#sociological analysis

[datamodel-of-disaster]

Childhood as Serfdom

An analysis

(Or: I'm on my soapbox, enjoy/suffer the consequences)

I was gonna write a funny post about how being a child is kinda like being a medieval serf, but then I thought about it longer and actually it's not funny. So, be prepared.

People have a lot of resistance to the idea that children, legally and societally, are serfs. There is a visceral unwillingness to put together and see what the whole of laws and customs concerning minor persons actually amounts to, and I actually think that unwillingness is at the root of what makes so much "think of the children/protect the children" right wing rhetoric so effective.

In English, the word "serf" mostly brings to mind medieval peasants, but in Dutch it touches a little more on what it actually is. Lijfeigene, literally translated, "body-owned-one". A serf is not the same as a slave -he is not considered a tradeable good or personal possession, and cannot be murdered or raped with impunity. He can have property and this property is protected by the same laws that protect the possessions of free people. But similarly to a slave, a serf does not have self-determination over his own body, freedom of movement, or ownership of the fruits of his own labour. He is not legally considered an individual person so much as a part of an estate, a condition we'd still commonly describe as "unfree". In the medieval system of serfdom (at least in England) a serf had to pay for a "license" from his Lord to do just about anything, from marrying to repairing a fence. So we can say that medieval serfdom was a system where fundamental freedoms were paywalled rather than fundamentally denied, as in the case of slavery. There were ways to receive permission to do things, but the necessity of receiving (and, in the medieval use case, paying for) this permission was a fundamental aspect of the system.

Now.

Let's entertain this thought. Does childhood meet the criteria of serfdom?

Well.

Children have no freedom of movement.

You perhaps wouldn't look at the permission slip to go on a school trip as something in the same vein as a medieval serf's license to visit a cousin on a neighbouring estate, yet that is exactly what it is. "Where are your parents?", local police in suburbia giving a child a ride home if they get spotted walking alone, "No unaccompanied minors", parents being sued for leaving their kids home alone, the entire concept of "familial kidnapping" and the fact that custody is a matter of legal regulation when a couple divorces. Children's lack of freedom of movement is everywhere if you care to look.

When people get annoyed at "loitering" teenagers, they are contesting children's right to be in public spaces, unaccompanied and without specific purpose or permission.

When people judge parents for their children being a nuisance, they are explicitly acknowledging that the child's movements could be curtailed and controlled by the parents -indeed, they are stating such control to be the correct course of action.

Explicitly and implicitly, our society accepts and supports children not having natural freedom of movement, and places -for better or worse- the responsibility for their movement on the parents. In this, the parents are the Lord of the estate, and the child is a serf attached to this estate. Additionally, as the entire concept of custody shows, we have in fact codified the rights of parents to continued access to any children that were part of an estate that was legally split between them in a divorce.

Children do not have right of self-determination.

Children have precious little protection to their bodily integrity. From birth, they can be circumcised, have their genitals surgically "corrected" if they look too ambiguous to the eye of parents and doctors, have their ears pierced, be baptised or initiated in a religion, have cosmetic surgery performed on them, etcetera.

I am specifically not listing life-saving medical measures here, because yes -children are different from mature adults, and especially babies have no capacity to self-determine in matters of their own survival. We will address this matter of capacity later on. For the purpose of this exercise however, it is worth pointing out all the non-life-saving, non-essential actions that would be considered highly invasive if performed on an adult, yet can be freely performed on the body of a child with zero input or consent from the child itself.

Compared to that, all the less invasive ways in which children are typically allowed little to no self-determination, from choosing their own clothes to eating when and what they want to, seem less impactful. But they add up, and you should keep them in mind.

(And even in the context of life-saving measures; there are some hotly contested legal cases of parents wanting to deny life-saving or life-improving medical intervention to their children for religious reasons, that illustrate just how important our society considers the rights of the parent over a child's body. If these rights weren't considered almost inviolable, there would be no contest between them and a person's survival.)

When we look at what things children can and cannot do legally, the underlying assumption is always that children are in a form of diminished capacity with regards to self-determination, and must therefore be protected from decisions made in this diminished capacity. Hence we have concepts like statutory rape, child labour prohibitions, and laws that protect children from, for example, signing contracts. Most people will agree that children are not adults and do not have the same capacity to make fully informed decisions for themselves. So, it makes sense that there are laws that protect them from being taken advantage of.

In the context of childhood as serfdom it is more interesting to consider the conditions under which these protections can be circumvented.

Let me elaborate:

In the US, parents can take out loans and credit cards in the name of their child -while a child cannot legally sign a contract, a parent can essentially sign for them and saddle a child with debt long before they can even comprehend what that is. In some circles it even gets recommended to take out a credit card in a child’s name and diligently keep a good credit score with it so they can have a better financial start when turning 18.

In 37 states of the US, child marriage is legal if a parental waiver is provided, and in 20 of them there is no minimum age for marriage at all under these conditions. (Look, there it is again, the serf's license!) So while legally a child cannot consent to be married or sign a valid marriage license, a parent can consent for them. For additional context here; the "statutory rape exception" that allowed underage sexual activity if the participants were married was only amended in federal law in 2022, and similar exceptions are to this day still encoded in US military law.

But…Child labour is still actually prohibited, right? Right?

Well… no. Not really.

Children in the US can be employed in non-agricultural jobs from the age of 14 with parental permission, whereas for agricultural jobs the allowed age of employment varies between states and isn't federally determined, but can be as young as 10. Additionally, minors of any age may be employed by their parents at any time in any occupation on a farm owned or operated by his or her parent(s).

There are technically laws about how many hours and in what type of labour children can be employed, yet in practice there are a lot of potential exceptions, and these laws are (unfortunately) continually under attack. Which leads to my next point…

Children do not own the fruits of their own labour

Children can own property, in the legal sense. They can "hold title", as one says, of most items (except motor vehicles in some states in the US -remember this in connection to freedom of movement!), be the beneficiary of an inheritance, and receive gifts.

However.

Holding title does not mean they have the usufruct of the property, nor that they cannot be denied access or usage of it by their parent. More importantly…

In the US, a child does not have an automatic right to their own wages. Let me share you a couple excerpts of law:

Banks v. Conant, 14 Allen 497:

Whatever therefore an infant acquires which does not come to him as a compensation for services rendered, belongs absolutely to him, and his father cannot interpose any claim to it, either as against the child, or as against third persons who claim title or possession from or under the infant.

Cyclopedia of Law and Procedure:

As a general rule any property acquired by the child in any way except by its own labor or services belongs to the child, and not to the parent

Wheeler v. R. Co., 31 Kan. 640, 3 P. 297, 300:

As a matter of law a minor may own property the same as any other person. He may obtain it by inheritance, by gift, or by purchase; and there is nothing in the law that would prevent even a father from giving property to his minor child. A father may also so emancipate his minor child as to entitle him to receive his own wages.

So…

A child can be employed, with an employment contract signed by their parents, and any wages they earn automatically belong to their parents.

That is literally what it means to be a serf.

I am not saying that all children are exploited in the manners I described above. But it is an illustration of the culture we live in, that all these types of exploitation are in fact legal.

Almost any attempt to legally protect children in their developmental condition of diminished capacity leaves loopholes for parental exemptions. The right of a parent to make decisions about a child's life, body and movement is entrenched in our society and legal system.

Which leads to… "protect the children".

What we talk about when we talk about protecting the children

Endeavours to "protect children" come in multiple shapes.

There are the initiatives to improve the legal framework that protects the rights of children - such as the Californian law that forces parents of child actors to keep the child's wages in trust rather than automatically own them, or the amendments that removed the marital exception from the statutory rape law. They can be characterized as movements to chip away at the serfdom status of children, while still respecting the fact that children are in fact a vulnerable class of people who require protection.

Then, there are initiatives that aim to protect the rights of parents over children. Lately, many of those are essentially extensions of children's current serfdom status into the plane of the immaterial. Think, laws that aim to limit children's freedom of movement in cyberspace as well as public space. Laws that dictate what information children are allowed free access to. Laws that limit children's privacy from their parents, under the guise of protecting their privacy from strangers.

This latter category will often wrap itself in a layer of fearmongery anecdotes and moral panic language in order to gain support and justify exerting additional power over children. The reason this works is that to have a meaningful defence against it, someone has to consciously acknowledge the serfdom status of children, and consider it harmful.

Now, most parents aren't actively exploiting their child's labour, racking up debt in their name, or arranging their underage marriage. But almost all parents have exerted power over their child's freedom of movement, denied them privacy, taken their possessions as punishment or simply out of convenience, and forced their will on them in a million unimportant ways where letting the child self-determine would not have had any real impact on their wellbeing or safety. Acknowledging the serfdom status of children means acknowledging all of that as a kind of authoritarian lordship rather than benevolent custody.

Clearly, people have resistance to seeing themselves as -even mildly- villainous in any story, and the urge to defend one's parenting decisions is a strong one. As such, it's easy for someone to defensively think, "This power I have over my children is good, actually. I should have more of it, for their own good." And that is, at its heart, a fascist idea.

We will never dismantle fascist rhetoric as long as we remain comfortable with categories of people who are unfree for our convenience. And that doesn't just include children -I'd posit that it actually starts with children.

(Have mercy on me, I wrote this at work. Will add sources/bibliography later.)

[thebestpartofwakingup]

Note: this does NOT have to be the sociologist/writer you AGREE with the most — obviously this is the #marxism website — but the one you personally found the most interesting or enjoyed writing about the most.

I was always the odd one out in my sociology classes because I ADORED the constructivism lens I just thought it was a really fun way to analyze different writings and films (I ended up in a lot of sociology classes that liked to assign like. Film reports? That’s how I learned I hate film-based classes having to watch a film for a grade is so much worse than reading a book for a grade)

Yet most of my professors and other classmates treated Durkheim as the “hard” intro writer and the constructivism lens as the “hard” lens to write for even though I always found it the easiest to universally apply (because it’s just like. Social symbolism? A thing present in all forms of media related even tangentially to culture or human experiences? How is this not the easiest lens to use for every sociological “use 1-X lenses to analyze this story/article” assignment ever?)

ALSO: NOT including an “other” category because I want to keep this focused on these three in particular since, at least in the US, they are more or less taught as the first three “specific” or “initial” lenses of sociological analysis (which is why Marx isn’t my favorite because I got real sick of having to read the first section of Das Kapital the start of every semester since he it was ALWAYS assigned as a “warm up” in EVERY FUCKING CLASS)

[that-geniuss-blog]

Collective Perceptions and Sociocultural Transformations in Gabriel Garcia Marquez's "The Handsomest Drowned Man in the World"

Have you ever contemplated the intricate workings of the human mind, where conscious and subconscious processes interweave to construct elaborate narratives based on the slightest stimuli encountered? These narratives, infused with notions of attractiveness or its absence, possess the power to shape our perception of individuals and incite misunderstandings fueled by unfounded suspicions. Furthermore, they compel us to envision hypothetical reactions if those suspicions were indeed substantiated. Gabriel Garcia Marquez, a literary luminary, masterfully captures the essence of human cognition and behavior in his evocative masterpiece, "The Most Handsomest Drowned Man In The World." With deftly crafted prose, complex characters, vivid settings, and poignant events, Marquez artfully illuminates the intricacies of human behavior, offering profound insights that reverberate through the annals of contemporary psychology, where the study of human nature remains a paramount endeavor.

Marquez adeptly employs the isolated coastal village setting as a catalyst for examining the influence of cultural beliefs on the characters' perceptions. The narrator's description of the "unrelenting wind" and the "restless sea" conveys the atmospheric intensity surrounding the drowned man's arrival (Marquez, 1968, p. 2). The extraordinary appearance of the drowned man disrupts the villagers' conventional understanding of physical beauty, thereby challenging their established cultural norms and redefining their values, dispositions, and thoughts.

"The Handsomest Drowned Man in the World" explores the transformative potential of collective consciousness. Marquez presents a communal imagination that surpasses individual perspectives, as the entire village becomes captivated by the drowned man's allure. The narrator notes how the villagers embraced the drowned man as an integral part of their lives, even from their earliest years (Marquez, 1968, p. 3). This collective belief in the drowned man's magnificence unifies the villagers, fostering a shared identity that reconfigures their societal fabric, illustrating the profound impact of shared beliefs on collective consciousness.

The characters' experiences within the narrative are deeply influenced by the subversion of societal norms. The drowned man's physical appearance challenges the established beauty standards of the village, prompting introspection and self-questioning among the characters. Marquez writes how "no one had ever seen such a handsome sailor" (Marquez, 1968, p. 2). This encounter compels the villagers to confront their own lives and grapple with the constraints imposed by societal expectations, ultimately leading to personal growth and a collective transformation.

"The Handsomest Drowned Man in the World" offers a profound sociological tapestry that highlights the fluidity of societal constructs and the transformative power of collective imagination. Marquez skillfully weaves together the shaping influence of the setting, the potency of shared beliefs, and the subversion of social norms to underscore the profound impact of external forces on individual and communal identities. By engaging with these themes, the narrative invites readers to contemplate the malleability of human perception and the potential for transformative change through the collective reshaping of sociocultural landscapes.

References: Marquez, G. G. (1968). The Handsomest Drowned Man in the World. In "Leaf Storm and Other Stories" (pp. 1-7). Harper Perennial.

[grayrazor]

Remember when people were like “Captain Planet is so shallow! The realities of climate change are so much more complicated and nuanced, millions of reasonable people making little understandable mistakes! Who would believe it’s all just evil billionaires destroying nature on purpose! How childish!”?

[valtsv]

was thinking about this earlier but the dynamic of cannibalism being associated with high society and the culinary elite (hannibal comes to mind specifically) while also simultaneously being associated with the socially isolated and economically impoverished (as in texas chainsaw massacre) is so interesting to me i want to read 10 million books on why it happens so much in media....

i can only speak from a place of personal opinion and general knowledge, because i haven't read that many papers or in-depth studies on cannibalism, but i think it often comes down to an interesection between the themes of the story you're telling and class structures and divisions. cannibalism is a compelling form of narrative symbolism because it's undeniably impactful and hard to ignore. when portrayed as a practice associated with the culinary and social upper class, it might be used as a critique of the rich and powerful and their lack of ethics and willingness to consume and destroy others for their own self-interest by showing them literally preying on and consuming their victims, or a horror story/cautionary tale about how having everything can lead you to never be satisfied and turn to increasingly extreme measures to feel like life is worth living, or a dark fantasy of indulgence and excess. when associated with the poor, marginalized and isolated, it's often based in bigotry and harmful stereotypes of the "primitive" "inhuman" "savage" "other", however it might also function as a revenge fantasy where the most oppressed and exploited members of society turn on their oppressors and take "eating the rich" to its most literal extreme, exposing the fragility of class divisions and pointing out that those in positions of social and economic power are hardly the mythic titans their propaganda tries to make them out to be, but ultimately just as mortal and made of flesh and blood as any other human being, and not immune to being dragged down from their position at the top of the food chain and torn to pieces by the crowd (as well as reminding the audience of their own fragile mortality and precarious position in the social order, and the humanity we all share in common - however cannibalism often divides the perpetrators from both their victims and the audience, so this is rarer than the other interpretations mentioned).

cannibalism and power often go hand in hand. cannibalism has historically been used as both a means of displaying your power over defeated opponents and delivering a final, humiliating blow to their image by consuming their flesh, and a means of othering and dehumanizing your opponent by portraying them as the cannibalistic monster.

both the very rich and very poor also tend to be perceived as more distant from the people who make and consume these stories, making them easier to project fiction onto and transform into symbols and narrative devices (or, in the worst cases, dehumanize) than those who occupy the same social spheres as the creator. they can be held at an arm's length without discomfort and, depending on the target audience, may be a source of fascination due to the differences in their lived experiences. it adds to the fantasy, and makes any inaccuracies, exaggerations and fabrications feel more plausible because the majority of the audience probably don't have any personal experiences of being in those positions to draw on.

[doomdoomofdoom]

Apparently there's currently discussion in science (humanities in particular) about whether video essays could be accepted as academic writing on par with the academic papers we currently have

I think that's awesome as fuck tbh

[trojanteapot]

Why the Northern Fremen don't believe in the Prophecy

The reason is just an incredibly simple, sociological reason. What do they keep pointing out about Arrakis? That the south is harsh and uninhabitable... to outworlders. We know this harsh environment increases religious fervour to bolster survival, but what does this mean for the north? Why did they lose their faith?

The settler's cities, Arrakeen and Carthag, are situated in the north. The Harkonnens don't believe the south is habitable so they only mine spice in the north. Their brutal suppression of the Fremen are only in the north.

So imagine you are one of the Northern Fremen. You know there's a prophecy about the Lisan al-Gaib, the Voice from the Outer World that would save your people. But here are these outworlders, who rampage your planet, who enslave and brutalize your people, who only see Arrakis as a resource, and its inhabitants as a means to an end, or "rats" that are in the way of their bottom line. Rats to be exterminated. Seeing all of this, of course you would start to doubt the prophecy. If this is how real outworlders are, why would the Lisan al-Gaib be any different from them?

And this is why Chani and the other Northern Fremen stop believing. They see through its manipulation of the Fremen. But they also understand that if the Fremen band together and fight back, they can win battles on their own. The Southern Fremen don't see any of this, because they're essentially protected from the violence of the colonizers by the dust storms near the equator. They might hear stories about the Harkonnens, but that wouldn't shake their faith in the Lisan al-Gaib. They are willing to simply wait for the "right" kind of outworlder, which does come along in the form of Paul and Jessica.

I think this is a really clever explanation of this divide in the thinking of the Northern and Southern Fremen, which is also related to the idea of how the environment that people grow up in shape their beliefs and their culture. Even though this is a departure from the first novel, this change is still true to the spirit of Frank Herbert's Dune.

[queercodedangel]

Squid Game Season Two Analysis: Capitalist Ideology, The Illusion of Democracy, and The Necessity for Revolution

Why the second season of Squid Game is a great follow-up to the first season and offers us an even more radical critique of capitalism and its supposedly "free" and "democratic" institutions.

(Spoiler warning for both seasons. I won't go into too much detail, but some spoilers for the bigger plot points will be present)

I really enjoyed the second season of Squid Game, so I was surprised when I learned that a good amount of fans of the first season did not feel the same.

Because of that, I wanna give my thoughts on the themes and messages that this season in particular offers us and why I believe season 2 is, in many ways, even more radical than season 1 in its narrative choices.

Season One: The Dehumanizing Nature of Capitalism

Season 1 did a great job as a more general critique of capitalism (with some elements that are more specific to South Korea). It showed us a story of impoverished people that are so desparate that they find themselves trapped in a literal game of life and death that forces them to not only compete with other participants who are in similar financial situations, but to sometimes even betray and kill them just to survive and possibly win the big money at the end of all rounds.

To make it all even more cruel: It is soon revealed that the whole game just exists for the entertainment of rich elites who change the conditions of the game as they please when they are bored.

Needless to say: The game in Squid Game is a pretty heavy-handed allegory for the predatory nature of capitalism and how it literally kills us. The creator himself has stated this multiple times, since there are still people who (willingly or unwillingly) deny this.

There are already plenty of great analyses of these aspects in season 1 (I really recommend the video on YouTube called "Squid Game: Ideology and The New Soviet Man" by Kay and Skittles), so let's move on to season 2.

Season Two: The Setup

Our protagonist is once again Gi-hun, the only survivor of all games from season 1. He is practically a billionaire since he won all the money in season 1, and could therefore live a pretty comfortable life.

And yet he is fixated on one singular goal: To track down the location where the games take place to put a stop to them once and for all. Gi-hun feels guilty to spend his fortune on anything else than this one goal, since it's a fortune that came from the deaths of his friends and countless other people.

Gi-hun eventually finds himself back in the game after every other approach failed. Unfortunately for him, the tracker that he surgically implanted in his tooth got removed while he was knocked out and transported into the game. He is once again forced to participate in the game, since his rescue team that was supposed to save him and attack the island on which the games take place cannot locate him as of now.

The Greatness of Gi-hun: Resisting Hyperindividualism, Cynicism and Capitalist Ideas of Worth

I really like Gi-hun as a character. He started out as a deadbeat dad who got into severe debt because of his gambling addiction. Gi-hun is someone who many people that are entrenched in neoliberal capitalist ideology wouldn't feel much sympathy for at first, as he's shown to be pretty reckless and just overall far from a noble hero when we first get introduced to his character in season 1.

If you're from the west (or a country like South Korea which has a similar hyperindividualist capitalist culture), then you are taught to see Gi-hun's situation as something self-caused, as something he freely chose to be in with his own bad decisions. Furthermore, you're taught to see his socio-economic situation as a direct reflection of his value as a person.

In the series itself, the Front Man, the VIPs and even some other players in the game reinforce this way of thinking. They constantly express the sentiment that the players in the game are "worthless", "scum" and "trash" that deserves to be "filtered out" (killed) because they are responsible for the situation that they are in and have no worth anyway, as their socio-economic status shows according to this logic.

Gi-hun is someone who rejects all of this.

In season 2, we see him more determined than ever to save as many people as possible in the game, and to ultimately put an end to the game itself. He does not believe in the narrative that people's worth is determined by their socio-economic status, nor that they are completely self-responsible for their situation and therefore deserve to be killed in the game.

Gi-hun calls the game out for what it is: A predatory and cruel tool of rich capitalists that preys on people's fears and vulnerabilities to encourage the worst aspects of people's personalities to flourish, all just for the entertainment of rich investors who see the players as expendable and enjoy watching them die and betray each other.

Gi-hun isn't particularly gifted or talented, he's not the exceptional, flawless individual that neoliberalism fetishizes. He can be cowardly, insecure, frightened and even selfish, as we saw in season 1 when he lied to the old man to save his own life.

But at the end of the day, he is someone with an unwavering belief in the worth and potential of people despite what his hypercapitalist neoliberal culture (and people deeply embedded into it) constantly tells him. He's someone who, despite all his flaws, risks his life and happiness for that simple belief.

Gi-hun is the antidote to a deeply cynical, hyperindividualistic and neoliberal capitalist society that conditions us to not believe in the worth and potential of other people beyond their wealth and social status.

The Illusion of Democracy: A deceptive Facade of Free Choice and Equality

Let's look at the game itself this season, since there have been a few changes to its rules.

In this season, the surviving players are given the opportunity to vote after each round to either continue into the next round or to stop playing and divide the money that has accumulated so far among each player that survived. The more players die, the more money gets added to the final prize and the fewer people need to share the total sum with each other, meaning each player gets more money in the end if the majority votes to stop playing.

The staff of the game keeps emphasizing how the players chose to be part of the game, how they always have the option to leave, how the game respects free choice and values democracy, how everyone is equal in the game, and how the rules are fair and universal.

Unsurprisingly, this is all nonsense.

The players are not even aware that they are playing with their lives at risk until after the first game, a game called "Red Light, Green Light", which has a high fatality rate because once the first player dies, the shock and sudden rush of fear causes people to panic, leading to more deaths.

The first season also showed us that the VIPs can change the rules and conditions of the game whenever they feel like it, even during a round.

Age, health, knowledge and experience with the particular games that are being played in each round can also make the difference between life and death. Sometimes the games also straight up involve a factor of luck that the players have no real control over.

Then there's also the fact that not every player is in the same situation. Some players, such as Hyun-ju or Yong-sik, are shown to have severely more debt than others and lost significantly more in their life, which means some have the privilege to be all set again after just one or two rounds (if the majority votes to stop playing) while others will have barely earned enough money to fix their life, and would therefore need to play more rounds to achieve that outcome.

Some also have family and friends that need them, while others lost everything and have no one to come home to. All these factors make them unequal and shape the way they vote.

So basically: The players are stuck in a game that they didn't even know puts their life in danger until after they played the first round. The only reason they entered in the first place was because of their precarious situation that varies in severity from person to person (which means some have the privilege to vote to end the game early with their financial issues fixed, while others do not). Some players have more advantages than others in each round because of age, health, knowledge, experience or even just sheer luck. And the VIPs can just change the rules of the game whenever they feel like it.

Squid Game tells us very clearly that it thinks very little of the rhetoric of "free choice" "free democracy" and "equality" in a structurally coercive, brutal and predatory system with fundamentally unequal conditions such as our capitalist society.

The Front Man: Cynicism, Vote Manipulation and Counter-Revolution

A key aspect of the second season of Squid Game is that the Front Man himself pretends to be a regular player; he participates in the games among Gi-hun and the rest as player 001. The Front Man deliberately gets close to Gi-hun and even manages to win his trust pretty easily with his down-to-earth and kind facade, making him involved in Gi-hun's every move.

The Front Man is, in many ways, the opposite of Gi-hun.

He is shown in both seasons to think very little of the players and humanity as a whole. He sees the participants of the game as worthless trash that deserves to get sorted out. The Front Man believes humanity is selfish, greedy and cannot be better than what it is right now, which makes the game a necessary part of the world to him.

The Front Man is thoroughly entrenched in the cynical, neoliberal capitalist worldview that sees humans as fundamentally selfish and greedy beings that only have themselves to blame for their situations.

It is noteworthy that the Front Man is very fixated on Gi-hun, and even seems to grow a liking to him because of his unwavering belief in the value and potential of people that he upholds despite all the horrors and betrayal that he witnessed. This suggests that a small part of the Front Man might still have hope that Gi-hun is right and wants him to succeed in his goal.

But at the end of the day, we see that his cynical and neoliberal view on humanity rules over what little hope in a better world he might have.

As such, the Front Man ultimately sabotages Gi-hun's efforts whenever he can. When the vote was tied after the first round, he votes to continue into the next round so that more people die, something Gi-hun fought to prevent by making it clear to the other players that more people will die if they continue.

But this is not the only time he manipulates Gi-hun's efforts: When Gi-hun organizes an armed resistance to finally put an end to the game itself for good, the Front Man betrays him in the last minute by kiling members of the resistance group and then shooting Gi-hun's best friend in front of him in order to emotionally break Gi-hun and make him lose hope.

The Front Man is not just a despicable antagonist, he also serves as a pretty blunt example of a member of the ruling class that rigs elections and destroys revolutionary movements from within, a strategy that imperialist powers such as the US have utilized many times in history already.

When Voting isn't enough: The Necessity of Revolution and Class War

Despite Gi-hun's attempt to end the game for good having failed (at least for now), I don't believe the message of Squid Game's second season is one of resignation. Not only is the game shown to be fundamentally unjust and rigged, but voting alone is also portrayed to not be enough.

Throughout the whole season, those who vote to end the game never succeed. This is not a coincidence. The game is designed to make it the less likely outcome not just because of the involvement of Front Man, but because the game preys on people's despair and precarity, all while also encouraging selfish, greedy and reckless behavior in its very design.

But even if enough people voted to end the game: The next batch of players would just be thrown into the same situation Gi-hun and the others just escaped from. A successful majority vote to leave the game would save many lives, but Gi-hun's fight would be far from over. His goal to put a permanent end to the game would not be achieved yet.

The staff of the game also makes a deliberate choice to put a big X or O onto the jumpsuit of each player depending on how they voted. This encourages players to define themselves as either Xs or Os, which leads to hostility towards the players of the other fraction.

This reaches a point where players of both fractions plan to murder the other fraction in order to secure the next vote for themselves.

But Gi-hun puts a stop to that.

He realizes it's a deliberate distraction so that people fight each other rather than the game itself. He proposes that the players should instead organize together to fight the real oppressors that forced them into the whole situation in the first place.

They are not Xs or Os. They are impoverished and desparate people who were manipulated to participate into a literal game of death that requires suffering, betrayal and murder for victory.

The message of Squid Game Season Two is one of collective resistance and revolution:

The institutions of a fundamentally rigged and predatory class system are not enough to abolish the system itself. Voting can be used as a form of damage control, but it cannot replace collective action and organizing.

Instead of fighting each other, we need to organize together to fight the system itself. It is the only way we can truly all be liberated from the death game of capitalism.

[intothedysphoria]

Stranger Things has a serious problem with the way it portrays working class men.

In Eddie Munson’s first real introduction in the show, he is established as intense, cynical and somewhat of a societal dropout. None of these characteristics are particularly new in the world of Stranger Things but one thing Eddie says really sticks in my mind.

“Forced conformity. That’s what’s killing the kids.”

In the Duffers eyes I’m sure that’s just a way to establish Eddie as an outcast but what he ends up eluding to is an extremely depoliticised explanation of cultural hegemony. Established by Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, cultural hegemony is the ruling class dictating cultural ideology and behaviour via institutional and social messaging. (In this case, the media creating a Satanic Panic around Dungeons and Dragons and encouraging parents to force their children to conform.)

Ironic, seeing as the privately educated Duffer’s are dictating what they allow to be seen as working class culture but I digress.

The Duffer’s have an extremely rigid view of what a working class man acts like and despite a show that preaches about the right to be different, that right is ultimately only given to the middle class characters. Working class characters are always fulfilling some kind of classist stereotype.

Take four examples here. Billy, Eddie, Jonathan and Argyle. On the surface, four distinctive and different characters. But once you start noticing the similarities, it’s hard to stop.

All of them are either confirmed to be from an unconventional family unit or don’t have family at all. There’s nothing wrong with coming from a non nuclear family but the way the Duffers portray them, there is always something “wrong.”

Billy has an abusive father and his mother left him at a young age, Jonathan has an abusive father and his mother has mental health difficulties, Eddie is living with his uncle and it’s implied that his father is incarcerated, Argyles parents aren’t there at all. Notice how the middle class families rarely have this level of domestic discord (especially with the point the Duffers make about all working class fathers being shitty parents. The only exceptions seem to be Wayne and Hop and Hop REALLY has his moments.)

There’s also some stereotypical hegemonic working class male value that Billy, Eddie, Argyle and Jonathan hold that makes them either antagonist (either in the narrative or in the fandom) or isn’t a good trait to have. Billy is aggressive, all of them are addicts (which is also racist stereotyping in Argyles case), Jonathan and Billy are sexually deviant (never mind the distinction that Jonathan committed a sex crime and Billy was just groomed, the Duffers certainly don’t.)

It’s also important to note the distinct lack of working class male characters who aren’t white at this point, this show has zero understanding of intersectionality.

In some areas I’m almost glad the Duffers at least understand that working class men have a culture, because all of the working class women on the show have no real attempts to be assigned any working class female attributes. On the other hand, I already know it would just be fucking misogyny yet again.

Just like the shows blatant misogyny, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, ableism, abuse apologia and holocaust denialism, the Duffers show no real care about the discriminatory nature of the way they portray the working class. Or the classism that the wider fandom regularly espouses against working class people and culture.

If Billy, Eddie, Jonathan and Argyle had been from a show created by working class writers, I probably would have significantly less problems with the way their characters are handled. Both because the clunky, stereotypical characterisation would have been erased and also because it would have been portrayals of a real life working class experience. Abuse, addiction, racism and violence are all real problems in working class communities.

But the Duffers don’t give a shit about that. All they do is create an upper middle class view of working class values.

There’s obviously something deeper lurking under what is seemingly just a nostalgia bait sci fi show, something that speaks to the way the media industry as a whole reinforces these attitudes towards marginalised and lower class communities, but that’s a conversation that I don’t yet feel qualified enough to initiate. So, I’ll leave it at this for now.

The Duffer Brothers are absolute fucking wankers.

[hopey-thinks]

Loyal to the nightmare of my choice- An analysis of Riven from Winx Club

I’m at a point in my life (not long before I turn 18) where it’s natural that I’d start yearning to revisit my childhood and look back on the things that made me happy as a kid. And recently, my feed has been showing me memes I forgot about from Winx Club, a show I was captivated by when I was younger, and it got me thinking. What better way is there to honor my childhood than rewatching some of the media I loved when I was a kid that I forgot about? While I initially started doing it for fun, to my surprise I started to realize about 7 episodes into the first season that there was a good amount of substance in it despite it being targeted towards a younger audience, particularly in the way that some of the characters’ backgrounds and fears motivate their behaviors. The following episodes only proved that further, and one character stood out to me in particular throughout the run time, that being Riven. 

In today’s analysis we’ll be focusing on how insecurity, sense of self, and standards around masculinity combine into his character and motivate his actions throughout the first half of season one. I’ll also discuss how Musa and Darcy impact his development and the subtext that may indicate that he’s queer coded (in the sense that this part of his arc is representative of the experience of a lot of young queer men). I’ll note that I’ll be referring to Sky and Brandon as the Prince and the Blond guy so there isn’t confusion about who I’m referring to since their names apparently switch later on for some reason. 

Already by the end of the fourth episode, Riven has a decent amount of characterization. He’s abrasive, sharp-tongued, and cocky, often instigating turmoil and arguments between the specialists (particularly the blond guy) with his snarky comments and arrogance. Right off the bat we see he’s competitive and prefers to handle situations on his own, having a difficult time acknowledging his faults and blaming others for his failure when they try to work with him. 

His apparent ego coupled with his stubborn independence and frustration with the idea of relying on others shows that his need to prove his strength is likely masking something deeper, that being an intense discomfort with vulnerability. Yet when the other specialists say they’ll kick him off the team if he refuses to cooperate with the Winx in the fourth episode, he chooses to stay with them anyways despite his pride, revealing that he does indeed desire human connection and isn’t as confident in his own abilities as he lets on.

What’s interesting is how his aggression, which is typically associated with masculinity, is contrasted with how he actually chooses to express himself (mainly through fashion, occasional dialogue, and mannerisms) in ways that would be considered feminine at the time the show was released. Wearing a crop top and saying things like “sweetie” to your bro are just some examples of things he does that were stereotypically feminine in 2004. This juxtaposition of his different attributes calls into question how his need to prove himself and inability to be vulnerable may not just be related to insecurity with his abilities, but also with his identity as a man.

 Because he’s unsure of how he fits into male gender roles, he overcompensates and tries to bury his lack of confidence in himself by attempting to be hypermasculine in other aspects. And of course, the consequence of this response is how it’s damaging to his relationships. In trying to mask his insecurity, he isn’t being true to himself and therefore struggles to have deeper, genuine connections.

His characterization is reinforced in multiple ways during the 7th episode, the episode that sort of lays the groundwork for the major conflict he encounters in the next two episodes and their unfortunate resolution by the 10th. He charges in alone to fight the Minotaur thingy and insults the blond guy when he says they should work together, again offended by the idea that he isn’t strong enough to defeat it alone. He speaks lowly of the women he’s at the party with and sets himself above them, dismissing Musa as “better than some of the others” there (if you think that might imply misogyny I want you to hold that thought). But most importantly, when he’s found by Darcy and the others she states that he has extremely strong negative energy. His perspective on masculinity is immature and unhealthy (I predict that it’s primarily been shaped by trauma from past experiences) for not just the people he’s surrounded by (which we’ll get deeper into shortly), but also his own psyche and self worth. As is the case for many teenage boys, it’s not surprising that this attitude is emotionally taxing and even physically exhausting for him to maintain.

This leads up to what I think is one of the most interesting scenes in the show yet as far as gender criticism goes. Riven, the blond guy, the prince, Stella and Bloom are all in the city for the magix equivalent of Mother’s Day. After Riven reveals that he and the other two are going to be participating in a race being held for the holiday, the prince teases him for not having anyone to cheer for him, insinuating that he can’t find a girl that’s into him. 

And he immediately becomes defensive at this comment, feeling his masculinity has been attacked/questioned since social structures put pressure on men to attract women as accessories to and proof of their masculinity. Because of this, he tries to affirm his manliness to himself and his friends through performative masculinity. He claims he can have any woman he wants and tries to make a bet with his friends where if he wins the race, he can pick any of the winx to go out with at the ball. And he picks Bloom. 

      This in and of itself is a VERY problematic assumption on so many levels. It not only is completely disrespectful to the blond guy who very obviously has feelings for Bloom, but it’s even more disrespectful to Bloom and the other winx who he’s treating as possessions, not even considering if they’re not into him. (Remember how I brought up misogyny earlier?) 

Thankfully, Bloom doesn’t take any shit from him. She calls him out on his deplorable behavior and reminds him that it’s her choice to decide who she wants to go out with, stating that regardless of the outcome of the race she doesn’t want anything to do with him. But he completely ignores this sentiment and takes the disrespect a step further by grabbing her chin and getting in her personal space, insisting that she’s just hiding her feelings for him. 

This violation is inherently degrading not just because she didn’t consent, but also because in doing so he shows he took none of what she said seriously. He acts as if his ego gives him the authority to decide what’s good for her regardless of how she feels about it, demonstrating a patronizing form of misogyny. Bloom rightfully decides that she’s had enough with his bullshit and slaps his hand away from her. She teaches him a lesson by using a spell to pour water over his head and tells him he needs to treat others with more respect. 

Now, the thing that the series does wrong with this is how it portrays Bloom as having “gone too far” once Riven is rightly embarrassed by the turn of events and ashamed of his behavior. She feels the need to apologize when she wasn’t in the wrong whatsoever, which is admittedly a very bad lesson to teach young girls. At least Stella interjects and comments that he had it coming, but the fact the show treats Bloom like she needs to make up for embarrassing him when he absolutely deserved it is problematic and frustrating. 

He storms off and Darcy sees him, commenting that she likes his attitude and finds him physically attractive. The trix take note of this along with the bad state he’s in, deciding to use it to help them achieve their goal. And regardless of how I feel about it Bloom decides she wants to make it up to him, which they use to execute their plan. The trix take advantage of this by sending an imposter of Timmy to give her a helmet they can control to make him mess up the race to give to Riven before the race begins. Bloom ends up giving it to him but quickly realizes she made a mistake, but when she steps into the race to try and stop the witches she sadly falls hook line and sinker into their trap. They set it up to look like Bloom was the one who messed with his helmet while she interfered in the race, and Riven is left in a very vulnerable position emotionally. 

It’s deeper than him just being mad at Bloom in that moment because he thinks she made him lose. It’s a build up of the entire day. He feels like he was emasculated by his friends after part of his deep seated insecurity was named out loud and additionally is embarrassed by his failure in the race and to charm Bloom, reinforcing that insecurity. There’s only one thing on his mind right now, and that’s finding validation from someone. This makes him incredibly susceptible to Darcy’s manipulation.

She tricks him into thinking she saved him and goes to comfort him after the race, giving him what he craves in that moment that he feels his friends aren’t able to provide. He doesn’t believe Bloom and is frustrated that his friends aren’t immediately taking his side. And in what is a surprisingly real moment, he’s blinded by his ego and chooses to ditch the people who actually care about him, feeling betrayed. 

Musa and Darcy are also foils to each other, and Darcy herself is actually a pretty good example of how women can perpetuate the patriarchy if they believe they can become more powerful in some way by embracing it. While she does like Riven, her crush on him is only motivated by surface level attraction and not love, and ultimately is using him as just another way to get what she wants. The first thing she notes when she sees him in public isn’t anything about his actual personhood or a desire to get to know him better like Musa, but how essentially… she finds his attitude and body sexy. Darcy offers the shallow affirmation he wants on an egotistical level while Musa offers him a genuine acceptance for who he is despite his flaws, which is what he actually needs. And what’s sad about his choice is that Darcy is only feeding his ego to make him reliant on her affirmation because that’s what she needs to do to keep him under her thumb, whereas Musa and the others would’ve helped him find an actual stable sense of self worth. The kind that comes from within.

What’s even more depressing is that he throws that opportunity away completely in his shortsightedness. After Musa sees him with Darcy in the restaurant and the other trix get a gang of girls to literally jump her, she finds him while trying to escape and begs him for help. To which he smirks and says “why should I?” And I’m here to tell you why you fucking should Riven. That girl is someone who genuinely respects, admires, and cares about you beyond just what you can do for her, and she has been NOTHING but kind to you. She’s coming to you in a time of desperation, and regardless of how you feel about her friends, standing up for her is the right thing to do even if it could cause you to lose what you want out of Darcy. But he turns a blind eye to this reality, and not just because he wants the present gratification he gets from Darcy.  

Despite it being what he needs to do if he ever wants to grow, he feels like he could never allow himself to let his walls down because that would require him to be vulnerable with someone and expose his low self confidence. And so he abandons his friends, Musa, everyone that was genuinely supporting him, which will inevitably become self destructive. 

Riven is also a fascinating character in how his motivations and internal conflict are extremely similar to the experiences of a lot of young queer men both past and present, and I think that there’s a good possibility that this was intentional. While I don’t like to throw around the term “queer-coded” I think there’s a decent amount of evidence to support looking at his character through this lens.

 Being feminine as a man is stereotypically associated with queerness, and as I explained before a lot of the ways he chooses to present himself would’ve been considered feminine or unusual for a man at the very least at the time. Villains were frequently queer coded in the 90s and 2000s (that was the only socially acceptable way to have a queer character in your story), and while he isn’t a villain (even if he functions more as an antagonist later in the season, there’s a difference) he serves a more antagonistic role in the story. He’s often the shit starter for many conflicts and is also just mean to the other characters. 

As for his experiences, trying to push people away and engage in performative masculinity to cover up fear and insecurity around your identity and how your community would feel about it is rather common among young queer men. The pressure to conform to oppressive social systems like patriarchy is destructive to many of the people it’s supposed to empower as well as the victims, and I was pleasantly surprised to see this portrayed in an older show targeted at younger audiences, even if it wasn’t perfect. It’s something I’d like to see covered in more in stories because media is a powerful socializing agent that influences how we view ourselves and our place in the world from a very young age.

I’m excited (and a bit nervous) to see how Riven’s decisions affect him in the future and how his perception may change because of that. 

I may make a follow up meta to this at a later point in his arc if enough people are interested, so let me know if you enjoyed this! Thank you for your time <3. 

[chaoticace2005]

I’ve seen a lot of people talking about how the exorcists look like demons, and while I do understand where the complaint is coming from I also wanted to talk about how them looking like that kind of supports the narrative.

I’m going to start this off by staying this is from a perspective looking at the narrative presented to us in the Hellaverse, not any specific religion because 1) I am an atheist who doesn’t have the knowledge or background for making any calls on that and 2) the canon hasn’t confirmed this adheres to a specific belief system. There’s Adam and Eve and Hell and Heaven and yes, but this show arguably works as a parody of all of that.

Now that that’s established, I want to bring up one of the main points in the show: the idea that those in Heaven and Hell aren’t that different. In Helluva we’re shown the experiences of hell-born, and we even see cherubs later on who seem to fulfill the parallel role of them in Heaven (with the IMP vs CHERUB fight.) We also know that Lucifer was an angel in this canon. So some of the characters with the most authority in those domains are from the same stock.

The main difference seems to be punishment. Lucifer was punished for his actions and was given those who were deemed “Sinners.” The Hell born seem to be just natives living there and many seem to be products of their environment. So while Sinners may be “bad” and Winners “good”, all those born in Heaven or Hell have no reason for being there.

Whether exorcists are brought to heaven or made there, there is still that view of superiority. The way Lute talks makes it clear she’d be willing to kill the hellborn if she could, despite them not having done anything to be there like the Sinners. It’s similar to how some people born into high economic status view those born into lower. It’s just luck of the draw but now you have access to different opportunities and that influences the way you view others. Those born in Heaven probably look at those born in Hell and argue that if hellborn aren’t bad, then why does Hell suck? Ignoring the fact that Hell is established for the purpose of containing Sinners, who often end up being more powerful that the majority of hellborn.

Even some of the Sinners likely fall into that issue where people who gave to endure harsher environments may have to resort to more extreme measures to get by, and then punishment for it just causes them to need to do even more because their conditions worsened. As seen with the rate of people who keep returning to prison. With Hell some may have fallen down this path (think of Angel, who was born into a crime family, it’s likely a lot easier to fall into drug addiction then when you have access and more things you’d like to forget, but drug addiction can be a slippery slope and the other stuff he needed to do to survive basically condemned him.) Obviously not all Sinners fall into this category and are just monstrous pieces of shit, but they likely isn’t the case for everyone.

Then, once you get to Hell it’s essentially a larger prison, except you aren’t separated and are given powers, causing some of the more malicious individuals to rise up and acquire power, making it even more of a nightmare for everyone else. This continues that cycle of having to do certain things to survive. Similar to have in jail that fear of getting hurt by some violent people make you align yourself with slightly less violent people. Except now in Hell there’s that added issue: there’s no escape.

(Also, Hell is a prison but you STILL have to pay rent and work to survive, so you really get the added stress of both worlds.)

Anyway, this whole cycle causes a similar effect to the growing class disparity we see in many countries. Those on top (Heaven) continue to have power while those lower have to deal with most of the burden. Reinforcing that belief in exorcists that Heaven is “good” and Hell is “bad” because they are unable to see the full picture. They just see it as “they blew their shot” without thinking of why that may be or considering the people who didn’t even have a choice being there— like how some people blame others in poverty for being that way because “they are lazy.” That’s not even remotely the full picture. But because certain things come easy for you it’s hard to understand why it can’t come easy for others.

Exorcists are then given the excuse and opportunity to kill others, people who they believe are lesser than them. And some take genuine joy out of it, yet they continue to see themselves as the “good guys” because that’s what they are and the others “deserve it.” And this shows how when some people are given the opportunity and reason to be assholes they’ll take it- millionaires don’t HAVE to exploit their employees, but they view it as being to their benefit and helping the bottom line.

So now, both exorcists and those in hell have reason and excuse to be violent, albeit for very different reasons. Yet because of this exorcists are still “good” and those in hell are “bad.” And this is largely because of the lack of consequences for their actions. Heaven reinforces their behavior, before episode 8 there was no push back from Hell, so they could continue to use their reasoning as an excuse to kill others.

They’re blind and don’t see it though. They only see the world from one perspective, which is ironic given the exorcist mask is missing an eye. They can put masks on and hurt others and then take them off without dealing with the consequences. They “go down” to the level of the very people they despise and then write it all off, because they have the comfort of taking their masks off at the end. Of having a choice.

It’s also interesting how their masks don’t resemble sinners but Hellborn. Which almost reminds me of mocking another’s culture while actively hurting them. They may not be able to physically hurt hellborn, but they’re still viewed through the same lens as Sinners. They’re still “bad.” So exorcists can don caricatures of their appearances, go around “pretending” to be them by committing violent acts, and when they’re done they can take it off. As I’m writing this I’m now thinking about how in the past black-face has been used to reinforce racist stereotypes, making racist caricatures.

This also camouflage in a way, maybe they were previously asked to “fit in” before things got all crazy, and when told to look for “demon disguises” they all fall back onto the stereotype and dressed up like that.

The usage of exorcists wearing demon-looking masks could be them both “playing bad” while also clearly showing the fact that at the core people aren’t so different. For as much as they hate those in hell, they’re just as likely to fall into the same traps and patterns as them.

Having written this all now, I wanted to bring up Vaggie. Vaggie who took her exorcist mask off to show sympathy for someone only to be punished and marked with an “X” that mirrors her mask. Vaggie who previously was part of the “elite”, where she could forgo consequences until she couldn’t for not following them and was cast out, being permanently marked. Vaggie, who was previously allowed given the gift to “play bad” due to being in Heaven, but when she was cast out “playing bad” wasn’t an option anymore. Taking off her mask can’t get rid of mistakes anymore, and now she has to display them for the world to see.

I don’t know if the “X” was intentional on her part or irony, but if she did choose it it could also be her recognizing her role in the system. Her realizing she can’t go back and using the “X” to remind her of what she’s done. Because she doesn’t have the luxury of pretending she’s a good person anymore— she doesn’t want to forget.

[padfootastic]

(we’re comparing the wizarding society in hp w the caste system on discord—which is surprisingly fun for me to think about??—and yet again i am baffled at how more focus is not given to this kind of social stratification over western capitalist class society, when it fits so much more neatly)

(especially when u take into account how much of the fandom has shifted to desi potters, and other desi characters for their hcs)

[thelemonsnek]

visuals i made for a real actual paper i wrote for my sociology class that my professor will be reading

[image ids: the first image is a black and white drawing of Ingo and Emmet, from some time after Ingo disappeared. They both look neutrally forwards. Ingo is bedraggled per usual in Hisui, and Emmet looks tired. To either side of them are triangles emphasizing what shape their goatee is.

The second image is a photo of a salt and pepper shaker. The Submas Sideburns are drawn on top of them.

The third image is an edit of Shrek. He gestures at Donkey, saying, "submas fandom is like onions. submas fandom has layers, onions have layers... you get it? we both have layers."

The final image is an edit of the Marge potato meme. She holds Ingo and Emmet up, saying "I just think they're neat!" End id]

[silvermoon424]

I'm WAY overthinking this but

It kind of just occurred to me that the Team Rocket Trio are like, a perfect example of many of the more progressive sociological theories of crime?

Jessie, James, and Meowth really don't seem like very bad people. Yeah, they do bad things sometimes, but time and time again we see them put others' needs before their own, care for the Pokemon they work with, and they even showed up at Ash Ketchum's final battle to cheer him on. In one of the Pokemon manga (the Electric Tale of Pikachu) they literally give up a life of crime to settle down together as a family.

So why join Team Rocket? Because they had basically no other choice.

Jessie grew up as a poor foster kid. James was a runaway. And Meowth was a literal alley cat. It's been forever since I watched the anime, but I think I remember there being episodes about how the trio did try to go on the straight and narrow when they were younger but it just didn't work out. So they turned to a life of organized crime.

This is actually the background of Team Skull in Sun and Moon; the team is made up of disaffected youth who failed their Island Challenges and have been rejected by society, so they decided to band together for safety and companionship. Much like actual, real-life gangs.

Wow, yeah, it's almost like, when given no alternative options and largely shunned by society, poor people often turn to crime huh

[twynte]

I diagnose you with PTOD

(post-traumatic orv disorder)

[wandering-alien]

Adam Curtis talks about how our age of individualism with ideas about needing completely free and independent identities means that nobody falls head over heels in love and gives themselves up to the emotion and the person they love but when Hozier sung 'No grave can hold my body down/I'll crawl home to her' that hit. That was beautiful.

And this is coming from the person who still doesn't really understand romantic relationships.