a threat to the principle of authority held by a group. In Spain the principle of authority can never be openly challenged or criticized unless you have also power, influence and a group of loyals behind. Not only in Franco's times but also nowadays. I have heard this comment from many foreigners in Spain or abroad.... but only when they are very confident that you are not going to 'betray' them in a conversation or meeting or social event. I think I could trace comments on the way the Spaniards have exerted power and authority from the Romans: divide et vinces.
Criticizing or dissenting with the established authority is always tricky, no matter the nation, no matter the circumstance, but the problem in Spain is that people exerting power or influence are not usually capable of being as objective as dissociating that criticism from an act of hostility against them or against their circle or party. We must also keep in mind that many Spaniards are not able to differentiate between their post and the institution (or private enterprise) they work for. Many people, old and young, still fear issuing a complaint or running into conflict with an influential person about something because of the consequences. I deem it quite symptomatic in a modern, democratic rational system.
In Franco's time -I must confess that I keep on thinking about the 60s and 70s these days- there were in principle 2 ways of controlling the excess of 'temper' or 'independence' against the principle of authority (leaving aside of course oblivion and silence): 1) the executive one: sanction to be enforced by the police and the judges 2) the Opus Nigrum approach: a moral or mental problem, penance or treatment to be administered by the family. Quite often these people were kept in minority (either 'de jure' or 'de facto') and their degree of autonomy depended on the acceptability of their behaviour. Quite often their families felt in disgrace. Could I find references for these comments? I think I could. In what way has the situation changed? In what way the democratic parties left or right have changed these views? Tentatively, intuition, the Right will always stress the deed itself. They would always feel the need of the ('Salomonic' in the best of cases) sanction even if the reasons that prompted the criticism were founded in principle. The Left will always emphasize the social and psychological aspects of what is deemed as normal solidarious behaviour and will try to find convincing reasons to do practically the same but for the good cause. They must also show authority.
Why all this? Spain is going through a very deep economic crisis that is in principle the responsibility of both the Left and the Right, not to mention the external pressure. Of course I agree with the need to save up, economize and work hard, but this does not mean that I do not keep my own standards and ideas about many of the 'objective' and 'scientific' criteria (as in the good time of the pre Second World War: statistical manipulation and scientificism) that are being used now 'ad hoc' to regulate the work and research conditions at university. I see too many 'ad hoc' measures and counter measures dictated by external pressure and internal division to conform to a political and social European union that is in a global systemic crisis, no matter the wealth or power of the different countries. These changes are affecting earnings, stability and, crucially savings. In these circumstances it is difficult to adjust and keep a sense of progress. The drastic changes will be challenged not only intellectually but also in terms of authority and the political confrontation will cause a very deep division among the intellectuals, scientists, artists of Spain and a good deal of the eternal and dreaded archetypes will resurrect. One thing is education, a different issue is research, a different issue is selling and doing successful business, and a different thing is going through political and social turmoil.
What I fear most is injustice and prejudice disguised as objective truth and rationale. I fear division, disqualification, controversies and even personal attacks precisely in a moment in which structural reforms are peremptory. Not only a principle of transparency, but also a reasoned justification of the different measures and very clear criteria for all the different cases and circumstances. Intellectuals should always provide reasons and convince.
Not the best moment to start the course final evaluation, but the show must keep on going. Time to put a stop to this post. Best of lucks to everybody (first draft).








































