food for thought

I got that exact question recently. I was at a friend’s book launch party and she asked me if I wanted her to sign my copy of her book. Sure. It’s how it’s supposed to be, right? And it was a nice personalized message that made me happy, so in this case it kind of made sense. Kind of. But to be honest, I have actually never understood that whole singing deal. That desire to have your copy of a book or a CD singed by the maker. What is that all about? It’s their work, they actually made it, isn’t that enough? Does it make it more real to have a signature on it? Is that what it’s about? Authenticity?

I had an experience some years ago that lead me to believe that has something to do with it. For a few years in the yearly/mid 2000s Einstürzende Neubauten did a number of tours and at the concerts they would sell CDs with recordings of the show. Like a licensed bootleg. I went to quite a few of these concerts and I got the CDs at each one. A lot of people asked me why I didn’t get these signed. In fact, almost everyone asked me why I didn’t take the opportunity, that I actually had, to get them signed. Same question, repeated a lot of times. And my reaction was always one of complete bewilderment. Why would I have them signed? I got these CDs because Neubauten are great live and they do at least one improv piece every night, plus I suck at remembering the set list, so fantastic deal, right? What the added benefit of also having their signatures on the covers would add I had, and still have, great trouble understanding. Effort was made to enlighten me further: “To show you were there!” Uh, why?! I know I was there and I don’t think I’ll ever be in a situation where I will have to prove that to anyone. I do have a rather vivid imagination, but to think of a non science fiction scenario where that would actually happen, is quite the challenge even for me. But I suppose what was being referred to had more to do with a situation of bragging. Although I have to say that being questioned in that scenario seems equally unlikely, not to mention stupid. But maybe that’s what it’s about, to prove that you have been close to the person. Close enough to hand over your copy of the CD or book and get a signature on it.

But I’ve actually had the whole signing thing happen to me with CDs I’ve bought at concerts without actually knowing it. Without ever handing the artist the CD. It was already on there when I bought it. I have no idea if it’s common practice. Seems very efficient though. That way you don’t have to do the whole signing circus separately. But it does of course take the whole “I’ve seem her or him up close for 10 seconds” aspect of it away.

The weirdest experience I’ve ever had in this area was at one of my best friends record release party a few years back. It was after the show and someone came up to buy a copy of the record and asked him to sign it, which he did. Right before he had given me a copy of the finished album, so I was standing there with it still in my hand. And then he looked at me and the CD in my hand and said “well, I suppose I should sign yours too, huh?” We looked at each other slightly bewildered and I said “yeah, I suppose so.” The thing that made it so weird was that I had been involved every step of the way in the making of that album. From the writing to the recording, in fact most of the songs were written in my living room and some of the recordings were made there too, and for the others I was there to press the buttons so to speak. So the fact that he should sign my copy just seemed rather absurd from the whole authenticity or “yeah I was there” perspective. I mean I was actually pretty much part of it all the way so having a signed copy seemed more than a little absurd. Especially since I even had the pre-masters on my hard drive. But again, the signing thing is what you’re supposed to do, right? No matter how absurd it actually is.

Yes, I suppose I can speculate about this for ages without figuring it out. Or rather, without being swayed to think that the whole signing thing actually brings any added value. Maybe it has to do with my not all that sentimental relationship with things. Sure I have stuff that I like, especially books and records, but it’s not about the things themselves, but about what’s in them. The stories or the music. And of course it’s nice with a booklet for the CD, but mainly for the information. And if you do a real artwork type of booklet that’s nice too, but no matter how nice it is I won’t take that CD out and sit there and look at the booklet everyday. Does anyone do that? Probably. People do all kinds of strange things. And i know a lot of people have a much stronger relationship with their things than I do. Almost as if the objects had some sort of magical charge. And maybe that’s what it’s actually about. Some sort of modern-day replacement for relics. Back in the day you had a splinter from the “true cross” and today you have a signed copy of Sgt. Pepper. I don’t know, but it’s the only plausible explanation I can think of.

Of course there’s the commercial aspect too, you can probably get a shitload of money for that signed copy of Sgt. Pepper these days, but then I have to say I really prefer the whole relic aspect, because art as a moneymaking endeavor makes me cringe with repulsion. Sure, art should be valued, but not mainly in monetary terms. And frankly, the signature does nothing for the music on the record, it’s still the same tracks regardless of whose John Hancock is on the cover. In the end it’s all just things and art is about ideas, especially music and books. I mean it’s not like we’re talking about one of a kind pieces of art here, not in terms of the objects. That a Picasso should ideally be signed is of course another thing, paintings aren’t really mass-produced things, but books and records are. I suppose I really have a problem with the whole materialistic aspect of it all, to put that much value in things, objects. It somehow feels related to the phenomena of consumerism, of hoarding things, even though the whole “signed copy” obviously has more to do with collecting than actually hoarding, but it does feel related. And I’m not so sure it’s a good thing to be obsessed with possessions. The ownership tends to shift very easily, from yourself to the possessions. The more you have the more you’ll fear losing it, right? Yeah, maybe I’m just not getting it, but if anyone has any better explanations feel free to leave a comment.

pill in hand

When we speak of addiction we usually mean something destructive. We understand the malignant aspects as an integral part of the phenomena. To be addicted to something is per definition bad and something that should be avoided.

If you look up addiction in a dictionary you get the following definitions:
- Compulsive physiological and psychological need for a habit-forming substance
- The condition of being habitually or compulsively occupied with or involved in something
The latter is exemplified with fast cars, the former with heroin. And I suppose it’s a pretty accurate way to describe the variations of the phenomena called addiction. Compulsive being the operative word in both cases. But how do you end up there? In the compulsive state? In the case of heroin the addictive qualities of the substance itself is usually put forth as the main cause of the compulsion. Heroin causes addiction, that’s what we’re told. If you want to be a bit more precise the addictive aspect lies in the fact that regular heroin use increases your tolerance level, you have to constantly up the dose to achieve the same effect, and it also causes a physical dependence, your body craves it. When it comes to substances those two aspects are what determine if the substance is addictive; increased tolerance and physical dependence. So how does that relate to the fast cars? Well, I suppose one could argue that you need to “up the dose” here too, it takes more to get the same fix, but the whole physical dependence is obviously not applicable. In the case of the cars it’s all on a psychological level.

Yes, there are of course different types of addictions, some of which have to do with things you put in your body and some that only have to do with experience. The common denominator being the whole compulsive aspect. Compulsive indicates that there’s a lack of free will involved. If we go to the dictionary this is what we find:
- The state of being compelled
- An irresistible impulse to act, regardless of the rationality of the motivation
So it has to do with rationality, or rather the lack thereof. Again a rather fitting definition, because most heroin addicts probably know that their addiction isn’t rational. Especially since there is a definite criminal aspect tied to the use of this particular substance. But what about the cars? Or indeed any non substance related addiction? Or addiction to substances that aren’t actually illegal? The experience and the physical aspects are certainly part of it as well as that lack of rationality, but to me the most interesting part of this is where to draw the line. When does a passion become an addiction? When does use become addiction?

The most common answer to this question is that it’s a social thing; when it becomes a problem in your everyday life you’ve got an addiction. If I go to myself I know that I have at least one addiction, caffeine. If I don’t get enough of it I get physical withdrawal symptoms. But not only is caffeine is legal, it’s also very easy to come by, so my addiction very rarely causes any major problems in my everyday life. But I am, without a single doubt, physically addicted, and seeing as I organize my life in such a manner that I always make sure I have access to the substance when needed, it’s pretty safe to say that the social aspect requirement is fulfilled too, it does affect my daily life, albeit with very little hassle involved. And sure, it would be nice to not have this addiction, to not have to worry about making sure I get my fix, but it’s all very manageable. It’s not something that troubles me or the people close to me to any notable extent. If I was addicted to heroin the story would of course be very different. With heroin the repercussive effects would indeed cause significant problems for me and, most likely, for my immediate surroundings. One could of course argue that the high you get from caffeine is not comparable to that of heroin, a caffeine high doesn’t interfere with your ability to function in society, whereas a heroin high would probably make several societal obligations if not impossible, then at least problematic, but is that really the main difference? The quality of the turn? Is that the reason the two substances have different legal status in society? Could you go as far as to say that there some addictions which are actually socially sanctioned? Yes, you probably could. Especially if we look at the non substance related addictions.

Materialism and consumerism are two of the pillars on which our western society rests. Our economy is based on the idea of supply and demand, and if we as citizens don’t demand, the whole thing crumbles. So we are taught to demand, to crave new things, to consume. One could even say that society as a whole is addicted to consumerism. Our possessions, our patterns of consumption, are what define us. Are you an iPhone user or not? Do you wear Adidas or Nike? Mac or PC? How big is your flat screen? Lifestyle has become a commodity, something we are sold. And the constant need for upgrading, to be part of the in-crowd, isn’t that just as much of an addiction? A “compulsive occupation” with consumerism? “An irresistible impulse to act, regardless of the rationality of the motivation.” Yes, it does indeed seem like there are some addictions that are very much sanctioned by society. Taken to the extreme one might even argue that it’s not addiction itself that’s the issue, it’s just a matter of conforming, to pick the right addiction. And heroin just isn’t the right one.

But even if we do live in a society that sanctions addiction, I still think there is actually a lot of truth to that initial thought, that addiction has an inherently destructive aspect, because it does indeed have to do with a lack of free will, a lack of choice, of rationality of you will. I don’t always drink coffee because I want to, sometimes it’s just to avoid getting a headache later. A simple matter of cause and effect, but where the element of choice is taken away. Physical addiction to put it simply. It started as use and resulted in addiction. It happens. And I’m sure I could get clean if I wanted to, but like I said, it’s not a big enough issue in my life for me to consider kicking the habit. But again, if the habit had been illegal it would probably have been a different story. Classifying my use as addiction would probably also have been a lot faster if it was actually an illegal substance.

Talking about ‘use’ in relation to illegal substances is something we avoid in our society, we almost always refer to it as ‘abuse’ and in the context of illegal drugs abuse is pretty much synonym with addiction. In fact one could argue that the concept of a ‘heroin user’ is an impossibility, the abuse aspect is so intimately tied to the status of the substance as illegal, that the neutral term ‘user’ is simply not part of the notion. So again, where do you draw the line between use and addiction? Especially if we take away the physical dependency aspects? If we maintain that the social consequences are what determine whether you have a problem or not, doesn’t that mean that the legal status of the substances are actually just as much a part of the problem as the (ab)use itself? When it comes to alcohol one can talk about a scale going from use to abuse and most people manage to stay within the use specter of that scale, and those who don’t can seek help to come to terms with their addiction without having to face too severe consequences. Being addicted to alcohol is of course by no means a walk in the park, no pun intended, but you don’t have to out yourself as a criminal if you want help. If you’re addicted to an illegal substance you do. So can addiction itself be illegal?

When you discuss addiction there are many theories in regards to the causes, but the overt and pretty much common position is that addiction is indeed something negative that should be avoided and failing that, treated. The methods vary as much as the explanation models, but one thing that many of the theories have in common is the assumption that addiction is a chronic state, i.e. whatever treatment is used should be seen as a lifelong measure. In other words, a sober alcohol addict should stay away from alcohol for the rest of their life. Be as it may with this, the interesting thing here is the variance, why not everyone who drinks alcohol becomes an addict, a fact that’s pretty hard to ignore. Same with gambling, or indeed, fast cars. This has obviously lead to theories about an addictive personality type; some individuals are just more prone to addiction. And again there’s a vast number of theories about the causes for this, but the interesting thing is that this insight, that not everyone is as likely to become an addict, is mainly put in connection to legally sanctioned addictions. In fact it’s very often used as an argument for maintaining the status of various addictive activities or substances as legal. Not everyone who drinks alcohol or gambles becomes addicted. And regardless of what you think of alcohol or gambling, it’s never the less true. Thus it’s pretty safe to assume that addiction is not caused solely by the substance or activity itself, but that there is some other element to it. A logical conclusion. But this logic is promptly thrown out the window when the addictive potential is used as an argument for maintaining the illegal status of certain substances. As soon as the discussion turns to illegal substances the whole individuality aspects are off-limits. Here the addictive potentials are not related to anything, there’s not place for the argument that not everyone gets addicted, and the discussion ends at the simple statement that “drugs are bad and if you take them you become an addict”. In this type of reasoning there is no room for differentiating between use and abuse; it’s all abuse and it all leads directly to addiction, regardless of who you are. In fact, the addictive potential is often used as one of the main arguments for classifying substances as illegal. But strangely enough this mostly seems to apply to substances that are already illegal. For instance when the addictive potential of marijuana is stated as a reason for maintaining its status as illegal. Or indeed heroin. Granted, heroin is a lot more addictive than marijuana, but according to some research it’s actually less addictive than refined sugar, and in the case of marijuana there’s very little scientific evidence of it causing any physical addiction at all. So the million dollar question is: Could it actually be argued that the majority of the problems associated with illegal drugs are in fact to a rather great extent caused by their status as illegal in the fist place? Yes, I believe it can. If marijuana wasn’t illegal mere possession wouldn’t land you in jail, stealing to finance your heroine habit still would, but then it would be the theft and not the additional offense of possession that would land you there. The same way you’ll get yourself into debt if you consume too much. The big difference being that the whole consumption endeavor is actually sanctioned by society, only exaggeration is seen as problematic. Only if you let your addiction get out of hand does it actually become an issue. Just as with alcohol. No one will be frowned upon for having a glass of wine with dinner, or even ending up in a drunken stupor on the weekend, but replace those bottles of wine or beer with a bag of weed or a line of coke and you’re a criminal. You can drink, gamble and consume as much as you want and the only real consequences you’ll have to face in the eyes of society if you end up getting addicted are shame and debt. And as bad as shame and debt are, a criminal record is worse, it’s usually a lot harder to get away from and carries a lot greater social stigma. And just to be clear, I’m not saying that illegal drugs are unproblematic or harmless, what I’m saying is that their status as illegal is as much a part of the danger specter, both when it comes to the consequences for the individual user and for society, as the addiction itself. The same way there was an extra layer of danger associated with alcohol during the prohibition years in the States, or the way a gambling addiction has more serious consequences in countries where gambling is illegal.

Yes, addiction is indeed problematic, but there is a definite scale aspect and some addictions are not only condoned but also encouraged by our society. This somewhat schizophrenic relation results is there being a very strong element of social construction in addiction as a phenomena, because if we are to use the contextual definition of something being an addiction when it becomes problematic in your everyday life, where do we then draw the line? Especially when some of the problems caused by addiction are so intimately tied to aspects that lie completely outside the individual, which is precisely the case with all substances classified as illegal. Their mere status as illegal result in an increase, and potentially even the actual creation, of the problems. Being addicted to caffeine is not really that much of an issue for me and if I lived in the Netherlands I could easily add marijuana to the list without having to suffer any dire consequences, but in most other western countries it would give me if not a jail sentence, at least a criminal record. But if my addiction was to alcohol I would instead be offered treatment in those very same countries.

No, I’m not actually saying that we should immediately legalize all drugs, what I’m saying is that a lot of the problems related to illegal drug addiction are in fact caused by their very status as illegal and that this aspect is overlooked both when debating legalization and addiction and that this is an example of extremely flawed logic. Because in spite of popular opinion the main reason marijuana users are criminals in most countries is because they posses and use marijuana. And that’s pretty much it. There’s no need to become a burglar to get weed, it’s not expensive enough, and violent behavior isn’t part of the effects of the drug itself, so the possession and consumption of drug itself is pretty much the only crime involved. In a society that allows alcohol, a substance known to be both be addictive and to have a strong association with violent crime, it doesn’t actually make sense to maintain that the alleged dangers, to the individual and society as a whole, would be reason enough to maintain the current legislation surrounding various intoxicating substances.

Addiction is problematic enough as it is and there’s really no need to inflict criminality on the individuals who are suffering from this. Especially since other addictions are actually encouraged by our society, like consumerism. And it would also be a huge step forward if we could separate the use from the abuse when it comes to drugs. Because then, and only then, can we begin to asses whether we are actually dealing with a compulsion, “an irresistible impulse to act, regardless of the rationality of the motivation” or if we’re simply looking at someone who likes to get high from time to time. And who knows, maybe this increased ability to perceive nuance would actually help us determine whether the global financial market might not be in dire need of a trip to rehab…

"look me in the eyes"

I just found this text and for some reason I didn’t publish it back when I wrote it, but here it is.

I’m on my way home from a friend’s house. It’s about 2 o’clock on Easter Sunday. I’m at the very end of Torstrasse and the combination of having no clue what the S-Bahn situation is like since it’s a public holiday and the fairly warm evening, makes me decide to walk to Alexanderplatz. Walking down Oranienburger Strasse is the fastest way to get to Alexanderplatz from where I am so it’s very much the natural choice, but I still hesitate. I’m not really sure I want to expose myself to that walk tonight, but the option of taking another route isn’t all that appealing either. Especially since Mitte tends to play tricks with my head and make me confused about where I am at times, something that has every potential of leading to rather time-consuming detours and I really don’t feel like that either right now. So I go with the natural choice and start heading down Oranienburger Strasse. The first few blocks are easy, they always are. There’s too many restaurants crammed into too little space for there to be anything but eating and drinking going on in that part of the street. But as soon as you get close to the Synagogue it starts. And I brace myself, try to prepare for what’s to come.

I see her coming towards me. Dark hair, white tights, no heels, that’s unusual, and the ever-present fanny pack. Worn on the front of the body, never on the hip like in the techno crowd. She appears to be somewhere in her early twenties but she’s wearing too much make-up to really be able to detect any age. We don’t look at each other, we just pass like the strangers we are, pretending not to see each other. As she walks away behind me I can feel my anxiety levels rise. I look up and in front of me I already see the next one. She’s having a conversation with a man clad in pastel colors. He looks very gay, nothing like the usual punter, and I catch myself wondering if he’s her pimp. A few steps away there are two more. Blonde hair extensions, dressed in white and with corsets. They all have corsets and hot pants. It’s like a uniform. And at that point I just feel like crying. Across the street there are two more girls, also blonde, they are surrounded by a group of teenage boys and I’m happy I have my iPod so I don’t have to hear anything of the conversation. What is going to be the outcome of that situation? Is this the night when these boys will learn that you can buy access to a woman’s body? I want to throw up when I think about it.

I once heard it being claimed that one of the first signs things were slowly going back to the way they were before the wall was the return of the prostitutes on Oranienburger Strasse. I don’t know if it’s true they were gone during the DDR times, but it is true that this street has been a hub in the Berlin street prostitution scene for centuries. And it still is.

There’s by no means anything even resembling global consensus when it comes to the question on whether prostitution can be considered an occupation or if it’s a crime and there are accompanying differences in legislation across the globe. In some countries the main focus is on the moral aspect and the outcome is usually a criminalization of prostitution with the main focus on the prostitutes themselves. In 1999 Sweden passed a law criminalizing the buyers. In practice this means that it’s not illegal to sell sexual services, but it is illegal to purchase them. The reasoning behind this law is that the human body shouldn’t be for sale, but that the fault doesn’t lie with the seller, but rather with the person trying to buy another persons body. This legislation with its focus on the buyer is pretty unique and so far only Norway and Iceland have passed similar laws. In other countries the morality aspect is not part of the calculation and the focus lies on the choice aspect. Germany is one of these countries. By this logic prostitution is legal as long as there’s no element of force involved.  But what constitutes force? That’s what I’m contemplating as I walk down the street and see all these girls waiting to be picked up by customers. Most of them are alone, some in pairs, but somewhere there’s a pimp. Either within visual range or just a phone call away. They are not here alone and they are not going to get to keep the money they make. How did these girls end up here in these clothes on this street in this city? What cruel twist of faith lead them here and how will they ever be able to get away from this street with their souls intact?

Almost every time I talk to someone about prostitution they will have an example of someone they have heard saying that she, because it’s usually a woman, is in the game by her own choice and that she thinks it’s a good way to make her income. And I’m sure it’s true, I’m sure there are women out there who say that, but I also know it’s true that all the women I have talked to, and they are quite a few, who have gotten out of prostitution say the opposite. A lot of them also told me that while they were in it, they also used to claim they were doing it voluntarily, because who want’s to admit they are doing something they don’t actually want to be doing? It’s a pride thing. We humans really care about our pride, we take great care about not losing face. And I’m not claiming that the women who are in prostitution and who claim they are there because the actually want to are lying, all I’m saying is that I haven’t really met anyone who claimed the same thing once they got out. Putting your body through something like that on a daily, sometimes hourly, basis does things to your soul. Especially when you see the reflection of yourself in the eyes of society, in the eyes of the punters. The contempt.

No one really knows how common sexual violence against children really is but it’s estimated that roughly one in every five girls will be sexually molested before she reaches adulthood, for boys the number is one in ten, but in the realm of sex work it’s the ones who haven’t been sexually abused as children who are in the minority. Because selling your body for money isn’t something you decide to do over night, it’s a gradual process. A process in which the boundaries are constantly moving and the value of your body slowly decreases. And with a history of sexual abuse you really have a head start. You’ve already been thoroughly taught that you can be used by other people, that it can’t really be avoided, that they’ll do it whether you want them to or not, so why not make sure they at least have to pay for it? And you know they like you. They may not respect you, but they do like you. They like what you let them do to you.

Confirmation. Is that what it’s all about? I don’t know, but humans will go to great lengths to get confirmation. To get tangible evidence that you are actually being perceived by other people, that you exist outside your own head, and that what’s being perceived is benevolently accepted. Or to put it simply – we all really want to be liked. We will go to great lengths to achieve that feeling of being liked. And of course it’s really good if you manage to muster up enough of that feeling for yourself, that you like yourself a lot, but it’s a lot easier to get a high on the projections from other people. It just feels really good to be liked by someone else. To be appreciated. Some people work themselves to an early death through stress related diseases for that feeling, some people put their bodies through surgery, others put out on the first date. We all just want to be liked.

There’s nothing morally wrong with selling your body for money, not any worse than selling it for status, appreciation, confirmation. Putting out for confirmation or for money, it’s just different divisions in the same game. Prostitution is just the clearest manifestation of the perverted world order we have. And I’m not sure exactly how that world order is impacted by the criminalizing this most blatant manifestation of its errors. But what I can say is that it does seem too twisted, too illogical, to make it a criminal offense to sell your body, because where do we draw the line? At a pure financial transaction? But how are we then to look at house wives? Married women who do not have their own income. Are they prostitutes? I don’t think society wants to have them included in the definition. The line gets blurred. There’s no actual difference, we’re just at different places on the same scale.

No, there’s nothing morally wrong with selling your body for money, it’s yours to do what you want with. But there is something fundamentally wrong with thinking that it’s ok to buy access to someone else’s body. You can never claim the right to another persons body. There is not a single situation where that would be reasonable. Our bodies are ours. They are the house our souls live in. And the only people who should have access to your house are those you invite, not the ones who bribe you. It’s just as wrong for a husband to think that he can demand sex from his housewife as it is for a punter to think he can purchase sex from the girl standing there in her white corset by Monbijouplatz at 2 in the morning. We all want to be liked and this world would be a better place if we stopped taking advantage of that.

bridge

“It’s too long.” I get that often, about things I write. And I do think about it. I do try to shorten stuff, cut away things that aren’t relevant, just keep the essentials. Take the criticism to heart as they say. And yes, sometimes it’s true, the texts do need to be shortened, but sometimes it’s just a load of bullshit. A thing people say because they are too lazy to make the effort it would take to get through the whole text. I hear it about books too: “No, I haven’t read Dostoyevsky, his books are too long.” And no, I’m not comparing myself with Dostoyevsky, I’m just saying that by being lazy, you’re most definitely missing out. Sure, some things can be said in just a few sentences, but some things really need a longer and more elaborate type of argumentation. Some things are too complex to allow themselves for brief summarized types of presentations. It all depends on what the theme and the topic is. For instance, it’s really easy to define the meaning of life, in fact all it takes is one word: enjoy. But if you want to dig a bit deeper and really examine what that would mean you will need a lot more words. It all depends on the objective.

But I suppose the objective is indeed the issue. If you really want to give readers an opportunity to think for themselves you have to give them a bigger set of facts and/or arguments. I was reading a humungously long essay by Arundhati Roy in India Online about the Maoist guerilla in central India (here) and even though it took me well over an hour to read it I guarantee that this essay couldn’t have been any shorter because that’s exactly how complicated this situation really is. And if the objective is to provide your readers with an understanding of the level of complexity in this situation, which I’m pretty sure is the case, you have to give them the fully story. If you don’t you’ll just be another voice in the choir of ignorance. And as a reader, my obligation is to take this information in and draw my own conclusions. To use my own intellectual capabilities to try to make sense of it all in my own head. That’s the whole point; to actually think. It’s what we’re supposed to do with information; process it. Use our brains. 

But I have this creeping suspicion that we are getting really lazy, intellectually speaking. We are so used to being fed simplified versions of everything that we shun from anything that would require any real effort on our part. Communication has taken on the form of advertisement slogans. The paradigm is that everything should be short and simple. So that “people can understand it”. But it’s one thing to say ‘change’ and another thing to actually elaborate on what that change would actually entail. And when it comes to society and politics the elaboration bit is pretty fucking crucial. If we are too lazy to process that information, then we’re really in big trouble.

I know I sound like a complete elitist asshole now, but I honestly think TV is the one of the main villains here. The TV format doesn’t really allow for lengthier expositions or elaborate explanations, especially not the news. All we get are glimpses. Some people are protesting against their government on a square in some middle eastern country and the police are shooting at them. But exactly what the protests are about we never really find out, not beyond a short comment about the protesters desire for democracy, we’ve already moved on to the story about bad weather over northern Europe. There have been floods. Again. But there’s no time to have a look at frequencies, to get clarity on if the notion that this seems to be happening a lot more lately is true or not. No time for anything that requires any reflective efforts. How could there be? There’s no way to pace TV watching, it happens right now and as a viewer you have no influence over the information feed, you’re just being showered in it, and in order to make sure you don’t get frustrated you’re only being fed things you don’t have to think about all that much. No effort, just one-way stimulus. If you read, you can adjust your speed. You can put the text down and ponder, reread passages, skim, go fast or slow, you can do what ever you need to ensure the information feed fits your exact preferences. Written texts are more flexible like that, that’s why written texts are the preferred medium in which to present complex matters. TV very rarely is. TV is first and foremost about entertainment, about keeping us stimulated. And it requires absolutely no effort on our part. All we have to do is sit there and be entertained. Any time, any day, the TV is always there to feed you. In spite of the fact that our access to vast amounts information has most likely never been greater or easier than it is today, most people still use TV as their main source of information. The path of minimum resistance. Having it all served up on a plate cut into small consumption size pieces. No need to even chew, just sit back and swallow. This is what we have been taught, how we have been socialized over the last 50 or so years. And in the intermissions we are being told what items we need, what we are supposed to desire, in order to make our lives complete. Good consumers supporting the economy by wasting even more resources and money on things we don’t actually need. How did that song lyric from the early 90s go? “Television, the drug of the nation. Breeding ignorance and feeding radiation.”* Yes, that’s how it went.

In our society a lot more time is spent watching TV than reading and I think this has done things to our attention span. We get distracted, we get bored, we can’t concentrate. Like some sort of collective attention deficiency syndrome has descended upon us. But having said all this, I still refuse to believe that we,humanity, are no longer capable of processing longer chunks of information. Sure, we’ve gotten lazy, no doubt about that, but we haven’t completely lost the ability now have we? Because that would be tragic. The ability to process an argument or a text that’s longer than a fucking twitter feed is pretty much essential for any type of brain activity that goes beyond a mere “oh, that’s cool” type of reflection. And we need that ability. Desperately. And if we don’t want to lose it we need to practice, we need to make sure we use our brains, our intellects, to think for ourselves. Because questioning, reflection, is the only way to make sure we don’t turn into a herd of sheep. I have said it before, but if we really want to live up to the name we have given ourselves, homo sapiens (the wise/reflective man), we need to make sure we actually use our intellectual capacities. So the next time you think “oh, that’s too long”, try to contemplate whether it’s actually true, or whether you’re not just being lazy. And you might want to start by doing yourself the favor of reading Roy’s essay.

* Disposable Heroes of Hiphopricy, “Television, the Drug of the Nation”

satire

Remember the Crisis? You know, that big crisis that threw the whole world off balance and made lots of people lose their jobs and cost everyone lost of money. Remember that one, back in the 1990s? Or was it 2001? No wait, there was one 2007 too. No, I mean 2009. In fact, is it over yet? That crisis that started some time in…uh 1900 something and went on till… well it’s actually still going on, isn’t it? All this talk aboutThe Financial Crisis. Yeah sure, but which one?! Because it’s not like there’s been only one in recent decades. In fact, once could argue that it seems to have become a permanent state, this whole financial crisis business. If one didn’t know any better one might think that there was actually something fundamentally wrong with the whole system, but one does know better, right? Because surely we’re on the right track, we’re real close to fixing it all now, aren’t we? Yeah, for sure… I mean just the other day the spanish prime minister said the growth is positive, just very slow. And I’m sure the people of Spain agrees, right? Real close to fixing it now you see. We have a solution you see.

But it’s rather interesting to notice how the solution is always to sell off the rights of the citizens. A more flexible labour market, selling state-owned businesses, upping the retirement age etc. It’s all very much in line with the commandments of capitalism: money talks and he who has none shall shut the fuck up. And it’s always promoted with the propaganda of fear. “If we don’t fuck you over a little bit now we’ll all end up being totally fucked later. So bend over people!” But are they really telling the truth? Because if you look a bit closer, doesn’t it look very much like we’re actually already being totally fucked? Slowly but surely we are building a system, or maybe that should be rebuilding, a system where you can’t be sure if you’ll ever be able to retire, where having one full-time job isn’t enough to support yourself and where you never get a permanent employment contract but always have to stay on your toes. Not that you should kind of just lay back once you have a job, but you shouldn’t have to constantly be looking for a new one either. It doesn’t work to spur the employees work-morale, nor does it give the employer any real flexibility. That’s just the lies we are being fed. In reality it makes the employees not give a shit because they know they will be gone in six months anyway, and it gives the employers big problems keeping anyone who actually knows what they are doing. No one really benefits from the allegedly flexible labour market. Apart maybe from some far removed parallel universe bankers who in the short-term can make stupid amounts of money from imaginary forecast profits created by shuffling around imaginary sums of make-believe money. None of it’s even real anymore.

And isn’t it also interesting that the people responsible for the crisis are always off the hook, that they are always the ones getting out on top? Big business caused all of this, and it’s actually no secret. It’s not even a theory, it’s the plain and simple and very much verified truth. And yet, they are still the ones who get to decide what needs to be done. They made the mess and now, not only are they the only ones that don’t have to help clean it up, they also get to decide how it is to be done. Quite the accomplishment I have to say, to have the balls of the world leaders by such a grip that you can pull of a trick like that. Seriously, the idea of cleaning up a mess by adding more of what created the mess in the first place is pretty fucking absurd. In fact, it’s idiotic, not to mention mind-bogglingly self-destructive. You usually don’t fix something that’s broken by adding more of what broke it in the first place because it very rarely actually works. In fact as rarely as never. And yet that is the genius plan we are being sold. “This is what we did to fuck it up, so let’s keep doing the exact same thing and we’ll fix it for sure.” Yeah, for sure.

Yes, we are really being fucked over and yet we don’t seem to want to believe it. In spite of the pretty much constant financial crisis we still believe that money is what’s going to solve it all. More money to those who already have more than enough and less to those that hardly have any at all. If one didn’t know better one could think that it’s all part of a sinister plan to keep us all in fear of ending up in that group of people who have nothing at all. I consume therefore I am, and if I can’t consume anymore, then I no longer am. Descartes has been thrown out and replaced by a social contract not even Hobbes could have imagined. Leviathan has morphed into Mammon.

And what’s even sicker, is that if you actually start to scratch the surface of this alleged capitalism you see that it’s not even what they claim it to be. It’s not a free market at all. The banks are so closely entangled with the governments that it’s hard to even tell the difference. All these actions perpetually being taken to save the economy in various countries all the time have very little to do with saving the actual country in which they are taken, but mainly with saving the financial market itself. For instance, most states initiated ‘support packets’ for banks back when the shit hit the fan in 2009. And now, when Greece is supposed to be ‘rescued’, the banks can’t be forced to contribute because that would “cause bad ratings with the rating agencies”. Excuse me? Are we still on planet earth? Or rather, are we still living in a democratic society? Yeah, it’s becoming a more and more relevant question.

And in light of that question, it’s also rather interesting to compare the two big nuclear disasters we’ve had on this planet. One was in a communist dictatorship and one was in an ultra capitalist state. In both cases the public was kept in the dark until it was impossible to not say anything. In the first case the verdict was unanimous, the silencing maneuver was the result of a totalitarian state. The M.O. was to hush in order for the regime to save face and keep their totalitarian power. A total no brainer. But how are we going to explain the latest one? Japan is a democracy and it wasn’t a state but a company that was doing the hushing. The same way BP was trying to hush down the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in April 2010. The thought that today’s capitalist consumer driven society is just as driven by propaganda as the former Soviet Union isn’t all that far-fetched. Capitalism’s biggest marketing slogan has always been that it’s a guarantee for freedom and democracy; when the market is free so are the people. The problem is that the market isn’t free, because the ones who have the money can buy other people’s rights. And they do. We’re not free. We consume to exist and we pay with our freedom. Essentially we are selling our lives and we are getting a shit deal. And when we protest we are told that we are being irresponsible. Just like the people of Greece, the place that gave birth to the very concept of democracy, are being told right now. No, we are not free and this is no longer a democratic society. It’s a financial market and it’s fucking us all over.

escalator

I’m working on a text about art and creativity right now, and part of that text is about the holes in life. Those plunges one makes from time to time. Or at least I do. And I usually refer to these periods as being ‘in the hole’. A dark, lonely and very nasty place to be. These days I usually manage to keep these visits short, I’ve had enough practice climbing up to have developed a certain proficiency by now, but even a short stay is unpleasant enough.

The biggest problem with being in the hole though, are the distorted perspectives. Things just look really different from down there. Twisted and weird. And it’s almost as if logic isn’t able to reach you when you’re there. Everything takes on distorted proportions, becomes enormous, monstrous, unsurpassable hurdles and even simple household chores morph into Sisyphean tasks. It’s all just a big, gargantuan mess of shit piling up threatening to fall down and crush you. But on some level you still know it’s all because you’re in the hole, that it’s just the perspective fucking with your head. And that’s when shame sets in. Because if you know, you should be able to just shake it, right? But you can’t. And therefore, you suck. That’s the summary of how the whole situation looks from down there. You suck.

So obviously you have to shut up about it, because if you tell anyone, then they will also realize you suck and getting external confirmation on that would pretty much guarantee that the shit will indeed fall down and crush you. And that’s why you start pretending, putting on an act, but being in the hole with the whole perspective distortion going on, you’re not really able to pull it off. The performance as your preferred version of yourself doesn’t turn out very convincing. In fact, all you manage to pull off, is an unreliable, slightly erratic and rather grumpy version of your least preferred self. You don’t return calls, you don’t respond to emails and when people confront you with it you make up vague excuses about having “been busy”. Yeah, right… You make promises to show up somewhere and then break them by staying home because you just can’t face the outside world. Sometimes you won’t even call, or send a simple sms, because you just can’t think of an excuse that sounds legitimate. Yes, you’ll do, or rather neglect to do, pretty much anything, except telling the truth. Not even a direct question will make you fess up to the real situation. Even a conversation dealing with the exact issues that contributed to the plunge will be had without the slightest hint to your current subterranean position. No matter what, the statement will always be: “it’s all good.” Everything is, or will be, in the very next moment, just fine. There is absolutely nothing wrong/nothing to worry about, it will all be fine. It is all fine. Everything is fine.

But it’s not. Everything is one massive fucking chaos where nothing looks like it’s supposed to and there’s a gigantic pile of all kinds of really heavy shit that’s about to crash down right on top of you at any minute and grind you into pathetic meat sauce. It’s so fucking far from fine it could possibly be. And yet, you don’t say anything about it. You just clench your fists and try your best to force your face into something, at least vaguely, resembling a smile.

It’s not until you’ve managed to start crawling your way up again that you’ll be able to spit out statements faintly resembling the truth. When the perspectives are slowly going back to normal and things start making a bit of sense again. Because then you realize that unless you say something, people will think you are even crazier than you actually are. Or to put it differently: they will think you suck even more than you actually do. Because most people are really pretty empathic. Especially friends. In fact, they will usually tell you that you should have said something when you were actually down there, that it would have been fine for you to do that, that they would have understood. And now, when you’re almost up again, you realize that what they are saying does indeed make sense and that they actually mean it. So you promise you’ll act differently next time, next time you’ll be honest and just come right out and say it. But as you make this promise, there’s a small voice in your head that breaks into hysterical laughter. And like an echo from the depths of the hole you hear: “Yeah right, loser!”

Because that’s the problem. When you are down there, in the darkness of the hole, reason doesn’t really apply. It can’t reach you down there. And even though you actually know that your friends won’t think you’re an idiot for having taken another fall, when you’re down there, in the hole, you don’t really believe it. So the likelihood of you being able to act in any other way is, at best, pretty slim. It’s like some twisted catch 22 kind of situation. “How are you?” Well if I’m good, I’ll tell you the truth, but if I’m not, I will lie. One might think asking is quite pointless. And maybe it is, but my friends keep asking anyway. Just like I do with them. Because maybe, one day, we’ll be able to overcome the idiot voice yelling that we suck. And if we don’t, then at least we can talk about it after the fact and I suppose that’s progress to, to be able to actually acknowledge the fact that the hole exists and that we all make occasional visits there.

So what does any of this actually have to do with art and creative labour? Well, when you’re in the hole, that’s pretty much the only thing you can do, the only thing that’s still possible. Of course you’ll think everything you do is utter shit, but you’ll do it anyway just because it’s the only thing that actually helps. All that chaos has to be channeled somehow and art is the only thing that works. Your only shot at eventually struggling yourself out of there. And that’s why I’m thinking the hole is a relevant aspect of my investigations into the land of art and creativity. More to come on that. Right now I’m busy explaining why I fell off the earth for a while…

utilities

I am what is commonly referred to as an expat. I.e. a resident in a foreign country. Another word for this is immigrant. And I’ve written about this before (here), so I won’t go too deep into the absurdities that reside within that concept in this text, but let me just say that people aren’t plants. We don’t have roots, we have legs. We move. But when you do move there are a number of things you are confronted with, and one of these things is language.

I live in a country where I have to live my daily life in a different language, a language that isn’t my mother tongue, German. I already knew a bit of German when I moved here 5 years ago, so I wasn’t that worried. I knew it would take a while to get a flow, to feel secure and at home in the new language, but I wasn’t really prepared for what an impact it would have on my identity and self-image. Because every language has its characteristics and in these characteristics also lies a world view. The words you have in a language say a lot about how you perceive the world, what concepts are relevant. And as you slowly start conquering the language you also get an insight to the world view that comes with it, and you start relating this to your own. You start reflecting on the differences and compare them to other languages, other world views. I use three languages in my daily life, or to put it differently, I live my life in three different languages. I have a few more at my disposal, but three is what I use in my everyday existence. So essentially I have these three different world views coexisting in my head on a daily basis.

Having several world views at your disposal does good things to your head. It makes you see things from several angles, makes you able to notice a greater array of phenomena. Essentially it expands your understanding of the world, let’s you experience it in more ways. I once heard it stated that you can’t really understand a culture if you don’t understand its language and I think there lies a lot of truth in that statement. I was talking to an american friend of mine about this, and she pointed out the fact that there’s actually no word for rude in German. And there’s no word for taking pleasure in other people’s misery in English, there is in German, it’s called Schadenfreude. There’s also no word for the opposite of home sick in English*, in German you call this Fernweh. A painful longing for the far away. And they say German isn’t a poetic language?! I beg to differ. There’s poetry to be found in the precise too. Of course the French expression for nightfall, tombée de la nuit, the fall of the night, is extremely poetically charged, but in a different way. How a language works says a lot about how the people work. Or maybe the language is what’s responsible for the wiring in the first place? The hen and the egg, language and culture. What’s the cause and what’s the effect? Most likely both, an infinite interdependency. Because culture and language are both constantly evolving phenomena, one might even claim it’s part of their very essence, and as such they are in a constant dialogue with one another. A dialogue where there is no way of determining who or what is setting the agenda.

But like I said, it’s not only the culture, the world view, that you have to deal with, a new language also impacts your self-image. Initially through the fact that the language tools at your disposal are not only different, but also fewer. Or to put it differently, it’s not all that easy to be yourself in a new language, a language you’re not used to speaking. Being eloquent is pretty much impossible if your knowledge is limited, and therefore any elaborate jokes or puns are out of the question. Same with witty ripostes. It’s all off the agenda. You have to spend more time listening than talking and if you do want to say something, the words in which to do it may not even be at your disposal, you have to get creative and you have to be willing to make a fool of yourself. In some ways it’s a bit like being a child again, you have to re-assume the same attitude of curiosity and willingness to learn as you have when you first learn how to talk. Some people you encounter, maybe even most, will interpret this stance and the lack of vocabulary as an indication of your intelligence, i.e. they will believe that you’re not very smart. And I suppose that’s part of the reason why there are so many highly educated immigrants that drive taxis rather than design them and who clean hospitals rather than work in the operating theatre. The lack of language proficiency is seen as a lack of intellectual capacities. A great example of a false conclusion.

But once you actually do get your head around the new language, you also realize that language really does make a difference to your personality, i.e there’s a slight difference between who you are depending on what language you’re using. The palette at your disposal makes a difference for the picture you paint. I am not entirely the same in English and German, I can’t really pinpoint exactly wherein these differences lie, but I know that they are there.  And I do notice this with my bilingual friends too. To the extent that I can claim I prefer them in certain language. It’s not that I like them less or more, it’s that my perception of the various aspects of their personality shifts with the language they are using, and in this specter I do have my preferences. And the same is true for myself. I have preferences there too, but when it comes to yourself it’s very hard to tell if these preferences has more to do with your level of comfort or the different aspect of your personality that surface. But it’s the latter reason that’s the really interesting part, because just like a language will give you insight to a world view, the language will also highlight different aspects in you, in your own self-image. You see yourself in a different perspective, through the lens of a different language.  Can I even translate the person that I am, that I have become in one language, into a different language? In philosophy it’s common practice to not translate certain concepts as a way to ensure they remain true to their definitions, because translating ideas without altering them is close to impossible. And I suspect the same is true for personalities. There is an element of change in the translation of yourself. A transformation that takes place and that influences who you actually are. Initially this isn’t an altogether pleasant experience because you do notice it and there is a certain sense of confusion and insecurity involved, but once you manage to transcend this, partly through an increased proficiency in the language and partly through the understanding of the world view, you can begin to embrace the expansion of your own personality, your own self, that this translation process brings with it. And that’s when it really gets interesting.

I firmly believe the reason we, as humans, don’t have roots is to allow us to move, to expand our horizons. And language allows us to do this on a consciousness level. Learning a new language is like traveling. It offers us new perspectives on the world and thus also on ourselves. Not only does it expand and increase our understanding of our surroundings, it also gives us the opportunity to evolve our own personalities, to become more multifaceted. In short, it’s all very good for our mind, it expands it. And mind expansion is all about liberating your mind from the clutter of prejudice and false assumptions, about ourselves and the world, i.e. something we should all devote ourselves to a lot more. Language is one way to do this.

* The closest you get is ‘wanderlust’, which is also a German word, or ‘itchy feet’ which is not only a bit silly, but also fails to capture the right nuance of the concept.

a window to the outside world

For me life online started when I was at university. I studied for six years, and when I started, registering for an exam meant going to campus and signing your name on a physical list. When I concluded my studies the exam registration was happening online only. Over the course of those six years the world had changed, or at least the part of the world where I was living.

I fully realize I sound like a grandmother now, but when I grew up you had to make your way to the library or at least go pick up a physical encyclopedia to find information. We didn’t have an encyclopedia in my house, so hence I spent a lot of time at the library. I also dragged quite an impressive amount of books back and forth on a very regular basis, and we’re talking piles at a time here. These days you can just go to wikipedia. I love libraries and I still like spending time there, but I also really like wikipedia. And I truly love the internet.

Obviously the abundance of information that’s right at your finger tips is enough to make me purr with delight, but the other fantastic thing is the quantum leap in communication the internet has brought with it. People aren’t plants and therefore we move around. The internet has provided us with completely new ways to stay in touch over vast geographical distances. Before the internet living in different countries put serious obstacles in the way of having a close and frequent contact. Of course you could stay in touch, but it took time and/or was expensive. Today you can talk to anyone at any time for free.

The interesting thing is also that the person to person communication has been one of the main focuses of development. Finding ways to interact, that seems to be a really big deal in the online version of reality. And probably quite logically so. We’re social animals, we like to have a tribe, belong to a group, be part of a social context, and the internet has opened up several new ways for us to engage in this behavior. We can email, skype, chat, tweet, blog, etc, etc, etc. What ever takes your fancy.

And our fancy it has definitely taken. We have incorporated the internet into our lives and I think it’s not that far off to say that life without the internet would be, if not unthinkable, in any case a lot more cumbersome for most of us. There’s of course the obvious fact that a lot of people wouldn’t be able to do their jobs without internet and the tons of jobs out there that are all about the internet, that wouldn’t even exist without internet. But what’s even more interesting is the subversive social aspects. The recent events in the Middle East being one of the most blatant examples. And there’s so much more potential out there. Ways to challenge the powers that be. Not just by finding a way to express your opinions without (that much) censorship, but also by finding new way to share information. File sharing has permanently changed the record industry and the movie industry seems to be next in line. Of course this development isn’t entirely unproblematic, but it does open up for new ways to think about distribution amongst other things. Or rather, it forces us to rethink these issues. And it’s not all bad. One of the more interesting aspects is the shift in control over creative output, because even if a lot of musicians have openly criticized what they call theft there are other elements to it as well. The possibility to directly interact with the audience being one of the more interesting aspects. Again, the person to person communication.

Even if the information part of the internet is the core, the back bone if you will, the communication aspect is equally important and quite possible the factor that has led us to so completely incorporate the world-wide web into our daily lives. Because not only does it give us the possibility to stay in touch with your physical, real world friends, it also gives you an opportunity to get to know new people independent of geographical proximity. You can make friends with people you have never even met in real life. And that’s actually a key phrase here; ‘real life’. These days we do distinguish between real life and online life. The distinction is part of our vocabulary because it’s part of our life. Or rather, life is taking place online too.

I have several online acquaintances, people who I have essentially gotten to know online. Some of these people I’ve met in person, some not, and the difference isn’t actually all that big. Having a few random online interactions in the same forum or on a facebook page isn’t all that different from having a random conversation with someone at a party. The level of intimacy is very similar. But I also have friends who I have gotten to know online. Real friends. These people I have met in person too, but the actual development of our friendship, that whole growth process, was something that happened exclusively online. The in-person meetings only served as a reinforcement of what was already there.

And that’s a big part of my love for the internet, the people who are out there. The new friends and the old. And that’s actually what the internet is, people connecting with one another. Be it to conduct transactions, share information or just catch up, it’s all about people. Life. And that’s probably why totalitarian regimes are targeting the internet so aggressively, because in the simple act of bringing people together the internet has proven to be one of the most subversive phenomena we have out there. Ideas that can be shared. Thoughts. Interaction. And sure, there’s a lot of shit out there too, but just like life, it’s all the sum of what we make of it.

at the funfair

There are two kinds of people in this world; those who will give up everything to follow their dreams and those who won’t. The former run a greater risk of becoming happy.

I was having dinner with a friend of mine the other night and we got to talking about the whole adventure versus security thing. Just like me he’s one of those people who won’t settle for what’s safe and comfortable, but who wants to explore the great beyond. Or to put it differently, we both have a tendency to get bored if things start getting predictable. But we both made the observation that this doesn’t seem to be something that applies to everyone, far from it, so we got to talking about why that was. Why are some people willing to settle?

It’s often claimed that happiness is the main pursuit in this thing called life. That happiness is what we all strive for. And even though I do think there’s quite a lot of truth in that claim, I’m not so sure it’s an all in approach for most people. We want happiness, but we’ll settle for convenience. As long as it’s safe and comfortable we’re fine. My friend referred to this as entering cruise control. A lot of people do this when they are in their thirties. The relationship is established, the career is on track and the kids are on the way. Everything in life is pretty much on track so they just go into cruise control. A state of maintaining that status quo. Convenience.

But maintaining the status quo, is that living? What about curiosity? It may have killed the cat, but I’m not all that convinced that applies to humans. Without curiosity we would probably still be, well, apes. Fire, the wheel, agriculture, machines, electricity, the internet, we didn’t just stumble upon all these things while maintaining that status quo. Not to mention social reforms such as abolishment of slavery, democracy and gay rights. None of these things have anything to do with cruise control. I’m not so sure they are really only about happiness either, but my point is, that if your only desire is to maintain the status quo, to remain in your comfort zone, the chance, or risk, of becoming happy is substantially decreased. If we by happy mean to really explore what’s out there and follow your hearts desire and live life to the fullest. To live as opposed to just being alive. And even if that approach might not necessarily lead to happiness, to actually achieving it, it’s still a real attempt, a real try.

We actually only get one shot at this life thing and I really have a hard time understanding why you wouldn’t want to experience as much of it as possible. Why would you stop exploring? And that’s what we couldn’t really find an answer to that evening. Why are some people willing to settle for less than the whole adventure? It’s like stopping the movie when you come to a part you like and then just not look at the rest. How can you not be curious? How can you not want to know what happens next? And I think that’s actually what the whole getting bored thing is about. I just want to know what happens next, and if all I can foresee is more of the same I will, without fail, start to panic. That’s for instance how I ended up moving to a new country. In my world maintaining the status quo equals boredom and anything is better than boredom. I actually don’t think there’s anything that scares me more, at the very first traces of a blank stare and a listless yawn I’ll already be planning my escape. And I’m not necessarily talking about exotic adventures and a vagabond life style, I’m just talking about constantly broadening your horizons. Instead of just sticking to what you know, you keep adding new tricks to your box. Isn’t that what it’s all about? Evolution. To keep on evolving. Because life isn’t really about resting, now is it?

image from http://feministsforchoice.com/

There’s a lot of talk about rape these days. It’s been all over the headlines again the past week. Dominique Strauss-Kahn is the latest reason and people are falling over themselves trying to comment what happened. Did he do it? I don’t know, and I’m not going to speculate about his guilt. Before him it was Julian Assange. Rape seems to be the thing to do these days if you want to get in the headlines. Yes, I’m being cynical and no, I don’t think either of these men would agree with the saying that all publicity is good publicity, in these cases I think the opposite is probably true. But the debate generated by the charges pressed against these men really makes me want to throw up. The majority of the comments made are enough to render a life time’s worth of nightmares and I constantly find myself wondering if everyone has suddenly gone insane. “It’s not very plausible that Mr Strauss-Kahn would rape a maid, after all he has enough money to buy a prostitute.” Say what?! “Well, if the woman agreed to have sex with Mr Assange once, with a condom, then he can’t really have raped her when he had sex with her in her sleep without a condom.” Excuse me?! It sounds like ramblings from crazy people, but these comments are actually serious opinions expressed by people who have a voice in the media. And it makes me furious, scared and very nauseous. We live in a sick world, I know that, but I didn’t think it was this serious. Or rather, I didn’t want to believe it. 

But then again, it’s actually not that long ago that rape didn’t exist within marriage*, as in it wasn’t a crime. The general belief was, and still is in a lot of countries, that a husband cannot rape his wife. She is his wife and therefore he has a right to her body, she has no right to refuse him access. What does that say about a society? What does it say about a society’s view on sex? About the relationship between the two parties? In light of this the question “How could he have raped her if she agreed to have sex with him once?” all of a sudden becomes even more unpleasant. Because it shows that in spite of new legislation, nothing has changed. If you say yes once that means you have no right to change your mind. A yes constitutes indefinite consent to every type of sexual act.

We like to think of rapists as deranged men who stalk women in parks and dark alleys, not neat business men in suits. The general idea about rape is this that it has to do with being attacked and that the attacker is a stranger, but in reality that’s actually the rarest form of rape. In most cases the victim and the perpetrator know each other, or to put it differently, the most dangerous thing a woman can do is not walk through a park alone at night, but hang out with her male friends, because statistically they are the ones most likely to subject her to acts of sexual violence. It’s not the walk home from the party that puts you at risk, it’s being at the actual party. Going on a date is a lot more dangerous than going for a walk at night. All in line with the whole idea of “once you say yes”, right? And if we again look at what the statistics have to say, that danger will become a reality for 1 out of five women on this planet**. So this means that pretty much everyone who knows at least five women knows at least one rape victim. And most of these women didn’t get raped by a stranger in a park, but by someone they knew. Poses a rather interesting question: How many rapists do you know?

The arrest of Mr. Strauss-Kahn and the aftermath has frequently been referred to as the ‘sex scandal’ and some commentators have then felt urged to point out that the ‘scandal’ actually relates to a criminal offense and not some extramarital affair and therefore calling it a ‘sex scandal’ is very misleading. A remark that’s indeed very accurate, he is under suspicion of a criminal offense, but the offense he’s suspected of having committed is one of sexual violence. And this is where the argumentation starts to get dodgy. It’s often claimed that rape has nothing to do with sex, that’s it’s all about power and has nothing to do with sexuality, but is that really true? Isn’t that just a way to distance ourselves from the phenomena of sexual violence, to keep it out of our own reality? Could it be that rape is actually part of the vast spectrum of sexuality? That the conditioning in our society is such that violence in fact has sexual connotations, that it works as a tun on if you will. Yes, most likely. And that’s where the whole debate about ‘grey areas’ should be going, all those case where it’s claimed you can’t really be sure if it was rape or not. If this debate could be had with the acknowledgement that there is a power aspect to sexuality, the discussions about consent would probably be a lot more fruitful. Or at least more honest. Instead of asking whether the consent was clear or not, let’s ask what it’s really about: “Did you get turned on by the fact that she wanted to have sex with you or by the fact that she was helpless?” Because both scenarios can be true and that’s what we need to finally admit. Rape is sexual violence and that doesn’t only mean that it’s violence of a sexual nature, it also means that it’s part of our sexuality. And our sexuality is not an instinct, it’s a social behavior (another text on the same topic). Reproduction is an instinct, but sexuality has very little to do with reproduction in our society. Sexuality is something we learn. And if we are taught that there are degrees in terms of consent, and that it’s something that has to be debated, then we are way off. Either you want to have sex or you don’t and the only way to establish this, to be certain, is through communication. But you can only do that if you actually talk to the person you’re about to fuck. So if someone is sleeping, drugged, incapacitated or even underaged, the immediate conclusion should be that sex is out of the question. That would be the logical conclusion. If you’re not sure, back off. I couldn’t be simpler. So why the fuck don’t we just admit that the whole grey area actually doesn’t exist, or rather, it shouldn’t exist if we actually took the whole consent premiss seriously, but we don’t. It’s still all about whether it’s credible or not that the victim actually didn’t want to have sex with the perpetrator. And the mightier the perpetrator, be it in society or in the individual relationship, the less likely it is that the outcome will be to the victims advantage. Nice boys can’t be rapists and if a girl says yes once it means she’s given indefinite free access to all her body cavities. It seriously make me want to puke.

This whole debate has, once again, shed light on the fact that we a seriously distorted understanding of the whole phenomena of rape. As soon as the perpetrator doesn’t fit the idea we have of a rapist we immediately try to renegotiate what happened so that it won’t fit the definition of rape. But there’s actually not all that much to negotiate, if there was no consent, it’s rape. And it doesn’t matter if we don’t like what we see, if it forces us to reevaluate our understanding of the world. I’m not saying Strauss-Kahn is guilty, what I’m saying is that just because he happens to be rich and powerful it doesn’t mean that he wouldn’t get off on forcing a chambermaid to have sex with him. His status doesn’t disqualify him from being a rapist, only a fair trial can do that. But I am saying that if it’s true that Assange has admitted to having sex with that woman without a condom and in her sleep, despite her prior statement about not wanting to have unprotected sex, then he has also admitted to being a rapist, because even without her prior explicit statement about not wanting to have unprotected sex, it’s still rape. Someone who’s sleeping is actually incapable of giving consent and sex without consent is rape. And it doesn’t matter if the victim said yes once or if the perpetrator wears a suit. Rape is a crime. Imposing your sexuality on someone without consent is a crime, regardless of who’s involved. And it’s about time we start to try to get a grips on the shadier parts of sexuality and initiate a massive reconstruction. The male sexuality spectrum would be the most pressing item on the agenda.

* In the 1993 UN ‘Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women’ marital, or spousal, rape was established as a violation of human rights. For an overview please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape

** One of the sources for this number is WHO, but there is wide consensus on its accuracy as a minimum value.