#autonomy is fundamental to the idea of “rights” in the first place

[hadesoftheladies]

anti-abortionists and pro choicers like me can agree on one thing: whoever creates the life can destroy the life. only the former have the male-self-insert god character who metaphysically acts as the one "knitting" the fetus in the womb, while those who observe the world as-is without invoking yahwhist lore rightfully attribute that ability to the woman.

[astroeleanor]

The MOST Powerful Black Moon Lilith Signs

BLACK MOON LILITH IN AQUARIUS

In Lilith’s mythology, her refusal to obey Adam and her decision to leave Eden represent a fundamental rebellion against established authority. Aquarius embodies this same spirit of defiance. Lilith in Aquarius represents a fierce independence and the desire to break free from any constraints or traditional norms. Think of Lilith, alone in the wilderness, choosing exile over submission. This is the raw essence of Lilith in Aquarius: the rebel who dares to stand apart, to be different, to defy the rules that try to confine her.

Just as Lilith rejected a subordinate position in the Garden, Lilith in Aquarius challenges conformity and defies societal rules. Lilith in Aquarius craves authenticity in a world that often demands masks. She embodies the courage to stand alone and celebrate that aloneness as a badge of honor. Lilith in Aquarius is the outsider, the one who holds the torch for everyone who feels like they don’t quite belong—and she turns that alienation into a source of unstoppable strength.

BLACK MOON LILITH IN SCORPIO

Lilith in Scorpio knows the power in vulnerability, the strength in letting the world see your shadows, your scars, and your truth. This placement is about transformation through the dark—through the pain, through the things you don’t say out loud. It’s the willingness to confront your own demons and emerge on the other side, changed and yet unbroken.

Lilith in Scorpio resonates with Lilith’s mythological connection to primal sexuality, power struggles, and the darker aspects of desire. In the myth, Lilith is also often portrayed as a demonized figure who embraces her dark side. Scorpio is similarly unafraid of the darkness within and seeks to understand, transform, and harness that power. Scorpio’s energy is about confronting the shadow self, diving deep into the subconscious, and transforming through encounters with the taboo–hence why Black Moon Lilith is powerful in this sign.

BLACK MOON LILITH IN ARIES

Lilith in Aries is the force of nature who refuses to be anything but herself. In Aries, Lilith’s energy is direct and fearless. She is the one who says “no” without a second thought, who fights for her place in a world that often tries to shrink her down. Lilith embraces self-assertion, even at the expense of social harmony or compromise. She values her independence over societal expectations, even if it means facing exile.

Lilith in Aries doesn’t wait for permission, instead she takes what she knows is hers, fights for her right to exist on her own terms, and challenges anyone who tries to stand in her way. According to Christianity, Lilith was the first woman in the Garden of Eden to demand equality and independence., similarly to how Aries is the first sign of the Zodiac–this is a fitting parallel that shows Lilith’s pioneering spirit. 

Lilith is also often associated with uninhibited sexuality and a refusal to conform to traditional gender roles. The energy of Lilith in Aries is fearless in expressing her sexuality, her desires, embodying a kind of raw passion that is both liberating and provocative.

BLACK MOON LILITH IN CANCER

Lilith in Cancer represents the power of mastering your emotions, the strength in vulnerability. Lilith in Cancer challenges traditional gender roles, the idea that to nurture is to be soft, compliant, or self-sacrificing–just as Lilith’s mythology challenges conventional gender roles. Instead, she embodies a darker, more complex aspect of the feminine. She’s the one who loves fiercely but not at the cost of her autonomy. She tells you it’s okay to feel everything—to be tender, to be raw, to be broken and whole all at once. 

Lilith in Cancer takes you to the depth of your emotions, where the power lies not in hiding your feelings but in letting them flow. This placement points to having powerful emotional resilience and strength. It represents a person who is unafraid of their emotional nature or subconscious desires.

BLACK MOON LILITH IN SAGITTARIUS

Lilith in Sagittarius represents the part of you that refuses to stay put, that hungers for more—more truth, more freedom, more life. In Sagittarius, Lilith laughs in the face of convention and seeks her truth with nothing but her instincts to guide her. 

Lilith’s mythology often involves challenging patriarchal structures and norms. In a similar way, Sagittarius questions established beliefs and seeks deeper truths. Lilith in Sagittarius represents the determination to live life according to your principles, often challenging societal or religious dogmas, much like Lilith did by refusing to conform to Adam’s demands.

Here, Lilith is the voice inside you that whispers, “Go, explore, there’s more to life than this.” Lilith in Sagittarius refuses to be caged by anyone’s expectations or beliefs, just like in Lilith’s mythology, with her decision to leave Eden rather than submit to subservience. She’s the embodiment of pure freedom, she tells you that your truth is yours to discover and that the journey is where your power lies.

˚₊‧꒰ა ☆ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚˚₊‧꒰ა ☆ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚˚₊‧꒰ა ☆ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚˚₊‧꒰ა ☆ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚˚₊‧꒰ა ☆ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚

ASTROLOGY READINGS ARE OPEN!

Full Birth Chart, Soul mate Readings, Career Readings are available. There are limited spots for the month of September so grab yours now!

• 🗡️ TAP HERE TO BOOK A READING with me to navigate your life with more clarity & awareness.

˚₊‧꒰ა ☆ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚˚₊‧꒰ა ☆ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚˚₊‧꒰ა ☆ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚˚₊‧꒰ა ☆ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚˚₊‧꒰ა ☆ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚

Thank you for taking the time to read my post! Your curiosity & engagement mean the world to me. I hope you not only found it enjoyable but also enriching for your astrological knowledge. Your support & interest inspire me to continue sharing insights & information with you. I appreciate you immensely. • 🕸️ JOIN MY PATREON for exquisite & in-depth astrology content. You'll also receive a free mini reading upon joining. :)

˚₊‧꒰ა ☆ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚˚₊‧꒰ა ☆ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚˚₊‧꒰ა ☆ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚˚₊‧꒰ა ☆ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚˚₊‧꒰ა ☆ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚

[haggishlyhagging]

Radical feminism remained the hegemonic tendency within the women's liberation movement until 1973 when cultural feminism began to cohere and challenge its dominance. After 1975, a year of internecine conflicts between radical and cultural feminists, cultural feminism eclipsed radical feminism as the dominant tendency within the women's liberation movement, and, as a consequence, liberal feminism became the recognized voice of the women's movement.

As the preceding chapters have shown, there were prefigurings of cultural feminism within radical feminism, especially by 1970. This nascent cultural feminism, which was sometimes termed ‘female cultural nationalism’ by its critics, was assailed by radical and left feminists alike. For instance, in the December 1970 issue of Everywoman, Ann Fury warned feminists against "retreating into a female culture":

“Like other oppressed [sic], we have our customs and language. But this culture, designed to create the illusion of autonomy, merely indicates fear. Withdraw into it and we take our slavery with us. . . . Furthermore when we retreat into our culture we cover our political tracks with moralism. We say our culture is somehow "better" than male culture. And we trace this supposed superiority to our innate nature, for if we attributed it to our powerlessness, we would have to agree to its dissolution the moment we seize control. . . . When we obtain power, we will take on the characteristics of the powerful. . . . We are not the Chosen people.”

Similarly, in a May 1970 article on the women's liberation movement in Britain, Juliet Mitchell and Rosalind Delmar contended:

“Re-valuations of feminine attributes accept the results of an exploitative situation by endorsing its concepts. The effects of oppression do not become the manifestations of liberation by changing values, or, for that matter, by changing oneself—but only by challenging the social structure that gives rise to those values in the first place.”

And in April 1970, the Bay Area paper It Ain't Me, Babe carried an editorial urging feminists to create a culture which would foster resistance rather than serve as a sanctuary from patriarchy:

“It is extremely oppressive for us to function in a culture where ideas are male oriented and definitions are male controlled. . . .Yet the creation of a woman's culture must in no way be separated from the political struggles of women for liberation. . . . Our culture cannot be the carving of an enclave in which we can bear the status quo more easily—rather it must crystallize the dreams that will strengthen our rebellion.”

But these warnings had little effect as the movement seemed to drift almost ineluctably toward cultural feminism. Cultural feminism seemed a solution to the movement's impasse—both its schisms and its lack of direction. Whereas parts of the radical feminist movement had become paralyzed by political purism, or what Robin Morgan called "failure vanguardism," cultural feminists promised that constructive changes could be achieved. To cultural feminists, alternative women's institutions represented, in Morgan's words, "concrete moves towards self determination and power" for women. Equally important, cultural feminism with its insistence upon women's essential sameness to each other and their fundamental difference from men seemed to many a way to unify a movement that by 1973 was highly schismatic. In fact, cultural feminism succeeded in large measure because it promised an end to the gay-straight split. Cultural feminism modified lesbian-feminism so that male values rather than men were vilified and female bonding rather than lesbianism was valorized, thus making it acceptable to heterosexual feminists.

Of course, by 1973 the women's movement was also facing a formidable backlash—one which may have been orchestrated by the male-dominated New Right, but was hardly lacking in female support. It is probably not coincidental that cultural feminism emerged at a time of backlash. Even if women's political, economic, and social gains were reversed, cultural feminism held out the possibility that women could build a culture, a space, uncontaminated by patriarchy. Morgan described women's art and spirituality as "the lifeblood for our survival" and maintained that “resilient cultures have kept oppressed groups alive even when economic analyses and revolutionary strategy fizzled.” There may even have been the hope that by invoking commonly held assumptions about women and men, anti-feminist women might experience a change of heart and join their ranks. The shift toward cultural feminism also suggests that feminists themselves were not immune to the growing conservatism of the period. Certainly, cultural feminism's demonization of the left seemed largely rooted in a rejection of the '60s radicalism out of which radical feminism evolved.

-Alice Echols, Daring to Be Bad: Radical Feminism in America: 1967-75

[super-paper]

Any thoughts on the leaks from the new chapter??

I really enjoyed the dialogue between izuku and tomura this chapter, especially that unhinged look on izukus face as he says he'll rip the damn rug/cover with his own hands if he has too. And that last panel between izuku and toshi, the "you can be a hero!" scene but now saying he needs to let go of ofa...wow, cinema.

Overall i liked it, but I feel a bit aprehensive about certain things, especially after seeing opinions on twt. I knew izuku would most likely give up ofa at the end of the series, so im sad about it (dont get me wrong, izuku giving up ofa of all things so he can save tomura is beautiful,,,,, but im just a big fan of izuku with ofa and everything that it means 😭 i want him to keep his haunted quirk and ofamily). But then on twt everyone was so hyped up and talking about izuku getting New Order.. which left me confused not gonna lie, bc other than Star pointing at something, I didn't get any idea of Izuku getting her quirk. But again, my reading analysis could be in the mud lol. Some say Aura Might is gonna give up his place for Star in ofa, or afo is joining the fight with his trump card, others say the quirk will spread to class 1A, so when izuku opens the vault door, the vestiges of 1A will help him. I have no idea, anything is possible i suppose. As for izuku, while I think at some point he will give up ofa, I think he might hesitate at first (??) Like toshinori, he connects his worth to having a quirk, so emotionally speaking it won't be easy for him in my opinion. But let's see!

I'm gonna be a bit mean for a second and say that "Izuku getting New Order" and "Class 1A shares OFA (Monoma Neito found dead in Miami)" are by far my least favorite fandom theories lmfao.

Anyway, you're definitely right on the money about this also being a battle Re: Izuku's own self perception and who he is without OFA. Izuku and Tomura's biggest hang ups boil down to how they both perceive themselves and how that perception was essentially forced onto both of them by other people until they both internalized it as "fundamentally true" (Izuku believing that he's worthless/useless, Tomura believing that he's evil and that he's having a ~peachy-keen~ time rn). Chapter 412/413 have set the stage for this conflict to finally come to the forefront, so I'm excited to see where things go.

As for Star, people who believe her quirk is "the will of heroism that's gonna get passed on to Izuku" are missing the point of her character, I feel. Star's quirk was cool, but it was also another shining example of a quirk "not being what makes someone an actual hero"-- Star used her quirk to do some pretty fucked up things during her fight with TomurAFO, and ultimately, the moments where she chose NOT to use her quirk and chose NOT to prioritize "the greater good" over everything else are actually her defining heroic moments:

(^ the implication of this scene being that her vestige stopped short of obliterating AFO because she found Tenko hidden inside him)

Izuku has already inherited "the will of heroism" as Star defines it. The will of heroism is more or less "noticing that someone needs help and choosing to act on it." There is beauty in simplicity and trying to work "Izuku obtaining new order" into the mix takes the focus away from that, I feel. Star notices Tenko needs help, and instead of using the last embers of her existence to extinguish AFO, she instead uses those embers to reach out to Toshi and point out where Tenko has hidden himself. Toshi alerts Kudou, who then decides to place his faith in Izuku's ability to save Tomura's heart, and so on and so forth.

(A certain someone else also inherited that will, but he's just being a massive fucking tsundere about it. Can't wait for someone to finally call his ass out when the inevitable mind-meld happens.) (/hj)

Anyway, I feel u regarding the OFA vestiges-- but at the same time, I think it's good that they're finally being allowed some autonomy in how they choose to go out considering how they lived/died in the first place. I still maintain that we're gonna end up whittling OFA down to Yoichi, Toshi, and Nana bc they're the three most deeply connected to Tomura (in addition to having the most unresolved feelings and lingering regrets centered around Tomura/AFO). I also think it's pretty neat how "One for All" is now coming apart at the seams because they're starting to work together for "the one" rather than the "all," if you catch my drift ;)

[aronarchy]

all those “How To Be Nicer To Your Kids And Maybe Yell A Little Less While Still Getting The Same ‘Good Results’ Uwu” “classes” for parents (whose kids finally stopped being able to mask how fucking distressed they are all the damn time) :: all those “How To Not Abuse Your Partner” “programs” for partners who got called out for being abusive for the first times in their entire lives (but they’re still living with the other person and treat the whole thing like it’s a “journey” where they’re “learning” to “improve themself” & make it all about them)

like. if you need “how to not abuse other people” lessons maybe you should, yknow, stay away from them until you have it all down? because, like, these are the fucking basics if you want to interact with others? but no that’s not what ever happens, bc the entire point is that it only matters whether they know/don’t know if they already have access to victims they can abuse. but none of those nice uwu webinars can actually get the results we really need bc if they did then they would be telling the abusers to relinquish control of their victims but they don’t, bc they can only allow themselves to stretch the logics so far & fundamental assumptions/beliefs still remain the same.

the general idea of the above, and other liberal violence prevention projects in general, is that abusers are merely “mistaken” about what is/isn’t harmful (or “producing good results”), & that the problem is just they believe individual types of actions are ok and just need to be “taught” they’re actually not, and that things would all be fine if they just did enough one-by-one fine tunings of the above but that is an obviously incorrect theory when in reality various individual acts of abuse exist within a larger context and that larger context is fundamentally believing one person is entitled to control and violate another’s autonomy and giving one person the power to do so while the other is prevented from escaping/fighting back. i.e. that you should not be doing this in the first place and even if it did genuinely make it impossible for you to get the fantasy close-loving-relationship or successful-happy-productive-child-doll you want then you should still not do it bc that is not w/in your rights.

& when abusers do take such “classes” they tend to brag about all the new things they’ve been learning, omg I feel so enlightened wow why didn’t I know this before, wow shouldnt the whole world be proud of me i am Literally Becoming A Great Person &, like, that is not something to be proud of lol. & if you really wanted to stop violence then you would help victims be able to escape their abusers and not have to interact w/them again / be under their power. but no that’s too hard for the nonviolence crowd who want to peace & love & educate their way to a harm-free world.

if you’re really feeling sorry abt what you did bc you finally realized that your victim got fucked up then you have to commit to that. you have to completely & fundamentally relinquish your control and beliefs of entitlement to control. you have to not only change individual actions but also your beliefs about the ways in which you may interact w/other people. and you cannot treat it like it is just another opportunity for you to get what you want. and you have to be willing to let go and not throw tantrums if they want to leave/break off entirely and you have to constantly, consistently demonstrate that you are safe for them to say no to & set boundaries with & express discomfort around and that you will not retaliate when they do so. and you will have to keep this up, fully and without pause, for the rest of your life. and you need to stop acting like this is anything more than the absolute bare minimum.

alternatively you can simply decide that you will not again have the same kind of relationships of power that you had previously & which you carr(ied) fundamentally fucked up beliefs about. that’ll save everyone a lot of time and effort—maybe even you too.

and you better choose one or the other quick or else we’ll have to choose it for you. & you might not like the answer.

[tmarshconnors]

National Service or Volunteer?

The Conservatives’ plan to bring back mandatory national service is absolutely outrageous. Are they having a laugh? The idea that 18-year-olds would be forced to either join the military full-time or volunteer one weekend every month for community service is beyond ridiculous. Nobody can force me or anyone else to do a damn thing. Even though this may sound hypocrite as I have nothing but my upmost respect for the Armed Forces but I think this sounds like a desperate ploy to prepare for a potential war with Russia, and it’s infuriating.

First off, the notion of compulsory service is fundamentally against the principles of freedom and individual choice. We live in a democratic society where people should have the autonomy to make their own decisions about their lives and careers. Forcing young adults into military service or mandatory community work is an authoritarian move that has no place in modern Britain. This isn’t the 1950s anymore; we shouldn't be dragged back to a time of compulsory conscription.

And let’s talk about the military aspect. Expecting 18-year-olds to put their lives on the line without any say is absolutely insane. If someone wants to join the military, it should be out of their own free will, driven by personal conviction and desire to serve the country. It shouldn’t be because they’re left with no other choice. This smells of an attempt to bolster military ranks in anticipation of some geopolitical conflict, probably eyeing tensions with Russia. Using our youth as pawns in this game is completely unacceptable.

As for the so-called “volunteering” one weekend a month, let’s call it what it is: forced labor. Volunteering, by definition, should be voluntary. Imposing this on young people, many of whom might already be juggling education, part-time jobs, and other responsibilities, is an unfair and unnecessary burden. It’s a lazy way for the government to shift responsibilities onto the shoulders of the youth instead of investing in proper community services and social programs.

Furthermore, this plan doesn’t even consider the diverse aspirations and ambitions of young people. Some might want to travel, pursue higher education, or start their careers right away. Forcing them into national service could derail these plans and have long-lasting negative impacts on their futures.

The bottom line is this: the idea of mandatory national service is a gross violation of personal freedom and an underhanded tactic to prepare for military conflicts at the expense of our youth. It’s an outdated, authoritarian policy that has no place in a free and democratic society. If the Conservatives think they can push this through without massive backlash, they’re sorely mistaken.

[nomzamomajolaotblog]

The Injustices and Future of OT

Occupational Therapy is one of the most insightful and profound professions in the world that investigates the human being as a multidimensional sphere. One that has expanded the definition of occupation from smaller to larger scales and succeeded in encapsulating the true nature of our human engagement. Due to a lack of exploratory initiative, there is a clear knowledge gap in the profession, which prevents practitioners from understanding the true political, cultural implications and social events that affect people on a daily basis. Future generations of occupational therapists need to be given the baton to use their more varied and sociocultural perspectives to create new frameworks that not only reach the client but also encompass his entire world.

https://www.azquotes.com/author/9365-Nelson_Mandela

“The concept of justice has been demonstrated, particularly explicitly or within other ideas. Relating to human rights and those structured currents. According to Habermas, emancipatory interest is connected to self-determination. Priority should be given to autonomy before any foreign power-seeking submission” (Habermas, 1982). In occupational therapy, injustice has been stigmatized as being one the biggest barriers preventing people from engaging in their desired occupations. The obvious denial and straightforward application of injustice in practice led occupational therapists to believe that they were political and social correctors, but in reality, the field has been slow to acknowledge the need for change. OT fails to first recognize the injustices present in their system of practice. They are unable to comprehend how a person's beliefs, perceptions, and emotions are influenced by the various facets of their life. It's important to remember that a person's identity is fundamentally shaped by their culture and their environment. In the OT profession, there is a lack of diversity and the initiative to make a more diverse theory. The direct interpretation of how and when to treat a client (in a ventilated room with windows and running water, with electrical appliances) Most Occupational Therapist fail to treat under certain circumstances that the poor experience everyday. We want to be “comfortable” in a place where even the people we treat are uncomfortable in ,but have been forced themselves to be comfortable as the world only offers them such. In Kenville community when I had first saw the living conditions of the homes and creches being exposed, passing by and seeing someone else’s whole house with just one glare when I have a full fenced home. Predominantly black Africans are still living in the consequences of the apartheid system, I began to think “how do we do home visits and treat in such a small space that is uncomfortable” and then I realised that my first instinct would have been to stop therapy and go to the clinic. What does that make us as occupational therapists?  are we are unable to treat in the exact same environment we want to adapt ?. As the future generations we are much privileged , we might not be rich historically through the hard experiences but we have been given the gift of freedom. We need to be autonomous and not seek submission from better facilities but we need to change perspective by invading the rules . Have that session in that little shack, go to the river and fetch water -doing what is best for the client. We need to leave therapy having experienced a big portion of the client’s life.

In a YouTube video Frank Kronenberg states that "It seems to be that in OT we regard that man is a given, being human is a given for all. All humans are born equal in dignity and rights but historically there is so much evidence that has shown us that , that is not the world that we live in. Some people are regarded more human than others and therefore as a consequence have more resources and opportunities to sustain and live their lives , whereas others are deprived of that”( link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZXmsDfOI0I&t=1168s). In  human development  we are taught that Adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter forms part of the human development criteria not bearing in mind that most people of colour are deprived of those “necessities” from the minute that they are born. It is an injustice that the OT profession does not consider the politics that have such a huge role in our lives. Yet certain factors as such are excluded when defining a being’s development. “More than six out of ten children (62,1%) are identified as multidimensionally poor, according to a report on Child Poverty in South Africa released by Statistics South Africa today” (Statistics South Africa, 2020). Looking at this statistic we already should know to view someone with an assumption-based approach. In the Kenville new clinic, I came across a mother who was well dressed and had two children who looked healthy and happy and I based treatment on the assumption that the kids were orientated to crayons and colouring books, only to find out that they are being raised in a poverty stricken household living not with their mother but their grandmother who is unable to buy the children crayons. We as people in the profession of OT need to learn that privilege comes with a cost, in a South African point of view at a cost of lives and those lives are still carrying that trauma and consequence.

Cultural sensitivity in OT is an injustice in the profession, we need more raw literature that is new and wide that will guide practice that is more community based and that allows interaction between these different cultures and settings, this will help a better and cohesive relationship between therapist and client. We need to change perspective in how we view culture. It does not end at an Indian or Zulu dance but it is enriched in the values and beliefs that people hold on even when the world is against them.

https://parade.com/2358/lindsaylowe/maya-angelous-most-inspiring-quotes/

“In New Zealand rather than attempting the difficult task or developing culturally competent practitioners in a society of many diverse cultures, some health professions have moved to develop a workforce that is culturally aware, sensitive and above all safe in attitude and behaviour” (Jungersen.k ,2002). Let us all move to being politically , socially and culturally sensitive and aware. We have been given a job that serves people needs and meanings. This is what I see when i look into the future of OT, As the future generation if the baton is not being handed to us, let us run the race without it, in a different lane and aim for the finish line, let us explore and develop Occupational Therapy as we should know it.

[rescue-ram]

Myth x Values = Power

I've been pondering this excellent meta by @deadendtracks off and on all day and it has given me many good thoughts and reevaluation of parts of the show that ticked me off and made me deeply appreciate the underlying narrative of the show.

Their meta is about the family myths of the Shelby family which holds Tommy as this powerful authoritarian figure, in contrast to their actual material autonomy, and the ways that myth let's them benefit from his efforts and travails while psychologically distancing themselves from the consequences of their actions, to summarize some very interesting and well written ideas in a single sentence. (Go read the meta!) It's using family myth more in the psychological/addiction/codependency sense of the word, but it made me think of a political theory my dad really dug, called Myth Power Value.

To again summarize some complex ideas in a few sentences, MPV tried to explain how societies, and their political elite, use cultural myths and values to justify and sustain their hold on power. A cultural myth is exactly what you think it is- American Exceptionalism, the march of history and the triumph of progress, legends of our noble ancestors, etc. Value is primarily virtues, like grit or entrepreneurial spirit, but can also be material. If I control a river crossing, that gives me economic power over the surrounding area, and the myth of my noble ancestors owning it for generations or the divine right of kings legitimizing a landgrant let's me keep it. You can use this to analyze politics in a couple ways- looking at people in power and "dividing" them by the myths they tell themselves to derive what their values are, or looking at political aspirants and what's important to them to predict and understand the narratives they craft to drive their rise towards power. There is A LOT more to it, but that's the summary salient to this meta.

Because thinking about Peaky Blinders through that lens was very interesting? And you can see it very clearly, even in the first few episodes. Tommy Shelby self-consciously cultivates myths around him, the unkillable man with a plan who's always in control, and a lot of these myths are deeply rooted in his ethnic identity. (I am being as vague as the show runners, manifesting evil intentions towards them for their absolute bullshit confusion of GRT peoples) Like his introductory scene is an act of mythmaking in pursuit of power, performing the "powder trick" to increase bets on his horse in a race. When his power falters he appeals back to myths, performing rituals to break curses, and in the logic of the show this is usually successful.

By contrast, his values are solidly and almost incongruously English, and upper-class English at that. He values money and power and the material signifiers of the upperclass status, he calculatedly but seemingly unironically appeals to loyalty to the king, and my read on his war service (admittedly, I can't recall what was explicitly stated or implied in the show and what's my own reading between the lines) is that he volunteered for service in the war to prove and legitimize himself as an Englishman- a "gypsy" Englishman, but English nonetheless. He craves the stability and safety money and power brings, and tries to acquire it by taking for himself the values of the imperial power.

Tommy squares that circle, and successfully combines the two in the acquisition of power- but in doing so runs smack into the English Englishman institutions of power. Their cultural myth is that, by dint of blood and breeding, are fundamentally superior to Tommy, and they have the material and institutional power to back that up on a life and death level, controlling and exploiting him. When Tommy plays by their values in their system, he cannot overpower them, and it highlights the incongruity between his roots and the values of the system he's trying to find a place in. I have to admit, I did not dig the increased political plots of the later seasons when I watched them, and took a long break because at a certain point it just no longer felt like the show I signed up for. But looking at it through this lens- the closer to power Tommy gets, the more intense the conflict and contradictions become, and he is physically, spiritually, and psychologically destroyed by it over the series- I appreciated it more. The show was telling a political story from the start, I just didn't pick up all the pieces at first.

It also gives me Thoughts about the longrunning communist subplot in the show, but they're not fully formed yet.

[professorspork]

Hot take, perhaps, but if/when Penny 3.0 happens I don't think she should have Floating Array, etherial or otherwise. It's just too bound up with her self-image as a Weapon instead of a Person. If Penny gets a sword, it needs to be a sword she can put down.

This is-- a fascinating take! I’m not sure I agree with it, but I think there’s some meaty ideas here worth unpacking. And I do think we agree on the fundamental premise (i.e. Penny’s autonomy needs to be foregrounded above all).

You assert that Penny’s current problem is that she sees herself as a Weapon and not a Person, and I don’t think that’s exactly the case. 

One of the things I admire most about Penny is is that when people try and tell her who (or, insultingly, what) she is, she quietly but assertively refutes them. Though early on her conviction in her own personhood was somewhat shaky, when her friends encouraged her she took it to heart. After Ruby “I Love You And Your Beautiful Soul” Rose told her that she was real and Winter “Everyone’s Feelings Are Valid Except For Mine” Schnee told her that her opinions mattered, she got-- really quite bullish about this. To illustrate:

Random citizen: It's Ironwood's robot! Robyn: [suspicious] Penny. Penny: I-- I didn't! [7.06, A Night Off]

Vine: I thought you were supposed to protect the people, not hurt them. Penny: I would never hurt anyone. Elm: Well Winter’s in critical condition, because of you. Harriet: And you repaid her by stealing the power that should have been hers. Penny: But taking the Maiden power was the only way to stop-- [8.03, Strings]

Cinder: You’re just a tool to be used! Penny: You do not know what you are talking about. ... Cinder: I don’t serve anyone. And you wouldn’t either, if you weren't built that way. Penny: That is not… I choose to fight for people who care about me. [8.05, Amity]

Which isn’t to say Penny isn’t prone to self-doubt, because she absolutely is, or that Penny doesn’t have a self-sacrifice streak a mile wide, because she absolutely does. But Penny wouldn’t have that reflexive, Janet-saying-“Not-a-girl”-style reaction to people telling her she’s nothing but a weapon unless she genuinely thought they were wrong. She’s not defensive, in these moments, even though she’s defending herself. She’s certain.

Maybe this is me splitting hairs with your argument, but I don’t think Penny’s issue is that she sees herself as a weapon. It’s that she sees herself as a hero. Not just a soldier, but THE soldier. The Protector of Mantle. She’s not Winter; she’s not most comfortable when she’s got orders she can hide behind so she can reassure herself she’s doing the right thing because someone else already did that math. She’s-- she’s Spider-Man. She feels a tremendous responsibility to save everyone she can, because that’s what you do. And yes that’s also, literally, what she was built for, so I can see where the argument is coming from, but I think it matters that the argument’s being made about someone from Remnant.

And on Remnant, your weapon is an extension of who you are.

We’ve never, as far as I can remember, seen anyone straight up switch their weapon. Ironwood made the nuke attachment for his pistols, but it’s still Due Process underneath. Maria only carries one of her two canes, now, but she didn’t make any design changes. Same with Yang and (lefty) Ember Celica. Jaune gave Crocea Mors substantial upgrades, but it’s fundamentally the same weapon; Blake chose to solder Gambol Shroud back together rather than replace it... and if anyone had an argument that using the same weapon might be too traumatic, it would be her. I mean, hell, the Messrs Oz have been using the same staff for millennia.

Weapons aren’t something you turn your back on. I don’t think it’s something that would occur to people. It would be like-- like turning off your Aura. That’s you. 

Unless, of course, you’re Cinder.

Cinder gave up on Midnight after the Beacon arc, and we’ve never seen it since. She relies exclusively on Maiden weapons instead-- some of which she molds into forms quite similar to her old swords or bow, but still. She tossed it aside. This follows the logic of the show: Cinder discarded the weapons, and with them the person she used to be, when she found it all to be lacking. Instead, she embraces what she sees as a higher form of power.

I don’t think Penny would think of Floating Array that way; as a sign of her failure. Nor do I think she’d see it as the prophesy/burden your take implies.

Granted, Watts used a sword from Floating Array in order to get access to her code and install the virus; it ended up being the vector for a huge breach of autonomy and violation of consent. But so was Tyrian using Harbinger to murder Clover, and Qrow’s still using it.

And granted, Penny didn’t choose Floating Array in the same way most people chose or designed their own weapons. She was born with it; activated combat-ready. But then, that’s not so different from Jaune inheriting Crocea Mors, is it? It might not be what either of them would have selected or been most suited for if they’d had the chance to say for themselves at the start, but... well, we’re far from the start, now. And Penny does choose Floating Array, when it matters. When she conjures weapons in her new, self-created body, she instinctively reaches for what she knows, what’s familiar. Her father’s providence. So for me, the moment you’re alluding to... it’s already happened. The whole point of leveraging Ambrosius’ limitations in the way they did is that Penny is separated from the parts of her that can be weaponized-- she watches her synthetic body eat itself, consumed by its own self-destructive urges. It doesn’t get much more metaphor-made-literal than that!

What remains, then, is Penny. And Penny uses Floating Array.

If Penny comes back and doesn’t resume the Winter Maidenhood (which I think is... low on the list of options, given Winter’s desperation and the likelihood that Maiden transference shenanigans are going to be a part of the vehicle that allows Penny to return in the first place), then she won’t have a choice. Either because that will mean she’s back in a 3.0 robot body (in which case it’s the same lack of choice she always had; Pietro wouldn’t give her an unfamiliar weapon after all that) or because she’s a Regular Normal Flesh Gal now and unless her Semblance is telekinesis (which it may be!!! we don’t know!!!) a weapon like Floating Array just isn’t on the table. But all of that, as I’ve already laid out, has to contend with so many unknown factors. How she comes back, and in what form, and at which time.

If Penny does end up designing a wholly new weapon, to me that would signal total transformation, given the rules and themes of the world. And that... well, it depends on the execution, I suppose, but I think I’d find that a little alarming. That she’d choose to have so little of her old self in her new form. But on the other hand, maybe I’m dead wrong there! That could also be read as yet another gorgeous act of creation by the Maiden best suited to it; it could be Penny choosing to yes-and herself into doubling down on her identity. She could be SO MUCH of a person that she, and she alone, gets to make a new weapon for her new self. I’m not against any of that! 

But even if that’s the case, I still think we’d see the hard light version of Floating Array again, especially if we have a Maidenbowl Redux. Even if I were to concede to your point that it’s too bound up in her self-image issues, that doesn’t imply to me that she’d have to move beyond it. If she’s to contend with herself, if she’s to decide she’s a person and not a weapon as you lay out, she’s going to put all of herself in the effort. As the speech goes, it’s a part of her. Even if it’s just a part, that’s still... a part. And this show has never been about severing yourself from your broken bits; it’s been about embracing them tenderly and letting them actually heal.

...also, Floating Array is *checks notes* cool. 

[oswinsdolma]

Yes, it's 2021, but I'm still not over the dark irony of Kilgharrah's final words, so I am going to analyse it, even though precisely nobody asked.

Firstly, Kilgharrah tells Merlin after his admission of failure that "all that [he has] dreamt of has come to pass". Now, obviously there is the irony of the fact that Arthur is dead, something that Merlin has been trying to prevent for the whole five seasons, yet the battle was victorious, people have seen magic as a force for good and Merlin can now be open about his gifts with his friends. However, there is an even deeper irony here that is rarely addressed, and this lies in the word "all". The problem is, that while Emrys is the entity that strives for magical inclusion and the one that fufils the prophecy. Destiny is not conscious: it doesn't understand life or death beyond the shallow ties of balance and mathematics. Yet Emrys may be a concept, and concepts need someone- or something- to take root in, and that someone happened to be Merlin.

Fundamentally, Merlin is not a bad person, but regardless of his power, his empathy, his loyalty, he is still unequivocally human. He has flaws, he has guilt, and no matter how dedicated he is to his destiny, there will always be other variables that come into play, and there is therefore no doubt that Merlin would have had other thoughts, no matter how insignificant, that lay opposed to his destiny.

Take when Freya died: Merlin was heartbroken, and in those seconds of emotion before reason took a hold once again, he may have wished, just for a moment, that Arthur and Freya's fates were reversed. And even after that, he would have hoped that one day, Arthur and Freya could live in a world where the other's existence is not a violation onto the other. And what place exists where harmony must ensue outside of the dead?

Then moving on to Balinor's death and Merlin's anguish in its aftermath: yes, he gained his powers as a dragonlord, but at the expense of a father he should have had a right to know. In that light, there is the inevitability of resentment for his gifts. Merlin would never have wanted the powers he attained had he known the price for them. And yet again, those tiny thoughts would have crept in: the wish that things could go differently, the wish that the business of dragons was not his to oversee, even at the time when his gifts were needed most. So the sick twist there is that when Merlin needed Kilgharrah, the only person who ever truly understood him despite their differences, left him alone, that wish came true.

There are hundreds of instances where Merlin's humanity prevented the prophecy from taking a favourable turn, and that, I think is what makes Merlin less a drama than a tragedy: there's the hope for a better ending combined with the constant prescence of an ending you don't want to believe. There's the fall at the ending and the warped sense of catharsis that comes with knowing that the end did come, even if it wasn't what you expected.

Following that, there is a pause in the conversation, as both characters take a second to mourn in silence, the absence of what united them showing them no longer as allies, but as friends.

Then: "no man, no matter how great, can know his destiny." This isn't so much something for Merlin to understand, but more something for the audience to hear: it's an echo of the first words we hear, and therefore a reminder that it is Kilgharrah who tells the story. Now this is an interesting narrative device in itself: why have him narrate rather than Arthur? Why Kilgharrah over Merlin or Gwen or Morgana? Take a second to imagine what it would have been like for the story to start with their voices, even if the words were the same. Especially when we know their endings, it gives the story a different tone and alludes to each of their fates in a different way. Though here is that terrible truth that the narrative comes back to every time if you analyse it far enough: each of the core four has a story, yet because of the way they were used, it will never be their story to tell. But Kilgharrah... He was just as important as the rest of them, but while the others were pawns, he was sat watching the game with a reluctant but omniescent eye, and that's what make that line hit so hard for us (aside from the fact that it is a taunting echo of the hope we had at the start). The story, while timeless, is dead, and we are all helpless spectators, hoping against hope that we are wrong about how it ends.

Furthermore, there is the fact that it is a repeat of the first words we hear when we still hold a little hope. It is that reiteration of the fact that the story will be told and retold, rewritten and loved but doomed to end in tragedy. It's an indication of the timelessness of certain tales and the permenence of endings no matter how much we want them to change, and it hits the mark every time.

Then, if it wasn't sad enough already, there is the final utterence of the phrase "once and future king". Kilgharrah says these words in hope, trusting Merlin to take it as a promise, but retrospectively there is the darkness of that line that Merlin probably knew all along, even if he didn't let himself believe it. In saying "once" rather than "now" right from the get-go, there was that quiet acknowledgement of an ending, even if it was followed by a beginning: it is yet another reminder to Merlin that he should have known, and that bittersweet reassurance that wherever he may have done, it would always have ended in disaster. Even if they both made all the right choices, the gods would have found another way to turn it down.

Okay, next let's look at "when Albion's need is greatest, Arthur will rise again". This, in all.effect, is a reiteration of the last phrase, made clearer for an audience who may need or desire reinforcement here so I'm not going to go too deep. But the thing is, Merlin already knows, at least in his heart, that it is Arthur's destiny to rise again and be the greatest king Albion has ever known. So when Kilgharrah says this, it is not a warning or a piece of advice, for perhaps the first time, it is a kindness. Merlin has been wrecked by his actions and those of all the others caught in the imperfect web spun and left to decay by the idea of Albion. It is a gentle reminder not to forget the reason for all that they have lost, and an olive branch of freedom for one who was so long enslaved.

And there again is that irony and cruel truth that while Merlin is the crucible in which that dream will be forged and has a certain autonomy over its nature, he is not a part of that dream himself, and maybe he never will be. Not unless someone lets him in, and all the people who would ever have done so are a breath too close to death for it to really count.

(I said I wasn't going to go too deep but I got carried away)(this is why my lit teacher is fed up with me)

And finally, the last line Kilgharrah says to us, perhaps the most powerful of them all: "the story that we have been a part of will live long in the minds of men". To analyse the words in this individually would be a rare insult to its complexity, but as a phrase, it evokes such an emotive response that it alone finally cements that finality in our minds. It's the cyclical acknowledgement of the audience's role in the narrative, simultaneously retracting and strengthening our suspension of belief. The one word I have used more than any other in this essay is "story" and this is why: the people who hear a tale such as this become just as important as the characters, because we are united by hope for the final chord but dreading it, because that means that the song will finally be over. Is it better for the embers to glow with tragedy or be extinguished by a deeper catharsis?

In summary, it is obvious to the naked eye that the Great Dragon's last words are loaded with meaning far beyond their initial appearance, and when you dive deeper, the web of connotations is so vast that this essay has barely scratched the surface. But the informal and perhaps most accurate theme that wa can draw from this is that none of us are over this show, no matter what we claim, because that ending really flippin' hurt, okay!?

[tanadrin]

What are your thoughts on people who just want to be left alone, and not just solitarily - they want to leave modern society and go live in the woods.

They should be permitted to. Modern liberal democracies are mostly OK with making deals with secessionist subcultures: enclaves of Mennonites, the Amish, ultra-orthodox Jews, and so forth are permitted form and mostly self-govern, and are occasionally even granted opt-outs from various forms of government interference, like certain taxes or insurance requirements, on the basis that they make much less use of government services. It's harder to carve out such exceptions for individuals, but we do have things like the concept of the conscientious objector that accommodate deviations from the usually expected set of rights and obligations for people with a commitment to alternate sets of values.

But these things exist on a spectrum; opting in or out of society isn't a binary choice. Also, except in the libertarian fantasy land, it's very hard even in North America these days to find trackless wilderness where you can live totally unconnected to the rest of humanity--and most of it is in Alaska and northern Canada, so bring a nice thick coat. Where I think this consideration, the concept of "atomic communitarianism" to borrow a phrase, is most interesting is in its more complicated real-world instantiations.

Anabaptist religious communities in the US, for instance, aren't really autarkic villages; they're socially segregated, but economically connected with the surrounding area. Ultra-orthodox Jewish groups, while endogamous, have historically always existed within larger urban communities, and could not function without them; many seem happy to rely on social support from the government, which given the emphasis they place on a particular kind of pious lifestyle makes sense.

Where indulging atomicity in society encounters tension, I think one of three things are at play. First, the atomic community is in conflict with the wider community over material interests. The fight over the distribution of public school funding in Ramapo, New York is a great example of this. I don't think these kinds of conflicts ever have easy solutions, especially when the atomic community in question doesn't or can't form a distinct separate unit of local self-government.

Second, an organization wants conditional status as an atomic community. Anabaptists generally refrain from participating in secular government as a fundamental tenet of their religion; contrast the Catholic church, which now that religiosity is declining in many of its former strongholds, often presents itself as merely wanting to govern its own affairs free from governmental interference; but as soon as they are in a position to influence policy and make political noise, they do so, and they have no doctrinal objection to being made the sole official church of a secular state. In other words, Catholics are not naturally an atomic community, and so shouldn't be treated as one. They shouldn't get special consideration in a pluralist society, and Catholic institutions should be subject to normal rule of law. The Catholic church hates this, and it's this loathing of being constrained by the same rules everyone else is, rather than a real ideological motive, that causes them to cover up child abuse and play the victim when their mass graves get dug up in Canada and Ireland.

Thirdly, an atomic community may be genuine in its aspiration to atomicity, and it may be tolerated implicitly or officially by the collective authorities; but there are obligations that the collective authorities have to individual members it is pledged to protect that supersede any deal made with the community as a whole. The most visible example of this in the present day is child abuse by religious authorities. Whether it's the FLDS, ultra-orthodox Jewish communities, or, yes, the Catholics, one of the few things our society absolutely refuses to condone in an atomic community or an aspiring one is the sexual abuse of children, and the obligation of the collective authorities to prevent that is considered so far-reaching that no exceptions for any self-governing community can be permitted. Sometimes these communities can stave off interference temporarily by capturing local authority in elections and flying under the radar of more remote authorities, but this seems to only work in rural areas and only for a limited amount of time. The only imperative to exercise state authority over atomic communities that I can think of that comes even close to this one regards, like, tax evasion, because states also have a strong incentive to make sure people know that independent parallel authorities aren't permitted to compete with the state, and tax collection is one of the very basic functions of government.

Now, all of the above examples are religious communities. That's not entirely a coincidence: religion is a powerful community-building force, and rising standards of living in the developed world have reduced the relevance of purely political or economic utopian projects. In countries like the US, where there is a strong tradition of religious freedom, federalism, and soft libertarianism, society can easily accommodate a large number of atomic communities, even highly insular religious ones. That is strong to America's credit; in almost every case, if people want to go off and do their own thing, they should be permitted to. Even fucked-up cults like the FLDS folks should get a strong benefit of the doubt, because pluralism is important, and state power is a crude bludgeon, and when that bludgeon goes awry you get shit like the Waco massacre. We can quibble on where exactly the line for outside interference should be drawn, but regardless of the criteria we use, sexual abuse of children seems like a reasonable criterion for interference.

Should lone individuals or tiny groups get carte blanche to fuck off into the woods and never contact human society again? Sure; but they effectively already have that, if they can find an empty patch of woods. And simply in terms of sheer numbers, the quantity of hermits and members of eremitical microcommunities will always be dwarfed by larger, more persistent atomic communities like those organized on religious lines. Religion is just a much stronger motivating factor for that kind of secessionism.

If a self-organized community of individualists did form in the wilderness, or on some vast expanse of privately owned land, and wanted to govern themselves free from interference--well, that's called "incorporating a municipality" and you can go through existing legal channels. Your new town won't be free of state or federal authority, depending on where it is; but if you're large enough to need a bona fide local government, I think there's a strong presumption that your community has a big enough impact on the surrounding areas and is populous enough that the collective authority takes a legitimate interest in how your community is run. But local governments are really important, and get a lot of shit done! Don't underrate their power.

If you really want more autonomy, you can always petition your state or national government for status as a separate state/territory/province/autonomous community/department (it worked for the Mormons!). You'd probably have to be fairly big; but I think your community would have to be very large in the first place to really get any benefit from that kind of larger local government. And, of course, there's always the Free State Project. In fact, I want to strongly encourage right-libertarians and anarcho-capitalists of every stripe, no matter where in the world they live, to move to New Hampshire and leave the rest of us alone. I think that's a really terrific idea (and more viable than seasteading).

One thing I didn't discuss is uncontacted peoples or native communities that preexist the communitarian authority. Especially with regard to the former, I don't trust state power to interfere in these communities in a non-destructive way; whatever the conditions the North Sentinelese are living in, the entire population being wiped out by measles carried over from the mainland would not be an improvement. And the excuse of legitimate state interest in protecting individuals has often been used to fuck with communities of racial undesirables--it is after all the reason the residential schools in Canada were built, and the Catholic church empowered to imprison children in them. This is part of the reason why even if you can prove an atomic community is a fucked up cult that treats its members horribly, I don't think it should be forcibly disbanded--the criteria for interference have to be extreme, because they have been so flagrantly abused in the past. Basically, the framework I'm using in the rest of this post doesn't apply here, because these native communities aren't secessionist for any meaningful use of the term. They function differently, they preexisted the authorities imposed on them, and that original imposition was a war of conquest.

[chezzzie]

Why Contemporary Women Artists Are Obsessed with the Grotesque

If artists are generally boundary-crossers, a younger generation of (mostly women) artists is going for full penetration—making artworks that speak to something deep in the body, producing responses that range from carnal attraction to disgust.Among the most potently grotesque examples are Tala Madani’s nightmarish babies and dystopian fantasies of voyeurism and violence, and Jala Wahid’s visceral, sculptural allusions to cuts of meat and dismembered organs and body parts. Or take Marianna Simnett’s unsettling, darkly comic videos that bring to life imagined narratives of bodily invasions—including a gruesome nasal operation and a fable about varicose veins and cockroaches-cum-cyborgs. Then there’s Maisie Cousins’s glossy, close-up images of a wet soup of food, decaying plants, and bodies, which recall the more appalling corners of Cindy Sherman’s imagination. In painting and drawing, too, the grotesque is rampant, with elastic, deformed, or monstrous bodies populating works by Christina Quarles, Ebecho Muslimova, Jana Euler, and Dana Schutz.

In recent exhibitions of work by older and historical artists, as well, we’ve seen the walls erupt in freakish, fleshy forms that have threatened the contained space of a room, as in Dorothea Tanning’s Chambre 202, Hôtel du Pavot, on view in her retrospective at the Museo Reina Sofia and traveling to the Tate Modern early this year. The ceilings of art spaces have dangled with multi-limbed, Medusa-like monsters and cyborgs (like the sci-fi-inflected psychic landscape of Lee Bul, who had a retrospective at London’s Hayward Gallery in 2018).

With much of these artists’ works, the feeling of deep dread is often a blade’s edge away from erotic desire. As the narrator of Simnett’s film The Needle and the Larynx (2016) says, as she fantasizes about having her vocal chords surgically altered: “So sharp were his knives, so appealing…this was an irrevocable invitation.” This expression of temptation suggests a calling to make art—to create—as much as it does an inclination toward self-regeneration and other forms of transgression. The possibility of metamorphosing one’s flesh and image—of permeating thresholds—is both intoxicating and anxiety-inducing.

The grotesque is inherently associated with the feminine, long having shaped depictions of the female body—prostitutes, femmes fatales, and sorceresses.

The grotesque, as art historian Frances S. Connelly writes in her book The Grotesque in Western Art and Culture (2012), is “a boundary creature” that “roams the borderland of all that is familiar and conventional.” It is desirous of transformation—an “open mouth that invites our descent into other worlds,” like the underground rooms of Nero’s Golden Palace, excavated in the 15th century, which turned up walls decorated with hybrid figures sprouting bits of plants and architecture, and birthed the term “grottoesche.” (Today, our general understanding of the “grotesque” has been boiled down to mean simply “comically or repulsively ugly or distorted,” but art historians and theorists read more complexity into the term.) It is, in many ways, inseparable from the body, which is the most fundamental of boundaries. “What is most regulated in any culture is the body, particularly women’s bodies,” Connelly said during a recent conversation.

The grotesque, she writes, is inherently associated with the feminine—bodied, earthy, changeful. That thinking has long shaped depictions of the female body, including archetypes of sexual or environmental threat, like prostitutes, femmes fatales, and sorceresses. Even centuries before the term emerged, the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle “advanced the influential argument that a woman’s body is monstrous by nature, a deviation from that of the normative male,” she writes.The term is fertile, opening up a womb-like space for new ideas and ethical conundrums to accumulate—a conduit through which cultures can play with taboos and shift the parameters of mores and conventions. It is perhaps no wonder, then, that some of the artists touching the grotesque assume a childlike, fairytale language. A fable tells us what is right and wrong, Simnett pointed out when we met. It is also “a game that you can write the rules for,” she said, one through which you can distort or expand reality. The landscape of morality tales and childhood lessons is ripe territory for boundary-pushing perversions to take root.

Very dark fairytales

Children play a central role in several of Simnett’s films, whose absurdist, grotesque narratives are preoccupied with infection, augmentation, and altered states. In her opus Blood In My Milk (2018), the girl protagonist flirts with the outside world, even as adults warn of the risks that this external environment poses.In scenes that take place within an echoey pink space suggesting the inside of an organ, children receive a lesson about the prognosis and treatment of mastitis in cow udders, interspersed with shots of oozing teats being squeezed and dissected. While an officious farm hand dispenses information about how to keep one’s milk clean and pathogen-free, the children engage in playground dares and brinkmanship that include fantasizing about dismantling a girl “into a million bits so she can never be rebuilt.” The children lust after blood in their milk.

Tala Madani is another artist who, in a different way, explodes any veneer of female containment or childhood innocence, making infants and girls agents of the grotesque. In her painting Sunrise (2018), a baby wields a sharp knife at a naked woman’s groin. An infant’s first act, the painting reminded me, is one of violence.In other compositions populated by menacing babies on all fours, withering adults are left in the dust. Shafts (2017) depicts a group of monstrously overgrown tots crawling off into a void-like cyberspace, with beams of light projecting out of their assholes. An aged man in the foreground holds up a flaccid string of feces like a banner of mortality—the next generation might have evolved into light-shitting cyborgs, but we are still blood, matter, and excrement.

The children in Madani’s works also exercise sexual agency. In her animation Sex Ed by God (2017), a young girl with legs splayed is being studied by an older man, a boy, and God (the narrator of this lesson). She reaches out of the frame and grabs her male onlookers, shrinking them down to size and squeezing them into her vagina, along with the rest of the scene. The adolescent counterpart to a baby who explores the world with its mouth, this teenager-protagonist processes the world and corrects its distorted power balances through her sex. (Madani has a corollary of a kind in the work of Ebecho Muslimova, whose ink drawings feature a female alter-ego who fills and consumes the world with her vast and doughy naked body, luxuriantly covering and penetrating objects—a piano, patio furniture—with uncontrollable flesh and organ.)Madani’s universe is one whose grotesqueries seem shaped, at least to some degree, by the thrills and anxieties of sexuality, motherhood, mortality, and technological change. But it is also one in which children subvert the hierarchy between parent and progeny. The grotesque becomes a means to dissolve power structures.

Both familiar and alien

The contemporary grotesque is interested in underlining the way that bodies that are different from the (white, male) norm, or that, in deviating from impossible standards, are treated as aberrant or monstrous. Artists who touch the grotesque subvert and claim power in part by owning flesh and blood.When I visited Jala Wahid’s studio recently, one sculpture she showed me comprised a cast of the artist’s buttocks resting on a smooth liquid-like surface that is based on the shape of a natural oil well. The exposed position of Wahid’s dismembered rear is both “a provocation and a vulnerability at the same time,” she told me, its position on an oil slick alluding to the politics of Kurdistan, where her parents are from. In her work, she is often thinking about the contested Kurdish body, which is continually “under threat” but also resilient—a body that is both powerful and yet subject to power and control. Another in-progress sculpture in the studio, a thick wedge of slick red jesmonite, will eventually approximate the form of a bloody ox liver that Wahid encountered in a meat market in Kurdistan. (It brings to mind the work of Paul Thek, whom she cites as an influence.)

The contemporary grotesque is interested in how bodies that are different from the white, male norm are treated as aberrant or monstrous.

Wahid is drawn to the great diversity of textures and colors that exist in bodies (in flesh, organs, offal), as well as the relationship between butcher and animal. She wants, in some way, to approach her role as a sculptor like a meat handler—with both violence and reverence—and to create forms that are live and confrontational. To frame her work solely in terms of power dynamics is to simplify it, however. She is interested in bodies in states of transformation, in their formal nuances and their vast capacity for expression. (She showed me a picture of an Assyrian frieze at the British Museum, which features the form of a hunted lion, its upper body upright and fierce, its hind legs shot through and flaccid—a single body in which “you have something really strong but at the same time dead and limp,” she explained.) But she does want her sculptures to have autonomy and wield a certain affective power in the room.

When bodies spill out of their boundaries, or when parts are severed from the whole, they become something unsettlingly other. That forces viewers to renegotiate the borderlands between inside and outside, between themselves and the source of their disquiet. In Wahid’s work, body parts and unidentifiable cuts of meat force viewers into a visceral encounter with objects that are familiar, but also alien. “A human corpse is not in itself abject, but one’s encounter with it certainly is,” Connelly writes, describing an idea within the philosopher Julia Kristeva’s seminal 1982 essay on the abject in art. This recalibration of one’s relationship to the object engages the body as it tries to gauge whether the foreign article is a source of threat or attraction—perhaps both.In the work of sculptor Doreen Garner, we see this at play to profoundly disturbing effect. In some cases hung from meat hooks, her hulks of fleshy silicone are neither human nor meat—too dismembered and deformed to be human, too suggestive of the whole to be flesh alone. Upon inspection, the horrifying human steaks, pierced with pins, reveal the fingers of a hand, or a stray breast. Garner’s objects are intended to touch a nerve deep in the viewer’s own body—specifically, to register the trauma visited on the bodies of enslaved black women by members of the American medical industry. This is the grotesque as a means to produce shock and empathy—to expose the transformation of the body into something monstrous as a consequence of the abuse of power.

Garner’s work occasionally recalls the work of a historical pioneer of the grotesque in art—Robert Gober—in particular, works like the artist’s Untitled (1990), a slumped chest cast in wax that sprouts a female breast on one side, a hairy male pectoral on the other. This crumpled human fragment expresses the vulnerability of the human body, and insists on its gender hybridity, while also speaking to another abuse of power that simmers beneath his work—that of the U.S. government’s failure to respond to the AIDS crisis.

A fascination with monstrous bodies

The grotesque, of course, is not owned by women artists. It’s interesting, as well, to note how queer artists, in addition to Gober, have played in this terrain. In his latest show, at Ashes/Ashes, Ryan McNamara presented a sculptural showcase that included I Can’t Even Think Straight (2018), a sad, cartoonish figure practically melting off the wall. Faces dissolve into pools of liquid fish scales (Whispers, 2018); a series of gungey monsters with skin dripping from their brains joyfully snap selfies. The ghoulish group was in part conceived as a celebration of the queer nightclub in Phoenix, Arizona, where McNamara danced with other outcasts and misfits in his youth.But women, too, are deploying monstrous bodies in the world to empower the marginalized, or to satirize cultural norms and behaviors around age and gender. In two of artist Jana Euler’s latest paintings, she seems to offer biting commentary on our culture’s existential angst and exaltation of youth. Global warnings (people who are over 100 years old) (2018) is a mosaic of portraits of the elderly, each with a fantastically warped face. They are melted, pinched, and sunken, with cyclops eyes glaring from foreheads, and mouths swiveled 180 degrees.

In race against yourself (2018), a naked man rides an equine incarnation of himself, hands and feet turned into muscular hooves. This ghastly centaur and its rider are set against a fleshy backdrop composed of a snaking, human-faced colon, squeezed into the painting’s borders. The work speaks to something deeply perverse in human psychology—a propensity to hurtle through our lives at break-neck speed until our bodies crumple and we hit the grave. We can’t escape our own proclivities, much less our flesh and blood.Indeed, a profound awareness of human mortality is rarely far from the surface when it comes to the grotesque. When I asked Connelly about the common preoccupation with degrading flesh and food, she had this to say: “Life is constant change; we’re eating the world, the world eats us. We’re all mortal. We’re all human. We’re all meat. That’s seen as really traumatic.”

Other artists have created distorted, dismembered, and multi-limbed bodies to more optimistic effect. Christina Quarles paints bending tangles of limbs, bodies that insist on setting their own parameters and determining their own identities. Cindy Sherman continues to irreverently expand the possibilities of the grotesque, harnessing digital technologies to create fabulously idiosyncratic faces via her Instagram feed—ones that contort her visage in every direction except towards any convention of beauty; her fictional selfies are gloriously aging, sun-damaged, plastered in makeup, with features too big, too small, too gender-ambiguous.

Sherman expands the aesthetics of the (female, queer) body. In Maisie Cousins’s saturated close-ups of decaying messes of flesh, entrails, petals, prawns, and flies, too, something generative emerges. Cousins’s celebratory collisions of wet body parts, food remnants, and plants give the abject a facelift. Images of mild disgust find a place within the aesthetic of slick fashion magazine advertising. As such, they variously recall Sherman’s glossy, stomach-turning mixtures of waste, Marilyn Minter’s photorealistic renderings of gaudily made-up bodies and imperfections, and Gina Beaver’s paintings of bodies and fast food. (The latter artist will open an exhibition at MoMA PS1 in March.) Cousins’s photographs are full of innuendo, ripe, inviting us to find beauty in things spilling outside of their borders—to see our own bodies in the bounty of organic matter that the world has to offer.

It makes sense that among a generation increasingly comfortable with open, fluid approaches to identity—and fluent in the great toxic and transformational soup of the internet—artists value aesthetics rooted in states of change and hybridity. “I feel that is a constant, to be in a permanent state of transition,” Simnett told me. “In a sense, everyone is undergoing a mutation. It’s where I feel most natural. You get to meet a million more people, species, ideas. It’s like tendrils constantly reaching out, rather than staying put.” This hunger to explore and break down the boundaries of human experience, however anxious or unsettling—to deconstruct and reinvent the body—is generating some of the most vital and complex art being made today. 

Tess Thackara

source

[aronarchy]

I wanna hear about your transhumanist ideas! 👀 /gen /posi

Last month I answered this ask from someone else, detailing which aspects of transhumanism I feel are most relevant to my own life/the ones I personally want/need first (or at least the ones which were at the forefront of my mind/were the easiest to think up at the time) (along with some other things).

Transhumanism at its core is the belief that we (and this logic extends to all sentient beings (or whatever else encompasses "all beings with ethical utility")) all deserve to not suffer (or whatever is the more accurate equivalent/summary of "not experiencing negative utility") as much as possible/as much as we want, and deserve to have whatever we need in order to achieve this. Transhumanism demands a total rejection of all essentialist moral imperatives—the assertion that things are (morally) obligated to be a certain way simply because That's What They're Supposed To Be Like (with no genuine non-circular justifications for it; their only true reasoning, when reduced, is "well Nature/God(s) intended it to be that way" and from there "well you are supposed to obey their (supposed) dictums because you're supposed to and that's just the way things are").

Transhumanism is less a single set of some ideas than a framework through which we view and interpret reality and ethical questions and future-planning; our resulting ideas/specific proposals for specific situations/to meet specific needs all stem from those fundamental principles.

I believe that my life sucks to a great degree, and everyone's life sucks to at least some degree, and that instead of passively accepting the status quo as just and fair we should change that, because we don't "deserve" such suffering, and most of us are convinced we deserve it because accepting the alternative brings a great deal of hopelessness and despair and anger, and many try to convince each other that we deserve it as that's what they've always been told, and "you're obligated to suffer/suffering makes life worth living/you're supposed to suffer if nature/god intended it to be that way/well it's Not Actually That Bad and it's okay that you can't choose to opt out of it because you don't/won't/can't actually want to choose" is baked into the very foundations of our fundamentalist and capitalist exploitative culture.

A particular priority of transhumanists is life extension/immortality—recognizing that it's a horror that we are forced to develop diseases, painfully age and then die, and hoping to remedy that ASAP. (I believe the idea of resurrection as an option is important as well, but that's a slightly different issue.) This is part of a larger desire for total bodily autonomy and morphological freedom (ability to physically do with your body whatever you want, change it however you want, or even have multiple bodies or not have a body at all. I'm particularly excited to get cat ears and become an anime girl and also physically resolve the most painful parts of my mental illnesses in ways which aren't currently possible/which I don't have any options for at our current technological level.)

Some more things would be using physical technological means to solve any other physical problem you can think of right now which seems like it has no solution. Teleportation makes a lot of sense. Expanding our living space. Resolving our current environmental issues. Making ecological disaster leading to death or species extinction no longer a threat to us. Etc.

I believe transhumanism necessarily requires anarchism and anarchism necessarily requires transhumanism (if consistent and totally liberatory). Some other transhumanists have done more political thinking/writing in terms of possible tech/how to manage it without causing harm/suffering. Lecter suggested the idea of physical/technological alterations to "human nature" (if that's a thing we could uniformly change successfully for such ends in the first place) to totally eradicate abuse/violence. (I mean his purely political attempts/plans to eradicate abuse/violence are kind of lacking and that might be why he felt the need, and I've tried thinking a bit about how that could be implemented as consensually as possible/with minimum human rights violations/if that's even possible and am also interested in keeping that open as an option, but that's a whole other topic and it's a bit too messy/brain-scrambly for me.)

Transhumanists acknowledge that many of these ideas are very very likely to not come true anytime soon. We also reject doomers who conflate "this is unlikely to come true anytime soon" with "well it's not worth having/it's wrong to strive for it/you shouldn't try at all/then wanting it/believing you should have it is wrong/'frivolous.'"

[becuzitisbitter]

All Cops Are Bad

The last of the essays i will be posting that I wrote for school, this one is an attempt at an approachable ACAB argument (my professor said that she was persuaded, at least)

    There is an old slogan with roots at least as far back as the 1920’s and is yet becoming more and more popular across the globe today: “All coppers are bastards.” Of course, most people just say “cops” these days.  The extensive history of the slogan might even make one stop to wonder why the police have been the object of such long-standing antagonism, if one isn’t the sort to grasp the slogan’s truth intuitively.  The reality is that all cops really are bastards, not in a literal sense, of course, but in the derogatory usage which communicates despicability.  The goal of this essay is to convince the reader that the police are bad and that policing should be done away with entirely.  After all, the police present themselves as the vanguard of the state’s repressive urges and as the guarantors of an order defined by deprivation and violence.

    Olivia B. Waxman, writing for Time Magazine, points to economic forces as dictating the development of the means and aims utilized by policing institutions in the U.S.  She writes that businesses had already been hiring private security to protect the transport and storage of their property, and that, “These merchants came up with a way to save money by transferring to the cost of maintaining a police force to citizens by arguing that it was for the “collective good.” (Waxman) In other words, America’s first publicly funded police force was simply picking up after the work of private businesses to protect their own property, but with the cost foisted upon those who were being kept out. She continues this economic argument as she traces the lineage of the modern police force back to its forerunners in the Southern runaway slave patrols. She writes, “the economics that drove the creation of police forces were centered not on the protection of shipping interests but on the preservation of the slavery system”. Thus, the primary policing institutions in the South were the slave patrols, the first of which was formally established in 1704. (Waxman)

    The police developed historically to enforce property rights rather than to ensure the wellbeing of the populace.  If it is understood that white supremacy encodes human skin with either privilege or dispossession, it should be understood that, as Mariame Kaba writes in an opinion piece published by the New York Times, “when you see a police officer pressing his knee into a black man’s neck until he dies, that’s the logical result of policing in America. When a police officer brutalizes a black person, he is doing what he sees as his job.” (Kaba) Kaba is an organizer against criminalization and a self-described police abolitionist because she believes that “a ‘safe’ world is not one in which the police keep black and other marginalized people in check through threats of arrest, incarceration, violence and death.” The police, then, are not focused on creating a safe world. They are interested in preserving the world as it is, which demands a tacit defense of misogynistic and white supremacist institutions.

    Regardless of personal attitudes or goals, the undeniable outcome of two hundred years of policing in America has been an uninterrupted avalanche of mostly arbitrary violence aimed at preserving the rule of law, that is, the sanctity of private property. In just the last year, the discourse about the role and place of police in our society has exploded with new questions and new ideas. What makes this conversation so powerful is that the police are considered so essential to the functioning of the modern world that the abolitionist movement must necessarily carry indictments on many other institutions and ways of relating that are bound-up with policing.

    Of course, many readers will be quick to react defensively.  Most disagreements with the argument presented here will take one of two forms: the claim that the argument over-generalizes police, and the claim that the police fill such an essential role that society couldn’t hope to provide an acceptable standard of life in their absence.  Both will be addressed below.

    The former argument comes in many varieties.  One might even say, “It is unfair to judge such a large group by the actions of a few bad apples,” without being aware that they were reversing the meaning of the idiom they are attempting to make use of, which actually originated as “A rotten apple quickly infects its neighbor,” according to Ben Zimmer, who is a linguist and language columnist for The Wall Street Journal. (Cunningham) Regardless of the backwardness of this idiom, many would maintain that it is wrong to generalize police or stereotype their actions based on our perceptions of a few bad actors.  Some police may abuse their power, or harbor prejudice, many readers would contend, but most police officers are decent people doing their best under difficult conditions.  The truth, however, is that literally all cops bring about harm simply by doing the jobs that they signed up for.  To go a step further, even if every police officer were to act in good faith, the task of maintaining a status quo defined by inequality would still force officers into the position of beating the cold, poor, and hungry back from the resources they need to live comfortably. This world of deprivation is not worth defending, and yet every cop has signed up to defend it.  Some readers might still say that to pain the police with such a broad brush, is to commit an act of prejudice on par with the attitudes the police are criticized for, but they are grasping at straws. No one becomes a police officer by accident.  By switching careers, they could avoid such judgement entirely.  One wonders if they would feel the same about criticizing other groups which are entirely opt-in, such as MS-13 or the Taliban.

    Could there ever be such a thing as a good cop? No.  Here is one example that I think demonstrates a larger principle: even if a given police officer is a dedicated and educated anti-racist, the logistical deployment of police departments across the US places more officers in poor neighborhoods and communities of color than in wealthy or majority-white areas. This means that even the most kind-hearted police would be more likely to detain or arrest poor people and people of color than affluent whites.  This is only one facet of a fundamentally unjust system.  The development of police departments as racist and anti-working-class institutions across History means that they are structurally and institutionally racist and anti-working-class in the here and now.  Police departments continue to defy reform because the problem is intentionally encoded into their purpose. They must be done away with entirely.

    When a protestor or graffiti artist echoes the old slogan that, “All cops are bastards,” it is an expression of a tautology.  Like the phrase “All triangles have three sides,” the slogan contains its own truth.  All triangles have three sides because it is part of the definition of triangles to have three sides.  We can’t even conceive of a triangle with four sides because by having four sides, it would cease to be a triangle.  Despicability is written into the definition of policing because the aims of policing are themselves despicable.  Any cop that ceased to work toward the aims of policing would cease to be deplorable, maybe, but he would also cease to be a cop as surely as a triangle with four sides would cease to be a triangle.

    The second primary counter argument to criticism of the police is that the police are a necessary evil, essential to protecting us from a rousseauian war of all against all.  This assumption that humanity could not get by without police seems silly, after all, the police are only a modern institution, hardly a blip in humanity’s story.  It has already been shown that the police were not created to protect the average person from harm, but to protect private property rights.  In any case, a counter argument from consequences is not the same as a refutation.  One need not know the correct answer to a problem to recognize a wrong one.  When asked, “What would you do with the psycho serial killers?” one should be unabashedly honest about not knowing the answer because there is no one answer.  The answer to each problem can only be located in the context in which the problem occurs.  This reflex to reach for a one-size-fits-all answer for all of life’s problems, along with its concomitant desire to preserve the tedious “peace” of the status quo, do a lot to explain the psychology of pro-police arguments.

    Neither the means nor ends of policing are acceptable.  The forces that shape and control our world, be they corporate or political, tower over us such that we only ever meet with their basest appendages.  The police are their piggy-toes, pun-intended.  Admittedly, the arguments presented here will be significantly weaker in the mind of anyone who really feels good about the state of the world which police maintain, however little is likely to be gained in dialogue with someone who could maintain a positive view of concentration camps, needless and ceaseless killings, the continuation of slave labor in the prison system, mass food-insecurity, etc.      

    It is incumbent upon each of us to improve the world around us.  The police are an impediment to a better, safer, freer world.  They are antithetical to equity, autonomy, and community; that is why all who fight too hard for a better life eventually find themselves faced with the police, one way or another. Nevertheless, while so much hangs in the balance, we can’t let the bastards get us down.

    Works Cited

Olivia B. Waxman. “How the U.S. Got Its Police Force” Time Magazine, https://time.com/4779112/police-history-origins/ Published: 5/18/2017, Date of Access: 12/2/2020

Mariame Kaba. “Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police” The New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html Published: 6/12/2020, Date of Access: 12/2/2020

Malorie Cunningham. “'A few bad apples': Phrase describing rotten police officers used to have different meaning”

https://abcnews.go.com/US/bad-apples-phrase-describing-rotten-police-officers-meaning/story?id=71201096 Published: 6/14/2020, Date of Access: 12/2/2020

[dwellordream]

“...As they created their special variant of childhood and parenting, Americans were creating a social revolution fully in line with the political changes that began with the famous revolt of 1776. Both rejected entrenched hierarchy, and embraced independence and more personal autonomy. Both revolutions were uneasy and often hazardous undertakings. Together they made the United States into a very strange place in the world. That strangeness is captured in many of the opinions voiced by articulate Americans in the first sixty years of the republic. 

“Our children,” Nathaniel Willis declared in 1827 as he launched his new publication, The Youth’s Companion, “are born to higher destinies than their fathers.” This vision has become a cliché to us today. But it was alien to most Europeans and would have been unfamiliar to American colonists. For centuries in the Western world, elders reigned and were assumed to possess knowledge and wisdom as well as power. Their welfare and needs were primary and their dictates unquestioned. This perspective is still common in many parts of the world today. Lady Elphinstone of Scotland captured its essential meaning when she declared, “My children from the youngest to the eldest love me and fear me as sinners dread death. My look is law.”

Views like these dominated Old World values regarding the appropriate reverence and obedience of children toward their parents. American revolutionaries had rejected this tyrannical posture in the political arena. In the circumstances of the world they were creating, Americans also rejected such views as a guide to household affairs. Although Europeans, too, were changing their perspective on childhood as they absorbed the lessons of the Enlightenment, and as they responded to the political revolutions erupting throughout the continent, the social conditions of European life made it more difficult for them to change as rapidly or as fully as Americans in regard to how the generations treated each other.

Why and how had things become so different in the nascent United States? Historians of the American Revolution have long understood that the changes articulated in that event were deeper than politics, that they had roots in cultural and social life, and affected the domestic realm and private relations. American children, famed historian Bernard Bailyn speculated over fifty years ago, needed a different, more open- ended kind of schooling. Since they needed to adapt to the new circumstances of a changing landscape, following in their fathers’ footsteps was not good enough. That knowledge was often inadequate to the circumstances. 

Individual resourcefulness and the willingness to adjust to the unexpected and to create the still unimagined became basic values as Americans defined a new type of individual adequate to the possibilities of the new world they were creating. Children, who were less constrained by ingrained habits, had an advantage over their elders in the American environment. At a time when European Enlightenment thinkers were seeking to throw off the shackles of custom and tradition, Americans reorganized their lives in ways that unselfconsciously adapted those perspectives, removing layers of tradition and encrusted custom. 

Even before the Revolution, Enlightenment European thinkers, such as John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, were read with marked appreciation by Americans who believed that these philosophers’ views about children, and about childhood as a formative phase of life, were especially relevant to their environment. John Locke is best known today for political writings that helped to establish the basis for America’s commitments to liberty, for opposing tyrannical rule, and ideas that Jefferson and others used in formulating their views about freedom of religion and conscience. But Locke was also looked to as a pioneer in ideas about how children could be raised to become responsible citizens and trusted to exercise their independent judgment. 

He believed that children were malleable and childhood was a time when habits were laid down that would shape later life. He urged parents to appeal to children’s reason, not to their fear of punishment. Fewer restraints and adult impositions during childhood and a willingness to accept a child’s natural inclinations as a basis for learning underwrote Rousseau’s more radical beliefs in the innate wisdom and natural sensibilities of children. Rousseau looked to rid society of traditional ideas and social patterns by giving children more leeway to grow and time to exhibit that wisdom. 

In tracts written from the late seventeenth through the mid- eighteenth century, these two philosophers helped to shape modern ideas about children that were important throughout the West. For Americans eager to be informed, Locke and Rousseau captured the special importance of childhood to the ideals of a reformed society. By the beginning of the nineteenth century, questions regarding parents and children and what they owed each other were very much part of the American conversation. After the Revolution, Americans eagerly addressed parent- child relations, sometimes with considerable urgency, because they saw the Revolution and republican government as setting special requirements for childrearing. 

Fathers’ injunctions, like kings’ dictates, were problematic in the new society they sought to create. The American revolutionaries spoke regularly of the rule of law and argued that they were trying to maintain liberties threatened by British imperial action. But even as they spoke about conserving older liberties, they turned toward more radical social notions. In attacking the legitimacy of the king— the most revered of earthly authorities— they undercut the unquestioned authority of fathers. That authority remained elsewhere the guiding basis for domestic and social relationships.

 In France, whose own revolution similarly raised fundamental questions about the rule of kings and fathers, republican beliefs initially dismantled patriarchy after the Revolution of 1789, but it was reassembled within a decade as the French republic tumbled and fell. In the United States, preexisting conditions and the continuity of republican and democratic ideas created a context in which social and family changes were sustained and elaborated. Not only were old- fashioned fathers deeply suspect in the United States, but Americans were asking what kinds of children were needed to maintain the revolution that Americans continued to embrace. 

This made matters regarding childrearing part of the national agenda from the very beginning of the republic. Most American historians have not fully appreciated how radically the American environment and the revolution that it spawned were revising the most fundamental of human bonds. European visitors to the United States in the half- century after the Revolution saw it clearly. As they witnessed the behaviors and demeanors of the old and the young, they witnessed a series of historically important changes. The great observer and French political theorist, Alexis de Tocqueville, devoted a chapter of Democracy in America to the unusual nature of American family relations. 

Among chapters registering his observations about (and sometimes disdain for) Americans’ peculiar cultivation of the arts, their transformations of the English language, and their neglect of traditional philosophy, Tocqueville was much more admiring when describing “The Influence of Democracy on the Family.” That influence, he argued, was in line with other leveling effects of the greater equality experienced in the United States. “It has been universally remarked that in our time [1830s] the several members of the family stand upon an entirely new footing toward each other; that the distance which formerly separated a father from his sons has been lessened; and that paternal authority, if not destroyed, is at least impaired.” 

Societies throughout Europe and the Americas were also starting to feel the crosswinds of change, as the Western world came under the influence of democratizing conditions, but Tocqueville found it to be “even more striking” in the United States. Speaking of young people beyond the earliest years, he observed: “The same habits, the same principles, which impel the one to assert his independence predispose the other to consider the use of that independence as an incontestable right.” In Tocqueville’s view, independence in children was more than a practice; it had become a conscious part of a child’s self- understanding. This all took place peacefully, since there was no struggle between the generations. 

Fathers feel “none of that bitter and angry regret which is apt to survive a bygone power.” Instead the expectations had become an instinctive part of the culture as “the father foresees the limits of his authority long beforehand, and when the time arrives, he surrenders it without a struggle.” Tocqueville went on to contrast the quality of feelings in more traditional societies with those in the United States. In the one, the father “is listened to with deference, he is addressed with respect, and the love that is felt for him is always tempered by fear.” 

But in democratic America, as fathers yielded authority, “the relations of father and son become more intimate and more affectionate; rule and authority are less talked of, confidence and tenderness are often increased, and it would seem that the natural bond is drawn closer in proportion as the social bond is loosened.” Tocqueville was probably too quick to identify these two— the social, with its weakened emphasis on hierarchy, and the emotional, whose qualities Tocqueville argued resulted in an increase of “tenderness” on both sides. We would do well, for the moment at least, to separate these two aspects of the changed relationship between parents and children. 

Many memoirs from the period document the former; few tell us much about the latter. Tocqueville’s observations about greater warmth and affection may have been (and not for the first time) an instance of wishful thinking by a social observer eager to believe that natural “feelings” and natural “bonds” would grow when social ties were loosened. Somewhat later than Tocqueville, another observer of American domestic relations, Polish count Adam de Gurowski, concluded that in the United States, children matured early and were early “emancipated . . . from parental authority and domestic discipline.” 

In this way, Gurowski accounted for the observations common at the time that “[c]hildren accustomed to the utmost familiarity and absence of constraint with their parents, behave in the same manner with other older persons, and this sometimes deprives the social intercourse of Americans of the tint of politeness, which is more habitual in Europe.” Many Europeans commented on the rude manners of American children, but few appreciated, as Tocqueville and Gurowski did, that this resulted not from parental laziness or indifference to child governance but from a different kind of disciplinary regime. 

One who did and who made the contrast with European children explicit was the author of a volume called America as I Found It. “English children in the presence of strangers are reserved and shy. They feel that the nursery and school room are their proper sphere of action. . . . Most unlike to these is the sentiment of the American, both parent and child. The little citizen seems to feel at a surprisingly early age, that he has a part on the stage of the world, and is willing enough to act a little before his time.” 

The notion that children believed they had a part to play on the stage of the world was an unusually effective way of seeing that American children had large expectations and they were early trained toward the appropriate habits of mind and demeanor. Probably nowhere else in the Western world could one visit the homes of respectable families and find children who so easily took part in the family circle and were so comfortably regarded as equals, not as subordinates or dependents. 

In fact, throughout the West during the nineteenth century, middle- class opinion was endowing children with special appeal and setting childhood apart, and family practices were distinguishing children’s activities from those of their parents. While Americans, too, saw something precious and important about childhood as a stage of life, their cruder conditions and more demanding economy made it far less likely that children would inhabit an exclusive world in nurseries and at play away from the travails of the world.”

- Paula S. Fass, “Childhood and Parenting in the New Republic Sowing the Seeds of Independence, 1800–1860.” in The End of American Childhood: A History of Parenting from Life on the Frontier to the Managed Child