Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1387622
9 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 27 JUNE 2021 INTERVIEW was displayed towards educa- tion, not just by the developers themselves… but ultimately, by the Planning Authority that ap- proved it. I assume you're referring to the decision to relocate the In- stitute of Tourism Studies, to make way for the project… Yes; but not just the decision itself… also, the rather strange way it came out in public discus- sion. One of the arguments, repeat- ed more than once by the devel- opers, was that the project site was previously used as a college [ITS]: and therefore, that it was 'closed to the public'. So the ar- gument goes that, by converting it into a private space which 'al- lows public access'… they would be turning it from a 'closed', to an 'open' public space... [Pause] I mean: how much more absurd could an argument possibly be? We are talking about a public educational in- stitution here: a school – which, like all schools, exists not only to promote the development of the individual: but also of the com- munity as a whole; as well as, in this particular case, the devel- opment of a national industry, tourism. So how on earth can that be compared to what is basically a private real estate develop- ment… on public land? How can that argument even be made in public – repeatedly – to justify something as indefensible as a private, commercial initiative, replacing (of all things) a school? Honestly, it's incredible that they even had the gall to make such an argument in the first place. Not to mention the fact that – having deprived the lo- cal community of that school – the same institution has now been bundled off to a dilapidat- ed building in Luqa… waiting for a new building that is meant to be built for it, some time in the future, in Smart City… all to accommodate a single, private business investment… Where else in the world would such a thing even be allowed to happen? And where would it not be challenged, in public dis- course? In this case, however the real 'scandal' (so to speak) is not so much that the developers made absurd arguments… but that those arguments carried the day, in the end. You said it your- self: the db project – absurdi- ties and all – was approved by the PA. Is this why you also de- scribed the PA itself as 'taparsi' [make-believe]? Actually, the original word I used was 'finta' [false]. But then I changed it to 'taparsi', because I wanted to forge a link with Ol- iver Friggieri's 'Fil-Gzira Taparsi [Jikbru l-Fjuri]'… But to answer your question: yes, the choice of word was not incidental. Because… and this is another of the issues that worry me… this project also shows us how language itself is – like edu- cation – 'devalued'. Let me put it this way: if you can not only make that sort of absurd argument, but actually get away with it, too… then, by that reasoning, anyone can say whatever the hell they want. It doesn't matter, anymore: lan- guage itself becomes meaning- less. It all becomes a charade… hence, 'taparsi'… This is a point you raised sep- arately in your contribution to the President's 'State of the Nation' conference: by drawing parallels with French philoso- pher Guy Debord's 'La Societe du Spectacle', which notes that 'a lack of authenticity' […] 'im- poverishes the quality of life'. Could you expand on that? How does the paradigm we are look- ing at reflect Debard's concept of a 'society of the spectacular'? One of the most devastating things that Guy Debord predict- ed – in a book he wrote in 1967: when he couldn't possibly have imagined how prophetic his vi- sion would prove, half a century later – was that a society that is based only on 'appearances'… where everything I reduced to 'images'… will also affect our in- terpersonal relationships as hu- man beings: the way we actually relate to one another. I don't just mean the value that we attach to physical appearance - whether we are overweight, or underweight, or anything like that. In Debord's case, he was re- ferring specifically to the Parisi- an banlieues of the 1960s: which he saw as developing into a kind of 'depersonalised' urban envi- ronment. Today – and again, this is some- thing Debord himself couldn't possibly have predicted– we see it in such phenomena as the global proliferation of 'fake news'; or how the Internet, and social media in particular, like- wise tends to reduce everything to 'images'… Having said this, though: up to a certain point, the correlation doesn't work perfectly, in the case of a very small communi- ty like ours. Because – and this brings me back to the word 'ta- parsi' – we do have the critical capacity to see through the de- ception, here. No matter how much we criti- cise, or complain about, our edu- cational system: to my mind, ed- ucation in Malta has made giant strides forward over the years. And one of the things that it has given us, is precisely a sense of critical thinking. And we use it, too. Let's face it: those absurd arguments don't really fool anyone, anymore. We see beyond the platitudes, and all the grandiose arguments used to justify gentrification. We are not duped, by all the won- derful plans for 'beautification' of the area between Pembroke and Paceville. We know perfect- ly well that there are going to be coaches, lining up outside those buildings. We know that we are going to be deprived of the pub- lic space that was ours, and even of the very air that we breathe… first because of all the construc- tion, and later because of all the traffic this project will bring, and so on. So even if we are certainly are part of the 21st century society envisaged by Debord – a society that is dominated by appearanc- es – at the same time, we still see through all this charade. And I might add: even more so today, as a result of Covid-19. Because the pandemic has also given us the opportunity to see a slightly different Malta, for a change: a Malta with less traffic, less tourism… … not with less construction, though… No. If anything, it is the other way round. Covid has only am- plified all the issues we have with dust, and noise… and the con- stant violation of our own per- sonal, private space. But again: this, in itself, also means that we see these issues more… not less. And I think this is precise- ly why so many people thrust their hands deep into their own pockets, to fork out the money to fight these projects in court… even if they are not 100% cer- tain that the institutions actu- ally work. Because what we are fighting for here are not 'luxu- ries'. They are basic, fundamen- tal necessities. Don't we have a right, to breathe clean air… to be able to enjoy public spaces… to live without having to face the con- sequences of overdevelopment, each and every day of our lives? These all add up to what we call 'quality of life', at the end of the day. So I think that, ultimately, one of the biggest problems we now have to face is that… we have failed to ever imagine a dif- ferent kind of Malta. We have talked a lot about 'construction', yes; and we have certainly built a lot… but have we ever really stopped to ask ourselves: what sort of society are we actually trying to build…?