BURIDANO AND HIS DONKEY
Spoil system vs continuity
Giovanni Buridano’s story (perhaps taken from Aristotle’s De coleo) tells of a donkey who, sitting between two piles of hay, could not decide on which to go to eat, ending up starving! It is cited referring to those who cannot decide between two options and, in doing so, lose both. The parable means that a person must have the courage to choose, even if the decision proves less convenient in the short term. In the case of choices in politics, any type of politics, there are many ways to imitate Buridano’s donkey; for example, seeking consent at all costs, not displeasing one or the other side, indulging opposing visions or vetoes to maintain a position that, far from being balanced, seems to me to be the work of a highwire act. I transpose morality to the concrete case of the governing of the system of professions and to mine in particular.
The last orders and national and local elections (both now long past and for this reason I speak of them) were characterized by a tax decimation on most of the exponents of that world, some of whom, over time, had gained very useful experiences and skills in management of the complex problems that concern us: many of them were engaged in collateral studies and propositional activities which in the best of cases, suffered a stop for many months. It will be said, that this is the price to be paid to ensure a physiological exchange of representation: well, I don’t agree! At least on the physiological term, because there is nothing physiological or democratic about throwing precious skills and work already done overboard while there is absolutely the need to guarantee replacement; everything is to see how this can be done! The current rules have allowed that, not infrequently, they have been based on belonging or convenience; more with the application of the spoils system borrowed (among other things, not always positive) from the Anglo-Saxon systems. So it happened that excellent energies and skills were disposed of because they are not close to the new representations and others led to roles of responsibility for the opposite reason, regardless of the general utility.
Now, the observation is this: can a community like ours – I would very much like it to be like this, a community – with serious impending problems, deprive itself of proven qualified contributions? Shouldn’t efficiency and result speed be pursued instead? I am making this reasoning because, in a few months, the elections for the National Council of Architects and then, following that, those of the Territorial Orders, will face the same horizon again. At that moment I would not like that, once again, the maintenance of the wealth of experience and values gained mainly simply depend on the election results. I am convinced that we cannot afford it and there must be a way – there certainly is – not to waste resources. Applying this idea corresponds to behaving as a community rather than as a simple category; a notable difference according to sociological theories elaborated between the seventeenth and early twentieth centuries by Hobbes and Tönnies (Chicago School): a community mainly establishes empathic relationships among its members that look towards collective advantage; in one category they are impersonal and based on a priori respect for bureaucratic rules. What architects are we and what do we want to be, community or category?
Arch. Scannella, former president of Ordine degli Architetti Catania
578 Visite totali, 2 visite odierne