Recently Jon Lee Anderson, the reporter said Concepción Moreno of The Economist that "You Mexican journalists have to find out what masks Mexican society to lock in your breast so much violence. " Obviously referring to violence vinculada al narcotráfico, el importante periodista que no se ha destacado precisamente por un trabajo tímido o temeroso, añade en una comparación vital: “el narco brasileño es distinto sociológicamente al mexicano. En Brasil me encontré con gente muy violenta, pero más fría, más dedicada al negocio. Para ellos matar es un recurso de última instancia, porque les trae líos andar dejando cuerpos por ahí”. [http://www.talcualdigital.com/especiales/Viewer.aspx?id=38371]
Y considero que esta comparación es vital porque introduce dos elementos que resultan fundamentales en estos momentos tan críticos para el país. De un lado, la necesaria distinción “sociológica” between two countries, Brazil and Mexico, in this case, but we could also go to the sociological distinction with the case of Colombia or Peru. I think this argument has failed in the public debate about the drug in Mexico. Society, its modes of organization, political culture, daily life, rituals are not generally regarded as part of the drug issue.
In a kind of sleight of hand makes it appear to "drug traffickers" as beings from another planet, outside the structures of the Mexican or other terms outlined in it negates the idea that these drug dealers "too violent too unpredictable "as Lee Anderson describes are part of this society is this society that has "hatched" to use the excellent expression of the reporter. Understanding the drug in its becoming brutal violence necessarily involves understanding the country and culture background. No external aid in a fictional place that only feeds the myth and terror.
And also consider that there is a clue in how they understand how Mexican drug traffickers' business. " A business in which the bodies mutilated, brutally crushed (unlike that described for Brazil), are considered part of their "assets" from his "arsenal", because the Mexican narco (complex variations thereof) understands that terror is key. These "delivery boys" as I called before, they deliver messages to target different macabre: the state, other rival groups and especially, to the society that reads these "errands" signs of their own fear and paralysis . Something is wrong in Anderson, is not that Mexican drug traffickers are not the business avocados, deeply focused on the extent of his power and absolute control, is that violence is an essential dimension of his enterprise and, as we were able to apprehend between hieroglyphs bloody violence is a profitable business. Delivered bodies to pieces in addition to its ominous and fierce, are evidence naked, are only signs, notices, no one will claim that they will be mourned in silence, privately celebrated and exhibited in the national press as an anomaly without a name that has nothing to do with the Mexican society.
And one thing is particularly because the journalist, when he states categorically: "The news is a public service. So I think that must adopt new strategies, other angles to understand what happens beyond the daily executions. Mexico must seek to explain to himself behind the drug and I think that journalism is the vehicle as possible to begin to understand. "
Therefore, the statistical bodies collect unnamed relegated to the anonymity of their expendable status, transmit black screens as did Denise Maerker Point of Departure or Ciro Gomez Leyva in TV Millennium can only contribute to strengthen this false story exterior. Urgent, urgent political task, finding the relationship between the journalistic and sociological, to narrate to ourselves, not only the society of Nachos Colonels, the Mayo Zambada, the sheets, Ociel, no, but just to tell that to which we will not yet name: anonymous violence that lies between us.
