La filosofia di Hans-Georg Gadamer e il problema del disagio della modernità. Ermeneutica, estetica, etica e politica

L’ermeneutica filosofica di Hans-Georg Gadamer – indubbiamente uno dei capisaldi del pensiero novecentesco – rappresenta una filosofia molto composita, sfaccettata e articolata, per così dire formata da una molteplicità di dimensioni diverse che si intrecciano l’una con l’altra. Ciò risulta evidente già da un semplice sguardo alla composizione interna della sua opera principale, Wahrheit und Methode (1960), nella quale si presenta una teoria del comprendere che prende in esame tre differenti dimensioni dell’esperienza umana – arte, storia e linguaggio – ovviamente concepite come fondamentalmente correlate tra loro. Ma questo quadro d’insieme si complica notevolmente non appena si prendano in esame perlomeno alcuni dei numerosi contributi che Gadamer ha scritto e pubblicato prima e dopo il suo opus magnum: contributi che testimoniano l’importante presenza nel suo pensiero di altre tematiche. Di tale complessità, però, non sempre gli interpreti di Gadamer hanno tenuto pienamente conto, visto che una gran parte dei contributi esegetici sul suo pensiero risultano essenzialmente incentrati sul capolavoro del 1960 (ed in particolare sui problemi della legittimazione delle Geisteswissenschaften), dedicando invece minore attenzione agli altri percorsi che egli ha seguito e, in particolare, alla dimensione propriamente etica e politica della sua filosofia ermeneutica. Inoltre, mi sembra che non sempre si sia prestata la giusta attenzione alla fondamentale unitarietà – da non confondere con una presunta “sistematicità”, da Gadamer esplicitamente respinta – che a dispetto dell’indubbia molteplicità ed eterogeneità del pensiero gadameriano comunque vige al suo interno. La mia tesi, dunque, è che estetica e scienze umane, filosofia del linguaggio e filosofia morale, dialogo con i Greci e confronto critico col pensiero moderno, considerazioni su problematiche antropologiche e riflessioni sulla nostra attualità sociopolitica e tecnoscientifica, rappresentino le diverse dimensioni di un solo pensiero, le quali in qualche modo vengono a convergere verso un unico centro. Un centro “unificante” che, a mio avviso, va individuato in quello che potremmo chiamare il disagio della modernità. In altre parole, mi sembra cioè che tutta la riflessione filosofica di Gadamer, in fondo, scaturisca dalla presa d’atto di una situazione di crisi o disagio nella quale si troverebbero oggi il nostro mondo e la nostra civiltà. Una crisi che, data la sua profondità e complessità, si è per così dire “ramificata” in molteplici direzioni, andando ad investire svariati ambiti dell’esistenza umana. Ambiti che pertanto vengono analizzati e indagati da Gadamer con occhio critico, cercando di far emergere i principali nodi problematici e, alla luce di ciò, di avanzare proposte alternative, rimedi, “correttivi” e possibili soluzioni. A partire da una tale comprensione di fondo, la mia ricerca si articola allora in tre grandi sezioni dedicate rispettivamente alla pars destruens dell’ermeneutica gadameriana (prima e seconda sezione) ed alla sua pars costruens (terza sezione). Nella prima sezione – intitolata Una fenomenologia della modernità: i molteplici sintomi della crisi – dopo aver evidenziato come buona parte della filosofia del Novecento sia stata dominata dall’idea di una crisi in cui verserebbe attualmente la civiltà occidentale, e come anche l’ermeneutica di Gadamer possa essere fatta rientrare in questo discorso filosofico di fondo, cerco di illustrare uno per volta quelli che, agli occhi del filosofo di Verità e metodo, rappresentano i principali sintomi della crisi attuale. Tali sintomi includono: le patologie socioeconomiche del nostro mondo “amministrato” e burocratizzato; l’indiscriminata espansione planetaria dello stile di vita occidentale a danno di altre culture; la crisi dei valori e delle certezze, con la concomitante diffusione di relativismo, scetticismo e nichilismo; la crescente incapacità a relazionarsi in maniera adeguata e significativa all’arte, alla poesia e alla cultura, sempre più degradate a mero entertainment; infine, le problematiche legate alla diffusione di armi di distruzione di massa, alla concreta possibilità di una catastrofe ecologica ed alle inquietanti prospettive dischiuse da alcune recenti scoperte scientifiche (soprattutto nell’ambito della genetica). Una volta delineato il profilo generale che Gadamer fornisce della nostra epoca, nella seconda sezione – intitolata Una diagnosi del disagio della modernità: il dilagare della razionalità strumentale tecnico-scientifica – cerco di mostrare come alla base di tutti questi fenomeni egli scorga fondamentalmente un’unica radice, coincidente peraltro a suo giudizio con l’origine stessa della modernità. Ossia, la nascita della scienza moderna ed il suo intrinseco legame con la tecnica e con una specifica forma di razionalità che Gadamer – facendo evidentemente riferimento a categorie interpretative elaborate da Max Weber, Martin Heidegger e dalla Scuola di Francoforte – definisce anche «razionalità strumentale» o «pensiero calcolante». A partire da una tale visione di fondo, cerco quindi di fornire un’analisi della concezione gadameriana della tecnoscienza, evidenziando al contempo alcuni aspetti, e cioè: primo, come l’ermeneutica filosofica di Gadamer non vada interpretata come una filosofia unilateralmente antiscientifica, bensì piuttosto come una filosofia antiscientista (il che naturalmente è qualcosa di ben diverso); secondo, come la sua ricostruzione della crisi della modernità non sfoci mai in una critica “totalizzante” della ragione, né in una filosofia della storia pessimistico-negativa incentrata sull’idea di un corso ineluttabile degli eventi guidato da una razionalità “irrazionale” e contaminata dalla brama di potere e di dominio; terzo, infine, come la filosofia di Gadamer – a dispetto delle inveterate interpretazioni che sono solite scorgervi un pensiero tradizionalista, autoritario e radicalmente anti-illuminista – non intenda affatto respingere l’illuminismo scientifico moderno tout court, né rinnegarne le più importanti conquiste, ma più semplicemente “correggerne” alcune tendenze e recuperare una nozione più ampia e comprensiva di ragione, in grado di render conto anche di quegli aspetti dell’esperienza umana che, agli occhi di una razionalità “limitata” come quella scientista, non possono che apparire come meri residui di irrazionalità. Dopo aver così esaminato nelle prime due sezioni quella che possiamo definire la pars destruens della filosofia di Gadamer, nella terza ed ultima sezione – intitolata Una terapia per la crisi della modernità: la riscoperta dell’esperienza e del sapere pratico – passo quindi ad esaminare la sua pars costruens, consistente a mio giudizio in un recupero critico di quello che egli chiama «un altro tipo di sapere». Ossia, in un tentativo di riabilitazione di tutte quelle forme pre- ed extra-scientifiche di sapere e di esperienza che Gadamer considera costitutive della «dimensione ermeneutica» dell’esistenza umana. La mia analisi della concezione gadameriana del Verstehen e dell’Erfahrung – in quanto forme di un «sapere pratico (praktisches Wissen)» differente in linea di principio da quello teorico e tecnico – conduce quindi ad un’interpretazione complessiva dell’ermeneutica filosofica come vera e propria filosofia pratica. Cioè, come uno sforzo di chiarificazione filosofica di quel sapere prescientifico, intersoggettivo e “di senso comune” effettivamente vigente nella sfera della nostra Lebenswelt e della nostra esistenza pratica. Ciò, infine, conduce anche inevitabilmente ad un’accentuazione dei risvolti etico-politici dell’ermeneutica di Gadamer. In particolare, cerco di esaminare la concezione gadameriana dell’etica – tenendo conto dei suoi rapporti con le dottrine morali di Platone, Aristotele, Kant e Hegel – e di delineare alla fine un profilo della sua ermeneutica filosofica come filosofia del dialogo, della solidarietà e della libertà.

L'a(rche)tipico Brian O'Nolan. Comico e riso dalla tradizione al post-

This study aims at analysing Brian O'Nolans literary production in the light of a reconsideration of the role played by his two most famous pseudonyms ,Flann Brien and Myles na Gopaleen, behind which he was active both as a novelist and as a journalist. We tried to establish a new kind of relationship between them and their empirical author following recent cultural and scientific surveys in the field of Humour Studies, Psychology, and Sociology: taking as a starting point the appreciation of the comic attitude in nature and in cultural history, we progressed through a short history of laughter and derision, followed by an overview on humour theories. After having established such a frame, we considered an integration of scientific studies in the field of laughter and humour as a base for our study scheme, in order to come to a definition of the comic author as a recognised, powerful and authoritative social figure who acts as a critic of conventions. The history of laughter and comic we briefly summarized, based on the one related by the French scholar Georges Minois in his work (Minois 2004), has been taken into account in the view that humorous attitude is one of man’s characteristic traits always present and witnessed throughout the ages, though subject in most cases to repression by cultural and political conservative power. This sort of Super-Ego notwithstanding, or perhaps because of that, comic impulse proved irreducible exactly in its influence on the current cultural debates. Basing mainly on Robert R. Provine’s (Provine 2001), Fabio Ceccarelli’s (Ceccarelli 1988), Arthur Koestler’s (Koestler 1975) and Peter L. Berger’s (Berger 1995) scientific essays on the actual occurrence of laughter and smile in complex social situations, we underlined the many evidences for how the use of comic, humour and wit (in a Freudian sense) could be best comprehended if seen as a common mind process designed for the improvement of knowledge, in which we traced a strict relation with the play-element the Dutch historian Huizinga highlighted in his famous essay, Homo Ludens (Huizinga 1955). We considered comic and humour/wit as different sides of the same coin, and showed how the demonstrations scientists provided on this particular subject are not conclusive, given that the mental processes could not still be irrefutably shown to be separated as regards graduations in comic expression and reception: in fact, different outputs in expressions might lead back to one and the same production process, following the general ‘Economy Rule’ of evolution; man is the only animal who lies, meaning with this that one feeling is not necessarily biuniquely associated with one and the same outward display, so human expressions are not validation proofs for feelings. Considering societies, we found that in nature they are all organized in more or less the same way, that is, in élites who govern over a community who, in turn, recognizes them as legitimate delegates for that task; we inferred from this the epistemological possibility for the existence of an added ruling figure alongside those political and religious: this figure being the comic, who is the person in charge of expressing true feelings towards given subjects of contention. Any community owns one, and his very peculiar status is validated by the fact that his place is within the community, living in it and speaking to it, but at the same time is outside it in the sense that his action focuses mainly on shedding light on ideas and objects placed out-side the boundaries of social convention: taboos, fears, sacred objects and finally culture are the favourite targets of the comic person’s arrow. This is the reason for the word a(rche)typical as applied to the comic figure in society: atypical in a sense, because unconventional and disrespectful of traditions, critical and never at ease with unblinkered respect of canons; archetypical, because the “village fool”, buffoon, jester or anyone in any kind of society who plays such roles, is an archetype in the Jungian sense, i.e. a personification of an irreducible side of human nature that everybody instinctively knows: a beginner of a tradition, the perfect type, what is most conventional of all and therefore the exact opposite of an atypical. There is an intrinsic necessity, we think, of such figures in societies, just like politicians and priests, who should play an elitist role in order to guide and rule not for their own benefit but for the good of the community. We are not naïve and do know that actual owners of power always tend to keep it indefinitely: the ‘social comic’ as a role of power has nonetheless the distinctive feature of being the only job whose tension is not towards stability. It has got in itself the rewarding permission of contradiction, for the very reason we exposed before that the comic must cast an eye both inside and outside society and his vision may be perforce not consistent, then it is satisfactory for the popularity that gives amongst readers and audience. Finally, the difference between governors, priests and comic figures is the seriousness of the first two (fundamentally monologic) and the merry contradiction of the third (essentially dialogic). MPs, mayors, bishops and pastors should always console, comfort and soothe popular mood in respect of the public convention; the comic has the opposite task of provoking, urging and irritating, accomplishing at the same time a sort of control of the soothing powers of society, keepers of the righteousness. In this view, the comic person assumes a paramount importance in the counterbalancing of power administration, whether in form of acting in public places or in written pieces which could circulate for private reading. At this point comes into question our Irish writer Brian O'Nolan(1911-1966), real name that stood behind the more famous masks of Flann O'Brien, novelist, author of At Swim-Two-Birds (1939), The Hard Life (1961), The Dalkey Archive (1964) and, posthumously, The Third Policeman (1967); and of Myles na Gopaleen, journalist, keeper for more than 25 years of the Cruiskeen Lawn column on The Irish Times (1940-1966), and author of the famous book-parody in Irish An Béal Bocht (1941), later translated in English as The Poor Mouth (1973). Brian O'Nolan, professional senior civil servant of the Republic, has never seen recognized his authorship in literary studies, since all of them concentrated on his alter egos Flann, Myles and some others he used for minor contributions. So far as we are concerned, we think this is the first study which places the real name in the title, this way acknowledging him an unity of intents that no-one before did. And this choice in titling is not a mere mark of distinction for the sake of it, but also a wilful sign of how his opus should now be reconsidered. In effect, the aim of this study is exactly that of demonstrating how the empirical author Brian O'Nolan was the real Deus in machina, the master of puppets who skilfully directed all of his identities in planned directions, so as to completely fulfil the role of the comic figure we explained before. Flann O'Brien and Myles na Gopaleen were personae and not persons, but the impression one gets from the critical studies on them is the exact opposite. Literary consideration, that came only after O'Nolans death, began with Anne Clissmann’s work, Flann O'Brien: A Critical Introduction to His Writings (Clissmann 1975), while the most recent book is Keith Donohue’s The Irish Anatomist: A Study of Flann O'Brien (Donohue 2002); passing through M.Keith Booker’s Flann O'Brien, Bakhtin and Menippean Satire (Booker 1995), Keith Hopper’s Flann O'Brien: A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Post-Modernist (Hopper 1995) and Monique Gallagher’s Flann O'Brien, Myles et les autres (Gallagher 1998). There have also been a couple of biographies, which incidentally somehow try to explain critical points his literary production, while many critical studies do the same on the opposite side, trying to found critical points of view on the author’s restless life and habits. At this stage, we attempted to merge into O'Nolan's corpus the journalistic articles he wrote, more than 4,200, for roughly two million words in the 26-year-old running of the column. To justify this, we appealed to several considerations about the figure O'Nolan used as writer: Myles na Gopaleen (later simplified in na Gopaleen), who was the equivalent of the street artist or storyteller, speaking to his imaginary public and trying to involve it in his stories, quarrels and debates of all kinds. First of all, he relied much on language for the reactions he would obtain, playing on, and with, words so as to ironically unmask untrue relationships between words and things. Secondly, he pushed to the limit the convention of addressing to spectators and listeners usually employed in live performing, stretching its role in the written discourse to come to a greater effect of involvement of readers. Lastly, he profited much from what we labelled his “specific weight”, i.e. the potential influence in society given by his recognised authority in determined matters, a position from which he could launch deeper attacks on conventional beliefs, so complying with the duty of a comic we hypothesised before: that of criticising society even in threat of losing the benefits the post guarantees. That seemingly masochistic tendency has its rationale. Every representative has many privileges on the assumption that he, or she, has great responsibilities in administrating. The higher those responsibilities are, the higher is the reward but also the severer is the punishment for the misfits done while in charge. But we all know that not everybody accepts the rules and many try to use their power for their personal benefit and do not want to undergo law’s penalties. The comic, showing in this case more civic sense than others, helped very much in this by the non-accessibility to the use of public force, finds in the role of the scapegoat the right accomplishment of his task, accepting the punishment when his breaking of the conventions is too stark to be forgiven. As Ceccarelli demonstrated, the role of the object of laughter (comic, ridicule) has its very own positive side: there is freedom of expression for the person, and at the same time integration in the society, even though at low levels. Then the banishment of a ‘social’ comic can never get to total extirpation from society, revealing how the scope of the comic lies on an entirely fictional layer, bearing no relation with facts, nor real consequences in terms of physical health. Myles na Gopaleen, mastering these three characteristics we postulated in the highest way, can be considered an author worth noting; and the oeuvre he wrote, the whole collection of Cruiskeen Lawn articles, is rightfully a novel because respects the canons of it especially regarding the authorial figure and his relationship with the readers. In addition, his work can be studied even if we cannot conduct our research on the whole of it, this proceeding being justified exactly because of the resemblances to the real figure of the storyteller: its ‘chapters’ —the daily articles— had a format that even the distracted reader could follow, even one who did not read each and every article before. So we can critically consider also a good part of them, as collected in the seven volumes published so far, with the addition of some others outside the collections, because completeness in this case is not at all a guarantee of a better precision in the assessment; on the contrary: examination of the totality of articles might let us consider him as a person and not a persona. Once cleared these points, we proceeded further in considering tout court the works of Brian O'Nolan as the works of a unique author, rather than complicating the references with many names which are none other than well-wrought sides of the same personality. By putting O'Nolan as the correct object of our research, empirical author of the works of the personae Flann O'Brien and Myles na Gopaleen, there comes out a clearer literary landscape: the comic author Brian O'Nolan, self-conscious of his paramount role in society as both a guide and a scourge, in a word as an a(rche)typical, intentionally chose to differentiate his personalities so as to create different perspectives in different fields of knowledge by using, in addition, different means of communication: novels and journalism. We finally compared the newly assessed author Brian O'Nolan with other great Irish comic writers in English, such as James Joyce (the one everybody named as the master in the field), Samuel Beckett, and Jonathan Swift. This comparison showed once more how O'Nolan is in no way inferior to these authors who, greatly celebrated by critics, have nonetheless failed to achieve that great public recognition O’Nolan received alias Myles, awarded by the daily audience he reached and influenced with his Cruiskeen Lawn column. For this reason, we believe him to be representative of the comic figure’s function as a social regulator and as a builder of solidarity, such as that Raymond Williams spoke of in his work (Williams 1982), with in mind the aim of building a ‘culture in common’. There is no way for a ‘culture in common’ to be acquired if we do not accept the fact that even the most functional society rests on conventions, and in a world more and more ‘connected’ we need someone to help everybody negotiate with different cultures and persons. The comic gives us a worldly perspective which is at the same time comfortable and distressing but in the end not harmful as the one furnished by politicians could be: he lets us peep into parallel worlds without moving too far from our armchair and, as a consequence, is the one who does his best for the improvement of our understanding of things.

Enhancing Workers’ Well-Being. Scientific and social relevance of managing stress in the workplace

Purpose. Despite work-related stress is one of the most studied topic in organizational psychology, many aspects as for example the use of different measures (e.g. subjective and objective, qualitative and quantitative) are still under debate. According to this, in order to enhance knowledge concerning which factors and processes contribute to create healthy workplaces, this thesis is composed by four different studies aiming to understand: a) the role of relevant antecedents (e.g. leadership, job demands, work-family conflict, social support etc.) and outcomes (e.g. workplace phobia, absenteeism etc.) of work-related stress; and b) how to manage psychosocial risk factors in the workplace. The studies. The first study focused on how disagreement between supervisors and their employees on leadership style (transformational and transactional) could affect workers well-being and work team variables. The second and third study used both subjective and objective data in order to increase the quality of the reliability of the results gained. Particularly, the second study focused on job demand and its relationship with objective sickness leave. Findings showed that despite there is no direct relationship between these two variables, job demand affects work-family conflict, which in turn affect exhaustion, which leads to absenteeism. The third study analysed the role of a new concept never studied before in organizational settings (workplace phobia), as a health outcome in the JD-R model, demonstrating also its relationship with absenteeism. The last study highlighted the added value of using the mixed methods research approach in order to detect and analyse context-specific job demands which could affects workers’ health. Conclusion. The findings of this thesis answered both to open questions in the scientific literature and to the social request of managing psychosocial risk factors in the workplace in order to enhance workers well-being.