Intouchables

I recently visited Paris, and went to see this film that I’d read about, during my last visit: Intouchables. It is obviously a blockbuster in France, the whole weekend RF1 was reporting about the high number of visitors, and my expectations were high. I went to the theatre with a friend, who already saw the film, but enjoyed it so much that he gladly accompanied me. And in many ways, it is a charming film. And for the first half an hour, I was nothing but charmed. But then. Something with this awesome guy, Driss (Omar Sy) from a banlieue north of Paris (Bondy) and his aristocratic paralysed “friend” starts to disturb me. Starts to resemble other stories, too many other stories. Robinson Crusoe. Mission civilicatrice. Herder’s idea on what black people can contribute with, and what white people can contribute with. Oswald Spengler. Joy versus order. Emotion versus reason. Bring in a black man into a joyless paralysed white world and make the white world swing:  

Through the whole film there is a beautiful dynamic between Driss and Philippe (the riche paralysed man), not the least in the end when they part, and both have grown, and become more complete men. Driss has matured, and become a responsible man, and Philippe has come alive again. And the whole story is based on a true story. But. In the original version the poor guy was not black. He was Moroccan. Why the film team decided to change that I don’t know, one can but speculate about the reasons for that… Also the book is apparently a hit, very exposed at FNAC and most other bookshops in Paris.

But FTW! So stereotypical, though, this gorgeous man, Omar Sy, playing this typical “homme de la brousse” from the French colonial logic, without any reason to start with, only unruly emotions and passions, through the rational guidance from crème de la crème, he becomes eventually quite decent. And the paralysed man almost frozen to death in his bourgeoisie palace gets in contact with his feelings, with his heart. Doesn’t all this proves that colonialism was right all along, and is a win win? The dying European culture of Spengler’s nightmare, is brought back to life through fresh African blood! Exactly as wrote Jean-Paul Sartre in “Orphée Noir” in 1948. And the savage African learns something of the best that European high culture can offer? 

feminismens backlash

Jag har egentligen aldrig trott på det där med feminismens backlash. Men så sitter jag här i mellandagarna och förbereder en opposition på en genusvetenskaplig avhandling och läser både det ena och det andra kring feminism i Sverige.
En sak som jag plötsligt inser är att av alla duktiga feministiska idéhistoriker jag känner arbetar en (Katarina Leppänen) på en idéhistorisk institution (UU). Och då är det en tidsbegränsad tjänst. Alla andra (Ulla Manns, SH; Ulrika Nilsson, SU; Pia Laskar, LiU; Erika Alm, UmU) arbetar på genusvetenskapliga avdelningar/institutioner runtom i landet. Liksom Eva Gothlin (GU) innan hon gick bort. (Jag hoppas innerligt att jag har glömt någon!) En uppenbar backlash inom idéhistorien i alla fall. Och så synd för idéhistorien som disciplin.
En annan sak som slog mig när jag läste följande stycke i Lena Gemzöez Feminism (2002)

På ett sätt är förhållandet mellan dessa unga kvinnor [som inte känner igen sig i en feministisk samhällssyn] och feminismen paradoxalt – det är just feminismens framgångar som har möjliggjort att unga kvinnor kan se rätten till ett berikande yrkesliv och rätten att bestämma över barnafödande som självklara.

var hur parallell feminismens situation är med socialdemokratins/socialismens. Genom att göra rättvisa och jämställdhet till föremål för socialt ingenjörsskap snarare än idépolitik är allt över när det blivit tillräckligt bra för tillräckligt många. Rörelsen har gjort sitt jobb. Tack och hej. Och det skulle kanske inte i teorin vara hela världen. Om det inte var att orättvisan och ojämlikheten finns kvar för så många.

Gamla blogginlägg från Gertrude’s

Jag länkar mina blogginlägg i Gertrude’s Corner, som ett sätt att väcka mig och min blogg till liv, nu när jag känner att jag behöver en blogg för att komma igång med formulerandets metod för att tänka.

Utbytbarhetens tyranni

Ute och reser med proteser
Finanskrisen - giriga företagares fel eller skattetryckets?

Spanking - tidens melodi?

Slå i taket
Färgad? Afroamerikan?
Backabranden
Bergsklättrare versus 100-tals hinduer
Skamliga privilegier

Utseende, makt, kvinnlighet
Etnokrameri, verklighetsflykt
Viljan att veta vad man vill
Livet kan börja
Kanon

Proportions, anyone?

Since no one is going to read anyway since this is my secret/unknown blog I can as well start.

Ok, the parliament of Sweden has now voted for total scrutinising of all internet and mobile communications. That is both terrible and depressing.
Terrible because the will to power it express; the actual information that will officially be accessible for the state will grow, and therefore the possibility to control its citizens; for the cynical use of ”terrorism”. This is terrible both for what it is in reality, as well as for what it symbolize. That is, not democracy.
Depressing cuz it really shows us how naïve this government is, how shallow their notion of liberalism is.

On the other hand. It is also, for someone like me, who, if I shall be honest, which is the point, this blog being only for myself, does not really believe in representative democracy, it is also god news. Cuz it shows us, me, Swedish citizens, others, that this democracy is not for real. It is pure bullshit.

But now I have lost my thread. You might not have noticed that though, but my intention was to express a worry of a different sort. Namely what kind of questions that can up roar the young generation. It is not that they can’t engage in whatever they want. But the extent of their engagement in this issue raises two questions in me: did they believe otherwise? That we lived in a transparent and decent democracy?!? And hello! There is war on the planet, people are starving, dying, suffering. Where are the proportions?