Review of project through interview
The user of this idea was representatives of a capitalist system. Rich and inaccessible people. But the project needed to be seen from another perspective than mine. Since this idea contains of layers connecting to Swedish sociology, history, economy and culture. It was relevant to find a person who could not only understand the idea, but relate to the temporal, social and cultural contexts in which it sits.
I asked a man who works at Region Kalmar County with Communication strategies and Regional Development. He is currently also undertaking a one year Master’s in Communication for Development at Malmö University and is moving on to take a Master of Science in Social Policy and Practice at Trinity College, Dublin.
I thoroughly explained the background and idea for this project, showed the interface and explained the possible extension of putting it in a contemporary context for interaction.
In what ways could you see that this idea could create consciousness of class in Sweden and/or initiate a discussion, reflection or feeling?
It could do that as an exhibition or as one of those viral challenges on social media. Unjust and unsustainable ways of living are often unconscious. In Sweden we still have a self image of being at the top of the world regarding equality and sustainability so this could really be an eye opener and a concrete way of showing how to live solidary lives together.
How do you feel about the contrast of imagining the extremely wealthy operating in an exaggerated echo of Sweden’s social democratic welfare state. Is the contrast recognizable?
Yes, it is. It should have been paper forms, haha (this remark is based on Sweden’s exaggerative use of paper based bureaucracy, particularly under the welfare state). But the interface is echoing the early 80’s, and the earliest computers, which is great.
The poor have had to adapt, apply and seek help in order to survive in a capitalist society, and now the rich have to do the same to survive in a socialist one. Some of them who will lose their stuff will think it is unfair and will now get the chance to reflect on how unfair it has been to others.
In this extended version, where the idea is taken out of its more speculative state and put in a contemporary one where you can compare yourself, what comparisons do you think could create the biggest insights?
I don’t think that I necessarily had reacted to the comparison, but would rather have an eye opener that I am so much worse than I thought. At first you would realise that you are so much worse than you thought and then compare yourself and realise that there are a few that are even more in the wrong.
At the same time I think that many have an idea that the super rich are »bastards« even if you don’t know exactly how or what they do, you know. The thing that could have the most effect is when our middle class and upper middle class finds out that we are worse than we thought. We who think we are so remarkably aware.
Do you think there is a purpose to develop this part of the idea towards that kind of target audience? The more affluent upper middle class?
Yes there can be a purpose for doing that. We are more people than the rich. The rich might have a bigger impact on the environment, but we can influence democracy if more of us open our eyes. Maybe we can vote for change.
I recently read about the possibilities of voting for change in Sweden. Göran Therborn has claimed that in Sweden the entire connection of the political system in our civil society is failing due to many reasons, two of them being the membership and loyalty of parties decreasing. »Hopes of ordinary party politics to change class society should be shelved.« (Heuman 2019). However, Therborn further states that it is more likely that popular protest movements can mobilise political parties than the other way around, as the parties are too caught up in the system. Causing these gaps to increase in the first place. Obviously this project can’t solve these problems.
But maybe light a spark. An activist movement. As long as you are aware of class. That is one thing. To do something about it is a totally different thing, that means renouncing power and money for the benefit of others and if you are stuck in the same train of thought you will have a worse life. But if you rethink–changes ontology? What if this could make us shift our ontology and remove ourselves from the idea that you only have an exchange value? That we have to compete and grow, and instead be in a more relational ontology where we care for each other and cooperate.
Based on what you just said »if you are stuck in the same train of thought, you will have a worse life«. If we return to the project, for example the emotional journey, that is mainly negative, but ends with a small green-like fragment of hope for positivism. What happens there? I thought of it as the user just resigning to reality and conforming as a good Swede. But could they be shifting ontology? Can you force someone to change ontology?
That depends a bit on how you force them. We force people today to maintain their worldview through culture and media without us noticing it, we are reinforced by it every day, without reflecting on it. We have only had this ontology of separation since the Enlightenment, so we have had other things before and in other parts of the world you have other ways of looking at the world, so it is just a construction.
What makes it so difficult for so many people, is to give up what you have.
But in the speculative part of this project, it is all gone, the world ended, there is nothing left, is there not a chance then?
Interesting. If everything outside our exact place or existence was obliterated, and there were no shops, jobs, etc. Only our little piece of land left. Then we would have to start calling around to the neighbors and share practical burdens, become more relational.
If you came on board Aniara and would live your life in this, you seem to want to live in a relational communal [gets interrupted]
I have earned some money that I have worked up which is mine and if I was forced to give them up to the public, I would know that I had the opportunity to earn this because I was privileged from the beginning, so would not have had any problem with that. But then I ask myself the question: why don’t I take 50,000 SEK of my money tomorrow and give it to someone else. If my thinking works that way, then so do other’s, you do not want to share something you have earned, at least not voluntarily. But when you do not have a choice, it is not that bad, but clearly you need to have that analysis. Without the analysis I would have been infernal. Had I not known of my own privilege I would have become angry.
Our society tells us that it is more of a shame if someone has had 50 and now only has 20, than someone who just had 5 all the time.
How do you feel towards this idea of forcing level 5 passengers to share 100% of their assets?
This entire idea is unjust, but it is shaped that way to reach justice. Since it has been unfair in history it needs to be unfair the other way around in order for it to become fair in the end.
The only concern is the work, what is the perspective on working? Everyone can not work as much.
That will be firstly based on your entry level, but the system is based on balance and equity so it would take all aspects into account, but I do not know how to regulate it.
If anyone works more efficiently? Do they not contribute as much?
That is something this particular project, at this phase, can not regulate. But the premise is some kind of balance. Maybe you should not work hours, but carry out a specified portion of the work etc.
Analysis:
This interview let me know that this idea could have potential if it was reworked towards a broader audience. The project can provide a lens to the Swede’s who may not have the power to change, but the possibility to influence.