Eurovisie October 2017 by Eurovisie

eurovisie a publication of the study association for european studies

Also in this issue: Squatting Slavs in Tracksuits Andrea Wulfâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Humboldt Millenials and the German election NATO as Europeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s safeguard Danish Hygge and the refugee crisis Support your local sex workers

Together against Reason! Catalan separatism Ocotober 2017 / www.ses-uva.nl / eurovisie@ses-uva.nl

Want to write for

Eurovisie? Send your article to eurovisie@ses-uva.nl

volume 13, issue 1 - Oct. 2017

editorial

mats licht 4

Together against reason Mats Licht

Welcome to the SES Daniël Adam

NATO, Europe's safeguard? Michelle Kooiman

Sex work Hanna Blom

Alexander von Humboldt Sjors Roeters

Hygge and the refugee crisis Lisanne Kielema

Squatting Slavs in Tracksuits Nikolai Markov

Notes from Vanity Fair Joep Leerssen

Lessons from the German elections Joana Voss

Alternative Amsterdam Sally Dixon Cover image: Correfoc is a Catalan traditional festivity in which individuals dress up as devils and light fireworks to loud drum beats.

nother year has barely begun and yet we already find ourselves in the fangs of academic stress again. It is a well-established fact that holiday bliss fades quicker than assignment exhaustion. Perhaps you will find a minute to set aside your chores to browse through this here magazine. It is another one in a series of special issues. For the first time, we have included a theme that subtly permeates through every article: Tradition. Do not expect to be smacked in the face by tradition, though! Did I mention the themes are going to be subtle? We have also expanded on our application process. In fact, most of the articles you will read herein are application pieces, submitted by motivated new board members from the strongest application pool yet. Many new things are happening to Eurovisie and if all goes well, expect us selling out and retiring pretty soon. In this issue, you will hear about a variety of issues, from Cataluña to squatting Slavs, possibly the widest selection of topics to date. In fact, we have changed all sorts of things, big and small, to bring you the best version of Eurovisie we have ever produced. How very traditional of us. If you love something, and you set it free, and it doesn’t come back...you’re a dumbass! Butt-head

imprint Editorial office: Kloveniersburgwal 48, room E2.04/2.05, 1012 CX Amsterdam Editor-in-chief: Mats Licht Editors: Hanna Blom, Sally Dixon, Lisanne Kielema, Michelle Kooiman, Nikolai Markov, Sjors Roeters, Joana Voss Final editing: Levente Vervoort Design: Emiel Janssens 3 With contributions by: Daniël Adam, Joep Leerssen

Together against Reason In the wake of recent events in Spain and CataluĂąa, Mats Licht traces the roots of Catalan separatism in the recent past of Spanish national politics. 4

t is one of the paradoxes of nationalism that each of its struggles is postulated to be both decidedly unique, yet also part of a universal struggle for self-determination. One such universal, yet always particular characteristic of a national struggle is its origin within the foggy annals of history. It tells the tale that the nation, and its associated struggle for independence, emerged from time immemorial, always there, always the same, a selfevident link to antiquity. We are somehow instinctively inclined to believe ourselves kin to ancient peoples, to the Batavians, Gauls and Germans of Ceasar, assuming nothing has truly changed in those 2000 years – except for language, religion, customs, dress, food and basic worldview, of course. Any student of European Studies will find within their first semester that Nationalism is not, in fact, ancient or organic, but rather a product of the ideological commotion that was the 19th century. It is, however, still a rare occurrence that the origin of a nationalist movement can be pinpointed more or less exactly, and it is even more rare to find one that is no older than ten years. Against all contradictory assumptions and a strongly contrarian rhetoric emanating from Barcelona, the Catalan independence movement is that statistical outlier. Neither ancient nor selfevident, it is nevertheless one of the most recognisable separatist movements around, imbued with a surprising amount of foreign sympathy and understanding. As the issue might soon take a further, more radical turn, let us reminisce on the history of Catalan separatism so far. Some Nationalisms begin with an epic struggle for supremacy, one that usually ends in domination

by an oppressive foreign regime, preferably one that forces its religion onto the vanquished. Catalan union with Spain, however, begins with a wedding. In fact, Spain itself was a love child of that wedding, when in 1469 the crowns of Aragón and Castilla were united into the new Kingdom of Spain under Ferdinand and Isabel. Cataluña itself was merely the name of the growing holdings of the Counts of Barcelona at the time, who through their own industrious conquests and marriage policy had become Kings of Aragon in the 12th century. The power couple consolidated its power throughout the land, kicked out the last muslim emirate and

“The true origin of the present conflict is no older than 2010.”

promptly proceeded to colonise the better part of the New World. If the Iberian Wedding constitutes the beginning of Catalan oppression, it did so by making Cataluña the core of the most prosperous Empire in human history thus far – not the worst fate ever suffered, one might think. So if medieval history does not serve to make independence’s case, where can the bone of contention be found? While the Independence movement has been busy trying to construct a somewhat artificial history of itself, the true origin of

the present conflict is no older than 2010. This might seem like a surprisingly recent date, which shows that the issue is, more than a separate, individual struggle, an extension of a larger problem that has haunted Spanish politics for some time. Since before the two 20th-century military dictatorships the country had to suffer through, it had been in the clutches of a deeply entrenched two-party system. In 1885, the two parties, Liberals and Conservatives respectively, even agreed on a regular, negotiated turnover of power, el Turno Pacifico, the peaceful turn. After the turmoil of dictatorships and civil war, the country was set to return to a system dominated by two large parties representing the country’s deeply split personality, this time the Social-Democratic PSOE and the conservative brainchild of late fascist elites, the Partido Popular. One of the legacies of Franco’s forced centralisation of a traditionally pluricentric country, however, had been the surge of regionalist sentiments. As a rebuttal of the deeply unpopular centralist past, many Spaniards took to supporting regional interest parties. This was in part due to the oppression of regional identities under Franco, but more generally represented an attempt to weaken the central government enough to prevent any further surges of authoritarianism. To achieve a peaceful transition to democracy, the 1978 constitution was modelled closely after that of the Second Republic, which meant potentially far-reaching autonomy for the different regions of the country. Until 1993 the PSOE reigned supreme, representing a welcome change of scenery after 40 years of conservatism. The real trouble began when the party failed to win an absolute majority in 1993.

The first hung parliament of the Third Republic broke bipartidism permanently. As a result, the twoparty system became modified: to achieve a majority in the Congress, either party would now have to ally with the surging regional parties. The Social Democrats consequently allied with the Basque Nationalists and regional Catalan party Convergencia i Unio (CiU). In 1996, the PSOE was removed from power in shame after being tied to extrajudicial killings of alleged Basque terrorists, but as the conservatives failed to win through anything but the weakness of their opposition, they neither won the election outright. Under Prime Minister Aznar, the PP merely replaced PSOE within their triple alliance. A side effect from governing with the support of regional parties was that the central government had to make concessions to their supporters, who were at the time only regionally active. As a result, a remarkable change in philosophy took place within particularly the Catalan political conscience: falling out with the central government suddenly meant gaining concessions at home. Because of either ruling party’s dependence on the regionals’ support, there was virtually no way for them to deny any of their requests, because the other one would be there to grant them whatever they asked in return for national government. CiU, pulling in 3 to 5 percent in every election, became the kingmaker of Spanish politics. The preliminary climax of Catalan ambitions came when PSOE chief Zapatero sought to oust the PP in a surprising election victory after the 2004 Madrid train bombings. Once again, ETA bit a Spanish government in the behind, when Aznar was punished at the ballots for his

rash blaming of the attacks on Basque nationalists. In return for propping up his new government, Zapatero promised the Catalans what they had wanted since 1979: a newly negotiated statute of autonomy. At that time, nobody seriously talked of independence and if so, it was only to improve the regional government’s position in negotiations. The statute that was drafted between 2004 and 2006 contained all the Catalans wished for, including a legally void but emotionally important introduction referring to Cataluña as its own “nation”. Nobody, at the time, would have interpreted this as a covert call for independence, however. The weakness of the parties’ vying for central government was shaping up to

“A side effect from governing with the support of regional parties was that the central government had to make concessions to their supporters”

grant the regional government an unprecedented amount of power, its leaders greedily licking their chops. They did not expect the schemes of the PP to foil their plans.

For a while, CiU expected to play the game of politics without being dragged into its intrigues themselves. Their hopes were crushed when newly-elected PP chairman Mariano Rajoy sensed an opportunity to take over again by weakening his opponent Zapatero’s position. To do so, he attacked the weakest link, PSOE’s carefully crafted Estatuto de Autonomía, which had just passed Congress. In addition, Catalan leaders had celebrated their new-found authority by holding a about the new Statute, which it with 78.1% support. The fact that turnout was only around 48% since most opponents of nationalism boycotted the referendum to begin with was merely a cosmetic stain to Catalan leadership. Rajoy went around congress and the government and launched, together with five regional governments dominated by the PP, a constitutional complaint against the Statute directly to the Constitutional Court of Spain. In 2010, after four years of deliberation, the court found fourteen Statute articles to be unconstitutional, and mandated a restrictive interpretation to 27 more. The wrath of the Catalan people, or at least of a select minority, knew no bounds. By going around popular representation and forcing a constitutionalist approach onto a populist movement, Rajoy had humiliated the nationalist movement to the core. Conspiracy theories about the composition of the court flared up, massive demonstrations were called and spontaneous local referenda on independence were suddenly conducted everywhere. Within the course of a few weeks in 2010, support for independence rose from barely a quarter to just short of half the population of Cataluña. Where nationalism had been a

bargaining chip for local politicians before, Rajoy forced CiU and its followers to take the gloves off. To save face, they had to show they meant business. Independence really only became a serious issue during those days in 2010. While Rajoy smugly enjoyed his victory, already aiming to become Prime Minister in the upcoming 2011 elections, local forces began to exploit his betrayal for their own gain. A deep cultural change overcame political discourse. Suddenly, every Catalan party became more or less separatist, following popular sentiment. As now around 48% of Catalans supported independence, the benefits of including it in their programs were obvious. The change came mostly from below, as many citizens felt their personal pride hurt by being overridden so crudely by a scheming Castilian. Meanwhile, Rajoy managed to obtain an absolute majority in the 2011 elections, freeing him from the yoke of regional support. The straw of losing their national negotiating power broke the Catalan camel’s back – from now on, threatening independence became the sole means of staying relevant in a national and, now, international context. For politicians, supporting separatism stopped being optional, it became required to maintain home support, as those locals against it would abandon regional parties anyhow. Aided by an asymmetrically strong economic climate in Cataluña, the region collectively, or at least 48% of it, set out to achieve independence. While separatist support was being fostered in Barcelona, Rajoy ignored the issue. Consequently, the Catalan rhetoric blaming Spain for any problem befalling the region penetrated mainstream

discourse unopposed. The argument that Cataluña was being unfairly disadvantaged by fiscal transfers, having to finance noncompetitive parts of the country while receiving nothing, became a staple of the separatist discourse. The fact that the region itself had profited from government transfers and Franquist industrialisation programs in the country’s periphery became conveniently forgotten. In fact, Franco had encouraged the industrialisation of Cataluña because he hoped to bind it to Madrid forever. This common past made way to a new myth:

“For politicians, supporting separatism stopped being optional, it became required to maintain home support”

that Cataluña had been ahead of Spain proper for centuries. The costs of maintaining an own foreign representation, embassies, trade envoys and diplomats was equally side-lined. Perhaps the most important argument against independence, one that might brand the whole endeavour economic suicide, is the staunch anti-separatist position of the central government. Spain would rather let independent

Cataluña starve on its stretchedout arm than to consent to its accession to the EU or Single Market once it disqualified itself through independence. In any case, the arguments brought in support of independence are ill thought-out at best. But why would they not be? After all, this is not an issue of rationality. The curious alignment of political forces for independence, joining neoliberal bourgeoisie and anarcho-communist enemies of the central state, is so decidedly populist in nature that it struggles to adhere to its own rules. The latest referendum on October 1st clearly violated the Spanish constitution, which does not allow for referenda on independence of regions without consent of the whole population, and explicitly negates the possibility of breaking up Spain. In response, the Catalan government changed its own constitution to allow for it, violating its own rules that dictate a 2/3 majority be required for constitutional changes. By all standards, Cataluña is already in open defiance of Spanish law. Now it will most likely declare independence anyway, citing the support of 92% - out of a 42% turnout. The only likely result, given that EU authorities have already declared this an internal issue of Spain, is that Catalan politicians will lose whatever autonomy they have gained over the past 40 years. What the Spanish constitution does allow for is direct rule, specifically in case of open defiance of its laws. For all the things Rajoy might be, one cannot accuse him of not being a constitutionalist. Perhaps it is time to set aside the anger and to be the bigger, more rational person. Instead of working for themselves, Catalans might be giving the centralists exactly what they want.

Welcome to the SES! Dear SES members and others, Welcome to the academic year that is 2017-2018, and to the new international students: welcome to the Netherlands and Amsterdam! You have made a great choice by coming to our vibrant city and choosing the University of Amsterdam (UvA). My name is Daniël Ramón Adam and I am part of the Board of the Study Association for European Studies (SES) this year, I am also coordinating the Eurovisie; therefore I get to write this introduction. Since you are reading this, I assume that you already know what the SES entails. Just in case you do not, let me introduce ourselves to you. The SES is the study association of the European Studies bachelor at the UvA, its goal is to make your student life not only more educative, but also more enjoyable. We do this by providing activities

both related and unrelated to the European Studies curriculum. These activities are mainly organised by our various committees consisting of our members. These committees also give the opportunity to our members to develop themselves in a different environment than the lecture halls. One of the products of our association is being read by you now, the Eurovisie. The association is led by the Board of the association. The Board is coordinating all the activities and is responsible for the general management of the association. For this academic year, the Board will consist of: Julija Filipović Chair Daniël Adam Secretary Bram Groenteman Treasurer Marina Wright Commissioner of Internal Affairs Annemarie Zandstra Commissioner of External Affairs Traditionally the SES Board writes

a small piece on the association in the first Eurovisie of the year. I personally think this is a good tradition, aligning our magazine with the rest of our association, yet this will be a year where the Board breaks with the past. The SES calendar has been reshuffled thoroughly and the same can be said about committees. Our predecessors have laid out an amazing foundation for us to build on; this year we will attempt to do so. A new committee has been created that will focus on educational activities, the Career Dinner Committee has been renamed to the Career Committee and given more freedom to organise career-related events. Additionally, a lot of new exciting events will be organised by the many committees. Another important goal of ours is to create a smoother transition from non-member to SES member through the addition of an

introductory period. In all honesty, it took everyone some time to finally understand our culture. Personally, I just recently started to grasp what Salinero $ound System embodies and what the exact lyrics to Bao Zhu Yi Sheng Da Di Chun-Huan Ying Xin Nian Dao are. SES life started during Intreeweek this year, where our first-years got linked to older students to guide them safely through the hazardous streets of Amsterdam to the infamous Cooldown Café and, of course, Paradiso. It was an amazing week, especially when our beloved Bram Groenteman discovered the AUX cable of one of the ghetto blasters at Intreeweek Festival. After this crazy week, the academic year started. Bushuis and Oudemanhuispoort were (re) discovered by European Studies students and the first lectures were attended. In the second week of the academic year, the study association had its first General Assembly of the year where the old Board got dismissed and the new Board got instated. That weekend both Boards, the Introduction Committee and 55 freshmen travelled to the idyllic Lievelde in the province of Gelderland. The week after that we had interviews for our many committees. We had so many good applications that the Board went through several mental breakdowns during the week. To the members that managed to get into one of the committees: congratulations, an amazing year with your committee is waiting for you! To the members that did not: have you thought about the Hitchhike Committee and the Introduction Committee yet? On Monday the 2nd of October the SES met up for an educational film screening in the Doelenzaal. We watched ‘My Own Private War’, a documentary about the wars in the former Yugoslavia by Lidija

Zelović with an introductory talk by Josip Kesić. After we watched the documentary, there was a Q&A session with Lidija herself. It was a very interesting evening. In the same week we arrived at the moment suprême. On Wednesday the 4th of October the Introduction Party of the Faculty of Humanities took place in Club Claire. SES teamed up with some

“The grim mornings when one class at 10:00 that you really want to attend, but you got home at 5:00 last night and are unsure what year it currently is”

other Humanities associations to organise an evening of booze and banter. While writing this I feel like a squeezed orange. My mouth is as dry as the Sahara, my head feels as if it has been trampled by a herd of wildebeest and my stomach feels like a washing machine with a rock spinning around in it. I suppose

that it was a great night, at least the parts that I remember were. Today is Thursday, which means that, praise the Lord, I have nothing to do. I know that there are some people that suffered this Thursday. I heard about a Spanish test at 10:00, Turning Points and National Thought seminars and many other very intense situations. To those suffering from a hangover, I say do not despair! The misery that is now upon you is but the passing of adolescence. Some people think that the life of a student is merely about books. Although I personally agree that most of it is about books, we also cannot forget the darker side of the student life. The grim mornings, where you have this one class at 10:00 that you really want to attend, but you got home at 5:00 last night and are unsure what year it currently is. That is the beauty of the student life, combining the life of the teenager, that we all still have inside of us, with the mature life and all the responsibilities that come with it. Combining the two is us more complete human beings. Your student years are not only about studying the identity of European citizens, it is also about developing yourself socially, personally and professionally. You do this by meeting up with other humans outside of the lecture halls. An example is drinking beers and discussing not very interesting topics in Café Sanders, but also attending a film screening, doing committee work or going on a weekend trip with other students. All these activities are a very valuable addition to the study programme you are following and I urge you to do as many extracurriculars as you can handle without your grades suffering because of it. Dear readers, I hope you make the most out of the student life that we have been granted. Study above all, but do not forget to mature while doing so.

NATO: still the traditional security guard of Europe? The EU has managed to successfully protect their member states from war for over seventy years now. The success formula is being a soft power with socio-economic means of persuasion. From a military point of view, the EU still depends on NATO. However, recent events might turn the EU from being a soft power into a military force to be reckoned with, Michelle Kooiman argues.

ince its foundation in 1949, NATO functions as the protector of the European continent. However, since the 1990’s several political events have functioned as catalysts for the EU to develop their own security apparatus with military capabilities. The war over Kosovo in 1998 turned out to be a key moment for the security and defence integration process of the EU. This war showed that the EU lacked the power of deterrence, since the EU was not capable of

sending military troops to the area. Leaders of several member states agreed that the EU had to become capable of preventing or resolving conflicts on the continent on its own, without direct interference of NATO. Therefore, the development of a security apparatus of the EU took a great step forward in 1992. The EU introduced the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) in the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 in order to tackle security issues. An integral part of this policy is

“Not every member state experiences the same security threat another member state is concerned with”

the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) which provides the CFSP with, although very limited, military capabilities. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 signalled another key moment which boosted security and defence integration. A new kind of security threat emerged that the EU had to deal with. The threat of terrorism is still one of the highest security dilemmas in Europe. The Berlin Plus Agreements of 2002 made it possible for the EU

to access resources of NATO. In 2004 Defence ministers of the member states agreed to set up ‘battlegroups’. These battlegroups had to be deployable within ten days if a conflict emerged. Two battlegroups are constantly on standby and ready to react when necessary. The 9/11 terrorist attacks, therefore, caused the EU to take steps towards military integration. More recent events might also push the integration process of the CSDP forward. The dynamic between the EU and NATO might change because of the recent distant attitude of the US when it comes to the security of Europe. The 45th president of the US, Donald Trump, has said multiple times that he wants the European members to take more responsibility for their own safety. The input of the European member states in NATO is quite disproportionate compared to the input of the US. If Trump keeps his word, the European member states will be forced to increase their efforts. Also, Brexit might pave the way for the EU to take matters in their own hands. The UK has always been known for its sceptical attitude towards Brussels. The UK vetoed policy proposals in the CFSP and is always more committed to NATO and the UN Security Council. Brexit might make it easier for the EU to increase cooperation among its members. With a euro-friendly Emmanuel Macron in charge of France and a re-elected Angela Merkel in Germany, the EU still has two influential countries rooting for the cause. Just a week after the Britons decided to leave, the EU published the Global Strategy for the its Foreign and Security Policy. This strategy sets concrete goals that

the EU wishes to see fulfilled when it comes to the defence and security policy. First of all, the EU will be stricter when it comes to the input member states must deliver. Commitments that have been made in the Lisbon Treaty concerning the mechanism of the CFSP and CSDP must be honoured, which they have not been till this day. This means that the EU will work on their military capabilities and the desire to get more autonomy in the decision-making process of the CFSP and the CSDP. However, it does not look good if one of the strongest players is leaving the team. Together with France, the UK is the only player that has a legitimate military force. The persuasiveness and legitimacy of the EU as a protective military entity might be harmed if the investment of the UK falls short. And although member states have repeatedly pleaded their support for more integration on this issue towards creating a successful mechanism, when it comes to it, member states are still turning their heads. This is partially due to the fact that the defence market is fragmented. Only a few, bigger member states are able to provide the CSDP with military equipment, logistics and intelligence. The organizational structure of the CSDP also leaves much to be desired. The decision-making process is complicated because of the veto power of the member states. Each member state has different interests, traditions and historical experiences when it comes to tackling security threats. Not every member state experiences the same security threat another member state is concerned with. Eastern and former Soviet satellite states feel Russia breathing down their neck, but the southern states are more worried

about the high influx of refugees that enter their borders. These shortcomings make it difficult for the EU to grow military muscle. Since the EU is not likely to overcome these shortcomings anytime soon, it stays dependant on NATO. This is not a bad thing. The CSDP and NATO can complement each other in the areas the other party is best at. Even though the CSDP is the hard edge of the EU’s soft character, it is still a power that is not willing to use military force as long as other non-military means were not effective. NATO has the power to persuade and deter with military resources. The EU and NATO therefore have different characteristics, but are able to work well together and increase their combined influence when preventing or solving conflicts. NATO is also the key instrument which keeps the US and the EU in dialogue with each other. Through NATO both parties can influence each other. It is in the interest of the EU to maintain close ties with the US since they provide NATO with military equipment. This input may come to use to the CSDP if they want to use military means of NATO for their own missions. The US can take their distance from the European continent and let the Europeans deal with security dilemmas on the other side of the Atlantic. The question is how powerful the US wants the EU to become, since they want to stay the military hegemon of the planet. The dynamic between NATO and the EU has changed rapidly in recent years. The CSDP has made some great steps forward in the integration process. However, the CSDP is still very much dependent on NATO for several reasons. Therefore, the traditional role of NATO being Europe’s protector will not change anytime soon.

Support your local sex workers Prostitution is the world’s oldest profession, but its mere existence still baffles us. Hanna Blom pleads a case for the old-fashioned window workers and the online sugar babies who are just trying to do their job.

ith the beginning of the school year approaching, the Norwegian dating website ‘RichMeetBeautiful’ sent driving billboards around cities in Belgium and the Netherlands to reach Beautiful female students who would consider paying for their studies by dating Rich older men. The ads promised the students a fun way to avoid creating a huge debt, by getting paid for being their young, attractive, innocent and bubbly selves. It sparked a controversy on social media, and the CEO of RichMeetBeautiful, Sigurd Vedal, gave a personal statement in which he described

his company as a dating website for adults seeking a relationship on their own terms. He even quoted Steve Jobs completely out of context to underline that we should not be living by the results of other people’s thinking and rather free ourselves from constraining dogmas. To him, the public outrage that the billboards sparked came down to a core question modern society struggles with: ‘Do we condone prostitution?’ This article attempts to show how the discourse on prostitution is being held hostage by this oversimplified question. The consequences of this are hampering progress for

sex workers.Whether prostitution is the pinnacle of sexual freedom or the pinnacle of commodifying the female body is a question still unanswered by the feminist community. The feminist Sex Wars in the late 1970’s divided the women’s movement into two camps. Writer and radical feminist Andrea Dworkin took a leading position on the anti-porn side of the conversation, as she spoke for a strong connection between pornography and rape and general violence against women. The other side ofthe debate claimed that Dworkin’s attitude towards the sex work industry was censorious and

a way of denying women’s agency or choice in sexual relationships. Modern feminism has shown not to have made up its mind. A remaining issue seems s that you cannot defend pornography, without mentioning the many stories of sexual violence female porn actresses endure, the same way that we cannot deny the element of human trafficking in prostitution.While the latter should not be unmentioned, the existence of autonomous sex workers cannot be lost in the conversation. The delay of a verdict means no real support from feminism for sex workers. Modern feminism is definitely flawed, like acceptance of transgender women and nonbinary people, offering validity to muslim voices and general denouncing of white feminism. To this day, think-pieces are still being produced where the writer wonders out loud if sex workers are contributing to the continuation of female oppression and sexual violence. The idea behind the continuing conversation is that specifically women who work in the sex industry are maintaining the patriarchal structure of female sexuality as a commodity. The conversation plays into the ‘tragicand-poor prostitute/wealthy-andglamorous prostitute’ dichotomy, with the first sex worker being a victim of her situation and the latter one betraying her gender. Both narratives deny the fact that women themselves can have ownership over this commodity and thus the agency sex workers have over their own bodies is undermined. Somewhere around 2005 the GGD (Medical and Health Service) department of Amsterdam wrote a report which terrified parents for years to come, on the phenomenon of the ‘Breezerslut’. Young girls, starting from the age of 14, would allegedly perform a sexual act in exchange for

something relatively small, like a ride home, a telephone card or a Bacardi Breezer, a fruit-based alcopop. The phenomenon was said to have mainly taken place in Amsterdam Zuid-Oost, a part of the city which offered more hidden places and, thus, anonymity. A journalist from De Volkskrant wrote in an article that 'because the girls aren’t being forced to have sex, it is not a case of classic prostitution, against which the police could take measures.' Alas, if only someone was forcing these fourteen-yearolds into non-consensual sex, the police would at least have a case! After a moral panic arose caused

“The conversation plays into the ‘tragic-andpoor prostitute/ wealthy-andglamorous prostitute’ dichotomy” by the report, it became clear that it was completely blown out of proportion, but the influence of the report was palpable whenever a story came up about young women using their bodies to get things.   These examples of sugar dating and small wage prostitution are supposed to signify that sex work is still a thriving industry which continues to develop and find new ways, regardless of the stigma. Sex work today is taking on many different shapes and sizes, with many sex workers working online and being their own boss. The safety of sex workers is such an afterthought, because people are still trying to figure out if they

condone the existence of the field of work, when this is not relevant anymore. Last year, Utrecht decided that the tippelzone - a place where you can legally do street-based sex work, with indoor facilities where you can relax and get health check-ups - needs to be closed down. The ground is worth too much and the city wants to build. The Netherlands was a pioneer in the nineties in creating tippelzones in larger cities, but most of them have been closed down by now. Utrecht has been artificially keeping the number of sex workers allowed to work here low for years with never-ending waiting lists, inconsistent with the number of workspaces available. The city was unable to relocate the tippelzone because the neighbours of those prospective areas responded with hateful protests and the city chose the public outcry over the task to keep marginalised people safe and healthy. Instead of relocating, this tippelzone will mostly likely be phased out, just like the others were. This does not mean the end of sex work, but rather increasingly dangerous conditions for the practice of their profession. Melissa Gira Grant, a former sex worker, wrote that the war on sex workers is real and it is a war on women that ‘has actual prisoners and a body count.’ It is ‘waged by women who will not hesitate to use their opponents’ corpses as political props but refuse to listen to them while they are still alive and still here to fight.' While the corpses of molested and murdered sex workers are often used to demonstrate the existence of sexual violence against women and hate against them, they are not being listened to when they are still alive. Effective policymaking that protects and helps them prosper is necessary and until then, treating sex work like a legitimate profession is the least one can do.

Andrea Wulf’s Humboldt and His New World It is fascinating how historical figures each, in turn, become trendy every once in a while – how centuries-old scientists, philosophers, poets and politicians go viral in the 21st century. Alexander von Humboldt appears to be one of those ‘trending topics’ at the moment, as told by Sjors Roeters in his first piece for Eurovisie.

lexander von Humboldt (1769 – 1859) was an extraordinary scientist, writer and explorer with unbounded energy. He travelled through Latin America and subsequently Russia for several years, measuring and documenting the world in all its details. Travelling at the beginning of the nineteenth century through South America meant moving through highly inhospitable landscapes, from untouched rainforests to the Andes mountain ranges, lacking any forms of modern transportation. They had nothing more than a string of mules – though packed with the best and latest measuring equipment. And sometimes not even that: ‘They were crawling on hands and knees along a high narrow ridge that was in places only two inches wide. [...] As they proceeded, the jagged rocks shredded the soles of their shoes, and their feet began to bleed.’ Alexander was no cerebral book scholar. He went outside in search of somehow knowing that fascinating world. ‘He always wanted to experience something new and, as he said, ideally, ‘three things at the same time’. ’What makes Alexander von Humboldt intellectually notable, however, is that he both had an immense attention to details, as well as conceiving of a new holistic perspective on the world and the universe in its entirety.‘ In this great chain of causes and effects,’ Humboldt said, ‘no single fact can be considered in isolation’. He was the first to see, on top of the Chimborazo volcano at 5182 meters above sea level, that the world was one complete living organism. The different parts of nature could not mechanically be seen apart from each other, but formed an inextricable interconnected whole. That also included humanity. Everything: flora, fauna, landscapes, colonialism, the economy, society,

culture, history, everything was completely and utterly interconnected. It is then perhaps not surprising that Humboldt was the first scientist to observe human-induced climate change, at the beginning of the nineteenth century. But, if Alexander was such an impressive character, being the most famous of the world in his time after Napoleon, how come he ever receded back into, or

“he both had an immense attention to details, as well as conceiving of a new holistic perspective on the world and the universe in its entirety”

out of, our collective memories? According to biographer Andrea Wulf, that has to do with the fact that Humboldt is not known for one single gigantic discovery as, for instance, Isaac Newton, but rather for his world view which has become so self-evident that it has become transparent. Also, everything German came to be discredited after World Wars I and II, thereby further diminishing his remembrance. But what is perhaps more of interest here, is how Humboldt

made his bold comeback in our day and age. With The Invention of Nature (2015) Andrea Wulf has written an extraordinary biography, and as such unquestionably contributed to the renewed interest in this cosmopolitan intellectual in times of rising nationalism. In writing she wanted to rediscover Humboldt, and restore him to ‘his rightful place in the pantheon of nature and science.’ She did so, not only by selecting him as subject of investigation and worthy of publication (as a New York Times bestseller), but especially by her style and the structure of the biography. Her prose is immensely evocative, energetic and smooth. The cerebral act of reading quickly and imperceptibly seems to morph into a film reel rolling in the eye of the mind, where the words and sentences come to life in sounds and images. One could almost even smell Humboldt’s infinitely energetic curiosity. With this prose style, Wulf not only facilitated a very pleasurable reading experience, but has given a literary expression to her interpretation of Humboldt’s persona (‘literary’ in the definition of the text not only caring about what is being said, but also how it is being said). We not only learn in descriptive words of his character, but we even experience his energetic, dashing, curious personality through reading. For, as Wulf states, ‘he also believed that a great part of our response to the natural world should be based on the senses and emotions. [...] At a time when other scientists were searching for universal laws, Humboldt wrote that nature had to be experienced through feelings.’ In her undertaking, Wulf has incorporated this not only in content, but also in style and form. For it is also in structure that Wulf has integrated her interpretation of Alexander von Humboldt’s life and its influence on the world.

Intriguingly, 8 out of 23 chapters of this biography are about other people’s lives. Wulf writes, among others, about Goethe, Jefferson, Bolívar, Darwin and Thoreau. She interconnects and binds divergent life stories and world events and sciences and arts together. She makes clear the inextricable connection between Goethe’s Faust, Darwin’s The Origin of Species, Bolívar’s revolutions and Humboldt’s life and work. By weaving all these life stories and events and ideas together, highlighting their interdependency, Wulf also gives a narrative expression to her interpretation of Humboldt’s life story. ‘Everything hangs together. If one thread is pulled, the whole tapestry may unravel.’ In doing this, she has inextricably bound content and form, thus giving expression on a literary level to Humboldt’s pivotal idea that everything’s connected and furthermore that knowledge of the world must above all be experienced. We could perhaps, then, consider Alexander von Humboldt to be a posthumanist avant-la-lettre. Posthumanism, in one definition, breaks with the idea of the human as the centre and measure of all things in the world and the universe. In posthumanism, the human is only one small part in the complex and all-embracing system, which includes, among others, animals and plants, as well as materials such as water, mountains, fossil fuels, technology and nonhuman life such as bits, bytes and algorithms. Everything is connected and is of equal importance in the equilibrium of the world. Humans are not superior to other things and beings, such as trees and animals. This idea of human superiority is, nonetheless, a pervasive one throughout history and appears to lie at the roots of many of the horrors committed by humankind. One could think of phenomena where the underlying

belief of human superiority leads to the subjugation of other forms of life such as trees and animals, which has led to massive deforestation and the bio-industry. But also slavery and genocide could be considered a result of the belief in human superiority: racist beliefs throughout the centuries have led many people to consider other humans as being “less human” or even as “animals” altogether, which justified and led to their subjugation or even extermination. Humans cannot be put on a higher plain,

“It is exactly the most fundamental problem of this day and age that we still do not perceive the world as Humboldt did”

above all other things and beings, but are just one tiny link in the perpetually moving web of life and cannot be considered or evaluated in isolation. Yet this fundamental holistic conception of the world is far from being commonplace. There also appears to be a somewhat doubtful premise underlying one of the Humboldt-transcending reasons for Wulf to write this biography: ‘it is also a quest to understand why we think as we do today about the

natural world.’ Is it really true that we think about the natural world as Humboldt did? Perhaps in the concerning academic disciplines of for instance biology, yes. But as humankind, as human societies, do we perceive the natural world as Humboldt did and act accordingly? If we were to be truly conscious of the delicate web of life that nature forms, the global force it is and the impossibility of seeing parts of it in isolation, then we would handle and take care of our surroundings wholly differently. It is exactly the most fundamental problem of this day and age that we still do not perceive the world as Humboldt did. If we were to tackle this human-superiority-complex, and fundamentally change our perception and understanding of the world, structural worldwide problems such as climate change, animal welfare, human rights, biodiversity and poverty would be addressed with much more urgency and vigour. If we were not to subjugate the world to daily human needs, but instead see the fragility and mutual dependencies in the world, which make existence possible, we would not treat the world and the beings in it as we now do. Surely, we should see ‘nature as a unified whole made up of complex interrelationships’. Yet, it is perhaps too naive – or ignorant – of Wulf to believe that indeed we now have this same idea underlying our perception of and interaction with our surroundings. Maybe she has become too connected to, too possessed by her subject to not see him and his ideas in everything and everywhere in this world. Perhaps Wulf’s world has become too coloured by Humboldt to see that there is still a very long way to go before Humboldt’s ideas and conceptions are truly incorporated in the minds of humankind.

Hygge as the answer to the refugee crisis One of the biggest trends of 2016 were the many books written on the topic of hygge. The Danish concept of ‘cosiness’ became a hype in several European countries, with thousands of books sold on the topic. But the reason behind the sudden popularity of the concept is less cosy, Lisanne Kielema argues. An analysis of the function of hygge in the current Danish society and how a non-political topic became very political.

t is snowing outside, the temperature is beneath zero, and you are having a hot cup of coffee with some of your good friends. Add some cushions, candles, and woollen sweaters and you’ve got yourself some hygge. The concept of hygge is known to many Scandinavians and serves as a way to spend time with friends in

a cosy way. Since last year, it has received more attention in Europe, especially in the United Kingdom. Books like ‘Hygge: The Danish Art of Happiness’, ‘How to Hygge’ and ‘ScandiKitchen: Fika and Hygge: Comforting cakes and bakes from Scandinavia with love’ are just three of the eleven English books that were published on the topic in

2016 and sold over thousands of copies. These titles suggest hygge revolves around lifestyle and food and that everyone can join. But in Scandinavia, not everyone seems to be able to enjoy hygge. As anthropologist Jeppe Trolle Linnet writes, hygge ‘establishes its own hierarchy of attitudes, and

implies a negative stereotyping of social groups who are perceived as unable to hygge.’ This suggests hygge can be seen as a way to create a tight group by excluding people who are not like you. Therefore, the sudden popularity of hygge can be linked to the refugee crisis that erupted in 2015. This crisis led and still leads to very tense situations in Denmark, Scandinavia, and Europe. The sudden influx of many immigrants who have a different background could be a reason for many people to create some hygge and stay in their tight friend group and subtract from society. Subtracting from society and creating hygge can be reflected in the Danish handling of the refugee crisis. From the beginning, Denmark implied strict rules on the acceptance of refugees. One of the best-known examples is the ‘jewellery law’ that allowed Danish authorities to take jewellery and other valuables from refugees who just arrived in Denmark. The goal of the law was to confiscate valuables that can help finance the cost of their stay. This would mean that not the Danish state but the refugees themselves pay for their stay in Denmark. The law was met with harsh criticism from other European countries and human rights organisations like the UNHCR who state the law could ‘fuel fear and xenophobia.’ The negative Danish stance on immigration and the side effect of hygge, which is excluding people, has not always been like this. Originally, after Denmark lost most of its territory to Germany, Sweden, and Norway in the nineteenth century, hygge became part of Danish national culture. The concept of hygge was used to express the Danish oneness and sameness to try and overcome the

loss of land. This had led to Denmark being a relatively homogeneous country in which Danes care about other Danes. Therefore, it is hard for newcomers to become a “real” Dane. The Danish political scientist Ulf Hedetoft states ‘in Denmark, an ethnic majoritarian vision still permeates political discourses implying exclusive unifying traits which serve as boundary markers.’ Hence, not only does hygge lead to the side effect of excluding

“Hygge can be seen as a way to create a tight group by excluding people who are not like you”

people, it also favours the majority of citizens. This leads to a society in which the interests of natives are preferred above those of newcomers. Stating this, a link to the perspectives of right-wing populist parties like the Danish People’s Party (DPP) can be quickly made. The DPP is currently the second largest party in Denmark and can be seen as an anti-immigrant party. One of their statements is that the

arrival of many immigrants can lead to the diminishment of the Danish culture, its traditions, and its heritage. They state the values and ideologies of immigrants are not compatible with Danish values and ideology. Also, according to DPP politicians, the constant stream of immigrants can lead to them becoming a bigger group, which could shift the majoritarian vision in Denmark when they become politically active. Because the party worries about the values and ideologies of immigrants, one could expect integration facilities to be promoted by the party – which would lead to immigrants integrating well. This is not the case. While many refugees try to integrate into Danish society, its citizens and their politicians are using the influx to create hygge to subtract from society and create a distance between them. This leads to tight friendships between Danes which makes it hard for bystanders to become a part of. In this way, hygge, which revolves around woollen sweaters, hot cups of coffee, and good friends is becoming increasingly exclusive. Concluding, the refugee crisis of 2015 has led to an increase in hygge because Danes subtract from society to feel more comfortable in their country. This leads to a society in which minorities are barely in touch with the majority because they would rather spent time with each other than with newcomers. In turn, this creates a situation in which immigrants are not given proper chances to integrate, make friends and become familiar with Danish culture, traditions, and its heritage. For this reason, it can be concluded that hygge, which started off as an entirely non-political concept, has been used to exclude people and influence voters. That is not very hygge.

‘Squatting Slavs in Tracksuits’: a new gate to the discourse on Eastern Europe or Orientalist ridicule? In his introductory piece, Nikolai Markov writes how squatting Slavs on Facebooks showcases a change in the Orientalist discourse on Eastern Europe.

quatting Gopniks drinking vodka and smoking cigarettes seem to have become the direct heirs of Eastern Europe’s otherness to the West. Caged in this discourse of otherness, chaos, backwardness and savagery, we suddenly see a very different appreciation for the tonguebreakers of the Slavic world and their presumed heavy drinking habits. This jump from a discourse of otherness as a separator, that might have even had its focus on the main characteristics just mentioned, to those same ones coming to add value to the Slav otherness vis-à-vis the West is remarkable. Now the question raising itself from this dynamic is whether or not this value-added othering actually adds value to that other of the East or whether it only perpetuates the same old discourse in a very new, fashionable attire. Outside of this new social media phenomenon, Eastern Europe is taken very seriously in all its aspects of Otherness. So much so

that the region is being studied by specialists to come to explain why everything is so much, so facetted, so weird and so fascinating east of the West. It has so much explaining

“It feels as though all appreciation that is given to this region is always sprinkeled with a grain of Orientalist salt” to do for itself that for most of us it just becomes too much to account for: Balkanization of cultural and historical memory, the many languages that “all sound the same” and this strange world

of Communism that existed for another 40 years. It makes the club of connoisseurs a very closed circle and in turn cuts the region off as a misfit to the norm just as much as it manages to explain that misfit to the norm. It is like a door is being opened, wider and wider but paradoxically always being shut just as much. One might think that this effort would be met with a lot of eyerolling from Eastern Europeans. Just put yourself into a position where the acknowledgement is given that you need to be studied and understood. At first instance it sounds very flattering – look at how many people are taking an academic effort to allegedly understand you. That first instance manages to pass quite quickly though when you consider that you are constantly reminded of your inherent otherness that needs to be studied like a discovered, but never to be understood species. A lot of obstructions against such investigations following a

Western epistemological standard have actually been raised; the biggest and most frightening examples are to be seen in the miscommunications between the Western International Community and the Balkan states during the heated disintegration of the former Yugoslavia. And to be honest, these obstructions have maybe been raised rightfully so. The regional appreciation that is inherent to the study of Eastern Europe can only sit with theinvestigator, not with the object of investigation. Yet, the scope of this orientalist predicament does not reveal itself in the simple relationship of subject and object of study: it is the felt mismatch in a culturally established standard and approach to the object of Eastern Europe. It feels as though all appreciation that is given to this region is always sprinked with a grain of Orientalist salt that adds the ramshackle taste to the East of Europe we all know, seemingly making it its best quality. Be aware though that this argument does not only apply to the picture silently drawn up in this line of reasoning of the Western European fascinated researcher, who goes “Ohhhhhhh!” at everything that seems alien and interesting. What is described here is a universal bat that can hit anyone taking a look at this region, no matter where they come from, even and especially if they are from the region itself. If you think that the disputes are tiring in an academic environment, wait until you visit a friend in Eastern Europe (if you are fortunate enough to have one) and look at the entire family go, throwing various arguments at each other exactly why they and only they have gotten the history, the culture and the politics of their country, the former Communist bloc and its place in the world right up to the point of truth and no

return. Eventually, you’ll come to see that, as with any object of study, but even heavier so in this case, no one owns it, everyone fights over it and easily falls to discredit. The mentality explained above is one that the creators of this Facebook-page “Squatting Slavs in Tracksuits” know much too well. Its hype came to us about one and a half years ago and seemingly gave a new entrance to the sublime object of Eastern Europe. In a very humorous manner, the page exploits just as much the otherness of Eastern Europe as it does the fight over it. Instead of engaging in a fight about what is right, the page

offers you this: This cheeky smile has passed that point of truth and no return. Laughing at the mess that reveals itself once a look is taken at our attractive brothers and sisters of the East, a firm decision is taken to find joy in it. Presenting various memes about topics as far reaching as the life in Communist times and its inheritance, the everlasting fights and disputes between the nations of Eastern Europe about their rightful place in time or just fans who sent in pictures of themselves performing Slav squatting and heavy drinking – it is all there for us to enjoy. Critical voices might come to point out the problématique that is always connected to such laughter though: the seriousness of the topics at hand, the actuality

of those disputes as they have given reason to many for the exercise of unimaginable violence, and the exposure of the heavy schism inherent to the nature of the discourse on Eastern Europe. Doesn’t this laughter only reveal our incapability to resolve the conflicted otherness of what is actually a part of us, of our Europe? Doesn’t this grain of orientalist salt get heavier and heavier with every little bit of laughter? As much as these considerations are worth engaging with, this exposure of an incapability to understand does far more than any dispute on who understood properly. The Facebook-page ‘Squatting Slavs in Tracksuits’ in the end does a great service to the change in discourse on Eastern Europe for it manages to open the region up to a much greater audience, even though it pre-sets a much shorter attention span. Even in that laughter, a certain respect is contained by the beholder as he finds himself introduced to a ridiculous, messy and original realm. We cannot deny the fact that for us, things will remain difficult “over there”. Truth is though that this is a fact that, for now, does not only apply to us looking at the region but also to them. Every ‘them’ you can imagine is going through the same process. Instead of grimly holding on to every fact that we can consume for a next debate with family, friends or colleagues it does the discourse a much greater service to have opened this humorous and yet somewhat dark gate to the region. The laughter provokes you to think about the region, it provokes your interest. And even if it does not, one good laugh is never enough. So grab that Vodka, practice your squatting and feel enlightened! It has become just that easy to enter this discourse and it has never been easier before.

Notes from Vanity Fair Joep Leerssen

ood evening Amsterdama! Here Roma! First of alle, letta me tell you what a marvelous show you are putting onna! (Cheers, strobe lights, flag wavings, impatient grin from the presenter: “Yes Hroam senk you. End yor points plees?”) Yes, this is Europe, such as we’ll never see it again, with a Eurovision Song Contest hosted in our own hometown Amsterdam, after the resounding win of the Juvenile Delinquents’ Taakstraf Band and their moving motivational ballad “Get the Clothes, all ye Typhoid Patients”. Actually, I missed it this year. I was, ahem, in Rome, where I am hosted for two months in the Dutch Cultural Institute. A place dedicated to the history of early Christian churches, Renaissance sculptors’ workshops, Baroque paintings and traveling symbolist sonnet writers. Eurovision? Perish the thought. Anyway, it is a bit… passé, don’t you think? Pre-disco? It dates from the period that people were still impressed by telephone numbers beginning with a zero … Even to be camp and ironic about it has become a bit Thierry Baudet. The Woyal Neverlands Institute of Woam is located in the elegant suwwoundings – sorry, got some marshmallow stuck between my teeth – of the Villa Borghese, Rome’s Vondelpark. It relates to the Vondelpark the way St Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican relates to the Agnietenkapel, or Pavarotti relates to Anouk. Miles of shady walks beneath the pine trees, elegant Italians with adorable bambini speaking uncannily fluent Italian on

mobile phones. Their jackets loosely slung over their shoulders without putting arms through sleeves. (Note to self: try this when back in Amsterdam. Look casual about it: may be tricky while talking on mobile phone.) And with statues… statues… hundreds of them. Busts, pillars, seated, standing, allegorical, every shape and size, dedicated to people who were obviously deserving to have a statue dedicated to them.

appears to have helped in certain cases). Their lives and works, from the Middle Ages to the last century, all inspire awe. And they are all there, not just as fine poets and writers, but as representatives of their nation. Like, yes sir!, an upmarket Eurovision Song Contest, without the Juvenile Delinquents Taakstraf Band and the strobes but with pine trees and casually slung jackets.

That, dear Europeanists, is the essence of celebrity: being famous for being famous. And it is exactly how these statues work. Ahmed

What is it, these national chauvinisms mutually lifting each other into an international Hall of Fame? Ostensibly the Villa Borghese is about World Literature. Goethe, Byron, Victor Hugo, you know, cosmopolitanism and Weltliteratur and all that, awfully high-minded to be sure. (Pops another marshmallow.) But apparently the Iranians were hopping mad that “their” Nizami was put up by the Azerbaijani Government as One of Our Lads, as if Abba had been claimed as a German Eurovision entry. Gogol was put up by the Russians in 1992 to cock a snoop at the Ukrainians. These poets are all there to show how Major League their national governments are.

“That, dear Europeanists, is the essence of celebrity: being famous for being famous.” Shawqi, Petar Petrović Njegoš, Ferdowsi, Garcilaso de la Vega, Gogol’, Rustaveli and Nizami: each has his celebrity status confirmed by being placed in the company of all the others, like actresses in the front row of an Armani fashion show. Nizami *must* be important since he is between Shawqi and Njegoš, who must be important, since they are between… I looked them all up, and none of them got their statue for nothing (although a Berlusconi oil contract

UNESCO is running into the same paradox with its list of World Heritage Sites. It was meant as a cosmopolitan celebration of mankind and is becoming a battleground of national celebritycults, a Vanity Fair. Sometimes it would seem that a little indifference would help. But then again - look up Ahmed Shawqi (1868–1932) in Wikipedia; I’m glad a stroll in the Villa Borghese acquainted me with his name at least.

For more anger in the Millennial Generation: why we of all people cannot remain silent

In her first article for Eurovisie, Joana Voss explains how the results of the German national election mirror the position of millenials in all of Europe

wo weeks after the parliamentary elections, bewilderment still dominates the German press. What is shocking is not only that a country with this history of all histories just witnessed 12,6% of its voters electing the first right-wing extremist party into its parliament since 1949, one with unmistakably racist tendencies. But what is more, the result would have been roughly the same if only

people under 30 had been allowed to vote. Traditionally, the youth was a sure bet for being left-wing, the driver of change, made up of young souls still dedicated to uncorrupted ideals, an unshakable curiosity for the future and a confident claim to shaping it. In fact, be it Spain, France, the UK or Italy, throughout the big Western European countries, young people are taking to the streets for more

social security and supporting leftwing candidates like MĂŠlenchon or Corbyn. In Germany, they vote for the Christian Union, followed by the Social Democrats and the neoliberal FDP (just before the right-wing AfD, which still scored 11%) whilst parties from the left-wing spectre rank last. Are young people in Germany less angry than in other European

countries? Is their country simply doing ‘better than ever before’, like Angela Merkel tirelessly iterated as the one and only political message of her campaign? On a first instinct, there is perhaps some truth in this: Germany claims to have a flourishing labour market, booming export rates and substantial company profits. But behind the scenes, the German youth has roughly the same reasons to be angry as its Spanish, Italian or French counterparts. We all make up the Millennial Generation, the first that will probably not reach the prosperity level of our parents even though we are much better educated. We will have to work much longer and under much more precarious labour conditions. When measured in relation to GDP, over 65-year olds in Western Europe are much wealthier today than they were 40 years ago, while those below the age of 30 are doing much worse. We are spending three times more of our income on housing than our grandparents and yet are often living in worse accommodation. To finance these horrendous housing prices, we work at Foodora, in call-centres or any other underpaid job in the service sector. Now, one could object that this is just what life is like as a student and someone has to do these jobs, but once we graduate we will have it much better. But we are also the generation whose members are in fierce competition for the lucky prize of an unpaid internship after our studies and we have all given up on the illusion that we will go into a full-time indefinite work relation anytime soon, like most of our parents did. Good education is no longer a safe ticket into a secure future. In fact, in Germany alone, 70% of people in precarious labour finished a vocational training and 10% even hold a university degree.

Capitalism rests on people’s motivation that their work of today will grant their kids a better life tomorrow. We are the first generation to witness capitalism breaking this promise. Certainly, considering the comfortable living standard we have in Western Europe, this would not be such a problem as long as it meant that we would in return also have to work less, but the contrary seems to be more probable. If tradition tells us that responsibility for demanding radical political change lies on the shoulders of the youth, then we of all people cannot remain silent about this.

“Almost 90% of German students rely on financial support from their parents”

But, why do young Germans then still vote for the same people who issued the liberalizing reforms of the labour and housing market that brought about their poor outlook on the future? Are we Millennials apolitical, disinterested or even indifferent because we are busy numbing our intellect with Netflix series, Facebook news feeds and cat videos like countless articles in opinion sections diagnose? I doubt it. The few young Germans who do go on the streets protest for the rights of asylum seekers,

against free-trade agreements like TTIP or opposing the G20 summit in Hamburg. Whenever they go on the streets, it seems to be in the name of refugees or against Donald Trump but solemnly for a cause that does not concern their very own future. Perhaps young Germans simply have not realised how insecure a future they are facing because they are doing pretty well by just spending the abundant money of their parents. Almost 90% of German students rely on financial support from their parents (steamer) and the fact that they can perpetuate a system of unpaid internships at the expense of the remaining 10% whose parents cannot keep supporting them up into their late twenties. Neoliberalism in Germany has not only become the primary ideology informing policy, it has in fact reached into the deepest spheres of social life, ining the credo of individual responsibility into people that keeps them from longing for political change. Germans have stopped expecting anything from the state. Instead, young people are turning towards their parents and voting for parties that do not even make any promises about what the state could do for them but rather emphasise how well it is already doing. Even if the German youth does not manage to build up the rage that is in order considering their own position in society, a look towards her Greek, Spanish or Italian counterparts’ struggles with massive youth unemployment should suffice to seethe with anger. After all, what unites Millennials across Europe is also a fading comprehension for national borders. In this sense, capitalism as we live it and the direction it will take in the future is a collective European choice, and we of all people cannot remain silent when it comes to addressing its flaws.

Amsterdam’s alternative spaces ‘The whole city is becoming gentrified, commercialized, privatized, and on top of it all, branded. But the cinemas I’m doing are coming out of the spirit that I encountered in Amsterdam back in the 1970s. I’m trying to keep that spirit alive.’ – Jeffrey Babcock Sally Dixon

Image: the now-closed squatted building De Slang in Amsterdam’s Spuistraat

n Amsterdam, there is a variety of alternative spaces where people can come together for inspiration. The term alternative space can be loosely defined as a space other than a traditional commercial venue. Within the city, there are several independent, non-profit venues which provide a stage for music, film, dance, theatre and other forms of art. These nonprofit spaces are firmly against the commercialization of the arts, and through providing low-cost and sometimes free space, provide a security of space and existence as everyone can develop their talents on their own terms. Most alternative spaces in Amsterdam only charge a few euros for entry and some have free entry which ensures that the events remain accessible. One cultural event which takes place across the city in alternative spaces is an underground cinema. The organizer, Jeffrey Babcock, has been showcasing rare and neglected films for over ten years. The locations of his underground cinemas range from squat locations, such as Joe’s Garage to Filmhuis

Cavia, a counterculture cinema run by volunteers. The screenings focus mostly on overlooked films by unheard artists, not your typical Hollywood blockbusters. Audiences get the opportunity to experience a vast array of films, anything goes in terms of genre, be it horror, documentary or absurdist, providing its unique. My first visit nine months ago featured the masterpiece Lessons of Darkness, by German film director Werner Herzog, which zoomed in on the destructive effects of the oil fields of post-Gulf War Kuwait, a landscape engulfed in flames. Upon exiting the space, the catastrophic scenes of the Iraqi soldiers retreating from the explosive, illusive oil fields stayed with me as I cycled home on a rainy winters evening. The most recent viewing, Zigeunerweisen, an eerie ghost story set during the Japanese Taisho period by Japanese director Seijun Suzuki, a feast for the eyes. Another intriguing alternative space is the Vondelbunker, a bunker hidden under a bridge in Vondelpark. The venue hosts an array of events, from concerts to dinners to art exhibits. The evening I visited there was a storytelling night taking place, where a variety of subjects were explored. These ranged from speakers focusing on environmental and social justice issues to a talk about the destructive impact that gaming has had on the speaker’s life. There was also the opportunity for anyone to come and tell their story and for further workshops to help develop characters and dialogue. Despite initial heart palpitations after one of the speakers invited the rest of our group to tell our tales, it was a special and memorable night. Within the city, communities have been brought together through a rich history of community organizing within autonomous spaces. During the 1970s and 1980s, an important squatting

movement took place because of a serious lack of affordable housing. This led to youth occupying abandoned venues across the city, ranging from theatres to office blocks. However, since 2010 the Kraken en Leegstand Law has come into place, where squatting is punished and only tolerated in certain cases. The disappearance of squats in Amsterdam testifies to

“The disappearance of squats in Amsterdam testifies to gentrification in the city as much as the impact of the squatting ban”

gentrification in the city as much as the impact of the squatting ban. Because of these changes, squatting has started to disappear or be pushed further out of the city into suburban or industrial zones. Amsterdam’s vibrant arts culture has been impacted by the demands of commercial distribution and this can be seen most evidently through the disappearance of alternative spaces such as Spinhuis, a dungeon underneath the Torensluis bridge. Earlier in August the Spinhuis was evicted and this autonomous social centre which provided a range of workshops, discussion and debate evenings, theatre, art and music, is now to

be turned into a neighbourhood initiative for canal homeowners. In fact, one of the main problems in Amsterdam in the last few decades is that the city council is just selling off some of its social centres and housing to the biggest buyer. Sadly, the gentrification policy has its price, social housing becomes increasingly difficult to find, especially for large families and young people. Alternative spaces bring people together and get a dialogue going. As easy as this may sound, this is becoming more challenging because of the role that social media plays in our day-to-day lives. The sheer capability of social media to intrude on our lifestyles can cause us to hide behind screens and limit our face-to-face interactions. Indeed, alternative spaces can offer unique possibilities for the participants. For example, unlike the cinema chains in the city, a special aspect of Jeffrey’s underground cinema is that he always gives an introduction. By doing so, he helps to bring the film to life through describing the historical significance of the film, the technicalities, and a personal opinion alongside the social and political context. This helps the audience to gain a closer understanding of the film and opens up opportunities for further discussions. It is important to have spaces like these, where the creative potential of artistic projects is explored. Nevertheless, these spaces don’t just provide entertainment, but are places where important social and political messages are discussed and debated, a powerful forum for exchange. Alternative spaces serve the need for real conversation and debate and most crucially, are inclusive not exclusive. If you want to find out about the goings on in some of Amsterdam’s alternative spaces, check out the Amsterdam Alternative project online.

SES Calendar 21 November – Happy Borrel

The first Happy Borrel of the year will take place on the 21st of November. Join us, dress up & get free beer! For more information, keep an eye out on our Facebook page.

28 November – SES MUN

This year, the SES organises a Model United Nations once again. Are you interested in global politics, diplomacy and debate? Be sure to mark this date in your agenda!

12 December – Pub Quiz

An interesting way to combine beer with brain, we hope to see you and your team for a night of banter, booze & brainpower!

22 December – Christmas Gala

We will end 2017 on a high with the annual Christmas Gala. Get your suit or dress out of the closet and put on your fanciest shoes or heels: this will be a fancy night! Perhaps you will even end underneath the mistletoe? More information about the Gala will follow later.