Radical Chic Without Radical

That the revolution we strive to carry on welcomes numerous needs within itself - the genre struggles, the environment, social injustices, racism - is a recognized fact: diversə activistə or influencers (often the two categories overlap) yes) They engage in different and distant areas in the name, also, of the intersectionality. All this, we think, is positive: we cannot relegate every single fight to a miserable individualism, without any possibility of dialogue or encounter. There is a lot of talk, it is true, and therefore it sometimes happens that the topics are just flying over, touched and then left aside to move on to others, urgent like any other. We fight, yes, with commitment, but not always with the necessary depth or preparation, not always with suitable weapons. In any case, it is an easily solved problem: task of the account or influencer is not digging in detail of the problems, but lifting them. That you talk about it is already a goal in itself - especially if we think of certain minorities, forgotten as well as discriminated - and it is an even greater milestone the fact that people listen to. Perhaps due to the speed of the media or perhaps for a greater sensitivity of the new generations, the media expansion of certain debates is remarkable compared to a few years ago, when these speeches were relegated to the most intimate circles. People listen to, therefore, reads, speak. And inexorably, as always when you are on the mouth of Tuttə, criticism come. One of the workhorses of those who, infatiditə from these struggles, are firmly opposed, is the accusation of goodism. Vague term, in fact, and rather empty, which however can be summarized with a more specific concept, that of Radical Chic. Those who are attentive to the problems of the last, those who fight for gender equality or take sides on the side of migrants are, always and in any case, a radical chic. In the Italian public debate, this expression is used - it seems - with an increasing frequency, and almost always in a derogatory sense. The term consists of two words, an English and one French, which indicate respectively a radical (precisely) and left trend, and a sense of refinement and fashion - chic. Sifting through theOxford Dictionary We read that it is, in a nutshell, of the ostentation, very fashionable, of radical and left ideas. Not only. In addition to its aesthetic value, the term chic It seems to imply a sense of economic wealth. In short, of wealth. Radical Chic would therefore be those who, rich and perhaps bored, delight in social battles from the top of their privileged position. The accusation, if we think about it, is just that. The problem (maybe better to say one of the) of the left is precisely to relegate to restricted, intellectual or pseudo intellectual and bourgeois circles, and from this perspective to judge, propose, criticize. And in this way, over the years, his consents are not only sunk, but have changed pelvis, feeding on those few graduates, often children of graduates, who perhaps still listen to it. And at the same time there seems to not be the will, by the left, to dialogue with the people (does this concept still exist?). And so we move away from reality, the battles become chatter, and become radical chic. Now, the struggles we were talking about and in which we strongly believe, despite being political struggles are not always shared or discussed by politics. They are activistories and public characters who fight daily to ensure that these topics are brought to light. However, and this is the point, it happens that even these discussions, these struggles of which we have part of us, limit their audience to a handful of people. Or rather: to a specific social category, which once again is composed of a young graduate on which have all the tools - not even always - to understand the focus of the struggle. The speech often remains closed, limited to that of us who read certain articles, which follow the reflections of Certivity Activistə, and who complicate the discussion by folding it on itself, every day more, without realizing that there is a world outside who did not understand, nor does he want to follow him. The impression is that sometimes we commit the old sin of the left, that of splitting into internal, quarrelsome or even excessively rhetorical microgruppi, which lose the point of view, the goal. The struggle we carry on - the genre, social, anti -racist battles etc. is right, without a doubt. But it is a useless operation to continue to repeat it to us Stessə How to congratulate Solə, it is useless to crog in the awareness of being right by pointing the finger at anyone who does not think like us, tacciandolə as poor web ignorantə. We fight against this new prejudice that weighs on our shoulders, let's take back all those people who do not have a degree, who do not know the article, or the Attisìvista or the influencer: we convince them that we are right! That what we beat for is right, that it is useful for all, but let's do it with humility, with listening, with dialogue. Let's not relegate ourselves in the circles and lounges, real or virtual they are. Because otherwise, in the end, we will really become radical chic. Yes, but without radical.