Translation from the original Spanish by Alejandro Barreras
If I interpret your question not as what my vision for the future is, but as how I view the current role of intellectuals, I must say this: those who are conducting research, teaching and creating in Cuba today, in the best of circumstances, act as advisors, consultants and moderators for a clique of “social deciders” –a regrettable term, but one that begs the question that, if there are “deciders,” what kind of democracy are we talking about?). At the same time, there is another set of intellectuals who think of themselves as providers of important aesthetic, cognitive and moral goods that they believe to be essential to society. As creators of performances/novels/trova or hip-hop songs that might influence audiences (or simply entertain), they are typically viewed as the bearers of “civic conscience.” A third type includes a group that acts as the spiritual guardians of a “culture” that needs saving, preserving, or just being left alone, as an arena for free expression that is valid and valuable in itself. None of them much appeals to the Cuban public at large.
No doubt, we are witnessing the publication of new and interesting books (from the municipal to the continental in scope), events with thrilling reverberations such as the recent Arts Biennial, or daring dissenting performances such as Tania Brugera’s. Nevertheless, we must accept once and for all that—no matter how much activity we see in Temas magazine, Espacio Laical, Cuba Posible or Articulación de Afrodescendientes—the collective impact of the Cuban “public intellectual class” on their youngest peers, on their educated and inquisitive compatriots in particular, and on “society in general” does not compare with the impact of the mass media (the “antenna”, the paquete) or even the impact that this same intellectual class (or its counterparts in other times/contexts) had in 90’s Cuba or in Russia between 1986 and 1990.
The decisions that affect our society at large take place, in present-day Cuba, at the top levels. To assess the poor role of public intellectuals in such processes, we need to look at specific examples. Let me give you four public issues that I think are important, but also that interest me personally: (1) internet connectivity; (2) the future of the ration card, and more generally, how to guarantee the basic subsistence for those most disadvantaged; (3) the new Labor Code and what kind of social and economic relations it establishes; and (4) tourist development and the construction of golf courses (specifically the high consumption of hydro resources in the vicinity of the Guanahacabibes natural reserve). (I’m not including, deliberately, the macro-issue of the “normalization” between Cuba and the US).
And I ask: did we have public debate on any of these four major issues? There has been debate around the first, but clearly because of the intelligentsia’ self-interest and its need for visibility (the rest of society makes do with el paquete). Yet, there has been a negligible visibility or ‘public intellectual’ debate concerning governmental and social decisions about any of the other three. This cannot just be blamed on censorship, given the enormous progress vis-a-vis freedom of expression and the growth of alternative media in the past ten years.
If I read your question not as to describe how things are, but how I think they ought to be, I should say that I simply believe that those who “work intellectually” (we should establish an exact meaning of this expression from the anthropological-social perspective, since it’s not a trivial question) should be engaged in social debates. They should issue their own opinions in a responsible fashion, along with all of us who live within Cuban society, and let debates around issues of collective impact lead to decisions, in the most autonomous, inclusive and supportive way. This is precisely the true meaning of the word “democracy”—or even “free society” or “socialism.”
To me, intellectuals’ social relevance, along with their dynamic participation in the public sphere, is contingent upon the way in which the collective determines and implements decisions. This could be an autonomous, inclusive and supportive process; or it could involve arcane and convoluted hierarchies, where the social will ebbs and flows, noxiously trapped in a maze of obscure ministries and functionaries. Beware! This will can also flow in a similarly heteronymous way between private-capital enterprises, whether growing or in crisis.
We find then that for intellectual work to have social relevance or contribute to the dynamics of the public sphere, it must first work toward society’s maximum opening. In other words, it must contribute to autonomous institutional frameworks characterized by reflexivity and solidarity as a matter of everyday practice. Towards that goal, I believe the best course of action is not to wait for the “deciders” to open up spaces (very unlikely), but to coalesce social actors—including, but not just, “intellectuals”—around concrete collective concerns, trying our hardest to create an active and pace-setting intelligentsia, able to contribute something towards a solution. I’m not talking about solving the whole problem, just contributing towards a solution. That would be enough: if not to get out from under our predicaments, at least to learn how to find our own solutions as a society, applying our common knowledge as well as new understandings.
We need to foster new institutional practices, without that entailing to ask the “deciders” for permission.
This has been the focus of my work since 1999: creating autonomous projects that cast this perspective onto society. This does not mean neglecting academia, research or writing, quite the opposite. This is a motivation and trajectory that imbues “classic” intellectual work with social, popular and personal meaning. I believe the intersection of these perspectives can be mutually catalytic.