On June 11, Amador Fernández-Savater, philosopher, independent researcher and author of the essay “Capitalismo libidinal. Neoliberal anthropology, politics of desire, right-wing discomfort”. During the dialogue, our guest addressed from a reflective and philosophical approach the relationship between desire and change, inviting us to think about a different concept of innovation.
The day began with an introduction by Marcos García, moderator of the dialogue and independent cultural manager in the field of citizen laboratories. Introducing the guest, García explained that Fernández-Savater draws on his own experience and experiences to inspire his reflections, as well as drawing on a variety of authors, both past and present. Since the pandemic, moreover, he has focused primarily on understanding desire and how its inhibition impedes transformation.
Fernández-Savater opened his intervention with a forceful statement: “Philosophy tries to abstract from reality in order to come back with a thought and not just an opinion”. Our guest proposed the conjecture that our society lacks desire, because it is defined by what it is not, while in our reality positivity prevails, that is, what already exists. He put forward the idea of thinking of desire as a path of life, which by definition should not be predefined. This path is invented or constructed by each individual, which implies a constant challenge not to fall into what society imposes.
Paraphrasing Antonio Machado’s famous poem (Caminante, no hay camino, se hace camino al andar), she stated: “Deseante no hay deseo, se hace deseo al desear”, thus suggesting that desire is a continuous and personal process that must be constructed throughout life, resisting external impositions.
Fernández-Savater went on to argue that the creative capacity of desire is stifled by the positivity of society, which defines what is to be desired, its frameworks and characteristics. This creates a kind of GPS of desire, limiting the true capacity to yearn and create. Moreover, the consumer market contributes to this by offering prefabricated desires, and eliminating the need to invent our own desires.
Another factor that crushes desire, according to Fernández-Savater, is productivity: in a society where utility and performance are paramount, desire, which does not necessarily produce or have immediate utility, is relegated.This imposition of productivity implies that desire is not valued if it does not contribute in a tangible way.
Fernandez-Savater pointed out that the homogeneity of society is due, in part, to the lack of desire. “Under these assumptions, wouldn’t innovation be converting the new into something that is already created and controlled?” he reflected, and clarified that innovation is a concept becomes the adaptation of the new to the already existing and controlled, rather than a true creative process.
“To build one’s own path and feel desire, it is necessary to challenge the given,” he said. “This challenge is related to modern psychic malaise, which can be linked to the inability to generate a path to desire. Desire is in the impulse, the longing and the ‘could be’.”
Fernandez-Savater then raised the need to think about spaces that activate desire, stressing that this is not exclusively personal, but also involves educational and social contexts. She asked whether universities and other learning spaces are open to desire or whether they are too regulated and structured. He concluded: “Desire is something that cannot be dictated or programmed. But it can be contagious and aroused,” stressing the importance of creating environments that foster and propagate desire.
After Amador’s intervention, a wide space was opened for reflections and questions from the audience. One of the questions raised was: how can spaces of desire be characterized and fostered?
Amador explained that “spaces of desire can be conceived as spaces of emptiness. It is not all said and all created; something different can be created there.”
An attendee raised the relationship between desire and childhood, to which Amador reflected: “It does not seem to me that children have desire incorporated as something natural. Desire is educated, built and shaped, and here the work of adult accompaniment is fundamental”.
Another intervention from the audience questioned whether a person with scarce resources and in a situation of social vulnerability has space or time for desire. According to Amador, it is precisely in the middle and upper classes where there may be less desire (in the philosophical sense of a truly creative and non-mimetic impulse): “It seems to me that what we call privileged subjects are highly repetitive subjects. Here consumption and productivity are at their peak, factors that crush desire.”
On June 11, Amador Fernández-Savater, philosopher, independent researcher and author of the essay “Capitalismo libidinal. Neoliberal anthropology, politics of desire, right-wing discomfort”. During the dialogue, our guest addressed from a reflective and philosophical approach the relationship between desire and change, inviting us to think about a different concept of innovation.
The day began with an introduction by Marcos García, moderator of the dialogue and independent cultural manager in the field of citizen laboratories. Introducing the guest, García explained that Fernández-Savater draws on his own experience and experiences to inspire his reflections, as well as drawing on a variety of authors, both past and present. Since the pandemic, moreover, he has focused primarily on understanding desire and how its inhibition impedes transformation.
Fernández-Savater opened his intervention with a forceful statement: “Philosophy tries to abstract from reality in order to come back with a thought and not just an opinion”. Our guest proposed the conjecture that our society lacks desire, because it is defined by what it is not, while in our reality positivity prevails, that is, what already exists. He put forward the idea of thinking of desire as a path of life, which by definition should not be predefined. This path is invented or constructed by each individual, which implies a constant challenge not to fall into what society imposes.
Paraphrasing Antonio Machado’s famous poem (Caminante, no hay camino, se hace camino al andar), she stated: “Deseante no hay deseo, se hace deseo al desear”, thus suggesting that desire is a continuous and personal process that must be constructed throughout life, resisting external impositions.
Fernández-Savater went on to argue that the creative capacity of desire is stifled by the positivity of society, which defines what is to be desired, its frameworks and characteristics. This creates a kind of GPS of desire, limiting the true capacity to yearn and create. Moreover, the consumer market contributes to this by offering prefabricated desires, and eliminating the need to invent our own desires.
Another factor that crushes desire, according to Fernández-Savater, is productivity: in a society where utility and performance are paramount, desire, which does not necessarily produce or have immediate utility, is relegated.This imposition of productivity implies that desire is not valued if it does not contribute in a tangible way.
Fernandez-Savater pointed out that the homogeneity of society is due, in part, to the lack of desire. “Under these assumptions, wouldn’t innovation be converting the new into something that is already created and controlled?” he reflected, and clarified that innovation is a concept becomes the adaptation of the new to the already existing and controlled, rather than a true creative process.
“To build one’s own path and feel desire, it is necessary to challenge the given,” he said. “This challenge is related to modern psychic malaise, which can be linked to the inability to generate a path to desire. Desire is in the impulse, the longing and the ‘could be’.”
Fernandez-Savater then raised the need to think about spaces that activate desire, stressing that this is not exclusively personal, but also involves educational and social contexts. She asked whether universities and other learning spaces are open to desire or whether they are too regulated and structured. He concluded: “Desire is something that cannot be dictated or programmed. But it can be contagious and aroused,” stressing the importance of creating environments that foster and propagate desire.
After Amador’s intervention, a wide space was opened for reflections and questions from the audience. One of the questions raised was: how can spaces of desire be characterized and fostered?
Amador explained that “spaces of desire can be conceived as spaces of emptiness. It is not all said and all created; something different can be created there.”
An attendee raised the relationship between desire and childhood, to which Amador reflected: “It does not seem to me that children have desire incorporated as something natural. Desire is educated, built and shaped, and here the work of adult accompaniment is fundamental”.
Another intervention from the audience questioned whether a person with scarce resources and in a situation of social vulnerability has space or time for desire. According to Amador, it is precisely in the middle and upper classes where there may be less desire (in the philosophical sense of a truly creative and non-mimetic impulse): “It seems to me that what we call privileged subjects are highly repetitive subjects. Here consumption and productivity are at their peak, factors that crush desire.”
+34 910 67 13 97 | itd@upm.es
Av.Complutense s/n. Ciudad
Universitaria, 28040 Madrid (España)
© itdUPM 2024 | Centro de Innovación en Tecnología para el Desarrollo Humano. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. | by Marmarru Studio
+34 910 67 13 97 | itd@upm.es
Av.Complutense s/n. Ciudad
Universitaria, 28040 Madrid (España)
© itdUPM 2024 | Centro de Innovación en Tecnología para el Desarrollo Humano. | by Marmarru Studio
