Gay men are carrying a history as being suspected as potential pedophiles and non-suited parents, and while the reproductive technology of transnational gestational surrogacy makes it possible for gay men to become parents within heteronormative logics, the constructions of families without a mother are looked upon as problematic at best. Through field observations and interviews with gay men, who have been or who are involved in transnational surrogacy I explore how gay men fragmentize the notion of the mother in to several positions. The article argues that the gay men are reproductive vulnerable and are negotiating and fighting for the possibility to become legible as parents inside a heteronormative and homophobic framework. This relies on their ability to diminish the mother. By activating and using misogynic and colonial discourses and strategies, the gay men eradicate the kinship positions of the surrogate and the donor, thus giving discursive and affective life to gay men's possibility to embody motherhood and parenthood.
The nations of Soviet Union. The coexistence and distraction of cultures (the literary output of Ludmila Ulitskaya)
After the October Revolution different nations were forced to live together on the area of totalitarian Soviet Union. Their history got worse after the Second World War when Soviet soldiers and especially Stalyn were considered as winners and in this way they cold "colonise" new countries. Their citizens wanted to regain freedom in the 60's and 70's od twentieth century. They were called dissidents. One of the most famous modern Russian writers who presents these subject matters is Ludmila Ulitskaya – the representative of new realism whose books have been translated into 25 languages. In her novels and short stories she concentrates mainly on the silmilarities and differences between The Russians and other nations being under communistic control. Ulitskaya shows that some of them wanted to keep their identity by looking after their own tradition, religion, customs. The novelist tries to prove that it is possible to coexist with each other if you respect different habits and culture and if you desire to communicate with others using constructive dialogue.
Der er rav i den. I skrivende stund (medio september 2016) er det i Dagbladet In- formation kommet frem, at psykiatriske diagnoser til børn nogle gange stilles på et meget løst grundlag. I en kronik underskrevet af 50 psykologer, sygeplejersker, læger og psykiatere står der blandt andet:
»Som læger og psykologer har vi stillet diagnoser på børn på baggrund af andres vur- deringer beskrevet kort i patientens journal, og andre gange har barnet mødt mange forskellige behandlere på sin vej til en diagnose. Mange af disse børn er i forvejen sårbare i forhold til at danne nye relationer, og de bliver mødt af en psykiatri, hvor der ikke længere er mulighed for at skabe den relation, der skal til for at forstå barnet.«
Nogle børn har, med andre ord, fået stillet en diagnose, uden at de har mødt en læge, psykolog eller psykiater. Det får naturligt nok debatten til at rase. I relation til den verserende debat er fokus for dette nummer særligt rettet imod tre forhold: Den politisk fastsatte udrednings- og behandlingsgaranti. Den organisatoriske ramme skal kunne håndtere denne garanti, og selve den måde hvorpå diagnoser- ne stilles. Baggrunden for behandlingsgarantien er først og fremmest et politisk ønske om hurtigt at stille diagnoser, så patienten kan indgå i et behandlingsforløb - i sig selv et sympatisk ønske, der dog løber ind i en række problemer og utilsig- tede konsekvenser, når den skal eksekveres i praksis, som det fremgår af lægernes debatindlæg. Et centralt omdrejningspunkt for de ophedede diskussioner, som avisindlæggene har medført – og som allerede nu har fået politiske konsekven- ser – er samtidens omgang med, forståelse- og brug af diagnoser. Diagnoser er på alles læber for tiden. Diagnoser har, som den amerikanske medicinhistoriker Charles Rosenberg skriver, "altid spillet en væsentlig rolle i den medicinske prak- sis" (Rosenberg 2002: 237) som et værktøj/model, der sammenfatter symptomer og fund og angiver behandling. I vores samtid er diagnoserne imidlertid rejst ud af den medicinske praksis, og de har indlejret sig i alle mulige andre sammenhænge: Sociale, politiske, økonomiske, kulturelle og så videre. Et væsentligt spørgsmål i denne sammenhæng er, hvordan vi skal forstå diagnosernes nuværende status, hvordan de tillægges mening, udvikles, defineres, anvendes, og hvordan diag- noser får indflydelse på konkrete sygdomsforhold og på processer generelt, som spiller ind på, hvordan vi opfatter sundhed, krop og behandling.
This article concerns uncertainty, which is considered by many social theorists (forinstance, Zygmunt Bauman, Ulrich Beck, Daniel Bell, Eric Hobsbawm) to be a charac-teristic trait of the contemporary world. Uncertainty is produced by rapid, multidimen-sional changes in the conditions around us—by their instability and unpredictability—and by a lack of future vision. Continual change becomes an element of everyday life.Culture understood as a collection of permanent meanings, norms, and values loses itsordering function—it no longer serves to elucidate the world; the past does not providehelpful examples. There is an expansion of mutability, a multiplicity of possible choices,and an excess of information—which paradoxically, like its lack in an isolated society, isa cause of uncertainty, fear, and presentist thinking. In Polish society, these phenomenaare strengthened by tradition and the sense of economic insecurity accompanying thesystemic transformation.
