Alexander Bard – philosophical smoke puff or inspiring provoker?

Alexander Bard, is a person I have always honestly disliked. Ever since he first appeared in the media in the early 80s, I have disapproved of that man. His self-centeredness was felt mannered and affected. An empty smoke puff without any attachment in reality. There was something clattering and artificial about his music. His political ideas made me think about the anti-social neoliberalism. And in the back mirror, I’ve got the impression that he and his Army of Lovers had more in common with Fredrik Reinfeldt’s first government’s provocative Ayn Rand Liberals than anything that could be associated with love. Those ministers, those who had to resign when it turned out that they practiced Ayn Rand’s theory that taxes are theft and refused to pay certain taxes (and television fees). Without humor or self-distance.

That was my perception of Alexander Bard. Is it permissible to say that? That I disliked him. That I thought he was provocative in a tiresome way. That I associated him with an anti-social neoliberalism.

Alexander Bard  himself has named the Swedish initiators of the # metoo-movement mythomanics and he has appointed the Swedish Minister of Culture Alice Bah Kunkhe democracy’s grave-digger. Accordingly, I give myself the right to talk about why I have always disliked Alexander Bard.

It was not my idea to listen to the Sunday Interview on Radio P1, where he was interviewed by Martin Wicklin. I got a question. It was my choir leader who sent an sms with reference to that radio program: ”Some time, I might like to discuss Alexander bard with you.”

As I listened to that interview something happened. I heard him say he is curious about life. He said that he likes to talk to people who challenge him by having opinions just the opposite of his own. He wants to be able to say what he thinks and stand for it without excuses.

Founded in your biological constitution

He believes it is necessary for people today to be founded in their own biological constitution. That is necessary, he says, to be able to cope with the technological development now. And he believes that the sex is a basic element for a human life. A man should be a man and a woman should be a woman, he says, ”I believe in the return of the sex!”

I note that I might have comments on this and I continue to listen. I listen to him saying that all people should have equal opportunities to realize their potential in life. Sometimes during the interview, he also says that people are ”equal and different.” He points out that he is ”a Marxist,” which surprises me somewhat. And he continues to point out that, of course, he has the ability to focus  on and investigate very narrow and deep knowledge areas, which, however, is not any kind of elitism.

He does not want to get fixed in one opinion or in one way of being. He makes himself at home wherever he goes. He wants to explore and get to know the world. His project now is a profound philosophical work.

When I listened to the Sunday Interview with Alexander Bard, I got a picture of a person who is worth listening to.

I listened to the program a second time. Now, I heard that he is still ego-tripped and self-centered. I also heard several statements about life and the world and politics that I want to oppose. But the impression remains – that I reevaluate my former disgust for this man.

Alexander Bard may be a philosophical smoke puff or an inspiring provoker. And actually, this post is not about him. It’s really about a method that I’ve found lately. A method of new knowledge. Perhaps by chance,  some people I know – have inspired me to reread books and to listen again. Listen again to what, for some reason, I dismissed as junk long ago  A method of reassessment.

It’s a useful method, right?

Ellington