The Columnist Issue 7 by columnistmagazine

THE COLUMNIST I S S U E

M A R C H

2 0 1 7

(TO THE OTHER SIDE)

BREAK ON THROUGH

Barricade on the rue Soufflot, Horace Vernet (1848).

C O L L A B O R AT E W I T H T H E C O L U M N I S T We â&#x20AC;&#x2122;r e lo o k in g fo r wr ite r s , illustr ator s, and editor s for the com ing a c a d e m ic y e a r ! F o r m o r e in fo r m a tio n , p l ease follow us online: h ttp s ://w w w .fa c e b o o k .c o m/col umni stmagazi ne h ttp ://w w w .c o l u m n i s tm a g a zi ne.co.uk c o l u mn i s tma g a z i n e @ g m a i l .com

Cover Illustration by Francis Scott Davies

Editorial: Framing a Realignment BY RILEY KAMINER

Welcome to your magazine. We now find ourselves in a period of realignment. The political cycle has moved from the endless drone of campaign rhetoric to the beginnings of tangible policy being put in place. Long-accepted norms have been challenged, and our society’s values tested. Hope has been met with discouragement. Enthusiasm with pessimism. Anticipation with dismay. ‘The Youth’ have been pushed to interact more critically with the surrounding world than ever before, and the response has been vocalised through the tools of the 21st century. We have learned how to leverage the connective powers of the globalised world – the only real home we have ever known – to fight for the principles that we hold dear. This issue of the Columnist highlights some of the tangible ways in which students are confronting this recalibration of the global political system. However, in a time of post-truth and alternative facts, the editors felt as though expressing our authors’ political, social, and cultural opinions was not enough. ‘Virtue signalling,’ or the expression of one’s views with the primary intention of enhancing that person’s social standing, has become commonplace. It is easy to be swept along by university groupthink, but that is paradoxical. University is an intellectual bazaar in which ideas should be openly exchanged. Any student who avoids meaningful conversation suffers a two-fold loss: neither adding to the discourse nor confronting the opinions of others. To combat this mentality, we have sought out writers and illustrators who take pride in challenging the status quo. Their yearning for a more equal, just, and prosperous world is achieved through a diverse range of tactics and approaches. From creating awareness of issues within our own community, to actively protesting policy that is happening thousands of miles of way, the reader will hear from students who are grasping the future with their own hands. They stand unafraid. And the Columnist is proud to present the following ideas, and actions for further debate. Let your voice be heard!

T H E C O L U M N I S T S TA F F EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

CURRENT AFFAIRS EDITOR

CREATIVE DIRECTOR

DEPUTY EDITOR, SOCIAL COMMENTARY

CULTURE EDITOR

HEAD OF ILLUSTRATION

COPY EDITOR

STRATEGIC ADVISER

Riley Kaminer Louis Goss

TREASURER

Lisa Wang

Maeve Hurson Lydia Watson

Shona Warwick

Jessica Bonehill

Vivian Uhlir

Scully Lynch

Contents

Current Affairs Special Frenemies

p.6

From Post-truth Politics to Post-political Truth Léopold Salzenstein

p.8

Martyna Napierska

Le Pen, Macron, and the New Politics of France

p.10

A Modern Revolution in the Chinese Banking Sector Ya Shu

p.12

9 9 P ro t est s an d M a y A in ’t On e

p.14

Francisca d’Etigny

Maddy Churchouse

Social Commentary

The Gender Troubles of Language Adela Briansó

p.16

The Power of Nonviolent Protest Victoria Belton

p.18

Religiosity of the NHS Samuel Henshall-West

p.20

Nude Beaches: The Tetazos of Argentina Paula Blanco

p.24

We Can’t All Be on the Right Side of History Lindsay Hushin

p.25

Re-appropriation, Representation & Re-presentation Vivian Uhlir - Mekhala Dave - Louis Goss - Beck Tait

p.26

Culture Judeo-Christian Values and Sexual Ex(o)pression Kayla Robbins

p.30

The 21st Century’s Hare vs. Tortoise Complex Francesca Adkins

p.32

Art as Project: Rethinking Artistic Labour Lauren Hawkins

p.34

Creative Activism: The Need and the Radical Potential Chris Belous

p.36

You Don’t Need to Be a Ballerina to Understand Ballet Rebecca Rosser

p.39

How We Are Seen Angus Leung

p.41

I L L U S T R ATO R S Ananya Amarnath

p.35

Nikita Jha

Isabel Barfod

p.21

Alanah Knibb

Katherine Cassidy

p.15, 32, 33 & 40

Francis Scott Davies

p.11, 22 & 23 p.24 cover

Maddy Churchouse

p.14

Lucy Southen

p.19

Duhita Das

p.31

Beck Tait

p.28

Eleonore Dambre

p.17

Vivian Uhlir

Joshua Green

p.9, 13, 41 & 42

p.6 & 7

Special Frenemies BY MARTYNA NAPIERSKA

Illustrations by Joshua Green

Recently,

the world’s attention fell to the ‘Land of the Free’, where President Trump and his administration have surprised the world with controversial policy after controversial policy such as a travel ban on seven Muslim countries. Both in the US and the UK, as all over the world, outrage broke

_____ Britain.

out as stranded travellers were detained at airports in America. People mobilised to protest almost immediately, just days after the travel ban, in solidarity with Muslims and refugees who no longer feel welcome or safe in the US. Consequently, a political fever has reached its peak in the European and British diplomacy sectors as everyone

is trying to dissect what will happen to the UK-US ‘special relationship’ which for decades’ has formed the foundations of the British-American politics. The ‘special relationship’ came to life in 1946 in an enthusiastic outburst of friendship between the US and UK after the Second World War. Originally used to describe an exceptionally close relationship on the grounds of politics and the economy, it soon included all shared military, cultural and diplomatic bonds. Most importantly, the UK and US share an understanding of similar values, beliefs, and enjoyments of civil liberties. Freedom, democracy, and universal rights brought us into cooperation in Normandy as military allies and transatlantic trade partners. The state of the relationship under Obama’s administration could possibly be described as a closeness of military and economic ties, rather than a kinship of leaders. Etonian David Cameron, with his conservative economic ideologies, did not have very much in common with the progressive nature of Barack Obama. The US President felt that he did not want to be bound by the relationship and during the Ukrainian crisis in 2014, Obama prioritised working alongside Germany and France to resolve the Russian aggression. Obama made sure to not stand indifferent during UK’s vote to on European membership and expressed his disappointment when Brexit became a reality, as-

suring Britain that a trade deal is at the back of the agenda now that the UK is not part of the union. Nonetheless, the special relationship enjoyed the heights of an increased trading partnership, as export and import data suggests that during Obama’s presidency, the closeness of our trading improved, which reflects in the $23 billion increase in exports alone. Whilst the Trump administration already jeopardises a large part of the ‘special relationship’, by prioritising a rhetoric of selectivity, the people of the UK and US united in protests and demonstrations which spread across the world in disapproval of Trump’s administration. Around five thousand people gathered on Edinburgh’s Royal Mile in a protest march only days after the seven-nation travel ban which halted predominantly Muslim minorities in airports in America and around the world. Likewise, in Washington, the women’s protest, directed at Trump’s sexism and opposition of his presidency, has been declared the largest protest in the history of the US. This leaves Theresa May in an impossible position of diplomatic gymnastics. Decades of mutual agreements, military ties and trade deals weigh on May’s approach to Trump and she must consider what benefits are in store from a continued or even strengthened relationship with the US now that Trump is president. Although economists claim that the main impact from the strengthened economic ties in the UK would be increased inflation as a result of a stronger dollar, most experts suggest a positive turn for the UK — as US growth accelerates, UK importers could enjoy the same increase in business. An important benefit for the UK would be if Trump really held onto his promise and prioritised

the US-UK trade deal which faced a major halt under Obama’s rule. Now that the UK is not bound to its European members, a bilateral USUK trade deal could electrify the UK auto, gold and crude petroleum export business now worth more than $106 billion, as trading tariffs and regulatory barriers would no longer apply to our American partners. In 2014, there was an almost $588 billion US foreign direct investment in the UK, and a special deal could grant the UK even bigger financial backings. Such investments are especially valuable for the UK, as a ‘cold hard’ Brexit shuts the UK’s door to the largest economy in the world, and no special membership to its single market, a blow that the UK will certainly feel. Now, even if Theresa May decided to prioritise politics over the p economy and denied Trump the UK state visit, Trump already announced that as a result of a court restricting order which temporarily lifted the travel ban, he will soon introduce another, reworked immigration policy, illustrating that on this issue he has his mind clearly made up. Considering that so far, his administration has not been prone to amendments due to international pressure, it is unlikely that he would change his course of action for May. Furthermore, a trade war with Mexico and a restriction on deals with China means that Trump would surely still be willing to go through with a special UK-US trade deal, as the two states simply do not have much of a choice if they want t o

remain important business actors on the international economic scene. The ‘special relationship’ for years provided, above all, a special economic bond which allowed the two states to expand and flourish. Now that this relationship is tested in a confrontation of political values, May does not have much room to complain in the light of Brexit, just as Trump cannot afford to lose his strongest importing partner when Mexico and China are slipping away from his economic grasp. The inevitable Trump state visit should therefore be used to cement the vision of a trade deal that will act as an economic lifeline for both countries.

Make America _____ Again.

From Post-Truth Politics to Post-Political Truth BY LÉOPOLD SALZENSTEIN

From

the Brexit referendum to the election of Donald Trump, many commentators have pointed at the media’s failure to defend the truth. Katherine Viner, Editor-in-Chief of the Guardian, argues that the British citizens’ vote during the Brexit referendum was misled by false information. As proof, just an hour after the results, UKIP leader Nigel Farage conceded that, contrary to what had been claimed during the campaign, the UK would not gain £350m a week to spend on the NHS after leaving the EU. Later, the MP Tory Daniel Hannan stated that immigration was not likely to be reduced either. Politicians lied to an unprecedented extent, and people still voted for them. For Viner, the reason for the failure of the media to hold politicians accountable is due to its lack of control over legitimate information. She blames fake news farms, which attract clicks with erroneous reports that are designed to look like real news. Moreover, the marketisation of information and the competition for audience encourages some neglectful newspapers to publish sensational headlines quickly: rather than; a breeding ground for falsehoods and rumours. Fake news is then widely shared by social media, giving them as much credibility as well documented facts. Ultimately, it is the idea of truth itself that seem to

be under threat. ‘Why can’t we defend the truth?’, journalists asked themselves. Because we live in a post-truth society, surely. Designated ‘Word of the Year 2016’ by the Oxford dictionary, ‘post-truth’ has recently been under the spotlight. Popularised by Viner, the concept states that ‘when “facts don’t work” and voters don’t trust the media, everyone believes in their own “truth” – and the results […] can be devastating.’ It seems to commentators that presenting documented facts no longer convinces people - the vote is instead directed by their beliefs and gut feelings, regardless of evidence. First posttruth, then chaos. In response, editors quickly found the silver bullet: fact-checking. When Trump stated that the media was ‘under-reporting’ terrorist attacks in the United States, The Guardian, BBC and The Washington Post, among others, published thorough analysis of Trump’s omissions and lies. In parallel, writers criticised social media, (i.e. Facebook), for helping to spread erroneous information. These efforts are commendable, but they miss the point altogether. Recent political results are not so much a symptom of the end of truth but rather of the incapacity of mainstream media to remain grounded in the reality of people’s life. As media columnist Jim Rutenberg puts it

ur r ent affair s

in the wake of Trump’s election: ‘[we failed] to capture the boiling anger of a large portion of the American electorate that feels left behind by a selective recovery, betrayed by trade deals that they see as threats to their jobs and disrespected by establishment Washington, Wall Street and the mainstream media’. Fact-checking cannot replace confrontation between opinions and ideologies. Obsessed with defending their credibility, some mainstream news outlets end up becoming the watchdog of a post-political truth. Too busy hunting fake news and defending their objectivity, they forget that defining the truth is, in itself, a political exercise. Unfortunately for them, the truth they define is increasingly out of touch with ‘the anti-establishment mood that is turning the world upside down’, as Rutenberg puts it. For Patrick Michel, this is because ‘[mainstream media] fails to link their loss of credibility with their deep ties to a political and economical establishment heavily criticised.’ It is not that people don’t believe in truth anymore, but rather, that journalists no longer relate to their audience. As Rutenberg states, ‘all the fact-checking of Mr. Trump this year […] bothered [the American electorate] far less than the perceived national ills [he] was pointing to’. Fact-checking is certainly nec-

Illustration by Vivian Uhlir

essary, but correct facts by themselves have never helped us understand the world: they only make sense when interpreted through an ideology. Mainstream information is produced by an increasingly small group of people with a similar background and set of beliefs, out of touch with important parts of the population. In the United Kingdom, 80% of online and printed press is controlled by five news companies. According to a report from the Media Reform Coalition, Rupert Murdoch and Jonathan Harmsworth alone own over 50% of British pa-

pers sold. Such a level of concentration inevitably prevents any diversity of truths to be expressed by most newspapers. The concentration of press ownership and the collusion between some media outlets and the establishment seems more pertinent to explain media’s recent failure than the concept of ‘post-truth politics’. It is not by checking facts that journalists will better understand their audience’s vote, but by analysing the political reasons behind it. In order to understand people’s truth, the media needs to get closer to

ur r ent affair s

them: as Media Reform Coalition concludes, ‘If we want to see elections and referenda […] covered in a way that does not favour the most powerful voices or the status quo, then we need to change media ownership rules.’ For Zeynep Tufekci, ‘Mr. Trump is […] a symptom of the mass media’s growing weakness, especially in controlling the limits of what is acceptable to say’. But is guarding a single, apolitical truth the role of the media in the first place?

Le Pen, Macron, and the New Politics of France BY FRANCISCA D’ETIGNY

Uncertainty is on the rise as

the French presidential elections rapidly approach, with the hitherto favourite candidate, right-wing leader François Fillon, caught up in a scandal. The first round of the elections is to take place on the 23rd April, after which the two candidates with the highest share of votes will compete in a second round. As the two traditional right and left wing parties crumble under party divisions, political scandals, and widespread scepticism from the electorate, the second round is likely to feature two non-traditional candidates — Marine Le Pen and her anti-establishment party Front National, and Emmanuel Macron and his newly created progressive party, En Marche! While Le Pen is predicted by most pollsters to win the highest share of votes in the first round, Macron is the new favourite for the second round. The old Left/Right dichotomy is now obsolete. The new divide pits populist nationalists against liberal cosmopolitans. While this trend has been under way for quite some time, it is reinforced by the replacement of Fillon by Macron. Macron, much like Fillon, endorses economic liberalism as well as strong support for the EU. However, while Fillon shares with Le Pen a certain moral conservatism and has tried to appeal directly to catholic sentiment, Macron is a liberal in both economic and social/cultural

terms. Benefitting from the anxiety created by the US elections, Macron is gathering the votes of those who are coming to define themselves in opposition to what Trump and Brexit represent. Putting these anxieties to good use, Macron poses as the opponent to such conservatism, portraying himself as the defender of a forward-looking, economically open, and socially progressive Europe. Le Pen’s vision could not be more different. Her project is a nationalist one. The nation state is seen as only the appropriate locus of political sovereignty and legitimacy. Rejecting the EU for its economic inefficiencies, political failures and lack of democratic credentials, Le Pen envisions a ‘Europe of sovereign nations’. Cultural and civilisational questions are core concerns of hers, as shown by her stance on the necessary assimilation of immigrants. Moreover, while economic stagnation and terrorist attacks are key factors of her success, Le Pen’s rise is also the result of a rejection of the liberal and multiculturalist values associated with elites and embodied by Macron. A battle of ideas is on between the two opposite visions of society and its future - the Le Pen versus the Macron future. These nationalists versus liberal cosmopolitan lines will determine the election. Both leaders have benefitted from the backdrop of widespread scepticism toward

ur r ent affair s

established politicians. They both claim to lead anti–establishment parties. Yet, if Le Pen’s vision would indeed radically challenge the status quo, Macron’s project remains much closer to that of France’s mainstream political parties than it has been portrayed. An even greater supporter of the EU, as shown by his many declarations on the need for further integration, his support for the creation of an EU Minister of Finance and for the ratification of CETA, Macron remains in line with his predecessors. Macron’s challenge to the system has been more based on his image as a young, new, and uncorrupted politician, rather than in terms of having an actual political programme. For France, a Macron future would likely look a lot like the present. For the EU however his election would be a sign of France’s commitment to the Union and rejection of the paths taken by Britain and the US. A Le Pen future, on the other hand, would be an embrace of the latter. In accordance with her anti-EU stance and critique of neoliberalism, Le Pen would take France out of the Union, implement economic protectionism and radically decrease immigration numbers. She would, in other words, shake the whole foundation of the Union. Macron’s rise makes it clear that the division within French political life is one between nationalists and liberal cosmopolitans. However,

while it intensifies with Macronâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s rise, this rift is not new. Most of Macronâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s key positions have been those of the two traditional left and right parties that have been taking turns in power for several decades, if not in terms of their discourse then in terms of their politics. If Fillon seemed to somewhat distance himself from the liberal cosmopol-

itan line, he has now been thrown into a political scandal from which he might not come out standing. Macron represents a breath of fresh air to a system that is suffocating. But he still represents it, perhaps better than anyone else. The real challenge comes from Marine Le Pen. Le Pen has risen to oppose a homogenising political spectrum,

bringing about the new political divide. It is the rising success of her anti-establishment/nationalist project that has turned the rift between nationalists and liberal cosmopolitans into the single most important division in French political life.

Illustration by Nikita Jha

ur r ent affair s

A Modern Revolution in the Chinese Banking Sector BY YA SHU

In February 2016, Apple Pay, a

payment service that enables customers to pay by mobile phones, entered the Chinese market. Although mobile phone payment has not been popular in China, the booming Chinese market attracted the Apple Inc to join. The total mobile transaction payment in China increased almost 51% in 2015. Before Apply Pay participated in the third-party payment market, Alibaba Group’s Alipay and Tencent Holdings’ Tenpay occupied almost 80% of the market share, but the popularity of iPhone in China has helped Apple Inc. to promote their payment services. There is one difference between Apple Pay and other third-party payment methods. When customers link their bank card information to their mobile devices, money will remain in their bank cards instead of being stored in their Apple accounts. Because of this, banks and networks can keep track of transactions. This is probably why Union Pay, which is the largest payment and clearing network in China, is willing to cooporate with Apple Pay. Internet finance is a new type of financial business model based on internet technology and information communication technology which facilitates financing, as well as payments and investments. It has been quite popular in China since 2000 and has brought a lot of challenges to the traditional banking sector, especially the four biggest stateowned banks. There are three main three main ways through which internet finance is conducted in China: third-party payment, peer-to-

peer and crowdfunding. Taking the third-party payment as an example, mobile payment devices by Alibaba Group not only take the profits from banks by obtaining transaction fees but also collect more useful information on their customers, which is a competitive edge in the ‘big data’ era. By cooperating with Apple Pay, Union Pay gathers more information on their customers and helps banks promote their market targeting campaigns. The deposits and loans business, the main business for Chinese banks, have also been hugely impacted. In 2014, Chinese private online financial organisations such as Alibaba’s Yu’e Bao and Tencent’s Licaitong raised a whopping 250 billion yuan (£30b) in just seven months. State-owned banks have been losing profits as Alibaba’s and Tencent’s private assets management companies have been attracting deposits. As for the loan business, the development of peer-to-peer platform (a platform that allows individuals to lend loans directly) gives loans to companies and individuals who cannot borrow from banks, which supports small and medium sized business. On the one hand, internet finance challenges the traditional banking sector and restrains its profits growing, but on the other hand, internet finance accelerates innovation. For example, some of the small-sized Chinese banks have launched money market fund products similar to Yu’e bao (the money market fund owned by the Alibaba Group). So far, most state-owned banks have mature online services and multifunctional apps to make financial

ur r ent affair s

products more accessible to the public. Technology has also been added to the employee training session. Besides innovation, the banking sector has looser regulations from Chinese the government. For example, the revolution of interest rate marketing now allows banks in China to set interest rates step by step. Regulations for the banking sector have been strict for a long time, but the development of internet finance has accelerated the development of market economy, letting the market force play a bigger role. Behind the competition between banks and internet-based firms is the clash of two different cultures. The traditional banking sector is often regarded as risk-averse, conservative and slow: ‘too big to fail’. In contrast, the internet firms are more likely to be risk-tolerant, innovative and fast. There is no right or wrong way to conduct finance. Innovation can change customers’ habits and their demand for financial products and services. However, it can also spark high-risk activities, which undermine financial stability. So the key point is to balance between innovation and risk. Internet finance is not the opponent of traditional banks, but a tool for financial institutions. Banks can keep up with tech upstarts and use internet development to provide better products services to their customers. In the recent future, the traditional banking sector in China will join hands with internet finance and financial innovation and development will be more adaptive than ever.

Illustration by Vivian Uhlir

99 Protests and May Ain’t One BY MADDY CHURCHOUSE

T he lamentation that ‘student protest is dead’ has become a

choice complaint of media pundits in recent years. 2017, however, has thrown the inaccuracy of this nostalgic construct into stark relief. On a bright morning of late January, over 2,000 pink pussy-hatted individuals sang in unison outside the United States Consulate for the Women’s March. The nearly four thousand women who turned out on a cold Monday evening the following week to march at a snap protest against what has been dubbed the ‘Muslim travel ban’ saw their efforts repeated not once, but twice, within the coming fortnight. By participatory numbers, these demonstrations are the largest to have occurred in Edinburgh since 2014’s Independence Referendum, and utterly dwarf all other left-wing protest of recent memory. The semi-regular anti-fascist rallies of Unite see turnouts in the low hundreds at best, as do even the largest of university protests, such as the 2015 fossil fuel divestment campaign. Yet the success of the Women’s and ‘No Muslim Ban’ marches are not signs of increasing engagement with British social and political issues. What united this month’s marches was not a concern for local issues, but their roles as satellite protests of parent marches in the United States – specifically, in opposition to the policies of President Trump. That Britain shares strong cultural and political ties with the US makes it natural to view the political situation across the pond as a barometer by which to gauge the development

of societal issues at home. Our voracious consumption of American media, alongside our media’s feverish coverage of US politics, gives American attitudes more influence here than those of any other nation. It is a cliché of British political discourse to use prominent debates in the United States – whether in terms of ethnic tolerance, welfare provision, or gun control - as foils with which to reassure ourselves of the moral high ground. Britain’s government may be upholding ethically questionable immigration policies and punitive austerity measures, but at least we’re not as bad as them. This is deeply problematic when the very policies for which the Trump administration receive so much criticism have counterparts which are already being carried out here in Britain, without even a modicum of the political opposition. May’s decision this month to defund Dubs, a scheme which was to resettle 3,000 unaccompanied refugee children within Britain, smacks of the same heavy handed bigotry for which Trump is currently a pariah amongst the British left. Yet May has already done worse: last month, the Asylum and Immigration tribunal ruled that as Home Secretary May had a staggering 48 000 students unlawfully deported, following government claims of widespread

English language test fraud which have since been proved false. Even as you read this, thousands of British families are experiencing legal turmoil as Brexit threatens the ability of their loved ones to retain UK residency rights, in a manner reminiscent of the uncertainty faced by many American dual citizens and families in airports last month. That the British ‘No Muslim ban’ protests had a component concerned specifically with the relationship between Prime Minister May and Trump did not counteract the overwhelmingly USA-centric nature of the protests. To be frank, it was subsumed by it. Meanwhile, the ‘1 Day Without Us’ demonstration, which stood in solidarity with migrants in the UK, failed to attract even a thousand people in Edin-

Illustrations by Maddy Chuchouse

ur r ent affair s

burgh’s city centre. Dubs and the student deportations, unlike the ‘Muslim ban’, will not be receiving protests. May’s greater political experience and competence than her US counterpart allows her to pass policies without working at loggerheads with the establishment, or attracting mass media attention through teeth-jarring twitter gaffes. Nonetheless, that British immigration policy follows due process does not absolve said immigration policy of a moral compass. It is inspiring that Trump’s actions have resulted in massive public action; it would

be better if we could now focus the same sharply critical gaze upon our own leadership. Following the blows struck to liberal ideals and leftist organisational capacity by the marginal vote for Brexit and the ongoing dysfunction of the Labour party, an obsession with denigrating American politics seems to have become a band-aid for the left’s disillusionment with its own ability to effect political change within Britain. Yet a future which threatens the security of our friends and colleagues is not an inevitability, until we believe that one particular policy in one particular version

of Brexit is a forgone conclusion of a still nebulous, un-planned and un-negotiated future. An immigration policy which condemns children to terror and abandonment is not unchangeable dogma, until we forget that the reason political opposition exists is to subject ‘dogma’ to constant change. Now, more than ever, we must remember that democratic protest -- when translated into media influence, the actions of our MPs, and the voting habits of our communities -- is the very stuff which political change in our nation is made of.

Illustration by Katherine Cassidy

ur r ent affair s

The Gender Troubles of Language BY ADELA BRIANSÓ

T he Spanish language is in crisis. Whilst fighting against the use

of Anglo-Saxon words - incidentally, countries like Puerto Rico and Venezuela seem to have given up on this, with their citizens mixing Spanish and English on a regular basis - a new problem has taken root. With the increasing rise of feminist concerns, Spanish speakers face the challenge of using Spanish in a gender-equal way. It is not only about the language, of course. In a country of traditions like Spain, the path towards gender equality has been long and turbulent. Universal suffrage was first approved in 1931, and first exercised in the 1933 general elections; however, it was abolished just a year later, during Franco’s dictatorship, following the Civil War in 1936. To put this in context, the UK allowed all women to vote in 1928. During Franco’s regime, elections were abolished for decades. Thus it was only after the dictator’s death in 1975 and the transition to democracy, that women and men had equal opportunity to vote. Inequality was tangible beyond electoral rights: at school, my father studied Politics, while my mother took sewing lessons. Sons were prioritised to study at university above daughters. Men were, with few exceptions, the breadwinners, and women stayed at home. A history of inequalities is not easy to undo and today, the glass ceiling takes the form of unequal pay, domestic violence, and gendered stereotypes.

Today in the Spanish-speaking world, citizens realise that Spanish is not the most accommodating of languages. All nouns are either male or female, and articles, adjectives, and some verbal forms are gendered accordingly. While kitchen is feminine (la cocina), car is masculine (el coche). As such, gender-aware individuals wish to reconcile progressive values and language by using Spanish differently. This would be a much easier task if every other word were not gendered. From an optimistic perspective, however, the gendered nature of Spanish gives its users (400 million native speakers across two continents) the opportunity to invent a way to escape sexism in language. In other words, language can be a platform for change. This particularly feminist concern begins when one wishes to speak regarding a mixed group of men and women, as the rule is to use the masculine plural form as all-inclusive and neutral (nosotros to mean ‘us, men and women’). But the inclusion of women under men’s umbrella is exclusionary for the former, adding to a history of discrimination. In practice, there are a few options to combat this. The simple answer is to double every gendered pronoun and noun to specify that one is referring to both men and women. That way, ‘nosotros’ (‘we’) becomes ‘nosotros y nosotras’, ‘profesores’ (‘teachers’) turns into ‘profesores y profesoras’, and ‘contentos’ (‘cheerful’) into ‘contentos y contentas’.

so c ial

om m entar y

However Spanish linguist Mercedes Martinez argues that this practice over-complicates language. With the rise of social media, a new tendency spread during the 2000s. Many experimented with ‘@’ (nosotr@s) and ‘x’ (nosotrxs) as all-inclusive, gender-neutral alternatives. However the unusual combination of letters disrupts the flow of the text. Moreover, these only work in written Spanish, leaving the feminist question unresolved for spoken language. Significantly, the use of ‘@’ and ‘x’ is not recognised by the Real Academy for Spanish Language’s (RAE) as ‘official Spanish’. However, the weight of RAE’s rules regarding gender is questionable, and not everyone agrees with their decisions. It is worth pointing out the alarmingly low number of female members in the Academy (8 in 43), or the fact that there has not yet been a female RAE director since its creation in 1713. The lack of solutions to reconcile language and feminism comes as less as a surprise considering the RAE’s composition. The language debate is undeniably political. Since its creation in 2014, the political party Podemos loudly entered the Spanish political arena. It began a cultural and political war: traditions versus transformation. Unidos Podemos (former Podemos before it merged with United Left) is an anti-austerity, environmentally-concerned, pro-social justice group that now governs many local authorities and is repre-

Illustration by Eleonore Dambre

sented in both national chambers. The party proposes a new way of doing politics based on citizens’ participation and ‘real democracy’. Equally, Unidos Podemos has promoted gender equality from within: a significant portion of the party executives are women (although the two main leaders are both men). Furthermore, some Unidos Podemos officials have decided to apply feminine endings to pronouns regardless of who one is referring to. This trend has led to situations in which male party leaders speak of ‘nosotras’. The rationale behind this is to counter the use of masculine forms referring to female subjects by doing the opposite. Despite the good intentions, there is something dangerous in the subtle way that

this attitude silences women. First, it risks simplifying the complexities of gender inequality to the use of masculine or feminine forms of language. Second, political male leaders speaking of ‘us women’ should make all feminists cringe, as it is impossible to ignore that men are the ones in power. Coming up with alternatives to fight against sexism within language is crucial. But saying “nosotras” to reach gender equality is somewhat exclusionary as well. Getting stuck between ‘o’ and ‘a’ ignores everyone who falls outside the categories of woman or man. Of course, understanding gender beyond a binary is a different battle. Partly due to the strictly binary nature of the language, it is likely to take longer

so c ial

om m entar y

to begin in Spanish-speaking contexts. Besides, not all feminists agree with the problematic nature of language. ‘Of course feminism is important, but we also need to protect the integrity of Spanish as a language’, argues Martinez. None of the alternatives above are good enough ways to fighting against sexism. The struggle to look for a gender-equal use of the language goes on, and is likely to do so for a while. Without a doubt, discussing the gender troubles of language is beneficial, as these concerns become part of the ongoing process of moving towards more egalitarian societies. In the meantime, we, nosotras y nosotros, will keep trying.

The Power of Nonviolent Protest BY VICTORIA BELTON

Time has told that effective pas-

sive resistance tends to not only affect changes in the moment. Its pulse trickles down through time, rushing fervently through the veins of future generations. In contrast to those pursuing a cause through violent means there exists clusters of persons consciously developing a universalistic, humanist cause for political transparency, impartiality and integrity. I do understand why people turn to violence. I found myself tensing my fists when Donald Trump announced both his delightful Muslim ban policy and his approval of the construction of the Dakota Access pipeline under Lake Oahe, running beside Sioux Standing Rock reserve land. However, I also recognise that in times of despair it’s important to take a step back and critically assess a situation. One must ask, what means of action do I have to obtain the result I want? Often the adversary has the means to inflict a more drastic violence than oneself. What weapons could the Sioux, and those who joined them in solidarity, muster up that could cause greater bodily harm than the police could, with their attack dogs, mace, grenades, batons and tasers. However, utilising violence anytime one is upset seems strategically counterproductive. Violence can offer a justification for retaliation or further repressive action by

governments and may antagonise third-parties who might have otherwise offered support to the resistance. And as previously mentioned, means affect the success of ends. If the means being relied on are arms, for example, it is probable that governments will be armed with more powerful weaponry. Research has recently been done comparing the effectiveness of violent to that of civil resistance, focusing on the period 1900 onwards. This research was published in Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan’s recent book, Why Civil Resistance Works. Their research concludes that if democracy and overturning a repressive regime is an objective, non-violent action is a much more successful plan of action and has over double the success rate of violent insurgencies, with the success rate of non-violence steadily increasing and the failure rate of violent response simultaneously increasing. In an extreme case, such as authoritarian regimes, their research reveals that it takes sustained engagement from 3.5 per cent of a population to topple an administration. However, that objective has been achieved with an ever smaller per cent of population participation. Chenoweth and Stephan determined that the reason that civil resistance success rates are so high tends to lie in the number of people

so c ial

om m entar y

involved. Every movement that has received greater than 3.5 per cent population participation was non-violent. Non-violent campaigns are generally more representative of group diversity across populations; particularly along the lines of class, gender, religion, race and level of education. Their level of participation is also much less dependent on all participants being able-bodied, as non-violence requires less physical strength. With higher numbers of people involved, people fearful of the consequences of their counteraction are more likely to get involved as they tend to find comfort in numbers and the cloud-cover consequently provided. A recent example of mass participation in civil resistance was the Women’s March on Washington and the associated women’s marches across the world on 21 January, 2017 , in which more than three million people globally gathered to protest. The New York Times reported that the Women’s March in Washington had three times the turnout of Trump’s inauguration. This is reminiscent of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in 1963, when over 200,000 people gathered by the Lincoln Memorial to hear Martin Luther King speak on demanding equal rights for African Americans. Civil resistance can take many forms—from protests to boycotting

Illustration by Lucy Southen

to demonstrations—although all actively pursue change. It doesn’t just take place in the pursuit of government overthrow, but rather for a variety of social objectives. Gandhi is a good place to start considering non-violent resistance. For example, one can consider his actions in South Africa in the early twentieth-century against the Black Act and the Asiatic Registration Bill, which restricted the presence of Indians in the Transvaal by placing restrictions of their freedoms of movement and ability to trade; or the Salt March in 1930, where Gandhi walked for 241 miles to the village of Dandi on the sea with 78 followers. He proceeded to pick up British-owned salt which lay on the beach as an act of resistance against the British colonial administration. This seemingly modest gesture marked the beginning of India’s fight for independence. It was Gandhi’s method of resistance, which he termed ‘Satyagraha,’ (loosely translated to ‘truth force’), that acted as inspiration for later coun-

ter-movements including the Civil Rights Movement in the States. One can also consider the Serbian ‘Bulldozer Revolution’ in 2000, which overthrew the repressive former President of Serbia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milošević; a continuous campaign of civil resistance, in reaction to the suppression of political opposition, the media and NGOs which culminated in widespread protests across Serbia. For the most part peaceful, the revolution gained it’s name in reference to the acts of wheel-loader operator Ljubisav Đokić, who drove his bulldozer into the side of the state radio and television building. Likewise, consider the Arab spring uprisings that broke out in Egypt and across other parts of the Arab World, in for example Tunisia and Yemen, which led to the resignation of ruling parties. Then there’s the Dakota Access Pipeline protests at the Standing Rock Sioux reservation, consisting of a spiritual resistance aimed at preserving Sioux Indigenous cul-

so c ial

om m entar y

ture, land rights and water safety. At Standing Rock, thousands of Indigenous and non-Indigenous allies came together to peacefully protest against corporate irresponsibility, whilst officers strip-searched Indigenous women in front of their male colleagues and violently restrained people with batons, mace and other violent means. The protests led the US Army Corps of Engineers (CoE) to refuse to grant the pipeline construction permit. Irrespective of Trump having recently approved the project, the protests were successful in that they gained worldwide attention for the cause. In other words, many people are angry. The hope is that, dissident voices going forward will put pressure on the Republican Party at large. So, if in the last century civil protests have had higher rates of success at resisting regime repression, mobilising supporters, forming new initiatives and establishing more concrete democracies, why not continue to make that our focus?

Religiosity of the NHS BY SAMUEL HENSHALL-WEST

The NHS is the opium of the Brit-

ish people. It is an echo of idealism from a non-existent past. To most, the name evokes powerful notions of unity and equality; the grassroots growth of society’s evaluation of human life – that your access to care and medicine should not be determined by your wealth. I claim that the NHS is the inviolable state religion drowned in myth and dogma-it has stolen the aforementioned ideals and is thus free to denounce proponents of alternatives on moral grounds first, before engaging in further discussion which would consequently be partisan from the start. In the beginning, there was the creation myth. The Beveridge Report recommended that ‘the state should not stifle incentive, opportunity, responsibility; in establishing a national minimum, it should leave room and encouragement for voluntary action by each individual to provide more than that minimum for himself and his family’. Yet the commencement of the original National Health Service Act assigned the state as the monopoly provider of healthcare overnight – against the people’s will. Notwithstanding, in retrospect one might claim that the government was ‘ahead’ of public opinion and acting in their inter-

est – likely an additional falsehood. Health and social care had been improving expeditiously since the industrial revolution due to the truly grassroots mutual aid societies and cooperatives Beveridge alludes to in the prior quote. The point of failure was that charities had not been able to achieve the universal ‘national minimum’. While there is no doubt healthcare did continue to improve after the introduction of the NHS Act, it may be misleading and presentist to attribute these positive long-term trends over a relatively narrow window to the Act itself. Moreover, attempts to rationalise the government’s domination of the healthcare sector as the conclusion of competition is not true. The government used its authority as legislator to impose itself as the majority healthcare provider. This incestuous coalescence of powers led to serious conflicts of interest and rewrote the rules on what politicians could explicitly promise the electorate. The ‘national minimum’ became the national average, where voluntary members or consumers became taxpayers who didn’t want to pay twice; the bottom-up institutions were muscled out and succumbed to artificial competition. Individuals who previously could independently

so c ial

om m entar y

vote for providers with their wages, and for the legislators with their ballot, were forced to merge the two, leading to less individual agency on a new, more chaotic political landscape. It would be impractical, if not impossible, for the government to vertically integrate the NHS, or to exclude private contracts all together. Combine these with the demand for some independence of the management of the NHS and the result is greater complicity between the political, commercial, and bureaucratic elites. This is not without precedent: if there were omissions that might have excused the creation of a monolithic state healthcare provider they largely originated as a result of the preceding National Insurance Act, championed by doctors as it was a stratagem to undermine the friendly societies that negotiated their fees as an intermediary between them and the patient. The faith is not without inconsistencies. There are innumerable studies, surveys, and reports evaluating the NHS and other countries’ healthcare systems. Understandably, media consumption based on political affiliation will essentially characterise one’s exposure to a particular ideologically compatible selection of facts – and to claim ‘facts are

‘The NHS is the opium of the British people.’ -SAM H. WEST

nhs helpline t 0800224488

Illustration by Isabel Barfod

facts’ when reading the reported summary of a study is too simplistic. Studies often place priorities on different criteria, and will therefore intrinsically favour some systems over others, particularly as countries integrate health and social care, and the wider welfare provision in entirely different ways. Rather than put faith in rankings or claims of overall ‘efficiency’, one should compare specific aspects of care: waiting times; mortality; hospital infections; readmissions; specialist (e.g. cancer) care; etc. Presently, where transparency can be extracted, the data is either inconclusive or reveals that the NHS is some ways behind Europe and the rest of the developed world. There’s an irony that in dis-

cussing centralised healthcare one discovers that attempts to compare healthcare models necessitate arbitrary rankings of importance and incur costly losses of detail, where the conclusions often contradict the elementary statistics themselves. Of course, there are doomsayers and predictions of cataclysm; that if the NHS was abolished, or seriously reformed the sick would crowd the streets and the Black Death would return, whilst the fat cats profited and slept tightly in their palaces. But the NHS, and the wider welfare state, will be forced to reform further and scale back their promises regardless; due mostly to the ageing population and a greater variety of treatments it is a mathematical cer-

so c ial

om m entar y

tainty. Centrally planned services are notoriously sluggish to adapt to new technologies, yet such advancements, particularly personalised and digitalised medicine, present an opportunity for the return of the community driven voluntary sector, a commercial sector, and Beveridge’s ‘national minimum’ that the state should guarantee, but not itself provide. We must cast aside the unaccountable bureaucrats and the platitudinous politicians; disguised as priests they are in fact necromancers animating a ghoul that it is time to lay to rest. In the year of the Reformation’s quincentenary the state religion must reform; we just need a new Harry VIII.

With Warm Regards by Nikita Jha

Nude Beaches: The Tetazos of Argentina BY PAULA BLANCO

‘To the joy of the ‘boobpho-

to show the same amount of skin. So how come there are countries where the practice of being topless is seen as something ordinary, while in Argentina the police force has to get involved when women show some skin? I think the problem here, lies in the fact that Argentinian society has a very sexualised vision of feminine breasts. We constantly see the almost-naked bodies of models with boobjobs on TV and in magazines, images accepted by the mass public. But when the breasts are real, exhibition becomes obscene. This

Illustration by Alanah Knibb

bics’, we’re leaving. Cheers to the fascist beach!’ With that phrase, three women left a beach on the coast of Buenos Aires, Argentina, on Saturday 28th of January, because they were not allowed to sunbathe without their bikini tops. They were asked to leave several times by almost twenty policemen and women who had arrived answering the complaints of both male and female tourists. The three ladies claimed that they had smaller breasts than many of the people present, and they did not see what was wrong in what they were doing. However, the police threatened to handcuff them and take them to the police station. After a tumultuous argument between those who supported them going topless, and those against, the women decided to leave. But this matter did not end there. Subsequently, there were protests, called tetazos, in several cities throughout the country. These involved women walking topless through the streets, asking for sovereignty over their bodies, calling for equality and aiming to put a stop on the censorship of women’s bodies. Famous personalities — actors and politicians — showed their support on social media, and an unprecedented debate started as to whether women should be allowed the same rights as men regarding their bodies. I have never considered myself a feminist, and I often disagree with what most feminists argue, but I believe that this could be the first step towards allowing women the right to be topless in Argentina. Having been to beaches in Europe, it is not rare to find women without their tops, and I am not talking about nudist beaches but simply those where men and women are allowed

means that I, as an Argentinian, live in a society where erotic nudism by provocative women is celebrated, while natural breasts are repressed. The same happens with breastfeeding. In a similar incident last year, two policewomen asked a mother to leave a park because she was breastfeeding in public. Even one of the most tender and affectionate acts, a woman nurturing her baby, is sexualised. Furthermore, there is the underlying issue of equality between men and women. While we have moved towards more equal rights - the pay gap has been reduced and women are achieving increasingly powerful positions in society (just consider Argentina’s ex-president) — when

so c ial

om m entar y

we look at the way bodies are viewed, women find themselves in a position of inequality when compared to men. What is lacking is the power of women to possess autonomy and make decisions about their own bodies without taking into account other people’s opinions. Surely this can’t happen from one day to the other, but at least the debate is open to achieve gender equality, which won’t only benefit women but the society as a whole. Whether the protests were the proper way to express themselves or not is also open for discussion. Recently, even some of those in favour of women showing their breasts on public beaches have spoken against the topless marches that were organised across the nation. Some more radical arguments have involved men saying that they should organise marches showing their naked bodies in response. Personally, I do not know if it was the right thing to do. I first thought that it was slightly provocative, but after seeing the reactions it caused and the effect it had on the overall society, I realised that it was the most efficient way to fight for something that we all inherently should find natural. Overall, I believe that this event created general consciousness around an issue that was always silenced, especially because this time, the protests had support from men as well. This time it was not just a small group of people but instead it was talked about around the world from Spain to the United States making it a worldwide phenomenon. Society is starting to reject the commercial and sexualised use of the feminine body. I hope these women are heard and Argentina becomes a more just and democratic society.

We Can’t All be on the Right Side of History BY LINDSAY HUSHIN

‘Funny how those people who go crazy in pub-

lic and start breaking things are never shouting about the environment or something?’ a friend said to me while we stood outside a shopping centre in Dundee, as she pointed out the place where a man had begun smashing up parked cars and screaming racial slurs a few years prior. To some extent the Dundee hooligan is simply matching in actions the rhetoric that runs through the politics of today. Whilst rhetoric by its very nature aims to inspire within the listener powerful emotions, these strong feelings can in some cases lead to outbursts like the one above, while in other cases can result in the polar opposite. Currently the political climate in the US is inspiring strong rhetoric of all sorts – whether it be hateful personal attacks concerning race, gender, or bodily autonomy or inspiring calls to action, for those against a Trump-led government. However, the rhetoric coming from right-wing politics in the States and rhetoric that comes from the left are not simply opposite views. To claim that they are is to accept the false comparisons and poor metaphors that crop up in our wider political conversation. From politicians to journalists to the angry commentariat of Twitter, pitting the right and left against each other as diametric opposites has equalised the rhetoric from both sides where they should not be equalised. This false equation is particularly apparent in regards to the recent large-scale protests against Trump’s ill-fated new government. These peaceful protests have been met with various local bills, proposing consequences for those gathering and protesting, justified by some vague fear of destruction of benches and the like. These protests – the women’s march, protests from scientists, and general anti-Trump rallies – are not really the kind of events one imagines would realistically turn into chaotic free-foralls. Yet the comparison persists, likening a protest to a riot in an effort to turn the public against even allowing them. This method of equalisation is also apparent in the tactics of the Trump administration. When asked about the innumerable lies that come from Trump every day, Kellyanne Conway unhelpfully reminds the interviewer that Hillary Clinton can also lie, as if

so c ial

H I S T O R Y

these two subjects were even relevant to discuss together; especially considering Clinton has been on an extended nature walk since the election, while Trump is in charge of major US policies. This is a relatively benign example, as any backlash from this asinine comparison is unlikely to stir anyone into a frenzy of hatred, but in many other instances these logical fallacies have given rise to particularly harmful responses. This outlook was typified by one particularly tone deaf comment written by a young man on my Facebook, which lamented the fact that people may have been late for work due to street obstructions. Ah yes, someone finally taking that aspirational ideological stance of valuing the efficiency of getting to work on time over the value of giving space to those protesting human rights transgressions committed by the government! The interesting point here is that there were few, if any, reports of incidents at any of the recent rallies in the states and beyond. Equally the rhetoric of these events has been largely inclusive, progressive, and if they single out any individual, it’s Trump, the politicians and the right wing speakers that surround him. Compare this to the man on the street, preaching on an overturned plastic crate, bible in hand, condemning you to hell if you’re gay, who is definitely not interested in a reasoned response. The kids driving around in their pickup truck shouting (or shooting) at every non-white person they see and the seething folks outside the sexual health centre hurling abuse at the women inside. These people aren’t starting a viable dialogue. It is these violent personal attacks, often inspired by the ideology of the far right or coming from the swampy corners of the internet, that reveal the hostility built into the right wing’s current rhetoric. The elitist coastal bubbles of liberal thought that conservatives love to shout about, don’t tend to give rise to hate crimes and personal attacks (save for the occasional All-American Nazi punching), and yet we are expected to see this rhetoric as in equal opposition to that of the right-wing. So, next time you hear Kellyanne Conway sidestepping the interviewer’s probing, question the extent to which a real equivalence can be made.

om m entar y

Re-appropriation,

Representation & Re-presentation

An Introduction BY VIVIAN UHLIR

The modern consumer is no stranger to our culture of satirisation and tributes, remixes and samplings. The creative world operates in a feedback loop, constantly borrowing and reworking itself to inspire new content. This begs the question - as our writer Mekhala Dave does - as to the legal and ethical implications of this practice. Where do we draw the line between legal and creative ownership, and what does this mean for the creative process as a whole? These questions extend to the sphere of publishing and journalism. As part of the editing process, working with authors will invariably lead to new understandings and a refinement of the original content. Meanwhile, incorporating illustrations allows for tangible expressions of the same themes through an entirely new lens. Between author, editor, and illustrator, the same central ideas are re-worked and ‘re-appropriated’ into something wholly original. Resulting from this chain of inspiration and cross-communication is a meta-commentary on the artistic process and the re-appropriation of creative materials. The Columnist is pleased to present this post-modern Socratic Dialogue on art appropriation, conceptual ownership, and the power of re-interpretation.

A Writer’s Inspiration BY MEKHALA DAVE

‘Given the long-standing shadowy operation of post-modernism, there is still much debate about its demise and there is transcendence of time into the arena of biopolitics.’ ‘Anish Kapoor’s autonomy over the darkest shade of black dubbed as Vantablack is the result of moral rights which infuriated the art world. His legitimacy over the materiality expresses control over certain resources which should ideally be at the disposal of society.’

so c ial

om m entar y

An Editor’s Interpretation BY LOUIS GOSS

Postmodernism, in a vague sense, attempted to break down the structures and narratives of modernity. The movement took on art, film, literature, architecture and nearly every other form of culture in the western world. The so called ‘Pictures’ generation, a group of artists in the late 1970s and early 1980s, were no exception to this trend. Their method of deconstruction was to simply take photographs of the photographs they perceived to embody the grand narratives of modernity. In doing this they ‘re-appropriated’ these photographs, changing their initial meaning. Through this method, a photograph of the wife of a depression era Alabama sharecropper, was re-appropriated as a feminist critique by prominent, ‘Pictures’ generation artist Sherrie Levine in 1981. While the image did not change, the meaning was transformed. In a typically postmodern way, this re-appropriation of a depression era photograph, challenged notions of originality, authorship and intellectual property. In essence, it raised the question of who owns a photograph of a photograph. Obviously there is something more to the photograph than just the physical object; as such there is undeniably some abstract intellectual quality related to the photo which would exist in reproductions. However the question is, who owns this abstract quality and can it even be owned? This of course raises the question of whether the original photographer owns their own photo. After all, the photograph is of a real subject who surely owns their own image. This notion of re-appropration can be seen in the work of Scottish artist Katie Paterson. After graduating from Edinburgh College of Art, Paterson started working on her project, Campo del Cielo, Field of the Sky. The art project took an iron meteorite from Argentina, melted it down, and then recast it, in its original shape. This subtly transformed the meteorite into a piece of art. Again, the real subject is transformed into art through the appropriation by the artist; however, in the case of the ‘Pictures generation,’ this is taken a step further when the subject itself is a photograph of a subject. However, in each case the ‘owner’ of the art is the appropriator. This would suggest that the value in art is related to the creative process rather than the material reality. This abstract notion of ownership goes even further: the Indian-born British contemporary artist, Anish Kapoor claims ownership over a whole colour. Vantablack, supposedly the darkest shade of black ever created, is legally owned by Kapoor who prevents others from using it. Vantablack, developed by British company Nanosystems is the extreme logical conclusion of notions of intellectual property and thus should maybe lead us to question them.

so c ial

om m entar y

The Illustration BY BECK TAIT

so c ial

om m entar y

The Illustratorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Approach BY BECK TAIT

Colour is creativity. What happens when colours become owned by individuals? The recent controversy surrounding Anish Kapoorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s sole use of Vantablack granted by Nanosystems showcases how colour strikes a chord within artists and the public alike. This illustration is a playful take on quite a serious issue: the commodification and patenting of colours that should be free for all to use. Colour represents creativity, possibility and adventure. To siphon off sections of the spectrum and claim ownership of colour is to stifle the creative arts. An art world that is closed, with commodity and value at its core, is not an art world that inspires wider society to create. An art world filled with patented colours leads to commercial/private value taking the centre stage, rather than form, ideas and substance. Who has the most expensive colour? Who has the colour that is most wanted? Who has the colour no one else can use? Claiming ownership of colour is by no means a new phenomenon, but it is a modern one. The French artist Yves Klein patented International Klein Blue in 1960, causing similar controversy. The spike in commercial value for works of art despite the financial collapse and mass austerity has distanced the majority from the minority in the art world. The patenting of colour can only create further distance: where is the encouragement to make art when the colours one wants to use may be owned by someone else, another artist just like them? Colour represents freedom of expression and as such it needs to be free, and always remain free.

so c ial

om m entar y

Judeo-Christian Values and Sexual Ex(o)pression BY KAYLA ROBBINS

My Google search history as a

teenager can be definitively categorised by the web destinations they predominantly led me to: Pottermore and Urban Dictionary. The first can be attributed to my fervent, evangelical zeal for all things Harry Potter and the second to my utter lack of knowledge of sexuality and how to express it. ‘What’s the clitoris?’ and ‘Does masturbation really make you blind?’ were Google searches archetypal of this stage in my life, conducted of course when no one was home and with the mouse hovering precariously over several other open tabs just in case. This may seem like naivety in the extreme, but I was thirteen. This was the time of Taylor Swift! Retainers! The Twilight Saga! A time when I had no idea that the term ‘blowjob’ was a terrible misnomer and that oral sex had very little to do with talking. Sex was an abstract, yet enthralling mystery that evoked morbid curiosity within me. Yet given my Christian upbringing in conservative, American suburbia, it proved to be difficult to unravel. One peculiar aspect of American Evangelical Christianity is the existence of purity culture, or the non-existence of approaches to sexuality aside from the dictum ‘Don’t do it until you’re married! Then do it a lot!’. Purity culture is centred around the

idea that sexual expression outside of a heteronormative, marital bond is sinful. Its utilisation of metaphors such as ‘dirty shoes’ or ‘damaged flowers’ to describe non-virgins is reductive; it implies that anyone that fails to meet the mark is tainted or spoiled. Such teachings can become a catalyst for intense guilt and confusion for very human, very normal experiences - like getting a

headache in your crotch when the cute boy in biology smiles at you and consequently can inflict serious harm on one’s sense of self worth and expression. Thus, I rejected this approach to sexuality. And then I came to university. In Edinburgh, I befriended people with a multiplicity with alternative lifestyles and worldviews. New phrases entered into my daily vernacular (‘On the pull!’ ‘LAD!’ ‘Kevin got

ultur e

with who?!!’). I even kissed a boy. Yet, living in a world where waking up hungover in a stranger’s dingy flat or embarking on the infamous walk of shame was the social norm wasn’t liberating. It merely added to the ambiguity of what it means to explore sexuality in a healthy fashion. Here, the predominant principle guiding many students’ sexual ethics is consent – anything goes as long as it’s consensual. ‘Have fun,’ they say. ‘Experiment! Just don’t catch Syphilis, Ebola, or worse, feelings.’ While consent is foundational, I find this approach lacking. To merely confirm a partner’s willing participation is to disregard a more comprehensive sense of his/her wellbeing (mental, emotional, physical) as well as social pressure and imbalances of power. This extremely permissive approach allows for perceptions of one’s sexual partners as mere vehicles for physical gratification rather than full human beings, and is consequently no better than the one I rejected as a teenager. Both share potential to inflict harm on one’s sense of self by reducing his/her value to mere sexuality, and this is dangerous. I want our student body to cultivate a more thoughtful approach that promotes a more holistic or comprehensive view of ourselves and our partners, grounded in mutual

respect for our full humanity rather than our mere bodies and what (or who) we do with them. Like our lecturers, impertinent Hive bouncers, or slow-walking tourists – our sexual partners, from one night stands to lifelong sweethearts, are also people. I’d like to imagine that the boys my friends and I will hook up with are respectful and considerate. The kind that will learn our names, make us pancakes, and recognise our personhood as unique and full as their own. But maybe I’m being idealistic. Given the incredibly complex nature

of humanity, we’ll probably never achieve a complete understanding of sex, let alone agree upon a universal ethic to abide by. We certainly won’t find it on Urban Dictionary. So is there any validity to the belief that in regards to sex, treating others with dignity ought to be a universally applicable starting point? Yeah. I think so. I reminisce about my days as a clueless thirteen-year-old; the retainers, Taylor Swift albums, giggling upon hearing the word testicle in sex-ed. Then I reflect upon an even earlier time when our primary

school teachers doled out instructions like, ‘Listening ears on,’ and ‘Stop eating the paper.’ This time is long gone, but we - the MacBook toting, Top Shop clad, furious partiers/half-hearted degree pursuers of Edinburgh University - could benefit greatly from revisiting these basic principles. Use your words. Treat others how you want to be treated. Be yourself. With these basic exhortations ringing in my ears, I shift my gaze back to the enigma of sexuality and discover that perhaps learning to navigate its mysteries is not so impossible after all.

Illustration by Duhita Das

ultur e

The 21st Century’s Hare vs. Tortoise Complex BY FRANCESCA ADKINS

Recently a prospective

engineer struck me with the question, ‘What value does your English degree have? Why take the time to read when the same sentiment can be condensed and conveyed through far more efficient, digital means?’ After an hour’s hard debate about the educational purpose of literature, with heated appeals to grand-narratives, Tolstoy’s polemics and the Harry Potter series, he came to accept that literature, and by extension the arts, fulfilled his criterion of ‘furthering the human race’. However, his utilitarian outlook caused me to question modern society at large; to wonder if our capacities to appreciate things for their intrinsic value have been lost; and why, in such a fast-paced technological world, this should even matter. The world of 2017 is a testament to evolution, its culture ceaselessly streamlined to maximise flows of information, capital and people. When push notifications will deliver breaking headlines immediately to

Illustrations by Katherine Cassidy

our phones via news apps, we don’t even have to read news articles in their entirety; when we can ‘ping’ people money instantly, we don’t have to deal with the tedious bureaucracy of banks; and improve-

ultur e

ments in modern transport mean tthat even the most remote of areas are on our doorstep. Undeniably, these advancements have their merits. The fluidness of culture, how it can be distilled and exported, has already encouraged m mass-enfranchisement, a growth in education and the spread of multi-culturalism, to name just a few. However, is our proliferating demand for speed spiralling out of control, spurning perhaps a millennial sense of entitlement? The recent cultural backlash of the ‘slow movement’ suggests this is the case, seeking to offset the restlessness of current generations through an emphasis on experience over output. Coined in 1986 by Italian chefs in direct protest to ‘fast food’ and the opening of the first McDonald’s in Rome, the ‘slow food’ movement was born. The philosophy of cooking from scratch is to discover a sense of appreciation through investing one’s time purely in the process; in the escapism of switching off from a busy day to cook, or the satisfaction of layer-

ing flavours and textures to create a dish by oneself. This mindset has suffused into other realms of culture, such as ‘slow fashion’, which advocates timeless, high-quality garments, contradicting the disposable nature of mainstream consumerist culture where trends expire after each season. ‘Slow journalism’, one of the most recent pioneers of the cause, seeks to defy ‘churnalism’, with leading independent publication Delayed Gratification forgoing coverage of breaking news stories and instead following those that have matured with age. Their coverage of stories such as the crisis in Aleppo seeks to tie together loose ends, or at least encourage attention towards stories that are increasingly being overlooked. Their wariness is towards the adverse impact of the inaccurate or low-quality news that is being smeared across social media in a bid to break the fastest; a danger highlighted in the recent ‘fake news’ scandals. The power of false and fast information has become a factor in monumental global events, where people are often too impatient to pause and read the fine-print. This warrants thought on the very premise of evolution, how it relies on self-betterment and successful mutation to advance a species from their previous state. However, what if the need for this mutation is

redundant in modern society? What if we have already hit a comfortable plateau where further development could risk losing something fundamental to humanity? If life becomes such a well-oiled machine, the experience, nuts, bolts and all, could be lost; the sense of achievement in

a dish that took hours to make, or the intimacy behind a story which took journalists days to research. I’m not suggesting that we revert back to the Stone Age - that we rub together our sticks and cook our way back to a slow life - or that we banish digital news in favour of

ultur e

black and white print. But surely there are modern solutions that can protect our creative capacities. An essay by Mark Zuckerberg published this February defends globalisation, suggesting we should embrace ‘smaller communities’ and ‘intimate social structures’ on social media platforms, which ‘meet people’s personal, emotional and p spiritual needs’. Perhaps this is an example of how a pragmatic, yet mindful solution can be reached, an equilibrium between tthe competing imperatives of ‘slow’ and a ‘fast’ culture. Maybe the real issue though is that if our lives t are becoming a a trade-off bet tween what we deem ‘valuable’ pursuits a and what we d do not, how can we define c vvaluable when usefulness is so entirely subjective? I may sometimes justify buying convenience food in order to read a book - a worthy priority for an English student - but this higher virtue may not apply to an engineer, who might choose to scan the blurb before studying its composition. At the end of a very long hour, despite taking very different approaches, what he and I did come to agree on is that in all fields of life there is a lot to be gained from relaxing our heightened notion of time; that it doesn’t have to always serve some ultimate purpose.

Art as Project:

Rethinking Artistic Labour BY LAUREN HAWKINS

Iistsncreasingly, contemporary artare recognising and realising

new, more challenging ways of working. Artists are moving away from the pencil, away from the objects that we have been so used to accepting as works of art, and have begun engaging in new working methods to produce work not commonly associated with artistic labour, production or aesthetic. So, what are these ‘new ways’ of working, and how can a ‘project’ be recognised? The artist project usually consists of a long term, artist-led piece of work, with the intention of locating and supporting problems arising in the local community. The project can be recognised as an ongoing social initiative, often taking the shape of shared spaces, the collection of resources such as books, films and music, and the production of public events. Art as project has so strongly removed itself from any traditional notions of artistic aesthetic that it can often be overlooked as being art at all (cue cries of ‘but it’s just not art!’ or ‘they just aren’t artists!’). This is where the idea of work comes into play. Contemporary artists engaging with the ideology of the ‘project’ often reject traditional forms of artistic labour (think of Henry Moore sculpting human figures, or Jackson Pollock with his drip canvases) in favour of adopting more ‘professionally’ creative roles; con-

struction, urban planning, design and social work being most common. In doing so they create active, socially engaged works which greatly improve socio-economic conditions within communities. One artist following this line of practice of doing outstanding work within communities is Theaster Gates. Gates recently won the coveted Artes Mundi Prize, an award which recognises and supports artists dealing with the human condition and social reality. His most celebrated work is his own home and studio, which he has recently started referring to as the Dorchester Projects (2009 - ongoing), located in Chicago’s South Shore. The Dorchester Projects began as Gates’s own home. Over time, and through continual outreach to his friends and community members, the house grew to combine a studio, design lab, rehearsal space, artist residency and communal kitchen. Through the natural expansion of the enterprise, the project developed further and Gates used the revenue gained to purchase the neighbouring houses. One of these was used to conceive the Yamaguchi Library, a multimedia, community focused library and music venue. What is so intriguing about Dorchester Projects is their autonomy; Gates prefers not to classify his projects as he believes this would create social barriers for the public.

ultur e

In an interview, Gates noted that, “As soon as you put the ‘Yamaguchi Library’ on the front, it’s gonna automatically marginalise some people and attract lots of others.” Gates is all too aware that art can alienate people. By allowing the project to develop naturally with community, he avoids producing a body of work people feel unable to connect with. Instead, he creates stable, social solutions for his friends, neighbours and colleagues in hopes of localising contemporary art and utilising the creative capital of the artist. Shifting focus from the US to the UK, a fantastic collective to shine a light on is Assemble, the architectural-turned-artist collective. Through physical and social regeneration projects, the group aim to revive harmony between the disparity of the public and the policy of public space. In 2015, Assemble made headlines when they won the Turner Prize with their project Granby Four Streets. The collective worked with residents and local land trusts to enable the rejuvenation and repurposing of an area of Liverpool torn apart by the 1981 Toxteth riots. The project provided a platform for local residents to rebuild and creatively convert rows of terraced houses in order to save them from demolition. Whilst undertaking physical regeneration, Assemble also worked directly with the community, training them in the skills necessary to con-

tinue refurbishments and instilling positive knowledge foundations long after they had gone. The story of Assemble’s rise to (relative) fame is fascinating. Assemble did not claim to be artists, and before the Turner Prize nomination they did not place their practice within the framework of artistic production. However, it was the overwhelming acceptance and recognition of what they are achieving for induviduals, towns and communities, in an artistic context, which made the team rethink their own practice. Antony Meacock, a member of the collective, stated that the surge of recognition for their work ‘forced

us to reconsider what our practice is and realise that a lot of what we do is inherently artistic’. This should not be read as yet another debate on the identity of contemporary art. Instead, the case of Assemble highlights and emphasises the way in which the ever-expanding definition of the contemporary enables artists to adopt new forms of labour, in attempts to revitalise the definition of community. An issue which rings true for Theaster Gates, Assemble, and the ‘project’ generally, is what they each achieve for community. By providing a collective platform within marginalised and underfunded

communities, these artists are byand-large, creating unprecedented relationships, initiating positive dialogues and opposing Neo-liberal policies. A phrase lifted from the title of one of Gates’s earlier works, which holds a particularly strong resonance for me when considering the artist project and community, is My Labour is my Protest. Artists are working in new and unrecognised ways, and it is through the adoption of new forms of artistic labour that artists can create successful social initiatives. Art as project harnesses contemporary art as a tool, to protest the ever-increasing privatisation of visual culture.

Illustration by Ananya Amarnath

ultur e

Creative A

ctivism:

The Need and the Radical Po tential - C H R IS B ELOUS

Creative activism: the use of

more creative, often artistic methods for the purpose of spreading a political message, amplifying the voices of marginalised people and enacting change. Creative activism is not new or rare. From the DIY zines of the 1990s riot grrrl movement to the decades-old phenomenon of street art and graffiti, activists have been harnessing art for years. Yet the more traditional forms of activism, such as protests and occupations, are often more visible and seen perhaps as more effective. This underrepresentation ignores the fact that creativity can be just as, if not more radical, accessible and necessary, especially with changes in forms of communication through the advent of social media platforms and the ever-present (and obvious, if not always achieved) need for better inclusion. Protests and occupations are valid and necessary parts of activism and their influence is not inherently negative. Yet these more traditional forms of activism are not always inclusive or accessible, which has been highlighted by contributions to

the Twitter hashtag #WeCantMarch, among others. Not everyone can get childcare so they can attend a big protest which is potentially dangerous for a child; undocumented migrants may be worried about a large police presence and the possibility of being detained; people with mobility problems or anxiety may find protests and occupations difficult to navigate or overwhelming; many spaces end up perpetuating racism through the silencing of POC’s concerns (think of the stereotyping of ‘angry black women’). That many protests and campaigns often stem from university movements can mean that working class people and those who have not had access to higher education are also excluded. Surely, if activism is looking to change the world for the better for everyone, then such exclusion is detrimental and will only reproduce the same oppressive power structures which activism is looking to destroy. We have movements which can be inaccessible, but we also have an environment where modes of communication are changing with

ultur e

the influence of social media, making it easier to reach a wider and more international audience. International solidarity movements are not new either, but the advent of platforms like Facebook and Twitter has meant that there is much greater potential for creating wide networks and spreading information. We have examples of international solidarity in the face of Donald Trump, Poland’s oppressive abortion laws, sexual violence in South America – to name but a few issues – which have been vastly helped by social media campaigning even just in 2016. Arguably, this is counteracting inaccessibility, but with this new age of information also comes the challenge of how to choose what you engage with. There is this risk that, at the same time as engaging wider groups of people through social media, you are seeing energy being spread more thinly, and also losing people through apathy and exhaustion more quickly. And there is the risk that too much information will lead to people shutting off completely and ignoring it all. This is where creative activism

can help. It can help create space for people that cannot make the protest or stay overnight at the occupation. It can help folk express themselves and their struggles in ways the protest placard might be limited in. It can break through the tiring nature of social media activism to bring something fresh and exciting to the fore. Creative activism can break barriers for those who are alienated from often masculine and aggressive forms of activism, which protests and occupations can be. A great example is the Feminist Street Art Collective: Vienna, who have turned to graffiti and street art as a way of expressing their views and fighting patriarchy, challenging the men-dominated culture of graffiti as

part of this. The fact that their work has centred on creative activism has been radical in its involvement of people of all ages, classes, backgrounds and education levels, and their work both offline and online has spread their work to people in Vienna and the wider world who otherwise cannot be involved. The UK is not without its contemporary creative activism. Feminist direct action group Sisters Uncut are one well-known example - they have harnessed a variety of methods, from protests to zine-making, in efforts to pressure local authorities to further support survivors of sexual and domestic violence. Other small projects exist throughout the country, but may lack the funding or vis-

ultur e

ibility (as the arts often do) to have a wider effect. Edinburgh itself has had plenty to offer, with photography projects like #UnapologeticallyMe, which have created spaces for women and non-binary people to fight misogyny and body policing. The Edinburgh University Feminist Societyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s regular SPEAK Zine gives an accessible platform for people to express themselves on a variety of topics, from sex to identity. We need more of this, now more than ever. In a time when our politics is uncertain and increasingly violent, we need more ways to engage a greater number of people without risking alienation or creating uninviting spaces. Creative activism can do that.

You Don’t Need to Be a to Understand Ballet BY REBECCA ROSSER

Has a two-year-old ever read

you a book? They normally look at the pictures and make up a story, completely ignoring the text next to it. We, adults, simply read what the text says. However, there is something special in children’s ability to relate to the pictures and create their own fairy tale based on their lives and dreams. When they create a world in which they are the protagonists and they participate in the battle between good and evil they are demonstrating an ability to connect with other people (fictional or nonfictional), relate to their stories and experiences and appreciate the moral of the fable. Similarly, when you go to the ballet, you must switch on your inner two-year-old and let the choreography and the music inspire you to create your own world. The title of this article is a white lie: I do know something about ballet. I know that I do not want to be told to read the choreography and identify a synonym for each movement, as an adult would do. For example, one of the most breathtaking ballets that I have seen recently is McGregor’s Woolf Works. Each act corresponds to one of Virginia Woolf’s novels. The last act was ‘The Waves’, in which Virginia Woolf explores six individuals’ lives, feelings and sense of belonging to their communities. It was very easy to read, for example, anxiety, ageing, walks to

heaven, and death. An adult would attempt to put these elements into a biographical context of Virginia Woolf, but struggle to then connect the dots to her novel. On the other hand, a child would draw inspiration from the dancers’ movements and construct his own story by relating to those concepts and the protagonists. The child would undertake an exciting journey in which they would be travelling with dancers and feeling in their own skin the sentiments that the dancers are conveying. This is a much better and amusing way of watching a ballet, rather than following the programme precisely or going by what people have told you. Thus, when I go to a ballet, I want to think like a two-year-old and be transported to a different world by the choreography. A world where I can relate to the characters, put myself in their stories and experience their feelings in my own skin and in my own way. To do this, you must let yourself dream and let the pictures expand every time dancers stretch their bodies and elongate their limbs. I believe that by doing this, you achieve a stronger connection to the choreography and its reason of being. You may be wondering if you can do this with classical ballets as well as with contemporary ones. Whilst it is true that contemporary ballets elaborate more on elements, con-

ultur e

cepts and feelings rather than on stories, and it may therefore seem easier to connect with these type of ballets, I think that it is still possible to succumb to your own imaginary story with classical ballet. This is because ballets are not meant to be watched, they are meant to be felt. Every movement of a choreography expresses a sentiment or a thought and you should not simply watch a sequence of sentiments - you must understand each movement, relate to it and feel it in order to connect with the choreography and the ballet as a whole. The first act of Woolf Works (a contemporary ballet), ‘I now, I then’, portrays the young and old Virginia Woolf, her lovers, her happy moments and the passage of time. We can only truly appreciate these experiences if we think of the moments when we have wished that we were a child again or those when we wanted to paralyse time and what made us feel that way. On the other hand, Sleeping Beauty (arguably the classical ballet par excellence), whilst indeed developing the Disney storyline, the artists are ultimately dancing to good, evil, love, and fear. Therefore, when you watch Carabosse (the wicked fairy godmother) cast a spell on Aurora, put yourself in the characters’ shoes; consider why you would have cast that spell, how Aurora’s parents must have felt, and why the

good fairy wanted to change the spell. These questions require an empathy that you will only establish if you relate to the characters and dream of how you would experience what they are going through. Therefore, when a ballet has a storyline, you should not follow it strictly, but use it instead as a resource to help you put the values and feelings into your own context and build a strong-

er connection. Ballets are made to enable you to dream and connect with other peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s feelings, thoughts and stories. You will not fully appreciate the meaning and potential of a ballet if you simply follow the storyline or the events that the programme indicates are happening. In other words, to watch a ballet or its choreography the way an adult reads

Illustration by Katherine Cassidy

ultur e

a book limits the balletâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s outreach potential and your opportunity to empathise with other peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s lives and feelings. So, the next time you go to the ballet, dream of the values, morals and themes that the ballet is elaborating whilst you watch it and connect with those elements in your own imaginary story and in your own way.

How We Are Seen BY ANGUS LEUNG

Hollywood has a long history

of using Asian countries and cultures as backdrops in films. This is the case for Kuala Lumpur in Entrapment, Tokyo in Lost in Translation, Hong Kong in Doctor Strange and Transformers: Dark of the Moon, amongst many more. Some saw this as a recent trend, attributing it to the process of globalisation, suggesting that Hollywood is catering to the massive emerging markets in these countries. However, regardless of the reasons, moviemakersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; fascination with Asian cultures like those of India and China has remained, often portraying them as ancient, exotic backdrops in their stories. Though when setting their tales in those countries, much discussion has been placed on the ways cultural elements were depicted in the process. Following the release of Lost in Translation, a famous Japanese critic, Osugi, pointed out that while the story excelled, the way Japanese people were depicted was questionable. Several others agreed, saying that the movie reduced the people and even the culture itself to one-dimensional stereotypes at times. However, this problem has seemingly not changed with time, as it is still observable in more recent films: in Batman Begins, the main protagonist was taught martial arts in Bhutan, despite the fact that the skills resemble ninjutsu, a part of traditional Japanese culture instead of a Bhutanese one.

The examples above demonstrate a lack of willingness to understand other cultures when using them as settings, affecting the way they are perceived. After all, the media plays an immense role in influencing peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s perceptions and informing its audiences. While the news does this explicitly, other platforms such as

Illustrations by Vivian Uhlir

film and television are much subtler. Using countries for contextualisation is not necessarily a bad thing, but Hollywood wields huge power in offering audiences a view into other countries, which influences the way foreign cultures are perceived and conceptualised. To haphazardly set stories in other cultures without thorough engagement and research into what it means to do so, and the subsequent reduction of cultures into mere background characters, attires or skillsets, can be potentially problematic. Instead of utilising the culture by presenting a full-bodied, accurate

ultur e

representation, more often than not movies depict a caricature of the people that live in those cultures. A stereotype of the cities and how they look: a shoehorned version of only the elements that help drive the plot, and seldom the under-showcased aspects that actually define each city. The result of this, is an estranged, distant illustration of the experiences that, to some, was once their daily lives. They may recognise a corner of the streets that was used, clothing patterns that they see ritual significance in, people faded into the background that share their skin colour; but everything else feels strange. A sense of being unable to find themselves in the world that was painted in the film, a feeling of loss that they cannot find a way to describe. And yet for the audiences that do not share their culture, this is how their stories are presented. This is how their daily lives are construed, and eventually, how their stereotypes are perpetuated. But as we step into a world of emerging globalisation and a time that calls for better understanding of othersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; values and cultures, the furthering of these reductionist views could be detrimental, presenting a greater need to tackle the problem. With this in mind, what the film industry needs in these situations is to better recognise cultures as living, breathing entities that ought to be understood to their full extents. As a starting point, there should be a necessity for seeking a core

‘What the film industry needs in those situations is to better

recognise cultures as living, breathing entities that ought to be understood to their full extents.’ passion and rationale when using other countries to set stories in. Cultures are not wild cards that can be swapped in and out mindlessly, according to the needs of the plot. Instead, they are experienced, intricate, and most importantly, significant to members who live in them. Because of this, there should be a deeper consideration when depicting a foreign culture in a film The decision should be reflected constantly: if one copies and pastes the character and plotline away from the background onto another, would the movie be interfered with? This asks for better thought on the role idio-

syncrasies play in stories, which is not too distinct from that of an individual’s character – one that is alive, is interacted with, and most importantly, is crucial to the development of the plot. Perhaps this can serve as a beginning to improve people’s understanding of foreign countries, and to better represent the cultures that are being depicted. From its earliest beginnings, the usage of other countries in Hollywood films have often been accompanied by shallow characterisation of people and cities by resorting to stereotypes. While it is understandable that it can be unfeasible to de-

ultur e

mand immersion and research into every culture for every single production, the solution can be simple: hire and consult people who have lived with these cultures for their whole lives. Those who are most intimate, most comfortable with what is attempted to be presented and replicated. We are here, and we are more than glad to offer our perspective. Because not only does this build better stories, it also builds greater understanding and connection, in ultimately creating a culture that we can all share.

WITH SPECIAL THANKS TO Felix Carpenter Liam Douglas

Román Martínez de Aragón Fred Minnich

The Pérez Ruiz Family