Oct 202011
 
TumblrShare

Our children are all Spanish.  They were born in Spain – and profess an undying love for it.  They are Spanish in a way that I can never be – even as I have Mediterranean blood and spent sixteen years of my life living and working there.

For the first twelve years we lived in the northern city of Burgos.  Burgos has a beautiful river running down its centre.  The green banks are mechanically sprinkled.  Wild grasses are kept at bay through municipal care.  The burgaleses were always proud of how much money they spent on picking up rubbish in the streets.  You can’t change the Spanish you see – and, at least then, they didn’t try.

I had many good friends in that part of the world for many years.  One was a man called Emilio – he was both an English student of mine as well as our paediatrician.  He oversaw easy times and he oversaw difficult times.  He was a wise man – realistic, thoughtful, intelligent and analytical.  The kind of steady hand all new parents need.

I remember the battle we had to go through to name our firstborn.  We wanted to give him a Spanish first name and a Croatian second name.  The authorities at the Registry Office in Burgos – then still pretty starchy and conservative (Burgos has only – in the last decade – removed the names of Franco’s generals from their streets and squares) – tried to insist it would only make life more confusing for our son to have two forenames.  This, despite the Spanish tradition of often having three forenames.

Anyhow, we did as instructed: we obtained written confirmation from the then Yugoslav embassy that the name we had chosen existed; lied that there was no translation of the name into Spanish; and with great persistence managed to give our child the names we wished for.

I forget now, as time has gone by, the absurdity of all this to-ing and fro-ing – the bureaucratic insistence on telling us what he should be called; the foolish and small-minded attitudes it all inscribed.  But one thing I have never quite forgotten – and which my previous post today has savagely brought back to mind – is the unnatural fear I had at the time that our babies would be taken away from us.

Or if not taken away from us – then swapped.

We did have the comfort that having a good friend like Emilio provides.  And we really had no evidence to presuppose that anything of the sort might happen.  You do have to remember that only three years prior to the birth of our eldest, I came across – for the first time – those military-looking civil guards who would be stationed outside the main post office, machine-guns clutched in clearly bored hands.

It all seemed a little over the top for a young man recently escaped from what I might at the time have described as “Dixon of Dock Green”-land.  Even where this land had spent a decade under the rule of someone like Margaret Thatcher.

In most things, therefore, Spain was a release from a previous existence.  But in terms of security; having to be fingerprinted for the first time in my life; carrying an ID card; having a police officer tell me he had means of finding out how much money I had in my account … all these things, you can understand, as a foreigner abroad, kind of spooked me just a little.

So there were enough culture shocks to knock oneself a little off beam – to make oneself a little sensitive to different ways of doing. 

Enough curious matters which – in essence – surely were not curiosities at all.

What really spooked me, though, was the Spanish health service.  Mixed up in amongst the state hospitals, and working alongside proper nurses, there were these silent and untrained nuns – a generally unpaid workforce (or so I believe – though correct me if I am wrong) who would pad around the establishments, often supplanting the work of the overworked staff.  Often working entirely alone and unsupervised too.  It somehow seemed (though at the time unreasonably, because without them nothing would have worked) a very very strange set of dynamics.

Strange no longer.  Not in the light of Spain’s stolen babies.

And I am just glad we escaped unscathed.

For the current Spanish government is investigating cases of stolen babies as recent as 1990.

And our firstborn was born in 1991.


TumblrShare
Oct 192011
 
TumblrShare

Why is it called social media?  Is that as opposed to antisocial media?  There are plenty of examples of the latter, of course: News International’s decade-long phone-hacking activities being just one.

But no.  I’m inclined to believe – in the light of its development – that it serves as a useful linguistic cloak for a series of mercantile instincts.  Through the similarly-termed social networking services, which piggyback on this human desire to communicate online, the long-burn process of converting free sites into premium sites has found a brand new ally.  Whilst “monetising media” would appeal to no one, “social media” just hits the spot.

And so I look for offline equivalents to this absolute monetisation of all human intercourse.  At first, I go back to my favourite analogy: chatting with the neighbour over the garden fence.  No money, really, in that.

Then we have the relationship between parent and child: no money, really in that.

Grandparents?  Soul-mates?  Pen-pals?  Well, not exactly.

What about friends then?  Ah, well … maybe this is where the lines begin to get rather more blurred.  In particular if you are self-employed, but generally for most other people too, you will have friends for telling bad stuff in your life and you will have friends for reaching out to potential and new opportunities – whether work-related or otherwise.  The term “friends”, then, covers a multitude of options – therein, perhaps, its utility to a “social media” which aspires to monetise us.  In precisely its ambiguity, its flux and its mobility, we have the perfect figure for that concept which is money – a concept which seduces and, ultimately, puts a price on everyone.

You couldn’t do that if the idea of “friends” was less fluid and better defined – if we were clearer about what being a “friend” actually meant.

Only in ambiguity can the mercantile edge us to fall into temptation.

“Social media”, then, appears such a simple idea: we all, after all, know what “social” means, don’t we?  And so there, all those decades ago, was poor Mrs Thatcher, attempting to get rid of public attachment to the blessed word.  How little did she know!  For if I am right on this subject, in what I say today, the future will depend on us not knowing who our friends exactly are – nor to what extent they might truly be so.

It is only in permanent uncertainty that we ever make that jump to purchase the new – and for the monetisers amongst us, that state of permanent uncertainty I describe is like a lubricating oil to the cogs that drive their money-making machines.

To never know who is your real friend?  Is that the future which awaits us?

Well.  This latter requirement will only continue to be possible if all things “social” remain our misunderstood beacon of splendid ambiguity.  And there are plenty of forces out there, I am sure, convinced they can convince us of that.


TumblrShare
Check Our FeedVisit Us On TwitterVisit Us On Facebook