Category: Analysis

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Joel Gray, Associate Dean, Sheffield Hallam University

There can be no doubt that any conversation about British girlbands of the last 30 years would be dominated by Spice Girls.

In whichever corner of the globe you are, they were the defacto pop force of the late 1990s – and their impact has been long-lasting. From Adele to Beyonce Knowles-Carter, many contemporary world-class artists cite them as an inspiration.

However, new BBC documentary series Girlbands Forever focuses on many other girlbands who have emerged in British pop music from the early ’90s (Eternal) to the present day (Little Mix). It takes a broadly chronological overview, charting their development, releases and eventual splits in almost forensic detail.

As both a girlband fan and researcher, I was, though, disappointed that it offers little discussion of the impact these artists have had on their fans. Also absent from discussion is the link to queer audiences – something many girlband members have made specific reference to themselves.

One celebratory theme that is strong throughout this three-episode series is diversity and sisterhood. Eternal, All Saints, Atomic Kitten, Sugababes and Little Mix were all made up of racially diverse singers. And as each girlband passed the baton to the next generation, both media and society seemed more and more at ease with this concept.

Other topics of discussion include changes in the media (from newspapers to gossip magazines to reality television to social media) and society more broadly (rave culture, “Cool Britannia” and changing governments). This grounds the girlband discussions in a wider context.

Particular attention is paid to Little Mix as the girlband who won TV talent show The X Factor in 2011 – yet no mention is made that Girls Aloud did it nearly ten years earlier, when they won Popstars The Rivals in 2002.

Indeed, the fact Girls Aloud are not mentioned at all in the series is a glaring omission. While Little Mix faced abuse from anonymous social media trolls and the Spice Girls were constantly targeted by ’90s tabloid newspapers, Girls Aloud were the defining girlband of the celebrity gossip magazine era in the mid-2000s. Experts such as author Michael Cragg have written about the band’s impact on pop culture, and fans are likely to be disappointed by their omission.

The absence of a band which produced superstar (and later X Factor judge) Cheryl Cole highlights another area which a future series could go into: the solo career struggles and successes of these girlband members. Cole had two solo no.1 albums, and joins Spice Girl Geri Halliwell as one the most successful British female artists of all time.

The success of girlbands has always nurtured rich careers in the entertainment industries for its individual members. Both Jade Thirlwall and Perrie Edwards of Little Mix had top-five albums in the same month recently. Spice Girl Mel B is an international TV icon, judging talent shows on multiple continents; Atomic Kitten Natasha Hamilton has established her own record label; and Eternal’s Louise Redknapp had a top-10 album in 2025.

Spice Girl Melanie C and the All Saints’ offshoot Appleton (composed of sisters Natalie and Nicole Appleton) have been seen in the studio this year, with projects rumoured for 2026.

There are also plentiful non-music projects to mention. Many girlband members go on to support charities and philanthropic causes. Halliwell recently received an honorary doctorate from my university, Sheffield Hallam, for her work advancing rights for women and children on projects with the United Nations and Royal Commonwealth Society for Literacy. And Mel B has received awards for raising awareness of domestic abuse.

But for every number-one record and charity ambassadorship role, there is a member who may have not had the same luck. All Saints star Melanie Blatt, for example, has taken on a “chef residency” at a London pub which, while no bad thing, feels rather different to filming television shows in LA, or the solo efforts of her Girls Aloud and Spice Girls peers.

In contrast to the documentary’s omissions, I am glad it spotlights the brilliance of Atomic Kitten stalwarts Jenny Frost and Natasha Hamilton, who were quintessential noughties pop stars and gay icons.

In lieu of much Spice Girls and Girls Aloud discussion, their energy and charisma brings a welcome feeling of personal nostalgia – and a reminder of why the world needs fantastic popstars. Their cheeky charm, which first won me over 25 years ago, still makes me smile today.

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.

Joel Gray 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. Girlbands Forever: BBC documentary charts the highs and lows of British girl groups – with one glaring omission – https://theconversation.com/girlbands-forever-bbc-documentary-charts-the-highs-and-lows-of-british-girl-groups-with-one-glaring-omission-268677

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew Edwards, Student Learning Developer, The University of Law

In Bram Stoker’s novel Dracula (1887), an English solicitor (Jonathan Harker) is sent to Transylvania to assist Count Dracula, an aristocrat, in his move to England. When Harker discovers Dracula lying in a coffin after feeding on blood, he understands the threat that Dracula poses to England.

Vampires have long represented our political and social attitudes to race, immigration and the threat of foreign invasion – reflecting the prejudices of their times.

My research explores how comic books and graphic novels interrogate political, social and cultural issues. Dracula became a 20th-century pop culture phenomenon, appearing in several films and TV programs. But American comic books were relatively slow to feature vampires.

In 1954, the US Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency investigated the comic book industry. Hearings were held to testify about the perceived harm caused by crime and horror comics. To allay threats to their business, publishers banded together to form the Comics Magazine Association of America and established The Comics Code of 1954, which banned crime and horror content, including stories featuring vampires. A revision and relaxation of the code in 1971 enabled vampires to be used when “handled in the classic tradition” of novels such as Dracula “and other high calibre literary works written by Edgar Allen Poe, Saki, Conan Doyle and other respected authors whose works are read in schools around the world”.

This led to the creation of the character Morbius the Living Vampire, who debuted in Amazing Spider-Man #101 in July 1971. Morbius was a scientist with a blood disease whose experimental cure using vampire bats led to his transformation.

Soon after, Dracula himself joined the Marvel comic universe in Tomb of Dracula #1 (November 1971), a series that ran until 1979. Writer Marv Wolfman and artist Gene Colan had to work within the limitations of the code by ensuring that they adhered to a traditional depiction of Dracula in line with Stoker’s original version. This could have limited the style and content of their stories, which were set in the modern era, but the inclusion of a newly created supporting cast kept the narrative fresh and engaging.

Vampires in American comic books retained this outsider status – invariably they were European immigrants like Morbius, who was born in Nafplio, Greece. In this way, comic vampires continue the literary vampire tradition of tapping into the fear of foreigners.

Doctor Doom: anti-immigrant populist politician

Comic book writer Ryan North explored a variation of this theme with Doctor Doom, the Marvel Comics’ super-villain, in issues of Fantastic Four released this year. Doom will be played by Robert Downey Jr. in the new film Avengers: Doomsday, due in 2026.

Doom rules Latveria, a fictional European country. He has recently declared himself Emperor of the World, supported by leaders of nations across the globe. Doom also uses Trump-style populism by propagating prejudice and fear-mongering against vampires.

In Fantastic Four #29 (February, 2025) Susan Storm, Ben Grimm and Jennifer Walters (also known as the Invisible Woman, the Thing and She-Hulk respectively) meet for lunch in a New York diner. They discuss Doom’s recent activities, which their waitress agrees are wrong before asserting that “at least he’s doing something about those horrid vampires”.

Outside, sat on the sidewalk, is a dishevelled, slumped vampire holding a sign that reads: “Anything Helps.” Apart from slightly elongated nails and subtly pointed canine teeth, there is nothing to distinguish him from any other normal person begging on a street.

Sue, Ben and Jen then leave the diner and encounter a terrified family of four being chased by an angry crowd. The father exclaims “Please! Leave us alone!!” and “Please don’t kill us” as they try to outrun the mob. The family, dressed in normal casual clothes, are vampires.

Protected by the heroes, the parents explain that they are starving. Having been turned away from a blood bank, and not wanting to harm people, they had resorted to eating a pigeon, which prompted the chase. Members of the crowd scream “Vampires!”, “Kill them!” and call them “monsters”. The parents are killed by a member of the mob, but the vampire children are saved by the Fantastic Four. This leads to Reed Richards (Mr. Fantastic) creating a synthetic food substance that quenches vampires’ bloodlust, before ensuring the children are re-homed with their aunt.

Thinking that solving vampires’ hunger for blood will render Doom’s propaganda impotent, the story ends on a foreboding scene: a normal suburban house in America, with parents waving off their children to school. However, their house is bedecked with Maga-style pro-Doctor Doom flags and signs. It seems that Doctor Doom is still winning the hearts and minds of many Americans.

In One World Under Doom #3 (April, 2025) a group of superheroes and super-villains team up against their common enemy and find out how Doom has manipulated the world’s leaders. Using their own powers, they discover that he has not used magic, telepathy or mind control. He has merely negotiated with other leaders to become World Emperor. His populist policies have been embraced by the public.

This, along with the anti-vampire rhetoric and misinformation, creates a powerful allegory of the far-right ideologies that are currently being propagated by politicians across our own world. This current portrayal of Dr Doom as a proxy for public figures and politicians who use anti-immigrant rhetoric, harmful stereotypes and egregious misinformation, strongly suggests that they are the real monsters. Not the immigrants – or vampires for that matter.

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.

This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

Andrew Edwards 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. A brief history of comic book vampires – including a homage to Donald Trump – https://theconversation.com/a-brief-history-of-comic-book-vampires-including-a-homage-to-donald-trump-266188

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Holly Crudgington, Postdoctoral Researcher in Adolescent Mental Health, University of Oxford

Most of us know what it’s like to be a teenager at school – and how it feels to fit into (or fall outside of) a school’s social hierarchy. This typically includes some version of the popular kids, the loners and the in-betweeners, who have friendships that span across different groups.

However, teen hierarchies are more than a passing social order. Research suggests that these social networks and positions can shape mental health too. In a recently published study, my colleagues and I found that they also relate to one of the most serious health challenges among young people today: self-harm.

Self-harm – hurting yourself on purpose – is common in adolescence. While it is likely that some self-harm goes unreported, around 16%-22% of adolescents report having harmed themselves at least once. The behaviour appears to be increasing, particularly among adolescent girls. Worryingly, adolescents who self-harm have an increased risk of worsening health and mental health, including fatal outcomes like suicide.

There may be many reasons someone engages in self-harm. For example, it can be a coping mechanism to relieve emotional distress (intra-personal) by focusing on a physical sensation. Or it can be shaped by social factors (inter-personal) such as peer relationships.

For example, teenagers may be being influenced by the behaviour of others or use it as a means of communicating distress. Indeed, research has found that peer relationships are deeply important in adolescence and matter for self-harm.

However, little research has focused on how the school-based friendship networks of teens relate to self-harm. We addressed this gap by analysing data on teen friendship networks and self-harm from a cohort study of adolescent mental health in the UK called the Resilience Ethnicity and Adolescent Mental Health (Reach) study, which follows a large a group of people over time.

Reach has collected data from around 4,000 adolescents from 12 mainstream secondary schools in inner-city south London. Pupils at the schools completed questionnaires on their mental health and social networks (among other measures) over time. To date, Reach is the largest and most recent cohort study of adolescent mental health among young people from diverse inner-city areas in the UK.

In this study, we focused on the first year of Reach data collection, when adolescents were aged 11 to 14 years old. Adolescents were asked to report if they had “ever tried to harm or hurt themselves”, with 14% reporting yes. They were also asked to name friends within their school year. This is the first time a cohort study in the UK has collected data on both school friendship networks and self-harm.

We used social network analysis to “map” out teens’ friendship networks and to calculate several measures reflecting young people’s social positions within their networks.

This included: “popularity” (how many people named you as a friend), “bridging” (being an in-betweener and connecting otherwise disconnected friendship groups) and social isolation (having zero or one friend only), among other measures. We also looked at how many of their friends had reported self-harm, and then explored if and how these different network measures related to self-harm.

Social networks and self-harm

We found that both who adolescents are friends with in school and how they are connected to their friends were linked in different ways with self-harm. Strikingly, nearly half of adolescents had at least one friend who reported self-harm. This was linked to adolescents being more likely to report engaging in self-harm themselves, which might suggest peer-influence.

Various social positions in teen networks were also linked to self-harm. Some positions were protective, meaning adolescents were less likely to self-harm, whereas other positions were risky, meaning they were more likely to self-harm. Risky positions included social isolation, but also to some extent popularity and bridging (in-betweener).

While popularity is often seen as a desirable social status, it could also bring with it social pressures which may indirectly lead to self-harm. Bridging may reflect adolescents who are “between” different friendship groups, which may be socially taxing and link to self-harm.

Protective positions included “sociality” (nominating lots of people as friends) and being part of a tight-knit friendship group with friends who are friends with each other. However, the strongest links were for social isolation and having friends who report self-harm.

We also tested if there were any differences by gender. We expected the effects to be stronger among girls compared with boys. However, we found little evidence of this – which suggests that social networks relate to self-harm the same across boys and girls from our diverse, inner-city London sample.

It is important to note that these findings come from data that was collected at a single point in time. This means our findings are associations, and we cannot imply causation, or establish which direction the associations might be in. For example, do social networks predict self-harm, or does self-harm predict social networks? This needs to be further studied.

Our study highlights that self-harm is an important health challenge to tackle in adolescence – and considering teens’ social networks in school may be an important part of tackling that challenge. Specifically, self-harm is not something to be understood in isolation – but there may be social elements to the behaviour for some, and it may be shaped by teens’ social networks.

It also suggests that if both connection (such as having friends who self-harm) and disconnection (social isolation) from peers are associated, then there is a need for more than one approach to self-harm prevention in schools. While it may be tempting to focus on those who are socially isolated, it is also important to consider friendship group dynamics, and how adolescent’s self-harm may affect the wider peer-network.

Ultimately, peer relationships in adolescence deeply affect us and can continue to shape mental health for decades. The more we understand teen social networks, the better we can support young people’s mental health.

This research was conducted as part of a PhD project supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), Centre for Society and Mental Health at King’s College London (ES/S012567/1), the European Research Council (REACH 648837), and the London Interdisciplinary Social Science Doctoral Training Partnership (LISS-DTP). The author declares no competing interests.

– ref. How teen friendships may predict self harm – https://theconversation.com/how-teen-friendships-may-predict-self-harm-267553

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Chau Le, Senior Lecturer in Banking and Finance, University of Lincoln

Sustainable or responsible investing has experienced huge growth over the past decade. This investment approach is anchored in environmental, social and governance principles and is known as ESG. This set of standards is designed to ensure that funds are directed toward companies that protect the environment, have a positive impact on people through things such as labour standards, and operate ethically, transparently and with accountability.

Global ESG assets are predicted to hit US$40 trillion (£30 trillion) by 2030. Yet, despite the rise, inconsistencies in standards and data across ESG providers make responsible investing far more complex than it should be.

The world today faces compounding crises – climate change, geopolitical instability and what economists call “macroeconomic fragmentation”. This refers to the breaking apart of global economic cooperation: countries are turning inward, imposing tariffs, pursuing divergent monetary policies, and allowing political tensions to impede cooperation on shared challenges.

The traditional boundaries of ESG are now being tested – and difficult questions emerge. Should ESG funds continue to exclude arms and defence firms? Or perhaps it is time to reconsider what sustainability really means in today’s volatile world.

Ever wondered how to spend or invest your money in ways that actually benefit people and planet? Or are you curious about the connection between insurance and the climate crisis?

Green Your Money is a new series from the business and environment teams at The Conversation exploring how to make money really matter. Practical and accessible insights from financial experts in the know.

For decades, defence companies were lumped into the same category as tobacco firms or fossil fuel giants – excluded from ESG portfolios for being damaging to society or incompatible with peace. For example, an EU report in early 2022 recommended that investments in weapons be formally classified as “socially harmful” and therefore excluded from funds marketed as ethical.

But since the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, public sentiment – and investor perception – has begun to shift. Security is being reframed as a prerequisite for sustainability. Without peace and stability, there can be no climate action.

Several countries have already begun adapting their policies. Germany, for instance, has reclassified defence as part of its national sustainability strategy.

SEB, one of the Sweden’s largest banks, had long prohibited its funds from investing in the arms industry. But after the war in Ukraine, it reversed this policy to allow selective investments in the defence sector. The bank cited a changing geopolitical landscape for its decision.

And more recently, the European Commission’s ReArm Europe plan was released in March 2025. This aims to mobilise €800 billion (£697 billion) in defence investments over the next four years.

These changes raise a critical question: can defence spending now be seen as part of a responsible investment strategy?

A world of grey zones

Despite the growing push to integrate defence into the ESG framework, the EU has yet to formally clarify whether such investments are consistent with its sustainable finance criteria. Without guidance, businesses and financial institutions face a confusing and often contradictory landscape.

As sustainable investing becomes more mainstream, it’s increasingly vulnerable to greenwashing, political pressures and competing ethical values. What qualifies as “ethical” in one country may be unacceptable in another.

For example, large-scale hydroelectric projects in southeast Asia may satisfy the “E” (environmental) component of ESG by producing low-carbon energy. But they can also lead to the displacement of Indigenous communities – undermining the “S” (social) element.

Individual investors appear to be increasingly interested in making their money matter. But many remain unaware of how ESG funds are constructed – or what they may include. The presence or exclusion of defence companies is rarely disclosed clearly in fund documentation. This lack of transparency makes it difficult to align investments with personal ethics.

To make more informed choices, investors should demand clearer reporting, especially regarding dual-use technologies. This is tech that can be used for both civilian and military purposes and controversial sectors such as nuclear energy and surveillance technologies.

Investors could consider asking whether the fund explicitly discloses its position on defence, arms or dual-use technologies, as well as how it balances short-term geopolitical realities with long-term environmental sustainability. Fundamentally, they should consider whether what they know of the fund’s ethical stance aligns with their own values.

In an age of accelerating climate risks and geopolitical fragmentation, the ESG landscape is far from black and white. The inclusion of arms and defence in “ethical” or “responsible” investing may seem paradoxical, but it reflects a deeper shift.

These days, security and sustainability are increasingly intertwined. The real challenge is not just how we invest – but how we define the good we aim to achieve. As the world grows more complex, so too must the frameworks for responsible finance.

Chau Le 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. Conflict and the climate crisis may mean it’s time to rethink what we mean by responsible investing – https://theconversation.com/conflict-and-the-climate-crisis-may-mean-its-time-to-rethink-what-we-mean-by-responsible-investing-259486

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tessa Devereaux, Assistant Professor in Politics, SOAS, University of London

Mali’s military regime is coming under increasing pressure from Jama’a Nusrat ul-Islam wa al-Muslimin (JNIM), an armed group linked to al-Qaida that now controls large swathes of territory across the Sahel region of western and north-central Africa. The group is blockading major highways in Mali and torching tanker lorries, with dwindling fuel supplies threatening to suffocate the country economically.

Expert observers have described JNIM as one of “Africa’s deadliest jihadist groups”, with the insurgency responsible for an estimated 64% of violent events in the Sahel area since 2017. It is rapidly expanding its territorial reach, and has launched a series of coordinated attacks across Mali in recent months.

The group has seized army infrastructure, carried out strikes on convoys of fuel tankers, and assaulted foreign-owned factories and mines. It has also kidnapped foreign nationals for ransom. Some experts anticipate that the group may soon start a full siege on the Malian capital, Bamako.

So what is behind JNIM’s success? On the surface, the explanations are clear. Mali’s government has struggled for decades to assert control over the northern and central regions of the country. Decades of neglect, corruption and state brutality have eroded public trust in state institutions, while human rights abuses perpetrated by the military have deepened these grievances.

A wave of military coups across the Sahel in recent years has been met with cautious optimism in some quarters, raising anticipation of a more effective counterinsurgency strategy against JNIM forces. Yet the group’s recent successes in Mali suggest a militarised approach has done little to increase the region’s stability.

Explaining JNIM’s success

JNIM has provided security and justice in a context where state efforts have failed. As an amalgamation of several preexisting armed groups, the group has deep local roots across the Sahel – encompassing people from the Tuareg, Arab, Fulani, Songhai and Bambara ethnic communities.

This has allowed it to intervene effectively in communal conflicts, from tackling banditry to solving disputes over resource access. With some parts of Mali having been governed exclusively by the group for 11 years, it is clear that JNIM is providing an attractive offer to much of the civilian population.

Research shows that JNIM also appeals to local populations in other, more unexpected, ways. One overlooked factor is the group’s emphasis on social mobility. Its leaders have criticised and attacked local elites for neglecting social welfare provisions and employment opportunities, while maintaining rigid social hierarchies.

This social justice message means the group appeals especially to formerly enslaved populations and marginalised pastoralists, some of whom have reported seeing recruitment as “an opportunity for social liberation”.

As a nomadic herder from central Mali’s Mopti region described in a 2016 interview with Leiden University researcher Boukary Sangaré: “The only feeling that animates us is that we can free ourselves from the yoke of the domination of our elites. We have long been subjected to all forms of exploitation by the administration in complicity with our elites … This is why many of us are in the bush with weapons.”

Rigid gender norms are another piece of the puzzle, with access to marriage being at the heart of the group’s appeal to disenfranchised youth. Marriage is a key social institution in Mali. Yet soaring bride prices – payments made to a bride’s family that are almost universal across Mali – mean marriage is largely out of reach for young men.

Islamist groups have offered practical solutions to this gendered grievance. In one survey from 2020, carried out by the NGO International Alert, 100% of women and 90% of men surveyed in the Mopti region said JNIM affiliates had improved access to marriage.

As one man described in an interview in 2022: “The jihadists have helped to reduce the celibacy of women. Now everyone finds someone … They reduce all the expenses of the ceremonies that prevented young people from getting married, so they get married more easily.”

Focus groups conducted in central Mali demonstrate similar findings. One respondent in the village of Siniré reported in 2020 that “high bride prices are now prohibited; they have to be reasonable … Nowadays you’re free to marry without money being demanded from you.”

These strategies have even boosted support for JNIM among women. Known for enforcing strict dress codes and curbs on freedom of movement, Islamist groups like JNIM are often assumed to be straightforwardly oppressive to women – yet evidence suggests the story is more complicated.

By appealing directly to them and capitalising on gender grievances in Mali, the group is able to undermine powerful local elites and establish social control over large areas of territory.

In the context of widespread gendered discrimination, Islamist courts are sometimes seen as more likely to rule in favour of women. In focus groups held in the central Malian villages of Sampara, Siniré and Torodi, one woman described how “if a girl is forced into marriage, she may now appeal to the armed extremists to uphold her right to consent”.

Other women see Islamist governance as a worthwhile trade-off, noting that the group offers protection from sexual violence. A survey conducted across Mali in 2019 identified physical protection as a primary motivation for Malian women to support Islamist groups.

In 2020, during an interview with International Alert, a female public figure in Mopti compared the jihadists favourably to other armed groups, as well as state actors. She explained: “The jihadists are responsible for less sexual abuse compared with the others … and any of their people who are found guilty of these kinds of acts are executed.”

The rapid recent expansion of JNIM across the Sahel, and the increasing threat it poses to the city of Bamako, make it clear the group should not be underestimated. Meanwhile, the scorched-earth campaign pursued by Mali’s military government has done little but exacerbate resentment.

JNIM has proved adept at navigating the social and political fault lines which the Malian state and international community have long ignored. Unless these root causes are addressed, the group is unlikely to be defeated.

Tessa Devereaux has received funding from the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation, United States Institute of Peace and the International Studies Association. She is an Assistant Professor in Politics at SOAS, University of London.

– ref. Why an armed group linked to al-Qaida is gaining ground in Mali – https://theconversation.com/why-an-armed-group-linked-to-al-qaida-is-gaining-ground-in-mali-268787