Another personal reflection over “Ars Retorica” in Italy
Tacitus considered debate useful only if supported by a republican institution. Well, Italy is a Republic, but today the ars loquendi has been annihilated, deprived of its role both within institutions and in society. Why is that? It’s hard to say. Those who try to bring oratory back to its glorious origins blame the mass media and social networks for fostering the development of a straightforward, sharp, and rough language. Personally, I am more inclined to believe that the cause of the decline is triggered not by one, but by a series of factors. Those who denounce this scourge demand to return communication to a distant past, proclaiming the necessity of recreating an elevated language, but the continuous evolution of language makes this hypothesis impractical.
At this point, one might ask, “If the language is evolving, thus dynamic, how can we say that we are living in a true period of decline?” This is the key question. In fact, the “decline” does not refer to linguistic factors but to our intellect, now almost incapable of understanding how to adapt the way we communicate according to ever-changing situations. This should not be surprising: in an era where the boundary between fiction and reality, between serious and comic, between individual and society is almost entirely blurred, we tend to think that language no longer deserves contextualization. “Why should I debate civilly with my peer if I can diss him (to use a neologism) with an Instagram story?” And how can I contest such an observation if those we call to represent us are the first to adopt this principle?
There is a solution to the problem, and it is not even utopian; indeed, it has already been used when it was necessary to “make Italians”, as Cavour said: we need to involve the educational system. School does not only teach the subjects of the curriculum; it also teaches (or rather used to teach) how to be citizens by developing a critical attitude. For some time now, it has been stripped of this and many other roles; now it is nothing more than a gray place where lessons on theoretical, abstract concepts are imparted.
Rebuilding the “School” institution on real and pragmatic bases can truly solve the problem of the “decline of communication” as well as many others.
Will it be achievable? To future generations the arduous sentence.
