Post scriptum rinkimams

Pribloškia ta neišvengiamybė, kuri lydi Nausėdos kandidatavimą į prezidentus: pirma jis buvo ilgą laiką minimas kaip de facto jau kandidatas, nors pats vis delsė atsakyti, ar kandidatuos, paskui buvo nuolat pastoviai pristatomas kaip „populiariausias kandidatas“, taip tendencingai formuojant nuomonę, kad, suprask, balsuoti už kažką kitą nėra prasmės; taip pat jis buvo pristatomas kaip „pirmosios Lietuvos“ arba „didžiųjų miestų“ kandidatas („antrosios Lietuvos“ arba „apačių“ kandidatu buvo vadinamas Skvernelis) ir tik atsiradus Šimonytei, jam šiuo aspektu atsirado bent kažkokia konkurencija – dar daugiau, jis jau imtas pristatinėti kaip „regionų“ kandidatas („didžiųjų miestų“ kandidate buvo paskelbta Šimonytė), kaip priimtinesnis platesniems rinkėjų sluoksniams. Vienu žodžiu, kandidatas visiems ir niekam, visų ir niekieno. Kandidatas, kuris nieko aiškaus nesako, kuris jokiu klausimu neturi aiškios nuomonės, kuris nori būti visiems geras, t.y. nenori atskleisti savo prioritetų ir ideologinių nuostatų, kad neatbaidytų jokio elektorato segmento; kuris sugeba būti pakankamai abstraktus, kad nesakytų nieko konkretaus, ir pakankamai konkretus, kad atrodytų turįs aiškią, tvirtą ir nuoseklią poziciją visais klausimais.

Tą puikiai iliustruoja jo atsakymas, per paskutinius debatus, į klausimą, ar sutiktų su Vladimiro Putino pasiūlymu atvykti į Vilnių su sąlyga, jog nebūtų kalbama apie Krymo okupaciją. Šimonytė, norėdama konsoliduoti savo patriotiškai nusiteikusį elfų elektoratą, atsakė „Ne“, tuo tarpu Nausėda, aiškiai bandydamas laviruoti tarp skirtingas nuostatas šiuo klausimu turinčių rinkėjų, atsakė, kad sutiktų susitikti su Putinu Vilniuje, bet neleistų rinktis pokalbio temų, t.y. sutiktų, bet nesutiktų, arba nesutiktų, tačiau, bijodamas griežtai nesutikti, nesutiktų sutikdamas, tam, kad jo sutikimas nieko nereikštų, nes klausime nurodyta sąlyga juk tokia, kad Putinas atvyktų tik, jei nebūtų kalbama apie Krymo okupacija, tad Nausėdos hipotetinis „sutikimas“ su sąlyga, kad būtų kalbama apie tai, apie ką nori Nausėda, būtų lygus nesutikimui, nes Putinas tiesiog neatvyktų. Tad, atsakydamas šitaip, Nausėda tiesiog bando apmauti visus – vieniems jo atsakymas pasirodys „diplomatiškas“ (nes neatsisakė susitikti, nes parodė „gerą valią“), kitiems – tvirtas (nes nesutiko su Putino sąlygomis, o iškėlė savas), vieniems šis atsakymas parodys, kad Nausėda nėra toks „vanagas“, kaip Grybauskaitė (nes sutinka eiti į dialogą su Putino Rusija), kitiems – kad jis, visgi, išlaikys Lietuvos „euroatlantinę kryptį“ ir pan. (juk neleis Putinui išvengti klausimų dėl Krymo okupacijos, bus su juo griežtas ir nepalenkiamas). Šimonytės „Ne“ yra aiškesnis, tiesmukesnis atsakymas (kitaip atsakyti ji negalėjo, nes taikytis į kitaip mąstantį rinkėją jai beprasmiška, o netvirtas atsakymas supykdytų elfus). Nausėda iš esmės taip pat pasakė „Ne“, bet tokiu būdu, kad patiktų visiems ir nieko neatstumtų.

Tačiau, svarbiausia, kaip minėjau, yra Nausėdos išrinkimo prezidentu neišvengiamybė. Kai pernai ar užpernai buvau jį sutikęs porą kartų mieste, kartą – universitete, praeidamas pro šalį, galvojau, kad, va, būsimasis prezidentas. Ta neišvengiamybė man atrodo žlugdanti. Jei 2017 metais kas nors įkristų į komą ir atsibustų rytoj, po rinkimų, tai nieko nebūtų praradęs. „O ką išrinko prezidentu?“ – klaustų ji/s. „Ai, Nausėdą? Taip ir žinojau...“ – nusiramintų. Tik tiek ir tereikia žinoti. Tiek teįvyko per praėjusius kokius dvejus-trejus metus. Todėl net atrodė, kad pats Nausėda netiki, jog gali prezidentu netapti, tad jis ir nepersistengė per savo rinkimų kampaniją. Jo plakatai visur buvo vienodi, nežinančiam lietuvių kalbos žmogui galintys pasirodyti kaip vyriškų kostiumų reklama, o šūkiai buvo klišiniai iki absurdiškumo. Jis iš esmės apie save kalbėjo tai, kas buvo apie jį kalbama žiniasklaidos, „ekspertų“, „analitikų“ ir „specialistų“ jau daug metų – jis tiesiog visa tai patvirtino, sakydamas, na, taip, toks ir esu. Nors konkurencija su Šimonytė pirmajame ture galėjo pasirodyti grėsminga, tačiau pražūtinga ji tapo ne Nausėdai, bet Skverneliui, o antrajame ture pakako nebūti konservatoriumi – bent oficialiai. 

Slapta vyliausi, kad Nausėda šiuose rinkimuose, visgi, nedalyvaus, bet buvo naivu to tikėtis. Taip pat vyliausi, jog Skvernelis nekandidatuos ir valstiečiai-žalieji į prezidentus kels kokio Visvaldo Matijošaičio kandidatūrą ar parems Juozaitį (tokių kalbų vienu metu buvo, nors tai man ir atrodė neįtikimas scenarijus). Bet ne, viskas nutiko būtent taip, kaip žiniasklaida mums ir sakė jau prieš daugiau negu metus. Atrodo, kad žmonės todėl balsavo už Nausėdą, kad perskaitė, jog jis – populiariausias kandidatas... Jau seniai laikas suprasti, kad politikų ir partijų reitingai yra ne sociologija, o rinkimų kampanijos dalis. Nausėdos pergalė rinkimuose yra vaizduotės pralaimėjimas: įsivaizduoti kažką kita, negu mums siūloma žiniasklaidos, „ekspertų“, „analitikų“, „sociologų“ ir „politikos apžvalgininkų“, daugeliui yra pasidarę neįmanoma. Girdėjau, kad Nausėda savo didžiausiais autoritetais įvardino neoliberalizmo kūrėjus Reaganą ir Thatcher, tad simboliška, kad jis pats geriausiai įkūnija Thatcher žymiąją frazę „There is no alternative“. Išties, medijų pagimdytas kandidatas privalo triumfuoti spektaklio visuomenėje... Aišku, į visus mano priekaištus Reddit.com vartotojai iš Lietuvos atsakė paprastai: „To nori žmonės“. Belieka supratingai nutilti, suvokus savo klaidą.

Discourse

‘…Listen,’ he uttered, pulling his chair closer to the other man. ‘But this is so interesting!’

The other one only sighed, content.

‘Yeah, yeah,’ he said with a grin, ‘very interesting…’

But the other didn’t wish to remain entrenched along the lines of these rather abstract words, so he again opened his mouth, two or three times kind of hesitated as if the sounds surrounding them, that were henceforth seemingly unnoticeable to him, began to threaten the empty space, surrounding the two of them, the space he believed to be reserved for his voice; anyway he finally started:

‘Listen…’ he began, dragging his chair closer, even closer than before. ‘But here’s the thing – I wanted to tell you about an altogether different matter.’

The other one sighed, yet this time – not content at all; however, he sighed quieter, without as much pomp, without noticing, as if off-guard.

‘Listen…’ (this word started to get into even his nerves already) the other said. ‘Maybe we could go out for a while, because I don‘t hear anything here…’

‘Right, hmm…’ his interlocutor muttered, stood up, stroke his crumpled trousers with his hands, as if feeling in need of being dusted after such a prolonged period of monotonous sitting. The other one stood up too, somewhat clumsily, as if it was an irritating wish of his interlocutor that forced him up to his feet and not his own suggestion. All around a crowd was making a lot of noise. Well, to call that group of persons, less than twenty of them, ‘a crowd’ would be perhaps an overstatement, yet they managed to cause some noise: music on, a TV set sadly kept broadcasting – sadly, because it was forgotten, like some old and unwanted acquaintance. Someone switched it on and forgot what he or she wanted to watch… It was pitch-dark outside and inside there was a twilight of sorts in places, yet in other places, on the contrary, a kind of exaggerated lighting that seemed to indicate that ‘something is about to happen’, because usually no one feels a need for such intense lighting when they are simply biding their time. The crowd amassed here consisted of less than twenty persons: lads and girls, part of them already soundly boozed; the voices of some were constantly echoed in all of the rooms, and another part seemed to be innately mute and born to listen.

The two men went out to the staircase, the one who was asked to go out didn’t close the door completely; the steel door, it’s cross-section now exposed, looked like a hatch in a spacecraft, hermetic and commanding respect. The man, as it were, seemed not to expect a long exchange and to show his determination he held the doors with his hand, even slightly swinging it, just like he had been playing with his glass, when he was sitting in the armchair, almost right in front of the TV set…      

‘What did you want?’ He said now, and when uttering ‘want’, his eyes touched the face of his interlocutor, touched even somewhat indecently, too rudely even. Sensing that, his interlocutor cringed, but, was he to be questioned on the spot, he would have certainly testified, without any confusion whatsoever, that it was the cold, nothing else but the cold that made him cringe.

‘Eh, I don’t even know…’ he began; it was evident that this signified a beginning of a long speech; he seemed by now to have retained his humours, though, when he just got out of that strange flat, he seemed somewhat confused, perhaps due to a sudden change of temperature and lighting. ‘Paulius,’ he continued, ‘don’t you know that I feel uncomfortable here – there’s plenty of people who are so alien to me, I don’t know anyone here, do you know them – this I don’t know as well, and, then again, they are so noisy and get drunk way too soon, before I manage to find a way to get acquainted with them, they’re already unable to get acquainted with’ he paused and then went on. ‘But you’ve got to understand: I came here only to talk to you, even if I regret it now…’      

The last phrase came across almost arrogant and the man now stood on tiptoe, drew himself up, reclined his head a bit, his hand brushing off a lock of hair off his forehead, and then began to rub his nose somewhat hysterically. He behaved as if the words – here, on the staircase, under a dim lamp, just now – fell out of his mouth unwittingly, involuntarily; thus, he wasn’t to be judged…

‘And so?’ Paulius said. His interlocutor, it seemed, was now confused. At that very moment, beyond the slightly opened door a new wave of screams could be heard, accompanied by an increase in the volume of the music; both unwittingly turned towards the door, but Paulius didn’t open it any more than previously.

‘Could we go outside?’ His interlocutor proposed, even somewhat bravely, this time braver than before. Paulius sighed, as if the man had profoundly bothered him by now. But quickly said: ‘Alright, alright, let’s go.’ 

He almost grabbed his interlocutor, who again seemed stupefied, by the hand; the man, having asked and having received a positive answer, now stood frozen to the spot, like it all had nothing to do with him. He instinctively escaped Paulius’s hand and they both went down the staircase; it had gotten colder noticeably, and so it was a good idea to first stay for a while upstairs, otherwise the cold would overwhelm them even. Simply as a matter of surprise. Since the two of them sat here throughout the evening whilst the public amassed here gradually got drunk; first there was much talking, then talking gravitated towards certain spots throughout the flat, so that one common discourse disappeared without a trace… 

‘So, after all, what did you want?’ Paulius inquired. Then added, after a moment: ‘So cold here.’

His interlocutor indeed had just felt the bitter cold. Queuing at the staircase, as it seems, did not at all amortize the sudden blow of cold that awaited them. Paulius lighted up a cigarette. The other one stood frozen to the spot, his eyes fixed on the already heavily trodden snow; he suddenly felt nausea rising in him, some kind of unpleasant sense of nonsense, as if he had forgotten something – something very important – and spent the whole evening in a dubious company doing dubious stuff; indeed, he was rarely a guest at such parties and the mere fact that he knew next to no one here confused him greatly; one thought didn’t leave him alone: if he was to end his existence in one of the rooms of this noisy flat, drenched in twilight and sounds of music, no one – it seemed to him – would miss him, save for the true owners of the place or their parents… And even that after some time.        

‘What is it that interests you here?’ he asked Paulius. Having exhaled the smoke, radiating total self-assuredness, total peace of mind and calm, Paulius answered: ‘Here’s lots of action, lots of activity.’

‘There isn’t any activity here whatsoever, Paulius!’ his interlocutor almost yelled. The other one laughed, combing his hair with his fingers, that were stiffened by the bitter cold, then inhaled some cold air.

‘Everything’s here, just not for you, Tomas,’ he uttered. Tomas felt like just having received a blow to the nose – just a moment and he felt like breaking down in tears. As if it would be a rather efficient tactic, he raised his eyes to Paulius, like he could suddenly make him change his mind about the whole world.  

‘And for whom then?’ he asked quietly.

‘For all of us, the ones who can accept life as it is, for goodness’ sake,’ Paulius swallowed the excess of saliva in his mouth and resumed. ‘You, you don’t understand a thing, you’re rigid, dull – fuck, how does anybody even put up with here, I wonder… You’ve got to understand,’ he continued, whilst Tomas was futilely trying to interfere, his mouth open in an awkward way, ‘that it’s not for you that everything here takes place and there’s no reason to be so pompous. Sitting in the corner, like some sulking child, for goodness’ sake…’  Paulius said, while Tomas again desperately yet awkwardly tried to interfere. ‘Like some sort of personified reproach, you piss everyone off here…’  

‘But it’s not this that I wanted to talk about!’ Tomas shouted out, instantly looking around, was there anyone around – there was no one. 

‘And about what?’ Paulius laughed and his eyes sparkled.

‘About life – about what I feel, what I think, what I see around – there is so much!’ Tomas cried almost hopelessly in a squeaky voice… 

‘Listen, man,’ Paulius patted him on the shoulder with his fat rough hand, slowly and patronizingly. ‘I’m going and you – do as you please, if anything, we’ll meet at the exams.’  

He turned around and went away, slowly and graciously, like some sort of huge majestic animal, that isn’t bothered by those lesser than it. Tomas stood frozen to the spot and only when the code door was slammed and closed, did he wake up.

2015, translated from the Lithuanian by the author in 2017, translation revised in 2019 (Original can be found here)

Kodėl ir vėl nebalsuosiu rinkimuose

Nors apie rinkimus ketinau parašyti dar prieš pirmąjį Lietuvos Prezidento rinkimų turą, tačiau nespėjau, tad savo mintimis apie rinkimus ir kodėl aš ir vėl nebalsuosiu rinkimuose, pasidalinsiu prieš antrąjį Prezidento rinkimų turą bei Europos Parlamento rinkimus. Šį tekstą būčiau galėjęs publikuoti nepriklausomai nuo to, kurie du kandidatai būtų išėję į antrąjį turą, tačiau, į antrąjį rinkimų turą išėjus Ingridai Šimonytei ir Gitanui Nausėdai, šis tekstas man atrodo dar tinkamesnis. Tad, kodėl aš nebalsavau pirmajame ture ir nebalsuosiu antrajame?

Pirmiausia, aš nematau man priimtino kandidato. Stengiausi rasti informacijos apie kiekvieną iš jų, linksmai praleidau laiką, žiūrėdamas jų agitacinius vaizdo klipus – tuos, kuriuos radau. Aišku, neperskaičiau nei vieno kandidato rinkiminės programos ir atidžiai nesekiau debatų, tačiau dauguma kandidatų man gerai pažįstami ir žinau, ko iš jų galima tikėtis: nemanau, kad jie turi, kuo mane nustebinti. Ypač Šimonytė ir Nausėda, kurie varžysis antrajame ture. Nei vienas iš jų neatitinka mano pažiūrų.

Ar, tokiu atveju, reikia rinktis „mažesnį blogį“? Galima sakyti, kad esu perdėm išrankus – tai aišku, kad nei vienas kandidatas neatitiks mano politinių pažiūrų ir lūkesčių šimtu procentu, juk kandidatai turi taikytis į kuo platesnį žmonių ratą. Bet, tokiu atveju, idealus kandidatas neatstovaus niekam – visiems jis bus „mažesnis blogis“, nė vienas nebus juo patenkintas. Ne, aš nenoriu rinktis „mažesnio blogio“ – juk tai vis vien blogis. O, be to, antrajame ture kovos du bene panašiausi kandidatai, tad išsirinkti, kuris iš jų yra „mažesnė blogybė“, yra ne ką lengviau, negu rasti tarp jų dešimt skirtumų. Išties, pirmajame ture rinkėjai jau nusprendė, kad nori vanilinio plombyro, tiek ir tiek gramų, tereikia nuspręsti, vafliniame ragelyje ar vafliniame puodelyje. O jeigu aš visai nenoriu ledų?

Svarbiausia, man atrodo, kad pats mums siūlomas pasirinkimas privalo būti atmestas – esame verti geresnio pasirinkimo. Rinktis „mažesnį blogį“ yra būtinybė, kuri privalo būti atmesta. Niekas neprisimins, kad kažkuris kandidatas laimėjo tik todėl, kad daugumai rinkėjų atrodė esąs „mažesnis blogis“. Sutikdami rinktis iš to, kas mums siūloma, sutinkame, kad pasirinkimo esama. Tad viskas tvarkoj, kitą kartą mūsų lauks panašus pasirinkimas – ir taip per kiekvienus rinkimus.

Mano manymu, mums siūlomas pasirinkimas iš tiesų net nėra tikras pasirinkimas – gyvename, kaip rašė Herbertas Marcuse, vienamatėje visuomenėje be alternatyvos, nes visi kandidatai iš esmės dėl visko sutaria. Dėl daugumos dalykų sutaria tiek likę du kandidatai, tiek ir jau iškritę iš rinkiminės kovos, net reakcionieriai dėl daug ko sutarė su „progresyviaisiais“. Bet, pažiūrėjus į išėjusius į antrąjį rinkimų turą, sutarimas išties beveik idealus: abu pasisako už šauktinių kariuomenės grąžinimą, dar daugiau, – už privalomą šaukimą po mokyklos; abu pasisako už išlaidų kariuomenei didinimą; abu pasisako už užsienio politikos „tęstinumą“; abu pasisako už neoliberalizmą; taip pat abu pasisako už tai, kad švietimo sistema turi atitikti Rinkos poreikius, kaip ir kultūra bei visos kitos gyvenimo sritys; abu pasisako už „šeimos vertybes“; abu pasisako prieš marichuanos legalizavimą ir už alkoholio vartojimo apribojimus ir t.t. Svarbiausia, jie sutaria dėl tam tikros žmogaus sampratos ir dėl tam tikros ontologijos.

Esmė ne tame, kad tai, už ką kandidatai vieningai pasisako, yra gerai ar blogai, o tame, jog rinkėjai dėl daugelio šių klausimų niekada neturėjo galimybės pasisakyti. Paradoksaliai, mums sakoma, kad rinkėjai nubalsavo „už vertybes“ ir „idėjas“, tačiau tiesa ta, kad jie neturėjo kito pasirinkimo: jei visi kandidatai pasisako už A, ir vienas iš jų laimi rinkimus, tai negalima teigti, jog rinkėjai taip pat pasisako už A. Šis visų politinių jėgų sutarimas dėl valstybės vystymosi gairių, dažnai įformintas „nacionaliniuose susitarimuose“, yra svarbiausia priežastis, kodėl aš nenoriu balsuoti rinkimuose. Juk sprendimą dėl valstybės ateities priimu ne aš, kaip skelbia Vyriausiosios rinkimų komisijos reklama, – šį sprendimą seniai priėmė partijos ir kandidatai, susitarę tarpusavyje; manęs teprašoma pasirinkti vieną iš jų, lyg tarp jų esama kokio nors ryškesnio skirtumo.

  

Dar daugiau, balsuodami, sutinkame su žaidimo taisyklėmis ir pagal nutylėjimą sutinkame pripažinti bet kokį rinkimų rezultatą, tad patvirtiname status quo visoje jos totalybėje ir tuo pat metu patvirtiname savo paklusnumą status quo. Kitaip tariant, rinkimai yra ritualas, per kurį piliečiai oficialiai sutinka būti valdomi. Nėra svarbu, ar jie tą daro noriai, ar nenoriai, rinkdamiesi tą, kuris, kaip jie tiki, juos atstovaus, ar tiesiog, nes labiau nekenčia kitos partijos ar kandidato, – jie vis tiek savo dalyvavimu rinkimuose pripažįsta, kad viskas juos tenkina. Tad, reikia apversti dažnai kartojamą frazę, esą „jei nebalsavai, tai nesiskųsk valdžia“ – ne, priešingai, jei balsavai, negali skųstis valdžia, kad ir kokią ją išrinktų dauguma. Balsuodamas, patvirtini, kad sutinki, jog gerbsi daugumos valią, nors ji ir neatitiktų tavo paties norų – tą pamiršta besipiktinantieji rinkėjais, kurie balsuoja „neteisingai“...

Kita vertus, rinkimai kuria iliuziją, kad mes, piliečiai, sprendžiame šalies likimą, kad mes, piliečiai, esame lygūs ir kiekvieno/s mūsų balsas yra svarbus ir gali būti lemiamas, sprendžiant dėl valstybės ateities. Tačiau kasdienybėje mes matome tikrąjį paveikslą: mes nesame lygūs ir kiekvieno/s iš mūsų balsas toli gražu nelemia tiek pat. Tačiau tikra demokratija neįmanoma be lygybės. Galiausiai, užtenka prisiminti, jog rinkimai yra valdžios tęstinumo ritualas, kuris nieko iš esmės negali pakeisti ir kuriuo iš mūsų reikalaujama patvirtinti, jog su viskuo sutinkame, kaip, užėjus į interneto tinklalapį, iš mūsų prašoma „sutikti“, kad bus renkami mūsų duomenys. Iš inercijos spaudžiame „sutikti“, nes kas turi laiko skaityti visas tas sąlygas... Ar turime galimybę nesutikti? Na, jei nesutinkame, tegalime nutraukti naršymą tame tinklalapyje.

Ar nedalyvavimas rinkimuose reiškia, kad esi apolitiškas, abejingas savo šalies politiniam gyvenimui? Išties, manau, kad politika domėtis reikia ne vien per rinkimus ar iki jų, o nuolat – nuolat turime galvoti, kokioje Lietuvoje norime gyventi. Naivu stebėtis tuo, kas vyksta, lyg valdantieji nesuvokia, ką daro, ir lyg jie kažką daro dėl nežinojimo ar nesupratingumo. Ir lyg opozicija, gavusi valdžią, nedarytų to paties... Tačiau, suvokdami politiką vien per rinkimų prizmę, mąstome isteblišmento mums primestais terminais, nekęsdami ir juokdamiesi iš vienos partijos ir simpatizuodami kitai, pasiduodami inflūencerių ir žiniasklaidos spaudimui suvokti Lietuvos politiką kaip kovą tarp „į vertybes orientuotos politikos“ ir „populizmo“ ar, priešingai, kaip kovą tarp „globalistinio elito“ ir „tų, kurie už paprastą žmogų“. Argi net pasirinkimas tarp politinio elito ir kraštutinės Dešinės „populistų“ nėra pasirinkimas tarp ąžuolo ir gilių? Renkiesi ąžuolą, bet paskui stebiesi, kad aplink prikritę gilių... Turime išlaisvinti savo vaizduotę bei nebemąstyti vien šiais terminais ir taip išsivaduoti iš to, ką Markas Fisheris vadino kapitalistiniu realizmu – supratimo, kad niekas iš esmės niekada nesikeis, kad lengviau įsivaizduoti pasaulio pabaigą, nei kapitalizmo pabaigą. Aišku, Lietuvoje vis dar ypač sunku ją įsivaizduoti, nes kapitalizmu abejoti yra blogo tono ženklas geroje kompanijoje. Bet, kad abejotum kapitalizmu, nebūtina būti komunistu. Išties, senieji Lietuvos komunistai juo seniai neabejoja... Galiausiai, domėdamiesi rinkimais ir sukdami galvas, kuris iš kandidatų yra „mažesnis blogis“, negalime įsivaizduoti kitokio pasaulio.

Tad, ne tie, kas nebalsuoja rinkimuose, yra apolitiški, o pati politika yra pasidariusi apolitiška. Politika virto administravimu. Kol pasirinkimas per rinkimus yra post-politinis kandidatas par excellence Nausėda, ne politikas, o moksliniu nešališkumu prisidengęs ekspertas, buvęs skandinaviško banko analitikas, tuo pat metu ir teigiantis, kad yra „telkianti jėga“, ir kviečiantis „dialogui“, kuriame „išgirstume vieni kitus“, tuo pat metu ir neoliberalas, ir „gerovės valstybės“ šalininkas, ir technokratija žmogišku veidu Šimonytė, taip pat nepartinė, taip pat einanti laimėti tik tam, „kad laimėtumėte kiekvienas iš jūsų“, būdama chrestomatinė elito kandidatė, besiskelbianti esanti „žmonių prezidentė“, nematau, už ką galėčiau balsuoti. Tai pasirinkimas tarp apolitiškų kandidatų, tarp kandidatų, kurie nenori būti laikomi politikais, kurie nesiūlo jokios atvirai politinės vizijos. Kai politika tampa post-politika, išeitis yra tapti išties politiškiems ir demaskuoti mums pateikiamą „tikrovę“ kaip tam tikrą politinę viziją, už kurią mes galime sugalvoti geresnių.

Tušti raginimai balsuoti rinkimuose slepia tai, kad pasirinkimo juose nėra, ir kaip šie raginimai yra tušti – mes raginami balsuoti apskritai, o ne už konkretų kandidatą, – taip ir rinkimai, kuriuose mums taip įkyriai siūloma dalyvauti, yra tušti ir beprasmiški, tuščias ritualas, liudijantis mūsų bejėgiškumą ir susitaikymą su esama padėtimi. Jeigu jūs nuoširdžiai tikite, kad pasirinkimas yra, jeigu tikrai tikite vieno ar kito kandidato pažadais – balsuokite. Tačiau aš nematau pasirinkimo ir nenoriu vaidinti, kad matau. Nieko nesitikint, mažiau nusivylimų. Geriau patylėsiu ir pagalvosiu, ar galiu įsivaizduoti tokią valstybę, nuo kurios nenorėčiau pasislėpti.

How Much More Feminism is Needed?

Once, when I was studying philosophy, during a seminar on feminism, one female coursemate, who had been presenting one of the mandatory texts on the topic, openly expressed surprise at the fact that the text she had read did not appear to be as bad as she thought it would. And she added that feminism, in her opinion, is the worst thing in the world – after Marxism and postmodernism… In recent times, being ‘against feminism’, however one would look, has become popular in more and more social groups. Maybe feminism has indeed reached its limit – either every goal has been reached, or feminism has always been a dubious thing, only that now its shortcomings have become more clearly visible? I will not be analysing this question as thoroughly as I perhaps should. Instead I will try to present my own vision of what feminism should be and what should its goal be.

I think that the main tenet of feminism should be equality of the sexes: men and women are equal and should enjoy equal opportunities to strive for the same things. In my understanding this thesis is based on a hypothesis that has become unpopular these days – that gender [1] is a ‘social construct’. Gender is a concept that is literally driving people mad. Critics of feminism refuse to accept that sex could have a social dimension [2] – they insist there is only ‘biological sex’ [3]. Girls like pink, whereas boys like blue, girls like to play with dolls, whereas boys like to play with toy cars, girls like to cook, whereas boys like to construct. Such is ‘Nature’, critics of feminism say, and one cannot fight against Nature – however, paradoxically, they themselves insist feminism is bad precisely because it ‘fights against Nature’… Anyway, if we agree that human sex as a fact of nature constitutes itself for our consciousness only socially, that as a naked fact it ‘does not mean anything’, is unintelligible, before it is understood through culture, it is obvious that girls and boys understand themselves as girls and boys only with the aid of society and not ‘of their own accord’. Gender roles are not innate and do not directly flow from sex. During the aforementioned seminar, another female coursemate said that girls, even if they are not given dolls, cover knives with towels as if with blankets, whilst playing mothers. Thus, girls supposedly as ‘simply’ ‘caring’ and ‘sweet’. Back then I thought that such facts are worthless, since there is no neutral environment, where it would be possible to find out whether boys and girls, raised in the same way, will behave in the same way. If we want to pursue the goal of equality of the sexes – and this is what justice demands us to do – we must accept the presupposition that men and women are equal. Arguments that ‘scientists have found’ that the brains of men and women differ or that there exist ‘male’ and ‘female’ brains, should not bother us.

But the latter idea has nowadays regained traction – it is foundational for the trans movement. The statement that a man ‘feels’ that he is a woman (or vice versa) problematize gender and solidify the match of sex and gender as an ideal to be pursued. But radical feminists, who reject the trans movement as ‘directed against women’ and one that puts female ‘safe’ spaces in jeopardy, do exactly the same. So, transwomen claim that they are ‘just as much women’ as ‘biological’ women, i.e. women born as women. But the problem is that both sides depend on a certain presupposition of ‘eternal femininity’, only transgender people try to detach it from sex and attach it to self-identification, whereas radical feminists seek to continue associating it with sex and to deter ‘men’ from ‘attacking’ it. My argument that gender is a social construct precisely was meant to reject an essentialist concept of gender. A feminism that defends ‘eternal femininity’ is merely a movement seeking segregation and ghettoization. Such a position creates the conditions for questioning the very basis of granting women equal rights. Such a feminism seeks to blow the difference between men and women out of proportion, as if there lays a void between them, any understanding is impossible, there are no common interests, only ‘the war of the sexes’. It is ironic, but such a view is not that different from the conservative position that claims differences between men and women and natural and speaks about ‘complementarity of the sexes’. ‘Eternal femininity’ imprisons a woman in her sex, to which contingent qualities, that have emerged throughout history, are ascribed. Feminism should seek to liberate people from gender [4]. Sex should not shackle a person but should be just another fact of nature, whereas the trans movement turns gender into a central concept, that determines the whole of human existence. This movement does not transcend gender but solidifies gender stereotypes that feminism has long fought against. Gender should cease to be a political issue and become a private matter.

The goals of feminism, in my opinion, ought to be the abolition of gender as a criterion, based on which people are categorised. This looks like a goal that is hard to reach, but it is worth pursuing. If the reader would say that this is absurd, that sex is a biological fact, and that men fundamentally differ from women, I may respond that a person’s height, the colour of his/her eyes or hair, the form of his/her ears or nose, left-handedness or right-handedness are also biological facts but people usually are not categorised, based on these facts, except in specific cases. But sex is still considered a fact of such tremendous importance that the whole social reality is delineated based on it. It is precisely this that feminism should strive to abolish. Differences between the sexes should become no longer relevant.

But a feminism that accentuates peculiar female ‘experience’ that is supposedly accessible to women only, tries to turn these differences into a problem. But is this experience really transparent to the subject? And what does it mean to feel like being a man or a woman anyway? I think it is nothing more than empty talk. That gender can be irrelevant in no way runs counter to everyday experience. I find it hard to say, whether I eat like a man, count like a man, think like a man – or maybe like a woman… Do you look at the sky like a man or like a woman? Only overtly feminine women, macho men and transgender people identify with their gender roles all of the time. If you are not transgender, that does not necessarily mean that you are a masculine man or a feminine woman.

A feminism that states that we should fight for gender equality by seeking arithmetical equality in all spheres of life, also makes a mistake, since it solidifies the present situation of women as a given, that can only be regulated. Thus such feminists wish that in the Seimas [5] or in the Government at least half the seats would be held by women. The competence, political positions, ideas and human qualities of concrete female politicians are irrelevant to these feminists. If half of the Seimas would be comprised of women like Agnė Širinskienė [6], Vilija Aleknaitė-Abramikienė [7] and so on, the conditions of women (and men) in Lithuania would hardly improve. Also, an influx of such politicians could cause citizens’ discontent with women’s rights overall. On the other hand, a woman who had formally reached the heights of her career because of gender quotas, could legitimately feel humiliated. ‘She became Director only because she’s a woman’, subordinates would say quietly. That she became Director since she was the most competent applicant and surpassed all her male rivals, will not matter to anyone. If people and not men or women would be assessed, a competent woman would have the same chances to reach a top position in one or another sphere of life as a man would. But – feminists would reply – it is not like that, since sexism is rampant in our society. But can we change this situation, if we consider sexism a ‘natural’ position? Such feminists themselves do not believe that someone could support a woman – only under pressure. Besides, an attempt to impose such equal representation presupposes the potential of the individual to fit in anywhere, assuming that women, if only given the chance, would definitely choose a ‘manly’ profession and that they must do that for it to be possible to talk of gender equality.

                         

With the imposition of quotas for women, their lower status would be legally recognized. A woman would once again be a creature in need of care, support and help, that is not able to free itself from the manifold problems it itself has created. And how could conservatives not agree with this? But here ‘feminine writing’ is already being celebrated and female writers lauded – for being female. Such a feminism, instead of unmasking the sexism that had long been hiding behind evaluations of achievements in culture and science and seeking to open the fields of art, politics and science to women too, tries to secure a patch of land in each of them, where all the women who have gotten in anyway would be driven, and where a place would be reserved for those taken in simply to make the numbers look better, with all of them being treated equally as merely women. The culture of previous epochs is ‘unmasked’ as sexist, its universalism – as male. Such a feminism too renders sexual difference a wall between people no one can climb that runs right through the fields of culture, politics, science, philosophy – it only matter that it should run in the middle, so that nowhere an ‘all male panel’ [9] would emerge. An ‘all female panel’ [9] can exist. And why – because the weak, the weaker sex should be given priority – something that the man who learned the lessons of patriarchy, whom the aforementioned feminists deride, and who gives way to a woman, understands. Such a feminism promotes considering women victims, potential or such that are yet to learn they are victims – something that supposedly only the control of all spheres of life could save from: as Slavoj Žižek notes, in the era of #MeToo sexual intercourse has become the subject of a contract, just like any other transaction in the age of neoliberalism. A feminism that demands to see the person and not gender, cannot support gender quotas or assuming women to be inherently in need of care.

Anyway, is not contemporary feminism identifying with the status quo too much, simply hoping to accommodate itself to it? Feminism often is used to defend the existing order. Instead of questioning militarism, women are urged to serve in the army, female generals, who are in charge of the bombing of some remote country, are lauded without asking whether these actions are right; instead of questioning liberal democracy, the rise in the number of female politicians is sought without asking whether they are good politicians; instead of questioning capitalism, it is sought that women would fill top positions in corporations without asking is what they are doing right. Those asking are labelled sexist, since who else could not support a woman?

Justice is impossible without equality between the sexes. To reject feminism as such, ignoring its achievements, used by its critics, like the coursemate I mentioned, as well, would be a mistake, just like it would be to say that wishing people to be evaluated not according to their gender but according to general human criteria is absurd. As long as this goal is not reached, there will have not been enough feminism. But it is questionable whether contemporary feminism is pursuing this goal. Ignoring growing resistance and being naively self-assured, it risks paving the way for the triumph of a new ‘common sense’ sexism. Feminism must again prove itself necessary. The wish to underline differences and the refusal to see the commonalities that are precisely what allows us to understand each other, is what is actually absurd.

2018, translated from the Lithuanian by the author in 2018-2019.

Endnotes:

[1] In Lithuanian the concept of ‘gender’ is nearly always expressed as, literally, ‘social sex’ (socialinė lytis) as opposed to ‘biological sex’ (what would be simply ‘sex’ in English). Note that throughout the text the Lithuanian word lytis is translated as ‘sex’ or ‘gender’ based on context (whilst trying to avoid automatically reducing ‘sex’ to ‘gender’ as is often the case in English), and socialinė lytis as ‘gender’ except in some cases. (All notes by the Translator) 

[2] In other words, that what can be broadly called ‘sex’ (Lithuanian lytis), has an element that is social, i.e. ‘gender’.

[3] I.e. ‘sex’.

[4] Both ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ could be used here but note that the Lithuanian lytis (used here) designates ‘sex’ in a broad sense.

[5] The Lithuanian Parliament.

[6] A Lithuanian MP (b. 1975) from the ruling Lithuanian Peasants and Greens Union, chair of the Committee of Legal Affairs, known for her homophobic statements and hard-line traditionalist stance on issues such as abortion, IVF, sex education, alcohol consumption and so on.

[7] A former long-time Lithuanian MP (b. 1957) from the Homeland Union-Lithuanian Christian Democrats party (the main conservative party, currently the biggest opposition party), known for her anti-feminist, homophobic and reactionary statements and hard-line traditionalist stance on abortion, sex education, same-sex partnership; a proponent of ‘family values’ and ‘Law and Order’ policies.

[8] English in the original.

[9] English in the original.