Wednesday, April 30, 2025
Blog Page 425

Navigating the Theatre Interval

Intervals. I know you have been dying to read an article about them for as long as you can remember, so I’ll put you out of your misery. Intervals are a seemingly counterproductive phenomenon- why on earth would you want to tear down the until-now suspended disbelief just so a few people can go for a piss? Well, other than the fact that actually, this is a perfectly valid reason, there are a number of purposes and benefits of having an interval.

The most obvious being, of course, to allow the audience a break; some time to, as aforementioned, wee or otherwise (no judgement- you’ve got to do what you’ve got to do). Broadway bladder is (apparently) an actual thing, with audiences on average needing to urinate every 75 minutes. An interval lets the audience breath, stretch their legs, take in the mind- bending narrative of the first half they’ve just watched, and grab some food (because apparently these days no one can last three hours without a weirdly small tub of ice cream- myself included). It seems in the modern day, however, intervals are not a luxury but a basic ‘right’ for theatre goers, after all, god forbid we don’t get to check our phones for two hours…

On top of the audience needing a break, intervals allow the cast and crew to rest themselves, change, move the set around, refresh if they’ve had a particularly taxing scene or if the play is a bit heavy- If you think sitting still in a seat longer than an hour is tough, imagine having to act for that long! Think of the accents, costumes, movement and general high energy they have to bring to set day after day.

What do theatre toilets and theatre café/bars have in common? QUEUES. Oh, the queues. I could honestly leave my seat before the lights have even come up on stage, sprint down and there would still be a bar queue of pensioners eighty-strong waiting for me. And don’t even get me started about women’s toilet queues (for those theatres that have not yet evolved to gender neutral)- I see the smug faces of men waltzing past the mile of women desperately clinging onto their crotches and crossing their legs, hoping not to wet themselves (I won’t lie and say I’ve never been to the men’s toilet out of sheer desperation. Confidence is key when pulling a stunt like that).

Now you’ve relieved yourself, naturally you might take a mooch around the heavily overpriced gift shop. If you’re pretentious you might seriously consider, or at least look like you’re considering, buying one of the paintings made by local up-and-coming artists that a five- year -old definitely wouldn’t be able to make. If someone’s birthday is coming up, you could buy them one of the normally quite artistic and abstractly designed cards, but of course that would be their only present, since it’s £17.

Gift shop well-and-truly mooched, you look at your watch, or phone screen if you’re under the age of eighty. Still time. But what to do? Your next move could be one you regret, so choose carefully. If you go to the bar, you will no doubt be asked to pay around half your accommodation fees on a small lukewarm beverage, before being practically interrogated by resident socialite boho- chic vegans on your opinion of the opening sequence. You shortly realised these were the people you heard laughing at things that weren’t even funny, just to assert that they understood the nuanced and tasteful script.

But wait; they don’t care if you enjoyed the opening sequence. They were just unsubtly setting up the opportunity to tell you about the time they met the lead actor through ‘some old drama school friends’ and got themselves invited to the Q&A panel afterwards. Oh, sorry did you also know they went to drama school? Well, they did. They’re not bitter. I promise, they’re not.

Blasted: Sarah Kane’s Vision Today

0

Trigger Warnings- Rape and Violence

Sarah Kane’s first play, Blasted, begins with the ageing Ian grooming his young girlfriend Cate in an expensive hotel room. It escalates into bombings, rapes, the gouging out of eyes, and it ends with a baby being eaten. Since the effect of the short performance is pretty much as abrupt as its synopsis, the critical uproar it provoked upon premiering in 1995 seemed predictable; theatre sections were smeared with fairly unanimous distress and bewilderment over just what this 24-year-old’s ‘monstrous’ writing was doing to the theatre world. The Daily Mail famously branded the show a “disgusting feast of filth”.

Reading these reviews now, they smack of sensationalism and self-defence. Ian’s character is far from a stock villain, instead becoming Kane’s route to laying bare the nuanced toxicity of certain types of Western masculinity. The defensive reactions of the sea of old, white, male critics was evidence of how close it cut to the bone. As it is for many who find themselves suddenly under interrogation, critics seemingly preferred to decontextualize the play’s violent exploration of sexual politics, and so to write it off as perverted and unneeded, than to confront it.

But Blasted’s violence wasn’t only informed by gender relations on British shores – it drew upon the atrocities of the Bosnian Civil War too. In ridiculing the violence which occurs on the domestic stage, the reviewers by association deemphasised the very real international political events which were taking place, and which their peers were reporting on. I read Blasted for the first time very recently, and found that the violence was difficult, but needed. I winced, cried, couldn’t make it through in one sitting – but don’t I see and hear worse every day? Cate’s abuse, Ian’s ruthlessly sordid powerplays, the Soldier’s almost pathetic conceit; these are broadcast to us all, though veiled in politics and not in their pared-back theatrical incarnations, through our phone notifications.

Kane’s critics chose to remove the discussion from its international context and figure Blasted’s brutality as sensationalist, accusing Kane herself for portraying such violence. She answered, “my imagination isn’t that fucking sick…I just read the newspapers”. Now, an entire world of people increasingly wired in and switched on to international news read the same events, see these same images – and worse, off-stage –constantly. In the current climate of the systemic racism in US police forces and elsewhere, the ongoing Yemeni conflict, the climate crisis, and countless other events of atrocity which are shared instantly round the globe and in which we all, rightly, feel implicated, we can no longer take offence at fictionalised violence. This would be to deny what is taking place now.

Perhaps our increasing interconnection has bred the kind of awareness which Kane’s work needed; perhaps her violence seems congruous to our experience now, where before it seemed extraneous. But this isn’t simply a testament to the educational virtue of online news outlets – it is also a stark revelation of the extent to which our political climate has numbed us to the potency of violent acts. Could this be combatted by a revival of Kane’s brand of ‘in-yer-face’ drama, re-introducing shock and indignation at violence as it does so easily? If so – if Kane’s theatre will help today – viewers must change the direction of their anger. The woman who shows us metaphors for violence does not deserve it; the people who commit it do. With its prescient exploration of how a society functions, or doesn’t, when people twist their agency to the worst ends, Kane’s play has even more to teach us in 2020. When read in their most metaphorical senses, the trajectories of Ian and the Soldier, both predatory, cruel, and in denial, remind me of the kind of harmful and counterproductive self-interest which we’ve seen on shameless display by multiple governments during recent weeks. Ian and the Soldier both end up dead.

As playwright Edward Bond writes of Blasted – “images are omens and we must learn to read them”. Might the rest of this year bring an appreciation of human solidarity for us all, as Ian discovers in Cate’s selfless kindness at the play’s end? Or, as Kane suggests in Blasted’s futile tragedy and its deaths, will this compassion come too late? I sincerely hope that it will be the former; in Kane’s appeal to us to exercise empathy both in our worldview and our relationships with others, I find a message more suited to 2020 than any other. Blasted, far from sadistic, calls us to view violence both realistically and discerningly rather than to bury our heads in the sand.

Image credit: Michael Thoeny

The Evolution of Work

0

With people forced to work from home, layoffs happening in every industry, and a power balance shifted by the increasing necessity of essential workers, the future of work promises not only to be uncertain, but possibly unrecognisable.

Tech companies such as Facebook and Twitter in the U.S. have announced permanent moves to more remote systems of work, a large shift from the previously campus-centric model that Silicon Valley companies swore by. For Facebook, this means having a workforce that is 50% remote in the next 5-10 years and building hubs in places such as Atlanta for remote workers to occasionally convene, away from the west-coast centre of tech innovation. For Twitter, the changes start much sooner; employees are now allowed to switch entirely to remote working if they prefer it to office life.

Shifts like these promise seismic changes in both how we work and who can work. People will be able to have greater flexibility in where they live, locating themselves based on the merits of an area rather than proximity to a job. This could help drive down rent in areas with high levels of housing inflation, such as London and San Francisco, making them more affordable. In addition, a greater number of remote working opportunities could make employment easier for people with children. Some research suggests that one of the main factors causing the gender pay gap is that women are more likely to take time away from careers to have children, but remote work could allow women to have more continuous and thus higher earning careers. A lower number of commuters could also help cut pollution from car emissions and congestion, meaning that there is an environmental incentive for remote working too.

Still, anyone that has tried to work or study from home during the pandemic can attest to the difficulties that it presents. Particularly in smaller spaces, maintaining any kind of work-life divide can be challenging, and it becomes a lot easier for time that would otherwise be more easily designated for rest to bleed into yet more work. Removal of the office social life could also lead to greater feelings of loneliness; without these communal spaces, people may begin to feel more isolated than ever. Remote working is only a reality for certain kinds of work, that which can be undertaken digitally, whereas people in jobs that require physical tasks, such as lab work, or people in minimum-wage jobs, would be exempt from reaping the benefits of these changes. Companies such as Facebook have already updated their policy to suggest that salary would become proportional to location, and so while rent prices may become more balanced, geographical wealth divides are likely to remain.

There is also the question of how work time should be arranged, now that guidance suggests limiting the number of people in office spaces. In New Zealand, Jacinda Arden has been one of the more recent proponents of the 4-day work week, a concept that has seen rising popularity. For her, it promises greater opportunities for domestic tourism, something that economies may sorely need given that international tourism won’t be an option any time soon. This switch has been tested by companies such as Microsoft Japan, who saw an increase of 40% in workspace productivity, while saving energy and money on the running costs of their offices. Moving to a 4-day work week certainly allows for more leisure time spent with family and friends, but it could also lead to more stress while we’re at work, as the same workloads become compressed into shorter periods of time. Parkinson’s law suggests that work expands to fill the time available for its completion, and so moving to a 4-day work week could lead to faster results and quicker innovations, but possibly at the cost at more stressful, intense working hours.

The changes that the pandemic promises may be beneficial to some, but they don’t promise to be helpful for all. People in minimum-wage and people-facing jobs are likely to be at greater risk as the outbreak continues, and so those that are able to take advantage of the innovations in remote-working will generally be safer, leading to divides in those impacted the most by the pandemic. On the bright side, however, the pandemic offers a future of increasing flexibility. While not everyone may want to move permanently to this way of working, one thing that has become clear is that doing so will become a feasible choice.

SATIRE: Oxfess Wars, Fun or Boring?

0

Most Oxford students’ lives right now are defined by uncertainty. Will we be faced with an online Michaelmas as well as Trinity? When will we be able to see our friends and family in person again? Will the world we live in ever return to something resembling normality? 

Yet one certainty remains. Seeking respite from an essay crisis or trying to pass the time during lockdown, we open up Facebook to see a feed clogged with heated political debates between anonymous strangers desperate for validation. I am, of course, talking about Oxfess. 

I’m sure at some point Oxfess was better. A confessions page should be a place to share embarrassing, hilarious stories free from judgment, to give others a quick laugh during a break from their busy schedules. I’m not saying that there aren’t still great Oxfesses- there are always gems to uncover, however many “Oxford colleges as ‘Simpsons’ characters” or “OUCA members as flavours of crisps” posts you need to sift through first. But the recent preponderance of political discourse between enraged keyboard warriors has turned Oxfess sour. 

Don’t get me wrong- political debate has its place, and passionately supporting your views is an essential part of liberal democracy. But Oxfess shouldn’t be that place. Relentless arguments between increasingly angry students are at best boring and annoying to the majority, and at worst anxiety-inducing. At a time where many have lost loved ones or are trying their hardest to deal with working in difficult home environments, to be told there is yet another issue we absolutely MUST care about is a step too far. Even if these debates are engaged with, they achieve very little; seldom do people change their minds or reach common ground after a series of emotionally charged rants over Facebook.  

True, there is a certain irony about writing an entire article about content you ostensibly claim to not engage with. But this trend on Oxfess seems to showcase part of what’s wrong with current political discourse. The Internet allows views to be expressed without the need for accountability; behind a veil of anonymity, people can say whatever they want, however outlandish, ignore or shut down criticism, and find like-minded groups where their subjective opinions are accepted as fact. Now that COVID-19 has forced people into physical as well as political bubbles, there is a risk that politics will become further distorted, with common ground harder to find. Real constructive debate, between passionate individuals willing to openly defend their beliefs, risks being replaced by anonymous ideologues screaming talking points at a computer screen, achieving nothing. 

So as much as you might feel an undying urge to ‘confess’ your belief that taxation is theft, or that private schools are an abomination, or that the controversial SU motion of the hour is a much-needed recognition of existing systemic issues/ushers in an Orwellian police-state, please don’t. Or express your opinion in an appropriate space, like a niche ideological sub-reddit or the YouTube comments on a Jordan Peterson video. 

Or Twitter.  

On The Up & Up: Unions in 2020

0

Ever since Boris Johnson’s address to the nation outlining the UK government’s plans to roll back lockdown restrictions, trade unions have been in the headlines. Teaching unions, as well as the British Medical Association, the UK’s largest doctor’s union, have opposed plans to re-open primary schools from June 1st. This is due to concerns over the potential spread of the virus without a testing structure in place.

Although the government has not backed down from the June 1st goal, a great deal of uncertainty has been thrown on the re-opening process. As a result of union discussions, documents from the government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies have been released showing that the expert recommendation was to wait until a testing system had been established before re-opening schools. England is the only country within the UK sticking with the goal, and even then, at least 14 English councils will be advising schools against opening on June 1st.

Union activism has played a large role in keeping this issue live, and rightly so. In a member poll conducted by NASUWT, a leading teaching union, 95% expressed concern about the government’s plans. Yes, schools are hugely important for children’s well-being, and for allowing parents and carers to re-enter the economy. But teachers, like all workers, have a basic right to safety in the workplace that must be protected.

As lockdown measures become less strict, this right will come increasingly under threat. The unprecedented nature of the crisis means nobody is truly sure when it will be safe for workplaces to re-open. And due to the huge economic incentive to re-open businesses as quickly as possible, industry leaders are far more likely to push for the earliest estimates that carry the highest health risk for workers. In the last two years, union membership has already seen an uptick; the pandemic could well lead to further unionisation as established working relations destabilise in the scramble to recover from the pandemic.

In the midst of a crisis, it is far too easy to paint unions as an obstruction to the good of the nation. Teaching unions have been portrayed as frustraters, ignoring the needs of students, despite the legitimate concern of members and a constant offer to work alongside the government towards a safer timeline for school openings.

This is because the policies that are safest for workers are often the most inconvenient for those in charge; they require delays, or extra expenditure and thus reduce profit. With union power far diminished since their 1970s heyday, and only around 23% of the workforce currently unionised, the most obvious first solution to inconvenient union demands is to foster public opposition towards them.  

Unions are far from perfect. They are often unrepresentative, likely to contain the most activist members of any profession and skew heavily towards older workers; only 4.4% of union members are aged between 16 and 24. The shift to the gig economy has also excluded unions from many disputes. For example, Amazon has repeatedly refused to recognise unions, and since the beginning of the pandemic, has fired several workers for speaking out about safety concerns.  

However, in the fight to have workers’ voices heard, the union remains the best tool available – change is awkward, especially now, and it can’t be achieved without an organised collective will. Unions will probably never return to their pre-Thatcher standing, and under the Tories, they’ll almost certainly encounter constant opposition to their proposals. But if there was ever an opportunity for the union to reach a representative sample of workers and achieve concrete change on their behalf, it’s now.

A National Treasure

0

Unless you have been living under a rock, you will be familiar with Captain Tom Moore, a 100-year-old who has raised over £30m for NHS Charities Together by completing 200 laps of his back garden. Almost more remarkable than the sum Captain Tom has managed to raise is the warm sentiments that he has generated.

Among the many declarations of admiration for the WWII veteran there have been enough birthday cards to fill a school hall, a Spitfire flypast, and now a knighthood. With all that recognition, it is safe to dub him a national treasure. You would be hard pressed to find anyone with a negative thing to say about him, which is surprising in a nation that tends to be divided on pretty much every issue. Captain Tom certainly is not the only one to fundraise amidst the Covid-19 crisis, so how, and why, did he win over the nation’s heart? 

The image of the elderly Captain Tom using a zimmer frame to complete his fundraising goal is an inspiring and endearing one. It restores our faith in the good nature of humanity and invokes a sense of resilience in the face of adversity. But Captain Tom does more than just symbolise hope in a time of sorrow, and this is where the power of his undisputed support lies. With his military background, and his fundraising specifically for the NHS, he has become an emblem of so-called British greatness.

Tajfel’s (1979) social identity theory suggests that our individual self esteem is affected by the status of our group memberships, and for many, national identity forms a huge part of this. We take pride in Captain Tom because at a time when Britain is undergoing huge societal changes and is being scrutinised for its handling of the pandemic, his efforts remind us what is supposedly great about Great Britain.

Captain Tom is more than a national treasure: his veteran status makes him a hero, and people need a hero to pin their hopes on now more than ever. Indeed, the discourse surrounding coronavirus is rife with war rhetoric, drawing a parallel between today’s NHS workers and the soldiers of WWII. But there is a danger in drawing these comparisons and pinning our hopes on these so-called heroes.

The NHS workers risking their lives just by doing their jobs are not heroes, but victims. To treat them as heroes imbues them with super-human status, ultimately dehumanising them and absolving us of guilt over their suffering. After all, potential death isn’t part of your typical NHS job description, but it is for a hero’s. This rhetoric creates a scapegoat for the government, as when we look to individuals to provide national security and health, we ignore the government-run institutions that they embody and the issues within them that need addressing. It is no wonder Downing Street has fed into the hero trope by commending Captain Tom, as this makes his fundraising seem like a brave attempt at defeating the enemy and distracts us from it really is: a damning testament to the disrepair of the NHS.

Captain Tom has helped to boost morale across the nation, and for that he should be commended. The public should be encouraged to hold onto sources of optimism in times like these, but we shouldn’t let them distract us from reality and blind us to our nation’s failings. ‘Heroes’ like Captain Tom or NHS workers alone will not get us through this pandemic. We need a collective effort to hold the government to account and to push for structural changes that continue long after this crisis is over and the pot of money from Captain Tom’s JustGiving page has run out.

The Ultimate Face off: Vine or TikTok?

Forever in Our Hearts, The Legacy of Vine by Lizzie Harvey

Like it or not, Vine’s legacy is undeniable. Despite shutting down in 2016, its online cultural impact has been huge and is often seen as the golden standard by which to judge new video-sharing platforms. Its premise was simple: videos that only lasted 6.5 seconds. Unlike on other forms of social media, Vine was condensed, resulting in short, sweet, and experimental videos. It was just long enough to get your punchline in, but short enough to keep people’s attention in this hyperactive digital age. This brevity is also, in my opinion, the reason why Vine is so quotable.

The short, looping clips were easy to remember and the absurdist, innovative comedy of many famous Vines meant they were widely shared. In this way, viral Vines were often ‘one-hit wonders,’ in contrast to the trends that seem to dominate TikTok, perhaps as a result of its past, as well as its predecessor Musical.ly, that capitalised off ‘borrowing’ or recycling other people’s content. When success on TikTok seems to be driven by how well someone can capitalise off trends or how attractive they are, it is difficult to see how their videos will enter into popular culture in quite the same way that Vines did.

While Viners could become infamous through the videos they made for fun, TikTok stars, most of whom are teenagers, seek to find fame and fortune. Whether this is something that young people should be aspiring to is debatable. Yes, this is a simplification. Viners like Curtis Lepore, Nash Grier, and Lele Pons were unfunny at best and highly problematic at worst, but others such as Drew Gooden, Shawn Mendes, and Rudy Mancuso used the platform to make some genuinely funny and impressive content and used their popularity gained on Vine to launch successful careers.

Vine’s demise was largely the result of the platform’s inability to make a profit and complete against the likes of Instagram and YouTube. TikTok has no such problems and is often jokingly lauded as ‘gentrified Vine.’ The app has become such a commercial hit that its adverts can now be found on mainstream TV as well as online. While commercialisation isn’t necessarily awful, it does become more nefarious when accusations that their algorithm hides unconventionally attractive people and reinforces social bias by recommending people who look like the user. Similarly to Instagram, many TikTok users present an idealised self, harming young and impressionable users. Added to this are its questionable terms of service, taking ownership of all videos posted on the app, as Viner-turned-YouTuber Cody Ko discovered when his videos mocking the platform were used as ads without his permission. TikTok, put simply, is worrying in ways Vine never was.

It is true that TikTok is bigger than Vine; it currently has four times as many users, with an astounding 800 million active users across the globe. But numbers do not necessarily translate into good content or a lasting legacy. Myspace, for example, had over 1 billion users registered, and yet has faded into Internet obscurity, so the future of TikTok is by no means certain. On the other hand, perhaps rather paradoxically, the untimely demise of Vine solidified its legacy; instead of fizzling out or becoming overly commercialised, Vine being shut down led to a flurry of vine compilations, helping to canonise almost the key set of ‘iconic’ vines which the app is remembered by, rather than by its slightly darker side. This is Vine’s legacy: the best, as decided by the fans. Vine is dead. Long live Vine.

TikTok: The Next Great Roller Coaster of Youth by Amelia Wood

It is definitely a bit embarrassing to admit that I love Tiktok. I know it. You know it. When I told my friends that I was writing this piece, there was a tinge of disgust in the messages I received back. Sure. some of them may peruse the app from time to time, but it’s almost in an ironic way, like they’re always ready to defend themselves by saying “don’t worry, I don’t really like it.”

Many of us have fond memories of Vine. It was that rare gem of zany internet culture that penetrated fully through to everyone our age. I have especially sacred (read: damaging) recollections of the year ten Christmas show at school. One of my friends banged pots and pans together while screaming at the top of her lungs the lines from the vine “I don’t get no sleep cos of y’all, y’all never gonna sleep cos of me!” and then promptly falling off the stage.

The six second limit made Vine fast and electric. Creators had to be imaginative about how they could make the most of the time available. Vines either worked or they didn’t. If they didn’t succeed, it wasn’t a problem, because you were already watching the next one. When they did work though, it could be some of the funniest content on the internet. They achieved a unique sort of humour that was difficult to find or replicate elsewhere. I was sad when Vine was shut down and surprised when nothing else quickly sprung up to fill the void. But now something has.

In the past two years, Tiktok has exploded in popularity. It differs in some ways from its predecessor: the six second cap has been lengthened to a full minute and it usually incorporates a song or filter into the video. Regardless, for me it has been the only thing to recreate that same storm in a teacup energy that vine had cultivated so wonderfully. That is not to say I have no issues with Tiktok. The time limit could be shortened by 20 seconds or so and some of videos can be quite cringy.

A big point made by many arguing against the app is that it is owned by a Chinese company. It has been accused of skimming user data and manipulating the algorithm against certain kinds of content among other things. Frankly, I’m unqualified to dispute any of these claims, even if I wished to. For my part, the feed I receive on the app is diverse and wide-ranging; gay Tiktok is huge and social issues are often the subject of the videos.

On security, I suppose the concerns about Tiktok reflect society’s wider cold war-esque suspicion with China at the moment. I would only point out that it is no good putting down Chinese creations if we can’t come up with anything better. Tiktok sprang up because Vine was shut down by its American owners after all.

Getting older is strange. I’m sure that by this point in our lives, we have all experienced that chilling feeling that arises out of the realisation that we no longer understand what the ‘young people’ are up to, be it Tiktok or fidget spinners or Fortnite. By university, we have detached ourselves from the collective unity that comes from being the ‘young people’. It is sad in a way and I think it’s why we can be reluctant to acknowledge the successors to the things we loved. It is why my friends were horrified at the notion I could even suggest Tiktok could supplant Vine. Vine was targeted at us and Tiktok was not. I also think it is part of why I like Tiktok so much. Just for now, I would like to hold on that feeling of being in the know and that I haven’t grown up and moved on. Being a teenager was a roller coaster, and I’m not quite ready to get off.

Black trauma porn, slacktivism, and chicken soup for the activist soul


TW: racism, police brutality, racial violence

The torrential online aftermath of the murder of a black man: posts mourning fallen black victims, names added to a growing list, and a disturbingly large amount of hits that videos and photos of a slain man can garner while making rounds on the web. This part of the revolution will be televised. But it will also be live, and internal. 

I can’t begin to piece together the disgust that’s been mounting inside of me for the past week – going on years; for both the systems that scorch black people and for the insensitivity that rises from its ashes. Every. Single. Time. By the time this article is uploaded, the Instagram stories would have died down a little, and the media would have been partially quenched. But for many black people, the anguish that we continue to live through is pushed down to a familiar place of throbbing dullness, and it’s hard to swallow. We’re tired of explaining why we deserve to be alive. With heavy hearts, conversations about racism continue to carve out our most intimate relationships and most public interactions. 

I’ve seen many debates circulating about virtue signalling – that is, posting about BLM, and white privilege when you’re not black is performative and helps ease a sense of white guilt that’s inevitably bubbled up. Perhaps you’ve said a microaggressive or racist comment in the past (‘I’m colourblind ahaha’, ‘we’re all people, so race doesn’t really matter to me lol’, ‘can I touch your hair?!’, thought it was okay to say the n-word when you aren’t black, ‘you’re so well-spoken!’, etc.). It’s dawned on you, and you are fearful of the way that your silence may be perceived today. Good. Now do something about it. While an Instagram story on its own is not activism, it’s damaging to assume that all those who post on social media are solely searching for a way to assuage their guilt or morally posture themselves. Silence and neutrality are exercises of privilege and are dangerous forms of complicity. For many of us, social media is the most accessible way to gain and spread knowledge. Still, this debate raises another critical issue: everyone should involve themselves in dialogues about racism – because everyone is involved – but for white people, there are appropriate ways to go about it. For one, sharing alarming and sensationalist posts on social media is incredibly insensitive, and ultimately desensitising. I’ve had to scroll through stories of George Floyd’s body blasted into multidimensionality, his execution is public and reposted for clicks and likes, and the act of this is vile. A knee pressed to his neck and pleas for air were Floyd’s modern-day lynching, and these images are haunting, forcing many to consider them as possible outcomes for the black men in their lives. As countless others have pointed out, if it takes a violent picture to rouse your awareness, reflection, and interest in researching systemic racism, that’s a huge problem. My heart goes out to 17-year old Darnella Frazier who bravely filmed the whole ordeal, and it aches deeply for Floyd’s family and community.

Showing brutal footage of black bodies being harmed or killed is a form of ‘black trauma porn’, and its effects are devastating. Zanta Nkumane writes in more detail on the issue, and articulates its premise very well: the ‘structural autonomy of whiteness seems to derive a warped pleasure at seeing black pain shared’. This claim isn’t to erase this violence from the media, far from it actually. Alongside cultural appropriation, tokenising black activist voices, and fetishising black people, but then never speaking up about racism in a meaningful way, black trauma porn ranks way up there on the list of ways that people abstract real human lives from devastating acts. It’s voyeuristic and strips a person of dignity, casting them as a necessary martyr for the education of the public. There are more humane ways to raise awareness without prolonging the grief of those affected by Floyd’s death. Share meaningful posts, talk about it, donate if you can. Listen and read.

More than anything, black trauma porn feeds into a broader discussion on the media’s curation of black stories: blackness is violent and a death sentence, and can only be depicted as so, it seems. I ask you to scrutinise your social media feeds, how many black figures do you follow? How much of your feed is permeated by violent images when instances of police brutality occur, but otherwise remains free of humanising, mundane stories and pictures of black people? Really observe your consumption of media and check whether it’s white-washed outside of direct discourses on race. This is part of the problem.

There’s one last thing that I’ve noticed: an embarrassing amount of shallow research. Instagram is an excellent place to begin your search for more information on police brutality, but dinky, colourful ‘RIP’ or ‘#Blacklivesmatter tag 10’ posts aren’t going to cut it. They’re not informative and are far from exhaustive on the matter. If you’ve posted or read one of these, and then proceeded to move on with your day as if normal, never having to think about these issues until the next instance of brutality, that’s privilege. There’s so much more to this, and I still don’t know as much as I’d like to. Police brutality runs deeper and further back before the inception of the seminal Black Lives Matter movement. It severely affects black women (you should really search up ‘misogynoir’), black trans people, black disabled people, black queer people, black children – I could go on, and on. These identities are also harmed, and often, never filmed or brought to the media’s attention. Let’s extend this issue into other systems. Pregnant black individuals are almost four times more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes than their white counterpart. They are less likely to have considered medical care and monitoring because of the belief that they can painlessly and resiliently push babies out like production lines (stemming from the ‘black women are so strong!’ claim). Or by echoing other news, we can look at the adoption system, where stories like Huxley’s reveal a darker side to transracial and transnational adoptions; the potential for white families to ‘save’ ethnic minority children from poverty, but at the slightest hint of more inconvenience than bargained for, funnel them straight back into the system. 

Please don’t call activism a trend. To be black and an activist means that the racist incidents that we raise awareness for can very well be used as templates for our lives. It’s devastating and reflects how the world has fundamentally failed us. When Amy Cooper yelled ‘an African-American man is threatening my life’, she stressed and heaved out ‘African-American’ because she knew exactly what it meant in America’s racist justice and law enforcement systems. She weaponised her whiteness, and even Christian Cooper’s ‘exceptionalism‘ as a Harvard grad, couldn’t shield him from this. This, alongside Trump calling the Minneapolis protesters ‘thugs’ – that when the ‘looting starts, the shooting starts’ – reveals an insidious layer of the binary ‘good vs bad victim’ afterthought that pervades racist incidents: that these killings are somehow justifiable as retribution for the ‘thuggish’ behaviour of black men. It’s laughable.

For fellow black activists, it’s a difficult time to feel safe and stable. Look after yourself, and sometimes that means taking a break from social media for a while and removing yourself from triggering conversations. Self-care can also mean visibly engaging in important discourses, sharing your personal stories, and protesting. All of these can feel very cathartic and restore a sense of agency. There is no right or wrong way to deal with this collective sense of trauma. Do what you think is necessary and soothing and stay safe.

For white people and non-black PoC, first sit in discomfort if you think you’ve been complicit in discrimination towards black people, let your skin crawl and then do something about it going forward. Don’t log out from social media. Let all of this saturate your timeline. Combat anti-blackness and your implicit biases, talk to young white children about race, check your privilege, check on your black friends, ask questions if you don’t understand, and discuss them with other white people. Stop applauding ‘good cops’ for doing their job. Call out the racist remarks of your non-black friends even when there aren’t black people around. You’ll make mistakes, but don’t make it about you. It’s easy to feel immobile, as though there’s nothing you can do to make a sizable difference. There is so much that you can do. Educate yourself on the appropriate ways to engage in conversations about race (i.e. less social media slacktivism and a lot more researching, listening, and meaningful interactions). Really immerse yourself. Uplift black voices but don’t leave race discussions up to us – it really does fall on everyone’s shoulders. 

I’ve linked a lot of great resources throughout the article if you’d like to learn more, and a few more are attached below. Use these as starting points for dialogue:

Oxford- A Modern Institution?

0

When one is part of an institution whose leadership of ancient white men is so receptive and open to change, one can often forget that the University of Oxford is, in fact, rather old. I often think we as students fail to recognise how modern our dear institution has become.

Perhaps this modern revolution is best illustrated in the joie de vivre with which our university has embraced social media. When criticised by MP David Lammy for a subpar intake of BAME and working-class students, the University displayed it’s adeptness at 21st century communication, genially responding by liking a random tweet that described him as “bitter”. I have heard similar glowing reviews of geniality from fellow BAME students, who assure me they are stopped and cordially greeted by a porter every time they attempt to enter the threshold of a college.

Obviously, as one of the world’s best universities, Oxford and its colleges have also shown a truly modern and progressive attitude in confronting their racist past. One needs only to look at Oriel College’s handling of a campaign demanding the removal of a statue of Cecil Rhodes. As we have come to expect, Oriel gracefully began a consultation process, no doubt involving the opinions of it’s incredibly diverse and representative governing body. Although Oriel stood to lose £100 million in gifts should the statue have been removed, who are we to doubt their claim of “overwhelming” support for the statue in their consultation process? Instead, as members of the university we should be proud of our institution’s allegiance to those famous modern values of partaking in open debate, expressing divergent views, and refusing to condemn colonialism. 

In a world where institutions of power emulate only COVID-19 in their repeated and disproportionate targeting of BAME communities, it is perhaps unsurprising that Oxford’s students follow the stellar example of our university’s leadership. The committed adherence of some JCRs to constitutional policy despite appalling racist comments truly shows how far into the modern age Oxford has progressed.

I shall leave you with my hope that Oxford as an institution will modernise further. Often, we as students quietly inspect the caring and considerate actions of our university and colleges. We wordlessly watch the staunchly democratic actions of our JCRs, silently listen to the divergent views of our student body. We join the revolution through a quick status update on Facebook, make racists cower from the black squares of our Instagram posts. And the world changes. For two weeks.

Dear reader, I must admit that I had originally intended to end on an allegory. I do hope that you will forgive me, but I was simply incapable of the creative thought required to compare trivial events to an innocent man’s murder. Silly me.

Classic Letdowns: Vanity Fair

Googling the words Vanity Fair brings up a popular publication, a 2004 movie starring Reese Witherspoon and a 2018 BBC show, and finally, the novel by William Makepeace Thackeray.  Reese’s scheming face and dramatic (possibly anachronistic) high collar popped up one too many times on my Netflix recommendation queue, and living by the “book is better than movie” adage I decided to read the intimidatingly thick book before I watched its film adaptation.  It’s the kind of classic that you’ve heard of in the sense that it’s famous enough to spark recognition but not for its plot to be widely known, or for its characters to be the kind of ‘no explanation needed’ Halloween costume that gets you extra candy. But we all expect famous books to be famous for a reason, and that reason is usually (ask English Literature students anywhere) that they stand the test of time, they achieve the same effects across generations. I’d like to preface with the fact that I do not denigrate Thackeray’s skill or the novel’s pathbreaking nature, but consider why it doesn’t work half as well in the 21st century cultural imagination as it did with its original audience. Vanity Fair is fundamentally satire, which somewhat traps it in its own social context in the first place, but to me– in light perhaps of the storytelling tropes and mechanisms I’m used to– it often felt like too much of a stretch to find it genuinely funny, layered or relatable. 

This is in part due to its focus on Rebecca ‘Becky’ Sharp– its scheming, scamming, sorely-morals-lacking protagonist. The fact, however, is that she isn’t a very layered or appealing central character because her ‘evil’ is just a little too textbook.  Although its working title was “a novel without a hero” and the narrator reminds us of this often, the clearly protagonistic nature of Rebecca raised questions about the idea of the literary hero and made Thackeray revolutionary for breaking conventions. Since anti-heroes didn’t exist at the time, the subtitle was supposedly Thackeray highlighting her morally gray nature. It’s thus understandable that Rebecca was deeply intriguing at a time when giving her actions any sympathy was unheard of, because she lies, cheats and mythologises herself without any qualms but earns social merit in the process. But today, Rebecca’s characterisation seems reminiscent of your older relative who’s so desperate to seem cool and edgy that she’s on TikTok and winks conspiratorially at you before making tasteless jokes. She isn’t that remarkable now that we live in a world with no shortage of stories about people who are famous or socially elevated for strange, self-manufactured reasons– think Kardashian– or the villain whose work you appreciate but can’t condone, like Wolf of Wall Street’s Jordan Belafonte or Ocean’s Eleven. Sure, Rebecca’s schemes are vaguely interesting as a fascinating case study in 19th century social mores and sometimes her comebacks are satisfying– but her motivations aren’t examined deeply enough to be relatable and make her two-dimensional. Social climbers are fun only when you can sympathise with them; yet every time you want to give Becky the benefit of doubt she does something more repulsive and almost uncharacteristic considering her need for social acceptance, such as hitting her son. She’s too mildly written to be truly shocking today and too inexplicably evil to actually be mysterious or layered as a character.  

Some claim the subtitle was used because she is technically a heroine, and If you want to read Vanity Fair as a feminist work, there’s no doubt that Becky has more agency than most men in the novel– but the foil to Rebecca, Amelia Sedley, disproves this suggestion and feels trite. This comparison is a reflection of the classic “not like other girls” trope, where women are valued by men for displaying ‘manly’ traits like cunning, courage and aggression, as is seen in the fact that all the male characters including Amelia’s husband like garrulous Becky more than shy Amelia. Those who conform to the stereotype of a submissive, domesticated individual, as Amelia does in her obsessive parenting and inability to scheme her way out of social downfall, are automatically seen as worse than the other. As literary critics Owen and Knowles have explained, “many readers of 1848 were inclined to regard the novel as having a simple moral design” in contrasting the virtuous woman with the ambitious one. By the last few chapters, the point feels like it’s being hammered into your skull: sympathise with Becky, who makes every effort even if it is illegal, and feel jealous of Amelia who gets what she wants even though she only whines. The Guardian, in its placement of Vanity Fair at #14 on “100 Best Novels”, praises its “gaudy theatricality”, and of course, satire as a rule exaggerates character traits. Yet Amelia’s sheer submissiveness and blind love feel a little too ridiculous, just as Rebecca’s endless, increasingly problematic (her last act is actually implied to be murder) string of fraudulent endeavours do. Maybe the point is to highlight how absurd these people are, in which case I doff my hat to Thackeray– but reading hundreds of pages of it is difficult.  

The narrator is the one part of the book that seems fresh and enticing, subverting your expectations with the kind of sass and light teasing that Rebecca constantly tries to emulate, a voice with fourth wall-breaking opinions and exposition. Contrasted with examples like Nick’s attempts at pointed objectivity in the Great Gatsby, this felt engaging and reminded me positively of Jane the Virgin’s biting humour or the deeply relatable voice in Too Hot To Handle.  There are scathing comments about class that very clearly underpin the different character arcs, and it would be harsh to fault the novel for using this to achieve its purpose, sketching 1790s English society for the enjoyment of an audience in the later half of the same century. Class critique was once a part of its tongue-in-cheek charm, having for the modern reader the same effect as in Edith Wharton’s work where the background prejudices and issues are openly laid out. When you know whom to look down on, or whom to envy, you feel included enough in the social milieu to laugh along.  

Surprisingly, issues of race are handled in a very unique way for a work of this era, especially where George Osborne– one of the main characters– is encouraged by his money-hungry father to marry a woman of Caribbean descent for her money. Only vitriolic Becky thinks she is “a thousand times cleverer [than] that Creole”, but most of the characters do not seem to consider her race a reason to shun her, even Rebecca grudgingly admitting her “fine pedigree”. This is just one of the ways in which the novel surprised me, and perhaps in disappointing my expectations Vanity Fair performed the same role Thackeray sketched out for it back in 1848, making the audience aware of the conventions they expect works to follow and thus forcing them to realise that there’s no such thing as “the perfect story”.