The essay reflects on the category of social "acceptability", proposed recently by Jean-Pierre Cavaillé as study methodology of irreligion and unbelief in the modern age, and, to that effect, as development of recent libertine historiography. If, on the one hand, this essay agree the need of this proposal to analyze the ideas ever in the specific historical context in which they were produced and acquired as an object of polemical confrontation between the actors, in order to understand also what, in that context, it was possible to say publicly and what is not; on the other, just for the purpose of a specific and profound historical knowledge, it claims here the methodological necessity to extend the research beyond the temporal boundaries of the specific socio-historical context, at the same time trying to understand even the plurality of the intentions of the actors involved. In this sense, the essay says that within the society, in a given historical moment, coexist a variety of human contexts defined and circumscribed, more or less structured and constant over time, within each of which every subject behaves differently, interacting with words, oral or written, sounds, gestures, physical actions, etc., specific and common. The reflection on the social contexts in which the actor acts must also be integrated with that on the different spheres crossing the individual life-relationships of subjects involved, from the interior to the private family, from the friendships or associations to the public “official” sphere, each characterized by its own level of knowledge and truth, apparently separated from each other and protected by a certain level of secrecy. If a careful approach of research must specifically investigate and compare the content of knowledge and truth expressed in each of these spheres, it must not really consider them separate from each other in the society, but it must across their borders, highlighting the levels of intercommunication. In this respect, the essay emphasizes the utility to rediscover the historiographical approach of an Italian scholar of libertinism, Anna Maria Battista, which, in some essays of the sixties and eighties of the twentieth century, red in the dissociation libertine not only the renunciation of philosopher Montaigne to take care of the world, but also the basis of a potential moral reform and politics, since the start of a deep knowledge of the self.
Il saggio riflette sulla categoria di “accettabilità” sociale, proposta recentemente da Jean-Pierre Cavaillé quale metodologia di studio dell’irreligione e dell’incredulità in età moderna, e, in tal senso, quale messa a punto della storiografia libertina degli ultimi anni. Se, da un lato, di questa proposta il saggio condivide l’esigenza di riferire le idee sempre allo specifico contesto storico in cui esse sono state prodotte e acquisite come oggetto di confronto polemico tra gli attori, al fine di comprendere anche che cosa, in quel contesto, fosse possibile dire pubblicamente e cosa non; dall’altro, proprio ai fini di una conoscenza storica specifica e profonda, si afferma qui la necessità metodologica di prolungare la ricerca al di là dei confini temporali dello specifico contesto storico-sociale, provando al tempo stesso a decifrare anche la pluralità delle intenzioni dei soggetti coinvolti. In tal senso, il saggio ritiene che all’interno di una stessa società, in un momento storico dato, coesistano una molteplicità di contesti umani definiti e circoscritti, più o meno strutturati e costanti nel tempo, all’interno di ciascuno dei quali ogni soggetto si comporta diversamente, interagendo con parole, orali o scritte, suoni, gesti, azioni fisiche, ecc., specifici e comuni. La riflessione sui contesti sociali in cui l’attore agisce deve essere inoltre integrata con quella sulle diverse sfere che attraversano la vita individuale-relazionale dei soggetti coinvolti, da quella interiore propria di ciascuno a quella privata familiare, da quelle amicali o associative fino alla sfera pubblica ufficiale, ciascuna caratterizzata da un suo livello di conoscenza e da una sua verità, ciascuna apparentemente separata dalle altre e protetta da un certo livello di segretezza. E se un attento approccio di ricerca deve indagare in modo specifico e confrontare tra loro i contenuti di conoscenza e di verità espressi all’interno di ognuna di queste sfere, esso non deve però considerarle realmente separate tra loro all’interno della società, ma deve attraversarne i confini, evidenziandone i livelli di intercomunicazione. Sotto questo profilo il saggio sottolinea l’utilità di recuperare l’approccio storiografico di una studiosa italiana del libertinismo, Anna Maria Battista, la quale, in alcuni saggi degli anni Sessanta-Ottanta del Novecento, leggeva nella dissociation libertine non solo la rinuncia della filosofia montaigniana ad occuparsi delle cose del mondo, ma anche la base di una potenziale riforma morale e politica, a partire dall’avvio di una profonda conoscenza del sé.
La réflexion sur la dissociation libertine à l’épreuve de l’« acceptabilité » / Ruocco, Giovanni. - In: LES DOSSIERS DU GRIHL. - ISSN 1958-9247. - ELETTRONICO. - (2013). [10.4000/dossiersgrihl.5924]
La réflexion sur la dissociation libertine à l’épreuve de l’« acceptabilité »
RUOCCO, GIOVANNI
2013
Abstract
The essay reflects on the category of social "acceptability", proposed recently by Jean-Pierre Cavaillé as study methodology of irreligion and unbelief in the modern age, and, to that effect, as development of recent libertine historiography. If, on the one hand, this essay agree the need of this proposal to analyze the ideas ever in the specific historical context in which they were produced and acquired as an object of polemical confrontation between the actors, in order to understand also what, in that context, it was possible to say publicly and what is not; on the other, just for the purpose of a specific and profound historical knowledge, it claims here the methodological necessity to extend the research beyond the temporal boundaries of the specific socio-historical context, at the same time trying to understand even the plurality of the intentions of the actors involved. In this sense, the essay says that within the society, in a given historical moment, coexist a variety of human contexts defined and circumscribed, more or less structured and constant over time, within each of which every subject behaves differently, interacting with words, oral or written, sounds, gestures, physical actions, etc., specific and common. The reflection on the social contexts in which the actor acts must also be integrated with that on the different spheres crossing the individual life-relationships of subjects involved, from the interior to the private family, from the friendships or associations to the public “official” sphere, each characterized by its own level of knowledge and truth, apparently separated from each other and protected by a certain level of secrecy. If a careful approach of research must specifically investigate and compare the content of knowledge and truth expressed in each of these spheres, it must not really consider them separate from each other in the society, but it must across their borders, highlighting the levels of intercommunication. In this respect, the essay emphasizes the utility to rediscover the historiographical approach of an Italian scholar of libertinism, Anna Maria Battista, which, in some essays of the sixties and eighties of the twentieth century, red in the dissociation libertine not only the renunciation of philosopher Montaigne to take care of the world, but also the basis of a potential moral reform and politics, since the start of a deep knowledge of the self.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.