Category: Academic Analysis

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ellen Ruth Kujawa, Coastal Change Research Fellow, University of Hull; University of Cambridge

Hurricane Melissa devastated Jamaica in late October, killed dozens in Haiti and forced nearly three-quarters of a million Cubans to evacuate. The death toll across the region is still unknown – but Melissa will go down as one of the strongest storms ever recorded.

It also represents a bellwether for a new era of dangerous hurricanes, driven by climate change. These storms are becoming increasingly violent and harder to predict.

Melissa’s devastation may look like a story of wind and water, but it speaks to a broader question of climate justice: who gets access to life-saving information when a storm strikes? Accurate forecasts gave the governments and residents of Jamaica, Haiti and Cuba time to prepare. This was particularly crucial, as Melissa intensified rapidly from a moderate storm to a major hurricane in less than 24 hours.

Climate change is increasing the frequency of such rapidly intensifying storms. It’s also making them harder to predict. So it’s bad news that the Trump administration is cutting funding for the state-run National Weather Service (NWS) and pushing for the privatisation of government agencies.

The potential decrease in forecast quality this foreshadows will not be borne equally. Hurricanes don’t treat all places uniformly – and neither do NWS forecasts. In my research on hurricane forecasting across the Caribbean, I’ve found that these inequalities already shape how different places receive and use lifesaving information.

Puerto Rico

Melissa underlined just how essential high-quality hurricane forecasts are – allowing officials in the Caribbean precious time to prepare for the storm’s arrival. But my research in Puerto Rico shows that the production and distribution of hurricane forecasts in the Caribbean is more complicated – and more entangled with issues of justice – than it might appear.

Over two years of interviews with meteorologists and emergency managers, I found that Puerto Rican decision-makers perceive – with some supporting evidence, including delays in information availability and deferred equipment maintenance – that their island is marginalised in terms of the forecasts it receives.

Meteorology is often framed as an objective science, but it is deeply political, embedded within systems of state power – and my research suggests that Puerto Rico’s second-tier colonial status extends to its access to forecast knowledge.

Puerto Rico’s vulnerability was widely discussed after Hurricane Maria devastated the island in 2017, killing nearly 3,000 people. The island’s vulnerability to hurricanes well known – between 1851 and 2019, nine major hurricanes made landfall in Puerto Rico, the third-highest number of major hurricanes in the Caribbean. Decades of infrastructural neglect, economic austerity and political powerlessness have compounded that vulnerability.

Forecasts are crucial to decision-making in Puerto Rico. They inform evacuations and requests for federal aid, and they help to plan how to protect critical infrastructure. But their usefulness differs from that of mainland forecasts. As one Puerto Rican meteorologist told me: “A perfect forecast for [the continental United States] is between five to ten miles; five to ten miles for us can be disaster or not disaster.”

Puerto Rico’s small size means that even a ten-mile error in a hurricane’s predicted track can be the difference between a near miss and a catastrophic landfall. For Puerto Rico, a track error that barely matters for a continental state can spell the difference between a glancing blow and a direct hit. In other words, what counts as a “perfect forecast” for a mainland state looks very different for a small island.

Inequality in forecasting

But the issues go deeper than this. Puerto Rican meteorologists told me the forecasts they receive are designed primarily to be applicable to the continental US and later adapted for Caribbean islands. One meteorologist told me: “Mostly it’s us here by ourselves.” Many believe the forecasts they receive are inferior to those that their counterparts use in the continental US, and that they receive less institutional support from the NWS.

When people making life-and-death decisions doubt the quality of the data they rely on, the resulting uncertainty has the potential to undermine both their confidence and public trust.

And there is evidence to justify decision-makers’ doubts. Puerto Rico received storm surge maps – maps of likely storm-generated increases in coastal water levels in 2017, several years after the continental US. Hawaii received them at the same time, suggesting the delay stems from island geography rather than territorial status.

Puerto Rico’s on-island radar unit, which failed as Hurricane Maria made landfall, had been flagged for maintenance in 2011, six years before Maria hit. Interviewees suggested to me that the unit would have been repaired or replaced more quickly in the continental US.

These examples suggest that inequality in forecasting isn’t just perceived – it’s demonstrable: from delayed storm-surge maps to neglected radar maintenance. Forecasts may appear objective and technical, but they are inseparable from their political and institutional contexts. Puerto Rico depends on hurricane forecasts but in practice, does not receive the same level of meteorological knowledge as the continental US.

The Trump administration has already proposed cuts and restructuring that would reduce funding for public forecasting and expand the role of private weather firms. This risks prioritising profit over public safety. It’s particularly dangerous in an above-average hurricane season, and seems likely to worsen as the Trump administration continues to push for decreased funding to the NWS.

When political pressure narrows the NWS remit, vulnerable places such as Puerto Rico risk losing the early warnings they depend on. Storms such as Hurricane Melissa and Hurricane Maria test the capacity of governments and institutions to act on forecast knowledge.

But that knowledge is not neutral. Forecasts do more than predict weather – their prioritisation effectively determines whose safety counts most. As hurricanes intensify in the region, the fairness of forecast systems – who they protect, and who they neglect – will become one of the defining questions of climate justice.

Ellen Ruth Kujawa received funding from a Cambridge Trust Scholarship, and grants from the Cambridge Department of Geography, the Worts Traveling Scholars Fund, the Smuts Memorial Fund, and the Mount Holyoke College Alumnae Association.

– ref. As Trump cuts weather forecasting, vulnerable places like Puerto Rico risk losing vital early warnings – https://theconversation.com/as-trump-cuts-weather-forecasting-vulnerable-places-like-puerto-rico-risk-losing-vital-early-warnings-269064

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Matthew Alford, Lecturer in the Department of Politics, Languages and International Studies, University of Bath

I went to Moscow this summer on a trip that was as awkward as it was illuminating. I left feeling Russia is not just a changed country, but a separate civilisation.

As one academic I met there explained: “Russia is not a fortress. Maybe as the Soviet Union, it was. But we are very open to the rest of the world – this time it’s the west that has drawn the iron curtain.”

Due to western sanctions over the war in Ukraine, you cannot travel to Russia – or even book travel online – from the UK. Bank cards are useless, you can’t acquire roubles beforehand, and cash has to be converted from US dollars after arrival. For over a week, I did not see a single person from any English-speaking country.

At the border, the queues were split bluntly into “Russians and Belarusians” and “foreigners”, with the latter a crush of 400 or so central Asian migrants. A guard confiscated my passport on arrival and snapped: “Have question? Call embassy”, before shutting a thick steel door on me.

I braced for a diplomatic nightmare before being herded into a corridor, where my phone was scanned and I was eventually allowed to step into Moscow. I encountered no other hostility, except for one man in a cafe a few days later who sneered at me for laughing too loud. “This is Russia, be quiet”, he said.

I was visiting Russia to co-author an article with Uliana Artamonova, an expert in political communications at a research institute in Moscow. Her academic friends were baffled and saddened by the rupture with the west.

“The BBC boycotted Russia”, Artamonova’s colleague lamented. I replied: “Didn’t Russia ban them?” And we both sat in uncertainty. I later found it was a messy mix. Russia passed espionage laws in 2022 and blocked access to BBC services, while Westminster restricted the Russian-backed news channel RT and the BBC paused its own operations there.

Prominent western commentators have long insisted that sanctions could change the course of the war, arguing that the Russian economy will eventually hit the buffers. I saw nothing to indicate this. When I overpaid a taxi driver the equivalent of 50 US dollars, he had no change so simply waved me away, insisting I treat it as a free ride. That would be unimaginable in a precarious economy.

I saw no homelessness, injured veterans or armed police. Moscow felt safe, orderly and technologically advanced – my hotel had a room service robot and local people pay to use the metro through a facial recognition system.

The east-west split feels worse than the cold war. Back then there were cultural and academic exchange programmes, as well as “citizen diplomacy” and sporting events. Quietly turned to dust, too, is almost every nuclear weapons treaty. And the only one remaining between the US and Russia, the strategic arms reduction treaty, is due to expire in early 2026.

“The longer it goes on”, another academic told me, “the worse the rift will become. It has only been four years but already my students are learning Chinese instead of English.” She continued: “From 1991, we tried to play the game. Then there was [western-backed conflict in] Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan … so our government says, ‘There is no rules-based world order,’ and – bang – we get sanctions. All Russians ask: ‘Why us? Why not Israel? Why not Britain?’”

At a ballet beneath the Kremlin, I wondered if I might finally find traces of the west. I did overhear two English-speaking women and asked if they had family in Moscow. No, they replied – they worked on US soil at the embassy.

Over a traditional meal accompanied by vodka, I discussed the war in Ukraine with more Russian contacts. I asked: “What about the old idea from when we were kids? You know, ‘Violence is never the answer.’”

One of them, a senior manager in an engineering firm, sighed: “I know. I was depressed for eight months after the invasion, but I came to accept it had to be this way.”

“But violence is so unpredictable”, I pushed. “You say Ukraine killed thousands of civilians from 2014 [when Kyiv shelled pro-Russian separatists in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine]. But even if Russia’s intention was security, hasn’t the result been worse?”

His friend answered, subdued but firm: “Yes, it should have been won quickly. But though the death toll is higher, at least most of those killed now are soldiers, not civilians.”

I asked if westerners are simply mistaken to believe Russia has conspired to murder opponents, or if they think a besieged state has little option. Numerous political opponents in Russia have met suspicious, grisly ends, including opposition leader Alexei Navalny and journalist Anna Politkovskaya.

They replied that these were tiring old points already answered innumerable ways. I reflected that westerners would probably blanch too if accusations were made about “problematic” people in their countries who are popularly considered to have been murdered by the state.

It seems all sides have become accustomed to the deathly chill of a new cold war. I nodded uncertainly at my associates before making my way back to the UK, another aged empire estranged from the continent.

Matthew Alford does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. An east-west divide deeper than the cold war: what I saw on my summer trip to Russia – https://theconversation.com/an-east-west-divide-deeper-than-the-cold-war-what-i-saw-on-my-summer-trip-to-russia-269853

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nazrul Islam, Professor of Business and Associate Director, Centre of FinTech, University of East London

Across the world, workers are increasingly anxious that artificial intelligence (AI) will make their jobs obsolete. But the evidence from research and industry tells a very different story. AI is not taking over the workplace. Instead, it’s quietly reshaping what human work looks like – and what makes people valuable within it.

In my research on how the workforce is being transformed by AI, I found that the most successful organisations are not the ones replacing employees with algorithms, but those redesigning their workplaces to combine human and machine intelligence.

AI excels at routine, repetitive and data-intensive tasks – scanning through thousands of records, scheduling logistics or identifying errors. Yet it still struggles with what we might call “the human edge”. That is, creativity, empathy, judgement and collaboration.

AI systems depend on people to train and evaluate their outputs. My research found that when humans and AI collaborate, productivity rises – but when humans are excluded or fearful, the benefits collapse.

At cloud software company Workday, for example, nearly 60% of employees use AI tools to automate repetitive tasks. But far from reducing headcount, the company found that AI freed people up to focus on the more thoughtful and creative parts of their job, as well as nurturing relationships with clients.

These findings align with my own research, which demonstrates that worker–AI coexistence makes an organisation more resilient than automation alone.

So why are so many workers still afraid? Part of the reason lies in uncertainty. Organisations might implement AI systems without communicating clearly how they will affect jobs or performance evaluation. This lack of clarity breeds fear, rumours and resistance.

My studies show that when companies are transparent about how and why AI is being adopted – and when they involve employees in shaping its use – workers become more confident. They’re even proud of their contribution to “teaching the machines”. But when employees are left in the dark, they tend to hoard information or disengage – the opposite of what innovation requires.

It’s true that AI will disrupt many traditional roles. But the real challenge is not mass unemployment – it’s misalignment, that is, having the wrong skillsets for the AI age. The labour market must evolve faster to match emerging technological realities.

My previous study on AI and the future of work was cited in a US government policy document. In the study, I described a “perpetual race” between human skills and machine capabilities. As AI automates certain functions, workers must continuously develop new abilities to stay relevant.

In effect, this is a strategic opportunity. The workers who thrive in the AI economy will be those who can interpret, guide and collaborate with intelligent systems.

That means companies must take responsibility for reskilling and upskilling. The UN’s Sustainable Development Goal 8 makes it very clear that AI should benefit workers. If AI becomes a permanent treadmill rather than a partnership for shared progress, there is a risk of deepening inequality.

Social mobility in the age of AI

I recently shared research with social mobility experts on how AI can be a catalyst for inclusion – if managed responsibly. By analysing skills rather than titles, AI-enabled hiring platforms can identify talent in overlooked communities – people who may not have formal qualifications but possess the right competencies to succeed.

Yet this promise comes with a warning. If the same systems are trained on biased data, they risk replicating social inequalities at scale. Responsible AI must embed fairness and human oversight from the start.

Ultimately, the companies that will lead the next decade are those that move from a technology-first to a people-and-purpose-first mindset.

That means several things. AI literacy must be embedded at all levels – from frontline staff to executives – so everyone understands how it affects their roles. Organisations should also rethink governance – ensuring oversight, accountability and transparency.

Employers should also invest in hybrid skills for their staff – combining technical competence with creativity, empathy and judgement. And they should encourage experimentation and collaboration.

But what does all this mean for workers?

First, the future belongs to the adaptive, not the automated. Second, emotional and conceptual skills such as leadership and empathy are rising in value. Third, lifelong learning is no longer optional. AI literacy, understanding what these systems can and cannot do, will soon be as fundamental as digital literacy was in the 2000s.

AI is neither our enemy nor our saviour. It reflects the priorities, values and biases of the societies that build it. Responsible innovation means embedding human purpose into every algorithm, dataset and decision process. It means designing workplaces where technology amplifies human potential rather than eroding it.

This is a pivotal moment. Decisions about AI in the next five years will define the following 50 – shaping the kind of workplaces, economies and societies our children inherit. Rather than fearing AI as the enemy of human work, we should embrace it as the next stage in human collaboration.

AI won’t take your job – but someone who knows how to use it just might. The challenge is not to compete with machines, but to co-evolve with them – creating a future of work that is intelligent, inclusive and above all, human.

Nazrul Islam is affiliated with Royal Docks School of Business and Law at the University of East London. He serves in editorial roles for Technological Forecasting and Social Change and IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. He is member of the Board of Directors of International Association for Management of Technology (IAMOT) and Business and Applied Science Academy of North America (BAASANA), USA.

– ref. AI won’t replace you – but it will redefine what makes you valuable at work – https://theconversation.com/ai-wont-replace-you-but-it-will-redefine-what-makes-you-valuable-at-work-269338

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stephen Ryan, Course Director, MA in Songwriting, University of Limerick

The Netflix animated film KPop Demon Hunters has become the most watched film in Netflix history. The all-pervasive musical phenomenon centres on two fictional K-pop bands, Huntr/X and Saja Boys.

If you somehow haven’t yet seen it, think of an anime-inspired version of Star Wars via West Side Story. It’s not the first film to find major success with fictional bands. Here are five movie bands that transcended and overshadowed their celluloid source material to soar into a life of their own.

---

Read more:
KPop Demon Hunters gives a glimpse into K-pop culture in South Korea

---

1. Spinal Tap

Released in 1984, the This is Spinal Tap mockumentary charted the struggling career of the eponymous heavy metal band. In this, his debut feature, director Rob Reiner both paid homage and satirised the self-importance of preceding rock documentaries and their source material – the bands.

This is Spinal Tap laid the blueprint for appreciation of these type of bands and films for years to come, leaving us with now culturally ingrained scenes such as “these go to eleven” and “he died in a bizarre gardening accident”.

Reiner and his Spinal Tap co-stars and writers went on to make more films in this style, such as the under-appreciated A Mighty Wind (2003). A more gentle type of mockumentary, it pokes fun at the insular folk music scene featuring fictional folky bands such as Mitch and Mickey, and The Folksmen.

2. Figrin D’an and the Modal Nodes

Perhaps not the most instantly recognisable name on this list, this band are onscreen in Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope (1977) for little under a minute, but their impact and legacy lives on.

This seven-piece ensemble house band soundtrack the Mos Eisley Cantina scene in George Lucas’ first Star Wars film. The scene itself introduces many weird and wonderful non-human creatures from across the galaxies to the audience for the first time, with the house band performing simultaneously familiar and futuristic swing music.

Prompted by Lucas to try something in the style of Benny Goodman, composer John Williams delivered a piece of music so memorable that the non-existent Figrin D’an and the Modal Nodes have been covered multiple times by artists in styles ranging from techno to metal, electro and country.

3. Soggy Bottom Boys

Drawing heavily from Homers’ The Odyssey (complete with a scene stealing Cyclops cameo from John Goodman) the Coen Brothers’s O Brother, Where Art Thou (2000) follows the exploits of three escaped convicts played by George Clooney, John Turturro and Tim Blake Nelson. Along the way, they find themselves in a band called The Soggy Bottom Boys and record the hit song Man Of Constant Sorrow.

In reality, this song was performed for the film by American Bluegrass musician and 14-time Grammy winner Dan Tyminski, with George Clooney and co miming along. Upon it’s release, the ensuing soundtrack to the film produced by T-Bone Burnett, charted at number one in the Billboard 200. The album featured the non-existent Soggy Bottom Boys sitting comfortably alongside the very real Gillian Welch, Norman Blake and Emmylou Harris.

4. Cell Block 4

Another mockumentary, CB4 (1993) sent up the then nascent but wildly popular gangsta rap scene. Co-writer and star Chris Rock took aim at acts like NWA through satirical songs such as Straight out of Locash and Sweat From My Balls, as delivered by the Cell Block 4 band members MC Gusto, Stab Master Arson and Dead Mike.

As a lifelong fan of hip hop music, Rock has always maintained that the film is more of an affectionate tribute as opposed to an all-out satirical skewering. Upon release, the CB4 soundtrack charted highly. CB4 held their own alongside actual big rap names of the day such as Public Enemy, Fu-Schnickens, BDP – and somewhat ironically – MC Ren of NWA.

5. The Commitments

The Commitments blasted onto screens in 1991 seemingly a fully formed musical entity, all sweat, bulging veins and soul power. In reality, director Alan Parker had scoured the streets of Dublin in search of young musicians he felt would suit the look and personalities of the characters from the pages of Roddy Doyle’s novel.

Parker secured the likes of then 16-year-old old Andrew Strong as the bands lead vocalist, Glen Hansard as lead guitarist, Maria Doyle Kennedy, Bronagh Gallagher and Angeline Ball as “The Commitmentettes”, as well as real band The Corrs in a variety of supporting cameo roles.

The film gave us a visceral and often hilarious look at life in a band on the mean streets of “Barrytown”. Crucially, all the songs featured in the film were performed live on set by the musicians and singers, perhaps someway contributing to the enormous success of the accompanying soundtrack album.

Do you have a favourite fictional band that we’ve missed? Let us know in the comments below.

---

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

---

Stephen Ryan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The five best fictional bands in film history – https://theconversation.com/the-five-best-fictional-bands-in-film-history-266321

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Daniel Kelly, Senior Lecturer in Biochemistry, Sheffield Hallam University

Pop-up clinics and glossy adverts are selling men a new message: it is time to “check your T” (shorthand for testosterone levels).

The idea is not about treating medical problems but about “optimising” energy, focus and masculinity. With online services offering home blood tests and fast-track access to treatment, testosterone therapy has shifted from specialist medical care to a supposed lifestyle upgrade.

Used appropriately, testosterone therapy can be life-changing. It is prescribed for men who have a medically confirmed deficiency known as hypogonadism, a condition where the body does not produce enough testosterone because the testes or the brain’s hormonal control system are not functioning properly.

This can be caused by injury, infection, genetic problems or chronic illnesses such as obesity and diabetes. When testosterone levels are genuinely low, restoring them can improve mood, sex drive, muscle strength and bone health.

There is also growing research into testosterone’s wider metabolic effects. In men with low testosterone who also have type 2 diabetes, obesity or heart disease, therapy may help improve insulin sensitivity (how effectively the body responds to insulin to regulate blood sugar) as well as fat distribution and blood vessel health.

The testing and diagnosis challenge

Many private “men’s health” and “wellness” clinics promote vague symptoms like tiredness, stress or lack of motivation as possible signs of low testosterone. They encourage men to get tested, at their own expense.

These tests are often done on finger-prick samples rather than on blood drawn from a vein. While finger-prick tests can be quicker and more comfortable, they can also be more prone to error if the sample has not been carefully collected. Venous samples taken by trained staff can be more reliable and provide higher-quality results.

Testosterone levels naturally fluctuate throughout the day, peaking in the early morning and falling later on. That is why doctors recommend testing on two separate mornings, ideally after fasting.

A single, non-fasting test can produce misleadingly high or low results, yet some online providers use just one test before offering expensive treatment packages.

There is no single definition of what counts as “low testosterone”. Reference ranges differ between laboratories, and “normal” varies by age, health and genetics. Some men with lower readings feel perfectly well, while others experience symptoms at the same level.

The body’s response also depends on how sensitive its androgen receptors are (the molecular switches that initiate testosterone’s action inside cells). This means that blood concentration alone does not tell the full story.

---

Read more:
Testosterone: why defining a ‘normal’ level is hard to do

---

Clinical guidelines stress that diagnosis should combine both symptoms and blood results. Many issues blamed on “low T” (fatigue, poor sleep, loss of motivation, weight gain) can often be linked to stress, depression, or lifestyle factors such as alcohol use and inactivity.

---

Read more:
Younger men are turning to testosterone therapy in hopes of boosting mood and muscles – but there are risks of harm

---

The myth of optimisation

An increasing number of men are starting testosterone therapy even though their hormone levels are normal, drawn in by promises of greater vitality, sharper focus and improved physical performance.

Raising testosterone levels above about 12 nanomoles per litre – the standard unit used in blood tests – is unlikely to produce further gains in the areas most linked to testosterone deficiency, such as sexual function, energy or mood. Men already in this range who add therapy may expose themselves to side effects with little or no advantage.

And once treatment begins, the body’s natural hormone production slows down, meaning therapy often becomes long-term. Stopping can lead to a temporary withdrawal-like phase, as the body takes time to restart testosterone production.

When prescribed correctly and monitored carefully, testosterone therapy is generally safe. Earlier fears that it increased prostate cancer risk have largely been disproven, and some studies even suggest it may offer protection.

But other research links testosterone therapy to a slightly higher risk of atrial fibrillation – an irregular heartbeat – and blood clots.

The more immediate concerns are about fertility. Testosterone treatment reduces the brain’s signal that tells the testes to produce both testosterone and sperm. Over time this can lead to infertility, sometimes permanently if therapy continues for more than 3-5 years.

In men who still wish to have children, doctors can add drugs called gonadotrophins, which mimic the brain’s natural fertility hormones to keep the testes producing sperm, but these require specialist management.

Testosterone has become cultural shorthand for strength and virility. When testosterone therapy is viewed as a shortcut to confidence or masculinity rather than a treatment for genuine deficiency, it can trap men in a cycle of self-doubt and dependence.

Exposing a gap

Testosterone is a prescription-only drug for a reason. It needs careful diagnosis, regular blood tests and close supervision by specialists trained in hormone medicine. When men rely on online adverts or convenience clinics instead of proper medical assessment, they risk unnecessary treatment.

Many later turn to health services for reassurance, follow-up or to manage side effects of a therapy they may never have needed – a growing trend that is already stretching endocrinology clinics.

Still, the rise of online clinics has exposed a long-standing gap in men’s health. Many men avoid seeing doctors, and true testosterone deficiency often goes undiagnosed. With proper oversight and stronger links to healthcare systems, these services could help raise awareness without promoting unnecessary treatment.

When used correctly, testosterone restores health. Used carelessly, it risks undermining it – for men and for the healthcare system that supports them.

Daniel Kelly does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. What men should know before signing up for testosterone ‘optimisation’ – https://theconversation.com/what-men-should-know-before-signing-up-for-testosterone-optimisation-269558

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew J. Green, Lecturer in the Anthropology of Music, King’s College London

LUX, the new album from Spanish singer-songwriter Rosalía, has been critically lauded. But opinion is divided among some commentators on whether it should be considered pop or classical music.

Much of LUX “sounds closer to classical music than it does to anything in the charts”, according to Guardian reviewer Alexis Petridis. Elle magazine describes Lux as “inspired by classical orchestral music and opera – but imbued with influences of pop, electronic, hip-hop, and more”.

And writing in the New York Times, Joshua Barone asks, “How much of the album is really classical music?” before concluding: “At the end of the day, [Rosalía] has made a pop album with a big budget.”

Even given the assumption that we have a very good idea of what (western) classical music “is” or “isn’t” – and we don’t – it isn’t very helpful to think of LUX in these terms.

LUX does prominently feature the London Symphony Orchestra, with arrangements by composer Caroline Shaw. There are two tracks with a particularly strong western classical influence: Mio Christo Piange Diamanti and the album’s lead single Berghain.

But Lux is a long album, which mostly features solidly pop songwriting, with brief, catchy, syncopated melodies and trap-style triplet flows (in which three syllables are sung or rapped over one beat). As on avant-pop classics like Björk’s Vespertine (2001) or Arca’s self-titled album (2017), conventional, appealing melodic songwriting often comes alongside a disposition not to settle.

The tonality implied by the songwriting is sometimes undermined by the orchestration, the rhythm is subtle or submerged, and there’s a fairly complex song structure which means that the listener requires repeat listens to get comfortable.

On an intense and complexly assembled album, it’s best to pick out a relatively straightforward example. One of my favourite moments on LUX is the stripped-down breakdown section about two-and-a-half minutes into La Yugular.

Here the orchestra drops out, and Rosalía sings in triple metre (that is, three beats in a bar) with only kettledrums accompanying her. From here, the music starts to build in pitch and intensity.

Due to the instrumentation, it’s perhaps easy to hear a “classical” sound in this section. But the songwriting fits into what we might expect of pop. The vocal line is divided into syncopated, catchy, brief lines, while the kettledrums often emphasise the off-beat.

Let’s imagine we could switch out the kettledrums, and have electronically generated bass such as 808 bass playing the same line. Let’s say we auto-tune the voice too. With such an arrangement, this section of La Yugular would fit squarely into her 2022 album Motomami (for example, on tracks CUUUUuuuuuute or Saoko).

On Lux, Rosalía frequently uses the kettledrum for lines that, on Motomami, were recorded on electronic bass. The point is that here as elsewhere, focusing too much on the orchestra can get in the way of us noticing continuities between the songwriting on Motomami and Lux.

This is, of course, what we might expect from an album by a mainstream pop songwriter in collaboration with the London Symphony Orchestra. But dig a little deeper and we also ought to start questioning the conceptual distinction between “popular” and “classical”.

Genre distinctions

LUX mostly combines western pop style with Iberian and Latin American influences. There are strains of flamenco throughout the album, most obviously in La Rumba del Perdón and Mundo Nuevo.

LUX constantly hints at a reggaeton influence too. De Madrugá is based on a hemiola rhythm, the rhythmic basis of dozens of popular music traditions across the Iberian and Latin American world.

Finally, Dios Es Un Stalker is particularly ingenious. This song’s rhythm is, in effect, a deconstructed salsa rhythm which opens with only the bass line (so-called “bajo tumbao”). The salsa rhythm is fully put together only in the last 30 seconds, after a climactic key change.

There’s a particularly interesting case in the waltz rhythm played on the guitar in La Perla and the first part of La Yugular. In his review, Petridis focuses on a moment of levity towards the end of the former track: “On the waltz-time La Perla, a particularly dramatic set of strings and brass is followed by the sound of the singer giggling, as if she’s keen to undercut any pretensions.”

Of course, the waltz has its origins in European classical music, which is the association that Petridis is clearly making. But waltzes are also characteristic of multiple genres of Latin American popular music. This is especially the case in northern Mexico, where waltzes are played by música norteña bands, by mariachi groups, by banda ensembles and more.

La Perla places this history into reverse: the track opens with regional Mexican act Yahritza Y Su Esencia playing a Mexican-style waltz rhythm and concludes with the London Symphony Orchestra playing a European-style ballroom waltz. LUX tells us something that Anglophone reviewers often miss: especially when Iberian and Latin American music is in the mix, it’s not quite so easy to separate “classical” and “popular”.

So, the claim that Lux might constitute “classical music” has to end with us questioning quite a few things: the distinction between classical and popular, the exclusion of non-Anglophone music from the stories most often told about popular music and – most importantly – whether anyone really cares anymore whether music “qualifies” as “classical”. LUX deserves to be heard on its own terms, as an ambitious, self-aware and wildly inventive piece of work.

---

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

---

Andrew J. Green does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Rosalía’s LUX: why the ‘pop-versus-classical’ question misses the point – https://theconversation.com/rosalias-lux-why-the-pop-versus-classical-question-misses-the-point-269743

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Leonie Fleischmann, Senior Lecturer in International Politics, City St George’s, University of London

The UN security council has voted to adopt a resolution endorsing US president Donald Trump’s plan to end the war in Gaza. However, while the resolution references a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood, the road to such an outcome is far from determined.

The resolution, which received 13 votes in favour and none against, with abstentions from Russia and China, paves the way for a Trump-chaired transitional authority to supervise Gaza’s reconstruction and recovery. It also authorises the arrival of peacekeepers for an international stabilisation force to oversee border areas, provide security and demilitarise the Gaza Strip.

These proposals were first outlined in late September, when Trump unveiled a 20-point plan to end the conflict in Gaza. The White House reported at the time that the plan had “galvanised a chorus of international praise as the potential pivotal turning point” for ending the war between Israel and Hamas.

It was a result of this plan and diplomatic efforts led by Steve Witkoff, the US special envoy to the Middle East, that a ceasefire was put into effect on October 10. This ceasefire has seen a partial withdrawal of Israeli troops from parts of Gaza and the return of all the living – and most of the deceased – hostages to Israel.

However, the ceasefire remains fragile and Israel has reportedly violated it consistently with continued attacks. Torrential rain is also causing floods across the Gaza Strip, bringing more devastation to the war-torn area. It is thus vital that progress is made towards rebuilding the lives of Palestinians in Gaza.

But it remains uncertain whether Trump’s plan will provide a complete solution. As is often the problem with internationally imposed plans, the wording is vague and therefore open to interpretation and manipulation. Specifically, clause 19 of the plan is ambiguous.

It states that only once the Palestinian Authority (PA), the body that exercises administrative responsibility over Palestinians in the West Bank, has reformed itself and the rebuilding of Gaza is under way, “the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood”. This leaves plenty of room for the path to be knocked off course.

Barriers to statehood

There are four significant barriers to establishing a Palestinian state. First is that there are no concrete details within Trump’s plan about what a future Palestinian state will look like. None of the main sticking points around achieving a two-state solution have been ironed out.

These include questions around the status of Jerusalem, which Israelis and Palestinians both want as their capital city. There are also disagreements around where to draw the line between Israel and a future Palestine, as well as the “right of return” for the millions of Palestinian refugees currently living abroad.

A second barrier to Palestinian statehood is that it will not be quick or easy to meet the conditions required for a political process towards a two-state solution to begin. The PA is accused of facing a “crisis of legitimacy”. The president of the PA, Mahmoud Abbas, and Fatah, its dominant political party, are deeply unpopular among Palestinians.

In a September 2024 poll conducted by the Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research, just 6% of Palestinians said they would vote for Abbas in an election. And the PA itself is widely criticised for systemic corruption, nepotism, clientelism and bureaucratic malfeasance. Reform and regaining the support of Palestinians will be difficult to achieve.

Rebuilding Gaza will also be no easy feat. The UN estimates that reconstruction alone will cost US$50 billion (£38 billion), with even the most optimistic projections suggesting it will take a decade to rebuild. At what point during these processes will it be deemed the appropriate time to return to the question of a Palestinian state?

The third barrier is Hamas which, having rejected the UN’s resolution, threatens to derail the peace plan entirely. Hamas wrote on Telegram after the resolution passed that the plan “imposes an international guardianship mechanism on the Gaza Strip, which our people and their factions reject”.

Some commentators have argued that the imposition of external control over Gaza, and the tying of Palestinian statehood to externally generated conditions, reflects “a continuation of colonialist logic rather than a genuine pathway to self-determination”. If the Palestinians are going to achieve self-determination, they need to do so on their own terms.

Hamas has now reiterated its refusal to disarm, arguing that its fight against Israel is legitimate resistance. Israel and its western allies have made the disarmament of Hamas a non-negotiable demand for ending the war.

The fourth, and probably most significant, barrier is that the Israeli government remains staunchly opposed to the formation of a Palestinian state. Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, did applaud Trump for his efforts to secure peace in a social media post following the UN vote.

However, he then told his cabinet that Israel’s opposition to a Palestinian state remains “firm and unchanged”. Netanyahu later confirmed that Israel supported only the steps within the plan that insist upon “full demilitarisation, disarmament and the deradicalisation of Gaza”.

Far-right leaders in his governing coalition, alongside violent settlers, are at the same time changing facts on the ground in the West Bank. They are doing so by establishing Israeli government-sanctioned settlements on Palestinian land, which are considered illegal under international law. The construction of these settlements amounts to de facto annexation, thwarting the possibility of future Palestinian sovereignty.

We are a long way off from concrete discussions of Palestinian statehood. But despite the many problems in Trump’s plan, it does provide some hope that at least the Palestinians in Gaza will be able to begin to rebuild their lives. Efforts must be made to ensure neither Hamas or Israel make any moves to derail this potential.

Leonie Fleischmann does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. UN backs Trump’s plan for Gaza but Palestinian statehood remains a distant prospect – https://theconversation.com/un-backs-trumps-plan-for-gaza-but-palestinian-statehood-remains-a-distant-prospect-270116

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Lynn Abrams, Chair of Modern History, School of Humanities, University of Glasgow

Knitters and crafters had been anticipating Channel 4’s new craft show Game of Wool for some time. Knitting, so long the poor relation of the textile crafts, was finally to take centre stage on primetime television.

Hosted by former Olympic diver and knitting convert Tom Daley, the show draws on the creative and technical skills of Di Gilpin and Shelia Greenwell – two of Scotland’s most high-profile hand-knitting specialists as judges. Game of Wool was set to join the BBC’s Great British Sewing Bee as a window onto the skills of amateur makers.

Yet, shortly after the first episode aired, the show found itself at the centre of a right old stooshie (a good Scottish word for a row). Advocates of Fair Isle knitting – the two-coloured stranded knitting technique and style with its origins in the eponymous island in Shetland – made their feelings known about the competitors’ first task: to knit a Fair Isle tank top in just 12 hours.

Online discussion groups were scathing about the task itself and the workarounds required – chunky wool, large gauge needles – to knit such a garment in such a short space of time.

The distinctive Fair Isle technique and style, with rows of two-coloured stranded design containing large motifs such as the “OXO” pattern alternating with “peerie” (small) patterned rows, had been misleadingly represented, it was claimed.

So why did a competitive task on a game show engender such a spirited debate?

Fair Isle motifs have been deployed frequently outside Fair Isle and Shetland by top designers and knitwear manufacturers. The term Fair Isle is often used to denote almost any kind of multi-coloured knitwear. And yet while its origins are disputed, inhabitants of this small island and the larger archipelago of Shetland have been knitting Fair Isle garments for generations, developing individual colourways and motifs.

Traditionally Fair Isle garments were knitted using local wool from Shetland sheep, in natural harmonising colours such as black, moorit (brown) and fawn, or with yarn dyed indigo (blue), madder (red) and yellow.

It was in the 1920s that the “all-over” Fair Isle sweater (a garment knitted entirely in stranded colourwork) was popularised by the Prince of Wales, leading to high demand for the colourful styles far beyond their original location. By the 1930s Shetland knitters were experimenting with new patterns, colours and materials. And manufacturers in Shetland and elsewhere (including overseas), appropriated the hand-knitted designs for machine-knitted garments once machines capable of knitting Fair Isle patterns became available.

Culture, tradition and livelihoods

So what is at stake for the knitting community in Shetland when a game show seemingly misappropriates a traditional craft practice? The issues for Shetland’s contemporary knitting community concern the economic and cultural viability and authenticity of a craft with long and deep associations with this place.

Knitting here through the 19th and much of the 20th centuries, before the arrival of the oil industry, was an essential occupation for the majority of women. Whether knitting was conducted on needles or on a hand-operated knitting machine, it was poorly rewarded. Knitters still struggle to command fair prices for their garments in a marketplace dominated by mass-produced knitwear.

The modern knitting economy of the islands has a vibrant face, attracting thousands of textile tourists and knitting practitioners each year, not least during the annual Shetland Wool Week in October. But this craft needs protecting and maintaining if it is to survive.

Just one example of the vulnerability of this indigenous craft to the economic and cultural power of the fashion industry was the incorporation of independent knitwear designer-maker Mati Ventrillon’s designs into Chanel’s 2016 Métiers d’art collection without attribution.

For Ventrillon, her designs, referencing historic local motifs and colours, are inseparable from Fair Isle the place, and her own life there as a knitter, crofter (a smallholding farmer in the Highlands) and member of a community of just 60 people.

In the wake of the furore that followed the Chanel show, she told the Business of Fashion: “All of these extra things – the things that I have to do, that I can’t ignore – they’re all part of the reason why these are luxury items. You’re not only paying for the quality of the knitting, but for the hardship and the challenging lifestyle that is required to live and work off this island. And it has to be from this island because where else can Fair Isle knitwear come from, but Fair Isle?”

Ultimately Game of Wool has cast a valuable spotlight on a heritage craft under threat despite its global profile. SOK, the Shetland Organisation of Knitters, has been founded in the wake of this debate, to preserve, promote and protect Shetland’s heritage knitting skills and culture.

Place matters. The craft product and the skills required to make a knitted garment embody a relationship between maker and place expressed through distinctiveness of materials, style, colourways, motifs and techniques. And although the power and reach of mass production has, in many cases, diluted this relationship, the original context of Fair Isle production remains important to both those who make it and those who wear it.

---

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

---

Lynn Abrams received funding from UKRI for the research project “Fleece to Fashion. Economies and Culture of Knitting in Scotland” https://fleecetofashion.gla.ac.uk/

– ref. Game of Wool: Fair Isle knitting row reveals why culture and tradition matter – https://theconversation.com/game-of-wool-fair-isle-knitting-row-reveals-why-culture-and-tradition-matter-270108

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Matthew Flinders, Founding Director of the Sir Bernard Crick Centre for the Public Understanding of Politics, University of Sheffield

Conspiratorial narratives have always swirled around the corridors of Number 10. Studies of the British style of government have, for decades, explored the role of unofficial briefings and the leaking of information to embarrass colleagues or put an issue on the agenda.

Recent allegations of a plot by associates of Keir Starmer were designed to smoke out a perceived impending leadership challenge to the prime minister, and focused attention squarely on Wes Streeting who denied being involved in a plot.

It was a pre-emptive strike in the form of a briefing strategy in an attempt to forestall a phantom coup. This odd episode quickly fizzled out. But now the furore has calmed down, a question emerges: what does it tell us about the state of Starmer’s government and British politics more generally?

The answer is that it points to the emergence of a new and increasingly paranoid style in British politics – one which revolves around exaggeration, suspicion and conspiratorial fantasy.

The notion of a paranoid style was first developed by historian Richard Hofstadter in relation to American politics, especially in the context of fears of communist sympathies during the early cold war. Put simply, it describes a model of political reasoning in which everything is seen through a conspiratorial lens.

All prime ministers are paranoid. Such paranoia comes from having to sit and smile around a cabinet table when you know that most of your hyper-competitive colleagues hanker after your job.

John Grigg’s biographies of the first world war prime minister David Lloyd George suggest he was generally convinced his colleagues were always about to oust him. Anthony Eden entered into a paranoid atmosphere over what became the 1956 Suez canal crisis that saw Britain humiliated on the world stage.

Harold Wilson governed with a profound and persistent suspicion about the security services, and in the the late 1960s his levels of paranoia spiked whenever Roy Jenkins received positive reviews for his helmsmanship of the Treasury. Towards the end of her time in No. 10, Margaret Thatcher developed a fortress mentality based on a belief that ministers were “not on her side”.

If this is the traditional or “old” style of paranoia, Starmer is now projecting something very different. His is not a paranoia primarily born of concern for external threats or stalking horses. It reflects a deeper awareness that a vacuum exists at the apex of British government, and at some point this weakness will lead to a challenge.

Being a vanilla politician was good for Starmer in opposition. Being bland, avoiding contentious topics and promoting pragmatism provided very little for opponents to attack. But there is a widespread feeling in Westminster that, in office, the lack of clear ideological conviction has left the government rudderless and notably unable to offer the British public a positive vision about where they want to take the country and why (and at what cost).

It is in this context that Starmer now faces more challenges from backbench Labour MPs, after unveiling an overhaul of the UK’s asylum policies. Not a good position for a prime minister with the worst popularity ratings since polling began.

Systemic conspiracism

For Hofstadter, a paranoid style was characterised by apocalyptic crisis language, conspiratorial explanations of political events and attribution of national decline to hidden forces. It involved moral dualism (“patriots v traitors”) and an existential sense of dispossession (“the country is being stolen”).

See the link to British politics? Think I’m paranoid?

This paranoid style is not linked to an individual politician’s supposed clinical or psychological condition. This is systemic conspiracism, not personal suspicion.

It emerges out of a wider social-psychological pathology and a collapse in trust in the institutions and processes of democratic politics, combined with the social amplification of siege narratives that constantly promote polarisation.

Since Brexit, this paranoid style has become normalised in Britain. A country once famed for its stability, governing competence and broadly balanced civic culture is now dominated by a paranoid culture. Unlike historical instances that were confined to individual leaders, this is is now diffuse, populist-inflected and embedded across the political spectrum.

This is the deeper story that exists behind bungled briefings – and it’s a worrying one. It risks generating permission structures for norm-breaking, accelerating radicalisation and polarisation, weakening policy capacity and fuelling a doom loop cycle of failure – which creates more paranoia.

The climate of British politics has and is therefore changing. It is in recognising this broader shift that we can have a deeper understanding of the slow death of Starmer’s government. The old rules no longer apply, and the “good chaps” don’t know how to govern.

Or maybe I am just paranoid.

Matthew Flinders does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The growing paranoia of British politics – https://theconversation.com/the-growing-paranoia-of-british-politics-269867