"Mi bèl pawòl, mi!" Rappresentazione delle lingue e della parola nella narrativa di Patrick Chamoiseau e Raphael Confiant (1986-1994)

From 1986 to 1994, Patrick Chamoiseau and Raphaël Confiant published a series of fictional and non-fictional writings focusing on language issues. Interest in these themes can certainly in part be explained by the "surconscience linguistique" that Lise Gauvin attributes to Francophone authors: a linguistic over-awareness which, in the case of these two Martiniquais writers, may be attributed to their Creole-French diglossia. Although we might believe that the idea of Gauvin is right, it doesn't seem enough to explain why the linguistic theme plays such a central role in Chamoiseau's and Confiant's works. Deeply influenced by Glissant's theories on Creole popular culture and Antillean literature (Le discours antillais), they conceived a "Créolité" poetics based on a primarly identity-based and geopolitical discourse. Declaring the need to build an authentically Creole literary discourse, one that finally expresses the Martiniquais reality, Chamoiseau and Confiant (as well as Bernabé, third and last author of Éloge de la créolité) found the «foundations of [their] being» in orality and its poetics in the Creole language. This belief was maily translated into their works in two ways: by representing the (diglossic) relationships occurring between their first languages (Creole and French) and by representing the Creole parole (orality) and its function. An analysis of our authors' literary and theoretical writings will enable us to show how two works that develop around the same themes and thesis have in fact produced very divergent results, which were perhaps already perceivable in the main ambiguities of their common manifestos.

L'opera letteraria tra interpretazione e metafora: a partire da Nelson Goodman

Che rapporto intercorre tra un’opera letteraria e una sua interpretazione? Che cosa fa sì che la prima supporti la seconda? Come possiamo discernere un’interpretazione valida da una che non lo è ? Come può una stessa opera avere interpretazioni differenti e a volte incompatibili tra loro? Assumendo come punto di partenza la proposta di Nelson Goodman di qualificare l’opera letteraria come allografica e, quindi, di definire l’identità dell’opera sulla base della sua compitazione, cercare un risposta alle domande proposte implica un riflessione tanto sul linguaggio, quale strumento simbolico, quanto sulle modalità di riferimento proprie delle opere letterarie. In particolare, di fronte al dissolversi del mondo nella molteplicità delle versioni che il linguaggio può offrire di esso, una peculiare concezione della metafora, intesa come proiezione di un regno del linguaggio su un altro regno dello stesso, si qualifica come un buon modello per la comprensione del rapporto che lega opere letterarie e loro interpretazioni. In tal modo l’opera stessa non solo diviene significativa, ma, attraverso tale significazione, riesce anche a farsi produttiva, modificando, ampliando, ristrutturando la versione dal mondo dalla quale l’interprete-lettore prende le mosse. Ciascuna lettura di un’opera letteraria può infatti essere concepita come una via attraverso la quale ciò che nell’opera è detto viene proiettato sulla visione del mondo propria dell’interprete e di quanti possono condividerne il punto di vista. In tal modo le interpretazioni pongono le opere cui si riferiscono nelle condizioni di fornire un apporto significativo tanto alla comprensione quanto alla costituzione della nostra versione del mondo. E se ciò può avvenire in diversi modi, mutando le interpretazioni a seconda di chi le produce e delle circostanze in cui sorgono, l’opera evita la dissoluzione in virtù della compitazione che la identifica.

Ni una más. International cooperation against gender-based discrimination: the femicide case in Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, Mexico

The femicide in Ciudad Juárez is a story made of extreme violence against women for different reasons, by different actors, under different circumstances, and following different behavioural patterns. All within a gender discrimination frame based on the idea that women are inferior, interchangeable and disposable according to the patriarchal hierarchy still present in Mexico, but strongly reinforced by a sort of conspiracy of silence provoked either by the high impunity rate, the governmental incompetence to solve the crimes, or the general indifference of the population. It is the story of hundreds of kidnapped, raped, in many cases tortured, and murdered young women in the border between Mexico and the United States. The murders first came into light in 1993 and up to now young women continue to “disappear” without any hope of bringing the perpetrators to justice, stopping impunity, convicting the assassins, and bringing justice to the families of the deceased girls and women. The main questions about femicide in Ciudad Juárez seem to be: why were they brutally assassinated?, why most of the crimes have not been solved yet?, why and how is Ciudad Juárez different from other border cities with the same characteristics?, which powers are behind those crimes in a city that implies mainly women as its labor force, and which has the lowest unemployment rate in the whole country? But there are also many other questions dealing more with the context, the Juarences’ lifestyles, the eventual hidden powers behind the crimes, the possible murderers’ reasons, the response of the local civil society, or the international community actions to fight against femicide there, among many other things, that are still waiting for an answer and that this paper will ‘narrate’ in order to provide a holistic panorama for the readers. But above all there is the need to remember that every single woman or girl assassinated there had a name, an identity, a family, a story to be told time after time and as many times as necessary, in order to avoid accepting these crimes just as statistics, as cold numbers that might make us forget the human tragedy that has been flagellating the city since 1993. We must remember as well that their deaths express gender oppression, the inequality of the relations between what is male and what is female, a manifestation of domination, terror, social extermination, patriarchal hegemony, social class and impunity. The city is the perfect mirror where all the contradictions of globalization get reflected. It is there where all the globalization evils are present and survive by sucking their women’s blood. It is a city where some concepts such as gender, migration and power are closely related with a negative connotation.