Episode 32 A thought that thinks more than it thinks

Last week I staged a tug-of-war between Society and The Individual, and I let Society win. This week I explain why with reference to a friend’s response to my first book. As I said to my friend, the book analyses homophobic attitudes in a women’s university field hockey club. I told him one of the things I commented on in the book was that the team members I spoke to depicted their lesbian acquaintances as expressing sexual desire. Their straight teammates were never described in terms of their desires. Sexual desire became a dividing practice that separated out gay and straight.

OK, said my friend. I’ve got lots of lesbian friends. I’ll let them know to be careful about expressing lesbian desire.

Why would you do that?

I want to make sure they aren’t discriminated against even more than they already are. You’re telling me that talking about desire makes them vulnerable to exclusion. So I’ll make sure they know about that.

No, no, no! I said. I didn’t do this research to force individuals to change.  It’s the social structures that need to change.

But Jodie, said my friend, I can’t do anything about social structures. But I can talk to my friends – as individuals – and suggest things that will make their lives better.

Well, maybe my friend can’t do anything to change social structure. But I certainly can. I’ve spent several podcasts personifying Society, and now I have Society on speed dial. One quick phone call later, Society and I are having a conversation over lattes.

ME: Society, why don’t you allow for the possibility for uniqueness and individuality?

SOCIETY: Actually, I’m perfectly capable of doing individuality. But there’s a procedure for it. You can just go straight in when it comes to individuality.

ME: There’s a procedure?

SOCIETY: Yes. Look at this transcript of a conversation in which Ally, Sammy and Chrissy are talking about the trials for their hockey team:

SOCIETY: There’s all those people trying to get into the hockey team. You can’t instantly construe them all as individuals. It’s too complex. So you have to sort and filter. You separate out ‘the better players’ from those that aren’t very good ‘half of them…’ And then you can have your individuals. ‘I looked at you and thought…’

ME: Yeah, but the thought one individual is having about another here is that she’s a good hockey player. She’s not a unique individual there; she’s merely a token of a type of person, a ‘good hockey player’.

SOCIETY: Look, that’s the way I operate. I create categories. Individuality is then about identifying with one of the categories. Once I’ve identified with a category, I can’t think outside it. I can’t think the unthinkable.

ME: Levinas says ‘A thought that thinks more than it thinks is a desire.’

SOCIETY: Stop throwing Levinas at me.

ME: Tell me a story about desire.

SOCIETY: OK. Here goes, if you’re so insistent. Here’s a story about one of the people who didn’t get into the hockey team, Jen. She’s construed by other members of the hockey team as expressing desire.

ME: Society, isn’t it interesting that the desiring character is the one who doesn’t fit in to the desirable category? If I’m going to convince you to make possible the idea of uniqueness and individuality, I’m going to have to look at the characters you imagine but then reject.

SOCIETY: I hate it when you start analysing those characters and categories I reject.

ME: Sorry about that. Next week the lattes are on me.