Author Archives: Majken Hirche

Hvorfor socialisme må slå fejl

Af Hans-Hermann Hoppe, professor i økonomi

Socialisme og kapitalisme tilbyder markant forskellige løsninger til det problem, der udgøres af knaphed: enhver kan ikke få alting, de ønsker, når de ønsker det, så hvordan kan vi effektivt beslutte hvem, der skal eje og kontrollere de resurser, vi har? Den valgte løsning har omfattende konsekvenser. Den kan betyde forskellen mellem velstand og forringelse, frivillig bytning og politisk tvang, sågar totalitarisme og frihed.

Det kapitalistiske system løser knaphedsproblemet ved at anerkende retten til privat ejendom. Den første til at bruge en vare, er dens ejer. Andre kan kun tilegne sig den gennem handel og frivillige kontrakter. Men indtil ejeren af ejendommen vælger at lave en kontrakt eller bytte sin ejendom, kan han gøre hvad han vil med den, så længe han ikke blander sig i eller fysisk skader andres ejendom.

Det socialistiske system forsøger at løse ejerskabsproblemet på en helt anden måde. Ligesom under kapitalisme kan folk eje forbrugsvarer. Men under socialisme er ejendom, der tjener som produktionsmiddel, kollektivt ejet. Ingen person er i stand til at eje maskinerne og andre resurser, der går til at producere forbrugsvarer. Menneskeheden ejer dem, så at sige. Hvis folk benytter produktionsmidlerne, kan de kun gøre det som opsynsmænd for hele samfundet.

Økonomisk lov garanterer, at skadelige økonomiske og sociologiske effekter altid vil følge socialiseringen af produktionsmidlerne. Det socialistiske eksperiment vil altid resultere i fiasko.

For det første: socialisme resulterer i mindre investering, mindre opsparing og lavere levestandarder. Når socialisme i første omgang indføres, skal ejendom omfordeles. Produktionsmidlerne er frataget dets nuværende brugere og producenter og givet til samfundet bestående af opsynsmænd. Selvom ejerne og brugerne af produktionsmidlerne erhvervede sig dem gennem fælles samtykke fra de tidligere ejere, bliver de overført til folk, som i bedste fald bliver brugere og producenter af ting, de ikke ejede tidligere.

I dette system straffes tidligere ejere til fordel for nye ejere. Produktionsmidlernes ikke-brugere, ikke-producenter og ikke-kontrahenter favoriseres ved at blive udnævnt til opsynsmands-ranken over ejendom, de tidligere ikke havde brugt, produceret eller kontraheret til at bruge. Således stiger ikke-brugerens, ikke-producentens og ikke-kontrahentens indkomst. Det er det samme for ikke-opspareren, som nyder godt af det på bekostning af opspareren, hvis opsparede ejendom konfiskeres.

Så, tydeligvis, hvis socialisme favoriserer ikke-brugeren, ikke-producenten, ikke-kontrahenten og ikke-opspareren, stiger omkostningerne der skal bæres af brugere, producenter, kontrahenter og dem, som sparer op. Det er nemt at få øje på hvorfor, der vil være færre folk i de sidstnævnte roller. Der vil være mindre original tilegnelse af naturlige resurser, mindre produktion af nye produktionsfaktorer og mindre kontraktindgåelse. Der vil være meget mindre forberedelse for fremtiden, eftersom alles investeringsudmundinger tørrer ud. Der vil være mindre opsparing og mere forbrug, mindre arbejde og mere fritid.

Dette beløber sig til, at der vil være færre forbrugsvarer tilgængelige for bytning, hvilket reducerer alles levestandard. Hvis folk er villige til at løbe risikoen, vil de blive nødt til at gå under jorden for at kompensere for disse tab.

For det andet: socialisme resulterer i ineffektivitet, mangel og enormt spild. Dette er Ludwig von Mises’ indsigt, som opdagede at rationel økonomisk beregning er umulig under socialisme. Han viste, at kapitalgoder under socialisme i bedste fald bruges til produktion af andenrangs behov, og i værste fald til produktion, der tilfredsstiller intet behov overhovedet.

Mises’ indsigt er enkel, men ekstremt vigtig: fordi produktionsmidlerne under socialisme ikke kan sælges, er der ingen markedspriser for dem. Den socialistiske opsynsmand kan ikke fastslå de monetære omkostninger involveret i at bruge resurserne, eller i at foretage ændringer i produktionsprocessers længde. Ej heller kan han sammenligne disse omkostninger med den monetære indkomst fra salg. Han er ikke tilladt at tage imod tilbud fra andre, der ønsker at bruge hans produktionsmidler, så han kan ikke vide, hvad hans tidligere muligheder er. Uden at kende til de tidligere muligheder, kan han ikke kende til sine omkostninger. Han kan ikke engang vide om den måde, hvorpå han producerer, er effektiv eller ineffektiv, ønsket eller uønsket, rationel eller irrationel. Han kan ikke vide, hvorvidt han tilfredsstiller mindre eller mere presserende kundebehov.

Under kapitalisme forsyner pengepriser og frie markeder producenten med denne information. Men under socialisme er der ingen priser for kapitalgoder og ingen muligheder for bytning. Opsynsmanden er efterladt i mørket. Og fordi han ikke kan vide sin nuværende produktionsstrategis status, kan han ikke vide, hvordan den kan forbedres. Jo mindre producenter er i stand til at beregne og engagere sig i forbedring, desto større chancer er der for spild og manglers opståen. I en økonomi, hvor forbrugermarkedet for hans produkter er meget stort, er producentens dilemma endda værre. Det behøver næsten ikke blive pointeret: Når der er ingen rationel økonomisk beregning, vil samfundet synke ind i progressivt forværrende forringelse.

For det tredje: socialisme resulterer i overforbrug af produktionsfaktorerne, indtil de udsættes for dårlig vedligeholdelse og vandaliseres. En privat ejer har under kapitalisme retten til, når som helst, at sælge sin produktionsfaktor og beholde indtægten udledt fra salget. Så det er til hans fordel at undgå at mindske dens kapitalværdi. Fordi han ejer den, er hans mål at maksimere værdien af den faktor, der er ansvarlig for produktionen af de varer og services, han sælger.

Den socialistiske opsynsmands status er helt anderledes. Han kan ikke sælge sin produktionsfaktor, så han har lidt eller ingen tilskyndelse til at sikre, at den bevarer sin værdi. Hans tilskyndelse vil i stedet være at forøge sin produktionsfaktors ydeevne, uden hensyntagen til dens svindende værdi. Der er også den chance, at hvis opsynsmanden fornemmer muligheder ved at bruge produktionsmidlet til private hensigter, – ligesom at lave varer til det sorte marked – vil han blive tilskyndet til at forøge ydeevnen på bekostning af kapitalværdier. Uanset hvilken måde, hvorpå du kigger på det, vil producenter, under socialisme uden privat ejerskab og frie markeder, være tilbøjelige til at fortære kapitalværdier ved at overbruge dem. Fortæring af kapital leder til forringelse.

For det fjerde: socialisme leder til en reduktion i kvaliteten af de varer og services, der er forbrugeren tilgængelige. Under kapitalisme kan en individuel forretningsmand kun opretholde og udvide sit firma, hvis han generhverver sine produktionsomkostninger. Og eftersom efterspørgslen for firmaets produkter afhænger af forbrugervurderinger af pris og kvalitet (pris, som er et kriterium for kvalitet), må produktkvaliteten være en konstant bekymring for producenterne. Dette er kun muligt med privat ejerskab og udveksling på markedet.

Ting er fuldstændig anderledes under socialisme. Ikke mindst er produktionsmidlerne kollektivt ejet, men således er også indkomsten udledt fra salget af ydelsen. Dette er en anden måde at sige, at producentens indkomst har lille eller ingen forbindelse med forbrugervurderingen af producentens arbejde. Dette faktum er selvfølgelig kendt af enhver producent.

Producenten har ingen grund til at yde en speciel indsats for at forbedre kvaliteten af sit produkt. Han vil i stedet hellige relativt mindre tid og flid på at producere, hvad kunderne ønsker, og bruge mere tid på, hvad han ønsker. Socialisme er et system, der tilskynder producenten til at være doven.

For det femte: socialisme leder til politiseringen af samfundet. Noget kan næppe være værre for produktionen af velstand.

Socialisme, i det mindste dens marxistiske version, siger, at dens mål er komplet lighed. Marxisterne observerer, at når først du tillader privat ejendom i produktionsmidlerne, så tillader du forskelle. Hvis jeg ejer resurse A, så ejer du den ikke, og vores forhold til resurse A bliver anderledes og ulige. Ved i ét hug at afskaffe privat ejendomsret i produktionsmidlerne, siger marxisterne, bliver alle medejere af alting. Dette reflekterer alles lige stilling som mennesker.

Virkeligheden er meget anderledes. At erklære alle medejere af alting løser kun af navn forskelle i ejerskab. Det løser ikke det virkelige, grundlæggende problem: der forbliver forskelle i magten til at kontrollere, hvad der skal ske med resurserne.

Under kapitalisme kan personen, som ejer en resurse, også kontrollere, hvad der skal ske med den. I en socialiseret økonomi gør dette sig ikke gældende, da der ikke længere er nogen ejer. Ikke desto mindre eksisterer kontrolproblemet fortsat. Hvem skal bestemme, hvad der skal ske med hvad? Under socialisme findes der kun en udvej: folk afgør deres uenigheder vedrørende kontrol af ejendom ved at lægge en vilje ovenpå en andens. Så længe der er forskelle, vil folk ordne dem med politiske midler.

Hvis folk ønsker at forbedre deres indkomst under socialisme, er de nødt til at bevæge sig mod en højere værdsat position i opsynsmandshierarkiet. Det kræver politisk talent. Under et sådant system vil folk være nødt til at bruge mindre tid og flid på at udvikle deres produktive færdigheder, og mere tid og flid på at forbedre deres politiske talenter.

Som folk udskifter deres roller som producenter og brugere af resurser, finder vi ud af, at deres personligheder ændrer sig. De dyrker ikke længere evnen til at forudse knaphedssituationer, til at benytte produktive muligheder, til at være opmærksomme på teknologiske muligheder, til at forudse ændringer i kundeefterspørgslen og til at udvikle marketingsstrategier. De har ikke længere brug for at kunne tage initiativ, at kunne arbejde og at kunne møde andres behov.

I stedet udvikler folk evnen til at samle offentlig opbakning bag deres egen position og holdning ved hjælp af midler som overtalelse, demagogi og intrige, gennem løfter, bestikkelser og trusler. Andre folk når toppen under socialisme end under kapitalisme. Jo højere du kigger i det socialistiske hierarki, desto mere vil du finde folk, som er for inkompetente til at udføre arbejdet, det var meningen, de skulle udføre. Det er ingen hindring i en opsynsmand-politikers karriere at være dum, doven, ineffektiv eller ligeglad. Han behøver blot have overlegne politiske evner. Dette bidrager også til forringelse af samfundet.

USA er ikke fuldt socialiseret, men vi ser allerede de katastrofale effekter af et politiseret samfund, idet vores egne politikere fortsætter med at gøre indgreb i private ejendomsejeres rettigheder. Alle af socialismens forringende effekter er med os i USA: reducerede niveauer af investering og opsparing, fejlfordelingen af resurser, overforbruget og vandaliseringen af produktionsfaktorer og den ringe kvalitet af produkter og services. Og disse er kun smagsprøver på livet under total socialisme.

Oversat af Andreas Persson

Fremtidens SimCity-spil bliver en ægte simulation

Få computerspil er lige så ikoniske for den første generation af PC-spil som det amerikanske udviklerhus Maxis’ 1989-udgivelse ’SimCity’. Det hele startede, da programmøren Will Wright fik den uortodokse idé at bringe et helt nyt koncept ind i computerspillenes verden: Byplanlægning. På tegnebrættet så det kedeligt ud, men i praksis fungerede det: Start i vildnisset med en stor pose penge, anlæg beboelses-, industri- og forretningskvarterer, forsyn dem med el og vand, og snart er du borgmester for din egen lille by.

’SimCity’ blev en bragende succes, der uden videre afstedkom opfølgere som ’SimCity 2000’ fra 1993, ’SimCity 3000’ fra 1997, ’SimCity 4’ fra 2003 og ’SimCity Societies’ fra 2007. Og hvad færre måske ved, er, at Maxis’ erfaringer med ’SimCity’ også ligger til grund for den monstersuccesfulde (men simplere) spilserie ’The Sims’, som simulerer enkeltmenneskers hverdagsliv snarere end pulserende metropolers dynamik.

Men på trods af de mange inkarnationer af ’SimCity’ og produktseriens kommercielle succes, så er der ifølge udviklerne på Maxis endnu plads til forbedring. De tidligere versioner af ’SimCity’ er nemlig ikke så meget en ægte simulation, der går helt ned i detaljen, så meget som de er et komposit af forskellige statistiske regler. Og derfor arbejder de nu på endnu en udgave af det populære ’SimCity’-spil, en udgave som for første gang i simulationsspillenes historie skal simulere en storby helt ned i detaljen.

”For ti år siden var vores ideer simpelthen for ambitiøse, men efter vi udgav [computerspillet] ’Spore’ [i 2008, red.], så indså vi, at vore ideer nu faktisk var realisérbare – hjemmecomputere var endelig blevet kraftige nok,” udtaler udviklingsdirektør på Maxis, Ocean Quigley, til det amerikanske teknologimagasin The Verge.

Den nye inkarnation af spillet får navnet ’SimCity Reboot’, og ved at basere spillet på beregningsmotoren ’GlassBox’ vil det for første gang være muligt at simulere hver enkelt indbygger, hver enkelt bil og hvert enkelt stykke råstof i byen som en individuel agent, der hver kører på en individuel kunstig intelligens med individuelle prioriteter og årsagsvirkninger.

For at give et par eksempler på hvordan denne tilgang til simulation bliver anderledes end tidligere simulationsspil, så nævner udviklerne selv trafikpropper, der i gamle dage ville opstå i simulationen, når et sæt overordnede statistiske regler bestemte, at det nu var passende med en trafikprop på et givent stykke vej. Men med den nye simulationsmetode opstår trafikpropper i stedet dynamisk og organisk som resultatet af hundredevis af indbyggere, der rent faktisk skal fra ét punkt til et andet, og hvis individuelle ruter gennem byen alle leder dem forbi det samme stykke vej på det samme tidspunkt.

“Indtil nu har det været sådan, at hvis man ville have fingrene i en simulation, der var så sofistikeret, som det her bliver, så skulle man arbejde i militæret eller for et universitet, men med ’GlassBox’, så tager vi den teknologi og laver den om til noget, som man kan lege med,” udtaler Quigley.

Ifølge udviklernes tidsplan udkommer ’SimCity Reboot’ tidligt i 2013.

The American Broom – an essay on exceptionalism, part 2

Continued from part 1 of this essay.

Essay by Majken Hirche, part 2 of 2.

Conquering the World

Since George Washington there has been a belief in the U.S. that the ‘impression of others’ matter.[1] This is quite spectacular for a nation, and can only be understood in terms of an exceptionalist promise to the future: that the “empire of liberty”, which itself had struggled so much for independence and democracy, now wants to be a role model for the rest of the world. According to literary critic Sacvan Bercovitch, a great deal of New England Puritanism was part of this ideological mix, reframing and transforming narratives from the Old Testament into a new historical mission of the ‘American Jeremiad’[2] who “has the power to begin the world all over again,”[3] and build a “new Jerusalem in the wilderness.”[4]

In order to make such a self-definition work, the non-Americans – the ‘others’ – needed to be less civilized. Or they needed to be evil. Thus, “Manichean categories of New World versus Old or free world versus slave”[5] were the most easy concepts to deploy in public, and luckily for the U.S. there were plenty of candidates around the world which in fact did fit this description – the two most notorious being Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Parallel to the biggest battles in the 20th century, the Second World War and the Cold War against Communism, America emerged as a Superpower, not only in terms of its military and economic might, but also in its irresistible confidence of moral and cultural superiority. Not only did USA build better missiles and invent supermarkets, it also created Hollywood and superheroes such as Superman and Captain America, who became immensely popular icons of the American spirit. They did – and still do – all the necessary cleaning, just like a very cool broom, and they have even been exported successfully to the whole world.

The reference to the Christian tradition and the idea of an American Jeremiad is important in yet another respect: namely in its missionizing techniques by which to convert infidels. Just as it was the case with Paul the Apostle, the belief in an exceptional idea slowly became second to the mission to communicate the idea and make people believe in it. From solely being defenders of an exceptional idea, certain members of the American intelligentsia became crusaders of Americanism endorsing ‘noble lies’ as formulated in Plato’s Republic, by which “myths used by political leaders” should be employed in order to “maintain a cohesive society.”[6] With the publication of books such as ‘The City and Man’ (1964) by Leo Strauss and especially the early ‘Public Opinion’ (1922) by Walter Lippmann, a journalist and political adviser to President Woodrow Wilson, the mission of the apostles and crusaders had gotten a philosophical license to use “stereotypes”[7], myths and noble lies in order to “manufacture consent”[8] – a term later used by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky in their highly critical book, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988), on modern manipulation of the public by the mass media.

After World War II the idea of the U.S. having inherited a global responsibility to promote freedom was more or less endorsed by the mainstream press.[9] According to vice president Henry A. Wallace the United States should promote “freedom not merely by example or occasional international intervention but via an unending involvement in the affairs of other nations.”[10] This double edged political program of unilateral military interventions had a few successful moments, especially with the airlift into West Berlin in 1948, the Invasion of Grenada (1983) and the intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo in 1995 (via NATO). But most of them were more dubious, and did not necessarily have the promotion of democracy in mind. On the contrary, in 1953 the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh, was overthrown with the help of CIA and MI6. One year later the same happened for President Árbenz Guzmán in Guatemala, and in 1961 the U.S. backed the assassination of the South Vietnamese president Ngo Dinh Diem. During the Vietnam War the democratically elected President of Chile, Salvador Allende, was overthrown in 1973. The U.S. also backed the military rulers of El Salvador, and the contras of Nicaragua, beginning in 1981. In 1982 U.S. backed Saddam Hussein in order to fight Iran, and during the 1980’s they supported the Mujaheddin and Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in order to fight the Soviets.[11]

Many of these military interventions were seen by the international community as imperialistic crimes, not as exceptional enablers of freedom and democracy. Only by name (“Operation Just Cause”, “Operation Fortune”, “Operation Success” etc.) and by the ‘manufacturing of consent’ they kept a hint of the American spirit – e.g. Captain America’s defence of liberty and democracy from tyranny. In reality, they had everything to do with the communist containment policy of the Truman Doctrine,[12] with controlling ‘America’s backyard’ and, if opportune, with keeping (tyrannical) friends in power.

All these double standards became truly exposed after the unfortunate September 11 attacks in 2001, when a confused and furious American leadership invaded Iraq (“Operation Iraqi Freedom”) on false pretences. To many people inside and outside of the U.S., the 50 year old image of USA as a superhero changed in 2003 from being Captain America to becoming The Incredible Hulk: uncontrollable rage befell the New World, and anybody who just once had said hello to a ‘terrorist’ would by definition be suspected of being a terrorist himself. Even more disturbingly, some of the Civil Rights achievements during the last 200 years started to be annulled. The Patriot Act of 2001 gave the police powers to “arrest suspects, snoop, secretly enter people’s homes without notice and freeze bank assets […] indefinitely, in secret and without legal remedy.”[13] Bush approved the use of torture in secret prisons worldwide, and the defence and intelligence agencies were allowed to gather information on any person at any time.[14] The Obama administration proved different, but only in style. Instead of abiding to Habeas Corpus as a central principle in the Rule of Law, Obama choose to detain a solider accused for leaking classified material to wikileaks (Bradley Manning) indefinitely, and break him psychologically as deterrence for others. And instead of throwing ‘terrorists’ into Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib prisons, as Bush did, Obama prefers to kill them. The Obama administration even keeps a secret and updated “kill list”[15] of which some are American citizens, and the only justification for this conduct is repetition of the words “just trust me”.[16]

Many critics ask today: where is the judicial review; where are the checks and balances; where is the American spirit, and what has become of the idea of ‘American exceptionalism’? One line of thought for finding an answer to these conundrums is that the introduction of manufactured lies and manipulations by the neoconservative movement in the 1920s and 1930s have become perceived as reality by the very same people,[17] and that they, unfortunately, came into power during the Reagan administration and later in the Bush administrations. This group of people had become so blinded by their Manichean world view of good and evil that they were convinced that the Soviet Union had been defeated by their arming of the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan, and not because the centrally planned Soviet Union had become an economic paper tiger deemed to collapse by itself.[18]

The beacon of liberty, freedom and democracy, exemplified by a suspended Columbia had slowly but surely evolved into missionizing, forced guidance, manufacturing of opinions and lying to oneself and to the people. The Obama administration might not be accused of deliberate deception, but according to some commentators[19] [20] it has accepted and deployed the “confidence multiplier”, a concept developed by George Akerlof and Robert Shiller,[21] in order to repair public trust in the government. A ‘confidence multiplier’ is the same as saying “just trust me”. It can be an important tool for calming the markets, giving people “hope”, and ensuring stability in foreign relation, but it can equally well be a convenient excuse for lying and deceiving.

From dust to dust

Much can be said about the differences between words and deeds. What is important is that the distance between them does not get too big, and when it does, realignment through a crisis or maybe even a Civil War will lead to the awareness that you have to learn from the mistakes and hopefully grow stronger. American exceptionalism, as exemplified by a hovering Columbia in Gast’s picture, has throughout this thesis been described as having all the qualities of a sweeping broom. This might (rightfully) be seen as a too simplistic analogy, but the hope was that it also could illustrate something important, namely the idea of exceptionalism as a dynamical process, where, borrowing from an expression by Lewis Carroll, it takes all the sweeping you can do, just to keep the same level of cleanness. When the real sweeping is replaced by forlorn handwaving and blatant lies, the basic premise for the United States of America as a ‘beacon of light’ disappears. Because of this, many commentators believe that America’s supremacy has suffered a dramatic decline in influence during the last 20 years. According to a prominent defender of exceptionalism, Joseph Loconte, some critics even have started to despise this diminished light as the quintessence of darkness when they “express their gloomy outlook: ‘The only city on a hill we resemble today is Mordor!’”[22]

In spite of all these grievances the United States of America has had an unprecedented effect on the liberation of the human imagination. It has inspired millions if not billions of people who have been raised by the preconception of the Old World, saying that the masses – the people – cannot govern themselves. This, above all, has been proven wrong by the American way. It IS possible to create your own life, to search for happiness and to decide for yourself, what is best for you. No other country had done that before. And bad for them, because the social, economical and political benefits that spring from an emancipated and self-determining population are still underestimated by the misanthropic rulers of the Old World. Therefore, for a foreseeable future, the United States will most likely continue to be an economic, military and cultural superpower, and the only thing that eventually will bring the U.S. down is a deterioration from within: getting devoured by the contradictions between ideas and actions, getting hijacked by old misanthropes, lost in chauvinist grime and complacency about the challenges ahead – like a broom that does not work anymore.

Bibliography

Aikin, R. C. (2000). Paintings of Manifest Destiny: Mapping the Nation. American Art, 14(3): 78-89.

Akerlof, G. A. & Shiller, R. J. (2009). Animal Spirits: How Human Psychology Drives the Economy, and Why It Matters for Global Economy. Princeton University Press, New Jersey.

Becker, J. & Shane, S. (2012). Secret ‘Kill List’ Tests Obama’s Principles. The New York Times, online: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Bercovitch, S. (1978). The American Jeremiad. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.

Chaplin, J. E. (2003) Expansion and Exceptionalism in Early American History. The Journal of American History, 89(4): 1431-1455.

Clemons, S. (2010). McChrystal’s ”Confidence Job” on Carl Levin and Al Franken. The Huffington Post, online: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/mcchrystals-confidence-jo_b_425936.html

Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. (1992). The Psychological Foundations of Culture. In: The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the generation of Culture. Oxford University Press, New York.

Curtis, A. (2004). In: The Power of Nightmares. Documentary series, BBC Two on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOlwbaPe2os

Davis, D. B. (1986). American Jeremiah. The New York Review of Books, online: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1986/feb/13/american-jeremiah/?pagination=false

Duncan, R. & Goddard, J. (2009). Contemporary America. 3rd ed., Palgrave Macmillan, London.

Foner, E. (2001). American Freedom in a Global Age. The American Historical Review, 106(1): 1-16.

Foner, E. (2003). Who owns History? Hill and Wang, New York.

Gelfert, H.-D. (2006). Typisch amerikanisch. Wie die Amerikaner wurden, was sie sind. 3rd ed., C. H. Beck, München.

Heiskanen, B. (2009). A Day Without Immigrants. European Journal of America Studies, Special issue on Immigration, 3: 1-14.

Hersh, S. M. (2003). Selective Intelligence. The New Yorker, online: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/05/12/030512fa_fact

Jefferson, T. (1774/1998). Notes on the State of Virginia: Query XIV. Penguin Classics, London.

Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540 USA.

(LC-DIG-ppmsca-09855, digital file from original print: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.09855)

Lippmann, W. (1922/2008). Public Opinion. BN Publishing.

Loconte, J. (2010). Two Cheers for American Exceptionalism. The American, online: http://www.american.com/archive/2010/march/two-cheers-for-american-exceptionalism

Madsen, D. L. (1998). American Exceptionalism. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

Rosenthal, A. (2012). President Obama’s Kill List. The New York Times, The Opinion Pages, online: http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/president-obamas-kill-list/?ref=world

Soros, G. (2010). The Soros Lectures: At The Central European University. Public Affairs™, New York.

Tucker, R.W. & Hendrickson, D.C. (1992). Empire of Liberty: The Statecraft of Thomas Jefferson. Oxford University Press, New York.

U.S. Government Printing Office: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action

U.S. intervention timeline. Global Policy Forum: http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/155/26024.html

Winthrop, J. (1630).  A Model of Christian Charity, online: http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/charity.html

[1]    Foner, E. (2001). American Freedom in a Global Age. The American Historical Review, 106(1): 8.

[2]    Bercovitch, S. (1978). In: The American Jeremiad. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 81.

[3]    Thomas Paine, in: Duncan & Goddard, Contemporary America, 251.

[4]    Davis, D. B. (1986). American Jeremiah. The New York Review of Books, online: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1986/feb/13/american-jeremiah/?pagination=false

[5]    Foner, American freedom in a Global Age, 6.

[6]    Hersh, S. M. (2003). Selective Intelligence. The New Yorker. Online: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/05/12/030512fa_fact

[7]    Lippmann, W. (1922/2008). Public Opinion. BN Publishing, 74.

[8]    Ibid., 190.

[9]    Foner, American Freedom in a Global Age, 11.

[10]  Ibid., 2.

[11]  U.S. intervention timeline, in: Global Policy Forum, http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/155/26024.html

[12]  Duncan & Goddard, Contemporary America, 259.

[13]  Ibid., 272-273.

[14]  Ibid., 274.

[15]  Becker, J. & Shane, S. (2012). Secret ‘Kill List’ Tests Obama’s Principles. The New York Times, online: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

[16]  Rosenthal, A. (2012). President Obama’s Kill List. The New York Times, The Opinion Pages, online: http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/president-obamas-kill-list/?ref=world

[17]  Curtis, A. (2004). In: The Power of Nightmares. Documentary series, BBC Two on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOlwbaPe2os

[18]  Ibid..

[19]  Soros, G. (2010). The Soros Lectures: At The Central European University. Public Affairs™, New York, 67.

[20]  Clemons, S. (2010). McChrystal’s ”Confidence Job” on Carl Levin and Al Franken. The Huffington Post, online: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/mcchrystals-confidence-jo_b_425936.html

[21]  Akerlof, G. A. & Shiller, R. J. (2009). Animal Spirits: How Human Psychology Drives the Economy, and Why It Matters for Global Economy. Princeton University Press, New Jersey.

[22]  Loconte, J. (2010) Two Cheers for American Exceptionalism. The American, online: http://www.american.com/archive/2010/march/two-cheers-for-american-exceptionalism

The American Broom – an essay on exceptionalism, part 1

by Majken Hirche

The great heyday of national romantic expression in American arts took place in the later decades of the 19th century as part of an extensive nostalgic celebration of the 1840s and 1850s America.[1] Embedded in this national romantic spirit the German-American painter John Gast was hired to paint a picture for a travel guide. The picture, called American Progress (Ill.1), has become one of the most famous allegories of Manifest Destiny, a concept that was implied in the expansive colonial period, and more evidently expressed in the profound rhetoric of politicians and writers from the 1830s and onward.[2] In all its simplicity, this ‘original myth’ of Manifest Destiny was the belief that America and the American people, led by God, were destined to expand the American territory from the Atlantic Ocean in east to the Pacific Ocean in the West.[3]

Picture: 1. John Gast, American Progress.[4]

The original picture from 1872 was named Westward Ho/Manifest Destiny.[5]

What strikes at first glance is an oversize Columbia[6] dressed in white with a bright star in her hair. She carries a school book in her arm,[7] and hovers the plains of America while unrolling a telegraph wire, and although the picture is painted from bird’s-eye view, Columbia seems to permit the spectator only to look at her from below. The heavy symbolism makes the picture almost didactic in nature: this is the American spirit. Raised above ground to be gazed upon, shining and shedding light on its path, bringing with it the great idea of freedom, liberty and democracy. The school book symbolizes the belief in education and learning as the best path to a successful life,[8] and the telegraph wire points the direction for the hard working and self-reliant American people, and for the technological progress and enlightenment. At Columbia’s feet the movement of things and people go from right to left, or East to West, from a bright and sunlit landscape inhabited by people and machines, to an obscure and almost empty landscape. The settlers, cowboys, wagons and trains move forward, pushing in front of them darkness, hordes of wild animals and marginalized Indians, who look back and up in terror as they almost flee off the canvas.

It is as if the very movement is created by Columbia herself, who, like a broom, seems to sweep off the barbarism and wilderness, all the ignorance and darkness, as if it was dust on a floor that needs to be swept. At the frontier of dust and cleanness dark clouds rise from the process, but they slowly disappear and become ever more white, never leaving behind any residue of dust and grime. It may sound profane to interpret Columbia as a sweeping broom, but that is what Gast’s picture is suggesting in its most basic and iconic form: an entity hovering above earth, progressively wiping the ground in a non-violent way, making all incivility flee and all darkness enlightened. Moreover, she embodies the work ethics of a protestant, relentlessly working and pushing forward, creating plentiful intellectual and material rewards on her way.

Within the picture is also implied the idea of American exceptionalism, a concept frequently used to characterize the American national identity, and its “development from Puritan origin to the present”.[9] In its most simple form, exceptionalism is the belief that you are something special, and probably also a tiny bit better than everybody else. Thus, exceptionalism needs to be contrasted in order to exist, and therefore you like to be exceptional in a group where you can compare. Psychologically speaking, exceptionalism is a dynamical phenomenon, much like group dynamics in school yards, social associations or platoons of soldiers. If you are a member of the group, you enjoy all the benefits, and if not, you don’t. If you aspire towards membership there may be strong barriers, people who oppose you, tease you, bully you and try to throw you out again. Especially the oldest members might find you suspicious or even hate you, while the newest members might help you. Only with time, persistence and a lot of adaptability you will eventually become a full member.

The American variation of exceptionalism contains the model of a society with some very specific values and ideals, first of all the idea of a society build on freedom, liberty and democracy, and the belief that ”all men are created equal […] and with certain unalienable rights”.[10] American exceptionalism also contains the idea that ”America and the Americans are special, exceptional, because they are charged with saving the world from itself and, at the same time, America and Americans must sustain a high level of spiritual, political and moral commitment to this exceptional destiny”.[11] America must be a “city upon a hill”,[12] an exemplary nation to lead and to be watched by the world.

Of course, for an idea like exceptionalism to survive and thrive through hundreds of years in a nation, it needs not only to contain a core idea full of important truths and insights. It also needs to be adaptable and open for new interpretations in order to accommodate for contradictions and changes within. It is therefore the intent in the next few pages of this thesis to track down some important manifestations of American exceptionalism, and look at how American exceptionalism as national identity is interpreted, and more importantly how American exceptionalism may have been reinterpreted and changed in the light of contradictory facts and historical changes.

The first and most glaring example that will be looked at is America’s long history of slavery. In the eyes of a 21st century American citizen, slavery might seem like a strange barbaric relic in stark contrast to national ideology and self-understanding, but in the time of Jefferson, slavery was a most natural thing and in no obvious way in opposition to the ideals of the Constitution and American exceptionalism.

Following, this thesis will look at how the later waves of immigrants have been seen as both an opportunity and a problem, and how the continuing debates about who is allowed to be an American have shaped the ideas of citizenship and civil rights.

Finally this thesis will look at how American exceptionalism has transformed itself into a global mission: to spread the great idea of freedom, liberty and democracy to the whole world through military, economic and cultural might, and how America in the process has come to be seen as both an inspiration and a corrupting Superpower.

The Slavery Question

“All men are created equal” says the Declaration of Independence,[13] but dust is dust, and black is black, and it cannot be brushed white. Such was Jefferson’s stance on slavery, and he was not alone in his view. Most Americans at that time believed that non-whites were deficient by nature and therefore not eligible for naturalization as republican citizens.[14] This racist argument is the well known naturalistic fallacy of ‘is equals ought’, with roots deep into historical time, and with continuous reformulations into present day. But Jefferson enumerated even more arguments: “It will probably be asked,” he said in his Notes on the State of Virginia,[15] “why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expense of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race. – To these objections, which are political, may be added others, which are physical and moral.”

Apart from the ‘real distinctions nature has made’, Jefferson uses pragmatic objections of prejudice, possible revenge and a bit of aesthetic and ethic handwaving, showing a man who has in mind the practical task of nation building, and not so much the defence of American exceptionalism as it was understood in Jefferson’s time, namely as an “empire of liberty”[16] and a model of democracy from hence some day “it is to be lighted up in other regions of the earth, if other regions of the earth shall ever become susceptible to its benign influence.“[17]

Later during the 19th century, such lazy arguments defending racism were more difficult to hold. But only in relation to black slaves, not the Indians. In contrast to slaves, the exclusion of Indians was a confirmation of the ‘original myth’ because it was the Indian wars which helped to form the myth of the expanding and exceptional ‘American broom’ in the first place: by sweeping away Indians and taking their land, colonists and settlers “developed a national mythology in which ‘American’ technological and logistic superiority in warfare became culturally transmitted as signs of cultural-moral superiority”, says Deborah. L. Madsen.[18] As previously noted, the idea of Manifest Destiny held that the Americans were ‘exceptional’ and blessed by God with a divine mission to claim and inhabit the West. According to Madsen, “European and ‘American’ ‘civilisation’ morally deserved to defeat Indian ‘savagery’ – Might made right and each victory recharged the culture and justified expansion.”[19] Joyce E. Chaplin further explains that in its old form American exceptionalism “stressed the positive achievements of white residents of North America” and “shunned whatever might have been tragic and ambiguous about their handiwork.”[20]

While Indians were the dust and grime at the frontier of civilization, slavery was an impurity from within. And while the inherent contradictions of the existence of slavery grew during the end of the 18th century and the early 19th century, so did the political divide between abolitionists in North, who wanted to set the slaves free, and the American South which depended heavily on imported slave labour from Africa.[21] Abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison used their high moral ground to argue their case, saying that slavery contradicted the principles on which the country was build. As a counter move the Southern states sought legal means to keep slavery working, and to insulate it from outside influence,[22] that is, from Congress and the government. This was not difficult because the Bill of Rights only protected individuals against infringements by the national government but not the states,[23] and several court cases, of which the Dred-Scott decision in 1857 is the most famous,[24] supported their efforts in this regard.

Raising the stakes, Garrison “branded the Constitution as pro-slavery, and called for its abrogation.”[25] Not much happened, though, except a continuous deterioration of the political union and of the discriminatory conditions under which the slaves had to live both in the South and the North. Only in 1860, when Abraham Lincoln became president, things changed. Lincoln was against the spread of slavery into the Western territories. Faced with the threat of anti-slavery laws, the Southern states seceded from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America, which ultimately led to the Civil War.[26]

What Jefferson feared would “divide us into parties” finally had happened, not because slavery had been abolished, but because it had not. After the Civil War the inclusion of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments abolished slavery, enforced the powers of the federal government and created a national citizenship, making it a protected right to vote for black men. “These measures altered the definition of American citizenship, transformed the federal system, and engrafted into the Constitution a principle of racial equality entirely unprecedented in both jurisprudence and political reality before 1860.”[27]

Widening the Circle

The ‘American broom’ had swept clean the land from coast to coast, and had paved the way for millions of immigrants so that they could achieve their dreams of building a new life in a free, democratic and bountiful country. Its defenders had even abolished slavery which had become a most disfiguring stain on the grand display of exceptionalism. But of course, virtue requires vigilance, and what looks good under a reading lamp does not necessarily look as well under street lights.

Although slavery had been removed, its racist roots and practices had not. Slowly slavery transformed into a system of suppressed and cheap labour force that not only consisted of black people but increasingly of Italian, Greek, Polish, Hungarian, Russian and middle eastern immigrants who were mostly unlettered, poor, religiously different and politically unwanted in their home country.[28] These people came mainly between 1890-1924, and were confronted with suspicion, hatred and fear among the “old immigrants”.[29]

One thing to remember about racism is that it is a confused and ad hoc emotion. In fact, modern evolutionary theory suggests that racism itself is not a natural instinct rooted in genetic predispositions as such. Through most of history humans almost never encountered members of other races, which meant that natural selection could not have developed any genetically coded instinct against other races. Instead, the researchers believe that the use of ‘race’ is a proxy indicator of coalition membership, so that one can make a quick and dirty guess about ‘which side’ another person is on. In this sense, racism has the same roots as sexism, chauvinism and other kinds of prejudiced xenophobia.[30]

The United States of America is one of the biggest social experiments in history. An experiment where millions of very different people meet in order to build a common home. It is no surprise then that some of the most persistent and important social indicators of group identification become a powerful political force. Thus, the most important challenges for American exceptionalism during the period after the Civil War – and in fact until this day – are centred on conflicts about who should get citizenship, and who should have the benefit of civil rights, such as equal protection under the law, the right to vote, property rights, non-segregation etc.

Accordingly, policies about who was allowed to be an American were both “inclusive and discriminatory”[31] depending on how much prejudice was in power. Mainly, it has been a positive story: the Chinese Exclusion Act from 1882 prohibited Chinese naturalization.[32] Women got the right to vote in 1920. The National Origin Act of 1924 limited immigration to a quota system based on country of origin, and reduced total immigration from over 800.000 to 164.000 a year.[33] Eisenhower’s ‘Operation Wetback’ dampened immigration from Mexico In 1954.[34] In 1965 the quota system was repealed, and a visa system for family reunification and skills was put in place. In 1971 the Twenty-sixth Amendment gave all citizens above 18 years of age the right to vote. In 1986 the Immigration Act “granted general amnesty and, sometimes, citizenship” to those who could pass a test, and in 1990 Congress raised the total number of legal immigrants to 700.000 a year.[35]

Generally, Heiskanen writes that “a racialized labour force without citizenship rights was allowed into the nation during political stability and economic prosperity; but once a downward tide seemed imminent, legal measures were taken to extradite them.”[36] This shows how a double standard always emerges when exceptionalist ideas clash with economic reality. When push comes to shove, the Broom is a tool for power, not a guard of values.

Movements against immigration have popped up strongly in the last 20 years, especially because of Mexicans and ‘terrorists’, resulting in the Illegal Immigration Act (1996), the USA Patriot Act (2001), the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Form Act (2002) and the Real ID Act (2005).[37] But cheap labour force is also needed, which makes the whole situation even more toxic. Illegal immigrants now have to accept less than minimum pay and all kinds of abuses because they are too afraid to complain. If they did, they just would be sent back. America has two signs at the border: “’help wanted’ and ‘keep out’”, Heiskanen quotes – leading in her eyes to an “unsustainable contradiction between economic and immigration policy.”[38]

Just as it was the case with the deterioration of the condition of slaves in the mid 19th century the principles of reduced production costs trump the rights of immigrants today. The idealistic ‘American broom’ has obviously lost to the ‘Überbroom’ of power und Realpolitik. And even this one believes it has lost because the dust continues to creep into the country from all sides, and that is why it has emigrated in recent decades in order to clean up some other places.

End of part 1.
This essay continues in part 2.
For the list of references, please see part 2.

[1]    Aikin, R.C. (2000). Paintings of Manifest Destiny: Mapping the Nation. American Art, 14 (3), 83.

[2]    Ibid., 79.

[3]    Ibid., 79.

[4]    Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division, LC-DIG-ppmsca-09855 (digital file from original print: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.09855).

[5]    Gelfert, H.D. (2006). Typisch Amerikanisch. Wie die Amerikaner wurden, was sie sind. 3rd ed., C. H. Beck, München, 14.

[6]    Duncan, R. & Goddard, J. (2009). Contemporary America. 3rd  ed., Palgrave Macmillan, London, 13.

[7]    Gelfert, Typisch Amerikanisch, 14.

[8]    Duncan & Goddard, Contemporary America, 7.

[9]    Madsen, D.L. (1998). American Exceptionalism. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 2.

[10]  From the Declaration of Independence, in: Duncan & Goddard, Contemporary America, 9.

[11]  Madsen, American Exceptionalism, 3.

[12]  Winthrop, J. (1630). A Model of Christian Charity. http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/charity.html

[13]  From The Declaration of Independence, in: Duncan & Goddard, Contemporary America, 9.

[14]  Foner, E. (2003). Who is an American? In: Who owns History? Hill and Wang, New York, 154.

[15]  Jefferson, T. (1774/1998). Notes on the State of Virginia: Query XIV. Penguin Classics, London, 138.

[16]  Tucker, R.W. & Hendrickson, D.C. (1992). Empire of Liberty: The Statecraft of Thomas Jefferson. Oxford University Press, New York, ix.

[17]  Ibid, 7.

[18]  Madsen, American Exceptionalism, 157.

[19]  Madsen, American Exceptionalism,157.

[20]  Chaplin, J.E. (2003). Expansion and Exceptionalism in Early American History. The Journal of American History, 89(4): 1432-33.

[21]  Duncan & Goddard, Contemporary America, 14-15.

[22]  Foner, E. (2003).Blacks and the U.S. Constitution. In: Who owns history? Hill and Wang, New York, 174.

[23]  Ibid., 174.

[24]  Ibid., 176-177.

[25]  Ibid., 174.

[26]  Duncan & Goddard, Contemporary America, 14-15.

[27]  Foner, Blacks and the U.S. Constitution, 178.

[28]  Duncan & Goddard, Contemporary America, 66.

[29]  Ibid., 66.

[30]  Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. (1992). The Psychological Foundations of Culture, in: The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the generation of Culture. Oxford University Press, New York, 19-136.

[31]  Duncan & Goddard, Contemporary America, 66.

[32]  Heiskanen, B. (2009). A Day Without Immigrants. European journal of American studies, Special Issue on Immigration, 3: 3.

[33]  Duncan & Goddard, Contemporary America, 68.

[34]  Heiskanen, A Day Without Immigrants, 3.

[35]  Duncan & Goddard, Contemporary America, 68.

[36]  Heiskanen, A Day Without Immigrants, 4.

[37]  U.S. Government Printing Office: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action

[38]  Heiskanen, A Day Without Immigrants, 5.

8 Philosophical Quotes

1

Plato: “Now beauty shone bright among the visions, and in this world below we apprehend it through the clearest of our senses, clear and resplendent. For sight is the keenest of the physical senses, though wisdom is not seen by it — how passionate would be our desire for it, if such a clear image of wisdom were granted as would come through sight — and the same is true of the other beloved objects; but beauty alone has this privilege, to be most clearly seen and most lovely of them all.”

2

Edmund Burke: “Curiosity … quickly runs over the greatest part of its objects, and soon exhausts the variety which is commonly to be met with in nature. … The occurrences of life, by the time we come to know it a little, would be incapable of affecting the mind with any other sensations than those of loathing and weariness [if we did not develop] other passions besides curiosity in ourselves.”

3

Jimmy Wales (founder of Wikipedia): “One of the core things [in Ayn Rand’s work] is the virtue of independence … [A character] is given a choice … to compromise his integrity or to essentially go out of business. And he [takes] a job working in a quarry. And for me that model has a lot of resonance. What I’m doing and the way I’m doing it is more important to me than any amount of money.”

4

Friedrich Nietzsche: “I claimed that art, rather than ethics, constituted the essential metaphysical activity of man … I made several suggestive statements to the effect that existence could be justified only in esthetic terms.”

5

Huang Po (Zen Master): “Do not permit the events of your daily lives to bind you, but never withdraw yourselves from them. Only by acting thus can you earn the title of ‘A Liberated One’.”

6

Karl Popper: “I appeal to the philosophers of all countries to unite and never again mention Heidegger or talk to another philosopher who defends Heidegger. This man was a devil. I mean, he behaved like a devil … and he has a devilish influence on Germany.”

7

Parmenides: “For never shall this be proved: that things that are not are; but hold back your thought from this way of enquiry, nor let custom, born of much experience, force you to let wander along this road your aimless eye, your echoing ear or your tongue; but do judge by reason that ONE way only is left to be spoken of, that IT IS; and on this way are full many signs that WHAT IS is uncreated and imperishable; entire, immovable and without end. It was not in the past, nor shall it be in the future, since it is now, all at once, ONE.”

8

Kant: “There was a time when I … despised the mob, which knows nothing. [But] I learned to honor men, and would consider myself much less useful than common laborers if I did not believe that [my work] could give all [men] a value.”

Sex and the Science – og ligestilling

af Ryan Smith

Ironi kan forekomme visse steder i dette indlæg.

Mange guruer og spirituelle prædikanter udtaler i disse år, at videnskaben nu er nået til et punkt, hvor den omsider er moden til at bevise de tidløse sandheder, der findes i østens mystik, i form af buddhisme, taoisme og de ældgamle vediske skrifter (ham her, ham her, ham her, og ham her). Efter selv at have undersøgt sagen kan jeg dog konstatere, at det er forkert: Videnskaben arbejder i disse år på at bevise de tidløse sandheder, der findes i tv-serien Sex and the City.

Det hardcore videnskabelige verdenssyn består nemlig af fire grundsøjler, som enhver seriøs videnskabsmand bliver nødt til at tage alvorligt. De fire søjler er:

Evolutionsteorien og den seksuelle udvælgelse: For langt de fleste pattedyr gælder det om, at hannerne får alle de hunner, de overhovedet kan, mens hunnerne får den bedste han, de overhovedet kan. Sex er en indkøbstur, hvor mænd jagter kvantitet, og kvinder jagter kvalitet. Og for enhver der har set Sex and the City, er det tydeligt, at evolutionsteoriens idé om den seksuelle udvælgelse er præcis, hvad Samantha vil vise seeren: Hun går nemlig målrettet efter de bedste mænd, hun møder, og mange mænd viser sig villige til at befrugte hende. Alt sammen viser det seeren, at der er noget om snakken med seksuel selektion.

Videnskabens anden søjle er den såkaldte videnskabelige realisme: Det er troen på, at de ting, videnskaben undersøger og opdager, i et vist omfang er en korrekt aftapning af den virkelige verden. Videnskaben bliver med andre ord nødt til at være en mere eller mindre trofast model af virkeligheden og kan ikke bare være tilfældige tankespind, de såkaldte konstruktioner, sådan som landets universitetsstuderende lærer. At der er alvor bag autoriteternes ord, og at traditionen er noget, som man bør tage alvorligt, er netop, hvad dydsmønsteret Charlotte så gerne vil lære Sex and the Citys seere.

Kærlighedsdansen om Mr. Big

Videnskabens tredje søjle er determinisme, dvs. troen på, at fremtiden til en vis grad er forudbestemt. Determinisme vil også sige, at mennesket ikke har fri vilje, eller i hvert fald har meget lidt fri vilje. Så lidt, så det mere eller mindre er ubetydeligt for, hvordan fremtiden bliver. Derfor vil determinisme også sige, at vi, givet en tilstrækkeligt kraftig maskine (en såkaldt Universal Turning Machine), effektivt kan regne os frem til, hvad der vil ske i fremtiden. I Sex and the City er det tydeligt, at det, Miranda prøver ved at undertrykke sit følelsesliv og sætte sin lid til den rationelle dømmekraft, er at gøre sig selv til en Turning Machine. Og når Miranda ikke kan stoppe med at spise chokoladekage, selvom hun ved, at hun vil fortryde det, så er det fordi, at virkeligheden er forudbestemt.

Endelig er der mangeverdensfortolkningen af kvantemekanikken: Forestil dig, at du spørger Scarlett Johansson, om ikke I to skal være kærester. Med den gammeldags forståelse af virkeligheden, så ville Scarlett enten svare ja eller nej, men med mangeverdensfortolkningen ville hun svare både svare ja og nej: I mangeverdensfortolkningen forestiller vi os virkeligheden som en filmstrimmel, og hver gang virkeligheden står over for et signifikant ”valg”, så splitter filmstrimlen ud i to spor, der fortsætter som parallelle universer, uafhængigt af hinanden. I vores tilfælde bliver det til én filmstrimmel, hvor Scarlett Johanson siger ja, og en anden hvor hun siger nej. Begge universer er lige virkelige, men som subjekt oplever du kun det ene – lad os bare sige afvisningen – mens en kopi af dig så får lov at kysse på Scarlett i et parallelunivers. At der ikke er noget entydigt ja eller nej, men at begge kan være rigtige på samme tid, er selvfølgelig, hvad Carrie vil lære os med sin evige dansen omkring, hvorvidt det virkelig skal være hende og Mr. Big, og om alt muligt andet, som hun ligger der sin laptop of delagtiggør os i sine tanker via seriens mange voice-overs.

Mangeverdensfortolkningen har store implikationer for videnskabens andre tre søjler, og derfor er det også Carrie, der er hovedpersonen i Sex and the City. Men hverken darwinisme, determinisme, kvantemekanik eller videnskabelig realisme gør det alene: I stedet er det samspillet mellem de fire piger, der er i højsædet i Sex and the City, netop for at vise, at en videnskabelig erkendelse af virkeligheden foregår i samspillet mellem de fire søjler og inden for den matrix, de til sammen sætter op.

Men hvad betyder det så for ligestilling?

Det videnskabelige grundsyn har store konsekvenser for, hvordan vi opfatter køn og ligestilling. Hvis vi starter med evolutionen, så har den seksuelle udvælgelse den fordel, at den gør det nemt for de to køn at udvikle to forskellige ”værktøjskasser”, der så kan komplementere hinanden: Hvis den ene er god til at jage, og den anden er god til at samle, så kan man sammen få mere mad, end hvis man begge skulle være halv-gode til at jage og halv-gode til at samle. Og som videnskaben har vist, så er mænd (i snit) bedre til at bedømme vinkler, mens kvinder (i snit) er bedre til at huske små ændringer i deres nærmiljø.

Alle tidligere menneskearter har til en vis grad benyttet sig af arbejdsdeling, men der er noget, der tyder på, at homo sapiens, er den menneskeart, som for alvor begyndte at gøre brug af fidusen. Når RUC-forskeren Karen Sjørup vil lovgive sig ud af systematiske kønsforskelle, vil hun således udviske frugterne af den seksuelle udvælgelse og dermed sende os tilbage til neandertalerne. Men hvad Sjørup ikke siger, er, at hvis hendes ønskede lovgivning om at få kvinder til at optrappe karrieren skal kvalificere som ligestilling, så skal loven også sikre, at den typiske mand så får mere at skulle have sagt i hjemmet. Det synes måske ejendommeligt, når politiet må rykke ud med notesblok for at sikre sig, at du og Scarlett hver har valgt lige mange møbler til udestuen, men det bliver altså nødvendigt for at udviske den arbejdsdeling, som mænd og kvinder typisk vælger at indrette sig efter.

Med videnskabens anden søjle, nemlig Charlotte og troen på, at videnskaben afbilleder den virkelige verden, så bliver vi nødt til at tro på. at de kvaliteter, som videnskaben mener, hører til i en god topleder (m/k) ikke er tilfældige, men at de i høj grad er netop er egenskaber, som er nyttige for virksomheders drift. Det samme gælder den organisationskultur, de står for. Derfor kan vi ikke bare opfinde en ny type topleder og en ny organisationskultur, sådan som Pernille Vigsø Bagge (SF) og Mette Frederiksen (S) vil gøre det, og så forvente, at det vil være lige så effektiv som det, der er vokset frem over årtusinder.

Norges kvælende kvoter

Desuden er der determinismen; troen på, at fremtiden er forudbestemt: Hvis vi tror på determinismen, så tror vi også på, at mennesket ikke er frit til at vælge hvad som helst, men at menneskets valg i høj grad er ufrie funktioner af gener, intelligens, opvækst og dispositioner. ”I owe nothing to feminism,” som den britiske premierminister Margaret Thatcher så berømt sagde, underforstået, at kvinder med dispositionerne nok skal forstå at gøre brug af dem uden Karen Sjørups hjælp, præcis som Sex and the Citys karrierekvinde, Miranda, også forstår at gøre det.

I samspillet mellem evolution, videnskabelig realisme, og determinisme kan vi med overhængende sandsynlighed regne os frem til, at der i øjeblikket er flere mænd end kvinder, der udviser de træk, som videnskaben forbinder med en god topleder, hvilket også forklarer, hvorfor man i Norge har haft så svært ved at finde de kvalificerede kvinder. Ifølge mangeverdensfortolkningen er den verden, vi lever i, dog blot én blandt mange, og hvorfor det så lige blev dén, der blev den verden, vi lever i, kan Carrie så tænke over, mens hun slænger sig i sengen med latte og laptop.

Ifølge mangeverdensfortolkningen, så findes der dog et parallelunivers derude, hvor mænds og kvinders kompetencer er mere ligeligt fordelt, og så snart videnskaben etablerer kontakt dertil, så kan vi hjælpe Karen Sjørup, Pernille Vigsø Bagge og Mette Frederiksen ved at sætte dem på en rumraket dertil – også selvom det skulle vise sig at være villyarder af lysår væk.

Inspirationen bag Björks Biophilia

Den islandske sangerinde Björk har med sit nye album Biophilia skabt et univers, der iscenesætter videnskaben som en fortælling, vi alle er en del af.

Blandt musikinteresserede er det almen viden, at den islandske popdronning Björk ikke er bleg for at give den hele armen, når musikken skal præsenteres for offentligheden. Det gælder både musikkens fysiske emballage, der år for år er blevet mere og mere ekstravagant, såvel som det gælder de kunstneriske og idémæssige universer, der konceptuelt ligger til grund for musikken.

Intet kunne dog have forberedt offentligheden på omfanget af Björks ottende album, Biophilia: Ingeniører, opfindere, programmører, akademikere og instrumentbyggere har alle været i arbejdstøjet for at hjælpe det overdådige konceptalbum til verden – et album, hvis tema er, at vi alle er børn af moder natur, og at alle naturens skabninger hører sammen, og er forbundne via usynlige bånd.

Biofilia-tesen stammer egentlig fra den tysk-amerikanske socialpsykolog Erich Fromm, der trak på det nittende århundredes romantiske og vitalistiske strømninger og foreslog, at et tilstrækkeligt åbent menneske ville være i stand til at opleve et psykologisk stadie, ikke ulig forelskelse, hvor psyken blev tiltrukket af alt, hvad der var levende. Mere naturvidenskabeligt, så fremsatte den kontroversielle biolog E.O. Wilson i sit 1984-værk, Biophilia, den tese, at der eksisterer en affinitet mellem alle levende organismer, hvilket eksempelvis er grunden til, at kattekillinger og hundehvalpe kan aktivere følelser af yngelpleje i os mennesker.

Siden har feltet trukket i to retninger: Der er dem, der mener, at det biofile bånd kun gælder mellem pattedyr (da det alt andet lige er svært at forestille sig en følelsesmæssigt velvilje over for kryb og parasitter). Omvendt er der også dem, der mener, at sondringen mellem levende og ikke-levende er et kunstigt skel, og at biofili derfor bør strække sig ud til alt i universet. Den vietnamesisk-amerikanske astrofysiker Trinh Xuan Thuan gjorde sig f.eks. til talsmand for denne position, da han i 2008s bestsellerbog The Quantum and the Lotus skrev: “Vi er alle skabt af stjernestøv. Vi er de vilde dyrs brødre og fætre til blomsterne på marken. Vi er alle bærere af universets historie. Blot ved at trække vejret indgår vi i et forhold med alle andre væsener, der lever og har levet på denne planet. Med en enkelt vejrtrækning indånder vi adskillige partikler fra det bål, der brændte Jeanne d’Arc. På den måde er vi alle forbundne.”

Og det er i sidstnævnte retning – at biofili omfatter alt i naturen – at Björk selv bevæger sig med sit nye album: Ikke blot insekter og bakterier skal inkluderes blandt det biofile bånd, men også uorganiske størrelser som krystaller, vulkanudbrud, lynnedslag og månens cyklus – alle skal de regnes som en del af det bånd, vi alle deler.

Gør videnskaben sin egen
En mindre erfaren kunstner havde nok knækket nakken på så stort et projekt, men det lykkes faktisk for Björk, der er vant til at arbejde med utraditionelle inspirationskilder, og endda har udtalt, at hun kan opleve de uvante ledemotiver kan være en udfordring for hendes kreativitet. Når projektet fungerer, er det, fordi Björk formår at løfte det naturvidenskabelige tema uden at forfalde til kedsomhed eller forudsigelighed. Og så forstår Björk intuitivt, at udvælge let genkendelige temaer, der er nemme at identificere for lytteren. Torden, vulkanudbrud, en virus der profilerer, optræder alle som stilfigurer i Biophilias univers, og Björk formår samtidig at imødegå den kunstneriske udfordring, der ligger i ikke blot at oversætte dem til musik, men at gøre begreberne til sine egne: DNA-helix’et er en ”evig halskæde”, og en virus, der spreder sig, ”bliver forelsket” i de celler, den vil spise.

Den islandske sangerinde har før flirtet med videnskaben, men med Biophilia er Björk blevet voksen: Hvor det tidligere studiealbum, Volta, gjorde brug af touchscreens og en bred vifte af elektronisk udstyr, der skulle bruges til at drukne hendes publikum i atonale lyde og epileptiske lysglimt, så vender Biophilia i stedet blikket indad og spørger sig selv, hvordan videnskaben kan gøres til kunst. Hvor Volta ifølge kritikerne var teknologi for teknologiens skyld, så er Biophilia videnskab på musikkens præmisser. Foucault-penduler, der slår strenge an, så jordens rotation ”spiller” på harpe, Tesla coils, der summer med på melodien om et tordenvejr, og et væld af nyopfundne digitale og analoge instrumenter står alle klar til at bidrage til at løfte Biophilia ud af det traditionelle musikunivers og over i Björks hybridlandskab, der er at finde midt mellem videnskab og kunst.

For så vidt er Björk ikke den første, der har forsøgt en sådan fusion af kunst og natur. Inden for den klassiske musik kender man til programmusikken; en genre der forsøger at kommunikere ikke-musikalske temaer gennem musikken. Beethovens Måneskinssonate fremmaner f.eks. fornemmelsen af månen, der valser på overfladen af Luzern-søen i Schweiz, ligesom de russiske romantikere Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninov og Rimsky-Korsakov alle forsøgte at hidkalde sig de vidtstrakte russiske steppelandskaber i deres musik, og den altomsluttende isvinter, der prægede dem.

I en større kulturel kontekst er det denne arv, som Björk bygger videre på med Biophilia. Men hvor den klassiske musiks virkemidler er satte, gør Björk præcis hvad der passer hende, og som så ofte før i sin karriere, så ser Björk stort på musikkens traditionelle former. Alligevel kan Björk dog ikke sige sig fri for arven fra den klassiske musiks frembringelser, idet et nummer som Crystalline gør beregnende brug af gentagelser for at visualisere den systematiske struktur, der findes i krystalformationer, mens nummeret Cosmogony gør brug af tonal ligevægt for at symbolisere, hvordan solsystemets planeter holdes på plads af modsatrettede trækkræfter. Endelig kan nævnes nummeret Dark Matter, der bevæger sig op og ned af toneskalaerne for at vise, at mørkt stof (ifølge visse fortolkninger af fænomenet) er partikler fra andre universer.

Det siger sig selv, at hybridproduktioner som disse kræver en del artistic license fra kunstnerens side, og Björk holder sig da heller ikke altid inden for rammerne af videnskaben. Der er tale om en krævende balancegang, der konstant er i fare for at plumpe i som enten for videnskabelig, og for fattig i forhold til kunsten, eller for prætentiøs, og for ligegyldig i forhold til videnskaben. Björk har dog gjort sit hjemmearbejde, og det univers, der ligger til grund for Biophilia er både gennemført og spændende at gå på opdagelse i.

Den store bog om Lego Star Wars

For 11 år siden søsatte legetøjsmærket Lego sin måske mest kendte produktlinje, det afholdte og ikoniske Lego Stars Wars. Et nyt visuelt leksikon sætter sig nu for at dokumentere samtlige af sagaens udgivelser.

Det første, der møder øjnene, når blikket glider ned over Forlaget Avildas nye bog om Lego Star Wars, er, hvor meget der er kælet for produktionen: Titlen er trykt i changerende krom, og de to franchises’ logoer er sat pænt og sirligt op ved siden af hinanden. Indlejret i forsiden er en unik Lego­-figur af Stars Wars-helten Luke Skywalker, som kun kommer med bogen, og selve bogen er omsluttet af et ualmindeligt slidstærkt hardcover, der tillige er rigt dekoreret. Det er tydeligt, at læseren her skal på tur gennem Lego Star Wars’ univers.

Er man allerede bekendt med Lego og LucasArts (koncernen der ejer Stars Wars, red.), kunne man frygte, at bogen var endt som en af to ting: Enten som et uinspireret Lego-katalog – et udvidet reklamehæfte, der slavisk afrapporterede, hvilke Lego-produkter der nu var tilgængelige på markedet, eller alternativt, at LucasArts havde udnyttet udgivelsen som løftestang for endnu et kønsløst kommercielt fremstød designet til at få læseren til at købe mere Star Wars-merchandise uden samtidig at levere reel information til forbrugeren. Heldigvis må man sige, at Den Store Bog om Lego Star Wars effektivt formår at styre uden om begge disse faldgruber, samtidig med at den pirrer læserens nysgerrighed sådan, at man vitterligt får lyst til at blive klogere på Lego Star Wars-universet.

Rig på detaljer

Bogen er udfærdiget som et visuelt leksikon over Lego Star Wars-serien, og det er i den henseende, at udgivelsen virkelig brænder igennem: Bogen favner vitterligt en komplet oversigt over samtlige Lego Star Wars-udgivelser fra 1999 og frem til i dag. Sideløbende med, at man kan følge sættenes udvikling op gennem de seks spillefilm, så kan man samtidig også følge selve Lego-koncernens udvikling, efterhånden som designerne på Lego får bedre fat om udfordringerne med at fortolke de ekstravagant designede Star Wars-rumfartøjer ned i et medie, der i bund og grund består af små firkantede klodser. Eksempelvis vises de tre forskellige versioner af Darth Vaders TIE fighter, der er udgivet 1999 – 2008, side om side, og den akkompagnerende tekst går i samtidig detaljer med at forklare forskellene mellem de forskellige versioner. Ligeledes er det muligt at sammenligne forskellige faser fra den enkelte Lego-minifigurs gang gennem filmene. Således følges f.eks. jedi-helten Luke Skywalkers odyssé fra fattig arbejdsdreng i ’Episode IV: A New Hope’ og frem til magtens tinde, som mægtig Jedi-ridder i ’Episode VI: Return of the Jedi’.

For hvert Lego-sæt får vi desuden et årstal for udgivelsen, en opgørelse over af antallet af klodser i sættet, samt en oversigt over, hvilke af de karakteristiske Lego-minifigurer der er inkluderet. De 96 sider synes måske af lidt, men slutresultatet er alligevel tilfredsstillende, da hver enkelt side udnyttes til det yderste for at give læseren overblik og information, og efter endt læsning føler man virkelig, at man nu har overblik over serien.

Tiltænkt børnene

Samtidig sigter bogen dog klart efter de 7-14 årige, hvorfor ældre og garvede fans måske vil blive skuffede over manglen på ny information om universet. Den Store Bog om Lego Star Wars er tiltænkt børn og begyndere, og følgelig er der især gået på kompromis med de avancerede sæt for de ældre fans: Eksempelvis levnes der blot en enkelt side til særudgaven af smugleren Han Solos rumfartøj, Tusindårsfalken, og ud fra bogen alene står det ikke klart, hvad forskellen er på den avancerede (og langt dyrere) særudgave og så på den regulære legetøjsudgave af Tusindårsfalken, der netop er tiltænkt de 7-14 årige. Kun via søgning på nettet viser det sig, at særudgavens inventar er langt mere detaljeret, og at cockpittet er dobbelt så stort. Her, og på en håndfuld lignende steder, ville det have klædt bogen at gå mere i dybden.

Alt i alt er ånden og fornemmelsen fra Legos Star Wars-serien dog fint indfanget i bogen, godt hjulpet på vej af den høje produktionskvalitet og de skarpe og farverige fotos, der pryder hver og en af de 96 sider. Bogen er flot opsat, og kun enkelte steder føles den overvældende mængde facts og detaljer som et rod. Dermed er Den Store Bog om Lego Star Wars en oplagt julegaveidé, når far skal give Star Wars-arven videre til sønnike, men udgivelsen indeholder dog også den fare, at sønnike med bogen i hånden kan ønske sig langt mere Lego, end fars friværdi kan tåle.

Den store bog om Lego Star Wars
af Simon Beecroft
96 sider, 199 kr., inklusiv 1 stk. Lego-figur
Forlaget Alvilda, 2011