Gorrín

Gorrín es el nombre local para el cerdo menor de cuatro meses. En el resto de España se le suele llamar cochinillo o lechón, porque se ha alimentado solo de leche.

La costumbre de mi abuelo materno era festejar cumpleaños y otras celebraciones (como pentecostés, o las fiestas patronales) con gorrín. Y para nosotros era uno de esos días grandes que ocurren de ciento a viento, y del que disfrutábamos cada minuto.

Eran domingos de primavera tardía o pleno verano. El día comenzaba con un desayuno rápido, pues había que prepararse (ropa de domingo) para llegar a misa en el pueblo de mis abuelos maternos. Al llegar íbamos al primer banco de la iglesia en el lado izquierdo. Este era el banco de mi abuelo, y por delegación nuestro puesto en misa. Era una de esas leyes no escritas, pero ineludiblemente respetadas. La iglesia era pequeña, fría y el coro era parco en cantantes, pero en esos días la luz entraba furiosa por los ventanales elevados. Era una luz que descubría el retablo, algo tosco y con unos cuantos cuadros que jamás llamaron nuestra atención. La iglesia estaba dedicada a San Andrés, lo cual nos interesaba bien poco. Al acabar el oficio nos encontrábamos con tíos y primos. Después de misa las preparaciones comenzaban. Mi abuela, mi madre y mis tías comenzaban a preparar bandejas de croquetas, los espárragos, el jamón, el chorizo y la lechuga.

La verdadera aventura era que el abuelo Martin te llevara a recoger el gorrín a Riezu. Riezu era el pueblo situado al pie del nacedero del rio Ubagua y adquiría un aspecto mítico por varias razones. Este pueblo tenía varias casas de aspecto palaciego, había una piscifactoría, ¡un nacedero y … asaban el gorrín!

La carretera cruza el pueblo de sur a norte, buscando la ladera que lleva a Iturgoyen (el siguiente pueblo). El nacedero estaba a unos 20 minutos de paseo del pueblo. Se seguía un camino serpenteante que dejaba el riachuelo a la izquierda hasta llegar a una oquedad de la que salía agua con una espontaneidad natural, sin aspavientos. El agua lleva aflorando a la superficie allí toda la vida, sin descanso, sin demora y sin artificio, el lugar transmite un aire de permanencia sencilla y predecible.

Los domingos de gorrín lo interesante estaba en el horno donde este era asado. El abuelo Martín, Martín Vidaurre de Arizaleta era su tarjeta de presentación, cogía la furgoneta (un Renault 4 blanco de los que tenían el freno de mano por palanca en el lado izquierdo del volante) y corríamos veloces por la carretera abajo de Arizaleta a Riezu. El lugar donde se asaba el gorrín era la pequeña fábrica “Pastas Manchingo” y mi abuelo siempre añadía 2 bolsas de rosquillas que estaban muy ricas. Al llegar accedíamos al obrador donde estaba el horno. La ceremonia comenzaba con el saludo al panadero y seguía con la apertura de la pequeña ventana del horno a través de la cual se veían todos los gorrines en círculo en proceso de ser asados. Si el nuestro estaba a punto, se sacaba del horno en la bandeja metálica rectangular en la que se había asado con sus jugos. Como las asas de la bandeja quemaban, se liaban unas asas de papel con tiras de los sacos de pienso Sanders. Llevábamos la bandeja hasta la parte trasera de la furgoneta, y con el gorrín y las pastas… enfilábamos la carretera para llegar en un pispás a casa. ¡Para cuando llegaba el Gorrín, la lechuga y los entremeses tenían que estar comidos porque si no las cortezas se pasaban!

El abuelo solía poner la bandeja en medio de la mesa, que en aquella época se antojaba inmensa y atareada. Se empezaba el reparto de las cortezas primero y la carne después. Seguían unas horas de conversación, discusión acalorada y risas que acababan en postre, café, Soberano y Faria para ellos. Recuerdo que mas tarde mi tía Puy comenzó a fumar puros, lo cual era una transgresión aceptada pues vivir en Madrid da cierto aire cosmopolita y posmoderno en el pueblo.

Mi hermana pequeña sigue buscando ese gorrín del abuelo…

Cultural relativism and pluralism… opposing views

First and foremost, this post pays tribute the teenage son of a great friend. He produced an essay for school I had the privilege to read, and it gave me the logic to link all the following concepts together. Those ideas had been dancing in my mind for a while, his essay threaded it all. Thank you!

This will be a series of 3 essays. This one on cultural relativism, the next one on global governments and the last one on pluralism and patriotism.

Executive summary: Cultural relativism carries underneath its appealing tolerance an intrinsic denial of moral freedom and responsibility of the individual

Wow … you just outscored yourself. I do not understand a word of what you are saying!

Let us start.

When the Spanish “conquistadores” arrived in America they wanted to do business and trade spices, gold and anything of value to their economy but they also wanted to expand Christianity. The validity of the second statement has produced many PhDs and endless discussions. However, there was an underlying and unquestionable assumption in their minds; these societies were inferior to the western civilization. Anthropology coined the concept of cultural ethnocentrism, defined as a judgement on other cultures solely by the values of one’s own. That judgement extends to behaviors, language, religion and customs.

Though there are positive aspects to ethnocentrism such as a sense of belonging, and keeping traditions alive, in this age of open communications and frequent movement of goods and people there are significant disadvantages to that line of thought. Ethnocentrism drives us to make false assumptions regarding cultural differences when we use what is normal in our culture to make generalization about the customs and culture of other people. It can also drive a sense of self-righteousness. Our way is the right and only way.

From that mind set, our culture moved to accepting the differences. It was not overnight, and in my opinion the initial steps were taken in the Peace of Westphalia (1648). That treaty, which ended a 30-year war, made 3 important points: first recognized sovereignty of states, second awarded equality standing to states and third instituted the non-intervention of one state in another state’s affairs. Even though it was a political treaty it allowed different ways to organize society to co-exist in a relatively peaceful state within the western civilization. However, colonialism continued for few hundred years, even as lately as the end of the twentieth century. By then cultural relativism had gained traction in western societies who became more tolerant for different cultures, and even at some point fascinated by them (in New York if you say “Oh là là” in a restaurant they immediately bring you a “coq au vin”).

Cultural relativism states that beliefs, values, and practices of a culture should be evaluated from the viewpoint of that culture itself. In that respect, all cultures are equally valid. Cultural relativism avoids cultural bias and judgement of one culture from one ‘s own. The seminal idea was developed by Franz Boas early in the twentieth century. He rejected the distinction between societies with and without a written history. He understood all societies to be proper objects of the anthropological study.

Those ideas, that initially originated in anthropological research permeated to sociology and mainstream media and society. One pivotal moment that brought visibility to the fact that cultural relativism had already sunk deep into the educated classes of the western world was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948.

The American Anthropological Association declared its opposition to such resolution based on the fact that “man is free only when he lives as his society defines freedom, that his rights are those he recognizes as a member of his society” because of that “an effective world-order cannot be devised except insofar as it permits the free play of personality of the members of its constituent social units, and draws strength from the enrichment to be derived from the interplay of varying personalities”. For the American Anthropological Association” Only when a statement of the right of men to live in terms of their own traditions is incorporated into the proposed Declaration, then, can the next step of defining the rights and duties of human groups as regards each other be set upon the firm foundation of the present-day scientific knowledge of Man.”

That was something!

Only in the group man is free, only when following the rules that define freedom in his society. Following that logic, we cannot have a universal declaration of human rights. Let us start with the first human right:” All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

According to the American Anthropological Association it depends… on your culture. If your cultural environment does not endow all human beings with equal dignity … then you are not entitled to it.

What happened?

Well, cultural relativism. As described above beliefs, values, and practices of a culture should be evaluated from the viewpoint of that culture itself and all cultures are equally valid. At the core of such “all cultures are equally valid” lies a moral relativism.

As described by Sartori, multiculturalism and cultural relativism are antithetical to the tradition of pluralism. The truly liberal democratic pluralism means an open society grounded in tolerance and consensus. In that societal agreement, religion, politics, and economics, are separated. There is a multiplicity of voices but there is also an agreement to disagree, and a process clearly described to resolve such differences through the rule of law. The law is a by product of the societal agreement… and that societal agreement is another by product of the moral values of such society. That brings us to the next argument.

Societal agreements are based on moral values. Those moral values take different forms and shapes as they are modelled through culture but by natural law every human being knows the difference between right and wrong. There may be different societal pacts but in the end all societies should be based on values that allow their members to achieve happiness in their own way. That requires the recognition of a universal moral law.

What happens in the moral relativism of multiculturalism?

Society frequently consists of closed and fundamentally opposed blocs. Currently, an aggressive form of multiculturalism separates member of society by its last divisive feature (gender, race, economic status, education, sexual orientation) anything that can be used against ” The system”, an unknown behemoth that is terrible by design (and always led by a white male). This is the exact opposite of pluralism.  Pluralism sustains and builds an open society based on common values whereas multiculturalism turns society into a number of tribes and disintegrates culture.

Let us advocate for a plural society, that builds tolerance, consensus and avoids ghettos.

 

Bibliography

La Sociedad Multiétnica: Pluralismo, multiculturalismo y extranjeros  by G Sartori

The End of History and the Last Man by Francis Fukuyama

World Order by Henry Kissinger

El Quijote by Miguel de Cervantes