In the bubble
The pandemic familiarized us with bubbles. We knew of its existence, of course. By culture, tradition, games and experiences. Observation and learning. Because of its multiple meanings and its popular applications. From the economic ones, generally harmful when they explode, such as real estate, to the nice ones linked to some carbonated or alcoholic beverages. Those of Freixenet showed us their commercial splendor during many Christmases.
From time to time we received news of bubble children or patients isolated due to the seriousness of their affectation who could not be in contact with anyone to avoid contagions that would entail unacceptable risks due to their precarious health. And they were installed in the clinically assimilated as a bubble. But no one ever warned us that we would all be considered members of one of them and would divide societies into a large number of bubbles based on our respective family nuclei. And we would move on to the similarity of those who move through a glass of cava without touching, which would have the purpose of not allowing relationships and that if this happens, be careful because the collision could lead to disappearance.
This is how they have kept us for a long year, in which it was possible to prevent the spread of the pandemic far beyond how far it also went. And this has been how the image has been recorded in our subconscious without paying attention to the symbolism that it entails or the metaphor it represents. To the extent that whoever was outside was contagious and entailed danger, the tendency followed strictly was to move away from our face-to-face contacts, substituting them for telematics. Logically, the lack of tact, relationship and exchange of glances implied human loss, psychological emptiness and social impoverishment.
The trend followed strictly was to replace face-to-face contacts with telematics
For a long time, the segregation that the networks have caused was making a dent by grouping groups by tastes and affinities. Algorithms were added to automate it and opinions were progressively concentrated among those who shared them while rejecting the dissenting ones. Only from this perspective can one understand the ease with which the different has been despised, pushing the uncomfortable away and moving away the opposite. This is how broad compact protest movements are achieved, protest platforms that have never been attended before and even tendentious labor selections that end up being victims of personal messages spread from a sincerity that goes beyond daring and reaches impudence. We were already living in chosen bubbles when they forced us to do so in other conditional ones. And if it is true that its success depends on the capacity for mobilization and its rapid public attention, it is also true that its failure is the lack of communication between opposites except to insult or ridicule each other. If the reason is within our feedback bubble, we haughtily conclude that it cannot be the opposite.
There are plenty of examples in all social, economic and ideological strata. From residents who refuse to accept a measure if they consider it imposed and not consensual, as is the case with those in the Sant Andreu neighborhood and door-to-door selective garbage collection, to the broader and cross-sectional groups of citizens who oppose to a pardon. And between them, although they coincide in the repudiation, they also separate the pomps of their reasons according to whether they belong to vengeful or resistant intolerance. The division from which the United States is recovering would be another massive and regrettable global benchmark paradigm in which aspiring European emulators are seduced.
The president of Colombia warns that the revolt that is shaking his country is going to spread to other parts of the world. This is what has the globalization effect, also when it comes to protests. It happened with the Arabs ten years ago. Although the Chileans will be able to reply that they were first. And if the trigger there was the increase in public transport rates, Atlántico Arriba has been due to the tax reform. It’s the economy, stupid, would claim Bill Clinton’s adviser. Measures that have an impact on citizens’ pockets and are taken without the necessary consensus, which is what Iván Duque now admits when he said from these same pages that he would look for it broader.
And all this leads us to a conclusion that has also been reiterated ad nauseam rhetorically but not in practice. The lack of debates despite claiming them. And confuse their demand with the inability to activate them properly. Promoting, speaking, listening, questioning, replicating, contrasting, yielding, agreeing and agreeing. In short, turning the long-claimed dialogue into what it really is: the basis of the meeting. Not the sum of isolationist monologues, which is what has been practiced with great care for some years now. The same ones in which we were entering our respective bubbles. Where our ideas live safe from interference from those who have others.