onsdag 30 juni 2010
måndag 28 juni 2010
Here comes a tip for lazy days: a Swedish pasta sallad.
lördag 26 juni 2010
torsdag 24 juni 2010
tisdag 22 juni 2010
Eders korrespondent i postmoderniteten
SOUNDCLOUD.COM/RAKKAUS-RECORDS - TWITTER.COM/JONATANBACKELIE - WWW.VAATY.COM - MYSPACE.COM/JONATANBACKELIE - http://www.facebook.com/pages/Rakkaus-Records/125353807494039?ref=sgm
söndag 20 juni 2010
torsdag 17 juni 2010
tisdag 15 juni 2010
måndag 14 juni 2010
söndag 13 juni 2010
fredag 11 juni 2010
torsdag 10 juni 2010
tisdag 8 juni 2010
"It is often pointed out by defenders that laïcité does not require citizens of the Republic to be identical. On the contrary, it encourages them to develop their individuality. The flowering of individuality that laïcité encourages, however, is founded on positivism and humanism" (Asad 2006:519).
The secular state ought to be secular, because secular means neutral, seem to be the argument. On the contrary, Asad argues - and I would agree - that specific modes of being is encourages, whilst others are seen as problematic or illegitimate. The problematic nature is often located as or within religion, especially when that religion is not Judeo-Christian (as much talk revolves around these - oh so elusive - Judeo-Christian values, upon which Europe in general seem to be built), but are connected to other ethnic groups. Asad sums up himself by saying that "differences in class, gender, religion, and ethnic origin do not constitute a community of shared values" (Asad 2006:525). This suggests, that even if we do away with components 3 and 4, we would at the very least be "left with" having to deal with "the problem" of class and gender-significance. Furthermore, class, gender, religion and ethnicity generates other modes or being or identifying with people, than what is contained within the nation state. Asad points to Esther Benbassa who have made this point by asserting that
"precisely because secularism is a state doctrine, devised for the purpose of dealing with state unity, it does not fit well with a world of multiple belongings and porous boundaries, nor can it acknowledge the fact that people identify emotionally with victims in the past and with victims in other countries as 'their own'" (Asad 2006:511).
The nation-state today is therefor left with a scramble for unifying doctrines. That of laïcité is a French mode that is working out less and less everyday for France. In Sweden we have seen unsympathetic attempts to the same end in the past, both when religion was supposed to have this unifying effect, but also the "nordic race" was the posterboy for such an attempt (and Uppsala's racebiological institute got a soon-to-be-infamous sister institute in Germany). The main question is off course: Do we need to find one mode of unity to hold the nation together, that also requires us to all be the same?
I would propose, in line with William Connolly, that it is instead possible to find ways of relating to different groups within the population on different topics. This way, everyone is "in a minority position" in some aspects of their lives (as we may see eye to eye with the majority of the population, in the majority of topics - but in some cases we diverge and sympathize with an "outsider" perspective), which also stresses the way we treat all minorities as legitimate and equal. The way other people "disturbs" a part of our ideas/faiths/beliefs about the world, is a means to be reminded that we are not "finished" or completed persons, but an always ongoing constructing and deconstructing of our own identity/identities. Instead of getting all annoyed with the fact that other people beg to differ we should also allow ourselves to differ - on as many or as few points as we want to - AND to differ to different people. It's not always necessary to agree with your favorite party, it's not always necessary to agree with your spouse, your children, your parents, your neighbours, your colleagues etc. We may slip in and out of these identities in ways, where nothing is acted upon in the way that for instance laïcité proposes; that we ought to first and formost belong to France (or Sweden or whatever country we're citizens of). The fact that we don't always feel the urge to honor such an allegiance doesn't mean that we can't enjoy being French, Swedish or whatever. It just means that sometimes we also feel the urge to honor other aspect of (our) humanity.
Asad, Talal. (2006). Trying to Understand French Secularism. In: de Vries, Hent & Sullivan, Lawrence, E (ed:s). Political Theologies: Public Religions in a Post-Secular World. pp 494-526. New York: Fordham University Press.
söndag 6 juni 2010
fredag 4 juni 2010
onsdag 2 juni 2010
tisdag 1 juni 2010
"[O]n a serious note i thought all along that this is where you're heading... to me it's utterly obvious that our whole culture and politics in sweden are built upon super christian values. perhaps even more than other scandinavien countries... with our state protecting us from bad things bad like alcohol and other stuff. Or is that really a christian thing? Is it more of a socialist/communist thing? And in all it's atheism wasn't communism/socialism built on super christian values that jesus himself would've been proud of?What is religion? What is politics? Should it matter these days anyway? The only possible answer: P O L I G I O N. (now is it a strike of genius or just an easy way out???) "
Det första är att det är omöjligt att säga att en uppsjö kända konstnärer och författare - delar av kultursveriges elit - alla skulle tillhöra den beskrivna gruppen. Inte heller är det acceptabelt att kalla en miljöpartist och tillika medlem av justitieutskottet för röd (det heter rödgrön koalition, för att det är skillnad mellan röd och grön). Dessutom är en av Sveriges mest välrenomerade religionshistoriker ombord; Mattias Gardell - som nu enligt uppgift sitter fängslag i brist på diplomatiskt pass.
Well, if you're seriously saying that some of, for instance, Sweden's leading politicians, most beloved authors and most ackowledged scholars are in fact nothing but terrorists, then you are right. Or more likely, chances are that people about to be stormed by professional elite soldiers with apparently little regards for human lives, scrambled to defend themselves. Nothing, and I mean nothing, gives Israel the right (regardless of the ships' nature) to board ships on International Waters, which was clearly the case. The fact is that the ships' were filled with medical supplies, concrete, prefabricated houses and schools, clean water and other supplies to improve the Palestinians quality of life (which is by all means extremely poor in the current situation). This takes away all justification for Israel's actions.