Sereni’s History closes with the outcome of the peasant struggles for the land: the landscape designed by the Agrarian Reform. Political ideas about the reform are different, as are the cultures from which they come, that influence the physical and institutional construction of this policy. The fear of new peasant struggles causes the centrist government (especially the Prime Minister), through agencies located throughout the area that are responsible for land reform, to privilege a scattered settlement pattern, with detached houses isolated in the parcel. This model belongs o the tradition of the Po river plains, but not to that of Southern Italy. The leftists plead that the scattered model helps the control of peasants’ social behavior, while the majority of government does own some agronomic theses, according to which the residence of the entire family on the farm allows optimal management and ensures the hygienic conditions of the service center. The isolated farms, in fact, refer to centers built and operated by the same bodies, where means are distributed, and social services and education are provided: these places, in fact, have no inhabitants and therefore are experienced only during daylight hours. The case of rural villages is different: these are centres in which, among the functions, there is also the residence, making them lived throughout the whole day. The main character, in these landscapes, is a sort of “intimacy”: the only landmark is the bell tower, as if to indicate a willingness to gather a community otherwise dispersed. In this sense it is possible to identify elements of caesura with the past: if, during the fascist land reclamation, houses dissolved in the landscape in favor of the bombast of major infrastructures, with land reform prevails an intimate sign and a modest sense of community.
La "Storia del paesaggio agrario italiano" del Sereni si chiude con l'esito delle lotte contadine per la terra: il paesaggio disegnato dalla riforma agraria, rispetto alla quale l’elaborazione politica è differenziata e le differenze culturali nell’affrontare la questione agraria si ripercuotono sulla costruzione istituzionale e materiale della riforma. Il timore di nuove lotte contadine fa sì che il governo centrista, attraverso gli enti dislocati sul territorio cui è demandata la riforma fondiaria, privilegi il modello insediativo disperso, con le case singole isolate nel podere. Tale modello si rifà alla tradizione contadina padana, ma è totalmente alieno a quella meridionale. Le sinistre eccepiscono che il modello insediativo diffuso garantisce il controllo dei comportamenti sociali degli assegnatari, mentre la maggioranza di governo fa proprie alcune tesi di carattere agronomico, secondo le quali la residenza dell’intero nucleo familiare sul podere ne consente una gestione ottimale e garantisce le condizioni igieniche del centro di servizio. I poderi isolati, infatti, fanno riferimento a centri realizzati e gestiti dagli stessi Enti, dove avviene la distribuzione di mezzi e materie e dove vengono erogati i servizi sociali e l’istruzione: tali nuclei sono dunque disabitati e vissuti solo durante le ore diurne. Differente è il caso delle borgate rurali, centri che oltre alle funzioni di servizio assommano la residenza, risultando così vissuti lungo tutto l’arco del giorno. Il carattere principale di questi nuclei sembra essere una sorta di intimismo: l’unico elemento che si segnala nel paesaggio è il campanile, quasi ad indicare la volontà di riunire una comunità altrimenti dispersa.In questo senso si possomo individuare elementi di cesura col passato: se nella bonifica le case si dissolvevano nel paesaggio a favore della magniloquenza delle grandi infrastrutture, con la riforma agraria prevale il segno intimista e un modesto senso di comunità.
L'"ultimo paesaggio" della Storia sereniana: la sua costruzione culturale e materiale / Casu, Alessandra. - (2014), pp. 337-344.
L'"ultimo paesaggio" della Storia sereniana: la sua costruzione culturale e materiale
CASU, Alessandra
2014-01-01
Abstract
Sereni’s History closes with the outcome of the peasant struggles for the land: the landscape designed by the Agrarian Reform. Political ideas about the reform are different, as are the cultures from which they come, that influence the physical and institutional construction of this policy. The fear of new peasant struggles causes the centrist government (especially the Prime Minister), through agencies located throughout the area that are responsible for land reform, to privilege a scattered settlement pattern, with detached houses isolated in the parcel. This model belongs o the tradition of the Po river plains, but not to that of Southern Italy. The leftists plead that the scattered model helps the control of peasants’ social behavior, while the majority of government does own some agronomic theses, according to which the residence of the entire family on the farm allows optimal management and ensures the hygienic conditions of the service center. The isolated farms, in fact, refer to centers built and operated by the same bodies, where means are distributed, and social services and education are provided: these places, in fact, have no inhabitants and therefore are experienced only during daylight hours. The case of rural villages is different: these are centres in which, among the functions, there is also the residence, making them lived throughout the whole day. The main character, in these landscapes, is a sort of “intimacy”: the only landmark is the bell tower, as if to indicate a willingness to gather a community otherwise dispersed. In this sense it is possible to identify elements of caesura with the past: if, during the fascist land reclamation, houses dissolved in the landscape in favor of the bombast of major infrastructures, with land reform prevails an intimate sign and a modest sense of community.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.