Thursday 19th June 2025
Blog Page 681

Factfulness review: On the importance of truth

0

Many readers will already be familiar with the late Dr Hans Rosling’s infectious presenting style. In a wealth of TED talks, BBC documentaries and news appearances, Rosling has sought to persuade us that when it comes to global health and international development, our worldview is 50 years out of date.

80% of the world’s population have access to electricity. The proportion of people living in extreme poverty has halved in the last 20 years. Average life expectancy at birth has risen to 70 years of age. Yet when asked whether or not this is the case in surveys, the vast majority of people in most countries will report the opposite of what is really happening. They make more mistakes than they would have done had they answered randomly. In Rosling-speak, “they are worse than chimpanzees”.

Factfulness, written by Rosling in the run-up to his death, covers all this familiar material. It’s delivered with Rosling’s trademark concision, and peppered with anecdotes from the two years he worked in Mozambique. But in many ways Factfulness represents a profound shift in Rosling’s thinking. After finding that even audiences at Davos were deluded about global health and population growth, Rosling has come to the conclusion that “our overdramatic worldview is not caused simply by out of date knowledge.” After all, “even people with access to the latest information got it wrong.” Rosling’s explanation for this is that evolution has saddled us with a trait for overdramatization. Even if you’re right only one in ten times, jumping to the worst conclusion will be evolutionarily advantageous if it helps to protect you from danger.

This paradigm shift has led Rosling to update his pedagogical style. Each chapter is focused on correcting one of the ways in which we systematically misinterpret information. We assume that trends will be linear. We fail to notice slow processes of change. We focus on extreme outcomes without considering how likely they are. Each of these tendencies is addressed by one of Rosling’s ten “Rules of Thumb”: “lines might bend”, “slow change is still change”, and “look for the majority”.

The lessons may seem simple, but Rosling delivers them with such informative flair that the book is a delight to read. The world has gained a brilliant primer on world health, but lost one of its greatest and wisest educators.

Enchanted by the power of on-screen magic

0

A few weeks ago, I looked into a crystal ball and saw myself. There was no vision of a family or a premonition of unimaginable wealth. There was just me, my younger eyes glued to the TV. I was watching a family of three sisters, balancing all the complexities of life whilst repeatedly saving San Francisco.

There were images of the practice of scrying, the Book of Spells, and the beautiful bond of sisterhood. This was an instant reminder of a programme from childhood, captured in what the label underneath revealed was a 1582 crystal, owned by the famous magician, John Dee.

It is no coincidence, then, that this exhibition is so aptly named ‘Spellbound’. “Do you believe in magic?” the posters advertising the Ashmolean’s exhibition of magic, ritual, and witchcraft ask. Whatever your answer is, the possibility of a “yes” always seems to hover just around the corner as you walk around the exhibition.

It is this element of perpetual possibility within the realm of reality that drew me back to my fond memories of television shows such as Charmed. Though the episodes that I watched as a teenager were repeats, with the original series airing from 1998 until 2006, the Halliwell sisters still seemed like they were a part of the world and time in which I lived, magical powers or not.

Though I certainly wouldn’t answer “Do you believe in magic?” with a confident “yes”, they made it impossible for me to give a confident “no”, either.

After an episode of Charmed or Once Upon a Time, or even Doctor Strange, it feels like somewhere in the world there has to be people who can do things that most people can’t. Maybe even magic.

Nevertheless, the majority of people would answer the Ashmolean’s question with a “no”. In fact, shows such as Once Upon a Time and Grimm, which both reinvent the fairytale, revolve on the fact that the majority of the world are completely ignorant to the supernatural scenes around them.

Even when magic appears in plain sight, it is transformed into something that any person can understand as real or reasonable. Any declaration of magic to the disbelieving world would be ascribed as being purely psychological, proof or not.

In Once Upon a Time, a well-known Wonderland character states: “You know what the issue is with this world? Everyone wants a magical solution to their problem, and everyone refuses to believe in magic.”

But children seem to be exempt. Generally not as weighed down by the problems of reality as adults are, they tend to be much more filled with the possibilities of imagination.

Seeing magic play out onscreen, in what looks like the real world, gives people of any age the ability to suspend their disbelief – to escape the expectation of logical thought that pervades our world and use the belief of a child to step, temporarily, into a another.

Watching magic performed onscreen opens our minds to it, making us slightly surer that, though our own Hogwarts letter may have been lost in the post, someone out there might still have received theirs.

It is no wonder that Harry Potter continues to stay so popular when sometimes just the possibility of ‘a magical solution’ can be enough to get through the week. Here at Oxford, with the stress of ever approaching essay deadlines, we do need that possibility. But Oxford’s link to magic is more than that. As a private bubble that protects students from the stresses of the real world and reality of adult life, it is the perfect place for fantasy.

Oxford’s ancient architecture and position of removed mystery makes it easier to believe that anything is possible. It’s the perfect setting for an exploration of the magical world.

It is unsurprising, then, that so many authors have turned to it when writing. The city forms the perfect setting for a number of famous book series including The Bone Season and His Dark Materials, both, uncoincidentally, written by previous Oxford undergraduates Samantha Shannon and Philip Pullman.

In July, filming began in Oxford for a new BBC adaptation of His Dark Materials, produced by Bad Wolf. This is the same production company behind new TV show, A Discovery of Witches, also based on a popular book series. The series will star James McAvoy (Split, Atonement, X-Men) as Lord Asriel, Dafne Keen (Logan) as Lyra. Lin Manuel Miranda (creator and star of Hamilton) is set to play balloon pilot, Lee Scoresby.

I cannot wait to watch both of these shows.

Wadham students demonstrate against proposed rent prices

1

Wadham students held a demonstration on the college’s front quad this afternoon, in protest at the “unaffordable” rent of the college’s new second-year accommodation building.

According to organisers, the demonstration was intended to show the widespread anger at the £700 a month rent for the newly-built Dorothy Wadham building on Iffley Road, ahead of a meeting of the college’s Governing Body this afternoon.

Wadham SU has demanded a reduction in the rent from £700 to £550, and a move to term-time contracts. College authorities have maintained that they are “investing heavily to provide our second-year students with high quality, safe, convenient accommodation.”

In what was a very civilised protest, the students initially gathered at the stairs leading to hall, before moved onto the grass of front quad – an act strictly forbidden by college authorities.

However, after speaking with the porters on duty, the organisers agreed to move to the outskirts of the grass, in respect for the college gardener.

Once the students circled the quad, there were chants of “When I say Iffley, you say 550” and “Can’t pay, won’t pay”, as well as speeches from organisers.

In a speech at the demonstration, Wadham SU’s Vice-President, Joe Lovell-McNamee, told the crowd: “We’re asking that the current first years are not expected to pay unaffordable rents in second year, they’re currently being asked to pay £700 on a 9-month lease, which is £6,300 for the entire year!

“This is unaffordable, unflexible [sic], and unfair and we won’t stand for it. All that we are asking for is that the University of Oxford and Wadham College with all of its resources and all of its funds as one of the richest, wealthiest, international educational institutions, can give its students equitable housing arrangements.

Wadham SU Vice-President, Joe Lovell-McNamee.

“We’re not radicals, we’re not asking for a ridiculous amount, we’re asking for what’s owed to us. We hope that the governing body will see that our demands are reasonable and that they will find a meaningful solution to this current situation.”

On Sunday, Wadham SU passed a motion setting the SU’s official position regarding the accommodation contract for the Dorothy Wadham, demanding rents of £550 a month and term-time contracts.

In the event that College and SU fail to reach an agreement, the motion also mandated to refuse to run a room-ballot, or participate in any college-run room-ballot, to inform alumni of college’s proposal and its effects on students, and, as a last resort, to ballot for a rent strike which would impact Hillary Term’s battels.

A rent strike would involve second years refusing to move into the Dorothy Wadham building, and for all students not to pay college rent from next term onwards.

Lovell-McNamee told Cherwell “In line with a motion passed unanimously on Sunday, Wadham SU students gathered on front quad to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with current proposals for the rent and lease terms of next year’s second-year off-site accommodation.

“For the half an hour before governing body was set to meet, we thought it important to show that the opposition to unaffordable and unfair rents was far-reaching throughout the college, and can’t simply be brushed off as the view of a small vocal fringe.”

A Wadham College spokesperson told Cherwell that the college is “in discussion with its students on this matter and will issue a statement once a decision has been reached.” 

Perceptions of the monstrous

0

Artists hold up a mirror for us to see ourselves within their frame, and we decide which bits we relate to and which we don’t. Monsters are a prevalent image within art. Yet, what constitutes monstrous is never really fixed. Monsters are not human – or so we are led to believe. However, the minute a person does something bad, they are labelled as a ‘monster’ – see Trump, or Philip Green, for example.

Definitions of ‘monster’ vary from ‘a large, ugly, and frightening imaginary creature’ to ‘an inhumanely cruel or wicked person’. If the latter creates the former, who is the real monster, and what does this reflect about society?

If you look at Leon Kossof’s ‘Self Portrait’ (1952), you do not only see the artist, but an impression of Frankenstein’s monster too, drawing from the 1931 film; a large raised forehead and similar facial features are discernible. I’m not suggesting that Kossof is ‘an inhumanely cruel or wicked person’, but in creating his image in this style, there must be an embedded sense of self that is not wholly positive. Perhaps intentional, but maybe not. Regardless, the blending of the human with the monstrous within self-portraiture is intriguing as it provides insight into the artists’ distorted sense of self. Even more intriguing is what would bring an artist to create such a depiction in the first place.

Although Andy Warhol’s ‘Self Portrait with Skull’ is not as macabre as Kossof’s, he still creates an image that intended to disturb the viewer. He places the skull next to his own head and makes the viewer examine what may be the ‘true self’ – what we will turn back into. The skull is a common motif for horror, mainly because it reminds us of our own mortality. We can all relate to Warhol’s image.

Visual depictions of monsters vary, even when they are well-known, canonical monsters. If we look at vampires, present within many art forms and images, they are often depicted as seductive temptresses. In Munch’s ‘Vampire’ (1985), it is unclear whether the vampire is biting or kissing her victim.

Stoker’s book, Dracula, came two years later, which established a different vampirical image. The 1922 film Nosferatu depicted Count Orlok – based on Dracula – as possessing human characteristics, but still different. We can trace this depiction to present day, with Lady Gaga’s Countess in American Horror Story ‘Hotel’. Her image takes vampires back to the seductive portrayal used by Munch, recasting the vampire in modern light. Her monstrous abilities are not immediately visible, arching the modern-day monster further towards its ‘inhumane and wicked’ definition.

Some monsters don’t need to have their image adapted over time in order to remain relevant in popular culture. The clown motif remains terrifying. The influence of the clown as a monster is one of human conscience, an image that is supposed to be funny – but isn’t. That surely says something about us all. We have witnessed an image that should be joyful morph into one of terror and evil.

The painted red smile, the arched eyebrows, the dreadful star: perhaps flows are monsters because they are trying to create an image of humanity that is not realistic. We do not constantly smile, so the fact that a clown always does highlights their inhumanity. Pennywise the dancing clown from both of the 1990 adaptations and the 2017 reincarnation of Stephen King’s It highlights the terror that can be generated by recycling the same image. The 2017 adaptation was just as terrifying as the first, even if we knew what to expect with the clown.

We are exposed to images of monsters from a young age. We enjoy them, we find them funny. We dress up as them for Halloween and watch the DVDs on repeat. Perhaps it says more about humans than it does monsters that once we reach a certain age, the images we once found entertaining can be turned into horror. It feels as if the monsters are always there, waiting, until eventually we find terror within them.

I wonder at what point a person viewing Munch’s ‘Vampire’ realises that the image is of the vampire biting, rather than a woman kissing. Or whether Kossof’s ‘Self Portrait’ would suggest connotations of Frankenstein’s monster if one hadn’t already been exposed to such a famous image: would it still be monstrous to the viewer?

Monsters are scary, but human consciousness and our ability to twist the innocent into terror is scarier.

Oxford held at home by Loughborough

1

Coming into the game on the back of two consecutive wins, Oxford were hoping to close the one point gap between themselves and league leaders Nottingham firsts, and had a great chance to do so against Loughborough’s second team. The Midlands side were sitting at the bottom of the Midlands 1A division, having lost their opening three games.

The Blues started the match well, putting the Loughborough team under sustained pressure with their aerial dominance and strong physical play. This aggressive start paid dividends for the Blues, forcing errors from a Loughborough side that struggled to maintain possession.

The first chance of the game came the Blues’ way after a nice move resulted in Pat Barton playing the ball through to Dom Thelen, whose shot dragged wide of the post. A great chance that should have been converted.

Soon after, a great piece of skill from Zachary Liew, whose link up play with Captain Leo Ackerman on the left hand side troubled Loughborough for much of the first half, led to an incisive ball that cut through the Loughborough box, falling at the feet of Chris Caveney, whose shot was deflected out for a corner. Ackerman’s out swinging corner kick was decisively headed towards goal by Thelen but just missed the target.

Oxford’s dominance was really starting to show now and, despite Thelen receiving a yellow card for an ill-judged complaint at a poor refereeing decision, they showed no signs of relenting.

The Blues bench were once more on their feet just after the half-hour mark when a great shot on goal from Caveney drew an equally good save from the Loughborough keeper, but again, the reward for Oxford’s supremacy proved elusive.

The decisive moment came just before half-time and, despite their poor quality in the first half, it was Loughborough who scored. A momentary switch off from Liew left a gaping hole that was duly penetrated by a quick ball out from the back which was soon passed on to Loughborough’s pacy number nine, who would’ve struggled to miss from such close range.

The half-time whistle blew and Oxford were left ruing their missed opportunities in the first half, particularly as they only managed to test the keeper on one occasion.

The Loughborough side came out of the dressing room far more composed after the first goal had relieved some pressure. The Blues were undeterred though, and less than ten minutes into the first half a free-kick was given in Oxford’s favour. Whipped in by Ackerman, the ball was met by an unchallenged Thelen head and found its way into the back of the net, drawing Oxford level.

The game now evened out as Loughborough responded well, showing a fight that had been almost entirely absent in the first 45 minutes. The match became a more closely contested affair and it was a foul on the edge of Oxford’s penalty area by Oli Cantril that led to another Loughborough breakthrough and the Blues once more looking at a one-goal deficit.

15 minutes later, a great pass from Oxford’s Pat Collins to Thelen led to a corner ball for Oxford which Loughborough struggled to defend, only managing to put the ball out of play for a corner on the opposite side of the pitch. Loughborough again showed their difficulties defending set-pieces as the ball found its way to an indecisive player in purple who was muscled off the ball by a determined Ram Choudhury. The ball then found its way back to Ackerman who provided the cross for Oxford’s second headed goal, this time from winger Caveney.

Two Oxford substitutions sought to inject some pace into the game, and Oxford nearly snuck a winning goal after a nice free kick routine caught Loughborough unawares. The remaining ten minutes of the second half resulted in few chances as the teams largely nullified each other’s threats and the final whistle blew, meaning Oxford had to settle for a solitary point and regret not making more of their first half dominance.

Liberation groups condemn HistorySoc’s invite of Jenni Murray

5

Three student liberation groups have called on Oxford University History Society to retract their invitation for Dame Jenni Murray to speak at an event, due to her “transphobic rhetoric”.

Oxford SU LGBTQ+ Campaign, Oxford University LGBTQ Society and Oxford SU Women’s Campaign collectively wrote a statement condemning the society’s decision to invite her this Saturday at Oriel College on the topic of “Powerful British Women in History and Society”.

In the statement, they accused her of making “explicitly transphobic comments” in a 2017 Sunday Times article, where she “repeatedly insinuated that transgender women and girls are not women and can only pretend to be women.”

In the article, she wrote that “it takes more than a sex change and makeup” to become a woman, and she told trans women to not call themselves “real women”.

The statement said: “Her views, which clearly reflect a lack of engagement with the vast majority of actual trans people, and are in sum deeply harmful to trans women and trans feminine people, contributing to and exacerbating the harassment, marginalisation, discrimination, and violence that they already face.

“[…]Inviting Murray to talk in this capacity leaves her transphobic rhetoric essentially unchallenged. 

“While there may be “ample time for questions”, the decision to offer Murray a platform is not apolitical or neutral, especially when her views cause tangible harm to vulnerable members of our society.”

When contacted for comment, Oxford University History Society referred Cherwell to the event’s Facebook post, which stated: “Jenni Murray was invited for her prominent role as presenter of BBC Radio 4’s Women’s Hour, as well as for her historical writings. 

“As a society we condemn any transphobia and do not necessarily endorse the views of our speakers.”

A spokesperson for the University told Cherwell: “Oxford is committed to supporting the University’s transgender students and staff and to providing a welcoming and inclusive environment that promotes equality and diversity.

“We are also committed to freedom of expression, and this event is entirely suitable for a student society.”

Dame Jenni Murray and Oriel College have been contacted for comment.

There is no place for grief in a house which serves the muse

0

Open: the rusting steel cage around an empty free-standing tank, the water is turning green in the absence of life, ivy is curling around the frame. The figure of the artist, a muted silhouette at first, comes into sight standing between the open shutters of an empty house. The wind laments through the long grass as he walks away, through the trees everything is unstable, moving around and away from him. He reaches a letterbox; takes out a returned letter, addressed ‘Elizabeth Siddal’.

So opens Tim Walker’s 2013 short film ‘The Muse’. Walker creates a figure like that of Dante Rossetti in modernity, taking him out of the confined studio of London and into his own house, a dominion to serve the Muse, the figure that enamoured him throughout his career. Walker begins to tease the threads between experiences of the Muse for his artist and the figure of Rossetti – both artists find and take their muses; Walker’s narrator describes scouring through waters until “then, I found you”, Rossetti discovered Siddal after she was working in a hat shop in Cranbourne Alley. The search for the muse ends with the artist’s taking – of her, her likeness, her image.

The relationship with the muse is defined by obsession. Walker’s film follows the artist from the fields to the house to the studio, where the walls are shrines to her image: negatives drying, portraits, prints, projections of light-shrouded, forgotten summer film. She becomes an icon, worshipped over and over again by the artist. Creating once again a link to Rossetti, Walker visualises the repeated nature of artistic obsession – Rossetti began to paint Siddal to the exclusion of almost all other models in 1851, and the number of paintings he created of her are reportedly in the thousands. She became his only image; he surrounded himself with her creations. Their relationship was drawn upon by Rossetti’s sister Christina for the poem ‘In an Artist’s studio’; she writes “One face looks out from all his canvases… He feeds upon her face by day and night… Not as she is, but as she fills his dream”. Rossetti enlightens the relationship: the muse’s multiplicity, the artistic sustenance, the idealisation. Walker’s artist watches her with a hunger, he closes his eyes in an ecstasy as he watches her. The artist takes the muse both as an inspiration and as a body to take and fill his own.

Both women are hybrids – they are created from multiple sources of inspiration and mythology. Walker’s creation is descended from Hans Christian Anderson’s 1837 creation ‘Den lille havfrue’ (The Little Mermaid); the text was adapted by Walker for the W Magazine shoot ‘Far Far From Land’ (2013) which Walker later extended into ‘The Muse’. Visually, the muse is created from Anderson’s suffering youth, religious depictions of female martyrs, and from the modern fashion creations of Alexander McQueen. Rossetti’s muse is the creation of his every desire, artistic and otherwise: she becomes a demure bride, a goddess of love, a female nude and the haunting portrait.

Both muses are water women, the sirens of the artist. For Walker, this is a very literal creation – the artist’s muse is an imprisoned mermaid, confined to a standing tank which she fills with her flowing blonde hair and a pale blue tail. The film is awash with the sound of rushing water; she thrashes in the film, emerges in the still images. There is a moment in his studio; he projects her onto the wall, a myth that fades in colour with the film and blurs from focus. He stands as the camera follows the silent thrashing of her tail, opening his arms into wings, rising with her through the frame. A desire to become both divine and remain her idolater. Elizabeth Siddal began as Millais’ ‘Ophelia’ (1852) – modelling for the painting of the forsaken lover who takes her own life, she is confined to the dark water as a figure of drowning lover. For Rossetti, she would become a human siren but changeable in her form – she became a goddess in oil, a saint in chalk, a mortal woman shrouded in shadow in his pencil. The muse is painted in obsession, the grey-dawn light of trying to capture a constantly changing and eventually withering essence.

The artists try to capture the muse in her movement. Some of the most emotive drawings of Elizabeth by Rossetti are fast ink drawings; Rossetti’s ‘Elizabeth Siddal Seated at an Easel’ depicts her form created by ink and white space, shadow and light, leaning into the canvas. The muse is a constantly changing entity; she moves and flickers, gives memory and takes it away. This transience is explored by Walker: the film flickers between the grey dawn where the artist stands bereft, and past moving colour images of the mermaid in sunlight. Showing the mourning artist and the transience of human memory, the clips consistently blur, fading in and out, like the mind which tries to recall certain moments when they are past and we are left with only our grief.

As the film draws to a close, the artist’s voice overlays the figure leaving the house and walking towards the empty tank: “What becomes of the human man? What becomes of him, when her spell remains but she is gone.” Both Walker and Rossetti seek to understand this final state of being for the artist. Walker’s artist leaves the studio, the sepulchre of his muse in all her depicted forms, and submerges into the remaining water, clasping withering flowers. There is something resonant of Ophelia in his final moments, the closing image of a being submerged in water, fully-clothed and holding gathered flowers in different colours. The film fades away on the sight of the artist, finally consumed by the memory of his muse. As for Rossetti: he reached heights of desperation after the death of his muse. After Siddal’s overdose on Laudanum, Rossetti sent for four doctors until he accepted she could not be saved. He became increasingly depressed and prone to erratic behaviour, burying the poems dedicated to her with her in Highgate Cemetery, which he later had exhumed for publication. “When her spell remains but she is gone” was depicted by Rossetti in his posthumous portrait of Siddal, entitled ‘Beata Beatrix’ which now hangs high on the walls of the Tate Britain. Siddal becomes Beatrice Portinari from Dante’s ‘La Vita Nuova’, The painting is an incredibly moving, visual haze of lover’s grief; she lifts her face slightly upwards to an absent sun, the only sources of light being the distant horizon and the yellow glow of the fatal poppy (symbolising the cause of Siddal’s death). Her hair feathers at the edge like muted flames, glowing with the auburn colour Rossetti was so obsessed with. She is an idealisation of grief, the transfiguration of the living muse to a spiritual figure of memory. The muse eventually becomes a living memory which the artist struggles to remain with; her image remains but she herself is gone. They love what they can see; when she is gone, there is nothing to consume their sight, there is nothing to create from. Sappho’s words “there is no place for grief in a house which serves the muse” form the closing still of Walker’s film: they encapsulate the impossibility for the two states of grief and artistic worship to exist together: once the muse is gone, grief consumes the artist and his dominion, which yearns for their missing icon as the walls become remaining memorials to her image.

My existence is not your next punchline

0

For my first ever event at the Oxford Union last week, I was thrilled that I would be able to see the American comedians Jon Stewart and Dave Chappelle. Like Stewart, I am an American Jew, and his biting, level-headed political commentary was a constant presence in my household during his 17-year run on The Daily Show. I knew less about Chappelle but since he was touring with Steward, I reckoned he must be alright.

The discussion started out tame enough, with the two launching into a debate about whether or not comedians hold any real power. Whilst Stewart said no, Chappelle pointed out that President Trump, though perhaps not intentionally a comedian, had been a TV show host just like Stewart before he took to the Oval Office. They then reminisced about the various times they had hung out with the Obamas, but Stewart stuck to his guns, claiming that any power he held amounted to little more than “shouting rage into a turbine.”

The commentary turned to the question of political correctness, a topic around which both appeared to feel that they had been persecuted for in recent years. A friend of mine asked them to clarify what exactly they were referring to when complaining about what they saw as an over-policing of “political correctness”: as she pointed out, there’s a difference between a racy joke and an attack on the humanity of already marginalized people.

To my surprise, both Chappelle and Stewart seemed almost immediately to become defensive. On his part, Chappelle recounted how he had gotten in trouble recently for telling a joke that used the word “tranny,” after he had sought the counsel of an advocate for trans youth, and she had warned him not to use the slur. He defended this choice as necessary for his “comedic art” and chided anyone who was offended as being overly sensitive.

Stewart concurred that people who say insensitive things need to be given room to learn because “no matter how woke you are, everybody sleeps sometimes”. You can tell when someone is open to becoming better, he said, and you have to give them room and help them to do that rather than attacking them for their missteps.

He went on to explain that he doesn’t use the terms “faggot” and “retarded” anymore in his comedy. I was relieved, thinking he was giving a personal example of the kind of growth and change he was referring to — until his recounting of the story turned into a joke (bringing the Union benches to raucous laughter) where the punchline was calling someone a faggot.

When another student got up to challenge their assertion that marginalized people should give powerful comedians infinite free passes to “learn” not to use terms that demonise and dehumanise them, Stewart and Chappelle — right after insisting that we were the ones who were too sensitive — couldn’t handle it. They barely let her get a word in, interrupting her and getting the whole hall to cheer and applaud them for a joke at her expense, rather than engaging with and responding to her question. For all their talk of needing room to learn, they didn’t seem particularly keen on taking the time to.

I left the event feeling disappointed, but unsurprised. I went home and looked up Dave Chappelle’s trans jokes, and I was not shocked to find that the controversy he had stirred up was not just in his use of the word “tranny.” He had made a breadth of hateful commentary about trans people and trans bodies, describing us (in so many words) as terrifying and disgusting. He has been called out and educated by fans, media outlets, and LGBTQ+ organizations alike, and yet he continues to stand by the things he has said. If you were going to be offended by him, he thinks, you shouldn’t have clicked on his Netflix special.

This is a common response to critique among older (especially male, especially white) comedians in recent years. After backlash for purposely misgendering and mocking Caitlin Jenner, English comic Ricky Gervais doubled down with more transphobic jokes on his own Netflix stand-up special. American comedian Jerry Seinfeld refuses to perform anywhere near college campuses, where he feels that the tyranny of PC culture poses an existential threat to comedy.

The argument goes that these comedians are being asked to make too many allowances for people’s feelings. The punching-down jokes they target against trans people, or black people, or Muslims, or people with disabilities, are “just jokes,” and it constitutes an assault on their creative freedom for them to have to face any consequences for their words. If you don’t like it, they say, watch something else — no real harm is done beyond the hurt feelings of a few snowflakes.

But if they were really willing to learn, they would know by now that this consequence-free slinging of hate is a fantasy. Case in point: the life expectancy of a trans woman of colour in the United States is 31 years old. The culture that excuses her assault, her homelessness, and her murder as unimportant (or even justified) is fuelled by the relentless narrative that trans people are not people: that we are disgusting, unworthy of love, and disposable. When a stand-up set makes trans people the butt of the joke, it gives the audience an excuse to laugh at our expense. They get to relieve their secret tension of knowing they feel the same way, finding comfort in thinking that if a famous comedian (and his packed auditorium of viewers) thinks trans people are gross, it’s okay for them to think it too.

And when our fellow citizens don’t see us as people, they are less likely to come to our aid when, for example, our president’s administration threatens to define us out of existence and revert the fragile gains that have been made in recent years in terms of our most basic civil rights protections.

The Daily Show is the longest-running show on its network, Comedy Central, and it reached millions of viewers each night Stewart went on. Chappelle’s stand-up special, featuring all his best anti-trans content, is available to many of Netflix’s 137 million users worldwide. It is thus undeniable that these two men wield power with their words. Their unwillingness to listen to those who feel that their comedy is complicit in perpetuating views that engender violence against vulnerable populations shows a complete disregard for the responsibility that comes with that power. At the Union, Stewart and Chappelle chose instead to use it to publicly shame a student less than half their age and to quash legitimate criticism against them.

I know it probably hurts their feelings to realise that their jokes — which must have been hilarious in a time when only the opinions of straight, cis men held any weight — just aren’t that funny anymore. But whether they want it to or not, their comedy has cultural power, and their ignoring of that truth does not preclude the harm that their words are capable of doing. If they aren’t willing to listen, learn, and evolve, it might just be time for someone else to take the stage.

Idle reading: books in praise of laziness

0

The creative power of doing nothing is an idea whose time has come. Research by the psychologist Dr. Sandi Mann has shown that we are capable of thinking more inventively after a period of boredom. In ‘Autopilot’, Andrew Smart has presented evidence that our brains are just as active when we’re idling as they are when we’re focused on a task. Marcus Raichle and Jonathan Smallwood have shown that we do some of our best thinking whilst daydreaming. Unfortunately, these insights have yet to make a mark on our daily lives, which are just as frenetic and hurried as ever. Alan Lightman and Roman Muradov are hoping that they have what it takes to charm us into idleness.

In Praise of Wasting Time and On Doing Nothing are both attractively illustrated, inexpensive little hardbacks. Both seem tailor made to be read in short snatches, which is ironic given that both authors rage against the division of one’s life into ever smaller units of activity. Both books are about 100 pages long, and are divided into brief chapters that can easily be read as standalone essays.

This is pretty much where the similarities end. The differing approaches that Lightman and Muradov take to their subject owe a lot to their differing career paths. Lightman is a New England novelist and essayist with a PhD in theoretical physics, whereas Muradov is a San Francisco-based illustrator and art professor. Muradov’s On Doing Nothing sparkles with literary erudition, but is completely bereft of hard facts. Lightman’s In Praise of Wasting Time is more balanced, drawing on history, economics and psychology to give the reader some firm evidence that our relationship with time is unhealthy.

In Praise of Wasting Time was for me the more satisfying read. Recognizing that carefree time-wasting is easier to prescribe than to achieve, Lightman offers practical suggestions of how to build idle time into our daily routine. Far from being trite, some of these suggestions are actually quite radical: at one point Lightman suggests that we will have to change our attitudes toward smartphones and social media in much the same way that society has changed its attitudes towards smoking – and for much the same reasons. Other recommendations include the introduction of ten-minute period of silence at the start of every school day, and the introduction of “screen-free zones in public places, where digital devices are forbidden”.

In Praise of Wasting Time is a product of the TED empire, and it sometimes reads like a good TED talk that’s been written down verbatim. Some rhetorical devices are included that work badly on the printed page (in the Introduction we’re treated to a list of objects that runs to twenty entries), and there is a little too much repetition and recapitulation for such a short book. But these are minor quibbles in an otherwise well-paced book, that manages to educate without making undue demands on the reader.

On Doing Nothing has a much more unique stylistic voice. One of Muradov’s conspicuous idiosyncrasies is to begin each section with an aphorism. Some of these come off rather well: “By observing ourselves, we write, edit, and rewrite a character study”, for example. But just as many seem to be deliberately opaque: “To hear silence is to see the staves on which the notes are hung in order and disorder”. And Muradov does nothing to dispel the impression of authorial self-indulgence. He suggests toward the end of On Doing Nothing that “the reader may ask, Did you work hard on this book about doing nothing? Obviously you did, because the book is excellent (thank you), but isn’t that a bit of a contradiction?”

But sycophantic readers worried about hypocrisy need not be troubled for long – authors only put questions into the mouths of their readers when they know they have an answer! By the author’s own admission, On Doing Nothing is what media types describe as a ‘journal dump’. Muradov took down a bunch of notes “on scraps of paper”, and then “arranged [them] by theme into a fitting order”. This won’t come as a surprise to anyone who has arrived at this confession. As Muradov admits elsewhere, On Doing Nothing is structured as a series of digressions – sometimes to the detriment of its coherence.

The redeeming feature of Muradov’s style is that it allows him to cover a lot of ground. Much of the book is only tangentially related to being idle. An equally common recurring theme is the nature of the artistic method. Particularly memorable is Muradov’s suggestion that artistic output has a lot in common with bowel movements. An artist’s work “depends a great deal more on the quality and quantity of art consumed and life examined than on the manner of their eventually excretion”. To extend the metaphor further, “a certain amount of emptiness is good for digestion, otherwise our intake and output leaves no room for healthy contemplation”.

Rather like Gracián in The Art of Worldly Wisdom, Muradov’s clipped, epigrammatic style often lends a compelling quality to his pronouncements. When he tells me that “examining your character requires time and space, and a degree of silence” and that “meditation can be an exercise in facing ourselves”, I believe him more firmly than I believe Lightman when he tells me that a frenetic pace of life is causing me to lose touch with my “inner self” – although they are both expressing the same idea.

Lightman and Muradov say similar things on the subject of creativity too. Both agree that having studied a subject, we need to spend time thinking about other things and letting out mind wonder before we can come back to it with a creative perspective. Lightman cites scientific evidence for this conclusion: the average American’s creativity first started to decline in 1990, a date that roughly coincides with the emergence of the Internet, and all the distraction on demand that came with it. It’s fascinating to find that Muradov reaches the same conclusions through an appeal to personal experience rather than to statistics.

Quite by chance, then, Lightman and Muradov have produced books that are much more persuasive together than they are apart. Each complements the other, filling in its weaknesses. Buy them together, and they might just be the last books that you ever read in a rush.

Just Love: A stand against unethical fashion

1

Last term, a group of rather offbeat students representing the society Just Love gave up 24 hours of sleep, essay writing and the joys of Friday night Emporium to stand against the mistreatment of workers in the fashion industry. This is something we really care about, but if you managed to dodge our keen glance on that drizzly day outside the new Westgate building, we’re back at it in the Cherwell. So let’s chat about ethical fashion.

‘Ethical fashion’ is a term invented by self righteous Cellar-loving vegans who feel spiritually connected to the Thai woman who stitched their gap year pants.  

False. Ethical fashion is a small part of a 30 billion dollar industry that ensures it treats its workers with dignity. It means they are committed to being accountable for the way workers are treated across the whole journey that our clothes take, from being cotton plants to becoming cotton pants. It’s a term I only began to think about earlier this year when I started getting involved with Just Love and have since been trying to navigate my way around.

In Just Love’s campaign last term, called Stand For Freedom, we set up 24-hour stalls providing information on the state of the fashion industry, sold Fairtrade goods and had a pop up clothes swap stall, smiling our cheeks off in the hope that someone would make eye contact for long enough for us to pounce. Complete with homemade bunting and pedalling a sign asking, “who made my clothes?” we had members of the public @ their favourite brands on Instagram to try and get people to engage with the idea of ‘ethical fashion.’ It’s an idea I’m very much still learning about, and I haven’t found it a very ‘nice’ issue to address. I mean, I helped out running the up-cycled clothes swap table and in repayment a bird defecated on me…twice. Not nice.

Ethically sourced clothes are expensive and overpriced, and I’m a poor deprived student living on £5 a week who’s in desperate need of a new gown for Keble Ball.

False. Yes, ethical brands are more expensive, but that’s because we’re paying the true value of the clothes we’re getting (alongside the standard profit margin). Have you ever tried making a dress? I can guarantee that if you counted up the hours it took and pay yourself minimum wage, you wouldn’t cover it with the £10 your mate paid for that absolute steal from Topshop. But I sympathise completely, budgets are often tight. No fear – ethical shopping doesn’t have to be from ethical brands. Charity shops are amazing – they’re cheap, support great causes, and reduce waste – everyone wins. British Heart Foundation are all out of ball gowns? Check out Oxford Ball Gown Swap and Shop Facebook page, we’ve got you covered. But I, for one, need to get real with myself; often we do spend large amounts of money on clothes – the only question is, to whom?

The clothes in ‘ethical shops’ are for middle aged mums who like chiffon scarves with anchors on them – if I shopped there, I’d have no chance of getting shiny gold flares, which are essentials for a night out in Oxford.

Okay, fine – true. But consider this a chance to get creative! You’ve got to search a little harder to find what you’re looking for, but if you wear it well, any granny top can work. I adore expressing myself through what I wear, but I’ve had to consider recently just how much that luxury is worth to me, and who is really paying.

To stop shopping at brands that treat their workers badly will just mean those people are left out of work and out of whatever small amount of money they were getting in the first place.

This is an important and complicated point, with much more depth than my word count allows, but I will say this – yes, you may be preventing one worker from being paid 6p an hour, but you’ll hopefully be providing another with £6 an hour. In the UK, we form a huge part of the demand in this industry, and if we begin demanding human rights for those who work in it, the industry will be forced to change.

Unethical treatment of workers in the fashion industry isn’t really a major problem any more – after that scandal most businesses have cleaned up their act, and besides, I only shop at Primark for bop costumes anyway.

 If only. The collapse of the Rana Plaza building in Bangladesh in 2013 caused the death of 1,130 people, most of whom were young women, making it the fourth largest industrial disaster in history. The building housed clothing factories for global brands (including Primark), that we shop at every day*. This tragedy was allowed to happen a mere five years ago – are we convinced that enough has changed in those last five years to say with confidence that it will never happen again? The year before that, the Guardian reported on the Karnataka Garment Workers Union in India who testified that workers who were providing clothes for retailers such as Gap, H&M and Next were victims of “a shocking regime of abuse, threats and poverty pay.” The article is a tough but worthwhile read, I’ve saved you the more harrowing details*. What disturbed me the most was the way the workers were forced into silence about their situation – if they didn’t lie to auditors, they were fired, they lost their livelihood. If these are the atrocities that reach us, what aren’t we hearing about?

Ethical fashion isn’t always easy but is undoubtedly worthwhile.

True. I believe that shopping ethically is a fundamental part of treating people according to their true value. In Just Love, we believe a person’s true value is infinite because they are given it by a God that loves them infinitely. That’s why we care and that’s why we ran the 24 hour Stand For Freedom, because we want to see justice and believe God does too. We hope that in doing Stand For Freedom, we raised money for organisations addressing this injustice*, raised awareness of ways to shop ethically, and raised some eyebrows in revealing the twisted nature of the fashion industry.

But I’m afraid now it’s on you to try and figure out what your own response is to all of this, because I know I certainly don’t have all the answers. You don’t have to swallow my agenda and become a haphazard dungaree-wearing hermit who lives in the Fair Trade shop at St Michael’s like me. But do remember that these issues aren’t detached from us; we are part of this industry’s chain and we choose the nature of our inevitable impact on it.