Talk:Precarity (Social Christianity)
- See also discussion in Talk:Precarity.
Precarity and Christianity
[edit]This debate is an interesting one, and I think this should be merged with the main article with caveats. Even from the Dorothy Day quotation used, it is clear we are talking about a concept that has similarities, but is not the same as its use in autonomist movements. In particular, precarity is seen as a particularly new development within capitalism for the autonomists, related to post-Fordist expansions. Whereas for Léonce Crenier "precarity is an essential element of poverty" implying that it is a continuous factor, not something new. It is fairly clear he is not thinking about the explicit neoliberal restructuring of labour roles in favour of unlimited exploitation of workers by no longer permitting them permanent and unionised roles. The Christian, particularly Catholic discourse on poverty is a complicated one, that both calls for voluntary poverty while mudding this with attempting to allevate involuntary economic poverty, but calling both in some sense holy and hence desirable, all in a not especially coherent way, all the while making poverty into a mystical category to be lauded and praised. This much is clear from the full Catholic Worker article, where the idea is that becoming precarious is a good thing, as it enables the good of the monastery to be given to the poor in the case of Léonce Crenier and enabled the early Catholic Workers to fully embrace poverty. I am not sure this is quite parallel to the active demonstration against precarity that is the hallmarks of autonomia. I doubt any autonomia activist would be looking to a situation that encourages precarity, just notes it as an important factor in militant organisation since this is now the composition of the working class. Indeed, Catholic Social Teaching actually calls for an end to the kind of instability of jobs and casualisation that the sociological concept of precarity names, noting that you can't form a family and so on. This has been the case since at least Rerum Novarum - the living wage campaigns are an example of this, and church organisation do fight the casualisation of labour. I think we can reach balance here without flamewars.
PS Hardt and Negri are sort of wrong on Francis as interesting as their invocation is. Though he was joyful, he was in no way opposed to mortification (bear in mind he had the immensely painful stigmata), and noted on several occasions his loyalty to the Catholic hierarchy, something I am sure autonomia is opposed to. A complex figure. In addition, Francisians as a monastic group, ironically, had a large role in the formation of capitalism itself, despite what they claim - http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/6975?eng=y --94.195.48.128 (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
On reflection I think that I find it very difficult to believe that "In its English usage, Precarity was first used by Léonce Crenier, a Catholic monk". Considering neither the monk himself or Day had to explain the concept, it strikes me that it was at least known enough for it to be transparent. The Catholic Worker certainly embraced the concept of precarity, asking its members to embrace it in a form of voluntary poverty, as per Dorothy Day's article - for example, they would deliberately move into places they knew they couldn't pay the rent to "live on the edge". This should be included in any entry but I think this differs from the use in contemporary concepts. But that it was first used in English by I find no evidence for online other than this article itself. If Wikipedia strives for accuracy, perhaps an alternative source can be found. --94.195.48.128 (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Removed from page
[edit]The following passages were erroneously posted on the page itself. This seems to have been done by people unfamiliar with how wikipedia works. Please have patience with them.Harrypotter (talk) 12:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- The actual configuration of the entry Precarity in the English Wikipedia does not respond to any kind of reality out of the ideological religious integrist war of one or two persons. Many members of the Networks against Precarity from different parts of the world have been trying to stablish some rationality on this entry, but the actual configuration only responds to an act of force, an authoritarian gesture hidden under the "dialogical" and "interactive" dynamics of this website. Please stop confusing Wikipedia users. Please stop religious war on Precarity entry and Wikipedia website.User:83.57.6.14, 12:31, 18 February 2009
- This last interpretation is just crap. All activist from Precarity-networks are mostly anti-religious individuals, the detournement uses the catholic cultural background in south european countries to create a counter-image of what a "saint" is meant for: San Precario is meant to trigger activism and not passivity, political thinking and behaviour, and not pure faith in a better future. The idea that San Precario is a catholic detournement is just A SIMPLE LIE that many of us have been trying to revert for already one year without being able to counter the imposition of just one single person in this page.User:83.57.6.14, 12:34, 18 February 2009
"There is an ancient legend that might serve to illuminate the future life of communist militancy: that of Saint Francis of Assisi. Consider his work. To denounce the poverty of the multitude he adopted that common condition and discovered there the ontological power of a new society. The communist militant does the same, identifying in the common condition of the multitude its enormous wealth. Francis in opposition to nascent capitalism refused every instrumental discipline, and in opposition to the mortification of the flesh (in poverty and in the constituted order) he posed a joyous life, including all of being and nature [...] Once again in postmodernity we find ourselves in Francis's situation, posing against the misery of power the joy of being. This is a revolution that no power will control - because biopower and communism, co-operation and revolution remain together, in love, simplicity, and also innocence. This is the irrepressible lightness and joy of being communist". This is a quote form Toni Negri.Harrypotter (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The following passages were also erroneously posted on the page itself. This seems to have been done by people still unfamiliar with how wikipedia works. Please have patience with them.
- San Precario, which is being stolen for the "Social Christianity" entry, does NOT consist in a catholic detournement!!! - 99% per cent of those who contributed to produce and reproduce the idea, the concept, the image, of San Precario, including me, are NOT catholics nor christians - on the contrary, our aim was to make use of the catholic background of southern european societies to detour it in the perspective of autonomous politics, critical thinking, and a non-religious perspective.
- STOP using Wikipedia for integrist catholic propaganda and stop confusing wikipedia users. I respect religious people a priori: but it has NOTHING to do with Precarity as a contemporary concept.User:83.57.6.14 18:30, 18 February 2009
- HARRYPOTTER STOP VANDALIZING EVERYBODY'S WORK ON THIS PAGE. YOU ARE BEHAVING SIMPLY AS A DICTATORSHIP. THIS IS NOT *YOUR* PERSONAL PAGE. YOU ARE JUST CONTROLLING THE DEFINITION OF THIS PAGE AGAINST EVERYONE WHO'S BEEN TRYING TO CONTRIBUTE TO IT IN A CONSTRUTIVE SENSE. YOU ARE VANDALIZING. YOU ARE AN AUTHORITARIAN DICTATORSHIP. YOU ARE AN INTEGRIST. YOU ARE AN IGNORANT. User:83.57.6.14 18:35, 18 February 2009
It is hard to know how to respond to this. I have just checked Integrism, which sems to be something which has been subjected to vigorous attacks by the catholic establishment, even by the Pope himself. (see his Principles of Catholic Theology (1982).Harrypotter (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
2 pages
[edit]you have precarity the general concept, and precarity the social christian concept. not 85 pages, stop messing about and make an encyclopedia. i don't care what you think is your ideology or your ownership, just do good work or leave it alone.--Buridan (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
More removed from article
[edit]--> This is simply A LIE. San Precario has *nothing* to do with Catholic ideology, nor is it a Catholic "detournement". It is indeed a detournement, but making use of the Catholic background in South-European countries, in order to "detour" religious meaning into political activism. Has to do much more with mocking or making fun of religious iconography, than making a catholic version of the practice of "collective names", which has been already for two decades an autonomous, irreverent, anti-religious, anti- capitalist strategy of producing urban myths. 23:25, 24 February 2009 77.226.142.185 (Talk)