di Mario Ricca
L’inclusione dei soggetti all’interno dei contesti sociali e dei corrispondenti circuiti istituzionali è condizione per una convivenza democratica condotta sotto il segno della tutela dei diritti e del costituzionalismo. Le pratiche inclusive ruotano attorno alla relazione tra soggettività e comunità. Questo perché il diritto dei soggetti all’inclusione si articola secondo una grammatica concettuale e normativa.
Colta nelle sue coordinate principali, essa transita sotto l’etichetta di “cittadinanza”. Un lessico della cittadinanza è inclusivo se in grado di aggregare entro un paradigma di senso mediamente condivisibile (valori, principi, pratiche cognitive e comunicative, regole, costume ecc.) le differenze presenti nella platea sociale.
Fin qui, lo stato dell’arte degli standard costituzionalistici elaborati all’interno della tradizione costituzionalistico-liberale. All’ombra di essi germogliano però alcuni quesiti che ruotano intorno ai contenuti, alle declinazioni culturali, di quella piattaforma di condivisibilità indicata come condizione indispensabile tanto per l’inclusione, quanto per la coesione sociale.
Abstract
The essay will address the following topics:
a) In the first part, I treat questions concerning the possibilities of inclusive citizenships, intercultural translation and inter-normative/inter-constitutional pluralism. My speech will be further divided as follows:
1. Intersubjectivity and interconstitutionality; Transnational mobility and inclusive citizenship.
2. Cultural diversity and claims for legal recognition/protection. What the persons ‘on the move’ appeal to the law of hosting countries and for what reasons?
3. Beyond inter-legality: Towards a timely intercultural law.
b) In the second part, I deal with the intertwining between cultural categories and spatial categories. The first axis for the analysis will address the interspatial blurring and blending produced by the trans-lating of the individuals through manifold and culturally plural circuits of state/territorial sovereignty.
The second axis will focus on the intercultural translation intended as place of convergence and condensation of categorical connotations used by different cultures for marking the space. I will try to show how translating cultures, each into another, by means of law’s spectrum could be equivalent, coextensive with trans-lating different ‘spatialities’, and viceversa. Reaching this interlocutory target allows for the configuration of inter-spaces capable of working as a platform to assure the relevance and the legal qualification of different culturally oriented subjective agencies. Within such inter-spaces the physical-geographical coordinates may undergo deep semiotic alterations. As a consequence, it will be that by the cognitive understanding and legal qualifying of the culturally different behaviours and claims for recognition, the geographical distance between subjects might shrink, while the apparent close topographical features might end up quite far away.
The theoretical toolkit I use to investigate these topics and possibilities is termed “legal chorology”. It can be explained by these sequential steps:
1. Legal corology and intercultural translation.
x) How the re-categorization of spaces results in a change of linguistic-normative categories and their boundaries.
y) How the re-categorization of conceptual and normative patterns remould spaces of experience.
2. Errant Law. Cartographical metamorphosis and cognitive deficiencies of legal qualifications across cultures.
c) In the third part, I try the apply the above considerations to the to the legal pluralism and its different conceptions. My aim will be t0 envisage a pluralistic legal approach such that can go beyond the coordinates of an intercultural integration carried out exclusively by inter-normative devices. The steps of this last part are as follows:
1. Axiological pluralism vs. inter-normative pluralism.
2. The polycentric traces and bottom-up paths of an intercultural inter-constitutionality.