The Male Characters in L’arte della gioia by Goliarda Sapienza

The aim of the paper is to analyse, using the structuralist approach, the structure of the male characters in L’arte della gioia by Goliarda Sapienza and the meaning—universal or local, symbolic or real—attributed by the writer to them, through the example of six male figures. This approach allows us to delve into the literary text, leaving the biographical, historical, and ideological context outside of the analysis, focusing on internal dynamics that are purely literary. Modesta’s father and her husband, as universal figures of a patriarchal system, illustrate and symbolise the subversion of its laws by Modesta. Modesta’s lovers, Carmino and Carlo, are models of real accomplishments of important male roles (father, husband, lover) whose representation is limited by geopolitical stereotypes. Pietro, Modesta’s loyal gabellotto, embodies local, Sicilian relationships and, as a result, he symbolises the persistence of archaic laws of Sicilian society. With Prando, Modesta’s son, Sapienza realistically illustrates the passage from adolescence to masculinity by showing some universal rules that occur in this transition. The structure of the male characters turns out to be geometric and very clear and is proof of the writer’s great literary awareness and writing skills.

Richard Rorty postulates that we relinquish relying on the “Platonic” idea of something common to us all, something uniting us with others, and cease the search for both universal justifications and truths. Rorty fears, and backs his fears with examples from history, that referring to something uniting us may serve those who shall state that there is some right, true model of living, of collective cooperation, and that only one form of social and political organization is right for us. Because if there is a truth about human beings, about relations with others, then in accordance with the traditional way of thinking, we should act on it, and any opposing action, freethinking, should not take place. Each and every human being should act according to fixed – uncovered – standards, and those who disobey should be directed onto the right path. In short, one of Rorty’s firm beliefs is that the idea of human being, of truth, particular perspectives determine our choices – perhaps this is how Rorty’s intuition may be expressed within one sentence. But is such an opinion justified? In the hereby article I shall say it is not; whether we are universalists or constructivists, our choices may be of the same kind. At the same time, having the same metaphysical or constructivist beliefs, we may arrive at quite different choices.

Between the Left and the Right, or Should We Be Afraid of the Truth and Praise Postmodernism?

Should we be afraid of the truth? This question is important not only for the world of philosophy, but also politics. Reluctance to fixed and immutable foundation used to characterize the left . This right has traditionally appealed to what is permanent, unchanging, universal, in what social order should be rooted. And for that it is criticized. It has been suggested that we should reject the right-wing chains, reject universalism, to become free and head toward postmodernism. Postmodernism today seems to give hope for further development, including policy based on new narratives – particularly left-wing. Postmodernism, as it is seen by Grzegorz Lewicki, seems to be close to the critical theory that can help us in the liberation and emancipation. Closer analysis, however, allows us to see that also in critical theory there is a desire to discover the truth about what is reality. It also allows to see that the category of truth is not as bad as it is painted. It is not necessary to get rid of the reference to the category of truth, because truth is not the problem in itself. We can still keep it without sacrificing what was the best in postmodernism. If we are successful, then there might be the chance to reconcile the left with the right.