{"word_count": 1356, "character_count": 9198}
Thecensorship of knowledge is, at the same time, a characteristic of modernsocieties and a way of inhibiting rational social action.Theconviction that we have never had a society so intelligent, so well-formedbased on knowledge and evidence, so transparent, comes up against the realityof the leadership of ignorance and contempt for knowledge. Knowledge whichdespite the censorship exists and is produced, about pandemics or globalwarming, for instance.Science, infact, has proved to be a machine for producing new knowledge, compared to otherforms of knowledge. To the point that (almost) all knowledge claims to be partof science, including the humanities or social sciences. But science policiesare censorship. They present themselves in such a way that to the eyes of thepeople and also of the scientists they appear as strategies of development ofthe knowledge.Theutilitarian view of science policy is censorship in many ways. It isanti-theoretical, that is, it separates theory from pragmatic mental models andexperimental ways of doing science, as any Taylor analysis does with any typeof work, in order to ensure that science obeys the interests of the dominantclasses, serves the funders' interests. Who are the funders? Above all, theyare warlike institutions. For this reason, the best-kept secrets of utilitarianscience are war crimes organized by military powers, authorized by theauthorities of countries that wage war, such as those concerning the sideeffects of using nuclear weapons or, simply, disasters civilian nuclear.The life ofscientists, as of schools, is constrained by the abstraction of theories - suchas mathematics and other pragmatic mental models that support theoreticalreasoning. Only special spirits can live in the world of abstraction, unrelatedto life. They are said to be intelligent. They are perfect for developingutilitarian science. They do what they have to do without understanding orbeing interested in their practical consequences. They abandon this subject,within the framework of a division of scientific and technological work, tothose who do apply sciences. The radical separation of experience and theory inscience is reproduced in schools. Students live disconnected from practicallife. Disconnected from scientists and the exploration of the Earth and itshuman resources. They are limited to being taught by professional teachers,that is, those who have never left schools, disconnected themselves, forprofessional reasons, from economic and social life. They are encouraged toface the “economic jungle.” They receive the knowledge and authorization to usesocial stigmas as instruments to fight every one against everyone for survivaland individual dignity.Shamefulstruggles, which we have learned to “not take home”, so as not to contaminatefamily life, the personal refuge of privacy. Privacy to which we are entitledas a way to survive explorer and exploited human resources´ lifestyle. Heretoo, however, the theory of a loving family interested in procreating andexpanding love for new generations is confronted with practices: the epidemicof endless violence, not recognized or officially declared, covered up by theright to privacy, often confused with the property right. Propertyrights work in the jungle that is economic life: the Earth, instead of beingconceived as the unique medium where life arose, of which humanity is anexpression, serves as a monopoly board, so that the last of the competitors,the last of the emperors, have full ownership, unrestricted rights, as Godwould have in the believers' idea.The rightto privacy in the family has been used as the property right of the dominantperson in relation to other people in the household. Of course, there are sexeffects, as the counts of victims of domestic violence easily show. But thecentral problem, the Marxists argue, is the relations of production: thehistorical adoption of the exploitative mode of production of the Earth and itshuman resources for the accumulation of value, of wealth, of symbols of power -like money - in few hands.There arefeminists who have studied the way campaigns against witches and magic, and thepatriarchal organizations, such as the Church, served to diminish the socialstatus that was that of women in the Middle Ages, with the powers ofcaregivers. What is certain is that the recent women's liberation movementsshow everyone the oppression in which women have lived for centuries. Thenormalization of the denunciations of women's movements also shows the socialinertia in becoming aware, in the sense of acting in conformity, in relation tooppressive practices. For example, the “Me Too” movement no longer refers tothe denunciation of how oppressive policies to criminalize the voluntarytermination of pregnancy, as in the 1970s.Forty yearslater, it was no longer powerful women who went public to challenge criminalauthorities by publicly declaring they had committed a crime: an abortion. Thistime it was well-known women from the liberal north American film industry whorecognized the existence of an environment of sexual abuse in which many ofthem were victims of rape without having the chance to complain from theperpetrators, powerful men. Again, the criminal authorities were called, butthis time to be the ones to take care of the aggressors, due to the publicscandal generated by the mass presentation of women, leaning on each other.The mostpowerful women claim rights for themselves, such as those to take positions ongovernment and corporations to which they did not usually have access. Butpeople with less power continue to live under the same general regime, underthe mode of production which exploits the Earth and its human resources, andwhich reverberates to the family's privacy a concept of full ownership of thedominant in relation to the dominated.It was alsowomen's movements, more attentive to the problems of caring for people, whodenounced the last of human cowardice inspired by the idea of ​​property: thesexual abuse of children. The denunciations adopted a mixed strategy of massdenunciation and criminalization complaint, within the criminal systems. Theevolution of successive scandals has shown that there is an intimaterelationship between the modern institutionalized childcare organizations -including those of religious inspiration - and sexual abuse practices. Arelationship that caused and causes a reform in the Catholic Church whoseresults are still expected. Institutional cause that, however, must bemultiplied to help to explain family experiences. Most sexual abuse occurs infamilies that care for abused children.The factthat girls are the most numerous victims does not invalidate the masses of boyswho are victims of such practices. The sex difference cannot be understood asan essentialist explanation. In the same way that the mode of production,although it is discriminatory, elitist and concealing, as are the abusivepractices mentioned, does not provide for the need for such violence.Thecapitalist mode of production foresees the need to create a reserve proletarianarmy and a system of control of surplus workers, so that the risks of impotencein the face of misery, dishonor and hunger, experienced by so many, do notinfluence the productive labor. But why would the production mode claim therape of women, children and other people, such as LGBTI, migrants, refugees,precarious workers, within their families?Modernsocieties separate macro society, that of production, and micro-society, thatof everyday life alternating between work, family, and the rest. The first ofthese imagined societies, that are watertight among themselves - in a jobendured at the service of elites and carried out by the social sciences - isthe kingdom of power. The power that fades in micro-society: it turns into violence.The studyof power is done by economics or political science. Anthropology and sociologycould study violence. But they have not done so. They prefer to copy thepractices of their colleagues most appreciated by the elites. They focus theirattention on the issues of remaining powers - such as the power of culture andsymbols or the power of statistics and institutions - and avoid entering intothe studies of care and its influence in the production of deterioratedidentities.It is notonly violence, women's movements - that created their own discipline, feminism- or children's lives that the social sciences discard from the scope of theirstudies, obsessed with the best evaluation of elites, such as those imposed bydominant scientific policies. They discard the study of the realitiesthemselves, as there are no micro or macro realities: realities exist at alllevels of analysis at the same time. The exclusive separation of levels ofanalysis is an exercise of censorship taught and self-administered in thesocial sciences, to expel from knowledge core what is its hardcore.We are now ableto suggest to the reader a simple exercise, hoping one can demonstrate what hasjust been said:Pleasewatch the advertisement from this videoand highlight the fundamental knowledge about our society that it shows. Whatevidence does the reported experience represent?(to be continued …)