#MeToo-bevægelsen har fortjent vokset sig stor og stærk. Og som med alle voksende bevægelser er der en risiko for, at den lukker sig om sig selv. Bliver ukritisk.
Læs resten i Information.
Meningens logik
Den franske filosof Gilles Deleuze er en original og kreativ tænker. Det er derfor glædeligt, at forlaget Klim har valg at oversætte Meningens logik til dansk. Bogen, der udkom på fransk i 1969 og engelsk i 1990, er – ifølge forfatteren selv – ”et forsøg udi den logiske og psykoanalytiske roman.”
I dag er romanen heldigvis så fleksibel en betegnelse, at alt kan høre ind under denne genre, så lad os bare kalde Deleuze filosofiske bog for en roman. Det giver mening, når nu romanens hovedperson er Meningen. Og det er Meningens logik, altså dennes biografi, som forfatteren beskriver for læseren. Faktisk er det en roman, der viser psykoanalysens mangler, når det kommer til at forstå meningens kompleksitet.
”Det hører med til tilværelsens væsen at gå og pege i begge retninger på engang,” skriver Deleuze med reference til, hvordan meningen er udspændt mellem fortiden og fremtiden. Det er et sted her imellem, at den finder sted.
Den franske filosof går genealogisk og strukturelt til værks. Han fortæller, at antagelsen om at sandheden er en del af meningen, ikke er tilstrækkelig til at forstå meningens logik. Af samme grund spørger han, ganske pædagogisk: Hvordan bliver noget sandt?
Rent strukturelt (og traditionelt) hænger sandheden og meningen sammen. Logiske sætninger eller udsagn giver mening, fordi 1) de refererer til eller peger på noget eksternt, 2) de åbenbarer en overbevisning eller et begær, der passer sammen med sætningen, eller 3) de demonstrerer en sammenhæng mellem en historie og en anden. Det sagte passer ind, hvorfor det giver meningen.
Men hvad nu, hvis ord, handlinger, ting og dét, som sker, ikke hænger sammen? Tag for eksempel sætningen: ”Det regner.” Hvad er ”det” som regner, hvad refererer ”det” til? Eller, som Deleuze viser med hjælp af forfatteren Lewis Carroll, et sted siger Carrolls vidunderlige Alice fra eventyrlandet: ”hvis du kun talte, når du blev talt til, så ville ingen nogensinde sige noget.”
Meningen logik giver plads til vrøvlet, det opfindsomme og skabende.
Meningen, siger Deleuze, er udsagnets fjerde dimension (jf. de tre førnævnte: pegende, åbenbarende og manifesterende). Det er den stoikerne opdagede sammen med begivenheden. ”Meningen er det af udsagnet udtrykte, dette ulegemlige ved tingenes oveflade, irreduktibel kompleks entitet, ren begivenhed.”
Meningen er ikke et spørgsmål om dybde, da det ”der er dybere end enhver bund, er overfladen, huden.” Meningen eksisterer ikke engang, men den vedholder eller består. ”Til Alices kroningsmiddag, spiser man enten det, der bliver stillet frem, eller man bliver fremstillet for det, man spiser.” At spise og blive spist sameksisterer. Meningen er ”Noget, aliquid, på én gang yder-væsen og vedholden, dette mindstemål af væren, som passer til det vedholdende.”
Et sted i værket, der består af 34 serier, fastslår Deleuze: ”Begivenheden er selve meningen.” Hvad er så en begivenhed?
Det er et sæt af singulariteter, af særegne punkter, skriver filosoffen. ”Singulariteten er væsentligt set før-individuel, ikke personlig og a-begrebslig … Den er neutral.”
Begivenheden er et nøglebegreb i hele Deleuzes filosofiske værk. At begivenheden er selve meningen skyldes, at begivenhedens modus er det problematiske. Det betyder nu ikke, at der findes problematiske begivenheder. Snarere at begivenhederne ”angår problemerne, hvis betingelser de definerer.” Begivenheden i sig selv er problematisk og problematiserende. En begivenhed er ikke mere eller mindre meningsfuld, fordi dette ville forudsætte en reference, som begivenheden ville blive tolket i lyset af. Derimod fremsætter begivenheden de elementer, som kan blive meningsfulde.
Et problem bliver bestemt af de singulære punkter, som udtrykker dets betingelser. For eksempel, da Nietzsche sagde, at gud er død, så bestemte han et problem, der var betinget af at mennesket ikke længere kunne læne sig opad en ukrænkelig og hellig instans; en instans, der kunne fortælle mennesket, hvad der var værdifuldt. Hermed bestemte Nietzsche problemet. Og et problem har altid den løsning, ”der tilkommer det, ifølge de betingelser, der bestemmer det som problem.” Så, filosofi handler ikke om at finde en passende løsning, som eksisterede der allerede en løsning til ethvert problem. Tværtimod. Filosofi begynder med opfindelsen af et problem.
Måske kan læseren forestille sig Nietzsche, mens han kigger rundt og observerer mennesket; han ser, at det virker handlingslammet og vakkelvornt, hvorefter han formoder, at det skyldes at dets guide, dets gud, er død.
Inden filosoffen begynder at skabe begreber, hvilket Deleuze ser som filosofiens opgave, så må han eller hun bestemme et problem. Nietzsches begreb ”Vilje til magt” er et begreb, der overkommer problemets betingelser, nemlig den manglende sikkerhed qua guds død, hvorfor mennesket nu selv, ganske modigt, må skabe værdier.
”Meningen er aldrig princip eller oprindelse, den er frembragt,” skriver Deleuze. Den frembringes af nye maskinerier, det vil sige, nye forbindelser som når noget går i noget andet, tredje, fjerde … og pludselig går itu. Den rhizomatiske og horisontale tænkning, som Deleuze introducerer sammen med Félix Guattari i Tusind plateauer understreger, at meningen ikke er hierarkisk eller vertikal. Deleuze er stærkt uenig med Platons forestilling om, at filosoffen er en der render rundt med hovedet oppe i skyerne. Der er intet dybere end overfladen, intet dybere end sminken, tatoveringen; intet dybere end dét, som sker. Meningen er aldrig ”oprindelig, men altid forårsaget, afledt.”
Meningens logik er en fantastisk bog. En filosofisk roman for alle – inklusiv alle os som måske aldrig bliver andet end ikke-filosoffer. Bogen er lærd, men ikke tung; den er svær, men luftig, sjov og ganske klar. Den er fuld af smukke sætninger. Faktisk rummer bogen noget af det smukkeste, der nogensinde er blevet skrevet om etik. ”Enten har moral ingen mening eller også er det dette, den vil sige, og som er det eneste, den har at sige: Ikke at være uværdig til det, der indtræffer for os.”
Etik = at gøre sig værdig til at bære det, som sker.
”At blive værdig til det, der indtræffer os, altså at ville det og frisætte begivenheden deraf, at blive søn af sine egne begivenheder, og at blive genfødt derigennem, at få sig en ny fødsel, at bryde med sin kødelige fødsel. Søn af sine begivenheder og ikke af sine værker, for værket bliver selv kun frembragt af begivenhedens søn.”
Der er tale om en generøs og ydmyg filosofi, der ikke forfængeligt klamrer sig til sine værker, men erkender, og udlever, det faktum: at livet former os.
At filosofere kræver en opmærksom omgang med det, som sker, for at kunne give plads til det. Meningen er noget som bliver til i mødet med verden. At forstå meningens logik er at forstå, at ingen ejer hans eller hendes tanker. Dermed er det nu ikke alle forundt, at kunne frisætte begivenheden, problematisere og tænke med den.
Afsluttende er det måske passende at forsøge, at tænke med Deleuze. Hvordan finder man ind i #MeToo-bevægelsens kraftcenter? Følger vi Deleuze skal vi ikke lede efter en dybere og mere oprindelig mening. Hele bevægelsen er en maskine af forskellige forståelsesudsagn, der handler om køn, sex, magt, overgreb, kapitalisme, etc. Deleuze ville ikke fortolke bevægelsen, men følge den; give plads til dens forskellige eksperimenter, der nedbryder rigide og ofte diskriminerende strukturer. #MeToo handler om at en minoritet skaber et større sprog. Et sprog, som på sigt ikke kun vil omhandle bedrestillede kvinder fra den vestlige verden, men også kvinder der er stærkt undertrykt i religiøse samfund eller på grund af økonomisk ustabilitet. Det er en potentielt set altfavnende bevægelse, der kan fremme respekt, omsorg og lighed.
Meningen handler ikke om identitet, rødder eller hellige ydre reference. Meningens logik er derimod noget blivende, noget som befinder sig i mellemrummet, som når ”sundheden bekræfter sygdommen, når den gør sin afstand til sygdommen til en genstand for bekræftelse.” Meningen er ikke en dualistisk dans mellem det sunde og det syge, som noget fasttømret. Snarere fremkommer den, når vi kan begribe det, der relaterer sundheden og sygdommen til hinanden. Når vi tør placere os i mellemrummet, dér, hvor det hele finder sted.
Det sunde handler om at kunne bære ens egne sår, skavanker, mangler og middelmådighed. At ville begivenheden er, at ville livet – i al dets perversitet.
Det er meningens logik. Læs den.
Meningens logik, Gilles Deleuze. Oversættelse og efterskrift ved Christian Rud Skovgaard, Klim.
Are we thinking?
I’ve been unfairly slow in writing my review of Elizabeth Minnich’s book, The Evil of Banality: On the Life and Death Importance of Thinking. This is unfair because this is the kind of book everyone should read. It’s that good and that important. I may even use the cliché and say it’s timely. We live in a post-truth age, where fake news seems to manipulate everyone and keep them from acting responsibly, that is, from thinking.
Let me start with an example from my own backyard. I live in Barcelona in Catalonia, Spain, a place that has really been put on the map in the last few months. Here, Catalan separatist or nationalists play with people’s emotions and try to generate a certain belief, regardless of whether it’s true or not. For example, Spain is not a dictatorship; people are free in Catalonia to express their opinions. The Catalan language is not threatened; rather it’s spoken everywhere. All things the Catalan separatist claim. Furthermore, although I disagree with the imprisonment of certain Catalan politicians, they are not in prison for their ideas but for conducting illegal activities. While the Spanish government is not a perfect democracy, it is, nevertheless, still a democracy.
Thoughtlessness can also be related to the misuse of some concepts or ideas such as freedom of expression. Recently, a Catalan school teacher blamed one of his student in front of the whole class because the student’s father worked in the national police force. The teacher claimed that the police beat everyone and even killed someone. Afterwards, a Catalan politician said that, in Catalan schools, teachers have freedom to express themselves. That is, the teachers are free to say and act as they see fit. This is an extreme example, and not common, but I know that in Denmark such behavior would cause numerous problems and lead to scrutinizing the schools. In Catalonia, politicians seem to lack the capacity to reflect critically on their own behavior and ideas.
What does this have to do with Minnich’s book? Everything. She addresses how evil emerges when we “go along thoughtlessly—without paying attention, reflecting, questioning.” In other words, our lack of thinking, of critically evaluating what happens—including our own thoughts and behavior—can lead to many evils in this world. Thus, critical thinking is mandatory for all democracies. Minnich asks “What, how, are they thinking? Are we thinking? . . . How could they make sense of what they were doing?” These questions are alarming when put in a context like apartheid, Rwanda, or the sexual abuse of women and children.
The title of her book is an allusion to Hannah Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, where Arendt concluded that Nazi crimes against Jews were also crimes against humanity. She showed how a totalitarian government affects every bureaucracy by dehumanizing them and motivating people to act without questioning. Arendt called this “sheer thoughtlessness.”
Minnich continues, “I found myself reversing her (in)famous phrase and, having done so, thinking that perhaps it would have helped had she spoken, as she did not, of ‘the evil of banality,’ rather than—or, as I now think, in addition to—‘the banality of evil.’ To think of evil as ‘banal’ was then altogether too difficult.” Here, Minnich stresses that when someone has done something wrong, we tend to ask them, “What were you thinking?”
The foundational thesis of her book is that people who are doing evil are not thinking.
Minnich offers many examples in her book: From fiction like Camus’ The Plague to Darfur and Rwanda. She also develops two key concepts to help us understand the relationship between evil and thoughtlessness: intensive versus extensive evil and intensive versus extensive good.
Extensive evil refers to horrific harm-doing that persists for months, even years. For example, genocide, slavery, apartheid, financial exploitation, mistreatment of workers, or, as has recently become evident, when “powerful” men exploit and abuse women. It’s tempting to see the kind of people who do these things as psychopaths or sick. (I can’t help but see Weinstein and his ilk as sick.) However, Minnich emphasizes that these activities are done by inconspicuous people like your quiet next-door neighbor. She mentions several alarming examples from South Africa and Rwanda. And here we must collectively take responsibility if we witness any kind of wrongdoing. For instance, this is happening right now through the #MeToo Campaign. Such campaigns can relieve some of the pain; they can help, encourage, and illustrate that another world is possible, one of trust, respect, and equality. Similarly, I would argue that when a school system becomes political, promoting rigid nationalism and legitimizing hate, as in some cases in Catalonia, then we must look at this with care—even if we only speak of a handful of concrete examples. Ignorance should never be an option.
Minnich emphasizes that we should be careful not to confuse extensive evil with intensive evil. Intensive evils “are great harms done by one or a few people. In that sense, they are contained . . . When they burst into our lives, almost all of us are genuinely spectators, not participants, not enablers, not perpetrators.”
She says extensive evil spreads like a plague, whereas intensive evil is like a poison. The book is full of such precise literary and metaphorical examples that make it not only a pleasure to read but also easy to follow.
The problem, Minnich says, is that we think of extensive evil as intensive. That is, we may convince ourselves that only a few schools are indoctrinating their students, only a few men are raping women, only a few people are sexually abusing children, only a few organizations are over-stressing and discriminating against their workforce. “Thinking of all evils as if they were intensive—taboo, smacking of possession, shocking to still-functioning conventional society, hence readily felt to be anti-rational—blinds us to the on-the-ground realities especially of extensive evils that are enabled, instead, by such familiar motivators as careerism and greed . . .”
What to do? Well, we could all strengthen our vison. It’s a matter of “seeing, admitting, and thinking through the realization that there have been, and somewhere now are, times in which what ‘everyone is doing’ is morally, politically, deadly wrong.”
Luckily, we can also cultivate critical thinking. Through education, we can try to eradicate automatic thinking, like when some Catalan separatist always declare, “It’s Spain’s fault.” Automatic thinking is just confirming our default-setting without any reflection about what actually takes place.
In the last part of the book, Minnich offers a beautiful reminder of what philosophy is and what it can do. “Socrates was a practitioner and teacher of thinking and not knowledge.” That is, he was open, curious, and constantly questioning not only why and what people were thinking but also how they were living according to their thoughts or beliefs.
Like Arendt, Minnich stresses how stupidity and thoughtlessness are not the same thing. “Very smart people can be very thoughtless just like the rest of us.” This emphasizes that we need to be aware of how the system is nurturing a certain kind of behavior. Here, many studies in social psychology can inspire readers who wish to explore this further.
Still, some may ask, how can we really know if we are trying to critically and openly assess what is happening? Minnich says it clearly: “Self-respect is earned not by recognition, praise, status, net worth, power, influence or anything else externally conferred but by continuing to recognize ourselves as someone we can live with, and not be ashamed?”
I agree. I think of how some politicians seem incapable of being ashamed. They are determined to play the game well, to advance their career, and to achieve their objectives, regardless of the disagreement and suffering of the people they are supposed to govern. Is it arrogance? Minnich notes, “. . . Sometimes we do stop and think, and simply say, at the right moment, the No that is actually a profound Yes to what we will not violate because that is something we just cannot do and still live with ourselves.”
Yet, some people never seem to stop and think. How can some live with themselves?
Elizabeth Minnich’s The Evil of Banality merits a better and more thorough review than what I can provide here. Nevertheless, it deserves to be read. Recommend it to your friends, especially if you know someone who is in charge of other people’s destinies. It is well written, very well argued, full of good examples, and it is inspiring.
See also philosopher Skye Cleary’s interview with Elizabeth Minnich here.
When Stupidity Rules
Most of the fathers in my six-year-old son’s class use an instant messaging service called WhatsApp. The idea was to share information regarding school issues, but in reality it became a way of passing on jokes and pictures of women. In the beginning, the pictures were harmless, that is to say, no nudity. However, the other day, a father, who by the way is the father of two girls, sent a photo that was pure porn. It’s not the first time. A few others have sent pictures like that, although the majority doesn’t. This time, I thought about writing something like: “In ten years, this could be your daughter”; “Is this your wife?”; “You’re that desperate?”
I didn’t.
Ok, some context is needed. I am a Dane who lives in Barcelona, Spain. Here, the men are much more machista, male chauvinist, than what I am used to. For example, between 2003 and 2010, 545 women died as victims of domestic violence in Spain—more than two per week.
I am choked; I am surprised, both with what I see and hear, but also with how I react. Silence is consent.
I don’t consent.
I am balancing between being polite versus honest; or rather, being far too polite to be honest.
Gender role, unfortunately, is one of those stiff identities that acts like an unchangeable norm, although all norms are social constructions. They change. We get smarter. Or am I just daydreaming? The identity we attach to being either a girl or a boy, in reality, is quite static.
The other day I was talking with my wife about having a fourth child. We have two boys, four and six years old, followed by a girl, who is now two. At one point, she said, “Smilla might like a new little baby. Girls are like that.”
”Yeah,” I said.
Then something happened. Why did I say “Yeah”?
I realized how many times a day I hear from other parents at the school, or in the park that boys are like that and girls are like this. It always irritates me because I don’t believe that girls or boys have one fixed gender identity. The French philosopher Voltaire once said, “to learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”
The problem that keeps me from saying something is that I don’t want to offend people. Perhaps, more from being a foreigner, I try to blend in. Also, I know from after more than eight years in Spain that it’s not okay to question the status quo. People are a bit more fragile here. The culture lacks open debate, not just about gender, but also identity, nationality, the civil war, etc. Spanish people shy away from conflicts. Apparently, I do the same. I am turning into glass. Call it integration.
I don’t want to.
So let me man up, as the cliché goes. My daughter is not a princess; I don’t even like the monarchy. My daughter, though, wears pink. Where did this need come from? One day, I woke up and she couldn’t drink or eat if the glass or spoon wasn’t pink. My boys love all the male superheroes, although my four-year-old also likes The Little Mermaid.
Fighting gender stereotypes is like Don Quixote’s fights with windmills. Gender identity doesn’t stand on anything solid, but only upon stupidity.
I have decided that from today onward, I will stop people if they uncritically put boys or girls into idiotic categories. I hope that people would stop me if I were doing the same. I refuse to be ruled by stupidity – or the monarchy. Men are not more ambitious and competitive than women, who are not more empathic or compassionate than men.
It is my ethical responsibility, not only as a father, but as a human being, to stop the spread of stupidity. I will not cultivate politeness when I unequivocally know that not all men dream about becoming a soldier and not all women dream of having their nude photos passed back and forth via WhatsApp. There is an inherent power balance here between men and women. It’s problematic. Often men define the “sexy” gender roles of women, whereas women less often, and less derogatorily, define the “strong” gender roles of men.
It stops here. The silence is over.
Published in The Transnational. A Literay Magazine, Vol. 3, 2015
Dear all
It’s tempting to write down all the examples of injustice, discrimination and abuse that a woman suffers from, only because she is born a woman. The problem is that this blog is far too little for such a list.
Why does so many men still think that they are superior human beings just because they were born with a penis?
Of course, the job for all human beings is to stop being bystanders and act. The wise person acts, whereas the fool reacts. In other words, don’t pass on today’s problems to future generations because you’re too weak to stop it.
This video is called “Dear dad”, but it could also have been called “Dear all.”
See it here.
Dengang jeg blev hetero
Engang i halvfemserne blev jeg heteroseksuel. Det skete, da jeg søgte en stilling som bartender på Pan i København. Den ansvarlige bartender spurgte, om jeg ville gå hjem med mændene, der besøgte stedet. Nej, svarede jeg. Du er altså heteroseksuel, sagde han. Det går ikke an, supplerede han. Bartenderen er blot en af mange eksempler på personer, som ophøjer egne præferencer til et ideal (i.e. homoseksualitet). Havde det gjort en forskel, hvis han havde refereret til Jim Morrison?
Ifølge forfatteren Hanne Blank, så fandtes der ingen heteroseksuelle før 1869. Det skriver hun i bogen Straight. Der var til gengæld en masse mænd og kvinder, som levede sammen og fik børn. Der var også mange mænd og kvinder som ikke gjorde det. Altså levede sammen, selvom de måske fik børn. I slutningen af nittenhundredetallet opstår et ideal om at mænd og kvinder er mere ”rigtigt”, end mænd og mænd, eller kvinder og kvinder sammen, eller et miks. Eller rettere: i første omgang anvendes termerne heteroseksuel og homoseksuel af en psykolog, for at skabe ligeværdighed mellem forskellige former for seksuelle tilbøjeligheder. Betegnelserne havde intet med biologi eller videnskab at gøre. Desværre var der hurtigt mange, der fik en interesse i at styre menneskets adfærd, fx ved at gøre den ene seksualitet mere ”rigtig” end en anden. En form for moralisme. Psykologen Freud var en af dem.
Denne idealisering er fortsat frem til i dag, hvor heteroseksualitet udfordres af andre idealer, fx lesbiske og bøsser. Aldrig har der floreret så mange selvforherligende idealer baseret på noget så kedeligt, som hvem en eller anden ønsker at dele kropsvæsker med. Ingen mennesker får mere eller mindre værdi, fordi de har de seksuelle præferencer, de nu engang har. Det virker indlysende, men ikke for alle.
Det handler i høj grad om samspillet mellem magt, normer og diskurs. Hvem siger hvad, og hvorfra. Det er vigtigt at blik for denne mekanisme: Hvordan idealer altid tjener en interesse. Skulle en lesbisk forfatter eventuel påstå, at det kan være svært for en heteroseksuel mand at forstå hendes bøger, gøres ens seksualitet til noget magtfuldt og normgivende, ja noget særligt. Og værre endnu, det gøres til noget magtfuldt og særligt ved at reproducere gamle idealer, fx at der findes én slags heteroseksuel mand, som tænker og læser på en bestemt måde. Dette er naivt. Og det fremstiller desværre en sådan eventuel lesbisk forfatter, som snæversynet. Snæversyn og marketing går – som bekendt – hånd i hånd. Ligesom erhvervslivet mere generelt er alt for gode til at fastholde stereotyperne omkring kønnet a la ”Helle Thorning-Smith har nosserne til at tage svære beslutninger.” At tage beslutninger, har selvfølgelig intet med testikler at gøre, men viden, mod, visioner og så videre. Dette er ikke forbeholdt mænd.
Hvilke bøger kan en tvekønnet læser for resten forstå?
Blank påpeger glimrende, hvordan det rent biologisk kan være svært at afgøre, hvem der er mand eller kvinde, jf. de tvekønnede. Ikke desto mindre er kønnet biologisk betinget, mens kønsrollen altid er noget vi gør. Dette er en pointe, som hun har fra Judith Butler. Det er fristende at spørge: Er transvestitter, dvs. mænd der holder af at klæde sig ud og opføre sig som kvinder (ofte en stereotypisk kvinde), mænd eller kvinder? Er kvinder, som holder af at klæde sig ud og opføre sig, som stereotypisk mænd, kvinder eller mænd?
Blank forsøger, at overkomme denne ødelæggende hang til at reproducere stereotypiske kønsroller. Et sted skriver hun: ”… nor do I have the sensations of ’being’ heterosexual or homosexual or anything but a human being who loves and desires other human beings.” Et menneske, der elsker og begærer andre mennesker. Hun gør det godt. Hun er ikke fortaler for en ideologi eller en seksualitet, men understreger, at det smukke ved at være menneske er, at man kan blive mand, kvinde, lesbisk og trans uanset køn. Med andre ord, ens åbenhed og modtagelighed er ikke seksuelt betinget.
Blank skriver fra en anti-position, der er nysgerrig og udfordrende. Hvis videnskaben ikke kan definere en heteroseksuel krop, fordi der nogle gange er et X eller Y-kromosom for meget eller for lidt, hvad så? Hun viser, hvordan medierne reproducerer de stereotypiske kønsroller. De såkaldte frie og moderne kvinder i Sex and the City forløses først, når de finder en mand, som havde en kvinde ingen identitet uden dette påhæng. Ikke alle kvinder ønsker at blive mor; ikke alle mænd drømmer om at kunne forsøge en familie.
Et ideal, fx den heteroseksuelle hvide mand (der har det med at ligne hipsteren Jesus), er hæmmende. Men et sådan ideal bør ikke erstattes af en andet. Hvorfor denne hang til at opdele mennesker i kasser?
Blank viser, at der selvfølgelig er noget trygt i disse kategorier og idealer, selvom de aldrig er andet end en fabrikation. Hun viser, hvorfor nogle minoriteter fastholder disse, da de hjælper med at opbygge en identitet (jf. marketing). Det drejer sig om, at overkomme den gængse reproduktion af socialt konstruerede identiteter. Overkomme foretillingen om én identitet.
Enhver kvinde er mange. Det samme er enhver mand. Kvinder er ikke født mere følsomme end mænd, men opdraget til at være det. Mænd er heller ikke født mere konkurrencelystne end kvinder, men opdraget til det. Opdraget gennem idealer og normer. Let’s move beyond.
Blanks bog er en fin lille bog, en personlig bog, der mest af alt viser, at ”being straight” er et skabt ideal (alle idealer er socialt skabte), som ingen af os kan leve op til. Ikke engang Hugh Hefner.
Det er måske grunden til at Platon, manden med den ideverden, aldrig kunne finde på at placere feminisme, maskulinisme, heteroseksualitet, homoseksualitet og så videre, som et ideal i hans opdigtede ideverden. Kun kærlighed og visdom. Kærlighed og visdom kender ikke til identitetshungerende kasser (læs: begrænsninger). Kærligheden er aldrig straight, det er noget, som er forbeholdt nydelsen af visse whiskyer.
FINN JANNING 