I think we find ourselves in a particular state of searching after finishing secondary school. Even if we have an idea of what we want to do or who we want to be, the world is suddenly splayed out; enticingly undefined and filled with endless opportunities. And we – released from a more or less fixed position in the static social infrastructure of the school – crave a new function, with new perspectives, new inputs, and new outlooks.
As a mature undergraduate student, I think back on that openness and wish I had gone to Oxford right after secondary school. It is a place abound in perspectives, impressions and possible identity markers. Yet, through all its newness, Oxford is fine-tuned to the strategies of secondary school; you will find ample room for intrigue, social positioning and sporting, all mechanisms for a budding sense of self. And like secondary school, Oxford is a breeding ground for competition. With public collection prizes, gowns for Firsts, BNOC spreads in Cherwell and everything going on at the Union, establishing, and perceiving yourself as part of, a student hierarchy is fairly easy.
I think Oxford must be a wonderful place to be a bit immature, arrogant and naïve, a wonderful place to think that the most important thing is to be desirable, or to know a whole bunch of people, or to be the best in your class. Youthful arrogance and naïveté come with such a distinct drive to shape yourself into a certain kind of person. And for that mentality, Oxford sets the stage. You’ve got the best of the best, fighting alongside you to be the brightest, the most interesting and the most dynamic person in every room.
And as I’ve grown older, things have grown so much more… complex. What a cliché! I remember so vividly looking at older people and thinking ‘You’re so boring! So defeated! Where is your hope, ambition and sense of adventure?!’ I knew in my heart then, that it was all so easy. ‘Just tax the rich, take to the streets and text him that he’s cute!’, I’d think. Adults are fucking boring man; I’ve known that for ages. Yet, the older I get, the more intricate becomes the composition of true confidence, and of a good and worthy life. Nothing that remains to be fixed will be quick or easy to solve. And that pessimism, or the remnants of young impatience, makes me miss so dearly exactly the naïveté and arrogance of youth that thinks that snogging someone at Atik will make an existential problem go away or make me a certain kind of person. In a sense, I hoped my youthful rebellion would last longer. And I think that Oxford, with all its traditions, hierarchy and quirks, is the perfect place for youthful rebellion.
There are, however, a lot of aspects to student life – and life in Oxford in particular – that are hard to appreciate or even perceive if you arrive straight from secondary school. Through the lens of a couple of gap or professional years, I believe the mature Oxford experience might therefore be just as rich as the blue-eyed one.
From within, it is hard to notice the comfort of coexistence that comes with school and university life. What we experience during a day is always shared with fellow students, be that an annoying tutor, an untimely fire alarm or the stress of an upcoming exam. These experiences would be fundamentally different to process on your own, void of conversations in the hallway or shared glances of suppressed laughter in a lecture. The comfort and relief of complaining and having the other person actually understand what you’re going through is a privilege granted by the commonality of university experience. For me, it took a gap year of working and travelling to notice, miss and appreciate the comfort of that co-existence.
A related aspect of university life that might be negligible to the privileged eye is being surrounded by people who are inspired and interested. Oxford is swarming with people who share your particular interests, people who wear their passion on their sleeves and people who are at the top of their field. Here, strong beliefs come from people who know how to argue for them; people who challenge and who want to be challenged. And, without trying to sound trivial: that is so rare. Of what might be said about the ‘real’ world, it is full of uninterested people adverse to anything new, nuanced, or challenging. You can definitely find inspiring communities, workplaces, and hobbies elsewhere – and you probably will, after Oxford – but they are found, rather than provided.
Without experience from mundane or professional life, it is also hard to recognise that university is surely the time to make mistakes. Sure, marks matter, but at no point will you have the opportunity to experiment with topics, takes and styles like at university. At the workplace, you’re performing and producing. If you submit your work late, you might be sacked. Meanwhile, you’ll never be expelled for not submitting a tutorial essay, or for delivering a poem for your International Relations analysis. I think that coming straight from school might obscure the fact that university is not the time for producing and hitting the mark, so much as for experimenting and nurturing your creativity.
Maturity, or just time away from studies, highlights the many privileges of university life, enriching the student experience. Yet the most valuable thing I bring with me from not studying is the separation of academic achievement and self-worth. Primary and secondary education is a decade-long training in striving for praise. Personally, academic achievement constituted the foundation, walls and windows of my self-worth until I was thrown into the void that is the gap year. I rebuilt it with blocks from all walks of life. I think mature students, to a larger extent, extend their self-perception beyond student life and body. Therefore, Oxford is, in a sense, less crucial to our identity. We already have lives and identities from our own post-secondary school-era elsewhere. I would love for Oxford to be my whole life, the way the impressions and intrigue of youth make a setting all-encompassing. However, as an older student, I am forced to see my time here for what it is: something so transitory, and only ever a small part of what makes me, me.
If you’ve been on TikTok at all recently (or Instagram Reels, if you’re that way inclined), you will have noticed a vast array of videos featuring picture-perfect American wives competing in beauty pageants weeks after giving birth, churning their own butter, donning 1950s house dresses, and advocating marital subservience. The Tradwife phenomenon began trending in 2020, but this year has seen an increased interest in the subculture, sparking much online discourse and controversy.
I first came across model and Tradwife influencer Nara Smith when other creators indirectly mocked her children’s unorthodox names (Rumble Honey and Slim Easy). But it’s thanks to her elaborate methods of preparing food for her husband and children (she makes everything from scratch, even butter, pop tarts and marshmallows) that the TikTok star has amassed 7 million followers. Although Smith’s videos are evocative of the restrictive obligations faced by 1950s housewives, there is surely nothing problematic about a soft-spoken woman choosing to stay at home and cook for her family, right?
Naomi Wolf once famously declared, “a woman wins by giving herself and other women permission”. Steadfastly against shaming other women for choice of lifestyle or profession, this rationale can apply to the Tradwife phenomenon: why prevent wives and mothers from staying at home full-time if they so wish? Numerous Tradwives are striving to reclaim this lifestyle. Just as it should of course be acceptable for women to act as the breadwinner, so too should they feel free to stay at home and churn butter. In a world where notions of gender are in flux, a strong definition of gender roles may feel comforting for some.
But it’s not always that simple. Issues begin to arise when Tradwife influencers directly bash progressive values and the ambitions of other women. English Tradwife and author Alena Kate Pettitt, who is “passionate about family values, keeping traditions alive, and good old fashioned manners” (from her Darlington Academy website) has written extensively on the importance of having a man to “take care” of her. Pettitt once tweeted, “husbands must always come first if you want a happy marriage”. This prescriptive approach is a signifier of the darker side of the Tradwife trend: it feels disturbingly as though a man is preaching through his wife, demanding that all women return to gender roles so many have fought to escape.
Influencers such as Pettitt express an explicit contempt for modernity and feminism, and, even more concerningly, a desire to return to a mythical, racially idealised past. Journalist Anne Kelly discusses how the Tradwife phenomenon coincides with White supremacist discourse: Tradwives share theories about what has gone wrong in the West, and express a desire for the “natural order”. They are therefore highly sceptical of how their children are educated, instead choosing to instil in them ‘traditional’ values. Certain Tradwives have even challenged their followers to have as many children as them, hence the alarming existence of a “White Baby Challenge”. A reaction against an era of falling birthrates and increasing multiculturalism, this challenge overlaps with the far-right ‘Great Replacement’ conspiracy, a racist ideology asserting that White Americans and Europeans are being purposefully ‘replaced’ by non-white immigrants, a false belief heeded by a majority of Trump voters and Fox News viewers (according to a 2022 YouGov poll). This fear has also directly led to mass shootings, such that of Buffalo, New York in 2022, and Christchurch, New Zealand in 2019. One really does not have to dig too deep to uncover the very real and very violent dangers of racist scaremongering. When such discourse intersects so strongly with the narratives underlying a TikTok trend, there is real cause for concern.
Another Tradwife, Gwen the Milkmaid warns that the government is trying to disrupt the sanctity of the white hetero nuclear family, posting in one video that “the elites have been trying for decades to destroy femininity, masculinity, and families”, hence why viewers are apparently “threatened” by the trend. Posting such strong ideological stances alongside sugary sweet, aestheticised videos in which we see Gwen smile robotically as she lattices pies and sows seeds in the garden, in fact undermines the severity of what she is promoting. It is as though her assertions are obvious, her way of living a simple, pretty solution. But a solution to what? Increasing acceptance of blended families, of gender fluidity and of more open attitudes to race, to what constitutes ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’? How does this harm her wish to stay at home?
To Gwen, the enemy is progressivism: advocacy for social reform, in particular concerning women’s rights and the fight against outdated attitudes to sex and gender. But many have theorised that the Tradwife lifestyle is in fact a reaction against the many unresolved issues women face: a lack of reliable health and child care, and a gender wage gap, to name but two. The reality is that women still perform many more hours of housework and unpaid care at home than men do, and are paid less in jobs for which they work just as hard, so veering completely off the career path and choosing to dedicate oneself to a husband and children seems like an easy remedy for the anxieties they face. When modern life feels like an uphill battle, looking at the past through rose-tinted glasses is undeniably appealing.
Women are incorrectly taught who is to blame, so Tradwives end up aligning themselves with an audience that will fully embrace their lifestyle: the right. This phenomenon is not new, and it distracts us from the real enemy. As one TikTok aptly remarks: the man who should really be supporting these women is Joe Biden. If governments in general worked more effectively in support of women, they might not feel as strong a need to seek refuge in the home, away from the nightmares of the job market and difficult political realities.
Whilst the Biden administration has for the first time implemented a U.S. National Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality – which aims to promote women’s economic security; health and reproductive rights; education justice and human rights among other things – and committed a landmark $2.6 billion to promoting gender equality abroad, problems around women’s safety and gender based violence, equal payment and the protection of reproductive rights persist all over the world. In the US, with the revocation of the constitutional right to an abortion, things can be seen to be getting worse. Women still earn on average 16% less than men (Forbes, 2024), and in 16 states abortion is illegal after conception (in only three of those states is an exception made for cases of rape or incest). It is perhaps the American system of government to adequately protect women that is to blame for the rise of the Tradwives, not progressivism.
Social media also fuels polarisation, and so women are increasingly pitted against one another: the ‘traditional’ wife is threatened by the ambitious, career driven woman, and the former’s legitimate desire to dedicate herself to a family sees an enemy in a liberal, progressive attitude towards female empowerment. Bashing other women for choosing to work was also prevalent in the US and Canada in the ‘80s, an era in which the “Mommy Wars” – rampant disputes between mothers over parenting methods – played off anxiety about the increasing number of mothers joining the workforce. This war’s logic was that women who stay at home to raise their families are the natural enemies of women who choose to leave and work, and so mothers were pitted against one another: working mothers began to view stay-at-home mothers as lazy and self-indulgent, and the latter saw those who went off to work as selfish and neglectful. This false narrative persists to this day, and has resurfaced for some Tradwives.
Under Nara Smith’s videos, I have only ever read positive comments from other girls, in adoration and support of her recipes, aesthetic and style: women will clearly support women who choose this lifestyle, and who do not shame the choice to live as you so wish. Yet, for Gwen, her enemies are OnlyFans models – a group to which she used to belong, and now openly derides – feminism, which to her is “not freedom”, sexual freedom and choice (“abortion is not healthcare”). “Women were created to be in the home”, she informs us. The issue is perhaps most effectively encapsulated in her declaration, “I used to be a man-hating feminist… now I’m happily spending hours in the kitchen making my husband whatever he wants”. Who told her that feminism equals man-hating, and also that baking and feminism are mutually exclusive? Clearly, she was never a feminist to begin with.
If your wife chooses to stay at home and cook for you, and this dynamic is functional, then fine. If embracing traditional gender roles is indeed a comforting and effective solution to the impossible challenges faced outside, this is surely harmless, but what is crucial is that women make that decision for themselves, and clear boundaries are drawn. It does however seem as though in cases such as Gwen’s, it is the man who profits from a woman’s ‘decision’ to stay at home. Her husband can ask for anything, and Gwen will get it for him. Furthermore, a lot of Tradwife content is sexualised, its comments full of men lusting after them, “I want one”, “you’re what men want”, and even, “you’re still ruined” (after the creator admitted she used to be an OnlyFans model). Are men spurring these women on? Is it the looming, voyeuristic male presence which we really ought to be worried about?
In the words of journalist and commentator Max Read, “to the extent that I would worry about anything in the future, instead of creating a mass of Tradwife women, it feels a lot like you’ll get one or two very famous ones, and a mass of simping male followers.” Studies have shown that a large proportion of those who view Tradwife content are right-leaning men. Ex-Tradwives have attested the abuse they endured, and spoken about how men who self-select into such communities are antisocial and very misogynistic. It seems that the real danger of Tradwife content is that it caters to men with a Donna Reid fetish, affirming the kind of insidious misogynistic biases that have become increasingly prominent with the rise of self-proclaimed misogynist influencers, such as Andrew Tate.
So, should we fear this phenomenon? The TikToks in themselves, as Read writes, are unlikely to effectively serve as propaganda for women. Instead, one must unpack the ideology that lies beneath: women misdirect their anxieties, economic or otherwise, towards contempt for other women, feminism and progressivism, and land in the arms of men who end up abusing their misguided decisions, and thus the submissive wife power dynamic. With the internet, we should always be wary of anything that claims to be perfect, especially when a trend reproduces and romanticises an era of rampant sexism. The perfected, saccharine videos we see celebrating the Tradwife lifestyle are not so bright when the camera is turned off.
Oxford is a notoriously strange place with a notoriously strange populace, one which includes Union hacks who desire nothing more than to rule the world, and scholarly types who get off on reading Schopenhauer deep into the night when most of their peers are… well, getting off, or something. We wouldn’t know.
Anyhow, with a general election on the horizon and Keir Starmer content punishing our TikTok feeds, we wanted to test the strangeness of Oxford students in the sphere of politics.
We ran the Cherwell Politics Hot Takes survey for two weeks and amassed a hoard of data which we can now share with you. With side-by-side analysis of the data we received and the latest results of YouGov polls for the age group 18-24, we have been able to provide an exclusive insight into the politics of different colleges and attempt to answer the eternal question of how the average Oxford student differs from the typical voter.
VOTING INTENTIONS
It is no surprise that Labour’s vast lead in the polls was also reflected in the voting intentions of our respondents. When asked ‘if there was a general election tomorrow, which party would you vote for?’, 57.1% responded Labour, 9.2% Conservative, 14.3% Greens, 9.2% Liberal Democrat. The rest said they wouldn’t vote, or they would spoil their ballot. A wholesome 4 people said that they would vote for Reform UK, placing their poll way below the 12% which YouGov most recently recorded for the age group 18-24.
Amongst colleges, Hertford emerged as the Greenest. Nearly two thirds of respondents from the college said that they would vote Green in an election held tomorrow, making up nearly 1/5 of all those respondents who opted for Green overall.
At the other end of the spectrum Jesus emerged as the most right wing college: ¾ of its respondents said they would vote for Reform UK or the Tories. Jesus only equalled rivals Corpus and New, however, with regard to the number of right wing voters it fielded. (Note that (T-)Oriel did not even make the ten colleges with the highest proportion of right wing voters. Clearly, its members were too busy getting their tweed ready for Port and Policy to respond to the survey.)
Viewing our results alongside those of YouGov, we found that our respondents expressed higher levels of voting intention for Labour and the Conservatives than the 18-24 year olds consulted by YouGov – in other words, a lower proportion of 18–24-year-olds nationally intend to vote for the two main parties compared to Oxford students. The most underrepresented in our data, were those intending to vote for the Liberal Democrats. Whilst the national average for the age group during May hovered around 15%, only 9% of our responded intended to vote for the Lib Dems. Oxford students remain polarised across the two main parties, with the Greens in a stronger position as the third party compared to the Lib Dems heading into the general election.
Notably, Oxford is in no way an exception to the gendered voting trends noted amongst the wider country. Much like YouGov’s survey of the differing voting intentions of men and women, Cherwell’s survey found that those who identified as female were slightly more likely to vote Labour than their male counterparts, though both genders favoured Labour generally, with 65% of women and 56.9% of men planning on voting for them in their polling booths. While neither gender seemed hugely keen on another term of Sunak, the prospect was more popular among male students— 14.7% of them plan to vote for the Conservatives, compared with only 3.8% of women and absolutely 0 non binary students. Arguably proving our superiority, The Cherwell collected voting information from individuals who identify as non-binary, 20% of whom plan to vote Labour or Lib Dem, respectively, while a massive 60% of non-binary respondents plan to vote Green at the next general election, a number that dwarfs the 16.3% of female and 8.8% of male students who intended to vote similarly.
KEY ISSUES
When asked what the most important issues facing the country are, it’s fair to say that the priorities of Oxford students are reasonably typical of their age group. According to YouGov, the economy is one of the most important issues for all Britons aged 18-24, as it was for our respondents. In both surveys, the economy won out as the most important issue by a margin of 20%.
Furthermore, both groups agree that the least important issue facing the country is crime. Even if The Sun’s dubious claim from last year that a “child crimewave is sweeping the UK” were true, neither Oxford students nor young Britons seem particularly bothered. Where the results most notably diverge concerns the environment: over half of our respondents said the issue was one of the top three most important compared to just over one fifth of respondents to the YouGov poll.
It comes as no surprise that the environment was the most important issue for those Oxford students who would vote green, with nearly 9 in 10 of those respondents selecting it as one of their top three issues. One can only speculate what is drawing the other 10% to the Green party – although Caroline Lucas’ chill vibes must count for something.
The economy remains the most important issue: for both Conservative and Labour voting respondents, over 80% of each group stated it as one of their most important issues. They differed, however, in their other priorities: around half of all Conservative voters placed defence & terrorism, and immigration & asylum as one of their top three issues. For Labour voters, the legacy of Attlee’s housing reforms, and Bevan’s NHS on their shoulders, it was housing and health that took second and third place.
Male and female respondents were fairly similar in their priorities, save that the women of Oxford are over 20% more interested in health than the men, who, in a typically strong and manly fashion, find defence and terrorism and crime to be more important, by a margin of 10% in both cases, than their female counterparts. The economy took the top spot for male and female groups. On the other hand, nationally, 6% more women (of all ages) said that health was important than said that the economy was. With age bringing the prospect of ailments and frailties that the young lassies of Oxford could never conceive of, it seems only natural that widening the age range would mean that health would come out on top.
GOVERNMENT APPROVAL & POLITICAL TRUST
As you might hope, Oxford students are more clued in (or at least more opinionated) than the average 18-24 yr old. According to YouGov, as of 27th May 2024, 25% of respondents in the age range did not know whether they approved of the government’s record to date. Of our respondents, only 3% were so diffident. Furthermore, whilst the approval rating of the YouGov poll sits at 13%, in our survey, only 7% approved of the government’s record and over 90% disapproved. All five prime ministers of the last 14 years were Oxford educated. So much for blue through and through!
Notably, no respondent who would vote Labour approved of the government’s record (the disapproval rate with this group was 98.2%). On the other hand, 52.9% of Conservative voters approved of the government, leaving a sizable 35% who disapproved and would rather have a Conservative government than any alternative arrangement. The mind truly boggles.
Oxford students are also more convinced of the brokenness of the political system. When asked “How well does Britain’s political system work?” over a third of respondents said that it sometimes appears broken, with the same number saying that it is badly broken: that amounts to nearly 7 in 10 respondents saying that our political system at least appears broken, compared with under half of respondents to the YouGov poll aged between 18-24 saying the same.
The most frequently cited reason for the broken political system was, as one student wrote: ‘in four words, first past the post’. Disillusionment with FPTP was supplemented by a more general unhappiness with the current political system – stretching from democracy as whole: ‘we’re descending into fascism hahaha’, past the unelected house of lords, the two party system, to recent political episodes: ‘A system that allows Liz Truss to be in power for a month and relies on the public for slight scrutiny is sincerely broken’.
Many respondents also commented on substantive political issues of the last 14 years as indicators of how broken the system is. Six respondents mentioned the NHS, nine the collapse of public services and the cost of living crisis. Immigration (particularly the Rwanda bill), genocide in Gaza, and climate crisis were mentioned by over ten students. The compounding of all these issues was reflected by several exasperated students writing unabashedly ‘literally nothing works’ and ‘the country has gone off a cliff’.
As young people, students were worried that ‘the NHS was on its last legs’, and that they’d never be able to afford houses (unless, someone wrote, ‘they sell their soul to corporate London’). One student wrote ‘education, the media and news outlets have people in a chokehold’, whilst another claimed ‘everything is run by a consortium of rich dudes’.
OPTIMISM ABOUT BRITAIN’S FUTURE
Given 83% of conservative voters stated they were optimistic about Britain’s future, there was also an alternative justification for optimism which was in virtue of a confidence in the current system as it stands. A University college student wrote ‘we are the best country in the world. God save the king’, whilst a Christchurchian claimed ‘Britain has all the potential in the world, it is one of the most developed countries and will only grow stronger’. Uncertainty and hope for optimism also featured prominently, with several students seeing the value in optimism but unsure if it would be naïve to embrace it.
The pessimists among us blamed the decreasing faith in politics as a result of a “struggling NHS, Brexit and the xenophobic rhetoric associated with it, cost of living crisis, education system reforms that seemed to be for the sake of making a visible change rather than actual progress.”
Those who manage to remain optimistic find hope in the “many talented people in all corners of society collectively making small improvements for everyone. The very culture of the place makes it stable and advancing.” Similarly, another respondent encouraged us not to “let the ups and downs of the past 16 years prevent us from seeing the opportunities the future presents. Politicians need to regain our trust – if they do so, it will be well earned and good cause for optimism”
STUDENT ATTITUDES TOWARDS LABOUR
It is extremely likely that Labour will form a majority government after the next election. Nearly 60% of our respondents said that they would vote for Labour in an election, suggesting that the party has enormous support among Oxford students. According to YouGov, Labour polls just as highly among young people across the country. However, Keir Starmer has notably managed to massively increase Labour’s potential vote share in all age groups since 2019 apart from among 18-24 year olds, for whom Jeremy Corbyn was just as appealing.
That Starmer’s centrist persona has the potential to disenfranchise younger voters came across in the responses to Cherwell’s survey. One respondent wrote: “Labour is offering nothing radical in a time when people are crying out for someone to say what everything is thinking: starving children, poisoning people’s blood and outing trans people to their parents is unacceptable. Keir and his gang refuse to say this, and as such, fail.” Another described Starmer as having transformed the Labour party into a “proto-Tory club, which sidelines left wing MPs,” a reference, presumably to controversy concerning Starmer’s moves to centralise candidate selection. The same respondent felt that all of this amounted to the absence of “true socialism” in the party.
One respondent seemed thrilled at the prospect of a Labour government, but did not miss out on the opportunity to have a jab at Starmer, writing: “Starmer is an unprincipled opportunist but his party will reinvest in health, education and social care, alleviate poverty, reduce corruption and cronyism, and help to heal the ruptures in this country.”
We reached out to Jack Hurrell, Co-Chair of OULC (Oxford University Labour Club) for comment broadly on the issue of Keir Starmer’s leadership and Labour’s engagement with young people.
Hurrell emphasised that “the main challenge with young people is voter turnout. Polls consistently suggest that young people overwhelmingly support progressive change in this country, but only 43% of people aged 18-24 voted in 2019. This needs to change if we are to get a labour government.”
On the subject of Keir Starmer’s image, Hurrell emphasised his broad popularity compared to Corbyn among voters nationally, noting that “according to YouGov Keir Starmer currently has a net approval rating of -9% compared to Corbyn’s -37%, with some polling agencies showing Starmer has a net positive approval rating, a rarity in British politics.” Hurrell acknowledged that Starmer’s popularity does not necessarily persist among young people, but said that “more work can be done to show Keir Starmer’s strength of character, personal empathy and kindness” evident, Hurrell said, in his years of pro-bono legal work.
Asked whether the Labour party is still a left-wing party in light of such policy surprises as Starmer’s failure to commit to ending the controversial 2 child benefit cap, Hurrell said that “Labour will always be a progressive party,” highlighting the previous Labour administration’s record on “reducing child poverty” and “making important civil rights gains for LGBT+ people.” He went on, saying that “Keir Starmer has been clear that we want to end the 2 child benefit cap when the economic situation allows and that is incredibly important to a lot of Labour members like myself.”
OUCA were also approached for comment on the current state of the Conservative party; we are yet to hear their response.
When we think of Leonardo da Vinci, the first things that come to mind are usually the Mona Lisa, The Last Supper, or his myriad inventions and anatomical sketches. But today, we’re peeling back the layers of a straight-washed Renaissance to reveal a more intimate portrait of the artist and his lifelong companion.
In his lifetime, da Vinci was synonymous with artistic mastery, intellectual prowess, and a fashion sense that was the envy of Milan. With his striking looks, muscular build, and the kind of charm that could make a stoic Medici swoon, Leonardo was the ultimate Renaissance icon.
And then comes the “Little Devil” himself, Gian Giacomo Caprotti da Oreno, affectionately (or exasperatedly) known as Salai. When a curly-haired, angelic-faced boy entered Leonardo’s life in 1490, he brought with him a whirlwind of chaos and charm. Leonardo’s diary entries were soon filled with tales of Salai’s sticky fingers and impish antics. Despite it all, Leonardo couldn’t resist the boy’s allure, endearingly nicknaming him Salai, a nod to his devilish behaviour, translating to ‘little devil’ in Italian.
Their relationship was as complex as one of Leonardo’s own creations. Salai wasn’t just an assistant or a pupil; he was a companion, a muse, and, quite likely, a lover in their later years. Leonardo’s sketches overflow with Salai’s image: a beautiful youth with cascading curls, often depicted alongside the older, more rugged figures that may have represented Leonardo himself. The contrast of beauty and age, innocence and experience, was a motif that fascinated Leonardo throughout his life.
At dinner parties, Leonardo would be the dashing and impeccably dressed maestro, while Salai, the boyish rogue with a penchant for breaking things and stealing silver styluses. They were the Renaissance’s answer to eccentric bohemian royalty, turning heads and causing whispers wherever they went. Even when Salai’s pranks reached new heights of audacity, Leonardo’s affection never wavered. Records show an amusing blend of annoyance and indulgence, a testament to their unique bond.
But what about their love life? Well, the evidence is tantalisingly suggestive. Lomazzo’s unpublished 1560 “Book of Dreams” immerses us in a playful dialogue where Leonardo unabashedly admits to engaging in what he calls “that backside game that Florentines love so much” with Salai. While Lomazzo’s account is a product of creativity, its credibility is bolstered by his ties to one of Leonardo’s students. In a world where such relationships were often hidden or condemned, Leonardo’s unapologetic pride is both surprising and endearing. “Among men of worth, there is scarcely greater cause for pride,” he declares, championing a love that transcended societal norms.
Leonardo’s devotion to Salai transcended mere affection. He indulged his young companion’s love for finery, recording the costs of Salai’s colourful and often extravagant attire in his notebooks. Pink was a particular favourite, reflecting both Salai’s flamboyant personality and Leonardo’s own penchant for vivid hues. Theirs was a relationship painted in bold strokes and vibrant colours, as dazzling as Leonardo’s art and as enduring as his legacy.
Sure, Salai aged, but in Leonardo’s eyes and sketches, he remained eternally youthful, forever the beautiful boy who had captured his heart. Even in the final years of Leonardo’s life, his drawings of Salai exuded tenderness and longing, a poignant reminder of their enduring connection. The artist, grappling with the passage of time, found solace in the timeless beauty of his beloved muse.
In recounting the tale of Leonardo and Salai, it’s imperative to acknowledge the tendency of historians to straight-wash the narratives of historical figures. For centuries, societal norms and biases have obscured the true nature of relationships like theirs, shrouding them in historical obscurity. By delving into the intricacies of their companionship, we not only shed light on the depth of their connection but also challenge the heteronormative lens through which history has often been viewed. It reminds us of the importance of revisiting the lives of historical figures with a critical eye, allowing us to uncover the complexities of their identities and relationships and honour their stories in all their full, unapologetic truth.
So, next time you admire the Mona Lisa’s enigmatic smile or marvel at The Last Supper’s intricate details, remember the man behind these masterpieces. Leonardo da Vinci was not just a solitary genius but also a lover and a dreamer, forever entwined with his “Little Devil.” Their story adds a rich, human layer to the legend of Leonardo, reminding us that even the greatest minds have room for love, laughter—and a touch of mischief.
When I first came to Oxford, my Dad sent me the playlists he listened to for each year at university. His second-year playlist in particular made me think about the music that would be the soundtrack to my own time here: it hasn’t quite been the definitive era of Britpop my Dad experienced in 1995-6, but I’ve been looking back at my termly playlists to see which artists have popped up again and again. Of course, this is all at the mercy of my music taste, and there’s a lot of songs that belong more to my Dad’s era of music than ours… Every song reminds me of a specific time and place in Oxford, whether singing along to ‘As It Was’ by Harry Styles in Catz bar or being introduced to Sam Fender in my friend’s room in first year. I’m rarely seen without headphones if I’m by myself, whether that’s the walk to Tesco, wandering down Manor Road to a library or doing class reading; there’s always been music in the background of my time here.
Not to conform to stereotypes, but it may surprise no one that as a female English student, the only artist to appear on all of my playlists was… Taylor Swift! With the release of her first re-recording, Fearless (Taylor’s Version), six months before I started at Oxford, followed by Red (TV) in Michaelmas 2021, she is perhaps the artist of my degree, claiming my top artist spot for the last two years. A close second, only missing from one playlist, is Maisie Peters (she didn’t make it in my country music era of Hilary 2024). She is Taylor-adjacent in style, yes, but I saw her live in September 2021 and again in Trinity 2023, making Maisie’s music another constant. My first-year Trinity playlist began with her lyric, “I am twenty, and probably upset right now” (‘You Signed Up For This’); I saved ‘The Good Witch’ to start my final Trinity playlist, as she sings, “Still upset, but now I’m 22”, ageing with me and my degree in a way that really shows how much music has been in the background of it all.
New music from The 1975, Ed Sheeran, Olivia Rodrigo– all big names of 2020s music – also appeared on my playlists. I couldn’t make this list without another favourite of the English student, boygenius, whose the record was a defining alternative sound of 2023, as well as one of my standout albums. ‘Not Strong Enough’ has to be one of my top songs of recent years. I may complain I haven’t got to live through the heydays of Oasis, Blur and Pulp – all frequent fliers on my own playlists, but upon reflection 2021-24 produced a lot of great indie or alternative music. Declan McKenna, Remi Wolf and Chappell Roan have also recently become big names. I’m sure everyone has their own equivalents of defining artists and genres, depending on your tastes but it has been interesting to reflect on my own musical leanings which have solidified over the last few years.
After I sat my last exam, one of the first things I did was add Blur’s ‘To the End’ to my Trinity 2024 playlist – ‘looks like we made it to the end’. The night before, I listened to ‘Don’t Look Down’ by Isaac Gracie and Chilli Chilton as I left the study room after my last revision session; the song I used to always play as I left the library in first year. Doing the same walk across Catz Old Quad now– to the room next door to where I was introduced to Sam Fender and danced to ‘Not Nineteen Forever’ by the Courteeners in 2021, I had two thoughts: 1. I am far too much of a nostalgic person, and 2. I’ll always connect these songs to this place, and to these people. I hope so, at least.
Pro-Palestine protesters from an autonomous group have occupied a hall in the East School in Exam Schools before the start of some examinations. The exams, which were meant to take place this morning in the East School, have been cancelled.
Oxford Action for Palestine (OA4P) have advertised this on their Instagram saying: “They need support outside Exam Schools.” Some protesters from OA4P are expressing their support outside Exam Schools. OA4P told Cherwell: “the action was unaffiliated with OA4P and was undertaken without OA4P’s knowledge.” They further asserted that: “The support for Palestine on this campus extends far beyond OA4P.”
Around 6 protesters can be seen inside Exam Schools carrying pro-Palestine flags and hanging exam papers out of the windows. A student told Cherwell that an initial group stayed in Exam Schools overnight and a second group of around 20 “with masks and backpacks” tried to enter the building.
The gates to Exam Schools have been locked and students are not allowed to enter or leave the marquee where they wait to go to their exams. Exams being sat this morning include preliminary and final examinations.
Students have been informed there will be a “minor delay” and exams in the East School have been cancelled. The other exams taking place elsewhere in the Exam Schools will still happen.
There is police presence inside Exam Schools and arrests were made.
A spokesperson from the University of Oxford told Cherwell: “The University is disappointed with this morning’s occupation of the exam schools and the absolutely unacceptable disruption caused to our students. We are putting into place contingency plans to ensure all students will have the opportunity to sit their examinations with as little disruption as possible. It is unclear who the occupying group are representing, as they claim to be acting without the knowledge of the OA4P encampments. While the University supports the right to peaceful protest within the law and our rules, this action plainly goes beyond the bounds of acceptable protest.”
Students sitting exams in Exam Schools this morning described the stressful and loud environment they had to work in. One student told Cherwell: “Inside exams we could hear protesters the whole time… people were crying because they were really stressed and couldn’t concentrate.” Invigilators advised students to “put tissues in [their] ears” and “apply for mitigating circumstances.”
The exams scheduled in the Exam School this afternoon will go ahead. In an email sent to staff, the University said: “…it is too short notice to relocate these exams” and that “a decision will be made about tomorrow’s exams very shortly.”
Oxford University and climate action. Opinions on Oxford’s relationship with such action differ profusely across student activist groups, the University administration and climate-focused academics. In navigating the conflicting views and disagreements between key stakeholders, data made available to the public in response to FOI requests, is of paramount significance. Thus, it is through a data-oriented lens, that in the context of the last decade being the warmest in historical record and projected warming of 2.6-4.8 degrees celsius if no change is made to current levels of emissions, Oxford University’s self-defeating ties with the fossil fuel industry and the contradictions between its policies and actions are exposed.
To understand the inconsistency in the University’s policies and rhetoric regarding the climate crisis on the one hand, and its fiscal actions on the other, one needs to go back to the university’s milestone unveiling of The Oxford Martin Principles for Climate Conscious Investment in 2018.
The principles were developed in the context of two important background conditions. The first is that in order to meet the aims of the 2016 Paris Agreement – which was to limit global temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels by the end of this century – annual emissions would need to reduce 43% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels.
The second key contextual condition for the principles was the Sullivan Principles from which they took inspiration. These principles, released in 1977 against the backdrop of Apartheid in South Africa, provided seven requirements concerning equal treatment of employees regardless of race (explicitly in contradiction with racial segregation policies under Apartheid) that needed to be met by any corporation in South Africa as a condition for doing business with overseas companies and investors. The Sullivan Principles were adopted by 125 US companies, and during their introduction and the divestment campaign they prescribed, there was much appraisal for the principles’ success. In 2020, the Oxford Martin Principles sought to replicate their model and apply it to the urgent need to ensure that two-thirds of current fossil fuel reserves remained unburned in order to meet the demands of the Paris Agreement.
There are three Oxford Martin Principles: (1) commitment to ‘net-zero’ emissions, (2) developing a profitable net-zero business model, and (3) quantitative medium-term targets. They prescribe that companies should develop and publish a transition strategy to reach a net-zero target. For companies providing carbon intensive services or fuels with “no currently available substitutes”, the principles advise “a clear plan” for developing and deploying substitutes. According to the principles, these plans all should be in the timescale of the mid-term; which in 2018 was 2030 according to the Oxford Martin Principles briefing document, yet there is minimal explanation for how this definition of the ‘mid-term’ has been reached.
The function of the principles is to “provide a framework for engagement between climate conscious investors and companies across the global economy”, and generate a checklist that must be met by companies outside of Oxford looking to meet the ‘climate conscious’ label. According to the Oxford Martin School website, by the close of the programme’s launch in November 2020, “the principles had influenced the strategies of investment management companies and institutional investors that control a combined £62.5 billion,” including Sarasin and Partners and other such global investment management companies, alongside St Hilda’s College and New College.
What is crucial to note is that the principles have also been fundamental to Oxford University’s own financial policies. In the 2022 OEF report from Oxford University Endowment Management (OUem) –the subsidiary responsible for managing the University’s £6 billion endowment – it is specified that OUem “asked all investment partners to use the Oxford Martin Principles for Climate Conscious Investment”. Oxford’s donations and research funding guidelines specify consideration of “the funder’s commitment to net zero, as evidenced through credible plans to achieve net zero carbon by 2050 or sooner, consistent with the Oxford Martin Principles”. Moreover, the Oxford University Careers Service has introduced a set of questions for recruiters which draw on the principles.
On the most generous understanding, most of the key players in the fossil fuel industry do not meet the standards set by the Oxford Martin Principles. According to evidence collated by Climate Action 100+ – an initiative that assesses the extent to which the “largest corporate greenhouse gas emitters take necessary action on climate change” – whilst ExxonMobil has failed to make a commitment to GHG reduction in the medium term, Shell does not have a decarbonisation strategy to meet its medium and long term GHG reduction targets, and both BP PLC and Eni SpA’s medium term targets for GHG reduction are not aligned with the global target of limiting warming to 1.5°C.
In the post-Martin Principles era, it is surprising and deeply worrying to find that Oxford University has maintained its financial relationships with these fossil fuel companies. Freedom of Information data has revealed that, since 2016, research funding in excess of £5.5 million has been provided by the likes of Shell, Eni SpA and other fossil fuel companies to Oxford University. Moreover, the proportion of funding annually provided by these companies did not decrease with the passing of the Oxford Martin Principles. In 2020, two years after the principles were published, the total annual funding from fossil fuel companies was 3.5% higher than in 2017. Likewise, the total donations from fossil fuel companies including Shell, ExxonMobil, Eni SpA and BP to Oxford schools or departments did not change following the implementation of the principles in 2018. Sizeable donations between £500 000–£999 999 have been donated to the university in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019. Sums of up to £500 000 were repeatedly donated between 2016 and 2023, suggesting little change as a result of the passing of the principles.
The extent of the relations between Oxford and these key players in the fossil fuel industry is illustrated by records of non-transactional interactions as well. In November 2023, a Freedom of Information request was lodged by Oxford students to retrieve the list of official meetings and conferences between 2021 to 2022 attended by the three directors of Oxford Net Zero – a research initiative whose mission is to “inform effective and ambitious climate action among those setting net zero targets in institutions and governments across the globe” – with the largest oilfield service companies and members of the Carbon Underground Top 200. Importantly, two of these three directors are researchers at the Oxford Martin School, and were involved in drafting the Oxford Martin Principles. What the FOI request discovered tells a story unaccounted for in Oxford Net Zero’s mission statement. The inquiry retrieved lists of lunches, receptions, workshops and “connects” with Shell, Equinor, BP and Exxon Mobil between 2021–23. In 2021, three years after the Oxford Martin Principles were first implemented, 14 meetings and conferences between Oxford Net Zero’s directors and fossil fuel companies took place. For context, one of these supposed ‘meetings’ was a lunch with BP at the Hotel Du Vin in Glasgow – during COP26.
So, not only are Oxford University’s economic ties to fossil fuel companies still existing at the levels of funding and donations, but the actors responsible for setting the industry-leading sustainability targets embedded in the Oxford Martin Principles are, in fact, consistently engaging with the corporations from which the principles themselves stipulate divestment and delinking. The optimist might speculate that these meetings are the basis for constructing the conditions for complete delinking from fossil fuel companies or pressing for climate action in the fossil fuel industry. However, the lack of transparency regarding the content of these meetings means we have no way of corroborating such speculation. No minutes or reports of any of these meetings are available beyond the data retrieved from the freedom of information inquiry.
Given the insufficient action of key corporations in the fossil fuel industry, including BP, to take action towards, or even implement, medium term GHG reduction targets in line with limiting emissions to 1.5°C, there seems to be little case for optimism, and rather has motivated negative speculation about Oxford University’s actual intentions amongst student activists. Oxford Climate Society Presidents Flora Prideaux (current) and Guy Zilberman (former) echo such speculation, stating that “Oxford University’s educational and research approach to the climate crisis is manufactured by the same individual assisting the fossil fuel industry with its ‘strategy’. This coordination is actively harming students and academics in the institution, shaping the research produced by the university.”
Against the backdrop of climate emergency, the question remains: what do we make of all this?
To put a finger on it, there is a twofold concern regarding the current state of affairs. Firstly, Oxford University is not ‘delinking’ from the fossil fuel industry. Delinking refers to breaking the wider scope of ties between the University and corporations – that is, cutting research funding, donations and engagement with fossil fuel corporations in regular meetings. This alone is deeply problematic as it diminishes the effect of divestment from fossil fuel companies where it has taken place, as it is still affirming their social licence whilst negating the social ostracisation and diminished economic agency that ought to follow from such divestment.
The second major worry is that the problem of failed delinking with fossil fuel companies is exacerbated in virtue of the University’s creation of and self-proclaimed adherence to the Oxford Martin Principles. The fossil fuel companies we have a record of the University engaging with do not meet the targets set by the principles. Thus, despite the guise of rigour and due diligence in sustainability that is afforded research funding or donation guidelines from their engagement with the Oxford Martin Principles, in practice, the principles are either being consistently undermined, or rather are serving to preserve existing comfortable and economically beneficial ties that Oxford University has with major fossil fuel companies.
Whilst this self-undermining is no doubt embarrassing, what is more worrying is the complicity of the principles in sustaining linkage to the fossil fuel industry. This linkage sets a precedent for loosely enforcing climate-minded policy which has a high risk of replication by other higher education institutions and commercial corporations, given Oxford’s position of academic and best practice exemplarity in the UK. That Oxford is providing a set of principles to be used as bases for corporate climate policies, but those principles are entirely compatible with maintaining significant ties to the fossil fuel industry, provides fertile ground for half-hearted and performative climate action policies, that en masse could vastly detriment and impede global efforts to deal with the climate crisis.
The contradiction taking place is more than a morally wrong, and totally undermining offence. It is fundamentally shaping and directing approaches to climate action in industry. The incentive to get fossil fuel corporations to reduce their carbon emissions does not exist when these corporations are still funding research, still getting shoe-ins to personal meetings with key stakeholders, and in this process being accorded legitimacy and kudos by leading climate research initiatives.
Students cannot sit still. The University’s ties to the fossil fuel industry may still be deeply ingrained, but they are not interminable. The Oxford Martin Principles have been insufficient to eradicate such ties. More is needed, and what more, I think, should be directed by students, by the next generation, by researchers not ascribing to the ‘carbon-zero’ hegemony that dominates Oxford climate research. The extent of Oxford’s imbrication with the fossil fuel industry is by no means uncovered. Here is a narrative that is part of a far bigger picture, and there is an unwavering impetus to not only complete the story but do everything in our power to rewrite it.
When asked to comment, the University of Oxford told Cherwell:
Our partnerships and collaborations with industry allow researchers to apply their knowledge and expertise to the challenges of pressing global concern, including research into climate-related issues and renewables.
The University receives research funding and donations from companies and organisations from the fossil fuel sector, typically at an average of ~£3m pa in research funding( < 1% of research turnover) and ~£2m pa in philanthropic donations. These funds are used principally to support researchers and activities aimed at speeding the transition to a net zero carbon future, or to support activities not connected to fossil fuels (such as research on anti-microbial resistance).
“In 2022, Council made a decision not to accept donations or research funding from companies and organisations in the extractive fossil fuel sector unless those companies had (a) a published commitment to net zero in line with the Paris Agreement; (b) a clear strategy and business model for achieving net zero; and (c) medium term metrics of progress. As of last year, the University has employed, from internal funding, a researcher, embedded in the Oxford Net Zero initiative, specifically dedicated to evaluating the net zero strategies of extractive fossil fuel companies in support of this decision.”
I think it’s fair to say that for a lot of people, myself included, the image of Donald Trump in an orange jumpsuit and chains waddling into prison for his crimes is quite gratifying. And with the recent guilty verdict in the New York case against Trump, alongside the other cases against him stalling out, people have come to celebrate this case as the best chance to reach the image described above. While I share the same visceral desire to see Trump punished for all he’s done, on a practical level, it’s important to take a step back while we wait for the sentencing of this case to look at both the legal and political implications.
Let’s start with the outcome described above: Trump is sentenced to prison, home confinement, or strict probation. At first glance, this outcome seems enormously beneficial in the election. He would not be able to campaign properly, and a New York Times/Sienna poll from 2023 showed that many independent and Republican voters would potentially change their minds about him if he were to be convicted. However, this view is likely oversimplified.
In order to understand why this outcome is not as simple as one might think, the full nature of the charges against Trump and the case as a whole must be understood. Trump was found guilty of falsifying business records. This offence is almost always a misdemeanour, which results in only a monetary fine unless it can be connected to another crime, and even then, a prison sentence is far from guaranteed. Mr Bragg (the prosecutor on the case) argued that the falsified business records were used to interfere with the 2016 election. This was an unusual approach that raised a host of technical legal issues, and many believe it was only tried in this way because of Trump’s reputation and the media attention surrounding this case.
As a result, a serious sentence against Trump would likely only reinforce the argument that this trial was a witch hunt and could lead moderate conservatives to flock to his defence. Trump would be able to better argue he is being persecuted, as it is highly unusual to be imprisoned over falsifying business records, especially in the circumstances of this case. This would be an even more pressing criticism considering that the sentence against him would come at a time when he is gaining in the polls nationwide and New York is a heavily progressive state. Moreover, while the 2023 poll discussed above indicates he might lose support, a recent poll specifically about the trial indicated that most voters will not have their minds changed by the verdict in this case, and nothing in that poll suggests that a more serious sentence would change that sentiment.
It seems unlikely for the reasons discussed above that the guilty verdict against Trump will result in any significant sentence beyond a fine and potential probation, and even if it did the sentence would likely not take effect before the election. With that in mind, the question then becomes, what are the other outcomes?
The Trump team has already said they plan to appeal the verdict. While the case itself was overall legally sound there are several technical issues which an appeals court may take issue with. If an appeal were to succeed, this would be disastrous both politically and legally for the Democrats. This would prove to many people that Trump was unfairly targeted, granting him even stronger support. Additionally, the other cases against him (such as the Georgia case or the federal document mishandling case) would be heavily scrutinised and painted with the same brush as the New York trial – as unfair witch hunts – even though these other cases rest on much stronger legal bases. If the general public sees these other cases in the same light as the New York case, it could seriously undermine the chance that Trump will ever be appropriately punished and even increase the chance he is re-elected.
Arguably, the most likely outcome is that Trump’s sentence will be nothing more than a fine and probation. This is the only sentence which has consistent precedent in similar cases across jurisdictions. This outcome seems like very little would change. It would be minor enough for Trump to brush off politically and would not change many people’s minds (as seen in the poll discussed above). If this truly is the most likely outcome, what was this all for?
The poll I discussed earlier indicated that there is some small group of voters (6% or less) who may be less likely to vote for Trump based on his guilty verdict. In the swing states where the election may be as close as one per cent, that could be huge. However, this verdict also has a high likelihood of firing up Trump’s base and even more moderate conservatives who view the case as a witch hunt. People with that view may now be more likely to show up on election day than they otherwise would have to “help defend Trump” from the “unfair persecution.” That effect will likely be compounded if Trump’s sentence is as serious as many of us would viscerally want it to be.
The media circus that surrounds the current trial of Mr Trump wants to frame this as the “trial of the century,” but it’s simply not. Maybe the other cases could have been, such as the Georgia case against him, but this is a relatively small charge, usually resulting in a slap on the wrist. If we truly want to have the best chance at avoiding a second Trump term and maintaining a functional rule of law, it would be prudent to stop focusing on the New York case and instead focus on actual political issues, or even the other cases against the former president.
Everybody knows Joy Division, everybody knows New Order. If the former’s post-punk gloom is the gateway drug for 80s bands like Bauhaus and The Cure, the latter is a divergent foray into thumping, Kraftwerk-style techno. Yet, ‘Blue Monday’, New Order’s 1983 hit, bridged the gap between restless New York clubs and a budding gothic subculture. In a hefty seven minutes and twenty-nine seconds we hear the synths and choral samples of Kraftwerk, the rhythm of Donna Summer’s ‘Our Love’ (1979), and the same bassist that underscored many of Joy Division’s most successful works.
Soon after the death of Joy Division’s lead singer and eccentric dancer, Ian Curtis, New Order was born, consisting of the remaining members of the original band as well as keyboardist Gillian Gilbert. Bernard Sumner stands out in particular, as the former guitarist of Joy Division but now the frontman of the new venture. Their first album, Movement (1981), was joined by the single ‘Ceremony’, written in the weeks before Curtis’ death and considered by many to be the last ‘true’ Joy Division song. My own father, a true music nerd and child of the 80s (as he so often likes to remind me), remembers this as his favourite song by either band.
In 1981, a visit to New York City introduced New Order to the local scene of dance music, including funk-inspired electronic beats and post-disco sounds. The wonderful 1982 track ‘Temptation’ is a personal highlight for me, acting as the precedent for later experimentation in ‘Bizarre Love Triangle’, ‘True Faith’, and of course, ‘Blue Monday.’
New Order’s discography up to 1983 is a thrilling experience for the ears, from the early riffs on Movement, laden with post-punk influences, to the techno tunes on Power, Corruption, and Lies (1983). Of the latter, one track is particularly noteworthy in the eventual creation of their magnum opus: ‘5 8 6’. The drum loops and beats are almost identical to those of ‘Blue Monday’, and both songs are exactly the same length. Not long after, ‘Blue Monday’ was written, recorded, and mastered.
For those of us who weren’t around at the time of the song’s release, we may underestimate the following it garnered. In an era where popular music was spread either via the radio, MTV, or even word of mouth, the taken-for-granted convenience of streaming platforms was cast off as an invention for the future. To this day, ‘Blue Monday’ is still the best-selling 12” single in British history. New Order had finally carved out their own place in music and popular culture, and the associations with Joy Division simply became a fun fact.
Why do I love ‘Blue Monday’ so much? It isn’t just the innovative direction the band took, nor the large instrumental sections that allow you to appreciate each element. For me, the appeal of the song lies in its enmeshing of different genres, borne out of the post-Joy Division context that the band found themselves in. Drawing inspiration from both the ‘Father of Disco’, Giorgio Moroder, and the gothic basslines of Siouxsie and the Banshees (as well as several other artists and sounds), New Order successfully merged dance and rock. Perhaps they weren’t the first to do so, but clean, crisp ‘Blue Monday’ stands out as an encapsulation of the sound that would become ‘alternative dance’.
‘Blue Monday’ didn’t just define the 80s, it continues to define music. Originally finding success in not only mainstream club-goers, but also amongst goths of the time (perhaps owing to the cold, choral echoes in the background), the track is almost a crossover hit, informed by the post-punk sensibilities of the band’s past and looking towards a modern, electronically inclined future. It perfectly balances the worlds of mainstream and alternative, of commercial success and critical acclaim.
I celebrated May Day in a pretty unorthodox way: I adopted a tortoise. Or more accurately, I took her over – with a group of friends. Minutes after dragging myself out of bed bleary-eyed at 11 am, we were navigating corridors whilst carrying a vivarium like in a scene from ChuckleVision. The newest resident of the annexe, carried behind us in a shoebox filled with soil, was Aristurtle (Aris to her friends), the St Peter’s College pet. Matriculating in 2012, she is a Horsefield tortoise with a significant underbite, approximately 15 years old, loves raspberries, and hates baths. These were the facts I knew about Aristurtle, but there is so much more to her (and to being a tortoise custodian) than I could ever have imagined on that hungover Wednesday morning.
Aristurtle has always had an almost mystical hold over her custodians. To one former custodian, she is his “baby girl”. We take her into college to roam the grass, and he soon prints across the quad to hold and stroke her on the shell. This isn’t uncommon. Our custodian group chat goes back nearly a decade. Another former custodian – who graduated four years ago – attends every Tortoise Fair.The tortoise-tortoise keeper relationship quickly becomes a fascination; it turns out that living with and caring for a surprisingly complex animal creates a bond that, although Aristurtle may be unaware of its existence, is pretty enduring.
That’s not to say that caring for a tortoise is the most pleasant experience. Tortoises smell, they nip, they climb into your shoes and up the legs of your trousers. My friend Rhea, in whose room Aris is currently resident, has accustomed herself to the noises throughout the night, but remains baffled at our girl’s ability to get stuck inside shoes left lying on the floor. Worse than this, Aristurtle, lovely as she is, is an escape artist. Left alone, she can traverse the quad in less than two minutes in search of delicious (and toxic) daisies, or cigarette butts (equally as toxic). She requires constant supervision – so good luck writing that essay in the sunshine. But she also has her endearing habits. Her speed, annoying as it can be, won her the McEwen-Benatar Trophy for Racing Excellence last year at the Tortoise Fair, and made her a favourite for victory this year. And she’s still small, so it’s no real hardship to pick her up and carry her across the quad all the time. Plus there’s the glory of the Race.
Trinity is always a big term for Oxford’s resident tortoises. The Corpus Tortoise Fair is, of course, the highlight of the testudinal calendar. Emerging as a challenge issued from Corpus Christi to Oriel, it has been 50 years since the very first fair. A half century which has produced an impressively well-managed event. If you’ve been to the Tortoise Fair, you’ll know exactly what I mean – the team running the fair have capitalised on every opportunity to make it more than just a race between some (admittedly slow) reptiles; you can buy merch with custom artwork, enjoy Pimm’s while listening to a poem written especially for the event, and even place a bet to back your favourite tortoise. This year’s Fair, threatened by rain, saw a sad defeat for Aristurtle, but a heartwarming victory for the newcomer, Kale from Nuffield. Aristurtle will always have her place in tortoise racing history regardless. Actually, perhaps this is the most rewarding aspect of being a custodian, too: the knowledge that you are part of the history of the tortoise, one in a chain of custodians stretching back through the years, with many more to come after you. I like to think that in 50 years someone will see our 2024 JCR photo, spot Aristurtle in the front row, and compare her to the larger, older tortoise sitting in a wooden box in their room. One can dream.
