(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
There are three of the questions Anders Johansen asks in a new book, which has recently been published by Spartacus. It is about writing, about willingness to communicate, about becoming a social person and about engaging in public space. The Library Bar at Bristol is et public space, though in a rather special sense of the term. Our conversation over the café table, on the other hand, is about to get involved in the big conversation when this article goes to press. Now Johansen is ready with a smoke in the corner of his mouth. A smoke that in the book is described as part of the working method itself – of writing or thinking, which goes a long way towards one: “This is the reason why many writers have difficulty quitting smoking, I think… Nicotine craving can we endure, in many ways we actually feel comfortable without smoking. But we can not write. "
Just babble?
- You write that "the conversation in the public space is about to lapse into talk". What do you mean?
- A conversation can be both private and public. In the many private conversations of everyday life, the content is often pure talk, chatter or jokes. But these conversations connect us to each other at the same time. They are crucial for us to maintain our courage and sense of reality. When the broadcast becomes full of that kind, it is reasonable to despair that the cases disappear and that the public is not sufficiently important or vital. Means it optional a perversion, or does this arise also a community we can recognize ourselves in, says Johansen.
Blackness is not complete, in other words.
- And resignation is not a preferred strategy, for your part?
- Many academics react by retiring. I have trouble always complaining about the nonsense out there. The dilemma that emerges here is an attempt to see opportunities in the society we are part of. For me, resignation is an impossible strategy.
writings
The German philosopher and sociologist Jürgen Habermas has set up an ideal for a public conversation. It should be characterized by forced communication and celebrate the good arguments. IN The thread of the conversation this is just one side of the public conversation. For Hannah Arendt, public space is rather a socially integrative phenomenon even when ideals are not fulfilled. Johansen plays it on.
- From such a perspective, the public space helps to build the world we are all part of. I think writers like myself are quite peripheral figures, who write without major consequences. But my writings become more than fleeting thoughts when they meet an audience. They are realized socially in a reading situation. Not only do we as writers have to struggle to formulate our thoughts. They must too read forward. Already here we have taken the step from the text's domain to society's, says Johansen.
Such a common reality, however, does not imply unity and equality, for the author.
When discussing formation, or society formation, it is not a national unit culture that one should become aware of, but rather a kind of "metacultural competence", he believes.
- What threatens the cohesiveness of a society is the indifference, that people retire to their private spheres. Any commitment on the other hand is a contribution. Also when it creates conflict. Even when two fighting cocks meet and hate each other, they share reality. For them concerns each other then. In the Norwegian context, the goal dispute and the EU case are contentious issues to get together around. There are contentious issues that in a way have become ours, says Johansen, before he elaborates:
- In the time of the new individualism, it is easy to imagine that the good life is private, and society is some sour duties or at most some "natural surroundings" we can enjoy. In reality, on the other hand, society is a need, and the small conversations in daily life are crucial for connecting people together. Life becomes lame if we do not have a vital common world. The same is true for the writer, so that you only get lame writing if you only write for yourself. If you want to write for the public, and not just meritoriously within an academic world, you have to connect to what is moving in civil society. Writing seems like a very lonely affair, but in reality it is not.
The necessary step
- But, wait a minute. What can this mean in a society where journalists complain about researchers who dress up in professional language and use incomprehensible terms, and academics complain about ignorant and sensational journalists?
- Academics make a too rigid distinction between subjects and communication. It is not necessary to write subjects in a secret language that must be translated afterwards. Some are damn good, but some still use unnecessarily inaccessible language. I do not want to defend journalists in such a context – they have all the world's speculative motives. At the same time, there are many researchers who like to express themselves as "experts". It can provide a sense of security in the role, but does not serve as a message. We must rather take a small step to the side, and define ourselves as a kind of writer or intellectual, not just as an expert. Only then do we get a voice to speak with, says Johansen.
- How should it go then. A number of structural features of the journalistic field, such as time pressure and commercial considerations, make it almost impossible to change in that direction. An understandable but insufficient reaction on the part of academics is withdrawal. What should one do?
- In the short term, I do not believe in structural changes in the media or changes in attitudes within academia. We must rather soul to civil society. I think many people have a feeling that something is moving there – the demonstrations against the Iraq war in February are the latest example. This affects writing people, and it allows us to find a way between the academic merit and the more speculative market-oriented. For some of us, this is not only a duty and a task, but also a need that must be met for our lives and work to make sense.
Epilogue
In this context, it may be worth noting that Klassekampen, Dag og Tid and NRK P2 were the only other media that interviewed Johansen in this round. But the conversations in this small public space, the critical public, or the counter-public if you will – which has just materialized in Bristol's library bar – may point to something more. In any case, this interviewer is considering starting to smoke.
