– Agatha & Frederic
The afternoon was serene, the temperature exceptionally good for this time of the year, and they were enjoying the company of each other.
“Talking to Frederic is refreshing,” thought Agatha.
“Exchanging views with Agatha is an exercise of authenticity and frankness,” Frederic told himself. “Agatha was never a woman of appearances, but just the opposite, a human being with courage to express her own mind on the different issues related to individual choices or social ones.
To continue to talk to each other, in the years ahead, (they didn’t know yet how important it is) with the same spirit of companionship, will be the secret of their love for each other.
They also didn’t know, but the worst type of loneliness is to live with a person without dialogue, without a simple conversation sometimes for years!
Silence between people – instead of togetherness – can be an insuperable wall, impossible to destroy.
For a long time they watched the kids enjoying the company of other children and Agatha suddenly felt how fragile human beings are, not only in their childhood, but all along their lives.
And she shared their thoughts with Frederic.
“Looking at these kids, I think how dependent they are of love, patience, tenderness …and good examples, all their lives along …”
“Yes,” he reacted, “they depend always on good influence for the maturity of their bodies and souls … of their entire person!”
Good influence from parents, of course, but from teachers, also, because school is the natural extension of “home” …
Nowadays, thought Frederic, we are living with a deficit of moral leadership in our societies.
“Good influence and love,” she insisted. “You see, all these children are playing confidently because they are feeling all the time the love and care of their parents, near them. They are not alone. They feel the invisible links of affection strengthening their desire to gain more space, more freedom.”
“When I think about all these kids either in orphanages, waiting to be adopted, or in the wrong foster families, I feel almost guilty of these kind of situations our society is dealing with so badly!” exclaimed Frederic.
And Agatha added: “What always intrigued me, concerning couples struggling against infertility, is how they submit themselves to so many tests and exams and manipulations! Adoption could be the easy solution to achieve motherhood, parenthood!”
“Rationally I think you are right,” he replied, “but the dream of having one’s own child, born from their bodies and souls and love, is a unique experience, justifying all the sacrifices.”
“But what about adoption?” asked Agatha emphatically. Millions of children in wars turn orphans, hundreds and hundreds not knowing where their parents are among refugees and displaced people! Why doesn’t the United Nations, governments and charities, not take the lead in promoting an ambitious program of adoptions worldwide?
“Bureaucracies, lack of political will from national governments and politicians…” And Frederic stopped, saying nothing more for a while.
And only after a moment he almost reluctantly pursued their dialogue. “Sometimes I think that so many children nowadays suffer loneliness since early childhood because there is no love or time to express it in their homes.”
“Yes,” agreed Agatha, “mom working, arriving late at night, daddy the same thing, and kids are physically and psychologically alone, watching TV or playing with the computer …”
And Frederic asked rhetorically : “Is this civilization? Or premeditated suicide of any form of civilization?”
Agatha was genuinely interested in hearing his opinion when she formulated the following question: “Before women dedicated their entire lives cooking, washing , taking care of their children … and they were uneducated and not respected for their invaluable contribution to the family. Now, women have jobs outside the house, they contribute to the family’s resources … and they are blamed for being absent! Isn’t it unfair, after all?”
Frederic had firm ideas on the topic, always a sensitive question of course, but he never ever blamed women for their gradual emancipation.
“I think that in all this long and painful story of women emancipation, and its consequences, vested economic interests delayed and obstructed the social reorganization required to accommodate women’s double role as professionals and mothers, and this in public administrations as well as in enterprises. Governments lagged behind social trend to protect companies and business people! “
“Yes, you are right!” agreed Agatha. “Protecting women in the workplace continues to be a big challenge!”
“Look at the way companies even today restrict the practice of hiring pregnant women, fearing to pay them in maternity leave!”
And they continued to talk , for a while, about issues relevant to society in general and for them in particular, because of their common desire to have a family, to have children.
Of course, Agatha will not renounce her career, but she expected, when the time came, to introduce some flexibility in their job to take care of their little ones.
As any other young people of their generation, Agatha and Frederic were aware of the big challenges facing contemporary societies and human beings. Not only because progress accelerated in so many areas of science and technology, destroying old certitudes – but also because everybody was trying to make sense of these changes without fast solutions. And perplexity dominates.
Behaviors were changing fast. Ideas of relativism dominate. Even cosmopolitanism was on doubt now, in a time of renewed belief in national identities based on culture, race and religion!
By coincidence, they both attended the following morning a seminar organized by the Dean of the Faculty of Humanities, about “cosmopolitanism and national identity.”
Two main speakers defended opposing theses, against and in favor of multicultural societies and all the models of social integration of immigrants and refugees. And an entire hour for Q&A was scheduled.
They went indeed, and they intervened vividly at the appropriate time, challenging well established positions in both sides of the debate … just for the sake of … debating!
Professor John Ferrer was an open-minded spirit. Without surprise, then, he defended, in a passionate way, the human rights of migrants and refugees to be welcomed and have a place in societies in obvious demographic decline.
Professor Alice Ferrer was clever enough to base her assumptions not mainly on ethical grounds (everybody knew she was a Catholic devoted to Pope John Paul II and now Pope Francis’ social teachings) but with the support of strong economic data, about the urgent necessity of highly developed economies to overcome the social burden of an increasing graying population with new blood only immigrants could make available.
Professor Antony Bright was also known but by the numerous books and articles he contributed to the debate in academia on these hot issues. But his point of departure was quite different. He considered societies as delicate mechanisms with ever fragile devices to neutralize unbalances and disruptions. In this framework, a sudden influx of foreigners not sharing the same culture, traditions, religion, was an element of increasing tensions inside groups that despite the previous homogeneity are never perfect or 100% harmonious.
In this context, avoiding external factors in order not to put pressure on fragile internal equilibrium, sometimes painfully built during centuries, is a question of nation survival…
Follow
