Japan and South Korea can show governments how to compete with China and US

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Robyn Klingler-Vidra, Vice Dean, Global Engagement | Associate Professor in Political Economy and Entrepreneurship, King’s College London

Governments around the world are hustling. European policymakers, for example, are eager to boost the region’s industrial relevance in a world where the US and China dominate cutting-edge technologies. They want to move beyond the adage that “the US innovates, China replicates and the EU regulates”.

As part of this, policymakers worldwide are striving to foster their own versions of Silicon Valley. They have invested to create ecosystems abundant with ambitious startups backed by venture capital investors. Their ultimate aim is to see these firms develop into what are known as scale-ups and compete in global markets.

But if governments – from Berlin and Brussels to Ho Chi Minh City – are to find their edge, I argue they should follow a model closer to Seoul or Tokyo’s playbook than that of Silicon Valley.

South Korean and Japanese policymakers have long understood that the proliferation of startup activity should not be an isolated aim. In our 2025 book, Startup Capitalism, my colleague Ramon Pacheco Pardo and I revealed that the approach of these countries sees national champion firms like Samsung and Toyota use startups as resources to help them compete internationally.

As the head of a government-backed startup centre in Seoul told me, a key aim of South Korean government policy for startups is to “inject innovative DNA” into the country’s large firms. Policies attempt to embed startups into the fabric of lead firms, and do not try to disrupt their competitive positions.

The 'traitorous eight' group of employees sat at a table.
The ‘traitorous eight’ group of employees.
Wayne Miller / Magnum Photos

For this objective, the Silicon Valley playbook is sub-optimal. US government policy has enabled venture capital investment through regulatory changes and has ensured that talented people are free to challenge their former employers. Classic examples include the so-called “traitorous eight” who left Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory in 1957 to found Fairchild Semiconductor.

A more recent example is Anthony Levandowski, who left Google’s self-driving car project to start his own company, Otto, in 2016. The competition was so close that Google sued Uber – as it had acquired Otto – in 2019 over the trade secrets Levandowski allegedly used to develop his self-driving truck company. Uber eventually paid Google a “substantial portion” of the US$179 million (£134 million) it was awarded initially in arbitration.

Injecting innovative DNA

The Japanese and Korean formula is distinct. South Korea’s 17 Centres for the Creative Economy and Innovation, established about ten years ago to drive innovation and entrepreneurship, each have one of the country’s large firms (chaebol) as an anchor partner. The chaebol’s industrial focus – whether it’s shipbuilding, electronics or heavy machinery – is reflected in the focus of the startups engaging with that centre.

The startups work on issues “that keep the large firm up at night” and, in return, the startups have unparalleled access to distribution channels, marketing and proof-of-concept testing. While the centres have not produced volumes of globally competitive scale-ups, they have delivered on the aim of injecting innovative ideas and talent into large companies like Hyundai, LG Electronics and SK Group.

In Japan, tax incentives encourage big businesses to acquire startups. The “open innovation tax incentive” allows a 25% deduction from the price of the acquisition. The aim here is to encourage Japan’s national champion firms to integrate startups into their core businesses. In 2024, for example, Toyota integrated high-tech wheelchair startup, Whill, into its mobility services offering.

Various government initiatives also aim to provide coaching and mentoring for startups around raising venture capital funding and sharpening a pitch for demo day. In Japan and Korea, these initiatives embed big business throughout.

In J-Startup, an initiative aimed at creating a cohort of so-called unicorns (startups valued at over US$1 billion), the Japanese government involves industrial leaders as judges that help select applicants for the programme. These people then act as coaches and mentors to the startups. Japan’s lead firms are, in return, exposed to innovative technologies and startup culture.

In a similar way, Korea’s K-Startup Grand Challenge connects participating foreign startups with the country’s chaebol for proof-of-concept development. The Korean government cites partnership and licensing agreements between the parties as an important outcome of the programme. Through these connections, Korea’s big businesses have another mechanism for accessing innovative ideas and talent from abroad.

A Samsung sign in Ho Chi Minh City.
Samsung Electronics is the largest chaebol in South Korea.
Sybillla / Shutterstock

Governments that want to compete with China or the US cannot continue on their existing path. They need to do something different, and Japan and South Korea’s approach offers an alternative.

These approaches are not without downsides. There is, of course, the risk of well-resourced corporations operating “kill zones” around their business lines. This might involve early low-value mergers and acquisitions, or even copying their products in a bid to eliminate them.

The central position of large firms to the economy also means that the innovation agenda of startups is set by incumbent firms. This fosters complementary products, and not those that disrupt – and ultimately improve – domestic firms or technologies. There’s also the worry of perceived corruption.

But I argue that pursuing a half-committed strategy is riskier. If governments maintain a wall between big business and startups, believing this is essential to minimise corruption and that large firms will innovate just as startups will scale-up into larger firms, they risk underwhelming outcomes on all levels.

We may see flailing productivity in the sectors in which countries have excelled. And scale-ups will fail to materialise while populations of “zombie startups”, that simply stagnate while propped up on state largesse, increase.

Startups should be considered as resources to boost nationwide industrial capabilities, not efforts aimed at seeding a country’s answer to Silicon Valley’s Google or OpenAI.

The Conversation

Robyn Klingler-Vidra 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. Japan and South Korea can show governments how to compete with China and US – https://theconversation.com/japan-and-south-korea-can-show-governments-how-to-compete-with-china-and-us-260623

Israel: Netanyahu considering early election but can he convince people he’s winning the war?

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Brian Brivati, Visiting Professor of Contemporary History and Human Rights, Kingston University

Benjamin Netanyahu’s fragile coalition is fracturing. Gil Cohen Magen / Shutterstock

One of Israel’s ultra-Orthodox Jewish parties, Shas, has announced it will resign from prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. The party said its decision was made due to the government’s failure to pass a bill exempting ultra-Orthodox students from military service.

Its exit increases the political pressure on Netanyahu. Days earlier, six members of another ultra-Orthodox coalition partner, the United Torah Judaism party, also quit the government citing the same concerns. The moves leave Netanyahu with a minority in parliament, which will make it difficult for his government to function.

Opposition leader Yair Lapid says the government now “has no authority”, and has called for a new round of elections. But even before these developments, Netanyahu was reportedly considering calling an early election in a bid to remain in power despite his unpopularity.

To win another term he would, in my view, have to spin a narrative of victory on three fronts: securing the release of the hostages, defeating Hamas and delivering regional security. It is a tall order.

In his visit to Washington in early July, Netanyahu emphasised his pursuit of a ceasefire in Gaza that facilitates the return of the remaining hostages held by Hamas.

Israelis have grown increasingly weary of the war, with recent surveys showing popular support for ending it if this brings back those still held captive. A ceasefire that sees hostages released would probably help Netanyahu generate support during an election campaign.

But Netanyahu has insisted that, while he wants to reach a hostage-ceasefire deal, he will not agree to one “at any price”. This indicates not only Israel’s refusal to compromise on security but also that any deal Netanyahu does make – whether or not it sees the release of all the hostages – will be presented as a victory to Israeli voters.

To provide the electorate with further hope of an end to the fighting, Netanyahu will also have to claim that the military campaign in Gaza is nearing its goals. Senior military officials stated recently that they have “almost fully achieved” their objectives – namely, defeating Hamas.


Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.


Netanyahu has, so far, prolonged the war to remain in power. But he will now need to spin the military campaign as a victory if he wants to win votes. This will be especially hard as critics like Yitzhak Brik, a retired Israeli general, claim that the number of Hamas fighters is now back to its pre-war level.

The hard-right members of Netanyahu’s government add another dimension to this equation. His two ultranationalist coalition partners, Jewish Power and Religious Zionism, oppose ending the war entirely. They insist on fighting Hamas to the finish.

Netanyahu will most likely want to keep his options open during an election campaign to then form a coalition with whatever he can pull together at the time. He may calculate that a short-term pause in fighting to free hostages can be spun as a victory to win votes, after which military operations could resume to appease hardliners if he needs them.

A final part of Netanyahu’s electoral strategy will be to push the message that he has delivered regional security. He has declared the war with Iran in June a success, saying “we sent Iran’s nuclear program down the drain”.

And Israel has also continued its campaign of strikes to assert its military dominance in the region, the latest in Syria and Lebanon.

Slim peace prospects

Observers warn that Netanyahu’s approach is about political survival, and will come at the expense of long-term peace prospects for Israelis and Palestinians. According to New York Times, he seems to be “kicking the Palestinian issue once again down the road”.

Indeed, part of Netanyahu’s mooted strategy for claiming victory in Gaza involves supporting a constrained political outcome for the Palestinians that ends the fighting without Israel conceding on core issues.

In this scenario, the Gaza Strip would be carved up and demilitarised under prolonged Israeli security oversight. Some areas would be annexed by Israel. Remaining parts of Gaza, along with fragments of the West Bank, would be handed over to an interim authority to create the appearance of a nascent Palestinian state.

The goal would be to declare that Israel has facilitated Palestinian statehood – but strictly on Israel’s terms – while eliminating Hamas’s rule in Gaza. The reality would probably be a designed chaos to force as many Palestinians as possible to leave.

Such a state, lacking full sovereignty and territorial continuity, would fall far short of the independent state that Palestinians seek. Crucially, this imposed outcome would also bypass substantive negotiation of issues like borders, refugees and Jerusalem, which both Israel and Palestine claim as their capital.

Palestinian leaders would almost certainly reject a curtailed state. And if they did not then ordinary Palestinians – reeling from the war’s devastation – are unlikely to view it as a just peace. A new cycle of violence would probably begin and the Palestinian population will have been heavily concentrated into restricted spaces that would be wide open to Israeli bombardment.




Read more:
Netanyahu’s occupation plan for Gaza means more suffering for Palestinians and less security for Israel


As Netanyahu weighs pulling the election trigger, he is effectively writing the next chapter of the Israel-Palestine conflict. The outcome of this manoeuvring is highly uncertain.

If his three-pronged victory narrative convinces Israeli voters, he could return to power with a fresh mandate and perhaps a retooled coalition. He might seek a broader unity government after an election, sidelining his most hardline partners in favour of centrist voices to navigate post-war diplomacy.

But if the public deems his victories hollow or indeed false, an election could sweep him out of office. This would open the door for opposition leaders who may take a different approach to Gaza and the Palestinians.

The Conversation

Brian Brivati is executive director of the Britain Palestine Project. He is writing this article in a personal capacity.

ref. Israel: Netanyahu considering early election but can he convince people he’s winning the war? – https://theconversation.com/israel-netanyahu-considering-early-election-but-can-he-convince-people-hes-winning-the-war-261141

Reform spent just £5.5m on the 2024 election, while Labour’s majority cost £30m – new data

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sam Power, Lecturer in Politics, University of Bristol

The 2024 election was the most expensive in British political history, new figures confirm. Across parties, candidates and third parties, a whopping £94.5 million was spent. This compares with £72.6 million in 2019, which was a record high.

Some parties got a fantastic return on their investment. Others, to put it mildly, didn’t. I wouldn’t let those in charge of Conservative party coffers run your household, for example. They spent £23.9 million in 2024 to record their worst electoral showing in recent history.

Given that they won, Labour will consider the £30.1 million they spent on a huge – but shallow – majority money well spent. It is also easily the most they’ve ever spent on an election (although spending limits have recently been increased).

The real winners in 2024 though, certainly in terms of bang for their respective bucks, are Reform and the Lib Dems, both of which only spent around £5.5 million. To put that in direct context, the Lib Dems spent £14.4 million in 2019 for a far poorer result.


Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.


This also means that Reform entered parliament for the first time, won five seats and came second in 98 others on a relatively shoestring budget. They laid the groundwork for completely upending the British political system while only spending a fraction of what the established parties did.

A striking thing about the Reform spending is quite how much they used traditional media. Although they have a reputation for social media success, they spent £900,000 advertising with the Mail Online, Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and the Telegraph – and £300,000 advertising with The Sun. In fact, at a time when we talk of the power of data-driven microtargeting on social networks, it seems they spent £2.2 million (40% of their total expenditure) on what we would understand as “traditional” media advertising.

Money does not reflect reality

These elections were fought under different rules and significantly higher spending limits than in previous contests. In 2023, the Conservatives raised how much parties could spend by 80%, to bring it in line with inflation (the prior spending limit was set in the year 2000). This meant parties could spend just over £34m in 2024 – but only Labour came close to this limit.

It’s clear, looking at these figures, that the money spent does not reflect political reality. The two traditional parties continue to spend far more than others, but the results from 2024 make a mockery of the spending limits currently in place.

Spending limits are implemented by those regulating money in politics to prevent money playing an outsize role. It is supposed to level the playing field in the same way that wage caps in certain sports intend to.

But if only two parties can even get close to the spending limit, with others fighting for scraps – albeit much more effectively – what is the need for the limit to be so high? And, as Reform and the Liberal Democrats have shown, a party can get its message out very well without coming anywhere near the spending limit.

Perhaps, given concerns about the rising power of mega-donors in UK politics – especially after Elon Musk’s threat of a £70 million donation to Reform – we should be thinking more carefully about limiting donations in UK politics. The financial story of the 2024 election, at least from a first glance, is one of complete profligacy from Labour and the Conservatives.

The wrong reforms ahead

On the same day as these figures were released, the government announced major reforms for the next election. These include votes at 16 and new rules on donations. My view, however, is that these reforms represent about the least ambitious approach one could take if the stated aim (which it apparently is) is the restoration of public trust. They wouldn’t, for example, prevent Musk from donating £70 million through X if he so pleased.

Spending limits are no longer fit for purpose. Instead, limits on donations are the only game in town. At the very least, corporate donations should be tied to profits in the UK – but above and beyond this, a cap of £1 million to £2 million should be on the table.

Recent experience from the US has shown how quickly an unregulated system can turn into an oligarchy. In 2024, the top 0.01% of donors accounted for over 50% of all money candidates raised. Many donors bankrolled parties to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, crowding out everything else. At least one of those donors went on to run a (quasi) government department.

Finally, it should also be noted that it is over a year after the election, and only now is the lid being lifted on what was spent during it. This is a significant (and unnecessary) failure in a system that holds transparency as its foundational ideal.

The Electoral Commission should be empowered to implement semi-automated AI tools of analysis, to move us closer to the ideal of real-time analysis of election spending (and any potential violations therein).

The 2024 figures show how much the landscape has changed. In the forthcoming elections bill, Labour need to meet the challenges where they actually are, not where they want them to be, if they are serious about restoring trust in politics.

The Conversation

Sam Power receives funding from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and the Economic and Social Research Council.

ref. Reform spent just £5.5m on the 2024 election, while Labour’s majority cost £30m – new data – https://theconversation.com/reform-spent-just-5-5m-on-the-2024-election-while-labours-majority-cost-30m-new-data-261341

Big Roman shoes discovered near Hadrian’s Wall – but they don’t necessarily mean big Roman feet

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tim Penn, Lecturer in Roman and Late Antique Material Culture, University of Reading

Excavations at the Roman fort of Magna near Hadrian’s Wall in Northumberland in north east England have uncovered some very large leather footwear. Their discovery, according to some news coverage, has “baffled” archaeologists.

The survival of the shoes is not by itself miraculous or unusual. Excellent preservation conditions caused by waterlogged environments with low-oxygen means that leather, and other organic materials, survive in the wet soil of this part of northern England.

Many years of excavations by the Vindolanda Trust at Vindolanda just south of Hadrian’s Wall, and now at Magna, have recovered an enormous collection of Roman shoes. These finds have provided us with an excellent record of the footwear of soldiers and the civilians who lived around them.

The shoes from Magna stand out because many of them are big. Big shoes have also been found at Vindolanda. However, of those whose size can be determined, only 0.4% are big. The average shoe size at Vindolanda is 9.5 to 10.2 inches in length, which is between a modern UK shoe size 7 to 8.

Big shoes make up a much larger share of the shoes at Magna. The biggest shoe is a whopping 12.8 inches long, roughly equivalent to a modern UK size 12 to 14.

This shoe collection raises an immediate and obvious question: why did people at Magna have such large shoes?

The possible answers to this question raise more questions and bring to the fore a central component of archaeological research: a good debate.

Emma Frame, senior archaeologist for the Magna excavations, suggests: “We have to assume it’s something to do with the people living here, having bigger feet, being potentially taller but we don’t know.”

This idea of bigger feet, bigger people makes a good deal of sense, though it would suggest that some of the military community at Magna were very tall indeed. And, as the Roman cemeteries of Hadrian’s Wall have been little excavated or studied, we have little information about how tall people were in this part of the Roman world.


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.


Other ideas might be worth entertaining too, however. For example, could these be some kind of snowshoes or winter boots meant to allow extra layers of padding or multiple pairs of socks to be worn?

A letter, preserved by similar conditions to the shoes at Vindolanda, refers to a gift of socks and underpants that was sent to someone stationed there, presumably to keep them warm during the cold winter nights. We also know from other evidence that Syrian archers made up one of the units stationed at Magna. These men would not have been used to the frosty climate of northern England.

Could these large shoes be an attempt to cope with the bitter shock of a British winter? Or instead, could these shoes have a medical purpose, perhaps to allow people with swollen feet or people utilising medical dressings to wear shoes?

It’s important to note, I am not claiming to have the answers. I’m simply putting out some hypotheses which could explain the extra-large shoes based on other evidence we have and potential logical explanations for such large footwear.

These kinds of hypotheses lie right at the heart of the archaeological method. Fresh archaeological discoveries are made everyday, and they often make headlines with phrases about “baffled archaeologists.” While this language can spark public interest, it also risks giving a misleading impression of the discipline. In reality, the work archaeologists like me and thousands of my colleagues around the world do is grounded in careful, evidence-based analysis.

The challenge lies not in our lack of expertise, but in the nature of the evidence itself. Much of the distant past has been lost to time, and what we do recover represents only a small fragment of the original picture.

We’re not so much “baffled” as we are rigorously testing multiple hypotheses to arrive at the most plausible interpretations. Interpreting these fragments is a complex process, like piecing together a thousand-piece jigsaw puzzle with many of the most crucial pieces (like the edges) missing.

Sometimes we have exactly the right pieces to understand the big picture, but other times we have gaps, and we have to put forward a series of different suggestions until more evidence comes to light.

The Conversation

Tim Penn 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. Big Roman shoes discovered near Hadrian’s Wall – but they don’t necessarily mean big Roman feet – https://theconversation.com/big-roman-shoes-discovered-near-hadrians-wall-but-they-dont-necessarily-mean-big-roman-feet-256369

Incels, misogyny, role models: what England’s new relationships and sex education lessons will cover – and how young people will benefit

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sophie King-Hill, Associate Professor at the Health Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham

Daniel Hoz/Shutterstock

Sex and relationships education for children at primary and secondary state-funded schools in England will see significant changes following the release of new statutory guidance from the government. There are some stark differences between this and the draft guidance issued by the previous Conservative government in May 2024.

The new guidance also looks different in many ways to the last statutory guidance, released in 2019. It includes many new and valuable topics such as the law around strangulation, sextortion, upskirting, deepfakes, suicide prevention and bereavement. Schools are also required to challenge misogynistic ideas, cover misogynistic influencers and online content, and explore prejudice and pornography.

As a researcher working on sex education and masculinity, I see many positives in how these issues are approached in the government’s new guidance. The new topics are a move in the right direction, meeting the needs of the pupils being taught.


Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.


Another key change is the removal of the proposal to put age restrictions on the teaching of certain topics. This is welcome news: it aligns with evidence and allows teachers to design sex education that takes context into account. It means they can teach their pupils what they need to know in a proactive and responsive way.

The guidance also explicitly mentions giving pupils the opportunity to discuss incels. Incel, an abbreviation of “involuntary celibate”, refers to those who identify as wanting romantic and sexual partners but find it difficult to achieve this.

Online incel communities are underpinned by hostility towards women, resentment, misogyny and the support of extreme violence against women. They may espouse an ideological position that claims societal structures are set up to unfairly disadvantage them.

Keeping boys in the conversation

One aspect included in the guidance is that it is important for pupils to understand that “most boys and young men are respectful to girls and young women and each other”. It also states that “teachers should avoid language which stigmatises boys, or suggests that boys or men are always perpetrators or that girls or women are always victims”.

These are really important points that need to underpin the teaching of misogyny and online incel culture. A risk is that such teaching may otherwise portray boys, as a group, as perpetrators. This can create a culture of blame that may alienate boys and young men. Instead, seeing boys as valuable contributors to these conversations around misogyny can foster educational progress.

Young people round table in classroom
Boys and girls need opportunities to discuss these issues.
Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock

Another important reference in the guidance is that children and young people should have opportunities to develop “positive conceptions of masculinity and femininity”, and how to “identify and learn from positive male role models”.

This focus on positive examples of masculinity is a welcome way to support boys and young men in developing healthy identities – not only considering gender but other intersecting aspects of their identity, such as class, ethnicity, culture and values.

Good relationships and sex education needs dialogue and understanding between pupils, teachers and parents. For adults, this means knowing the landscape first. Familiarisation with why young people may be attracted to problematic online spaces will be useful.

These online spaces often offer a skewed sense of belonging, and offer simplistic answers to complex emotions and questions. Young people’s thoughts and opinions of misogynist online influencers may be contradictory, rather than simple approval or disapproval. This requires thoughtful unpicking of concepts and ideals, and open conversation rather than blame. It is also important to recognise that teaching these topics is not easy, and that teachers may need support too.

New content

While much of the new guidance is welcome, it’s important that teacher training and professional development keeps pace with these changes. Teachers may not feel confident addressing such a broad range of often-sensitive topics without support.

The guidance also falls short of making relationships and sex education statutory for those aged 16-18 in sixth-form colleges, 16-19 academies or further education colleges, despite evidence that it is very much needed for this age group.

The rights of transgender people and the issues affecting them are dealt with in a limited way, which could affect teachers’ ability to have supportive conversations with trans and non-binary pupils. There is also limited detail for those working in special education for pupils with complex needs.

One of the most important aspects of teaching on sex and relationships is to create a safe space for open discussion.

Young people should be encouraged to provide their own input into how relationships and sex education is taught, and to give their ideas on what they feel they need to learn about – and what they already know. While this approach is often overlooked, meaningful engagement with pupils is highlighted as a key guiding principle in the new guidance.

Young people are the experts on the world they inhabit. It is essential they are listened to to ensure that lessons are relevant and effective.

The Conversation

Sophie King-Hill receives funding from the ESRC.

ref. Incels, misogyny, role models: what England’s new relationships and sex education lessons will cover – and how young people will benefit – https://theconversation.com/incels-misogyny-role-models-what-englands-new-relationships-and-sex-education-lessons-will-cover-and-how-young-people-will-benefit-261217

Sex education in England to include warnings about choking – what parents need to know

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alexandra Fanghanel, Associate Professor in Criminology, University of Greenwich

UC1Plus/Shutterstock

New government guidance for England will see pupils at secondary schools taught about the risks of choking and suffocation in sex and relationships education. If you’re a parent, the idea of this topic being introduced to your child might sound alarming.

But as an academic expert researching risky sexual practices, I believe this inclusion – and the way it’s presented – is absolutely a good thing. We can’t ignore that choking is becoming a more normalised part of sex for young people. To keep them safe, they need to know about it – and how dangerous it is.

The Department for Education guidance states that by the end of secondary education, schools should cover: “That strangulation and suffocation are criminal offences, and that strangulation (applying pressure to the neck) is an offence, regardless of whether it causes injury. That any activity that involves applying force or pressure to someone’s neck or covering someone’s mouth and nose is dangerous and can lead to serious injury or death.”


Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.


Though this stipulation does not explicitly link strangulation to sex, it marks a step in the right direction. Add to this acknowledgement that any sexual practice that explores these themes should only occur if participants are informed about the dangers, and we start some of the work of raising awareness of the risks associated with strangulation during sex.

Research from the US which surveyed nearly 5,000 undergraduate students – with an average age of 20 – found that 58% of the women had experienced choking during sex. In the UK, a 2024 survey of 2,344 people found that 16% had taken part in choking during sex. But this rose to over a third of younger people aged 16 to 35.

Distressed teenage girls hugging
Teenagers need to know the risks of rough sex.
WorldStockStudio/Shutterstock

In 2020, I was teaching a postgraduate module on sexuality, gender and crime. In one of the classes about unconventional sexual expression and sexual subcultures, we were talking about bondage and sadomasochism (BDSM) and rough sex, including practices such as choking and strangulation. I remember one of the students was incredulous – not that people enjoy choking for sexual gratification, but that some people weren’t doing it. “Surely everyone does choking during sex,” she declared.

I was really taken aback by her certainty that this practice was normal. I said to her, and the class, that choking is one of the most dangerous things you can do in a sexual encounter – but it struck me that the message of this risk is getting lost in representations of “kinky” sex in the mainstream.

It has become so ordinary, it is even treated as a joke: in episode four of the new season of the BBC comedy Such Brave Girls, Josie, a lesbian, pretends to be hypersexually attracted to her husband, Seb, and goads him into having sex with her. As she recoils under his touch, she cries “choke me” while thrusting his hand on to her neck.

This, according to social psychologist and sexuality expert Nicola Gavey, is the “mythology of everyday kink”: that everyone is doing it, that this is how we have sex now.

Knowing the risk

Choking really is dangerous. According to campaign group We Can’t Consent To This, instances where women have been killed during a sexual encounter in the UK, often as a result of choking, have increased significantly over the past 50 years.

Since 2020, I have been researching rough sex gone wrong, and what happens when these cases go to court: my book on this topic is coming out later this year. My research demonstrates that more education about unconventional sexual expression is needed, so that people who are curious about it can explore it from a risk-aware, empowered vantage point. This includes knowing which aspects of rough sex can not ever be done safely.

The issue is that people, including young people, are curious about being choked during sex. Some people want to do it. Some people find it arousing. Some find it exciting, even if it is also scary. Simply denying that these desires or curiosities exist makes it much more difficult for people to explore rough sex in an informed or risk-aware way.

It’s only by talking about it candidly that young people can learn there is absolutely no safe way to strangle or choke their partner, and that there are other ways to explore these more unconventional desires.

BDSM educator Jay Wiseman has noted that in his experience, the more people know about how unpredictable and risky suffocation and strangulation is, the fewer choose to do it.

This is how we can deal with dangerous, reckless sexual practice and better protect women, who are disproportionately harmed or killed in these cases.

The Conversation

Alexandra Fanghanel 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. Sex education in England to include warnings about choking – what parents need to know – https://theconversation.com/sex-education-in-england-to-include-warnings-about-choking-what-parents-need-to-know-261224

Bitter melon for diabetes? Fenugreek for cholesterol? The research behind ancient remedies

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dipa Kamdar, Senior Lecturer in Pharmacy Practice, Kingston University

Woman drinks bitter melon juice Andri wahyudi/Shutterstock

Herbs like ashwagandha and turmeric are now widely recognised as part of the global wellness lexicon. But ayurveda, India’s traditional system of medicine with a history spanning more than 3,000 years, encompasses a much broader range of therapeutic plants.

Grounded in principles of balance between body, mind and spirit, ayurvedic medicine relies on diet, lifestyle and natural substances to prevent and treat disease. Beyond the familiar, a number of lesser known herbs and spices are now gaining attention for their potential health benefits.

Here are three ayurvedic botanicals worth knowing more about:


Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.


1. Bitter melon (momordica charantia)

Despite its name, bitter melon’s benefits may be surprisingly sweet. Also called bitter gourd, this bumpy green vegetable has long been used in Ayurveda to support blood sugar control, combat infections and address inflammation, high cholesterol and even cancer.

Laboratory studies suggest bitter melon can fight microbes like E. coli, Salmonella, herpes viruses and even malaria parasites. Early research also points to potential anti-cancer properties, particularly in breast cancer, where it may interfere with how cancer cells grow and communicate. However, most of this evidence comes from lab and animal studies; large-scale trials in humans are still lacking.

Where bitter melon shows the strongest promise is in diabetes management. It contains several bioactive compounds – charantin (a plant steroid), polypeptide-p (a plant-derived insulin-like protein) and cucurbitanoids (a group of anti-inflammatory compounds) – which may mimic the effects of insulin, support its production, or improve the body’s use of glucose. In one study, bitter melon extract significantly lowered fasting blood glucose in people with type 2 diabetes after four weeks.

How it works isn’t clear. It may help the pancreas produce insulin, protect insulin producing cells, or increase sugar uptake by the muscles. But the effects can be powerful, and when combined with diabetes medications, may cause blood sugar to drop too low. If you’re taking medication, it’s important to monitor your levels closely.

Animal studies have also linked high doses to miscarriage risk, so pregnant people should eat it in moderation.

2. Fenugreek (trigonella foenum-graecum)

Fenugreek is a botanical multitasker. Depending on the part of the plant used, it can function as a herb, spice, or vegetable. Across various cultures, fenugreek has traditionally been used to relieve menstrual cramps, support breastfeeding and manage blood sugar.

Emerging clinical evidence suggests fenugreek may help regulate cholesterol. It contains several potentially active compounds: sapogenins (plant-based compounds that enhance bile flow), pectin (a type of soluble fibre that binds to cholesterol in the digestive tract) and phytosterols (plant sterols that compete with cholesterol for absorption in the gut). Together, these may reduce fat absorption, block cholesterol uptake and promote cholesterol elimination by the liver. Fenugreek also contains antioxidants that may protect the heart and support healthy fat metabolism.

It’s also gaining attention for blood sugar control. Fenugreek may slow carbohydrate digestion, reduce glucose absorption in the gut and enhance insulin release. Some longer-term studies show it can reduce both post-meal and fasting blood sugar levels, though findings are mixed.

Fenugreek may also support lactation. It’s been classified as a galactagogue – a substance that promotes milk production – possibly by boosting key hormones: insulin (which helps regulate metabolism), prolactin (which stimulates milk production), and oxytocin (which triggers the let-down reflex during breastfeeding). In one study, mothers who drank fenugreek tea produced more breast milk than those in control groups. But as with many natural remedies, evidence is mixed, and placebo effects may play a role. It’s best to consult a healthcare provider before using fenugreek for breastfeeding support.

Some trials suggest fenugreek may help increase testosterone in men – improving libido, reducing body fat and boosting energy – especially when paired with strength training. However, more robust studies are needed.

Side effects are mostly mild and gastrointestinal, such as nausea, bloating or diarrhoea. Most studies have used relatively low doses, so it’s unclear what risks might exist at higher intake levels.

3. Asafoetida (ferula asafoetida)

You might know asafoetida as that strong-smelling spice often used in Indian cooking, but it’s also a respected digestive remedy in Ayurveda. Derived from the dried sap of ferula plant roots, asafoetida is known for easing bloating and gas.

Its active compound, ferulic acid, may help digest complex carbs and reduce flatulence. In a clinical trial, asafoetida supplements significantly improved indigestion symptoms, including bloating, early fullness and heartburn. It appears to stimulate digestive enzymes and bile production, improving fat digestion.

Asafoetida may also support people with irritable bowel syndrome. In one study, two weeks of asafoetida supplements led to improvements in IBS symptoms, though results have been mixed overall.

Early lab studies suggest even more benefits – potential antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective effects, as well as roles in regulating blood pressure, easing asthma and possibly reducing blood sugar. But again, human trials are needed to confirm these effects.

Caution is warranted if you’re taking blood pressure medications or anticoagulants like warfarin, as asafoetida may lower blood pressure and thin the blood.




Read more:
Ashwagandha: this ancient herb is trending for its potential health benefits – but also comes with risks


Ancient remedies, modern caution

Although research in humans is still developing, these lesser-known ayurvedic botanicals have been trusted in traditional medicine for centuries. They may offer promising support in managing chronic conditions or enhancing overall wellbeing, but they’re not without risk.

Small amounts used in cooking are generally safe. But if you’re considering supplements or therapeutic doses, it’s important to speak with a healthcare professional, especially if you’re pregnant, taking medication, or managing a medical condition.

Used wisely, these ancient ingredients could bridge the gap between holistic healing and modern science, bringing a little balance to both your kitchen and your health.

The Conversation

Dipa Kamdar 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. Bitter melon for diabetes? Fenugreek for cholesterol? The research behind ancient remedies – https://theconversation.com/bitter-melon-for-diabetes-fenugreek-for-cholesterol-the-research-behind-ancient-remedies-259300

Why employees hesitate to disclose mental health concerns – and what employers can do about it

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Zhanna Lyubykh, Assistant Professor, Beedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University

About one in four employees has a diagnosable mental health condition, and up to 65 per cent say mental health concerns interfere with their ability to work.

The economic toll is staggering. In the United States alone, mental health concerns cost over $280 billion annually. Worldwide, that figure reaches an estimated US$1 trillion annually.

Mental health is increasingly being recognized as critical to workplace functioning. Organizations invest substantial resources in wellness programs, mental health training and employee assistance programs. Some even offer on-site therapy sessions at no cost to their employees.

Yet despite these efforts, many employees remain hesitant to seek help or disclose their mental health conditions. This reluctance can leave employees under-supported and contribute to increased absenteeism and turnover. Those who choose not to disclose often miss out on access to workplace accommodations and support, which can exacerbate their conditions and even increase the risk of job loss.

Disclosure can be a gateway to vital support, but questions remain about how to facilitate such disclosures. Our research, recently published as an open-access article, shows the decision to disclose a mental health condition isn’t purely personal and can depend on the broader workplace environment.

Supportive workplaces lead to better mental health

Across two samples, we surveyed 1,232 employees from Canada and the U.S. We recruited participants from Qualtrics, an online panel provider, and a large financial institution in Canada that operates across multiple locations. We asked employees — both with and without mental health concerns — to indicate the extent to which they perceived their organization as supportive of disclosing mental health concerns.

Employees with mental health concerns shared whether they had disclosed their condition to their employer, how willing they were to disclose in the future, their levels of anxiety and depression, and a range of work-related attitudes and behaviours.

We found that a work environment that was safe and supported the disclosure of mental health concerns was extremely beneficial for both employees and organizations.

First, employees working in highly supportive environments were 55 per cent more likely to disclose their mental health concerns. These environments were also linked to greater willingness to disclose current or potential mental health concerns.

Second, supportive environments were associated with lower levels of anxiety and depression, both of which are important indicators of mental health. This suggests that organizations can contribute to employee mental health by fostering supportive environments.

Third, employees who felt their organization supported disclosure reported higher job satisfaction, greater work engagement, and more organizational citizenship behaviours, such as helping co-workers or going above and beyond their job duties. These kinds of behaviours help create healthy, high-performing workplaces.

In one of our samples, we matched employee responses with their organizational records of absenteeism. We found that when employees rated their organizational environment as supportive of mental health disclosure, they were less likely to miss work due to illness.

Supporting mental health disclosure

Our study identified three elements of a workplace that support mental health disclosure. The first is the absence of stigma and anticipated discrimination. Many employees choose to conceal their concerns because they are fearful of being stigmatized, facing unfair treatment or being passed over for promotions.

Employees often pick up on subtle cues in their environment — consciously or not — to estimate the risk of stigma. If they observe colleagues with disclosed mental health conditions being treated negatively, this signals low organizational support and makes disclosure appear risky.

The second element is the availability of organizational resources. Disclosing one’s mental health concerns should unlock access to organizational supports, such as time off or counselling programs. These supports need to be tangible and go beyond mere mentions in the employee handbook. Employees form perceptions about how seriously their organization takes mental health based on whether these resources are present and accessible.

The third element is the presence of social support. Our research found that social support was an important indicator of informal culture around mental health concerns. Such support may include emotional support from peers or supervisors, and the ability to openly discuss mental health.

Employees notice whether, and how, mental health is discussed at work. When employees are encouraged to talk openly about it, the workplace appears more conducive to disclosure. In contrast, when concerns are dismissed or met with unhelpful advice such as “stay positive” or “toughen up,” the environment is unlikely to be seen as supportive.

How organizations can support disclosure

Our research points to four main strategies organizations can use to foster an environment that signals support for disclosing mental health concerns.

1. Identify areas for improvement.

Our research provides a list of survey items that organizations can use to track employee perceptions and identify priority areas for improvement. For example, employees might be asked whether they feel safe disclosing a mental health concern, or whether they believe the organization responds supportively when others do. These items can be include in annual employee surveys, with anonymity ensured to encourage honest responses.

2. Combat stigma by role modelling.

Workplace leaders are well-positioned to make positive change and role model appropriate behaviours. Employees often look to leaders and model their behaviour. Providing leaders with training about implicit biases, and equipping them with tools to provide support to employees with mental health concerns, can help start the cycle of positive change. Leaders who receive mental health training tend to be more supportive, more likely to encourage disclosure and are better able to guide employees toward appropriate help.

3. Make resources visible and easily accessible.

Even when organizations have resources available, employees may not know about them or may find them difficult to access. Organizations and managers need to frequently communicate about the availability of mental health resources and ensure they are easy to access. Red tape and bureaucracy can deter employees from accessing organizational supports.

4. Talk openly about mental health.

Talking about mental health can help normalize it and encourage employees to share their concerns. This can include intentionally creating opportunities for such discussions, such as mental health days. In addition, when senior leaders share their experiences with mental health concerns, it can help normalize such discussions.

Ultimately, a disclosure-supportive environment benefits employee mental health and encourages positive work behaviours. In other words, when employees feel safe enough to speak up, both employees and organizations benefit from it.

The Conversation

Zhanna Lyubykh receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

Justin Weinhardt receives funding fromHaskayne School of Business’s Future Fund, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

Nick Turner receives research funding from Cenovus Energy Inc., Haskayne School of Business’s Future Fund, Mitacs, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

ref. Why employees hesitate to disclose mental health concerns – and what employers can do about it – https://theconversation.com/why-employees-hesitate-to-disclose-mental-health-concerns-and-what-employers-can-do-about-it-261158

Why male corporate leaders and billionaires may need financial therapy more than anyone

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Prince Sarpong, Associate professor, University of the Free State

Corporate leaders and billionaires are often viewed as visionaries and wealth creators. But beneath the surface, many are trapped in an invisible financial “crisis” – one rooted not in market volatility or poor investments but in their psychological relationship with money.

As a finance professor and editor of the forthcoming book “Financial Therapy for Men,” I study this often overlooked aspect of financial psychology. Money is far more than numbers on a balance sheet – it carries emotional, psychological and social meaning. People’s relationships with money are shaped by childhood experiences, cultural beliefs and personal triumphs and failures. This emotional baggage can influence not only their sense of safety and self-worth but also how they manage power and status.

The field of financial therapy emerged in the mid-2000s to address these dynamics. Drawing from behavioral economics, financial psychology, family systems theory and clinical therapy, it aims to help people understand how their thoughts, feelings and experiences shape financial behavior. Foundational academic work began at Kansas State University, home to one of the first graduate-level programs in the field.

Since then, financial therapy has gained traction in the U.S. and globally: It’s supported by a peer-reviewed journal and is increasingly integrated into professional practice by financial advisers and licensed therapists. Studies have shown that financial therapy can improve relationships and reduce emotional distress.

Yet much of the field focuses on people who are emotionally open and reflective – neglecting executives, who are often socialized to view themselves as purely rational decision-makers. I think this is a mistake.

Research shows that people often project their unconscious anxieties onto markets, experiencing them as mirrors of competence, failure or control. This means that public valuations and capital flows may carry deeply symbolic weight for corporate leaders.

My research suggests that people at the highest levels of wealth and power have deeply complex emotional relationships with money – but the field of financial therapy has largely overlooked them. This isn’t an accident. It reflects a broader assumption that wealth insulates people from psychological distress. In reality, emotional entanglements can intensify with greater wealth and power – and research suggests that men, in particular, face distinct challenges. True inclusion in financial therapy means recognizing and responding to these needs.

When distress becomes a leadership crisis

In a 2023 study – When and why do men negotiate assertively? – Jens Mazei, whose research focuses on negotiations and conflict management, and his colleagues found that men become more aggressive in negotiations when they think their masculinity is being threatened. This was especially true in contexts viewed as “masculine,” such as salary negotiations. In “nonmasculine” contexts, such as negotiations over flexible work and child care benefits, participants weren’t significantly more aggressive when their masculinity was challenged.

On male-coded topics, many men in the study reinforced gender norms by rejecting compromise, using hardball tactics or even inflating financial demands to reassert their masculinity. These behaviors reflect an unconscious need to restore a sense of masculine identity, the researchers suggest. If this reaction occurs in salary negotiations, how might it manifest when the stakes are exponentially higher?

Emerging research in organizational psychology shows that financial stress is linked to abusive supervision, particularly among men who feel a loss of control. Further, traits such as CEO masculinity have been linked with increased risk-taking, while female CEOs tend to reduce risk. Together, these findings point to a dangerous intersection of psychological stress, masculinity and executive decision-making.

As Elon Musk memorably said, “I’ll say what I want to say, and if we lose money, so be it.”

M&A as a masculinity battleground

Financial distress doesn’t always look like bankruptcy or bad credit. Among powerful men, it can manifest as overconfidence, rigidity or aggression – and it can sometimes lead to very uneconomical outcomes.

Consider the research on M&A. Most mergers and acquisitions are value killers – in other words, they destroy more economic value than they create – and the field of M&A is deeply male. These two facts suggest that some mergers are driven more by threatened masculinity than by strategic logic. If men become more aggressive in negotiations when their masculinity is threatened, then CEOs and corporate leaders, who are overwhelmingly male, may react similarly when their companies, and by extension their leadership, are challenged.

Target companies rarely take a passive approach to acquisition attempts. Instead, they deploy defensive measures such as poison pills, golden parachutes, staggered boards and scorched-earth tactics. In addition to serving financial goals, these may also act as symbolic defenses of masculine authority.

Mergers and acquisitions, by their nature, create a contest of power between dominant figures. The very language of M&A – for example, “raiders,” “hostile takeovers,” “defenses” and “white knights” – is combative. This reinforces an environment where corporate leaders may view acquisition attempts as challenges to their authority rather than as just financial transactions.

A growing body of behavioral-strategy research confirms that boardroom decisions are often shaped by emotional undercurrents rather than purely rational analysis. While this research stops short of naming it, the dynamics it describes align closely with what Mazei and colleagues call “masculinity threat.”

This has direct implications for corporate M&A. The overwhelming majority of top CEOs are men, and the language of M&A often evokes siege, power struggles and conquest. In such a symbolic arena, acquisition attempts can trigger deep, emotionally charged responses, as the identity stakes are high. What appear to be strategic financial decisions may actually be reflexive defenses of masculine authority.

On a related note, researchers in behavioral finance have long studied the “endowment effect,” or the tendency for people to value assets more simply because they own them. While the endowment effect has been studied primarily among retail investors making ordinary financial decisions, it could be particularly important for corporate executives and billionaires, who have more to lose.

When combined with threatened masculinity, the endowment effect can produce combustible reactions to declining valuations, missed earnings or takeover bids – even for individuals who remain vastly wealthy after marginal losses. While the research at this intersection is still emerging, the underlying behavioral patterns are well established.

What does financial therapy for the ultrarich look like?

Financial therapy for high-net-worth individuals rarely looks like sitting on a couch discussing childhood trauma. Instead, it takes an interdisciplinary approach involving financial advisers, therapists and sometimes executive coaches. Sessions tend to focus on legacy planning, control issues, guilt over wealth, or strained family relationships.

Many high-net-worth men display behaviors that don’t look like like stereotypical “financial distress.” These can include compulsive deal-making, emotionally driven investment decisions, workaholism and difficulty trusting advisers. In some cases, unresolved financial trauma shows up as chronic dissatisfaction and the sense that no achievement, acquisition or net worth is ever “enough.”

While financial therapy is intended to help individuals, I think it could actually be a tool for global economic stability.

After all, when masculinity is threatened in corporate decision-making, the consequences can extend far beyond the boardroom. These actions can destabilize industries, fuel economic downturns and disrupt entire labor markets. Unchecked financial anxiety among corporate elites and billionaires isn’t just their own problem – it can cascade and become everyone’s problem.

From this perspective, financial therapy isn’t just a personal good. It’s a structural necessity that can prevent unchecked financial distress from driving destructive corporate decisions and broader economic disruptions.

If financial therapy helps people navigate financial distress and make healthier money decisions, then no group needs it more than male corporate leaders and billionaires.

The Conversation

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

ref. Why male corporate leaders and billionaires may need financial therapy more than anyone – https://theconversation.com/why-male-corporate-leaders-and-billionaires-may-need-financial-therapy-more-than-anyone-252094

Torre Pacheco: cómo comprender el odio que nace del prejuicio y la deshumanización

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Sergio García Magariño, Investigador de I-Communitas, Institute for Advanced Social Research, Universidad Pública de Navarra

Por mucho odio y violencia que aparezca en los medios al reflejar la actualidad, los seres humanos somos seres sociales interdependientes. La supervivencia del Homo sapiens como especie y la aparición de la civilización han dependido, principalmente, de la colaboración y la solidaridad.

Entonces, ¿qué hace que haya tanto odio, que se generen polos violentos opuestos, que se orquesten cacerías de unos grupos contra otros en un pueblo como Torre Pacheco? Y más importante aún: puesto que la ciencia no solo describe las realidades y sus causas tal cuales son, sino que explora soluciones tras realizar diagnósticos, ¿cómo se puede evitar y reconducir una situación así?

En Torre Pacheco –que nos sirve de muestra, de indicador de algo que lleva tiempo gestándose en España y en otras democracias liberales– confluyen, al menos, tres procesos:

Problemas grandes en lugares pequeños

En primer lugar, la emergencia de “un Torre Pacheco” visibiliza tanto el déficit de gobernanza global, europea y nacional de los flujos migratorios como la poca efectividad de las políticas de integración y de gestión de la diversidad.

Los problemas globales e internacionales se sienten con mayor crudeza en los ámbitos locales: las islas pequeñas son las más afectadas por el cambio climático, el tráfico internacional de diamantes golpea las aldeas de la República Democrática del Congo y la especulación mundial con criptomonedas depende de “criptomineros” asentados en una finca consumiendo gran cantidad de energía.

Hoy es Torre Pacheco, pero mañana puede ser otra localidad como Marcilla, en Navarra, un barrio de Sabadell (Barcelona) o la zona de San Francisco, en Bilbao. La diversidad incrementa la riqueza cultural, pero también trae conflictos si no hay una buena gestión de la diversidad y promoción de la convivencia.

Aquí, las personas, las instituciones y las comunidades son responsables de encontrar un modelo satisfactorio que tenga como umbral mínimo moral el respeto de los derechos humanos.

En segundo lugar, el prejuicio, el odio de unos grupos hacia otros, la deshumanización del diferente (ya sea racial, nacional o ideológicamente) es la antesala de la violencia.

Las teorías más consolidadas sobre la violencia muestran que los seres humanos tendemos a condolernos con lo que les pasa a otras personas. Sin embargo, cuando percibimos injusticias y dolor ajeno también generamos narrativas de justificación y culpabilización contra quienes las víctimas, lo que disipa esa empatía natural. De lo contrario, ante mucho sufrimiento nos desmoronaríamos, salvo que nos levantáramos a actuar decididamente para atajar dichos males.

El sociólogo noruego y el principal fundador de la disciplina de los estudios sobre la paz y los conflictos, Jonathan Galtung, habla de la violencia cultural. Esta puede dirigirse hacia innumerables direcciones: “los migrantes”, “los de derechas”, “los progres”, “las mujeres”, “los jóvenes”, “los ricos”, “los pobres”, “los del Barcelona” o “los gitanos”.

La Escuela de Frankfurt también hablaba de reificación para describir las categorías de identidad grupal que nos orientan, pero que, con el uso, se cosifican y nos impiden ver a quien está enfrente como igual en dignidad.

El gran problema es que, de un lado, apelamos al sentido común (construido socialmente) para justificar dicho rechazo y, de otro, el odio y el rechazo suelen canalizarse hacia la persona que está objetivamente más oprimida, tiene menos derechos y vive una vida menos digna. En breve, todo prejuicio y odio hacia un grupo contribuye a la violencia más cruel y legitima la opresión económica y estructural de dicho grupo.

Vivir en un clima de crispación permanente

En tercer y último lugar, la polarización de la sociedad –azuzada desde las campañas políticas y las redes desde hace décadas–, la polarización ideológica y la polarización política tienen al menos dos costes: afectan paulatinamente la calidad democrática y alimentan procesos de radicalización violenta de individuos y organizaciones.

La conexión entre polarización y radicalización violenta en Estados Unidos ha sido clara desde hace años, pero en Europa se ha tendido a separar ambos fenómenos y a encomiar el efecto estimulante y movilizador de la polarización político-afectiva.

No obstante, vivir en un clima permanente de crispación, de campaña, de descalificación, de demagogia, de lucha despiadada por llegar al poder o por mantenerlo, nutre los extremos ideológicos e impulsa a personas a unirse a ellos. Y los polos, cuando se tensan demasiado, traspasan los límites de lo estrictamente democrático y pacífico, haciendo aparecer grupos que justifican la violencia desde uno y otro flanco ideológico.

Incluso los diagnósticos que demonizan, desde un espectro, a los colectivos sin estatus legal y los no nativos y, desde el otro, a los ultras, probablemente hayan caído inadvertidamente en dicha lógica polarizada que contribuye a la persistencia del problema. Esta constatación no exime de responsabilidades, sino que evita la simplificación.

Caminos a seguir

En definitiva, mejorar la gobernanza global de los flujos migratorios, las políticas de integración y de gestión de la diversidad; abordar las causas culturales y económicas de los prejuicios, que nos insensibilizan hacia el dolor ajeno; y elevar el debate político y mediático para que se acerque a unos estándares mínimos de decoro, sobresalen como tres de las avenidas más prometedoras, y a largo plazo, que deberían recorrerse.

Y un recordatorio final: cada persona, cada comunidad y cada institución tiene la oportunidad y el deber de contribuir al fortalecimiento de la convivencia pacífica y democrática de una sociedad que cada vez es más diversa, como también lo fue en el pasado.

The Conversation

Sergio García Magariño no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.

ref. Torre Pacheco: cómo comprender el odio que nace del prejuicio y la deshumanización – https://theconversation.com/torre-pacheco-como-comprender-el-odio-que-nace-del-prejuicio-y-la-deshumanizacion-261324