We live in a time of auktoritetsuppror. Everyone seems to suddenly want to make revolution in their own way – both the good and the evil, to put it simply.
the Fury against the royal dramatic theatre in social media, for example, calls for boycott, shows how an old institution can not continue under the old rules. The society, the department seems in no longer accepts the relationship as it used to look like. There are no longer discharge in the masculine art's name. It contents itself either with the naked anger – you want to set the agenda.
the Same thing appeared while the Swedish Academy, the crisis lasted as the most intense. Not all the reactions stemmed from solidarity with women whose vulnerability the Academy had chosen to ignore since the 1990s. There was also a languor over the exaltation as such.
the broken, raises the splendor fury – it hit the Academy, it now affects the royal dramatic theatre. The lines of the european royal families did related experiences during the 1900s. Suddenly, no one wants to play the game anymore, and that makes the last are those who have just decided the rules of the game.
Many voices in the media last week pointed out how scary the rage on social media has been after the documentary about the Josefin Nilsson and the media attention around the royal dramatic theatre. For example, type the DN's Åsa Beckman, ”also one of society's very best movements can degenerate into populism”, the new feminist expressions in social media (29/3 2019). It is true, it is skämmande when people commit against each other. Anyway, I don't think that what we see is only a feminist anger, but also a greater auktoritetsuppror which is becoming stronger characterises our time: the desire to write new rules for the old power.
In the SvD tells Jenny Nordberg on how the language is hiding something about the people that are heard in the social media: ”They are not called for nice things like ’the will of the people’, but rather a little condescending to ’social media activists’” (SvD 30/3). There is something very important in her observation. There is an inability to identify the new movements, to over-emphasize the digital environment may very well obscure the political.
the protests have also gone out on the streets the last few years. Outside the Swedish Academy gathered women in knytblus, outside of a theatre lit the human candles to draw attention to men's violence against women, the world over the conduct of pupils skolstrejker for climate, Paris is full of yellow jackets and on the streets of London were thronged with just about a million people showed the desire for a new referendum on EU membership.
Different targets, but with the protest classic design: the visibility on the street.
Recently mentioned Andrew Brown here in DN a mighty demonstration of rävjaktens conservation 2004: ”The demonstration was ignored almost completely by the vänstermedier, which was stupid. Afterwards eat it like a förebådan large parts of the Brexitväljarna: wealthy, older, rural, and white. All who attended felt themselves to be a part of a common identity, with a common grievance, and that is what a political movement needs” (27/3 2019).
the protests? Maybe just that everyone wants to out on the streets. It will not be easy to orient themselves in what is happening in the coming decades. In the best case it will be interesting when, for example, conservatives, feminists, klimataktivister and the unemployed, with entirely different worldviews and different values of democratic importance, filling the cities with their respective demonstrations. They identify various authority figures to rebel against. But rebellion makes the.