Search Results

Dans toutes les sociétés, des règles existent pour faire tenir les individus ensemble. La question centrale est celle de leur respect : comment faire pour que ces normes soient effectivement suivies ? Historiquement, la réponse a souvent été la punition. Le système pénal moderne, à travers ses institutions – police, justice, prison – incarne cette logique : dissuader, sanctionner, réprimer les comportements jugés déviants. La prison, en particulier, s’est imposée depuis le XIXe siècle comme la peine de référence, au point de sembler aujourd’hui indissociable de l’idée même de justice. < Back L’abolitionnisme pénal : repenser le contrôle social au-delà de la punition Eloise Franzmann June 10, 2026 Dans toutes les sociétés, des règles existent pour faire tenir les individus ensemble. La question centrale est celle de leur respect : comment faire pour que ces normes soient effectivement suivies ? Historiquement, la réponse a souvent été la punition. Le système pénal moderne, à travers ses institutions – police, justice, prison – incarne cette logique : dissuader, sanctionner, réprimer les comportements jugés déviants. La prison, en particulier, s’est imposée depuis le XIXe siècle comme la peine de référence, au point de sembler aujourd’hui indissociable de l’idée même de justice. Pourtant, ce modèle est vivement contesté par un courant radical, celui de l’abolitionnisme pénal. Né dans les années 1970 sous l’impulsion de juristes et criminologues européens (Thomas Mathiesen, Louk Hulsman), ce mouvement défend l’idée que le système pénal n’est pas seulement inefficace – puisqu’il n’empêche ni la récidive ni les injustices – mais aussi profondément violent et porteur d’inégalités structurelles. Il propose donc d’en finir avec la prison, voire avec la justice pénale elle-même. Comme le rappelle Gwenola Ricordeau, « la cible de l’abolitionnisme est le système pénal, et non la seule prison. » Or, une telle proposition heurte de plein fouet notre imaginaire collectif. Elle soulève une question fondamentale en sciences sociales : comment maintenir l’ordre social sans punition ? Le contrôle social – c’est-à-dire l’ensemble des moyens par lesquels une société fait respecter ses normes – repose largement, dans sa forme formelle, sur le droit et la répression. Dès lors, l’abolitionnisme pénal ne remet-il pas en cause un fondement essentiel de la vie collective ? Pourquoi ses idées sont-elles si souvent jugées « naïves », « utopiques » ou « inconcevables » ? Pour comprendre la radicalité de la critique abolitionniste, il faut d'abord rappeler comment le système pénal s’est historiquement constitué en rouage central du contrôle social. La peinede détention s’est rapidement imposée comme la clé de voûte des systèmes répressifs occidentaux. Michel Foucault explique que sous l’Ancien Régime, le châtiment corporel visait à manifester la force et la toute-puissance du souverain. Avec la naissance de l’État moderne et centralisé, cette logique change radicalement: la peine n’est plus publique ni physique, elle devient institutionnalisée, invisible, régulière. Elle ne vise plus à détruire le corps du supplicié mais à corriger, discipliner, surveiller l’âme du délinquant. À mesure que l’État prétend réguler la vie de ses citoyens, la prison incarne la menace silencieuse qui rend cette régulation efficace. Le droit pénal a donc pour vocation de définir les comportements déviants, et les institutions (police, justice, prison) d’assurer l’ordre social. On retrouve cette conception classique chez Émile Durkheim, pour qui, le crime n’existe pas en soi : c’est la société qui l’étiquette comme tel. La fonction du crime et de la peine n’est pas tant de punir le coupable que de rappeler les normes collectives et de ressouder la collectivité derrière les valeurs qu’elle se donne. Condamner la déviance, c’est tenter de faire vivre l’idéal commun – ou, du moins, de faire croire qu’il existe. Car la société ainsi décrite se veut homogène : tolérer la déviance mettrait à mal l’unité du groupe. On met donc à l’ombre ou ‘sous terre’ ce qui menace la cohésion sociale. Le système pénal repose en outre sur l’usage raisonné de la punition comme levier pour faire respecter les normes. Selon Jeremy Bentham, l’être humain agit en fonction de l'équilibre entre plaisir et douleur ; la punition vise précisément à rendre la transgression coûteuse, agissant ainsi comme une dissuasion. La menace de la peine fait donc de la justice pénale un outil central du contrôle social, et c’est son utilité sociale supposée qui la rend légitime. L’abolitionnisme pénal apparaît dès lors comme une contestation radicale de cette légitimité. Pour ses tenants, la promesse d’utilité du système pénal est un leurre. Trois arguments principaux sont avancés ; le premier est celui de l’inefficacité dissuasive. Si punir réduisait le taux de criminalité, alors les pays où les systèmes carcéraux sont les plus durs connaîtraient une criminalité moindre ; or, on n’observe aucune corrélation de ce type. Avec près de deux millions de détenus, les États-Unis affichent l’un des taux d’incarcération les plus élevés au monde, sans que cela réduise durablement la criminalité. La récidive reste massive, y compris dans les pays les plus répressifs. Le sociologue et philosophe Geoffroy de Lagasnerie tire de ce constat une conclusion radicale : la prison n’ayant aucune efficacité réelle, elle devrait être remplacée. Il caractérise les systèmes pénaux occidentaux comme des systèmes fondés sur le « punitivisme » – une logique qui se concentre sur le passé (expier la faute) sans jamais réparer le futur. Le second argument est la violence intrinsèque du système pénal. Loin de se limiter à la prison, l’abolitionnisme dénonce l’ensemble du dispositif pénal comme un appareil de domination. Comme le rappelle Nils Christie, le système pénal « vole les conflits » : il dépossède les victimes, les auteurs et le corps social de la possibilité de résoudre ensemble ce qui les oppose. La procédure pénale transforme une dispute vivante en une mécanique froide, au bénéfice exclusif des professionnels du droit. Enfin, le troisième argument est celui de l’injustice sociale. La prison n’est pas aveugle : aux États-Unis, les minorités raciales sont massivement surreprésentées dans les prisons. De facto, si les personnes racisées représentent 37% de la population américaine, elles représentent également 67% des personnes incarcérées. Angela Davis montre que la prison fonctionne idéologiquement comme « un lieu abstrait où sont déposés les êtres indésirables afin de nous soulager de la responsabilité de penser aux vrais problèmes qui affectent les communautés » (pauvreté, racisme, santé mentale, éducation). Si l’argumentaire abolitionniste est solide, pourquoi ses propositions sont-elles si souvent jugées « naïves » ou « irréalistes » ? Plusieurs explications, que développe Gwenola Ricordeau, permettent de comprendre cette inconcevabilité. D’abord, il y a une méconnaissance structurelle du système pénal et carcéral. En France, l’abolitionnisme pénal reste marginal et mal compris, Ricordeau souligne que le faible imaginaire abolitionniste tient en grande partie au peu de ressources théoriques disponibles en français. Les textes fondateurs (de Mathiesen, Hulsman, Christie, Davis) sont tardivement ou partiellement traduits, ce qui entretient un cercle vicieux : moins on peut lire l’abolitionnisme, moins on peut le discuter sérieusement, et plus il apparaît comme une position étrange, importée, hors-sol. Ensuite, il y a un malentendu radical : omme le rappelle Ricordeau, l’abolitionnisme ne vise pas à « améliorer » la prison (plus de douches, de meilleurs repas, une baisse de la population carcérale). Il remet en cause la centralité même du système pénal – l’idée que la réponse légitime à une infraction doit passer par une institution d’État spécialisée, avec ses juges, ses procureurs, ses geôliers et ses sanctions. Dans un cadre politique dominé par la punition, la position abolitionniste devient proprement impensable. On se dit ainsi spontanément : si l’on supprime l’outil central de répression, que reste-t-il pour faire respecter les normes ? Enfin, une angoisse de l’anomie nous empêche de considérer sérieusement l’abolitionnisme pénal. C’est Durkheim qui a popularisé la notion d’anomie : c’est une situation dans laquelle les règles sociales perdent leur capacité à guider les conduites, laissant place à des comportements déviants incontrôlés. La société tend alors à se dissoudre, ne laissant subsister que des individus sans lien collectif. L’abolitionnisme active cette peur ancestrale : sans punition, c’est la fin de la société elle-même. Pourtant, comme le note le philosophe J. L. Mackie à travers son « paradoxe de la rétribution », il est aussi difficile de justifier moralement la punition que de l’éliminer de nos manières de penser. Nous savons que punir pour punir est intellectuellement problématique, mais nous ne pouvons nous en passer. C’est ce paradoxe qui rend l’abolitionnisme inconcevable : il se heurte non à une impossibilité logique, mais à une impossibilité psychologique et culturelle. L’abolitionnisme n’appelle pas à une société sans normes. Il propose d’autres formes de régulation : l’éducation, la socialisation, la prévention, la justice réparatrice. Des expériences concrètes (prisons scandinaves notamment) montrent que ces alternatives peuvent fonctionner, réduisant la récidive et restaurant les liens sociaux. Cependant, ces alternatives soulèvent à leur tour des questions fondamentales. Jusqu’où peut aller un contrôle diffus, invisible, potentiellement intrusif ? Comment garantir qu’un contrôle social par l’éducation ne devienne pas un endoctrinement ? Ces quelques interrogations sous-tendent la problématique de garantir un contrôle social juste, démocratique, transparent, sans tomber dans les abus d’un pouvoir sans visage. Cette réflexion dépasse largement le champ pénal et touche à l’école, aux médias, à l’espace public, à l’État lui-même. L’abolitionnisme a le mérite de nous forcer à poser cette question, là où la prison nous dispensait d’y réfléchir. Photo source: flickr/Steve Rhodes

Neo-Baathism finds its roots in the thought of the Syrian intellectual Michel Aflaq, who was able to inspire generations of anti-imperialist revolutionaries and radicals. < Back Arab Intellectuals that Every Sciences Piste Should Know: Taha Abdurrahman By Emilia Kohlmeyer December 31, 2022 Taha Abdurrahman is a Moroccan philosopher who was born in 1944. Most of his studies were conducted in Morocco; however, he earned his Ph.D. at Sorbonne University in Paris, focusing on the role of language in philosophy. Abdurrahman’s work centers around the hegemony of Western philosophical traditions, stressing the need for Islamic and Arab scholars to engage with their particularism. He emphasizes the need for scholarship to free itself of secularist thinking, which has created a universalist view of what constitutes modernity. Moreover, he criticizes Western philosophy’s unitary nature, which aims to standardize other philosophies and marginalize different perspectives, methodologies, and practices. He furthers that this tradition directly conflicts with academic freedom because true intellectual liberty can only flourish if there is dialogue between varying viewpoints, which is effectively prevented by Western dominance. For Abdurrahman, the tendency to seek consensus rather than highlighting particularities results in two forms of violence: “greater” and “lesser” violence. Greater violence is characterized by “physical” violence, with which the dominant position subjugates the dominated one. This violence is exercised through material support and influence, which seeks to uphold the hegemon and otherize its weaker counterpart. Greater violence also has an “epistemic” — the dominant position delegitimizes that of the dominated and removes it, almost entirely, from public discourse. “Lesser” violence occurs when the two positions compromise, as it denies the particularized a position. However, Abdurrahman also criticizes Arab and Muslim scholars for blindly adhering to Western principles within their philosophical explorations. He underlines that a major issue is that they are not asking their questions but rather seeking to answer those posed by others. Moreover, Western thought often employs reason to arrive at ethics. In contrast, Abdurrahman advocates for a strong ethical basis to reach reason, a process that he views as increasingly lost amongst Islamic philosophers. He draws this thought from his view of religion, in which statements are never separated from moral precepts. Conversely, “knowledge” has been rendered scientific in Western philosophy — philosophers have attempted to separate value from knowledge. Values are indispensable to our understanding, and rather than negating them, they should be included in the discourse and regarded as a starting point for any exploration. Abdurrahman underscores the importance of religion in creating ethics, something which is neglected by Western secularists who have attempted to develop comprehensive global systems of ethics while completely overlooking that the vast majority draw their ethics from religion. In his view, the most complete ethical system is provided by Islam and proposes a reinterpretation of the Holy Qur’an, which he believes to be humanistic above all.

The Beirut attack has reproduced immensely this social division on the political stage as Lebanese dreadfully await to see if Hezbollah’s ‘silent strategy of response’ unravels into an unwanted war. < Back Beirut Bombing: A Social Take By Jad Toufic Toutinji Photo of the bombed apartment where Saleh Al Arouri and six other members were assassinated. It was captured on Dec. 3, 2024 by Al Jazeera cameraman Jawad Shukr. On Dec. 2, 2024, the population of Beirut was shaken by an Israeli attack on a supposedly residential building in the Hezbollah controlled southern suburbs, killing Saleh Al Arouri, a prominent Hamas political leader, and six other members during a secret Hamas meeting. It is the first Israeli attack on Beirut since the July War of 2006. The Situation Since Oct. 8, Hezbollah and Israel have been incessantly attacking each other within a ‘limited conflict’ under ‘rules of engagement.’ On the Lebanese side, this ‘conflict’ has taken the lives of more than 160 people (at the moment of writing), some of whom were innocent citizens, children and journalists like Reuter’s Issam Abdallah. It has also caused great infrastructural damages across the southern and central western regions of Lebanon, displacing approximately 80,000 people . On the Israeli side, the death toll is 15 with minor infrastructural damages, but with thousands evacuated under the government’s organization and request. A Brief Political Analysis The attack on Beirut came as a shock to many, even to those who may have anticipated it. It marks the first potential spark of an official all out war between both parties, being that it is Israel’s biggest breach of the ‘rules of engagement.’ This latter phrase in the conflict’s context refers to an equivalent right of response by both sides, which is what all Lebanese are dreading. If Hezbollah were to respond equally to the attack, then Lebanon will be pulled into a dreadful war. Many concerned believe Israel is testing the waters and ploying to drag Hezbollah to war. Israel’s unofficial defence for the attack is to get rid of all those involved in the Oct. 7 operation as clearly expressed by the Israeli Mossad Chief’s vow to “settle the score” a day after the Beirut bombing. Yet, there is more to see on the wider scope: Washington has recently refused the inclusion of Lebanon in the regional conflict, which Israel appears to disagree with. As a result, Israel took this discrete, precise attack instead of its usual bombardments like in the southern regions of Lebanon. Even though Israeli government officials are claiming that the attack was on Hamas, not Hezbollah and Lebanon, the violation of Lebanon’s sovereignty is undeniable. Furthermore, on Dec. 3 Israel bombed the Lebanese village of Naqoura, killing a prominent Hezbollah leader Hussein Yazbeck. Clearly, the attacks are not limited to Hamas. Thus,we could argue that Israel was testing Hezbollah’s waters by attacking its central neighbourhood, but also verifying the US’ commitment to de-escalation in Lebanon. The latter’s officials denied any prior knowledge of the planned drone bombing. Moreover, it is also Netanyahu trying to postpone his inevitable electoral defeat by prolonging the war and expanding into Lebanon. In response, Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrullah warned during his speech on Dec. 3 that Arouri’s death will not go “without response and punishment,” claiming that it will be “very, very, very costly.” Consequently, observers are anticipating potential attacks; however, some interpret it as Hezbollah maintaining a ‘dormant’ right of response, so no immediate reciprocation. In fact, since Oct. 8, Hezbollah has been relatively showing a tactful response in an attempt to balance between supporting Hamas and controlling the internal Lebanese turmoil. Immediate Social Responses Instances after the bombing, there was a moment of panic that spread all over Lebanon. People in my neighbourhood, which is ten minutes away from the site of bombing, said that they had heard “three consecutive loud explosion sounds.” Two friends of mine, who live within metres from the site said that “they did not hear an explosion” – often a normal situation when the person is within close proximity to the bombing – and that “they heard a drone movement but lower than the usual Israeli warplanes viciously hovering over Lebanon.” One of them, living on the same street, said out of fear, “whatever it was they bombed us with, I felt it pass just above my house.” No one really knew who was assassinated, yet because of Lebanon’s consistent experiences with assassinations since 2005, it was almost immediately and unequivocally accepted that an assassination had taken place. The fear spread through all telecommunication ways possible. I was driving with my friends when it all happened and, within a matter of seconds, all the phones in the car were ringing. It was the typical Lebanese response to check on everyone after an attack, especially considering almost everyone in Lebanon would know someone who lives near the site of the bombing. My brother, who was in a shopping center when the explosion happened, saw many “immediately hold their kids and rush blindly to their homes.” Indeed, soon after it was made known that Israel bombed Beirut, its streets were emptied up as everyone took shelter in their homes in fear of further bombing. Even if, by far, this surely was not the biggest, most traumatic bombing to occur nor was it the most dangerous Israeli attack within the past five years, the consistent post-Beirut 2020 explosion trauma and the current Gaza and southern Lebanon massacres were enough to trigger a wave of fear all over the country. Within an hour, most Beirut boulangeries had run out of Lebanese pita bread as people bought essentials preparing for a potential war. Unlike prior to the 2006 July War, consciousness and fear of the repercussions of war is strongly present among the Lebanese. In comparison, in 2006, when Hezbollah announced the success of its kidnapping mission in the south, most Lebanese celebrated the success as many hoped to see the Lebanese hostages being exchanged for the kidnapped soldiers. Few were the ones that rushed out of fear to markets and boulangeries. However, it is evident that the trauma scarred in most Lebanese from that disastrous war created an unseen dreadfulness. As a result, most Lebanese, including to some extent Hezbollah, do not wish to go to war with Israel at the moment of writing. The Reproduction of Social Divisions The Dec. 2 Israeli attack on Beirut reproduced the never-ending Lebanese social divisions, some of which were essential factors to the 1975-1990 Civil War: the Palestinian refugees and the war against Israel. For a long time, Palestinian resistance groups, like Hamas, and also Lebanese ones, like Hezbollah, have existed out of the Lebanese military control. It has sparked on multiple occasions disputes with Lebanese civilians who feel endangered by the existence of armed groups. Today, many, if not a majority, stand against these armed groups. Most Lebanese stand with the Palestinian cause, whether on a humanitarian or identity basis. However, the division, which nowadays is not across religious sects as during the pre-civil war, stands on thin lines: ways of resistance and national priorities. Some Lebanese do not believe it is their duty to liberate Palestine militarily, seeing that the Lebanese cause – reclaiming Lebanese Israeli-occupied territories only – is of priority and that it should take place diplomatically or via the Lebanese military. This faction of the population perceives Hezbollah as an Iranian terrorist group endangering Lebanese sovereignty as much as Israel. On the other hand, another faction of the population perceives Hezbollah as their guardian angel against Israel because of a weakened Lebanese state. Interestingly, the latter faction is recently divided on the ‘Hezbollah’s balanced Palestinian-Lebanese strategy.’ A part of this latter faction sees the military support to Palestine from the Lebanese southern borders as morally necessary, yet should be kept limited to avoid an unwanted all-out war. Meanwhile, the opposing group, of which many are impoverished business owners and employees, still support Hezbollah yet believe that Lebanon is already in an economic crisis and that it is not the right time for liberation. As is the case that very few want a full war, even fewer from the anti-Hezbollah faction do not morally support the Palestinian cause and identify as Zionists. The political identification is never binary as extremists claim it to be. The Beirut attack has reproduced immensely this social division on the political stage as Lebanese dreadfully await to see if Hezbollah’s ‘silent strategy of response’ unravels into an unwanted war.

As everyone returned from a long vacation looking forward to starting the new year, students were apprehensive about the 18-hour-long intensive course named “Ecological Literacy.” < Back Are We Desensitized to the Environmental Crisis? By Ghazal Khalife March 31, 2023 As everyone returned from a long vacation looking forward to starting the new year, students were apprehensive about the 18-hour-long intensive course named “Ecological Literacy.” The Sciences Po Menton administration sent an email containing three required readings for this course, each explaining a different angle of the environmental crisis — from the associated inequalities, to the economic challenges posed by it, to its devastating repercussions on our survival. A common attitude towards the course was that of nonchalance, not towards the question of climate change itself, but rather regarding the need to study such a widely explored and “redundant” topic. As a student who insisted on attending each one of these long — at times triggering — lectures claimed “I have noticed that perhaps this course links to a greater overarching theme — desensitization towards the climate crisis as a whole. Maybe we know the facts and we know the repercussions but just cannot bring ourselves to do anything about it.” The course’s main professor, Nathan Marom, was able to harness students’ interest, especially impressive considering the long hours of class in the early morning. Students posed questions, interacted with the teacher and shared their own opinions on factors that exacerbated this existential problem. The class followed a thematic structure alternating from a purely scientific approach to a historical account of the environmentalist movement and, finally, an overview of the economic and hence political undertones of the fight against climate change. These approaches highlighted the multidimensionality of this issue. Among the debates in class that caused the most controversy is the idea around the individual’s role in combating climate change as opposed to government and industry agents. What all students shared, however, was a strong opinion on the crisis, either strongly in favor of radical, systemic changes or in favor of free-market reforms. Everyone knows about the environment’s problems, to differing extents, but not everyone shares the same passionate engagement. In my opinion, the course itself did not introduce any powerful revelations. As Sciences Po students, we have more than likely been exposed to the urgency of climate change and the various economic and political policies aimed at tackling climate change. Nonetheless, the courses serve as a reminder — especially to those of us prioritizing political goals and economic growth — that beyond all the immediate dangers of diplomatic conflict, power imbalances and economic competition are the imminent dangers of global warming, pollution and the depletion of natural resources. Domino Morris, a former environmental sciences International Baccalaureate student, pointed out that the course was interesting and largely coherent in the way it presented the topic. The need behind taking this course and the general attitude towards it coincide as telltale signs of general desensitization towards this pressing topic. Whether on social media or TV, outlets are saturated with content on the crisis. For the average citizen, this could cause a monetary shock or sense of disappointment but not necessarily an impetus for change.

في اليوم العالمي للمرأة، كشعيرة من شعائر "الإنسانية،" يجب علينا، نحن ماكثي العالم الغربي، أن ننعى بؤس المرأة العربية. ولكن الحقيقة هي أن المرأة العربية، في طبعها، ثورية عنيدة. < Back خاطرة في اليوم العالمي للمرأة Anonymous March 31, 2025 في اليوم العالمي للمرأة، كشعيرة من شعائر "الإنسانية،" يجب علينا، نحن ماكثي العالم الغربي، أن ننعى بؤس المرأة العربية. ولكن الحقيقة هي أن المرأة العربية، في طبعها، ثورية عنيدة. فأن تولد عربيًا أمر في غاية العناد، ولكن أن تولدي امرأة عربية يعني أن يلين أمامك صلب العناد نفسه. فأنتِ لستِ فقط في صراعٍ وجوديّ مع عالمٍ ظالمٍ يستبيح دماء شعبكِ، ويودّ لو يجعل من بلادكِ ريفييرا يستجمّ فيها فوق أضرحة أطفالكِ، ولكنكِ أيضًا في صراعٍ مع نفسكِ ومجتمعكِ؛ فأنباء اضطهادكِ تتصدر عناوين الصحف في الغرب، ناعتةً الرجل العربي بالرجعية وغير ذلك من صفاتٍ قبيحة؛ كل كي يزعزع جنودُ "الإنسانية" وجدانَ الرجل الغربي المتحضر، لعلّ وعسى أن يلبّي نداء التحضّر ويجلب لكِ الحرية المحتومة. وأنتِ، أنتِ يا أيتها المرأة العربية، مركز كلّ ذلك. ولكن الحقيقة هي أن المرأة العربية، في طبعها، ثورية عنيدة. كانت جدّتي منذ صغر سنها مناضلةً، استطاعت أن تربي جيلًا كاملًا في بيتٍ صغيرٍ لا يكاد يتسع لنفسه، لكنّها جعلت منه صرحًا عظيمًا واسعًا رحبًا بإقامتها فيه . كانت أُميّة حُرمت من التعليم، ولكن، على الرغم من ذلك، كانت تفوقنا جميعًا علمًا. فيا للعجب! أما عمّاتي، فكنّ فلاحاتٍ في قريةٍ من قرى الأردن، ومثل جدّتي، كان مقطنهنّ متواضعَ الحال، لكنهنّ كنّ إمبراطوراتٍ في عالم الفلاحة، يحرثن الأرض، ويحلبن البقر، ويرعين الدجاج، ويأكلن من عمل أيديهنّ، بل إنّ القرية بأكملها كانت تأكل من عمل أيديهنّ. ولا سيما أمي كذلك، قيادية حازمة، فكل كلمة تصدر منها في البيت أو خارجه بمثابة أمر نهائي لا محال منه. فإذا نطقت أمي، سكت القانون. وعلى الرغم من أن هذه الصفات بدت سائدةً فينا بالوراثة، إلا أنني لا زلت امرأة في مطلع شبابي، أحاول بعسر أن أستمد ثوريتي من النساء اللواتي نشأت على أيديهن؛ فلا بد بالطبع أن يعكر صفو تلك المحاولات الكلام الفارغ الذي يُتطلب مني أن أصغي إليه يوميًا في محاضراتي الزنانة. ففعلًا، إن ما تنشره الصحف في ذم الرجل العربي ورثاء المرأة العربية له روّاد في الغرب يتابعونه ويطّلعون عليه، وها أنا، التي كنت أعتقد أنني مركز هذا الحوار، أجلس في خلفية الصف، نائيةً نأي الكواكب عن الشمس عن المركز. فإيميليا (أو أدخل اسم أي فتاة أعجمية) أصبحت أكثر درايةً بمصلحة المرأة العربية، وها هي ذا منفعلة، يحتدّ صوتها وهي تستنكر فعلة الرجل العربي الشنيعة في حق امرأته. يا للهول! إنها لا تستطيع أن ترتدي ما تشاء من ماركات، ولا أن تدارك موضات لباس إيميليا ورفيقاتها! ولن نبرح من المحاضرة حتى تقنعنا إيميليا أن هذا هو كل ما في الأمر يا سيدي، ولا يوجد أي بعد آخر للوطن العربي تراه سوى ذلك. وأنا في الخلف أخاف أن أئنّ أي أنين، حتى لا تهيج إيميليا وتدعو إلى التحرك العسكري الفضائي لإنقاذي من أيدي سجّاني! لكن أيا ليت صمتي لخطابها رادعًا، فهي لا يعنيها حقًا كل ما يمسني من سوء، فيشغلها السوء طالما يطولني من على يد الرجل العربي وليس الغربي، وذلك لأن مذهبها الفكري ليس سوى امتدادا لحيلة استعمارية قديمة؛ استنادًا لتحاليل الكاتبة المصرية ليلى أحمد، فإن فكرة اضطهاد الرجال في المجتمعات المستعمَرة للنساء لا تعني المستعمر إلا بغرض توظيفها أداة في الخطاب الاستعماري تُستخدم "لإضفاء شرعية أخلاقية على مشروع تقويض ثقافات الشعوب المستعمَرة أو القضاء عليها." فهل تدري إيميليا أن جدتي وعماتي كنّ كلهنّ ضحايا حرب الإملاق نتيجة سياسات العالم الغربي الرأسمالي المحتل، قبل أن يكنّ ضحايا الرجل العربي؟ هل ذكرت الصحف المستشرفة التي تتابعها أن الرّجل العربي نفسه ضحيّة للعالم الغربي الرّأسمالي المحتل؟ وذلك كما وضّحت عالمة الأنثروبولوجيا الفلسطينية ليلة أبو لغد في كتابها هل تحتاج المرأة المسلمة إلى الإنقاذ؟ إن "اختزال المرأة المسلمة في صورة نمطية يُبعدنا عن الإشكالية الأعمق، وهي أن سياساتنا وأفعالنا في الغرب تساهم في خلق الظروف القاسية التي يعيشها آخرون في أماكن بعيدة. في النهاية، إن خطاب "إنقاذ" النساء المسلمات يتيح لنا التهرب من التعقيدات المتشابكة التي نشارك جميعًا في تشكيلها، ويكرّس استقطابًا يضع النسوية في صف الغرب وحده." لا أخاطبكم اليوم إنكارًا لما تمرّ به المرأة العربية من ظروف خطيرة وتعيسة، ولكنّي ضقت ذرعًا بالدموع المصطنعة التي يذرفها الغرب ادعاءً منه الاهتمام بتلك الظروف، وهو أول من صنعها. فبعد فصل دراسي كامل لي في جامعة غربية، أحطتُ علمًا بأنني لستُ جوهر الحوار. أصبحت على علمٍ بأنني أنا وسائر النساء العربيات لسنا سوى مضافًا إليه في نثر الكلام، وجزءًا من مسرحية الغرب المتحضر. فصفّقوا، كلٌّ كان له دور وأدّاه! ودوري أنا: أن أُجلب للصف كالصنم الذي لا يفقه شيئًا، ليطمئن زملائي أنه بوجودي استطاعوا أن يحطّموا الجدار الثالث، فأقحموني بكل سخاءٍ في نقاشهم الذي من المفترض أنني أنا "مركزه." وها هي مسرحيتهم العبثية قد أُخرجت بمباركة وجودي بينهم، ورفعت الأقلام، وجفت الصحف، وانقضى حلّ كلّ مشاكل الشرق الأوسط لا يزيد ولا ينقص عن دروس جوفاء تُردَّد عن المساواة الجندرية، كأنَّ العدلَ يولدُ من صدى كلمات الغرب، لا من صرخات أهل الأرض . بدأت أشعر أن الحرية التي أطمح لها أنا، وتطمح لها زميلاتي، ليست الحرية ذاتها. فلم تعد الحرية في عيني أن أرتدي بنطالًا أو قميصًا أو أي قطعة قماش زائفة. أدركتُ أن الحرية هي أن ترميك طائرات الغرب الوحشية بقنابل من سجّيل، تنخر عليك واحدة تلو الأخرى من السماء، لتُوئدك بعد ذلك تحت الأنقاض، ثم تعودي أنتِ وبقوة، تتوعدين بإنجاب المزيد والمزيد لتجديد العهد عليهم، حتى يجنّ جنون العدو، الذي لا يزال يحاول -عبثًا- أن يطمسكِ أنتِ ونسلكِ عن الوجود. ويبقى السؤال: هل إذا كسونا أجسادنا بلباس الغرب سيعصمنا لباسهم من جحيم قنابلهم؟ ومن ثمّ بلغوني، هل بين حريتي وحريتكم أية صلة؟ أوجه رسالتي في يوم المرأة إلى الأم، أو الأخت، أو البنت، أو الإنسانة التي فقدت حياتها، أو حياة من تحب، في غزة، في حلب، في بغداد، في بيروت، والتي تكافح في سبيل العيش الكريم في الأردن أو أي مكانٍ آخر. أضع كفي بكفكِ وأقول: تحيّة لكِ، فأنتِ الحريّة، وأنت الإنسانيّة، وأنتِ العروبة، وأنتِ الثّورة والعناد—وذلك حقّ، ولا شيء يعلو على الحقّ. Photo source: Alisdare Hickson on Flickr

Rap seems to attract the worst of both worlds, awfully behaving artists and their near-blind cult following. The most despicable behavior can be forgiven so long as the musician continues to produce good music. Hip-hop fans have ease separating the rap from the rapper it seems, but this can set a dangerous precedent for the future. < Back Separating the Rap from the Rapper Pracheth Sanka February 28, 2025 Certified Lover Boy, or Certified Pedophile? This was the question fans of the rapper Drake had to ask themselves last summer. American rapper Kendrick Lamar popularly uttered these words during his and Drake’s widely publicized feud in early 2024. Lamar levied heavy accusations against the worldwide superstar , insinuating that Drake, or at least that members of his entourage, are sexual predators. While his claims are not yet fully verified , there remains select evidence to back up Lamar’s claims, like when Drake kissed an underage fan at one of his concerts, even after confirming that she was just seventeen. Still, even after these claims surfaced and being embarrassingly outrapped by Lamar, Drake’s superfans remain loyal to him. As an admirer of hip-hop, watching the “beef” from an outside perspective was a glorious experience. The clever wordplay and production of a song like “ Meet the Grahams ” satisfied the musician in me, and Drake’s humor on “ Family Matters ” made me audibly laugh, as he wittily struck back at Lamar’s assertion that his racial ambiguity precluded him from using a certain racial slur, the n-word. But the rivalry also highlighted a troubling pattern in the rap community: the blind adoration for the superstars. Drake, despite the alarming allegations and real-life instances of pedophilia, remained the year’s top-performing rapper and is arguably as popular as ever. If you look at his subreddit and all over Instagram reels, you can find avowed enthusiasts jumping to defend his honor and legacy as one of hip-hop’s “Greatest of All Times.” Even Lamar is not immune to this phenomenon; en route to his Grammy near-sweep and Super Bowl headline , accusations of his domestic abuse emerged from the Drake feud. This cult-like following, the unconcerned attachment to our favorite artists, is a worrying trend, one that has grown over the years in the hip-hop sphere. Formerly known as Kanye West, Ye’s narcissistic and arrogant behavior at the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards was cause for concern, yet his fans remained more or less supportive of his music at that point. Now, nearly sixteen years later, some of those same fans keep him in high regard despite his anti-Semitic and, to put it very, very mildly, politically incorrect turn. It seems astounding that even with his—and other rappers—persistently deplorable behavior, they can maintain large followings and even grow in popularity. These instances of course take us back to the age-old question, can we separate the rap from the rapper? Part of the issue lies within rap’s inherent relatability. While most may not connect with the sometimes grandiose and braggadocious rhymes, hip-hop’s roots are in the stories of inner-city neighborhoods, often giving a voice to the voiceless youth and marginalized who listened to it. As the genre evolved, so did its subject matter. Rappers began to speak about their mental health struggles and personal battles, something that struck a chord with many avid rap fans globally. Take XXXTentacion, who before his untimely death in 2018, released songs that talked about suicide, depression and heartbreak. Some of his hit songs, written when he was just in his late teens, include “ Everybody Dies in Their Nightmares ” and by far most popular “ Sad! ”, both of which talk about the rapper’s fight with suicidal ideation. His youth, relatability and talent propelled him into mainstream stardom, where he gained cult status and where he now remains one of the most listened-to artists even seven years after his death. But this popularity stands in contradiction to his often deplorable behavior. He was an admitted abuser who physically assaulted his pregnant girlfriend and he reportedly stabbed nine people. His connection to his fans and other musicians, as well as his early passing, seems to have given XXXTentacion’s legacy a shroud of innocence, hiding the dark past that mars it. Many other rappers can play on this relatability factor to conceal their misdeeds. The aforementioned Ye does this exceptionally well. While his current musical output is fraught with the use of artificial intelligence and controversial lyrics , his music of old gave listeners an insight into his upbringing, bridging themes of class, love and faith. His production prowess also lends to his status as another one of hip-hop’s greatest. This greatness has in many ways overshadowed his rampant anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi and racist behavior. Many fans still lay in wait, hoping his new projects will be a return to his prior merit, especially after their disappointment with his last two endeavors, Vultures 1 and Vultures 2. While some have jumped ship, his cult status maintains many of his faithful who seem to willingly ignore his peculiar behavior. But sometimes, it has little to do with the rapper’s perceived greatness or approachable lyrics. It's just that the artist has made good music and the perceived injustice is not deemed to be bad enough. Travis Scott is a prime example of this phenomenon. Known for his spacey and production-heavy songs, he is a hit-maker who regularly performs in front of sold-out crowds. One of these sold-out performances, the 2021 Astroworld Festival, turned out to be a dark stain on his record, as the overcrowded swarm of concertgoers began to collapse , leading to the deaths of ten people and the injuries of many more. While the incident was not entirely his fault, the rapper caught criticism for continuing to perform despite the visible conditions of the crowd and for his later response to the tragedy. Since the incident, Scott has released a best-selling record and embarked on the accompanying best-selling tour, indicating that his irresponsible and erratic behavior surrounding the Astroworld tragedy was just a small blip in his rap career. Clearly, even the loss of life does not deter the most ardent of rap fans. Rap seems to attract the worst of both worlds, awfully behaving artists and their near-blind cult following. The most despicable behavior can be forgiven so long as the musician continues to produce good music. Hip-hop fans have ease separating the rap from the rapper it seems, but this can set a dangerous precedent for the future. It’s already been seen with the recent arrest of artist A$AP Rocky, who is going to trial over allegedly firing a gun at a friend. Facing 24 years in prison, I’ve seen many fans proclaim dissatisfaction with having to wait that long for a new album of his, rather than voice distaste for his assault charge. Whether those comments are said in jest or not, this tacit acceptance of shameful behavior can enable even worse actions from some of our favorite stars. This endemic issue will inevitably grow larger as the genre continues to rise in popularity, and fans will have to ultimately decide whether they will stick to choosing the rap, or have the courage to ditch the rapper. Photo credits: Super 45 | Música Independiente at Flickr

Pour préserver le pacte républicain dont la liberté est un des trois principes, il n’y a aucune difficulté à rejeter les diverses phraséologies que nous avons dénoncées. La liberté d’expression n’est pas un prétexte suffisant pour s’y opposer, au contraire, notre liberté d’expression n’est que la conséquence et l’outil du projet républicain qui va à l’encontre de tout ce que l’extrême-droite promeut. < Back Des tabous sont-ils nécessaires en politique ? Lubin Parisien October 31, 2024 Le 20 septembre, le corps de Philippine est retrouvé au bois de Boulogne. Thomas a été tué à Crépol en 2023. Lola est assassinée en 2022 dans des conditions abominables. Ces trois faits divers ont défrayé la chronique avant d’être oubliés. Ce qui a retenu l’attention d’une certaine presse et de politiques, ce n’est pas l’horreur que constitue l’assassinat d’enfants ou d’adolescents, mais un point précis du profil des accusés: des immigrés sous OQTF (obligation de quitter le territoire français). En quoi cette dernière information nous renseigne-t-elle sur la nature des affaires évoquées plus tôt? Cela ne nous éclaire en rien. En réalité, ces affaires cristallisent autre chose, une angoisse qui semble généralisée sur l’immigration. Ces discours suscitent une montée des violences de groupes ethno-nationalistes et de la violence verbale des politiques dans les médias. Au vu de la division du pays, il apparaît nécessaire de réfléchir collectivement aux bornes à imposer à la parole politique afin de préserver le vivre-ensemble. Des tabous bien présents en politique Pouvons-nous tout dire en politique? A l’évidence non: on ne peut pas nier l’existence de la Shoah—c’est la loi Gayssot de 1990. On ne peut pas inciter à la haine ni faire l’apologie du terrorisme, opérer des discriminations ou encore nier la Shoah. Contrevenir à ces lois ne fait pas qu’attirer les foudres de la justice mais aussi une vive réprobation, même si cela semble de moins en moins vrai. La négation de la Shoah est ainsi un tabou et heureusement. Robert Faurisson a de cette manière été lourdement dénoncé par Robert Badinter, qui incarnait le défenseur de la vérité historique et d’une certaine conception du pays, lors du procès qui lui a été intenté pour diffamation. Le négationnisme ou l’apologie du terrorisme font donc l’objet d’un tabou très fort. On associe souvent le terme de tabou à des pratiques moyenâgeuses et enfiévrées de mysticisme: en réalité un tabou est simplement l’interdiction dont est frappé une pratique ou un discours contrevenant aux normes ou aux valeurs communes. De fait, l’interdiction de la tenue de propos révisionnistes permet d’interdire les discours antisémites sous couvert de fausses controverses historiques. La liberté d’expression n’est pas absolue, on place au-dessus la nécessité de garantir l’effectivité de la devise républicaine pour l’ensemble de la population. Néanmoins, des discours qui excluent des parties entières de la population du pacte républicain sont tenus et semblent passer entre les mailles du filet. Le constat: des discours qui excluent Il nous faut d’abord voir comment une certaine phraséologie fracture le tissu social et l’unité du pays. C’est à partir de ce premier constat que l’on doit réfléchir à l’état actuel des débats politiques et aux éventuels rééquilibrages. Marine Le Pen déclarait le 21 novembre 2023 à Valeurs actuelles au sujet du meurtre de Thomas à Crépol qu’on « assiste à une attaque organisée, émanant d’un certain nombre de banlieues criminogènes dans lesquelles se trouvent des “milices” armées qui opèrent des razzias. » Il est nécessaire de décortiquer cette phrase pour comprendre les sous-entendus. Est criminogène ce « qui produit ou favorise la propagation du crime, des délits; qui donne naissance à la criminalité . » Pourquoi Mme Le Pen qualifie-t-elle les banlieues de criminogènes? Quelles caractéristiques ont les banlieues dans les discours du RN (Rassemblement National) de Marine Le Pen qui expliqueraient la qualité criminogène de ces banlieues? Parle-t-elle souvent des questions urbanistiques liées aux banlieues françaises? Quel critère commun réunit les banlieues des villes françaises dont elle parle dans l’ensemble de ses discours? C’est de l’immigration, en particulier une immigration extra-européenne et musulmane, dont parle couramment Marine Le Pen et ses alliés quand il s’agit de dénoncer les maux dont sont affectées les banlieues. Ainsi, analysons les « milices armées » qui auraient lancé contre Thomas à Crépol une « attaque organisée. » Il y a derrière une idée d’organisation qui permet de décrire ces mêmes banlieues assez fantomatiquement définies comme dotées de communautés propres, indépendantes et séparées: Marine Le Pen entérine là une supposée frontière entre les banlieues et le reste la France, sachant qu’elle associe aux premières une population immigrée. Nous avons là un faisceau d’indices que nous pouvons encore étoffer, et qui, accompagné de la connaissance du contexte idéologique dans lequel s’exprime Mme Le Pen, montre une volonté d’entériner la marginalisation—si ce n’est l’exclusion—de certains territoires et de certaines populations de la République. Ces discours, associant immigration et délinquance, islam et séparatisme, excluent une partie importante de la population en remettant en cause et en posant la question de leur volonté de faire nation ou de vivre en paix, et ce à cause de déterminants identitaires supposés qui leur seraient propres: l’islam et leurs origines. Faisons ensuite un second constat: ce genre de propos inquiète. Ils inquiètent notamment les immigrés, qu’ils soient français ou non, qu’ils soient sur le territoire de façon régulière ou non—avec dans ce dernier cas une grande diversité de situations, de la pure clandestinité au blocage administratif. Par exemple, le journal local L’Union a recueilli le témoignage d’Eliane , arrivée de Guinée en 2014. Son titre de séjour n’est pas renouvelé en 2023 alors qu’elle a trouvé un emploi stable, sa demande de naturalisation s’est perdue dans les oubliettes de la préfecture de la Marne: avec les législatives de 2024, « elle craint que l’étau ne se resserre par pure idéologie. [...]. “Je ne regarde pas trop la télévision parce que c’est l’heure où je rentre ou bien je m’occupe des enfants. Ils m’ont demandé si on allait devoir partir.” » Citons encore le témoignage d’Aliy (son prénom a été modifié): « L’année dernière, il [...] devait supporter un patron pro-Zemmour. “Quand son fils venait, il ne nous parlait pas, à nous les Noirs. Il ne nous regardait même pas”. » Les discours d’un parti comme le RN et de toute une galaxie d’extrême-droite ne sont pas de simples projets débatables sur la politique du pays, ce sont des discours qui remettent en question l’intégration de millions de personnes. Ces dernières n’ont plus—ou n’ont jamais eu—le sentiment d’appartenir à la même société à égalité avec le reste des habitants et citoyens. Ces discours heurtent, ils nous incitent à nous demander si notre pays est bien capable d’accepter des minorités comme les personnes racisées. A ce titre, la possibilité de porter de telles idées doit faire l’objet d’un débat clair car il s’agit de savoir quel commun nous voulons construire. La préservation d’une liberté d’expression Pour défendre la possibilité de prononcer des discours qui excluent et archipélisent la société, on invoque souvent la liberté d’expression, droit fondamental inhérent à chaque individu. L’article 11 de la Déclaration des Droits de l’Homme et du citoyen énonce: « tout citoyen peut donc parler, écrire, imprimer librement, sauf à répondre de l'abus de cette liberté dans les cas déterminés par la loi. » Tout le malice réside dans la notion d’« abus ». Remarquons cette chose sans doute banale: la liberté d’expression n’est pas absolue et sans bornes, nous l’avons déjà montré au sujet de la loi Gayssot contre la négation de la Shoah. La régulation de l’expression politique ou même de l’expression tout court quand elle a un impact politique est une vieille idée. Dans La République , Platon consacre des passages entiers à analyser des vers d’Homère afin d’expliquer pourquoi ceux-ci doivent être bannis de la cité cherchant à guérir des maux de l’injustice pour assainir les réflexions des gardiens de la cité. Il considère même que les poètes promouvant l’affadissement de l'esprit des gardiens de la cité et l’excès doivent être chassés. Platon a à peu près 2400 ans, il convient de hausser les sourcils sur ses préconisations. Néanmoins, abstraction faite du projet politique concret du philosophe, cela fait plus de 2400 ans que nous savons que les discours politiques prononcés dans la cité modèlent notre façon de penser et de percevoir. La maîtrise de la parole est un enjeu majeur identifié par Platon et par toutes les monarchies, dictatures et démocraties pour se maintenir en plus de deux millénaires. Cependant, il est vrai que la liberté, notamment celle d’expression, est souvent associée à un étrange relativisme qui consiste à dire que toutes les opinions se valent, qu’on peut tout dire. Il nous faut réfuter ces réflexions communes: tout projet politique—la République par exemple—porte un idéal absolu et non négociable. La liberté, l’égalité et la fraternité sont cet idéal en France, et nombreuses sont les interprétations possibles pour sa mise en application, c’est pourquoi il faut laisser un large pluralisme politique pour enrichir ces valeurs. Nous avons parlé des limites à la liberté d’expression, mais les contraintes à cette limitation sont les mêmes: la perpétuation de la liberté et le respect de l’égalité. Il ne faut pas de censure comme les dictatures savent en faire, il faut bien au contraire que les tabous à observer dans notre société fassent l’objet d’une réflexion collective éclairée. Si la liberté d’expression n’est pas une fin en soi, c’est un instrument indispensable. Une repolitisation de nos tabous? Aujourd’hui, après la décolonisation et les progrès permis par l’accroissement de la tolérance, il convient de ne pas utiliser des mots comme « négre » ou « bougnoul » car il s’agit désormais de termes qui renvoient à une mémoire douloureuse et à un présent qui doit toujours se défaire des griffes du fait colonial. Ces mots font l’objet de tabous tels qu’on n’ose pas les prononcer, remplacés par exemple par l’expression « n-word ». L’opprobre dont sont objets ces mots montrent que la société n’est plus encline à voir les manifestations éclatantes du racisme et de l’exclusion. Néanmoins, des discours comme celui de Marine Le Pen que nous n’avons que brièvement décortiqués sont publiés et presque normalisés. Nos tabous ne semblent pas être le fruit d’une réflexion collective aboutie. En ce sens, on peut proposer une repolitisation de nos tabous. Il ne faut pas éviter le mot « négre » car c’est inconvenant ou désagréable, mais parce que l’usage courant de ce terme perpétue des structures de domination blanche héritée de la colonisation. Il faut proscrire les discours racistes et dédaigneux de l’extrême-droite car ils vont à l’encontre de notre projet politique commun: faire nation. Ernest Renan, dans Qu’est-ce qu’une nation en 1882, écrit qu’une nation a deux facettes: « l’une est la possession en commun d’un riche legs de souvenirs; l’autre est le consentement actuel, le désir de vivre ensemble. » Lorsqu’un discours remet en cause l’appartenance ou la volonté d’appartenance d’une partie de la population, il sape méthodiquement la base de toute nation: la volonté commune de faire corps. En France, cette volonté s’incarne dans la devise républicaine. On peut céder à la grandiloquence en disant que pour défendre la nation, il faut faire taire le poison de la division. Par division, on n’entend pas les nécessaires désaccords sur les politiques à adopter, mais au contraire l’éclatement même de la nation. Et c’est bien là la conséquence des propos d’une Marine Le Pen. Le doute est instillé quant à l’inclusivité de la nation, car les immigrés, les personnes racisées, etc. se sentent et se savent exclus du pacte républicain. Pourtant, la tolérance s’accroît dans la société même si les résultats électoraux ne le marquent pas . Il faut sortir de ces situations mortifères, il faut stopper le poison avant qu’il puisse être proféré. Pour préserver le pacte républicain dont la liberté est un des trois principes, il n’y a aucune difficulté à rejeter les diverses phraséologies que nous avons dénoncées. La liberté d’expression n’est pas un prétexte suffisant pour s’y opposer, au contraire, notre liberté d’expression n’est que la conséquence et l’outil du projet républicain qui va à l’encontre de tout ce que l’extrême-droite promeut. Ces tabous doivent être investis de la force de la loi, à terme il n’y a pas à avoir de gêne à combattre structurellement les idées du RN, de Reconquête, de l’Action française et notamment la préférence nationale. La question aujourd’hui doit être de savoir comment procéder. Un fait apparaît désormais clairement: des tabous sont nécessaires en politique car ils protègent ce qui permet la politique: la volonté de vivre ensemble.

If we understand that proper wording can strongly impact policy and recognition of the suffering of persecuted peoples, then it becomes all the clearer why so many are arguing on whether the war in Gaza constitutes a genocide, and whether the treatment of Uyghurs is a crime against humanity. < Back Terminology and War Crime Denial Anna Halpern February 28, 2025 We have often heard of South Africa’s much-mediatized Genocide case against Israel in front of the ICJ , and many of us have also seen Amnesty International’s reports which call the mass deaths in Gaza a genocide . The controversy surrounding the appropriate term and the clear political game behind any position adopted on the matter really seem to have reopened the question of politics behind the terminology. While we may have heard this debate before, the end of how we name events so that they match the reality of the context of the war in Gaza is part of a far larger issue that has deep historical roots. Indeed, the use of terminology to manipulate public opinion and deny war crimes and genocides is a very powerful tool that has been employed throughout the 20th and even 21st century. Before entering the specifics of the cases that we will compare, it seems impossible not to define the terms that are so critically argued upon. Genocides, war crimes and crimes against humanity are all international crimes committed by individuals or governments that “ affect the core dignity of human beings.” In order to understand the conflict of namings and narratives, one must know the terms’ definitions and history. War crimes refer to “serious breaches of international humanitarian law committed against civilians or enemy combatants during an international or domestic armed conflict, for which the perpetrators may be held criminally liable on an individual basis.” This definition is derived from the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the Geneva Convention of 1949 and its additional protocols and Article 8 of the 1998 Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court (ICC). The definition of a crime against humanity “ encompasses crimes such as murder, extermination, rape, persecution and all other inhumane acts of a similar character (wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health), committed ‘as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack.’” It is codified in Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the ICC. Finally, the term genocide was originally coined by Raphael Lemkin and first appeared in his 1944 work “ Axis Rule in Occupied Europe .” It is defined in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. “It is the specific intention to destroy an identified group either ‘in whole or in part’ that distinguishes the crime of genocide from a crime against humanity.” These definitions also highlight the critical fact that the term Genocide, for example, simply did not exist during some of the events that now are argued to fit within this definition. Such questions add to the terminological dispute the question of the possibility of judging such an event through the lens of a crime that did not exist at the time. Keeping this background in mind, we can now consider how the application of these definitions has been used and disagreed upon. An extremely famous case of genocide denial and terminology debate is the case of the Armenian genocide of 1915 which Turkey, and much of the international community, still officially do not recognize despite vast scholarly support. However, the debate over naming and recognizing this event is not unique. While we cannot explore all cases that have sadly occurred, it appears relevant to look at a few more historical cases that have yet to be fully recognized. We will consider the Japanese massacres and war crimes during the invasion of China namely in Nanjing (December 1927 to February 1938) as well as the Bosnian genocide denial (1995). These cases can be linked to a far more recent lack of recognition by China of its persecution of the Uyghur minority. Through both historical examples and the current cases in Gaza and China the critical importance of terminology is underlined, and its broad political implications clearly seep through. The case of the Armenian genocide is a blatant example of the difficulty of earning official recognition of war crimes, especially genocide, and the tricky word game played by Ankara is critical in this terminological warfare. The Armenian genocide is well recognized by historians and institutions —the creator of the term himself thought to apply it to the context of Ottoman crimes against Armenians in WWI. However, the international scene is not always ruled by expert opinions—as we know all too well—but often is far more politically guided. Thus, the reality is that only 33 countries currently recognize the genocide, and this list notably does not include Turkey. Indeed, Turkey has always maintained a policy of denying “ a deliberate policy of genocide.” The official website of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs portrays the Armenian view as an “embellishe[d]” version that it “selects” in order to vilify Turkey. Moreover, the website follows the phrasing “The events of 1915,” commonly used in official Turkish statements on the matter. Thus, this decision not to call it a ‘genocide’ is intrinsically linked to the maintenance of a very different narrative regarding the events themselves and is a tool aiming to prevent the acknowledgment of the extent of the devastation recorded by most non-Turkish historians. But national narratives differing regarding war crimes is not something that is exclusively reserved to the rather well-known case of Armenia and Turkey. Indeed, Sino-Japanese relations are still strained to this day by very controversial Japanese positions concerning the “Nanjing Massacre” or the “Rape of Nanjing” which in Japan is sometimes referred to as the “ Nanjing incident .” This case is not quite as clear as the case of the Armenia-Turkey disagreements. Indeed, Japan has been largely criticized for its unclear position, with varying positions from an acknowledgment of the Tokyo Trials and remorse for the suffering caused during WWII to an outright denial of the “Nanjing Massacre.” This public debate and division is all the more relevant to Japan’s international relations, within which it has maintained an unclear discourse. While it has apologized in general terms for Imperial Japan’s policies and actions, “many Japanese apologies have looked like “one step forward, one step backward.” Moreover, the lack of a unified messaging has led to questionable word choices such as referring to the “so-called Nanjing massacre” and has even seen the denial of certain Japanese war crimes. Thus, the lack of clear terminology and strategic uncertainty of positioning has led to the possibility of denials and belittling of war crime s which have affected Sino-Japanese relations. In a more recent and still very open wound, we can also consider the case of the Bosnian genocide. This refers to the massacre of Srebrenica in July 1995 which was ruled by the International Court of Justice and International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia a Genocide. It occurred during the Bosnian War, where Bosnian Serb forces committed grave human rights violations and war crimes. Despite such international recognition, Bosnian Serb Politicians have largely denied such crimes, and have recently adopted a report denying the genocidal nature of the massacre. This comes in a context of great disagreement with a UN resolution to commemorate the Srebrenica Genocide by Serbian and Bosnian Serbs. This only serves to highlight that terminology arguments are crucial tools in the hands of genocide deniers and ultimately still have massive repercussions on Bosnian society thirty years after the events. This case is a prime example of the critical importance such terms hold and the real impact they can have. While all of these historical cases are immensely important and still have repercussions to this day, they also serve as a warning sign of the dangers of unclear terminology or intentionally untrue naming of grave events. It seems only fitting to look from such events to current war crimes, human rights violations and potential crimes against humanity whose terms are still under discussion such as the case of Uyghurs in China and the war in Gaza. If we understand that proper wording can strongly impact policy and recognition of the suffering of persecuted peoples, then it becomes all the clearer why so many are arguing on whether the war in Gaza constitutes a genocide, and whether the treatment of Uyghurs is a crime against humanity. Though in these two cases the final rulings are not given, both the ICJ’s indications of measures to be taken to prevent a potential genocide and the UN’s report accusing China of potential crimes against humanity indicate a high chance of such crimes having been committed and have led to no acknowledgment on the part of Israel or China. Such lack of impact of international warnings and refusal to acknowledge the terms used by both parties highlights a consistency in patterns of denial of crimes and seems all the easier to read through given such historical context. As a post scriptum, I feel that I must explain the lack of inclusion of a very well-known denial, and that is Holocaust denial. This is indeed a critical issue that merits being addressed. However, as I mentioned at the beginning, I did not have extensive space to delve into all cases of denial, and I found it to be far more interesting to focus on less well-known issues that have less media attention and deserve to be recognized. This does not in any way take away from the importance of Holocaust denial and of course we should consider a far wider range of events than the selected cases of this article when considering the real impact of terminology disagreements and denial. Photo credits: Diane_Krauthamer on Flickr

‘’We must experience everything. Not just the good, but degradation, horror, sadness. This makes us whole, Bella. It makes us people of substance. Not flighty, untouched children. Then we can know the world. And when we know the world, the world is ours.’’ < Back Poor Things By Francesca di Muro February 29, 2024 ‘’We must experience everything. Not just the good, but degradation, horror, sadness. This makes us whole, Bella. It makes us people of substance. Not flighty, untouched children. Then we can know the world. And when we know the world, the world is ours.’’ This is one of the quotes uttered by the protagonist of the film “Poor Things,” directed by Yorgos Lanthimos and released in cinemas in January 2024. Inspired by the homonymous novel written by Alasdair Gray, “Poor Things” can be considered a postmodern revision of Frankenstein It replaces the classic monster with Bella Baxter, a woman who committed suicide and was then brought back to life thanks to a brain transplant of the child she was carrying at the time of her death. Defined as a hilarious political allegory; a raw and self-deprecating portrait of society and its contradictions, of human desires and their most animalistic instincts; between patriarchal visions of society, female independence, and sexual awakening. “ Poor Things” is nothing more than a visual bildungsroman depicting the growth and development of a woman who navigates in a society strongly dominated by sharp moral judgments, which chases her being in a continuous process of self-determination and affirmation. What is particularly striking is how Lanthimos pushes interpersonal relationships to their extreme; boiling down individuals to their inner desires, bodies, and smells. In short, Bella Baxter represents what is a child’s vision of society and its contradictions, far from its conventions and norms. The result is a true portrait of the development of post-enlightenment philosophical thought: from the Scientific Revolution's rationalism to the emotional liberation of Romanticism, transcendentalism, Marxism, and, finally, the Absurdist acceptance of the flawed yet fulfilling lives we lead. By transcending the boundaries of conventional storytelling and delving into philosophical inquiries that challenge the audience's perception of morality, identity, and societal constructs, Lanthimos presents a compelling exploration of the nature of humanity and consciousness. Central to the philosophical underpinnings of "Poor Things" is the concept of agency and autonomy. Upon her revival, Bella navigates a world where her agency is both constrained and manipulated by the forces around her, particularly by Dr. Baxter. Her journey prompts viewers to reflect on the nature of free will and the extent to which external influences govern individuals. Through Bella's struggles and choices, Lanthimos invites audiences to ponder the complexities of human autonomy and the ethical responsibilities that come with wielding power over others. Moreover, "Poor Things" offers a trenchant critique of societal norms and structures. Lanthimos uses the absurdity of Bella's situation to satirize the conventions of Victorian society, exposing the hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy that underpin its facades. Through the characters' interactions and the absurd situations they find themselves in, the film invites viewers to question the arbitrary rules and hierarchies that govern society and consider alternative modes of existence. Furthermore, the film engages with philosophical themes of identity and selfhood. Bella's resurrection results in a fragmented sense of self, as she grapples with memories and experiences that may not entirely belong to her. This exploration of identity raises profound questions about the stability of the self and the extent to which external influences shape it. Lanthimos challenges viewers to interrogate their own sense of identity and consider the fluidity of the self in the face of external forces. In addition to its thematic richness, "Poor Things" is characterized by Lanthimos's distinct visual style and narrative approach. The film's deadpan humor and surreal imagery create an atmosphere that is both disconcerting and captivating, drawing viewers into its philosophical inquiries through unconventional means. Lanthimos's masterful direction imbues every frame with symbolic resonance, inviting audiences to decipher the deeper layers of meaning beneath the surface. And, to conclude, according to Lanthimos, we are all changeable, facing the overwhelming struggle to live under precise norms and customs. And at the same time, we are all poor things. This consciousness can break us or, on the contrary, evoke a sense of empathy for humanity, leading us to dance in an uncoordinated and childish way like Bella Baxter in a Victorian dining room. “I am a changeable feast, as are all of us.”

Feminism does not always require being vocal, an activist, or engaging in mass mobilization. Sometimes resisting is retreating—in the choice to withdraw from cultural pressures knowingly. Dissociative feminism expands the scope of what feminist action can entail. < Back With Prada and Ten Protagonists on to a new self-destruction feminism Lou Hildebrandt March 31, 2025 What do Prada, dissociative feminism and a fictional protagonist using drugs to hibernate for a year have in common? - Novelist Ottessa Moshfegh, who has created literary brilliance with her novels Eileen , My Year of Rest and Relaxation and Lapvona , as well as the short story collection Homesick for Another World . Now, as part of a collaboration with Prada on the brand’s spring-summer 2025 collection campaign, Moshfegh's Ten Protagonists , a collection of short stories, was published in February of the same year. In the short story collection, we see model Carey Mulligan wearing various Prada outfits, each embodying a brief story of one of Moshfegh's heroines. The women give us a glimpse into their professions: a physicist, an interior designer and a corporate translator. Not only their profession, but their lives, too, seem to be diverse, based on what is revealed. Nonetheless, they have something in common: they're all predominantly young, white cis-women who are somewhere on the unlikability spectrum—between counterintuitive and flat-out antiheroine—like Eileen and the narrator of My Year of Rest and Relaxation before them. The Epic of an Antiheroine and Dissociative Feminism The tale of an unlikeable white cis-woman seems to be Ottessa Moshfegh's signature. Her heroines never show any hesitation to disappoint the norms of female protagonists in fiction: they are unsympathetic, disagreeable, occasionally disgusting and driven by their own perverse desires. In Eileen , the main character lives with her drunkard father in a run-down house. Her brooding intellect and peculiar habits—like keeping a dead mouse in the glove compartment of her vehicle or stalking her crush, Randy—are not those of a stereotypical heroine, but rather an antiheroine. The ending is just as dissatisfying, since Rebecca, the one character Eileen looks up to for how organizes she appears to be, turns out to be as unreliable as Eileen. Instead of tackling the challenges of her life, the realization of Rebecca’s irresponsibility gives Eileen the motivation to leave her hometown for good to start all over in New York City. This type of protagonist is featured in My Year of Rest and Relaxation, too. The unnamed narrator attempts to cure her trauma following the death of her parents through radical withdrawal: she locks herself in her apartment in New York for a year, consumes huge amounts of sleeping pills and attempts to erase herself from the world. Her friend, who visits every now and then, is treated with mercilessness and ruthlessness. The protagonist shuts all avenues for empathy; she is completely dissociated. Psychologically, dissociation is the separation of perception and memory, a “ disconnection between a person's sensory experience, thoughts, sense of self, or personal history.” But when women cognitively and emotionally disconnect from their surroundings, it's a survival mechanism. The famous Buzzfeed article by Emmeline Clein, The Smartest Women I Know Are All Dissociating , describes that this gendered dissociation of “women using intellectual detachment to dull pain or avoid emotion isn’t at all a new phenomenon.” Therefore, discussion about feminism and dissociation requires acknowledgement of the specificity of women’s mental health issues. Hence, a construct such as dissociative feminism carries intrinsic solidarity—a mutual knowledge of women's gendered experience of mental health issues. It is an acknowledgment that, instead of meeting expectations pushed upon them, women create coping mechanisms of their own. Re-shaping one’s own suffering and re-narrating it as a feminist tragedy can be regarded as the claiming of agency by a person who lives under patriarchal oppression. The historical and oppressive tale of “female hysteria” is re-appropriated: rather than women being victims of whatever diagnosis, they appropriate dissociation as an act of resistance. They use it as protection against the difficulties of patriarchal life—to endure terrible sex, to filter out toxic men, to avoid the squeeze of productivity. Dissociative feminism also exceeds nihilism and is critical of capitalism. In Moshfegh's novel, My Year of Rest and Relaxation , when the protagonist locks herself up in her apartment for a year, she also evades capitalist exploitation logic. She takes medication to detox herself from work and social life. The book is thus the very definition of dissociative feminism, with a clear emphasis on dissociation. It is not a mere individual retreat but a feminist statement. A Defense of Dissociative Feminism Dissociation isn't apathy; it's a survival mechanism. Women are not dissociating because they ignore patriarchal violence, but because they have to disconnect from it. Active withdrawal is resistance—a safety mechanism against the constant demands of the expectations of society. Identifying dissociative feminism as neoliberal feminism, as many critics have done, disregards its significantly different stance. While neoliberal feminism would call women to adapt to the system, maybe even to embrace a “girl boss mentality” in the face of patriarchal and capitalist injustice, dissociative feminism rejects this entirely. Denial of being productive or emotionally available is a rejection of the capitalist requirement to constantly improve oneself, a resistant non-adherence to the patriarchal view of women as carers and nurturers. Feminism does not always require being vocal, an activist, or engaging in mass mobilization. Sometimes resisting is retreating—in the choice to withdraw from cultural pressures knowingly. Dissociative feminism expands the scope of what feminist action can entail. The same counts for the tale of anti-heroines. Women like Eileen, whose greatest joy is indulging in explosive diarrhea, reject traditional notions of femininity. The way her quirks are shown and how she acts, along with her dark fantasies, is a resistance or defiance of the restrictions that come along with gender-based oppression and the ideology of femininity. Her Ten Protagonists are Ten True Girl Bosses As previously mentioned, the ten protagonists in the eponymous short story collection are as detached from the outer world as in all of Moshfegh’s tales. Interior architect Betty, for instance, recounts how she does not like the collection of things; she says: “It’s important for me to be detached, my hands as clean as a surgeon’s.” Puppeteer Tabitha, who drops out of college after a great realization, which she gets from a fever, says that what makes us human is our inconsistencies. Scientist Tara’s greatest aim is to prove that basic laws of physics and biology are not true, with an eagerness that apparently results in her losing her funding from the university where she is employed. It is unclear whether Tara’s keenness stems from a concern for the planet or plain hatred for humanity itself. he describes her vision as “a world of microbial calm, where the cacophony of human progress is finally silenced.” Some stories entail the narration of dissociation to a greater extent than others. One of the most profound dissociations can be found in Victoria/Veronica —a short story that almost seems like a schizophrenic new interpretation of the classical doppelgänger-motif. This ambiguity is already emphasized with the title and, whilst those are technically two protagonists, we have nine other short stories with protagonists. Since the title of the short story collection tells us that there are only ten protagonists in the book, Moshfegh makes those seemingly two protagonists count only as one. Similarly, it seems to be an element unique to this story, as there have been other short stories where there was a very important secondary character, but without a similar reference in the title. An instance is Cecily , which deals with two actresses, Cecily and Amelia. Amelia is significant for this story, like Victoria is for Veronica’s, yet the story is not named “Cecily/Amelia” but only “Cecily.” This insinuation, that we might be dealing with one person instead of two, is further exemplified by the fact that not once is it mentioned whether the speaker is Victoria or Veronica. The impression that it might, in reality, be only one schizophrenic woman arises through the increasingly sickly appearance of “the sister,” especially in the moments where the narrator does unusual things like sleeping on the ground or in lines like: “Whereas it used to feel easy, now my breathing feels labored. Harder, as if I’m breathing for two sets of lungs.” Another striking line is: “It’s like there’s only one of us.”. “I’m the real me, and you’re the part that watches.” Given that all the protagonist ever does revolves around “the sister,” this makes us question: Could it be that she is hallucinating her into existence? There is not one single activity pursued by the speaker that suggests she has a life separate from her ‘sister.’ On to a New Self-Destruction Feminism So far in the short story collection, we have seen women who are detached, disagreeable and dealing with their mental health problems. However, stories like Rachel give us the impression that with Prada and Moshfegh, we leave dissociation behind and are moving to a new form of self-destruction feminism— the protagonist, Rachel, dissociates and is unreliable to the point of almost driving her lover and herself off a cliff. The story starts off with an “enchanted evening,” in which Rachel spends time with her partner Freddie for the first time. They are in a car and are driving through the most romantic and beautiful scenery imaginable. Then, the scene is interrupted by Rachel almost driving them off a cliff. This was not merely an accident, as is revealed by the lines: “Later it scared me because I thought I had done it on purpose. Because I’d had the thought: I’m happy. Because sometimes just the thought of that is enough to cut you loose.” However, throughout the story, it crystallizes that this was not an instantaneous thought or, even less so, suicidal ideation. To her core, Rachel believes that people should experience situations where they are not safe: “I believe that everyone should, at some point in their lives, get stranded. Or at least get lost. Go missing.” Self-destruction has been a long-standing trope for male geniuses, from literary figures such as Hemingway to musicians such as Kurt Cobain and artists such as van Gogh. Their own destruction is mythologized, keeping the notion of a tortured genius alive. For women, however, the story has been the contrary—writers such as Sylvia Plath have been either fetishized or pathologized just as much as they have been for their mental illness. It took a long time until her art was acknowledged in a similar manner and even today it is questionable whether she is seen predominantly as ‘a mentally ill woman’ or a professional writer. As Heather Clark, in her introduction to Sylvia Plath, explained , people cannot accept women as professional writers as they do for their male counterparts. A reclaiming of self-destruction can therefore be a kind of resistance. This is not to say that everybody should destroy themselves, but when life does, one should not hesitate to use that as a creative source. Rather than constantly urging women to “get through it,” a self-destruction feminism could encourage a form of radical solidarity—one that would understand failure, resignation and breakdown as common experience rather than individual failure. Instead of trying to pathologize or individualize self-destruction, it could acknowledge it as a legitimate response to an unbearable world and create a space where women do not have to be strong but can merely be. Photo source: Wikimedia

Every Olympic Games opens with a patriotic parade featuring all the athletes, each team entering the stadium waving their national flag. At the 2026 Milano-Cortina Winter Olympics, the United States of America athlete delegation was greeted with cheers and applause. However, when the cameras cut to Vice President JD Vance in the stands, the audience’s sounds of support quickly morphed into prolonged boos and jeers. < Back American Patriotism at the Milan Olympics in the Age of Trump Rose Harrill April 1, 2026 Every Olympic Games opens with a patriotic parade featuring all the athletes, each team entering the stadium waving their national flag. At the 2026 Milano-Cortina Winter Olympics, the United States of America athlete delegation was greeted with cheers and applause. However, when the cameras cut to Vice President JD Vance in the stands, the audience’s sounds of support quickly morphed into prolonged boos and jeers. This negative response to the American Vice President reflects the current sense of unease generally held by most Europeans in regards to the Trump Administration and its foreign policy. During President Donald Trump’s second term, there has been a clear shift in U.S. policy, marked by aggressive attempts to annex Greenland, tensions with NATO and wavering support for Ukraine. Europeans now appear to be not only overwhelmingly distrustful and scrutinous of the U.S. government, but seemingly symbols of American patriotism as well. And it’s not only Europeans that feel this way, many Americans themselves are increasingly unhappy with the current Trump administration. American athletes are now caught between previous expectations of uncritical patriotism during the Olympics, with politicians like JD Vance instructing them to just “play their sport” and not “pop off about politics”, and a new reality in which both global audiences, as well as many Americans, question what the flag truly represents. The controversy surrounding the Trump Administration and the Olympics worsened after the U.S. men’s hockey team won gold for the first time in 46 years. A video quickly surfaced online of the team receiving a congratulatory phone call from President Trump. During this call they laughed along to a seemingly misogynistic joke made by the President as he claimed he would “have to” invite the gold medal winning women’s hockey team to the White House as well. The men’s hockey team ultimately accepted the invite and attended President Trump’s State of the Union address, which was viewed as a heavily politicized event. The U.S. men’s hockey team has faced significant backlash following the circulation of these videos. The players have been labelled as sexist and degrading, and have been criticized for not standing up to President Trump when he made inappropriate comments. They’ve received even further condemnation for accepting the President’s invitation to the White House. Historically, it is quite common for gold medal winning American athletes to accept congratulatory phone calls from the President, or to even visit the White House. But in this political climate, everything is polarized. Whether intentional or not, these celebrations now carry a political weight. Proximity to President Trump or the White House can be easily seen as an endorsement of his policies. So this begs the question: how are American athletes supposed to navigate patriotism in this political climate? Are they still simply playing on behalf of their nation, or do they now serve as direct representatives of their government and the President? As public figures, is it their job to stand up for what’s “right”? There is a blurred boundary emerging now that didn’t exist previously. When asked about the U.S. men’s hockey team’s decision to visit the White House, star player Jack Hughes enthusiastically declared their excitement. “Yeah, we’re excited,” he said . “Everything is so political. We’re athletes. We’re so proud to represent the U.S. When you get the chance to go to the White House and meet the President, we’re proud to be Americans, and that’s so patriotic. No matter what your views are, we’re super excited to go to the White House.” For Hughes, and the rest of the men’s hockey team, it seems that patriotism is represented through unwavering support for your country despite its faults. However, for many other athletes, patriotism seems to mean dissent when necessary, as love for your country does not have to mean it is exempt from criticism. In fact, sometimes loving your country means you have an obligation to fight for it when you disagree with what it’s doing. The U.S. women’s hockey team, for example, declined President Trump’s invitation to the White House. When asked what it’s like to represent the U.S. in the Olympics given its current political situation, freestyle skier Hunter Hess responded that it brings up “mixed emotions” and is “a little hard” for him. “There’s obviously a lot going on that I’m not the biggest fan of, and I think a lot of people aren’t,” he said . “ Just because I’m wearing the flag doesn’t mean I represent everything that’s going on in the U.S.” U.S. figure skater Amber Glenn, who identifies as queer, also criticized President Trump at the Games, stating that she will not visit the White House either following her team’s gold medal, as his administration has made it “a hard time for the [LGBTQ+] community.” This dissent from American athletes towards the President and his administration during these Games marks a stark contrast from the political climate during the 2024 Olympics in Paris. In the summer of 2024, Joe Biden was the President of the United States and Kamala Harris’ campaign for presidency was taking the country by storm. Discussion surrounding American politics will always occur on some level at prominent international events like the Olympics, but in Paris it was taking place on a much smaller scale. The Biden administration was considered to be much more aligned with the traditional democratic values of the U.S., so American athlete activism was typically more focused on widespread social issues and international conflicts than targeted at the White House specifically. Now, coverage in the U.S. of the 2026 Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics has seemingly been dominated by political commentary and statements from American athletes on the situation within their country. There’s been a significant decline in unbolstered patriotism from fans as well. Many Americans now feel uneasy about waving the flag as defiantly as before. The culture of being an American athlete has changed dramatically as the political climate in the U.S. has grown more tense and polarized. Representing the U.S. now holds a different weight, leaving athletes at a crossroads. Do they succumb to the Trump administration’s definition of patriotism – blind loyalty to the country with a priority for a unified appearance above all else? Or, do they dictate that true patriotism and love for one’s country is rooted in the ability to criticize it and the determination to fix its flaws? Photo source: WikiCommons

To be Algerian-French means learning about your history through the voice of the colonizer. And it is more often than not immensely glorified. < Back The Celebration of Oppression Ibtissem Remdane To be Algerian-French means learning about your history through the voice of the colonizer. And it is more often than not immensely glorified. This is a realization I had when I dug a bit deeper than merely just French history books, specifically on the figure of Marcel Bigeard. A man whose statue has stood proudly in Toul, a city in the North-East of France, ever since it was inaugurated on the 24th October 2024. Marcel Bigeard, who died in 2010, was a French army officer who rose from a modest background to become one of France’s most infamous paratrooper commanders. Most of Bigeard’s adulation within the French army comes from his part in the French Resistance in 1944. After that, he actively took part in two major colonial wars: the First Indochina War and later the Algerian War. During the latter, he became one of the central military figures in France’s attempt to suppress the independence movement. His role consisted of dismantling the Algerian nationalist resistance network in Algiers, placing him at the heart of a counterinsurgency strategy built on coercion, brutal surveillance and fear. During these operations, he became a symbol of systemic torture, arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances and the execution of prisoners without trial. Though “trial” itself was a hollow concept under the French colonial rule in Algeria. Indeed, for instance, registered ground forces files count 1 415 convicted et 198 executions, from the 1st January 1955 to the 15th of September 1961, SHAT, 1H 1097/6. (Professor Thénault). This adds to 198 official executions in only 6 years. Whereas in France, as a matter of comparison, 61 convicted were sentenced to death from 1950 to 1977. Still, one of the most inhumane and plainly cruel practices linked to Bigeard during this period was what came to be known as “death flights.”. This form of extrajudicial killing was used during the Battle of Algiers by the occupying French army to effectively get rid of troublesome dissidents. Whatever one may think of when thinking of the term “death flights”, the reality of what it actually was is probably worse. From a helicopter off the coast of Algiers, with their feet encased in a basin of cement, untrialed independentist detainees were thrown into the void to crash in the Mediterranean. Then, the bodies, most of the time poorly weighted due to insufficient cementation of the feet, would not sink properly and end up washing up on the beaches of the bay surrounding the capital. The many victims of these operations would later be called by the French les crevettes Bigeard , the shrimps of Bigeard. Until the end, Bigeard refuted the reports ordering torture or executions, often stating he opposed such methods, while qualifying them of a “necessary evil.” The military man seemingly disliked the term “torture” and prefferd using words like “rough interrogations”, a statement he made in a interview not long before his death. Yet, numerous testimonies from victims as well as former soldiers describe the torture as routine and organized, not accidental. Some French historians agree that these practices were structural, embedded in the system, rather than the result of a few “bad actors.”: “In conclusion, if there is one area in which the armed forces in general – and Marcel Bigeard in particular – have no lessons to learn from politicians and their cronies, it is certainly that of morality.” said Colonel (h) Christian Châtillon in an open letter to Bigeard. Indeed, as a commanding officer Bigeard operated within, and most importantly managed a machinery where brutality was the norm, and even the rule. And yet, despite all this, his legacy remains deeply divided. In parts of France like Toul, he is still celebrated as a war hero for his “bravery” and “brilliance” in his missions in Indochina and Algeria, remembered as a symbol of discipline and resilience. Everything he profited from after that, from the 25 military commendations like the Legion of Honor Great Cross to serving as Secretary of State for Defense under President Giscard d’Estaing, is a direct reward for his “exploits” abroad. Then in 2011, after Bigeard’s death, previous president Sarkozy’s government advocated for his ashes to be placed at “Les Invalides”. Today, many streets bear his name and political figures continue to praise his military career. To some politicians , survivors, descendants, he represents something entirely different. Not resilience but impunity. His name is tied not to glory but to trauma, abuse and a violence that has never truly been acknowledged, let alone repaired. The cleaving discourse that resurfaces every time he is publicly honored is not accidental. It is the result of a history that remains unresolved. France has long struggled to fully confront the reality of the Algerian War, and most of its victims have never received justice or even recognition. In that context, celebrating figures like Bigeard is not neutral, it is an assumed continuation of denial.Because to call him simply a “hero” is not just incomplete, it is an absolute distortion. It turns violence into valor and the oppression he proudly perpetuated into legacy. About 3000 dead, and 1000 missing, what a dignified way to be remembered by. Denouncing Bigeard is denouncing one of the several forms of political instrumentalization of history orchestrated by the French government. Figures like him serve in furthering its aim of reconstructing a nationalist mythology and greatly appeals to those who are nostalgic for French Algeria, a group whose presence and ideology seems to remain significant today. No statue, no speech, no selective memory can separate him from that reality. His “legacy” is not just a matter of history, it is a matter of truth. And for the children of those who suffered at the hands of men like him, that truth remains a battle yet to be won. Photo source: wikimedia commons edited with use of public domain vector

The 2024 Nosferatu turns the themes of anxiety, of fear, present in the German version, inward. Someone on Reddit said that neither Nosferatu was “terrifying”—that’s relative. In any instance, he definitely came. < Back “He is Coming”: A Nosferatu Film Commentary Maia Zasler February 28, 2025 WARNING: This article contains many spoilers for the film, Nosferatu. Read at your own risk. Also, descriptions of sexual assault. I hate horror movies. Truly, I avoid them like the “ plague .” So, when my friend—who is aware of my aversion to this genre of film—proposed going to watch Nosferatu in theaters, I did not fully register what I would be getting myself into. To be frank, I am still acquiring film cultural capital. The name of the 1922 Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror , the unofficial adaptation of Bram Stoker’s 1897 novel, Dracula , rang absolutely zero bells. I made the error of assuming that this Nosferatu , packed with an A-list cast and supported by a $100 million USD budget, was actually the (relatively) new Aaron Taylor Johnson (ATJ) film, Kraven the Hunter . Call me shallow if you must, but I agreed to my friend’s invitation without looking into the movie—and without hesitation—because of the prospect of seeing ATJ on the big screen. By the time it became evident that my assumption was, in fact, just an assumption, it was too late. My friend had already purchased the tickets. There were plans in place to watch the original film, and then to drive to the theater to see the recreation of almost 100 years later. I put on my shoes, tried to muster up some courage, and headed out of my house. The original movie was, I must admit, very good… as horror-filled as a horror movie from the beginning of the 20th century could be. I learned that Nosferatu , a German production, was born out of the myriad horrors of World War I. Many film buffs and critics have analyzed the story’s messaging. In both versions, the vampire, Count Orlok (a “copyright-friendly” Dracula), is infatuated with and preys on Ellen, the fiancée of an estate agent, Thomas Hutter. Hutter is dispatched to Transylvania to deal with a peculiar client (Count Orlok), who insists on signing papers acquiring property in person. In their first encounter, it is clear that Count Orlok is something beyond human. What is not initially clear is that this paperwork actually signs Ellen over to him. Through the poisoned consecration of Ellen and Count Orlok’s “bond,” he makes his way over to her village, bringing terror and the plague along with him—to paraphrase, he is coming . In this world, geography doesn’t matter… The vampire, Count Orlok, arrives via ocean from Transylvania (Romania) to Germany—unfortunately, such an ocean in this instance is actually Poland, which is not an ocean at all. This (minor) plot hole was part of the German production’s effort to avoid a lawsuit from the Dracula franchise, as that book is set in England. In 1922, German actor Max Schreck played Count Orlok as an animal-like figure. It was a silent film, so obviously no technical opportunity to play up the plethora of our modern tropes of vampires (e.g., “ bleh bleh bleh ” or “I vant to suck yer blood”). The title, Nosferatu , adds a layer of eeriness. A masculine Romanian name meaning “troublesome” or “unbearable,” the call of Nosferatu brings with it a chill and sourness unmatched by “Dracula.” The 2024 remake leaves little to the imagination. Bill Skarsgard , at this point an expert in playing larger-than-life villains, uses his real voice as Count Orlok, making the monster all that more menacing. And it was, well, epic, when he referred to himself as “an appetite, nothing more.” The Count’s breath became an integral element in the movie. Anytime I heard the heavy wheezing, a call of impending coldness and darkness, I knew to hide in my sweatshirt hood. There were some humorous moments, I will admit. When Count Orlok’s henchman, Knock, played by Simon McBurney , bites off the head of a pigeon in a psych ward, the psychiatrist-doctor-man, Dr. Wilhelm Sievers ( Ralph Ineson ), asks: “Now why did you do that?” Sporadic snorts of laughter speckled the theater room. Being deeply disturbed as a group does promote cohesion, in a way. I will say that the viciousness in which Count Orlok devours the blood of his victims and the immense grief of ATJ (in this film, Friedrich Harding, the friend of the Hutters ( Nicholas Hoult and Lily-Rose Depp )) at his wife ( Emma Corrin ) and daughters’ demise, inflicted collective dismay and disgust among audience members. Depp’s performance as Ellen was truly stellar. I will say that her intense stare and cries, violent shakes and gasps, really called on all of the performances of tortured damsels that have come before her. I felt that the new version of the film made the sexual undertones of Nosferatu ’s storyline, the concept of possession, of assault (of Count Orlok on Ellen), undeniable. This was part of Director Robert Egger’s efforts to give Ellen more of a backstory. The tale is reframed from her perspective. In doing so, the allegory for assault, clearly present in the case of Ellen, is also echoed by the ultimate death of Anna Harding, who is consumed by rodents. The rodents serve as the furry, flea-ridden entourage of Count Orlok who sets them on the Harding family when Ellen refuses his advances. As the IMDb “Parents guide” phrases it: “ Lengthy & explicit female breast nudity with graphic bloody sucking by a male beast. Female breast nudity of a woman being ravished by rodents.” I felt that this exposure was almost gratuitous in its attempt at accomplishing a not-so-subtle allusion to an act of rape. That being said, I can understand how this originally “adjusted” Dracula story emerged, rendering the life-altering (and, for millions, life- ending ) events of World War I. I don’t think that either film ended up being derivative, and despite my initial aversion—and maybe my better judgments—I would recommend a watch. I find it interesting what we humans deem “horror.” Why would we want to be scared… together? Why create a mirror of certainly grotesque real-life occurrences? Well, “art imitates life,” as they say. Perhaps it is easier to grasp, to accept the impossibility of making sense of awfulness when it is played back to us. It may be less painful to experience these horrors, the warped histories and folktales that have kept humans entertained for centuries, when together, and when a wall is up between us and the narrative. The 2024 Nosferatu turns the themes of anxiety, of fear, present in the German version, inward. The bottled-up darkness and apprehension for further social change or upheaval are packaged in a more fleshed-out Ellen character. She asks : “Does evil come from within us, or from beyond?” The shame or fear, the sin , that Count Orlok embodies is found within Ellen, pushing the boundaries of remakes and the horror we may experience ourselves. Someone on Reddit said that neither Nosferatu was “terrifying”—that’s relative. In any instance, he definitely came . Photo credits: J.-H. Janßen, 2019

Dans son discours d’investiture du 20 janvier 2025, Trump, acteur autoproclamé du renouveau civilisationnel, appelle les Américains à agir « avec le courage, la vigueur et la vitalité de la plus grande civilisation de l’histoire. » Et, comme tout bon pays prétendument civilisé, il faudrait évidemment montrer l’exemple à ceux qui seraient restés dans la barbarie, ceux qui n’auraient pas encore « évolué. » < Back De l’autre côté du mur : voix arabes face à la mission civilisatrice Selma Boufaroua Dans son discours d’investiture du 20 janvier 2025, Trump, acteur autoproclamé du renouveau civilisationnel, appelle les Américains à agir « avec le courage, la vigueur et la vitalité de la plus grande civilisation de l’histoire. » Et, comme tout bon pays prétendument civilisé, il faudrait évidemment montrer l’exemple à ceux qui seraient restés dans la barbarie, ceux qui n’auraient pas encore « évolué. » C’est exactement ce qu’avaient fait au XIXᵉ siècle la France en Algérie, les États-Unis aux Philippines, ou encore la Belgique, le Portugal et le Royaume-Uni en Afrique. De la « mission civilisatrice » au « fardeau de l’Homme blanc, » de la « Destinée manifeste » au « lusotropicalisme, » chacun a trouvé la formule parfaite pour emballer son projet colonial selon l’époque. Un projet censé lisser des populations jugées trop bruyantes, remettre dans le droit chemin des destinées qui, sans cela, dévieraient naturellement. Le racisme, la haine de l’autre et le désir de « civiliser » ceux qui ne le seraient pas n’ont pas disparu : ces mêmes idées ressurgissent dans les discours de bien des chefs d’État qui se prétendent pourtant modernes. Un schéma colonial qui persiste : l'exemple sioniste Ainsi, l’État d’Israël, proclamé en 1948 et contesté jusqu’à aujourd’hui, s’inscrit lui aussi dans le sillon de cette mission civilisatrice européenne : « nous formerions là-bas un élément d’un mur contre l’Asie, ainsi que l’avant-poste de la civilisation contre la barbarie. » Cette phrase ne vient ni d’un extrémiste marginal, ni d’un provocateur isolé : elle est tirée du Der Judenstaat , rédigé par Theodor Herzl lui-même, fondateur du sionisme moderne. Le projet même d’État se verrait alors légitimé, en partie, parce qu’il constituerait un rempart face à un monde arabe présenté comme sauvage et dangereux. Mais que se passe-t-il de l’autre côté du mur ? Dans ce monde qualifié de barbare, colonisé durant des siècles et surreprésenté dans les médias ? Comment réagit-il à cette mission censée le « civiliser, » lui qui ne souffrirait, selon cette logique, que d’une différence perçue comme une malédiction le vouant à une éternelle décrépitude ? La réponse n’est pas uniforme : le monde arabe n’est pas une entité homogène suivant une pensée unique et ordonnée. Ce qui est sûr, c’est que se rassembler et se battre pour affirmer un héritage commun ont été des idées mobilisatrices dès les débuts de la ‘mission civilisatrice’ imposée à ces populations. Les nationalistes arabes défendent alors l’idée d’une seule nation, de l’Atlantique au Golfe, affranchie de toute dépendance. En Occident, ce nationalisme est perçu comme une réaction « contre un état de fait colonial, » surgissant dans les années 1930. Il prône ainsi un État fort, soutenu par un sentiment patriotique fondé sur une langue (l’arabe) et une religion (l’islam). Zyad Hafez, dans La Résurgence du nationalisme arabe , explique que le sentiment nationaliste est profondément ancré : interrogées sur leur identité, de nombreuses personnes dans différents pays arabes affirment que leur identité arabe prime sur toutes les autres (pays, communauté voire religion). C’est un sentiment d’unité avant tout, qui précède les régimes, les institutions ou les confessions. Sati’ al-Husari (1880-1968) voyait d’ailleurs dans la nation arabe une entité vieille de plusieurs millénaires : « la langue est son âme et l’histoire sa mémoire. » Un nationalisme inclusif et démocratique ? Contrairement à certains nationalismes du XIXᵉ siècle, les fondateurs du nationalisme arabe soulignent que leur projet repose sur le « refus de l’exclusion et l’ouverture à tous les courants. » La CNA, Conférence Nationaliste Arabe, fonctionne comme un véritable parlement du nationalisme arabe moderne, où se côtoient anciens baassistes, nassériens, marxistes, chrétiens et musulmans, tous invités à débattre. Le Centre d'études de l'Unité arabe (CEUA), qui lui est rattaché, organise des colloques et propose des solutions concrètes à des questions telles que : « Comment faire la démocratie dans le monde arabe ? » L’objectif est d’adapter la démocratie aux réalités diverses du monde arabe, un défi devant lequel les États-Unis par exemple ont largement échoué. On pourrait presque s’attendre à ce que les Occidentaux applaudissent cette prouesse intellectuelle, digne de ces élans romantiques exaltant l’âme unique de chaque peuple. Ne laisserait-on pas volontiers les Arabes clamer « !أمتي » (“ Ma Ummah ”) comme les Italiens s’écriaient « Patria Mia » ou les Argentins « ¡Viva la Patria ! » ? Mais le littératurisme, cette sacralisation de la forme littéraire au détriment de toute autre préoccupation, est bien souvent dépassé par les intérêts. Les menaces sont nombreuses : selon Zyad Hafez, par exemple, l’intérêt même d’Israël résiderait dans « la désintégration de la région arabe pour mieux asseoir ses propres ambitions hégémoniques. » Une région, rappelons-le, délimitée non par des cartographes neutres, mais par des diplomates guidés par les intérêts européens, impériaux et stratégiques. Michel ‘Aflaq souligne d’ailleurs que le colonialisme européen est directement responsable de cette division « artificielle et provisoire » du monde arabe ; il ajoute qu’une volonté claire existait : « détruire l’espoir d’unité des Arabes. » Le nationalisme arabe devient donc dangereux car il remettrait en cause la légitimité même de ce découpage et l’influence qui en découle. Les raisons d’inquiétude ne manquent pas. Qui imaginerait une seule seconde un nouvel épisode de l’embargo pétrolier de 1973, où une coordination pleine et entière des pays arabes ferait de cette menace une réalité ? Répétée, la situation de 1973 deviendrait un état de fait, un cauchemar pour quiconque tient à préserver son hégémonie économique. Le nationalisme arabe n’est donc pas exactement le mouvement le plus accommodant pour l’hégémonie occidentale : il s’est bâti en grande partie sur sa critique. « La souffrance en commun unit plus que la joie », écrivait Ernest Renan, écrivain français du XIXème siècle. Cet ennemi est mobilisé à travers le temps pour forger un sentiment d’appartenance et de lutte commune. Dans les cas extrêmes, l’exemple du nazisme illustre cette dynamique : Hitler érigeait le ‘Juif’ en source absolue de tous les maux, tout comme l’immigré italien avait été désigné bouc émissaire dans la France du début du XXᵉ siècle. Cependant, Zyad Hafez précise un point essentiel : l’ennemi du nationalisme arabe est l’impérialisme, pas l’Occident en tant que civilisation. L’opposition vise d’abord les anciennes puissances coloniales (France, Grande-Bretagne), puis plus récemment les intérêts des États-Unis, ainsi que la menace que représente l’État d’Israël. » Autrement dit, la confrontation repose sur une relation de domination, d’occupation et d’agression, jamais sur une haine de ‘l’Occidental’ ou du ‘Juif’ en soi. Cette conscience arabe, en plus d’être un projet politique visant à protéger la région contre les rapports de force occidentaux, se veut aussi une réponse existentielle. En 1939, Constantin Zureik publie La Mission arabe , où il affirme que chaque Nation contribue à la civilisation mondiale en apportant un message particulier. Dans cette perspective, l’unité arabe redonnerait aux peuples une fierté brisée par la colonisation et leur permettrait de retrouver le rôle qu’ils occupaient autrefois dans l’histoire (transmission des savoirs antiques, avancées scientifiques majeures…). Le sentiment d’union deviendrait ainsi un antidote à un mal-être profondément ancré : celui de l’humiliation née de l’agression, de la spoliation, du mépris. Les limites internes du projet nationaliste Cependant, certains aspects du nationalisme arabe porté par Gamal Abdel Nasser et Sati’ al-Husri présentent des limites, des contradictions, parfois des visions trop simplistes. Elias Murqus, intellectuel et écrivain syrien, souligne par exemple que lorsqu’ils dénoncent la ‘parcellisation’ imposée par le colonialisme européen, ils placent sur le même plan l’Égypte (dotée d’une histoire plurimillénaire) et la Transjordanie, création politique récente. Deuxième erreur : nier purement et simplement l’existence politique des nations issues de Sykes-Picot, accords secrets signés entre la France et le Royaume-Uni en 1916 pour décider du découpage du Proche-Orient à la fin de la guerre. En procédant ainsi, les nationalistes arabes de l’époque se sont coupés de la réalité concrète : ils ont ignoré l’émergence de nouvelles institutions, le développement d’intérêts propres à ces États, et surtout les nouveaux sentiments d’appartenance nationale qui s’y formaient. Quoi qu’il en soit, les points de vue sur le nationalisme arabe, ou plus largement sur les différents mouvements arabes, qu’ils reposent sur la religion, la nation, la lutte contre la dictature ou l’impérialisme, continuent d’alimenter des débats houleux et complexes dans le monde occidental. Si les questions liées au panarabisme semblent s’être effacées derrière le nouvel enjeu majeur du XXIᵉ siècle qu’est l’islamisme, la volonté de « civiliser » cette partie du monde, elle, n’a pas disparu. Et le monde arabe n’est pas le seul concerné : l’Afrique devient elle aussi le terrain d’un débat semblable. Qui sait, peut-être que Donald Trump, à la manière d’un Saint-Simon moderne, aurait croisé en songe John O’Sullivan, le père de la « Destinée manifeste ». Ce dernier l’aurait investi d’une nouvelle mission civilisatrice indispensable au XXIᵉ siècle : celle de devenir le missionnaire attitré des chrétiens d’Afrique, présentés comme ayant désormais besoin de la protection de ‘ l’Élu de Dieu’. Source : Hossam el-Hamalawy, flickr , Leave You Agent of the Americans!

Despite its widespread popularity, I’ve grown a bit skeptical of this expression, or at least how it is often expressed. < Back Rethinking ‘Living in the Moment’ By Maria Eirini Liodi April 30, 2024 Living in the moment is a great life approach to have. In a fast-paced world of busyness and distraction, we can all use this stance to help immerse ourselves in our reality, as opposed to continuously rushing ahead, or lingering in the past. If you read any sort of wellness article nowadays, it will list an abundance of reasons why you should ‘live in the moment’ - focusing on the small things, on the here and now, can make you happier. However, despite its widespread popularity, I’ve grown a bit skeptical of this expression, or at least how it is often expressed. Oftentimes, it appears to be a pretty and simplistic way to disguise the evasion of responsibility and the avoidance of adult challenges. For instance, I’ve heard people use this catchphrase to justify why they stop putting effort into sustaining friendships over a physical distance, or failing to plan ahead for their career. That got me thinking: could this philosophy be detrimental to one’s happiness by putting too much pressure on the present? Beyond that, could it be an oversimplification of the human experience? In this day and age, social media enables us to be interconnected across space and time. So, in that sense, living in the moment ceases to be defined by solely geographical parameters, confining ‘the present’ to where you live and the periphery within that. Modern technology’s benefits allow us to essentially exist in multiple realities that all come together to create the present. Moreover, technology as a means of bridging communication allows us to arguably be more present in more places and for more people in our lives, contradicting the frequently asserted notion that ‘living in the moment’ necessitates an all-embracing approach to the here and now, in geographical terms. It seems that technology does not inherently make us live less in the present, how we make use of it, though, can. Therefore, ‘living in the moment’ can be less about ‘soaking up’ every moment — because it is kind of impossible to do so anyway. It can instead be more about acknowledging the multiplicity of our presence, which can extend to our digital interactions, thereby broadening the scope of what ‘living in the moment’ means. In contemplating this, I’ve also come to realize that we actually pressure ourselves to be in the moment. For instance, when preoccupied with a difficult task or facing a personal challenge, people often tend to guilt-trip themselves for escaping into these parallel realities, rather than being actively engaged ‘in the moment’. Even then, one must once again step into their head to have that inner dialogue rather than just accepting the moment for what it is; be it good or bad, immersive or disconnected. This unrealistic expectation-setting can inadvertently lead to stress and guilt, as opposed to understanding of the nuanced reality of being human, which naturally comes with feeling disconnected or distracted from time to time. With this line of thought, we can naturally consider the pressures constructed — or rather reinforced — by social media. Living in the moment often takes on a renewed, glamorized version on social media, whereby the streams of curated content we consume make us feel as though every moment is a memorable one and should be savored and shared in the public sphere. Perhaps we can alleviate this pressure by acknowledging the subtle balance that exists between the normal, everyday, mundane moments, and the fleeting ‘Instagrammable’ moments. This way, sharing our lives on social media, can seize to be just performance for public consumption and personal capturing of highlights. Moreover, a simplistic interpretation of ‘living in the moment’ can risk overshadowing the importance of planning ahead and goal-setting. People advocating for this life-approach may say that thinking about the future ‘robs’ you of the present, or that it is not useful to plan ahead since those plans are subject to unpredictability anyhow. Despite the truth in the latter idea, planning ahead can help construct a life with direction, meaning and hence, greater fulfillment. Ultimately, ‘living in the moment’ should not be about idealizing and relentlessly chasing camera-worthy moments. It can be more about accepting the intricacies of the human experience - the dull and the exhilarating, the disconnected and the engaging moments.

The question of immorality does not pertain to the act of thrifting itself, but how the thrift environment has been redesigned to serve corporate interests at the expense of those it was initially designed to support. < Back Thrifting and the Price of Exclusion: Gentrifying Secondhand Stores in Toronto Téa Breedon April 30, 2025 In Toronto, thrift stores have recently introduced a collection of higher-end, thrift “boutiques.” These boutiques sell name-brand clothing at marked-up prices to attract a wealthier crowd and drive in profits. Value Village —a for-profit thrift enterprise popular among thrifters in Canada—has replaced its former thrift stores with thrift “boutiques,” limiting its clientele to upper-class individuals and neglecting those who formerly relied on secondhand stores for everyday essentials. The shift to luxury retail symbolizes not only the gentrification of thrift stores but also a broader trend of sidelining the economically disadvantaged in favour of company interests. With real estate prices skyrocketing in Toronto due to high mortgage rates and low property supply, coupled with the homeless population quickly growing by 25 percent between 2023 and 2025, it becomes clear that thrifting corporations are exacerbating a trend of urban inequality. Toronto is aptly fit for examining broader patterns of urban inequality, as it is exemplary of spatially visible class differences. The city has experienced a trend of growing affluence among the wealthy that juxtaposes deepening poverty and growing unaffordability felt by the lower- and working-classes, culminating in an economic landscape that disproportionately disadvantages economically marginalized groups. The gentrification of thrift stores—now evident in the shift from affordable inventory to high-end and luxury brands—is thus symbolic of this landscape, reflecting how sanctuaries of sustenance once rooted in accessibility are being reoriented toward the spending capacity of wealthier consumers. Aside from this trend of gentrification, thrift stores have also increasingly become concentrated in various regions of the city, attracting consumers with large spending capacities. This process is characterized by the strategic situation of thrift stores in middle- and upper-class neighborhoods, making them inaccessible to those who need them the most. Moreover, a majority of these stores are located in downtown Toronto, just minutes away from the city’s major tourist attractions. The top recommended Google search when inputting “Toronto thrift stores” is “Toronto thrift stores downtown,” illustrating how thrift enterprises increasingly cater to a clientele of tourists looking for vintage and secondhand stores in downtown Toronto. As such, by clustering in Toronto’s primary tourist district, these thrift stores function more as curated attractions rather than a resource for the economically disadvantaged. But what is it, besides the profit motive, that is so appealing to thrift corporations about strategically leasing buildings in upper-end and tourist-dense neighborhoods or converting former thrift stores into thrift “boutiques?” Shouldn’t they worry about losing a significant portion of their clientele by catering to a social class that is less reliant on secondhand shopping? Unfortunately, thrift enterprises are no longer alone in recognizing the value in reselling used items at an elevated price. Online resellers have capitalized on this same logic, carefully picking out name and designer brands from thrift stores to mark up for a profit. Thrift enterprises find—or, at least, found —their clientele in lower-income populations, tailoring to individuals who relied on affordable clothing as a necessity rather than a fad. Today, online resellers—found on Depop, Etsy, Vinted, and Poshmark—use reselling platforms to allure a clientele of trend-driven consumers seeking secondhand luxury items that they may not be able to find at their local thrift stores. Online resellers are therefore following the path paved by thrift enterprises, recognizing the potential in the business of reselling items at marked-up prices. By tailoring to those who can afford elevated prices, resellers generate demand for high-end pieces from thrift boutiques, contributing to a cycle that favors a curated inventory over affordability. As a result, traditional thrift stores are being converted into thrift boutiques, distancing themselves from lower-income communities not just spatially, but also through rising price points that compromise affordability. It is in this sense, then, that the shift from affordable thrift corporations to high-end boutiques is driven both by the motive of profit and that of a guaranteed clientele. The recent trend of reselling has provided thrift corporations with a reliable flow of buyers, sustaining their operations while fueling demand for boutique-style stores. Similarly, independent online resellers find their consistent clientele of buyers in trend-chasing consumers who are able to afford their elevated prices. This domino effect, triggered by thrift enterprises, thus entrenches a market dynamic that prioritizes profit and resale value over accessibility. Is all this to say that thrifting is immoral, betraying the initial ethical purpose of thrift stores? Of course not, as it remains more environmentally and financially sustainable than buying first-hand. What is immoral is how thrift stores—operating within a for-profit framework—capitalize on an increasing demand for high-end clothing by jacking up the price s of donated items and orienting their inventory toward wealthy consumers. The question of immorality does not pertain to the act of thrifting itself, but how the thrift environment has been redesigned to serve corporate interests at the expense of those it was initially designed to support. Thus, in rebranding necessity and affordability as a fad, the modern thrift landscape has s hown how the thrift industry can be morphed into a mechanism that reproduces the very inequalities it sought to confront. Photo source: Rob Durdle on Flickr

At the end of the day, the issue of migration should not be one of big theories and political instrumentalization, but one about the migrants themselves, and how and why there is immigration in Europe. We must recentralize the discourse of migration on the personal stories of migrants. < Back Ella Waja Bou Ntoute, Tey Deguelou Bou Barey By Elian Jorand “ Let us think about it: the Mediterranean has become Europe’s largest cemetery.” With these bleak few words, Pope Francis in Marseille succinctly summarized the current state of migration in the Mediterranean Sea. According to the United Nations, since the beginning of 2023, there have been 186,951 sea arrivals on the continent and 2,517 deaths. On average, in 2023, 11 children die per week attempting to reach the northern shore of the Mediterranean. This summer alone, nearly 1000 people died. Amidst such tragedy, European opinion has been sharply divided. The instrumentalization of migration to achieve political aims has created a national ‘macro-debate’, an obsession for the public about migration and the big consequences such a process carries. The far right and neo-fascist parties form a spurious front against an ‘invasion’, threatening the tradition and customs of old Europe. Opposing the far right,those who call for uncompromising humanity and solidarity with those in need, welcoming migrants and helping them on their trek across Europe. Both sides generate substantial public debate, with far-fetched theories such the “ Grand Remplacement ” popularized by Eric Zemmour, or the left parties pushing forward with humanitarian and anti-racist policies. Today, 75 percent of French people are in favor of a public referendum to decide on a national migration policy. However, with the current political atmosphere, we must be able to rise above the noise and tribulations and pay attention to what is important. At the end of the day, the issue of migration should not be one of big theories and political instrumentalization, but one about the migrants themselves, and how and why there is immigration in Europe. We must recentralize the discourse of migration on the personal stories of migrants. During my travels in West Africa, stories of migration came to be of regular occurrences — the youth trying to escape the lack of opportunity in Africa for Europe, in the hope of a ‘better life.’ I remember a distinct conversation with a friend and her family in an old West African style “ dibiterie ” in Saint-Louis. While eating a yassa, Leila talked about her hopes of leaving Senegal to pursue her education in a business school in Nancy, France. She spoke fondly about how this opportunity would allow her to get her dream job and lead the life she had always aspired to have. Yet, this was now only a dream, since her visa application to enter France had been rejected. Leila is only one among thousands of people immigrating out of Africa with the hope of a better life in Europe, whether their expectations are true or false. When they are denied the opportunity, people are often forced to go about it in an unofficial and dangerous way. The case of Senegal clearly demonstrates this. Hailed as a bastion of democracy and stability in a continent riddled with political insecurity, Senegal is nonetheless one of the countries which generates the most migrants from West Africa, with 25,000 people emigrating outside of the country, compared to only 12,000 people from neighboring war-torn Mali. Poverty, amongst other factors, is a primary driver for migration. Looking at the different factors and theories, whether important or completely absurd, helps us understand the process in relation to the different actors. However, such a political approach dehumanizes a very human process. Migration is a fundamental process for humanity. Our story, that of the human species, started precisely with a worldwide migration. We must bring back this humanity to the process of migration. Stories like Leila’s are true for many thousand other humans, each one with their own specifications, making their story of migration unique. If we are to find a solution to migration, one of balance between migrants and host-nations, we must change our current approach which has only led to hate and death for the many actors. We must move away from big characterization and systematic categorization, and instead take a more humane approach, however hard that may be. Only when we take the steps towards understanding the stories behind migration, the reasons, the causes and the motivations, will we be able to tackle the issue. Now that the talking has taken place, and in the hope of finding a solution, we must listen to these stories.

A town that I have learned to love and maybe sometimes to hate, but one that I will certainly miss when I have to leave eventually. This petite town of citrons has seen many generations of the Ummah pass through it. I think it holds a special place in our hearts. I hope you will feel the same way! < Back Tips To Survive Sciences Po Menton Eleni Dimitropoulou April 29, 2025 The end of the second semester is approaching, marking, for me, the end of a whole year in the magical Menton—the “pearl” of the French Riviera—as a first-year student. A year ago today, I learned that I had been accepted to this university, situated in a foreign country whose language I did not speak, miles away from my home. I believe that thousands of other students are in the same situation right now. That is why, in this article, I will act as a big sister who will answer in advance to all the possible concerns you, 1As probably have about the Menton campus. I will offer you some advice. Here is everything you need to know: from how to find a house to where you can eat, at which beach you will tan the fastest and at which bar you will find the best drinks. Let's start with the simplest. Menton, my favorite city and the one I now call home, is located on the French Riviera, 40 minutes away from Nice, fifteen from Monaco and ten from Italy. Yes, it sounds crazy that you can cross the border on foot—but a word of advice, don't try it alone or during the night. The landscapes will enchant you, along with the indisputably blue waters, unparalleled sunsets, colorful buildings and smells from different restaurants. This description sounds like it comes from a tourist guide, but Menton is not only that. The Ummah , from the Arabic word “ أُمَّة” meaning identity, nation and community, is the spirit of the student community, which is what differentiates us from other campuses. From the first moment of integration week, you will notice it immediately. The people you will know here will mark you, even if you are bored of seeing them every day, in whatever alley you are in. Being Greek and having a special relationship with food, I would like to continue with my favorite restaurants. Although quite unhappy that I can't enjoy a souvlaki , I can say that I am stunned by the sushi that you can find in Ventimiglia at Sushi Iyo with unlimited top-ups for fifteen euros. It is the first thing I show to any friend visiting, as if it is a sight. Of course, I could not forget the beloved pizza Vesuvio that we usually take and eat on the rocks overlooking the sea and the flying seagulls. Also, there is Pad Thai Express , which satisfies two people and is quite economical. Of course, Monaco, as the center of luxury and well-being, is quite expensive. However, I have to say, some restaurants there balance price and quality, such as Sushi Planet next to the beach with a view of the yachts, or the beautiful Maya Pasta near the city center. In Menton, if you are ever looking for a pastry or an early brunch option, Lagom and L’Atelier Boulangerie never disappoint. When it comes to nightlife, do not expect much from our small town—the exception being the bar Le Retro , where every Thursday is a student night. Unfortunately, it lasts only until midnight, before the elderly residents get angry and start throwing water or pots from the windows because of the noise. The service provided by Anto is one of a kind, the drinks at ridiculously low prices and enjoyable with the Ummah around you. There are, of course, other bars at Sablettes , the beach below our university, which we use mostly for events organized by the association of the campus, like the Bureau Du Sport (BDS), the Bureau Des Élèves (BDE) and Sciences Alcoolemiques . But if you are going there by yourself or in a group, I would not recommend it: the age groups frequently found there tend to be on the older side and the music is average. Nice, however, offers a wide range of nightlife, both bars and clubs, which are worth visiting, such as the Opera , the High Club —which has ladies’ nights with free entry before 01:00 at night—and the Waka Bar , with great music and many surprises reminiscent of a Greek festival with people dancing on the bar and the tables. However, be mindful of the train schedules, especially on weekdays and Sundays, where the last train leaves at 10:30 or even earlier. On Saturdays, fortunately, it is 01:25, so it is easier to reach the centers of nightlife. Otherwise, if you miss it, you will have to wait for the next train at 05:00 in the morning or take a taxi, which costs about 40 euros. In Monte Carlo, like in Jimmy’s , things are a little more complicated since some taxis will not cross the border, so there is a possibility that you will need to walk for 15 minutes to the famous bridge border crossing. Of course, some of our fellow students have cars, but they are few and in demand, so if you need them, you should inform them in advance. However, for the entire year, I would suggest that you buy your ZOU card online , which costs 90 euros from September to August and you can travel with it, without additional charge, on routes from Ventimiglia to Marseille. Now, regarding supermarkets in Menton, the most popular ones are Carrefour-City and U-Express . Carrefour-City is open every day until 22:00 except on Sundays when it opens until 21:00, so after several classes that finish at 7:45, you can go there. While U-Express is a bit further away from the city center, it is bigger and thus less expensive, having a larger selection available. In Picard , there is a wide variety of frozen foods suitable for students who are just learning to cook or don't have that much time to prepare food. The university cafeteria is only open for one hour from 12:15 until 13:15, which might be too early for students who come from Mediterranean countries, with limited choices and relatively expensive prices of 5 euros regardless of what you buy. The vending machines have mainly sweet treats, as do the bake sales organized by associations. However, coffee can only be found in the cafeteria for a low price of 50 cents if the machine is working. Regarding finding a house, I know the process is quite stressful, especially when your first language is not French and you are abroad, as you cannot see the house in person. So, I suggest you search on the Sciences Po housing website or contact a real estate agency. Personally, I think the best option is to send a message or join the groups that exist on Facebook. In this way, you could also come into contact with second-year students who are leaving their homes, giving you a guarantee. The price of the rent can range between 300 and 1,200 euros, depending on your requirements, location and whether you will be staying with a roommate. Just be aware that Garavan is 15 minutes from the university but far from the city center—25 to 30 minutes—but the prices are much more affordable. Dorms are also available in Villa Jasmin for the girls and Menton Plus for the guys. However, spots are limited to around 30, and priority is given to exchange students. Just so you know, they do not have the vibe of American dorms or sororities—you are not allowed to bring your friends in, you need to pay 10 euros for the laundry and the rooms can be empty and cold. However, if you want to be part of a close-knit community and make new friends straight away, it is not a bad option for the first year or couple of months. Some of you might be eager to continue their gym rat era or just feel healthier. In our small town, despite its size, we have quite a few options available. First and foremost, we have the Stephy’OM gym two minutes away from the university, although you have to pass through the stairs of hell (you will understand the name once you have to walk over them during Aparathon - a night were you, the freshcomers go around the famous collocations of Menton playing games including alcohol). It is 45 euros per month, there is an open salle from 08:00 until 21:00 on weekdays, but also group classes such as T-Rex, Cardio, Zumba, Yoga, etc. However, you need to book beforehand through the app, which is without any extra cost. Another gym many Sciences Pistes prefer is Narev’s club, which is a bit further away. It is more of a hardcore gym with weights and a wide variety of equipment and machines. If you want to stay in form, you can also join one of Sciences Po’s sports teams, ranging from volleyball to cheerleading and from rugby to boxing; you are welcome in any team. But I won't go further on that as I don't want to steal the BDS’ job. Concerning the hot question of whether you need to speak French, the answer is simply no. Almost everyone on campus speaks English and there are many tourists all year round, so shop owners are familiar with that language as well. But do not think for a second that you can escape it. Sciences Po has everyone take French classes, ranging from two to four hours per week, unless you have at least a B2 level, the same being true for English. If you have met the above requirements, you can take up to two other foreign languages such as Spanish, Italian, Arabic, Persian, Hebrew and Turkish. I left the worst for the end. Menton can be really rainy, especially in the winter, so do not forget to pack your umbrella and warm clothes. I think these are the main points I would have liked to know before coming to Menton. Keep in mind that the BDE uploads a lot of useful information before your arrival and also has an open poll with questions and answers on their Instagram page. This is Menton through my eyes. A town that I have learned to love and maybe sometimes to hate, but one that I will certainly miss when I have to leave eventually. This petite town of citrons has seen many generations of the Ummah pass through it. I think it holds a special place in our hearts. I hope you will feel the same way! Photo source: Mia Battaglia on Flickr

La situation dans laquelle nous nous trouvons aujourd’hui alimente les peurs de certains que ce régime, où la figure du président est si forte, ne lui donne un pouvoir trop personnalisé; ce qui pourrait s’empirer avec l'avènement d’un ou une président.e populiste et autoritaire. < Back Vème République, une expérience défectueuse? Anna Halpern November 30, 2024 La France sous la Vème République est le porte-drapeau par excellence de son régime politique semi-présidentiel. Le pays de la Révolution française a longtemps été fier de porter haut les couleurs d’une démocratie parmi les plus fortes au monde—se plaçant en 23eme position sur l’index démocratique du classement EIU . Mais avec la fin du second mandat d’Emmanuel Macron, les critiques se multiplient, et il semble pertinent d'évaluer si ce régime est vraiment adapté aux demandes démocratiques de la société civile. Mais qu’est ce que le semi-présidentialisme? Il s’agit d’un régime hybride combinant une élection au suffrage universel du président, typique d’un régime présidentiel, et des éléments du système parlementaire tels que la responsabilité du gouvernement devant le parlement. Il est important de noter que ce système hybride a tendance à créer une surpuissance de l'exécutif; en France cela se manifeste par le chef d'Etat démocratique le plus puissant du monde, sauf en cas de cohabitation. En effet, le président préside le conseil des ministres, ce qui laisse douter de la séparation entre chef de gouvernement et chef d'Etat. En outre, il jouit d’une quasi irresponsabilité sauf en cas de « manquement à ses devoirs manifestement incompatible avec l’exercice de son mandat » ce qui justifierait une destitution, mais cela n’a encore jamais été le cas, bien qu’une tentative déposée par Mathilde Panot ait récemment été abandonnée . De plus, pour ce qui est de la responsabilité du gouvernement devant le parlement, une seule motion de censure spontanée a réussi depuis 1958, année de l’adoption de la Vème République, et aucune depuis 1962. Depuis, il est apparu que le gouvernement est devenu plus responsable devant le président, ce qui démontre un aspect unique de la culture politique française. Par ailleurs, en France, le Premier ministre est nommé par le président et non par l'Assemblée nationale, ce qui explique le fait qu’une figure telle que Michel Barnier, qui ne représente aucun des trois programmes ‘gagnantes’ de l'élection parlementaire, puisse former un gouvernement technocratique fortement critiqué par l'opposition pour son manque de légitimité au vu du résultat très bas de son parti LR. L'Assemblée nationale qui n’a donc que peu de pouvoir sur le gouvernement et qui peut être dissoute par le président semble très affaiblie. Néanmoins, il est possible d'espérer que grâce aux résultats divisés des élections législatives de 2024, le parlement reprenne de ses responsabilités en s’opposant plus fortement aux décisions présidentielles, une occasion qui ne s'était jamais présentée depuis le référendum de 2000 qui a écourté le mandat présidentiel à cinq ans et l’a fait concorder avec les élections législatives. De cette façon, les deux élections n’avaient que peu de chance de faire gagner un différend parti. Mais il est tout aussi possible qu’en choisissant un gouvernement bien a droite Barnier essaie de assurer l'acquiescement non seulement du parti présidentiel, mais du RN aussi et que la dynamique d’opposition reste un compromis entre chefs de partis et n’impliquent pas les députés de l'assemblée. Dans ce contexte, il n’est pas surprenant d'entendre des voix dissidentes. En effet, voir l'inégalité des pouvoirs entre l'Assemblée nationale et le Président dans un pays dont la tradition et les pays voisins sont majoritairement des régimes parlementaires peut faire douter de la viabilité de cette ‘exception’ française. Ce mécontentement a été très audible cette dernière décennie; cela a été mis en avant par les campagnes présidentielles de 2017 et 2022 où LFI a largement porté l'idée d’une VIe République. Cette proposition établirait un régime parlementaire stable rendant le pouvoir au peuple et mettant entre autres fin à la « monarchie présidentielle » et à l'utilisation de mesures de « vote forcé » tels que l’article 49.3. Mais les propositions concernant la VIème république existent dès 1961, avec l’article dans l’Express de Pierre Mendès France en faveur d’une VIème république, et ont fait l’objet de discussions jusqu'à nos jours. Mais à travers les mandats d’Emmanuel Macron, et surtout depuis son second mandat et la dissolution de l'Assemblée, les questions sont devenues encore plus pressantes, et se sont recentrées sur la figure du président. En effet, Macron a souffert d’une très mauvaise image avec une cote de popularité de 25% et se fait souvent caricaturer comme voulant être le nouveau Napoléon ou encore un « président jupitérien . » La nomination de Michel Barnier et la composition de son gouvernement n’ont fait qu’aggraver ces accusations, le faisant paraître d’autant plus sourd à ce que le peuple a exprimé par les votes. Après avoir choisi seul de dissoudre l'assemblée et ayant refusé de nommer Lucie Castets, candidate du NFP, à Matignon, le président semble avoir perdu tout contact avec le peuple. La situation dans laquelle nous nous trouvons aujourd’hui alimente les peurs de certains que ce régime, où la figure du président est si forte, ne lui donne un pouvoir trop personnalisé; ce qui pourrait s’empirer avec l'avènement d’un ou une président.e populiste et autoritaire. Il semble donc que la démocratie française se trouve à un moment critique où la légitimité de son ‘exception’ est mise en doute, et où l'on se demande si la désillusion et la « crise démocratique » que nous traversons ne viennent pas d’un régime créé à une époque où la stabilité manquait grandement. Il n’est plus adapté aux demandes démocratiques et à la société d’aujourd’hui.

It is a sequence of events Europe has seen before. A firebrand — either of humble, apolitical origins or from a generations-long political dynasty to uphold — rallies their formerly left-voting, working-class base who feel alienated by the establishment. < Back Rise of far right in Europe By Colin Lim October 31, 2022 It is a sequence of events Europe has seen before. A firebrand, — either of humble, apolitical origins or from a generations-long political dynasty to uphold — rallies their formerly left-voting, working-class base who feel alienated by the establishment. On a continent that aspires to be — and is widely lauded for being — tolerant and open to the rest of the world, the far right has attained an incongruously high standing in recent years. In addition to the more established Fidesz Party in Hungary, the UK Independence Party, and the Law and Justice Party in Poland, the recent electoral success of the Sweden Democrats and Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy have added momentum to the populist machine. Fueled by the increased flow of refugees and migrants from the Middle East and North Africa region and the broader Global South since 2015, such political actors have relied heavily on the othering of those whom they perceive as dangerous to and incompatible with European society. The European Union is also presented as a faceless, bureaucratic and undemocratic institution whose sole goal is to over-regulate citizens’ lives and to tear asunder their individual national identities. The omnipresent menace of the “globalists,” chief among them Hungarian-American philanthropist George Soros, is also a common feature in extremist rhetoric. Many of these parties have roots in neo-fascism or neo-Nazism, which remain persistent political entities despite their often highly public rebranding efforts. For instance, the recently elected Brothers of Italy, headed by Giorgia Meloni, has often been described as neo-fascist, and despite the party’s attempts to soften its positions to appease more moderate voters, its stances on the EU, the Russia-Ukraine war, reproductive rights and LGBTQ equality, among others, have alarmed people across Italy and the world. The line between ostensibly moderate right-wing parties and more extreme ones has been severely blurred. As radical parties occupy a non-negligible number of seats in legislatures, it becomes increasingly difficult for center-right parties to govern without cooperating with extremists, or at least strategically adopting some of their stances. Emmanuel Macron, as the head of his self-created centrist Renaissance party, has adopted stricter stances on border control, migration and secularism, all in an attempt to lure would-be Reconquest or National Rally voters and avert a complete usurpation of power. Bulgarian second year, Sara Kovacheva asserts that the renewal of her country’s right-wing in October 2022 parliamentary elections makes her “terrified” that the political right has gained too much power in recent years. “I really wouldn’t want to live in a far-right Europe,” she passionately declared. The recent trends across Europe make it “feel like we are only going backwards,” she continues. The vision of a united Europe is threatened by the rise of the right, but it is not a uniquely European phenomenon. The factors behind this emboldened far-right ideology — migration, Euroscepticism, wars in Europe’s neighborhood — are uniquely European, but the rightward and nativist shift is a global phenomenon that will hopefully be resolved before extremism has a chance to cement itself in the mainstream.