Can identity be defined without giving too complicated an explanation?

It is not easy to give a single definition, because there are thousands in sociology, in psychology, in politics, in the street… Anyway, I think they are not so far away. My use of the term identity is based on the psychosocial approach: what we are for others and what we are for ourselves, to the extent that we are for others. What we identify with others is identity and, at the same time, what sets us apart from others. I think it's a game that happens within the social structure that we live in.

I would say that today it is not very well valued that it is an identity.

We came from the nation states that were born in modernity. When these systems were created, all policies had an omnipresent character, that was the main trend: to create complete and uniformizing systems. Today, however, things have changed. Current systems require difference and diversity in their core; building the difference allows consumption, since its internal logic is built around identity. So for democracy to be real today, it needs color, it has to make a difference.

Are those who are not identitarians no longer excluded?

At one time – in modernity – differences were systematically expelled; Africans, witches… Today we are looking for some of these differences to be comfortable within the system. For example, in the film Ocho surnames vascos (Ocho surnames vascos) we see the difference between the Basque and the Basque. These differences are ridiculous, well delimited, not conflictive… They are integrated. With homosexuality, something similar happens, the system makes a great effort to move from difference to integration.

However, you speak of anomaly. Is that the difference that is not integrated?

That's right. In relation to this last example I mentioned, we have queer theory. I think it's an attempt to keep that difference: queer theory is an attempt to remain an anomaly. A constant exercise of saying to the hegemonic identity “I am not like you”.

Brought to Euskal Herria, what?

Yes. To what I think is a Basque anomaly I have called Euskal Hau. That's indefinable, what's always open and what we're always defining, an exercise that never ends. So I say that Euskal Herria is not an identity in itself, but a difference or an anomaly within that system. Why? Because we're not yet a complete system. Of course, the same logic that queer theory is given in our environment, not so radically, but basically we call identity: I'm anomalous, but I'm also your equal. I myself am a complete system, dominated, marginalized, fragmented, but the ontology I give myself is that of identity.

She has used porn and post-porn to explain well what she said.

I use porn to explain the difference: our dances, our customs, our ikurrina… With this we become another complement to the main identity, which I think is identity porn. But when we say, we're not just that, we're this other and we're just as much identities as you are. That's post-porn, for me. Post-porn sexual practices escape conventional porn, but at the same time they have a framework, they create a system that questions official pornography. That's what I think happens to Euskal Zer.

Can the Basque State be the way to build that post-porn practice?

Yes, I place the need of the State there. I am not saying that I am on the side of the State, because the State is not an indispensable instrument for living together. At the moment, however, it can be a useful tool. However, it doesn't have to be the same for everyone, it has to explain in the background what a statue wants. As is often thought, it is not that we are better than Cantabrians or Galicians, that is a racist argument. We want a state because we are different, because we have built a uniqueness in history and we need a political structure that we continually invent.

What jeopardizes the hegemonic identity of the Basque anomaly?

The main virtue of anomalies is their ability to undress identity. Anomalies question identity: you are also a historical issue, you are not an intrinsic issue, in history you have emerged in a violent way, you are an invention, you are the result of a relationship of subordination... And as a result, we are an anomaly and we disagree with the place that has touched us. In this way, we highlight the nature of the hegemonic identity. On the other hand, having an anomaly is not easy, it is very hard and we have to rest many times in the difference.