“Anioły w Ameryce”

Teatr: Teatr AST w Krakowie

reżyseria: Michał Borczuch

Ten spektakl był dla mnie prawdziwą ruletką w momencie decydowania czy chcę go zobaczyć czy nie. Wynika to z tego, że nadal mam traumę po „Aniołach w Ameryce” z Teatru Ludowego, częściowo ponieważ ostatnimi czasy w Teatrze AST trafiały mi się bardzo kiepskie spektakle, ale także po części dlatego, że mam dość nieokreśloną relację ze spektaklami Borczucha – część podoba mi się do szaleństwa i uważam, że jest to szczyt dokonań ludzkości, a część powodowała, że miałem ochotę oślepnąć, żeby już nigdy nic więcej nie widzieć. Mając ten wybuchowy mix emocji w sobie, uznałem: raz się żyje, lepiej iść i żałować niż nie zobaczyć wcale i potem pluć sobie w brodę i rozpamiętywać straconą okazję (a w tym jestem mistrzem – pozdrawiam moją terapeutkę). Żeby nie trzymać tutaj wszystkich w zbędnym napięciu – „Anioły w Ameryce” z AST okazały się być doskonałe (koniec recenzji – można się rozejść).

Spektakl podąża dość wiernie za tekstem dramatu Kushnera, więc mamy tutaj rozpisaną na prawie 5 godzin historię grupy ludzi, teoretycznie się nieznających, uwikłanych w religię, swoją orientację, politykę, ale przede wszystkim w wiszące nad całym przedstawieniem widmo śmierci i rozpadu.

Przyglądamy się przez soczewkę twórców relacji Priora i Louisa – dwóch młodych gejów, którzy są razem przez prawie 5 lat i kijem w szprychach ich związku jest pojawiające się nagle u Priora HIV. Obserwujmy rozpad ich relacji, ale też pewne poszukiwanie wiary przez chorego, któremu objawia się anioł i czyni z niego proroka nowej ewangelii. Louis po swojej ucieczce próbuje wejść w nowy związek z Joe – mężczyzną odkrywającym swoją homoseksualność, konserwatywnym mormonem, który jest współpracownikiem Roya Cohna, szychy, bezwzględnego prawnika, który – będąc jednocześnie ukrytym gejem – jest zatwardziałym homofobem.

Z drugiej strony zaglądamy w życie Harper i wcześniej wspomnianego Joe. Małżeństwa, w którym żona jest kurą domową będącą ciągle pod wpływem valium i leków uspokajających ze względu na swoje lęki i przywidzenia, oraz męża –wierzącego mormona, prawnika, który odkrywa, że jednak chyba nie jest tak heteroseksualny jak mu się wydawało. W rolach Harper i Joe fenomenalni Zofia Justyńska i Maciej Kamiński (mam ogromną nadzieję, że ich kariery polecą wprost do gwiazd, oglądanie ich to czysta przyjemność. Świetnie wygrywają swoje role drobnymi niuansami, spojrzeniami, cięższym oddechem. Prawdziwy master poziom. Brawa, oklaski, aplauzy). Harper dzięki swoim wizjom spotyka we śnie chorego Priora i zawiązuje się pomiędzy nimi pewne porozumienie dusz. Obydwoje są udręczeni na podobnym poziomie, ale w różny sposób.

Dodatkowo mamy też szansę zająć się życiem Roya Cohna, który nie dopuszcza do siebie wiadomości, że ma HIV, bo – jak sam mówi – to jest choroba ćpunów i gejów, a on nie jest ani jednym, ani drugim. Jest tylko mężczyzną sypiającym z innymi mężczyznami. Ciekawa kreacja Michała Badeńskiego – widać napracowanko przy tworzeniu tej postaci.

Bardzo podobała mi się w tym przedstawieniu scenografia Doroty Nawrot. Miała w sobie coś ze scenografii ze starszych spektakli Lupy. Dodatkowo pięknie porządkowała przestrzeń: świetnie pozwalała tworzyć kilka planów akcji jednocześnie. To właśnie też bardzo mi się spodobało w tej inscenizacji – plany akcji interferowały, przechodziły płynnie jeden w drugi. Akcja działa się nadal na drugim planie w momencie, gdy na pierwszym trwały inny istotne wydarzenia. Bardzo lubię takie zabiegi i naprawdę dodawało to spektaklowi lekkości.

Warto też wspomnieć o kliku scenach, które do teraz wspominam z powodu tego jak genialnie zostały wymyślone i zagrane – scena w klubie, gdzie Joe rozmawia z Cohnem, gdzie aktorzy przeciskają się przez niewidzialny tłum; niemalże czułem tę duchotę i wilgoć w powietrzu tak charakterystyczną dla takich miejsc z kłębowiskiem ludzi. Poza tym fenomenalna sekwencja, w której Harper odwiedza Antarktydę. Całą tę serię scen dźwigają na swoich barkach wcześniej wspomniana Zofia Justyńska (olaboga, jak ona pięknie śpiewa) i Denis Kudijenko w roli Mr Ściemniacza. Poza tym świtają mi cały czas w głowie momenty, gdy Anioł Betesdy (promieniejąca stanowczą mocą i humorem Wiktoria Karbownik) objawia się Priorowi – mógłbym tak wymieniać bez końca w sumie, tak dobrze jest to skrojony spektakl.  

Ale pomijając już to wszystko to „Anioły w Ameryce” są zagrane i wyreżyserowane tak pysznie, że przez całe 5 godzin nie czuje się ani odrobiny znużenia. Widz jest zainteresowany i porwany przez ten straszny, ale też kolorowy na swój sposób świat. To naprawdę solidny i przepiękny teatr dramatyczny w klasycznym znaczeniu tego słowa. Robiony z ogromną klasą i szacunkiem dla tekstu źródłowego, ale jednocześnie niearchaiczny i nienużący.

Ogromnie polecam biec na „Anioły…” póki są jeszcze na afiszu Teatru AST, bo spektakle dyplomowe nie mają specjalnie długiego żywota, a szkoda przegapić taką perełkę.

2 questions if you don't mind :)

1. Sunako's opinion on Clark

2. Harper's opinion on Roya

That I will do ;)

"Him... On one opinion of mine, he's very annoying whenever I'm with him. Second, that odd man is interesting. Despite myself slapping him countless time, I do feel like I couldn't get myself together thanks to him..."

"Roya is already on my list aside from my friends, we are in neutral terms with one and another. Plus, I have seen him around. A conversation with him is an okay from me."

Scobie is not on the rota, so he wouldn’t be invited in the same way anyway. But he does cover the royals for Harper’s Bazar or whatever outlet, it’s up to them if they want to send him on things. But lmao at him hanging out with the rest of the journalists, like Max Foster or Roya Nikkhah who don’t dabble in gossip at all, and the rest of ‘em who’s been called liars for three years.

I can only imagine how he is will be treated when things go back to normal and the press pack travels together. I hope this is what happens:

Harry and Meghan book: their raw rage leaps off the page.

I hope it was worth it for the prince

Roya Nikkhah, Royal Correspondent

Sunday July 26 2020,  The Sunday Times

For a couple so totally devoted to their privacy, this book, seemingly written with Prince Harry and Meghan’s blessing, is an extraordinary invasion of their own privacy.

No personal detail is spared. From their son Archie’s expression as he entered the world, to the name of their labrador, sensitive conversations with members of the royal family and even the exact “perfect pose” that yogi Meghan stretched her body into after discussing marriage with Harry on holiday in Africa — it is all in there.

The authors tell us that they have spoken to more than 100 sources, including “close friends of Harry and Meghan’s, royal aides and palace staff (past and present)”. As “fact-driven, objective journalists”, they say, “all information in this book has at least two sources”. Hmm. I wonder who they might be?

The official line from the Sussexes is that Finding Freedom is not an “authorised or endorsed book” and the authors insist they have not had on or off-the-record “interviews” with the couple, although Team Sussex told me Harry and Meghan were “relaxed” about the authors’ access to their nearest and dearest.

On the eve of its serialisation, a Sussex spokesman said: “The Duke and Duchess of Sussex were not interviewed and did not contribute to Finding Freedom. This book is based on the authors’ own experiences as members of the royal press corps and their own independent reporting.”

“These are versions of events both of us believe to be true,” say the authors. The book is certainly an authentic version of events — it is Harry and Meghan’s version.

The authors of Finding Freedom are Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand. Scobie, 39 ( cambridgelife comment: OMID IS OLD AHAHAHAHA, he still looks like ken) , a former celebrity reporter for Heat magazine, is the royal editor of Harper’s Bazaar. Durand is a US journalist based in America who previously worked for ABC News in London and writes for Elle. The pair are keen to champion the Sussexes’ philanthropic and campaigning agenda. “The aim of this book was to portray the real Harry and Meghan, a couple who have often been inaccurately portrayed and victims of those with personal agendas,” they say. That may have been the original aim, but over 24 chapters of score-settling and swipes at the royal family, the institution of monarchy, royal aides and the media, their admirable charitable endeavours are swamped by bitter recriminations. The book is likely to make particularly hurtful reading for the Queen, the grandmother Harry has said he “adores”, if indeed a copy finds its way to Balmoral, where she is about to decamp for her summer break with most of her family. The ink is barely dry on the January “Megxit” deal, where the monarch made a public point of sending the Sussexes on their way across the pond with the affectionate words: “Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved members of my family”, thanking them for their “dedicated work” and concluding a painful and turbulent chapter in the royal family’s history with her “hope” that the agreement would allow them “to start building a happy and peaceful new life”. Whatever the past turmoil, the Queen’s hope was certainly shared by the rest of her family. But they come under heavy artillery fire in Finding Freedom, page after page. We are told Harry has lost respect for part of the institution and certain family members, and that the Sussexes left the UK “battered and bruised by . . . lack of support from members of the royal family”. The body blows come thick and fast for the Duke of Cambridge, who will need to be braced, though I am told “nothing has the power to surprise him any more”. Not so long ago, Harry said his brother was “the one person on this earth” he could talk to about anything. “Every year we get closer . . . we understand each other.” How sad those words seem now. Harry’s feelings of indignation towards his brother in the book are palpable. As William encourages his younger brother to take all the time he needs in his new relationship — something their parents did not do, with devastating results — Harry does not see a protective sibling and an understandably cautious future monarch looking out for him and the institution. Instead he sees “a snob”. Perhaps William wishes he handled things differently now, but if two brothers cannot sit down for an honest heart-to-heart about one of the most important decisions in life, who can? The suggestion that the Cambridges cold-shouldered Harry and Meghan from the start will also raise bemused eyebrows. William and Kate hosted the couple at Anmer Hall, their Norfolk home, for Christmas in 2017, and the “Fab Four” — remember them? — strode out from Sandringham to church on Christmas morning as one.Grenades are also lobbed at Prince Charles, who memorably saved the day for his “darling boy”, accompanying Meghan down the aisle at St George’s Chapel in Windsor when her own father was a no-show. “Thank you, Pa,” Harry beamed at Charles as his bride joined him at the altar. But now, a source in the book tells us, Charles is so focused on his public image that at times Harry feels that takes precedence over everything, including the relationship with his younger son. That will sting the Prince of Wales.Harry and Meghan’s exit deal is due to be reviewed next year, and the Queen and the royal family are said to have made it clear to the couple the door will always remain open to them. Once this book is published next month, neither the prospect of a reconciliation nor the resumption of their royal life seem promising soon.“The old Harry would never do this,” a disappointed, bemused but still fond friend tells me. “It’s needless drama, drama, drama. He’s so far gone. They got most of what they asked for, they got the Queen’s public support and they’re out in California with Archie planning their new life the way they wanted it. But they can’t let go of the past and move on. It’s so sad.”It is true that Harry and Meghan’s still raw rage leaps off the pages — it is “us against the world” at every turn — and readers may wonder whatever happened to the royal mantra, “Never complain, never explain”.I have interviewed Harry three times in my decade as a royal correspondent, and always found him entertaining, engaging, honest and definitely keen to get it all off his chest.So perhaps the Sussexes will feel relieved everything is now out in the open. Perhaps it will give them the “closure” they need. Perhaps it will lay ghosts to rest and, in time, help to heal the gaping wounds that are clearly still sore from their premature wrenching from the royal fold. Perhaps. But was it really worth it?

Omid was a RR before Meghan, he was part of a few tours as well. But yeah, he talks more about them now (i guess).

“I know Omid’s been around a lot longer than people think”

Omid’s been around a long time but he was never one of the big RRs. He’s never been as continually on the scene as someone like Roya, Becky English, Dick Palmer, or even Arthur! He’s been a royal reporter for 8ish years but Harper’s Bazaar doesn’t have the widespread readership as one of the main British newspapers (rightly or wrongly)

A Letter on Justice and Open Debate

July 7, 2020

The below letter will be appearing in the Letters section of the magazine’s October issue. We welcome responses at [email protected]

“Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.”

Elliot Ackerman Saladin Ambar, Rutgers University Martin Amis Anne Applebaum Marie Arana, author Margaret Atwood John Banville Mia Bay, historian Louis Begley, writer Roger Berkowitz, Bard College Paul Berman, writer Sheri Berman, Barnard College Reginald Dwayne Betts, poet Neil Blair, agent David W. Blight, Yale University Jennifer Finney Boylan, author David Bromwich David Brooks, columnist Ian Buruma, Bard College Lea Carpenter Noam Chomsky, MIT (emeritus) Nicholas A. Christakis, Yale University Roger Cohen, writer Ambassador Frances D. Cook, ret. Drucilla Cornell, Founder, uBuntu Project Kamel Daoud Meghan Daum, writer Gerald Early, Washington University-St. Louis Jeffrey Eugenides, writer Dexter Filkins Federico Finchelstein, The New School Caitlin Flanagan Richard T. Ford, Stanford Law School Kmele Foster David Frum, journalist Francis Fukuyama, Stanford University Atul Gawande, Harvard University Todd Gitlin, Columbia University Kim Ghattas Malcolm Gladwell Michelle Goldberg, columnist Rebecca Goldstein, writer Anthony Grafton, Princeton University David Greenberg, Rutgers University Linda Greenhouse Rinne B. Groff, playwright Sarah Haider, activist Jonathan Haidt, NYU-Stern Roya Hakakian, writer Shadi Hamid, Brookings Institution Jeet Heer, The Nation Katie Herzog, podcast host Susannah Heschel, Dartmouth College Adam Hochschild, author Arlie Russell Hochschild, author Eva Hoffman, writer Coleman Hughes, writer/Manhattan Institute Hussein Ibish, Arab Gulf States Institute Michael Ignatieff Zaid Jilani, journalist Bill T. Jones, New York Live Arts Wendy Kaminer, writer Matthew Karp, Princeton University Garry Kasparov, Renew Democracy Initiative Daniel Kehlmann, writer Randall Kennedy Khaled Khalifa, writer Parag Khanna, author Laura Kipnis, Northwestern University Frances Kissling, Center for Health, Ethics, Social Policy Enrique Krauze, historian Anthony Kronman, Yale University Joy Ladin, Yeshiva University Nicholas Lemann, Columbia University Mark Lilla, Columbia University Susie Linfield, New York University Damon Linker, writer Dahlia Lithwick, Slate Steven Lukes, New York University John R. MacArthur, publisher, writer

Susan Madrak, writer

Phoebe Maltz Bovy, writer

Greil Marcus Wynton Marsalis, Jazz at Lincoln Center Kati Marton, author Debra Mashek, scholar Deirdre McCloskey, University of Illinois at Chicago John McWhorter, Columbia University Uday Mehta, City University of New York Andrew Moravcsik, Princeton University Yascha Mounk, Persuasion Samuel Moyn, Yale University Meera Nanda, writer and teacher Cary Nelson, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Olivia Nuzzi, New York Magazine Mark Oppenheimer, Yale University Dael Orlandersmith, writer/performer George Packer Nell Irvin Painter, Princeton University (emerita) Greg Pardlo, Rutgers University – Camden Orlando Patterson, Harvard University Steven Pinker, Harvard University Letty Cottin Pogrebin Katha Pollitt, writer Claire Bond Potter, The New School Taufiq Rahim Zia Haider Rahman, writer Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen, University of Wisconsin Jonathan Rauch, Brookings Institution/The Atlantic Neil Roberts, political theorist Melvin Rogers, Brown University Kat Rosenfield, writer Loretta J. Ross, Smith College J.K. Rowling Salman Rushdie, New York University Karim Sadjadpour, Carnegie Endowment Daryl Michael Scott, Howard University Diana Senechal, teacher and writer Jennifer Senior, columnist Judith Shulevitz, writer Jesse Singal, journalist Anne-Marie Slaughter Andrew Solomon, writer Deborah Solomon, critic and biographer Allison Stanger, Middlebury College Paul Starr, American Prospect/Princeton University Wendell Steavenson, writer Gloria Steinem, writer and activist Nadine Strossen, New York Law School Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., Harvard Law School Kian Tajbakhsh, Columbia University Zephyr Teachout, Fordham University Cynthia Tucker, University of South Alabama Adaner Usmani, Harvard University Chloe Valdary Helen Vendler, Harvard University Judy B. Walzer Michael Walzer Eric K. Washington, historian Caroline Weber, historian Randi Weingarten, American Federation of Teachers Bari Weiss Sean Wilentz, Princeton University Garry Wills Thomas Chatterton Williams, writer Robert F. Worth, journalist and author Molly Worthen, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Matthew Yglesias Emily Yoffe, journalist Cathy Young, journalist Fareed Zakaria

REPOST, DO NOT REBLOG.

Quick Ref Sheet || Mun and Muse Edition!

TAGGED BY: @miiraculeux

RULES:  Tag ten followers

muse:

NAME: Roya Willa Harper

NICKNAME: Roy

ZODIAC SIGN: Scorpio

GENDER: Female

FAVORITE COLOUR(S): Red, Black, 

AVERAGE HOURS OF SLEEP: Probably four-five hours though if she can get more she will

LAST THING YOU GOOGLED: God awful memes to send grumpy ex boyfriends

HEIGHT: 5′10″

mun:

NAME: AJ

NICKNAMES: That is my nickname

ZODIAC SIGN: Pieces

GENDER: Female

FAVORITE COLOUR(S): Green, Blue, Black

AVERAGE HOURS OF SLEEP: 7 

LAST THING YOU GOOGLED: The height of my FC

HEIGHT: 5′4″

TAGGING:Literally everyone

“Lasciateci dissentire. Siamo scrittori e abbiamo bisogno di una cultura che ci lasci spazio per la sperimentazione, per l’assunzione del rischio e persino per gli errori”. Un appello contro il politicamente corretto

Non solo in Italia, evidentemente, ma anche in America un certo pensiero integralisticamente “correct” ci sta facendo soffocare. E fa cadere teste. Giornalisti, scrittori, studiosi, insegnanti beccati semplicemente a criticare o addirittura a non ossequiare abbastanza il pensiero mainstream perdono il posto di lavoro e di sostentamento. Ostracismo, maledizione sociale, gogna mediatica, perfino la galera stanno tornando di moda non verso persone violente o fraudolente, ma semplicemente per un pensiero espresso, un’opinione pubblicata. Non lo dico io; non lo dice un’accolita di reazionari o fascistoidi di ritorno. Lo dice un appello firmato negli USA da un gran numero di intellettuali, scrittori, docenti liberal e progressisti americani. Ha fatto specie infatti la pubblicazione su “Harper’s Magazine” del 7 luglio 2020 di “Una Lettera sulla Giustizia e sulla Libertà di Opinione” che propone la questione del rischio liberticida nella società causato da una certa deriva del pensiero unico dominante; in America è legata soprattutto ai tragici episodi della violenza della polizia ma anche della moda para-identitaria dei distruttori di statue, ma un rischio del genere in Italia potremmo correrlo anche con leggi come la Zan-Scalfarotto contro l’omotransfobia: qualora fosse approvata, potrebbe bastare una frase sbagliata per finire in prigione. Non so quanta eco questa lettera abbia avuto in Italia, temo molto scarsa. Per questo abbiamo deciso di proporla. Ringrazio per la traduzione Massimo Ridolfi, e non solo per la traduzione, ma anche per il dialogo, squisitamente e liberamente culturale, avuto intorno a queste problematiche. Idealmente ci aggiungiamo ai firmatari, felici di essere ultimi tra cotanto senno. Non sfugga che tra di essi spicca il nome di Noam Chomsky… (Gianfranco Lauretano)

*

Una Lettera sulla Giustizia e sulla Libertà di Opinione

Le nostre istituzioni culturali stanno affrontando un momento di prova. Le dure proteste per rivendicare una eguaglianza etnica e sociale stanno portando a richieste tardive in merito alla riforma delle forze di polizia (caso George Floyd, N.d.T.), insieme a domande più ampie di maggiore uguaglianza e inclusione in tutta la nostra società, non ultima nell’istruzione superiore, nel giornalismo, nella filantropia e nelle arti. Ma questa necessaria resa dei conti ha anche intensificato una nuova serie di atteggiamenti morali e impegni politici che tendono a indebolire le nostre norme che determinano la libertà di opinione e la tolleranza delle differenze a favore di una particolare adesione ideologica. Mentre applaudiamo gli iniziali esiti di tutto questo, alziamo però la nostra voce contro le sue immediate conseguenze. Le forze illiberali certamente stanno guadagnando forza in tutto il mondo e hanno un potente alleato in Donald Trump, che rappresenta una vera minaccia alla democrazia. Ma non bisogna permettere alle forze di opposizione di irrigidirsi e fissarsi nella propria impronta dogmatica o repressiva, che i demagoghi di destra stanno già sfruttando. L’inclusione democratica che desideriamo può essere raggiunta solo se manifestiamo contro il clima di intolleranza che si è palesato da entrambe le parti in causa.

Il libero scambio di informazioni e di idee, linfe vitali di una società liberale, sta diventando sempre più limitato. Mentre ci aspettiamo tale atteggiamento dalla destra radicale, la censura si sta invero diffondendo anche più ampiamente nella cultura cosiddetta democratica: intolleranza alle opinioni contrarie, un particolare gusto per il malgoverno e l’ostracismo, e la tendenza a dissolvere complesse questioni politiche dentro una accecante certezza morale. Sosteniamo il valore di un discorso controcorrente robusto e persino caustico da tutte le parti interessate. Ma ora è fin troppo facile sentire richieste di rapide e severe soluzioni in risposta a comportamenti ritenuti inopportuni e che percepiamo in tal modo solo grazie alla libertà di parola e di pensiero. Ancora più preoccupanti sono quei rappresentanti istituzionali che, nell’intenzione di contenere il danno, in preda al panico, stanno offrendo soluzioni affrettate e sproporzionate invece di riforme ponderate e durature. (Nel campo dell’informazione e della cultura, N.d.T.) i redattori sono licenziati per aver mandato in stampa pezzi controversi; i libri sono ritirati per presunta inautenticità; ai giornalisti è vietato scrivere su determinati argomenti; i professori sono indagati per aver citato opere letterarie in classe; un ricercatore è licenziato per aver fatto circolare uno studio accademico non autorizzato; e chi è a capo di complessi organismi ne viene espulso per quello che a volte è stato solo un errore materiale. Qualunque siano le argomentazioni su ogni particolare caso, il risultato è stato quello di restringere costantemente i confini di ciò che si può dire senza la minaccia di rappresaglie. Stiamo già pagando il prezzo con maggiore rinuncia al rischio da parte di scrittori, artisti e giornalisti che temono di perdere i propri mezzi di sussistenza (redditi, condizione patrimoniale, ecc., N.d.T.) se si discostano dal consenso o mancano di sufficiente zelo al sistema.

Questa atmosfera soffocante alla fine danneggerà quelle che sono le ragioni fondamentali del nostro tempo. La restrizione del dibattito, da parte di un governo repressivo o di una società intollerante, invariabilmente danneggia i più deboli e rende tutti meno capaci alla partecipazione democratica. Il modo per sconfiggere le cattive idee passa solo attraverso l’esposizione, l’argomentazione e la proposta, non certo cercando di zittirle o desiderare di allontanarle. Rifiutiamo qualsiasi falsa scelta tra giustizia e libertà, perché non possono esistere l’una senza l’altra. Come scrittori abbiamo bisogno di una cultura che ci lasci spazio per la sperimentazione, per l’assunzione del rischio e persino per gli errori. Dobbiamo preservare la possibilità di dissentire in buona fede senza il rischio di conseguenze professionali. Se non difendiamo la cosa da cui dipende il nostro lavoro (la Libertà, N.d.T.), non dovremmo aspettarci che il cittadino o lo Stato la difendano per noi.

Firmatari:

Elliot Ackerman Saladin Ambar, Rutgers University Martin Amis Anne Applebaum Marie Arana, author Margaret Atwood John Banville Mia Bay, historian Louis Begley, writer Roger Berkowitz, Bard College Paul Berman, writer Sheri Berman, Barnard College Reginald Dwayne Betts, poet Neil Blair, agent David W. Blight, Yale University Jennifer Finney Boylan, author David Bromwich David Brooks, columnist Ian Buruma, Bard College Lea Carpenter Noam Chomsky, MIT (emeritus) Nicholas A. Christakis, Yale University Roger Cohen, writer Ambassador Frances D. Cook, ret. Drucilla Cornell, Founder, uBuntu Project Kamel Daoud Meghan Daum, writer Gerald Early, Washington University-St. Louis Jeffrey Eugenides, writer Dexter Filkins Federico Finchelstein, The New School Caitlin Flanagan Richard T. Ford, Stanford Law School Kmele Foster David Frum, journalist Francis Fukuyama, Stanford University Atul Gawande, Harvard University Todd Gitlin, Columbia University Kim Ghattas Malcolm Gladwell Michelle Goldberg, columnist Rebecca Goldstein, writer Anthony Grafton, Princeton University David Greenberg, Rutgers University Linda Greenhouse Rinne B. Groff, playwright Sarah Haider, activist Jonathan Haidt, NYU-Stern Roya Hakakian, writer Shadi Hamid, Brookings Institution Jeet Heer, The Nation Katie Herzog, podcast host Susannah Heschel, Dartmouth College Adam Hochschild, author Arlie Russell Hochschild, author Eva Hoffman, writer Coleman Hughes, writer/Manhattan Institute Hussein Ibish, Arab Gulf States Institute Michael Ignatieff Zaid Jilani, journalist Bill T. Jones, New York Live Arts Wendy Kaminer, writer Matthew Karp, Princeton University Garry Kasparov, Renew Democracy Initiative Daniel Kehlmann, writer Randall Kennedy Khaled Khalifa, writer Parag Khanna, author Laura Kipnis, Northwestern University Frances Kissling, Center for Health, Ethics, Social Policy Enrique Krauze, historian Anthony Kronman, Yale University Joy Ladin, Yeshiva University Nicholas Lemann, Columbia University Mark Lilla, Columbia University Susie Linfield, New York University Damon Linker, writer Dahlia Lithwick, Slate Steven Lukes, New York University John R. MacArthur, publisher, writer

Susan Madrak, writer Phoebe Maltz Bovy, writer Greil Marcus Wynton Marsalis, Jazz at Lincoln Center Kati Marton, author Debra Mashek, scholar Deirdre McCloskey, University of Illinois at Chicago John McWhorter, Columbia University Uday Mehta, City University of New York Andrew Moravcsik, Princeton University Yascha Mounk, Persuasion Samuel Moyn, Yale University Meera Nanda, writer and teacher Cary Nelson, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Olivia Nuzzi, New York Magazine Mark Oppenheimer, Yale University Dael Orlandersmith, writer/performer George Packer Nell Irvin Painter, Princeton University (emerita) Greg Pardlo, Rutgers University – Camden Orlando Patterson, Harvard University Steven Pinker, Harvard University Letty Cottin Pogrebin Katha Pollitt, writer Claire Bond Potter, The New School Taufiq Rahim Zia Haider Rahman, writer Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen, University of Wisconsin Jonathan Rauch, Brookings Institution/The Atlantic Neil Roberts, political theorist Melvin Rogers, Brown University Kat Rosenfield, writer Loretta J. Ross, Smith College J.K. Rowling Salman Rushdie, New York University Karim Sadjadpour, Carnegie Endowment Daryl Michael Scott, Howard University Diana Senechal, teacher and writer Jennifer Senior, columnist Judith Shulevitz, writer Jesse Singal, journalist Anne-Marie Slaughter Andrew Solomon, writer Deborah Solomon, critic and biographer Allison Stanger, Middlebury College Paul Starr, American Prospect/Princeton University Wendell Steavenson, writer Gloria Steinem, writer and activist Nadine Strossen, New York Law School Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., Harvard Law School Kian Tajbakhsh, Columbia University Zephyr Teachout, Fordham University Cynthia Tucker, University of South Alabama Adaner Usmani, Harvard University Chloe Valdary Helen Vendler, Harvard University Judy B. Walzer Michael Walzer Eric K. Washington, historian Caroline Weber, historian Randi Weingarten, American Federation of Teachers Bari Weiss Sean Wilentz, Princeton University Garry Wills Thomas Chatterton Williams, writer Robert F. Worth, journalist and author Molly Worthen, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Matthew Yglesias Emily Yoffe, journalist Cathy Young, journalist Fareed Zakaria

*In copertina: Martin Amis, ragazzo

L'articolo “Lasciateci dissentire. Siamo scrittori e abbiamo bisogno di una cultura che ci lasci spazio per la sperimentazione, per l’assunzione del rischio e persino per gli errori”. Un appello contro il politicamente corretto proviene da Pangea.

from pangea.news https://ift.tt/3fcWvAP

The Arrow Family