‘I don’t. But they nagged.’
He looked away.
As a sign: not good.
‘Did you think I’d be here?’ she asked.
‘The question didn’t cross my mind.’
As a sign: bad, but the indifference could equally well be feigned with some difficulty and mean the opposite.
‘Do you like this sort of food?’
He surveyed his plate as if seeing it for the first time.
‘Isn’t it just the same old oily antipasti as usual?’
He was making a joke: promising.
She laughed loudly and his face brightened: good. The guarded expression faded: very good. But he also shifted his weight to the other leg and looked around the room in a way that: less good, bore witness to his being uncomfortable and not wanting to stand there with her: terrible, he was looking for a reason to go, looking for an escape route: disaster.
The girlfriend chorus had taken up residence in her head and now said: But can’t you see he doesn’t want to, you’ve not been together for nearly a year. What are you doing?
She thought: I should walk away. But I don’t want to. I want to stand here with him. It’s the only place in the world I want to be.
The girlfriend chorus said: Where’s your pride?
She answered: I have no pride because pride is linked to shame and honour, and I’m shameless and have no concept of what others find honourable.
The chorus said: That’s what constitutes your pride, showing how free you are from the things that fetter more conformist souls. Deep inside you’re a snobbish intellectual.
There was a group of people standing a little way from them, talking about the USA’s latest war of aggression. Admittedly it was a dreadful regime over there, they said, but they would have done better to support the underground democracy movements instead. Hugo Rask was looking at them.
‘Is it any nicer to be blown to smithereens by a bomb if the person dropping it has been sent by a democratically elected government?’ said Ester Nilsson.
‘What?’
‘I think I’m a pacifist, actually. I’ve reached the conclusion that it’s for the best in the long run. Even if it means being invaded, occupied, deprived of one’s liberty, taken into slavery. One shouldn’t fight, just give in. Throw the hydrogen bombs into the sea, as Olof Lagercrantz wrote. Just decide violence is never permissible. Otherwise one’s stuck with endless assessments of potential consequences, and there’s no way of getting it right.’
He nodded, but in the wrong places. Even as a pacifist she was of no interest to him.
He drank his wine in embarrassed gulps. The group discussing the latest American war of aggression was hearing the opposing view put forward by a refugee from the country on the receiving end of the strikes, who had made his name as a leader writer and now said the only sensible course of action was to bomb his stupid countrymen to bits because they knew no better.
Hugo glanced sideways at Ester to see what she thought. But she also saw that he could not really be bothered to listen to what she thought, on that or any other subject. He was shifting jarringly from foot to foot.
‘Refugee status doesn’t automatically confer reasonable opinions,’ said Ester.
‘There are lots of people here,’ said Hugo.
‘Yes.’
‘The whole cultural mafia.’
‘Yes, all of them, and then us,’ she said with dry self-deprecation and took her eyes off him for the first time, which immediately made him more alert and attentive.
‘But don’t you think some people count themselves part of it as a matter of course? We are a bit odd, you and I, when all’s said and done.’
The furthest regions of her consciousness: a kinship comment, generated by the suggestion of her resignation. He had reacted immediately to the distancing. That was the way it had been all along, she thought in some stab at self-defence, and that was why she was caught in his net.
‘Everyone likes swimming against the tide,’ said Ester. ‘That’s what the tide is.’
‘Perhaps it’s the human condition,’ he said.
‘Presumably. Or one of them.’
She prepared to move off round the room.
‘I saw a book I thought of buying for you,’ he said.
For fear that he might regret it, she rendered her face immobile.
‘Where?’
‘In a bookshop. But it was shut. I saw it in the window. And thought of you. Thought I’d buy it for you.’
The fizzing in her blood had started once more. It turned on so fast, so incredibly fast and then everything was ruined again, for so long.
‘What book was it?’
‘I don’t remember the title. It was about one of your special subjects. One of all those things you criticize.’
He regarded her expectantly. The corners of his mouth widened disarmingly. He was not dismissing her now, but inviting her in with his dubious charm.
‘Do you think I’m critical?’
‘Yes.’
‘Too critical?’
‘Sometimes.’
‘Don’t you mercilessly condemn people’s morality?’ she said.
‘Only those with power. You’re critical regardless of whether people have power or not.’
‘Yes, I try not to draw distinctions between people but look instead to actions, when it’s actions that are relevant.’
‘Pharmaceutical companies, Western regimes, top public officials and so on, they’re the ones to be critical of. Not the innocent little people,’ he said.
‘People aren’t as little as one thinks. Nor as big. The trouble with making power the basis of your judgement, rather than actions, is that virtually everyone has a let-out; they can all claim lack of power when they need to. Because everybody’s powerless in the face of someone and something. Everybody’s got a seam of powerlessness in them, in their perception of themselves vis-à-vis existence as a whole, which they then deploy. And that’s why the world looks the way it does. Everybody’s got a chink in their power, even when they know they’ve got power and responsibility, which they are aware they can exploit in order to understand why they have to act as they do. Morality starts with the individual. One must demand it of everybody. Those who have power are born powerless and that’s the feeling that stays with them all their lives, especially at times when they are acting wrongly. Then they remember that they were bullied in the school playground and beaten by their father and realize it’s all somebody else’s fault this time, too.’
She wondered to what extent he was aware that she was talking about them. Presumably not at all. He looked at her, amused yet sceptical, or was it sceptically amused? She couldn’t decide.
‘So the starving person who steals food and money ought to study his moral philosophy a bit better?’
‘Well, that person has already engaged in some moral deliberation and concluded that the best way out just then is to steal food from someone who can spare it.’
‘Then I don’t understand what you mean. Aren’t we both saying the same thing?’
‘No. According to you, everybody who is formally powerless also lacks responsibility for their actions. But in my approach, there are extra-compelling reasons for having an equal society in freedom. Because we can’t expect the same actions from the hungry, the starving and those unjustly deprived of everything as we can from those who have enough, but we can demand moral insight, moral deliberation and that each individual acts in a way that causes the least harm to others.’
‘What’s the difference between that and what I’m saying?’
She could date the moment when she had last seen him with that intense but simultaneously unguarded expression. It was in February, just before the problems started, when they were standing among his trompe-l’œil sets and she expressed her appreciation of him. When he smiled at her that time there was nothing in his face but gratitude. She glimpsed it again now for a few brief seconds.
�
�Aren’t we basically in agreement that it’s power that’s the deciding factor in moral responsibility, it’s just that we don’t agree on when one is powerless, that is, where the boundary should run?’
Ester picked up a paper serviette that he had dropped on the floor in his brief flaring of interest in the discussion, and pushed it into his trouser pocket. It was an intimate thing to do and when he did not protest in the slightest she was in raptures: the two of them belonged together in spite of everything.
‘I think I actually said something different but just now I don’t care what it was,’ she said.
The group that had been talking about American wars of aggression had dispersed, perhaps while awaiting new ones.
She saw that Hugo’s face was in thoughtful agreement and felt vindicated, and that she had been right to hold out. They were not through with each other.
He touched her arm softly, excusing himself. He had to go and talk to an old acquaintance on the other side of the room, nodded and went. Her eyes followed his back. He turned and raised a hand.
Through festively decked December streets, Ester walked home afterwards. The snow had been whirling down all day. Regular, hexagonal crystal formations, all the same, none like any other.
I’m not going to push it, she thought. Patience. Be refreshingly trustful and libertarian. Simply wait for him to get in touch. He’d probably gone to buy that book and would call her about meeting up, so he could give it to her. You couldn’t pick out a book for somebody you knew to have been paralysed by yearning, someone with whom you’d moreover had congress, if you didn’t mean something by it.
Don’t push it now, just wait.
Christmas came, the second Christmas she had spent doing nothing but dwelling on her own feelings, her longing and her lack of appetite for life.
New Year came. She thought positively.
Twelfth Night came. She thought long-term. Don’t push it. Patience. Just wait. He had chosen a book for her and you didn’t do that without feeling and meaning something. He had appreciated their conversation at the Christmas party. He was still in Malmö. There was an endless succession of public holidays to get through.
She thought the next step would have to be taken with great care after feelings had been so raw. They could not rush into anything this time and they could not make a casual mess of it. This time it had to be done properly and their contact had to be fostered once it had at last been made. So it was only natural that he did not get in touch.
Fifteen days into January and a telephone as silent as the grave. She found that she was furious with him. How could he say he had picked out a book in a shop window for her if he did not want something else as well? One simply couldn’t do that with their history still fresh in the memory.
The girlfriend chorus said: You aren’t familiar enough with human guilt-control mechanisms, intricate, sensitive, continually duping our ‘real feelings’. They’re intended as a salve with dual effect, relieving the conscience of the one and the torment of the other. They only become cruel when somebody decides they should be converted into action. The words are performative, said the girlfriend chorus’s academic element; one of them was writing a thesis on J. L. Austin. They are their own action; the utterance of the words of guilt control is what constitutes the guilt control. They are not intended to represent a reality outside language. That is not their intention, any more than the question ‘You won’t ever leave me, will you?’ is about the future rather than the present.
When the girlfriend chorus persisted, Ester said it was doubtless right but she had to believe something else to be the case in order to hold out. If there were the least chance of a more positive interpretation she planned to stick with that until she was disproved.
Sixteen days into January, she called him. He did not answer but of course he could see from his display that she had rung and would therefore ring back shortly.
Two days passed. He didn’t ring back.
There was nothing she could demand of him to alleviate her anguish. Talking for twenty minutes at a cocktail party did not amount to any kind of commitment. Picking out a book one intended to buy for a person one had slept with almost a year ago only meant that one was not hostile.
Why did she nonetheless consider that some kind of obligation had been placed on him? Why did she feel that her broken-heartedness was legitimate?
Ester was completely clear on the following:
Hugo Rask was not under any obligation to love her.
Being loved was not a right.
It was stuffy old honour culture that thought courting a woman or sleeping with her imposed obligations, and even more so if you came back after the first sexual act for a further two nights’ union of the flesh. But that was the way she thought, even so. She saw very plainly that this was how her logic worked. Was she taking refuge in an outdated gender role particularly suited to the purpose of dealing with her disappointment? Shouldn’t she rise above such fusty old notions about man’s duties to the weaker sex?
She tried turning the idea round and wrote an article on the topic, which she sent to a periodical. Honour culture should not be understood as a deliberate curtailment of freedom but as the result of an observation of something entirely fundamental in human life: the fact that one has no right to run away from the wonderful thing that formed between two people who have come close to each other. Out of this sense of propriety, the old norms of behaviour had developed organically, she wrote, to prevent the suffering that results from lack of clarity and equality. Having intercourse with another person brings responsibility onto the scene, the deeper and more naked the intercourse, the more far-reaching the injunction. Honour culture had understood this and regulated it. Its aim was hardly to sentence two individuals to carry on meeting against their wills just because they had started, the way it was rigidly interpreted today, nor to keep women suppressed and supervised. Those were side effects. The crux of the matter was to induce people not to start associating in the first place if one party knew that he did not wish to be involved with the other but planned to toss her aside.
These codes for the conduct of the flesh and the emotions were not about honour, she wrote. Honour was a rationalization, after the event. It was actually an attempt to protect people from becoming mere playthings for thoughtless others. Do not hold out any prospects to the hopeful party that you know will not materialize!
Over time, the codes had been uncoupled from their original insight and had come to be falsely interpreted as demands for female virtue and decency. But the principles would have been gender-neutral if the world had been, too. They were merely a defence against what the superior position inflicts on the inferior. The holder of the superior position is the one with least to lose. And in order to implant this shield against negligence and thoughtlessness, a detailed structure of regulation was created in which everyone knew what was expected at every stage. Chastity became one component and a spontaneous result, but it was not where all this originated. Honour culture was about entirely different matters. It was instituted as a defence against people wilfully helping themselves to other people.
The article was refused.
January came to an end. People and things advanced through the winter. One weekend in February she was going to another party. She felt little enthusiasm for the event and therefore set off late. In the hall in her shoes, hat and coat she observed with some surprise that her hand was reaching out for a DVD and putting it in her bag. It was a film that had been lying about at home, one that she had borrowed from Hugo exactly a year ago after one of their long sessions at the restaurant near his studio.
Instead of walking to the stop for the part of town where the party was, her legs walked her to the stop for the number 1 bus at the corner of Fleminggatan and Sankt Eriksgatan. She would just return the DVD. She could walk on to the party from there. The film was Gaslight. He had said how marvellous it was and wanted her to see it so they could discuss it afterwards. S
he watched it twice, straight through, so she would be really well prepared with interesting reflections, but the opportunity never arose because very soon after that they went to bed and stopped talking.
She recalled the moment when their warm fingertips met as the film exchanged hands, and the spark that it generated.
She’d have to give it back sooner or later, she thought. She needed to clean him thoroughly out of her system and her apartment. She would just hand over the film and then go. You can send it by post, the girlfriend chorus would have said, so she did not consult any of its members.
Ester got off the bus at Karlavägen, walked the short distance to Kommendörsgatan, rang the bell and was admitted by the same assistant with paint-stained trousers who had opened the door that first time she came to borrow a video artwork and he had not wanted to let her in. That was exactly fifteen months ago. Ambitious, she thought, working alone on a Saturday night. This time he recognized Ester but looked at her with a slightly uncomfortable expression that she could not read. It looked like sympathy. She did not understand why and did not think it could have anything to do with her.
‘You know the way.’
He fluttered an arm in the direction of the stairs.
Hugo Rask was leaning on the bar counter in the kitchen with Eva-Stina and a glass of red at his side. Even on the stairs Ester could hear their laughter. It was Saturday and almost seven o’clock. Two colleagues staying behind at the end of the day’s work, nothing peculiar about that, but Hugo remembered her name now. They did not look surprised when Ester came in, but rather blasé. They were both smoking cigarettes, which he had never done with Ester, except that time at her apartment when he had smoked five. The smoking contributed to the impression of nonchalance. Eva-Stina was not looking sideways this time, but tended more towards the condescendingly forbearing.
‘Here’s that film I borrowed,’ said Ester, noting that her movements and speech were too hurried, giving a self-effacing, servile impression.
He took the film, seemingly not recalling that he had lent it to her or that they had talked about it, put it on a shelf and said:
Wilful Disregard Page 12