En la Europa urbana del siglo XV, la prostitución no fue un vicio clandestino, sino una institución reconocida y gestionada por los propios concejos municipales. Lejos de limitarse a tolerarla, las ciudades la regularon, la fiscalizaron y la convirtieron en un instrumento de orden social. Esta política encontraba su legitimación en una doctrina teológica muy influyente: la del “mal menor”.
San Agustín lo expresó en De ordine (2, 4, 12):
“si suprimes a las meretrices, todo se llenará de pasiones desordenadas”. Tomás de Aquino convirtió este razonamiento en un principio de la teología moral, y predicadores como san Vicente Ferrer lo transformaron en una directriz práctica: segregar, vigilar y castigar para evitar el desorden.
La mancebía como instrumento de orden y fiscalidad
Desde finales del siglo XIII, muchas ciudades europeas establecieron burdeles públicos o mancebías. El objetivo era triple: concentrar la actividad en un espacio controlado, reducir los conflictos con los vecinos y garantizar una fuente estable de ingresos. Las ordenanzas detallaban horarios, cierres durante fiestas religiosas o epidemias, la designación de oficiales y un estricto régimen de sanciones.
El caso de Valencia es paradigmático. Su burdel municipal, conocido como Pobla de les fembres pecadrius, aparece documentado desde 1325. Estaba cercado por un muro con una sola puerta de acceso y, en su apogeo en el siglo XV, llegó a albergar a casi doscientas mujeres. Contaba con inspecciones médicas periódicas y una administración dual: un hostalero a cargo de la gestión diaria y un oficial público, el “rei dels arlots”, que actuaba como garante del orden. Se trataba de un negocio privado bajo estricta concesión pública.
Este modelo se repite en toda Europa. Florencia creó en 1403 la Onestà, una magistratura encargada del registro y la inspección. Venecia confinó el oficio en el barrio de las Carampane, imponiendo toques de queda. En Southwark (Londres), los stews funcionaron bajo jurisdicción episcopal hasta su clausura en 1546. En Núremberg, las Frauenhäuser fueron reguladas con ordenanzas que establecían deberes, turnos y sanciones.
Cambiaban los nombres, pero la lógica era común: concentración espacial, identificación visible y aprovechamiento fiscal.
Vestimenta, arquitectura y lenguaje
El control se extendía más allá de los muros del burdel. Varias ordenanzas municipales impusieron códigos de indumentaria para hacer reconocibles a las prostitutas en el espacio público.
En 1383, Valencia prohibió a las meretrices usar mantos, perlas o seda, obligándolas a cubrirse con una toalla. En Venecia, un pañuelo amarillo servía como señal obligatoria. En Florencia, mediante el decreto de 1388, se requería que llevaran una campana, para que resonara el símbolo de su vergüenza. En el ámbito germánico, las ordenanzas fijaban colores y peinados.
El maquillaje también fue objeto de censura. Predicadores como Bernardino de Siena denunciaron el uso de cosméticos y afeites como símbolo de vanidad y engaño, que reforzaban la idea de un “rostro falso” asociado al pecado.
La propia arquitectura urbana funcionaba como recordatorio moral. En la Lonja de la Seda de Valencia, una gárgola representa a una mujer que se toca los genitales mientras señala hacia el burdel de la calle de la Valldigna. La piedra convertía la geografía moral en un mensaje visible para comerciantes y vecinos.
El lenguaje acompañaba este régimen visual: términos como “bagasses”, “fembres vils” o “mulieres viles de corpore” no solo describían a las prostitutas, sino que las convertían en una categoría jurídica sometida a intervención coercitiva.
Algunas de ellas habían entrado en la prostitución buscando la libertad, pero acababan maltratadas a menudo por los rufianes o los hostaleros.
Las fronteras de la ley: clandestinidad y castigo diferencial
La prostitución legal convivía con un sector clandestino en tabernas, posadas o casas particulares. Quienes ejercían fuera del perímetro autorizado quedaban expuestas a multas severas o, en caso de no poder pagarlas, a azotes públicos.
El sistema se mostraba más duro con las minorías religiosas. A los hombres judíos y musulmanes se les prohibía entrar en la mancebía, y las prostitutas de estas confesiones eran castigadas con más severidad. Es decir, a las prostitutas musulmanas que ejercían ilegalmente se las sancionaba y condenaba. Pero además, y a modo de ejemplo, Mariem, una mora que ejercía de forma legal, fue procesada por adulterio, y otra mujer, Nuzeya, recibió pena de muerte por lapidación por trabajar sin licencia. No se castigaba el sexo pagado en sí, sino la transgresión de los límites sociales, religiosos y espaciales impuestos por la autoridad cristiana.
Como contrapartida, se crearon instituciones de “reforma”. En 1345 se fundó en Valencia el monasterio de las Repenedides, por iniciativa de la monja Na Soriana, que acogía a mujeres dispuestas a abandonar la prostitución, bajo la advocación de María Magdalena como ejemplo de mujer arrepentida. La entrada en este monasterio suponía al menos un año de clausura, concebida como penitencia y reinserción. Y se ordenaba que en todas las parroquias y en el obispado de Valencia se pusieran cepillos en los que se recaudaban limosnas destinadas a la casa de las arrepentidas. Estas casas, junto a las dotes otorgadas a quienes contraían matrimonio, prolongaban la tutela social sobre los cuerpos femeninos incluso después de abandonar el oficio.
El sistema de prostitución reglada medieval fue mucho más que un arreglo de conveniencia. Constituyó un engranaje político que utilizaba la teología, la ley, la arquitectura y la fiscalidad para administrar el deseo y contener sus efectos. Su lógica de confinamiento, marcaje y explotación económica revela una de las primeras formas de regulación sistemática de los cuerpos en la Europa urbana.
Los principios que lo sustentaban –segregación espacial, estigma y tensión entre recaudación y salud pública, entre otros– resuenan en los debates actuales sobre trabajo sexual, derechos, explotación y políticas de control. La Europa del siglo XV no ofrece un modelo que imitar, sino un precedente incómodo. Nos recuerda que las políticas sobre el sexo nunca son neutrales: son formas de poder que dejan huellas profundas y duraderas en los cuerpos más vulnerables.
Anna Peirats 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.
For months, Donald Trump has badgered the US Federal Reserve and its chair, Jerome Powell, to lower interest rates. When the governors of the Fed did so by 0.25 percentage points in mid-September to a target of between 4% and 4.25%, it wasn’t big or fast enough for Trump.
The next day, the president asked the US Supreme Court to rule on whether he could fire Lisa Cook, a Fed governor. A federal appeals court had blocked Trump from doing so after he accused her of mortgage fraud, which she denies.
This isn’t the first time a US president has put pressure on the Fed. In the early 1970s, Fed chair Arthur Burns came under sustained pressure from Richard Nixon to lower interest rates ahead of the 1972 presidential election. The Fed did lower rates and high inflation followed, fuelled by the headwinds of high global oil prices.
In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast, Cristina Bodea, professor of political science at Michigan State University, explains how the inflation spike of the 1970s cemented the case for protecting central banks from day-to-day politics. “There’s not a lot that becomes a global norm for good economic governance,” says Bodea, “but central bank independence became one.”
From the 1990s onwards, countries around the world began to pass laws protecting the independence of their central banks. Bodea’s research measures the independence of central banks by tracking these laws. Today, she says that independence is now under sustained pressure from a generation of populist leaders, which could threaten the credibility of central banks.
This episode of The Conversation Weekly was written and produced by Katie Flood, Mend Mariwany and Gemma Ware. Mixing and sound design by Michelle Macklem and theme music by Neeta Sarl.
Listen to The Conversation Weekly via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here. A transcript of this episode is available on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.
Cristina Bodea 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.
Source: The Conversation – in French – By Laura Elin Pigott, Senior Lecturer in Neurosciences and Neurorehabilitation, Course Leader in the College of Health and Life Sciences, London South Bank University
Le cerveau des félins sécrète-t-il de l’ocytocine ?(Shutterstock)
Si les chats ont parfois la réputation d’être indépendants, des recherches récentes montrent que, grâce à la chimie du cerveau, nous avons une relation particulière avec eux.
La principale substance chimique impliquée est l’ocytocine, souvent appelée « hormone de l’amour ». C’est la même substance qui est libérée lorsque l’on berce son bébé ou que l’on enlace un ami, et qui alimente la confiance et l’affection. Des études ont révélé que l’ocytocine jouait également un rôle important dans les rapports entre chats et humains.
L’ocytocine assure un rôle central dans les liens sociaux, la confiance et la régulation du stress chez de nombreux animaux, y compris chez l’être humain. Une expérience menée en 2005 a permis de voir que l’administration d’ocytocine rendait les participants nettement plus enclins à faire confiance aux autres dans des jeux financiers.
Elle a également des effets calmants chez les humains et les animaux, car elle réprime la sécrétion de cortisol, l’hormone du stress, et active le système nerveux parasympathique (le système du repos et de la digestion) pour aider le corps à se détendre.
Les scientifiques savent depuis longtemps que les échanges amicaux déclenchent la libération d’ocytocine chez les chiens et leur maître, créant ainsi une boucle de rétroaction mutuelle qui renforce les liens affectifs. Jusqu’à récemment, cependant, on connaissait peu de choses sur son incidence sur les chats.
Les chats sont plus subtils dans leur manière d’exprimer leur affection. Pourtant, leurs propriétaires éprouvent souvent les mêmes sentiments de camaraderie et de calme que les personnes qui ont des chiens, et ces observations sont de plus en plus confirmées par des études. En 2021, des chercheurs japonais ont rapporté qu’il suffisait de brefs moments passés à flatter leur chat pour augmenter le taux d’ocytocine de nombreuses personnes.
Dans le cadre de cette étude, les chercheurs ont mesuré le taux d’hormones de femmes qui interagissait avec leur chat. Les résultats ont révélé qu’un contact amical avec un félin (le caresser, lui parler d’une voix douce) était associé à un taux plus élevé d’ocytocine dans la salive que pendant une période de détente en silence sans la présence d’un chat.
De nombreuses personnes trouvent apaisant de flatter un animal qui ronronne, et des études ont montré que ce n’est pas seulement grâce à la douceur de son pelage. Le fait de caresser un chat, mais aussi d’entendre son ronronnement, peut déclencher la libération d’ocytocine dans notre cerveau. Une étude réalisée en 2002 a révélé que cette décharge d’ocytocine engendrée par le contact avec un chat causait une diminution du cortisol, l’hormone du stress, et pouvait ainsi abaisser la tension artérielle et soulager la douleur.
Se blottir contre un chat peut aider à réduire le taux de cortisol, l’hormone du stress. Vershinin89/Shutterstock
Comment les relations avec un chat permettent-elles de libérer de l’ocytocine ?
La recherche met en évidence des moments précis qui provoquent la libération de cette hormone dans une amitié interespèces. Un contact physique doux semble être un déclencheur chez les chats.
Une étude publiée en février 2025 a révélé que lorsque des gens flattaient, berçaient ou câlinaient leur chat de manière détendue, leur taux d’ocytocine augmentait, tout comme celui de l’animal, à condition que le contact ne soit pas imposé.
Les chercheurs ont mesuré le taux d’ocytocine des chats pendant 15 minutes de jeu et de câlins avec leur maître. Chez les chats qui entretenaient un lien affectif fort avec celui-ci et qui prenaient l’initiative du contact, en s’installant par exemple sur ses genoux ou en donnant de petits coups de tête, on a remarqué une hausse du taux d’ocytocine. Plus ils passaient de temps avec leur humain, plus cette hausse était importante.
Qu’en est-il des félins moins affectueux ? La même étude a permis d’observer des réponses différentes chez les chats ayant un style d’attachement plus anxieux ou distant. Les chats évitants, qui gardaient leurs distances, ne présentaient aucun changement significatif de leur taux d’ocytocine, tandis que les chats anxieux, qui recherchaient constamment leur propriétaire, mais étaient facilement déconcertés par les manipulations, avaient un taux d’ocytocine élevé dès le départ.
On a constaté que le taux d’ocytocine de ces deux types de chats baissait après un câlin forcé. Lorsque les interactions respectent le bien-être du chat, celui-ci sécrète de l’hormone de l’attachement, mais ce n’est plus le cas s’il se sent piégé.
Les humains pourraient peut-être apprendre quelque chose de leurs amis félins en matière de réponse aux différents styles d’attachement. La clé pour développer un lien avec un chat est de comprendre comment il communique.
À la différence des chiens, les chats ne créent pas de liens par des contacts visuels prolongés. Ils utilisent des signaux plus subtils. Le plus connu est le lent clignement des yeux, qu’on interprète comme un sourire félin exprimant la sécurité et la confiance.
Le ronronnement joue également un rôle dans la création de liens avec les humains. Outre son potentiel guérisseur pour le chat, ce son à basse fréquence a un effet apaisant sur les humains. Écouter le ronron d’un chat peut réduire le rythme cardiaque et la pression artérielle ; c’est l’ocytocine qui est à l’origine de ces bienfaits.
Déjà des milliers d’abonnés à l’infolettre de La Conversation. Et vous ? Abonnez-vous gratuitement à notre infolettre pour mieux comprendre les grands enjeux contemporains.
La présence d’un chat, renforcée par toutes ces petites doses d’ocytocine libérées lors des interactions quotidiennes, peut protéger contre l’anxiété et la dépression et, dans certains cas, apporter un réconfort comparable à celui du soutien social humain.
Les chats sont-ils moins aimants que les chiens ?
Il est vrai que les études montrent généralement des taux d’ocytocine plus élevés lors d’interactions entre chiens et humains. En 2016, des scientifiques ont mené une expérience qui a fait grand bruit dans laquelle ils ont mesuré les taux d’ocytocine chez des animaux de compagnie et leur propriétaire avant et après dix minutes de jeu. Les chiens ont présenté une augmentation moyenne de 57 % de leur taux d’ocytocine après avoir joué, tandis que les chats ont affiché une hausse d’environ 12 %.
Chez les êtres humains, le taux d’ocytocine augmente lors d’interactions sociales significatives. Des études ont montré que le contact avec un être cher provoquait une augmentation plus importante du taux d’ocytocine que le contact avec des étrangers. Et l’accueil joyeux d’un chien engendre une réaction semblable à celle créée par la vue de son enfant ou de son conjoint.
On pourrait dire que les chiens, qui sont des animaux de meute domestiqués pour accompagner les humains, sont programmés pour rechercher le contact visuel, les caresses et l’approbation de ces derniers, un comportement qui stimule la libération d’ocytocine chez les deux parties. Les chats, en revanche, descendent de chasseurs solitaires qui n’avaient pas besoin de gestes sociaux pour survivre. Ainsi, ils peuvent ne pas afficher un comportement alimenté par l’ocytocine aussi facilement ou régulièrement. Ils réservent plutôt ce type de comportement pour les moments où ils se sentent vraiment en sécurité.
Le chat ne donne pas automatiquement sa confiance, il faut la gagner. Mais une fois accordée, elle est renforcée par la même substance chimique qui lie les parents, les conjoints et les amis humains.
Ainsi, la prochaine fois que votre chat clignera lentement des yeux depuis l’autre bout du canapé ou se lovera sur vos genoux pour un câlin ronronnant, sachez qu’il se produit également quelque chose d’invisible : l’ocytocine augmente dans vos deux cerveaux, renforçant la confiance et apaisant le stress du quotidien. À leur manière, les chats répondent à l’éternelle biologie de l’amour.
Laura Elin Pigott ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.
In a speech at the UN headquarters in New York, where world leaders are currently gathered for the organisation’s 80th anniversary, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky warned: “We are now living through the most destructive arms race in human history.”
The proliferation of drone technology combined with the rapid development of AI, Zelensky remarked, could create “dead zones” in the near future. He defined these as areas “stretching for dozens of kilometres where nothing moves, no vehicles, no life. People used to imagine that [scenario] only after a nuclear strike – now it’s [a] drone reality.”
AI could soon enable “swarms” of drones that operate autonomously together in a coordinated manner. So far this has only been seen in sci-fi movies but we are now starting to see the beginnings of this technology in real life, including from the Ukrainian military.
For security scholars such as Audrey Kurth Cronin of Carnegie Mellon University in the US, we are now in a time of “open tech innovation”. This is a period where people – whether terrorists or criminal groups – do not need the expertise and resources of a state to be able to orchestrate nefarious acts of disruption and destruction.
Zelensky and Kurth Cronin believe this new age of military technology requires new rules and enhanced global collaboration if the worst-case scenarios are to be avoided. “We need to restore international cooperation – real, working cooperation – for peace and for security,” said Zelensky in his UN speech. “A few years from now might already be too late.”
Days before these remarks, drone activity caused multiple airports in Denmark to close. The country’s defence minister, Troels Lund Poulsen, told a news conference that the “attack” was part of a “systematic operation”. Some reports have suggested that Russia may have been behind these acts.
One of the major concerns among security experts worldwide in recent years has been on acts of sabotage that play out below the threshold that can lead to open war. In what is known as “hybrid warfare”, states and criminal groups can orchestrate a variety of tactics to generate fear and cause disruption.
These acts may be intended for political ends – for instance, by creating discontent with political leaders. They may also be intended to test the systems of security that are important for defending against military action. The incursion of Russian drones into Polish airspace in early September, for example, generated serious debate about how Nato should respond.
These recent events may signal that the world is now in a new age of military-technological insecurity that, as Zelensky warned the UN, is only going to get worse in the years ahead.
Central to defence policy and strategic thinking is deterrence. Our world is built on strategies that are intended to deter countries or regimes from pursuing certain courses of action. The possession of nuclear weapons, for example, has prevented war between the world’s leading powers for decades.
Deterrence will continue to inform decisions and strategy, even as global events become increasingly chaotic. So much of the debate around what Nato countries should do about the war in Ukraine, for instance, has been informed by questions of deterrence and escalation. Ultimately, direct Nato action has been restricted by the fear that nuclear weapons could be used in a moment of strategic chaos.
Russian president Vladimir Putin has, in a similar way, been careful not to push above the threshold with actions that might lead to a direct confrontation with Nato. Acts that are hard to attribute – such as drone use over airports or cyber-espionage – are ideal for a regime that wants to create disruption but doesn’t want to escalate.
There are three elements that can be developed to prevent escalation and war. The first is deterrence by punishment. This is where an action will result in a response that will mean the risk outweighs the cost.
The second is deterrence by denial, when you make an action too difficult to orchestrate successfully and effectively. And third is deterrence by entanglement. This is when the interconnected nature of society means that an action may be counterproductive or even self-destructive.
All of these elements of deterrence will probably come into play in this new age of drones and AI. There might be technical solutions that limit the extent to which AI-enabled drone swarms become a decisive weapon in future wars. For example, a group of drones was successfully knocked out by a new radio wave weapon in an April 2025 trial by the British Army.
There may also be limits on the exploration of the destructive possibilities of drone swarms due to the concern with keeping events below the threshold that would lead to war between global powers. While Putin may authorise the use of drones in Ukraine, he may be deterred from risking the use of swarms across London. This is due to the possibility of escalation and perhaps even the threat to Russian-owned property and citizens there.
So, as terrifying as the new age of drone swarms and AI may be, there are good reasons for thinking the dystopian possibilities of future war will be controlled and contained. We should probably expect that the world will be characterised by more frequent disruptive events in the years ahead. Yet, hopefully the disruption will be limited to the nuisance caused by delayed flights.
What is more concerning is the possibility of an accident occurring that tips disruption over the threshold into an open war. The history of war and international politics is rife with accidents and miscalculations. The question now is what accidents will be generated in this new age of AI and drone swarms.
Mark Lacy 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.
Source: The Conversation – France – By Ben Voyer, Cartier Chaired Professor of Behavioural Sciences, Full Professor, Department of Entrepreneurship, ESCP Business School
What do the luxury sector and the automotive sector have in common? Until recently, even asking the question would have seemed incongruous, given the apparent dissimilarity between brands engaged in mass production in search of economies of scale and those based on lavish spending and limited editions. The arrival of Luca de Meo (formerly of Renault) at the head of Kering signals a change for the group founded by French entrepreneur François-Henri Pinault, but also for the entire sector. Is playtime officially over?
During Kering’s general meeting earlier this month, de Meo officially took his place as head of the luxury group, the second-largest in France. The choice of the former Renault executive as the new CEO raises questions. Can luxury survive the logic of financial optimisation, such as that found in industry and FMCG (fast-moving consumer goods)?
Luxury in transformation
Since the 1990s, the rise of conglomerates like LVMH and Kering has fundamentally changed the luxury sector, creating an industrial rather than brand-driven logic. These conglomerates took advantage of the high profit margins in luxury and used financial leverage to expand rapidly and acquire brands. They benefitted from economies of scale, ranging from real estate to marketing budgets (which allowed them to negotiate with major media), and from bargaining power with subcontractors on production costs.
Today, however, this strategy is being called into question. Luxury brands are struggling with saturation, declining perceived quality, and loss of exclusivity, even as they continue pursuing growth through volume. A widening gap exists between consumers’ perception of luxury prices and product quality. Many brands are perceived – rightly or wrongly – as having cut corners on craftsmanship and materials while significantly increasing prices, relying mainly on marketing to justify costs. The industry is at a turning point, with many brands stating they will focus on “value rather than volume” in the future. Yet, it remains to be seen whether they can truly return to the fundamentals of luxury, namely craftsmanship and genuine (not orchestrated) rarity.
The new role of the CEO in luxury
Traditionally, luxury brands were family businesses, with leadership passed down from generation to generation. This preserved the brand’s heritage and artisanal dimension. Decisions were made with a long-term vision, in contrast to the dictates of the stock market and financial logic, which require regular reporting. Hermès still follows this model, with its CEO Axel Dumas belonging to the sixth generation of the Hermès-Dumas family.
A second model later emerged: hiring CEOs from within the luxury industry, aligned with the unique aspects of managing luxury brands. This vision dominated during the massive expansion of luxury brands, which went from being regional champions of European excellence and craftsmanship to global leaders in high-value-added premium goods. Today, for example, Nicolas Bos, the new CEO of Richemont – the Swiss luxury conglomerate – previously led Van Cleef & Arpels.
More recently, a new model seems to be emerging, where luxury brands are recruiting CEOs from other industries, especially consumer goods (FMCG) or industries that produce on a large scale. Such was the case with Leena Nair at Chanel, poached from Unilever, and now with de Meo at Kering. This brings new management approaches but also creates tensions with the sector’s traditional values.
Industrial production
Indeed, the FMCG approach has introduced stricter financial management, optimised segmentation and marketing, a growth strategy based on brand extensions, and large-scale production in luxury. However, this also undermines the focus on creativity, craftsmanship and exclusivity in the sector.
These appointments can certainly provide a fresh perspective: Nair’s appointment at Chanel, for example, brings human resources expertise into a sector where talent is scarce. Still, questions remain, especially concerning how excellence in service and customer experience, where luxury practices are far beyond those of consumer goods, can be integrated.
Kering faces specific challenges
There are many challenges for Kering and its new CEO. Gucci – the group’s flagship brand – has seen a 25% drop in sales, while other brands in its portfolio are underperforming. De Meo will need to tackle these issues.
The company expanded rapidly by using financial leverage, but this strategy may have reached its limits given Kering’s current debt. Many concerns remain about the dilution of the group’s brands and the loss of exclusivity.
The traditional luxury group strategy of acquiring trendy or declining brands and reviving them through marketing – boosting desirability and perceived value – and retail (via customer experience) may no longer be as effective in today’s market.
The appointment of a former Renault executive – accustomed to working in a mature industry where platform creation and margin preservation are key – signals that the luxury industry itself is reaching maturity. This strategy focuses marketing efforts on high-value-added flagship products, such as leather goods, beauty and accessories (eg sunglasses). For these products, a platform logic can be applied, where synergies between brands allow cheaper production and distribution, even at the cost of sacrificing brand individuality.
‘Platformisation’ of luxury
The new CEO will need to balance financial performance with preserving the brand’s capital and exclusivity. This may require tough decisions, such as scaling back certain operations or selling underperforming brands. A strategy of returning to exclusivity – by reducing the number of boutiques and focusing on high-value-added items – was successfully implemented by Chanel in the 1980s.
The new leader of Gucci, Balenciaga, and Bottega Veneta will have much to prove to show that a CEO coming from outside the luxury industry can successfully take on these challenges and restore Kering’s growth trajectory while maintaining its luxury positioning.
These difficulties reflect the broader challenges of a business model that has adopted mass‑market tactics, treating emotional and creative products as commodities. This “FMCG for the wealthy” approach poses a real risk of eroding the very essence of luxury.
Conflicting pressures
Luxury brands face conflicting pressures – maintaining exclusivity and craftsmanship while delivering the growth and profits expected by financial markets and conglomerate owners. The industry may have reached the limits of its expansion strategy. This is evidenced by the opening of stores in second‑ and third‑tier cities around the world and the constant launch of new product categories, which dilute brand equity.
Moreover, there is a growing tension between creative, artistic leadership and financial, operational management within luxury houses. The traditional “magic duo” of the creative director and the business leader is being disrupted. The aura of a luxury brand is built above all around a charismatic figure – at once creative and visionary – who is also committed to a brand over the long term.
Finally, there are increasing concerns about the long‑term sustainability of today’s luxury business models, particularly their reliance on marketing rather than genuine quality and authentic exclusivity to justify high prices.
A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!
Ben Voyer received funding from the ESCP HEC Paris Cartier Turning Points Research Chair.
Perrine Desmichel ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.
Aux États-Unis, les NIH sont l’un des nœuds du système interconnecté, qui produit des avancées dans les domaines de la santé et de la médecine.Anchalee Phanmaha/Moment/Getty Images
Aux États-Unis, les National Institutes of Health sont sous la menace d’une coupe drastique de leur budget. Les conséquences de ces économies de court terme voulues par l’administration Trump pourraient s’étendre bien au-delà du secteur public et, au final, coûter cher à l’ensemble du système de santé.
L’étude des archives du budget des NIH nous apprend qu’une telle coupe à deux chiffres n’a été mise en œuvre qu’à une seule autre reprise depuis le début des enregistrements, en 1938. Une diminution de 12 % avait en effet été prononcée en 1952.
L’idée de réduire les ressources des NIH n’est pas nouvelle, et de telles propositions refont régulièrement surface. Le débat actuel suscite cependant des incertitudes quant à la stabilité du secteur de la recherche dans son ensemble, et au sein des milieux scientifiques, les inquiétudes vont bon train.
Chercheurs nous-mêmes, nous étudions les complexes systèmes de politiques de santé mis en place. Nous nous intéressons plus précisément à la politique du financement de la recherche scientifique. À ce titre, nous considérons que les NIH sont l’un des maillons d’un système interconnecté destiné à favoriser la découverte de nouvelles connaissances, à former le personnel biomédical et à accomplir des avancées en matière de médecine et de santé publique, à l’échelle nationale.
Nos travaux démontrent que si la réduction des financements des NIH peut sembler générer des économies à court terme, elle déclenche une cascade d’effets qui, à long terme, augmentent les coûts des soins de santé et ralentissent le développement de nouveaux traitements et la mise en place de solutions aux problèmes de santé publique.
Privilégier la vision d’ensemble
Le financement des NIH ne permet pas seulement de soutenir les travaux de chercheurs ou de laboratoires. Il constitue aussi le socle sur lequel reposent le secteur de la recherche médicale et biomédicale des États-Unis, ainsi que le système de santé. En effet, c’est grâce à ce budget que sont formés les scientifiques, qu’est financée la recherche en prévention et que sont produites les connaissances qui seront ensuite utilisées par les entreprises pour mettre au point de nouveaux produits de santé.
Afin de comprendre comment de telles coupes budgétaires peuvent affecter ces différents domaines, nous avons entrepris de passer en revue les données existantes. Nous avons analysé les études (et les ensembles de données) qui ont porté sur les liens entre le financement des NIH (ou de la recherche biomédicale en général) et l’innovation, la main-d’œuvre et l’état de la santé publique.
Dans une étude publiée en juillet 2025, nous avons élaboré un cadre d’analyse simple, destiné à illustrer comment des changements effectués dans une partie du système – ici, les subventions à la recherche – peuvent produire des effets à d’autres niveaux, en grevant par exemple les opportunités de formation ou en ralentissant le développement de nouvelles thérapies.
Ce sont par exemple les recherches financées par les NIH dans les années 1950 qui ont mené à l’identification du cholestérol et à établir son rôle dans les maladies cardiovasculaires, ce qui a ouvert la voie à la découverte ultérieure des statines. Ces molécules sont aujourd’hui prescrites à des millions de personnes dans le monde pour contrôler leur taux de cholestérol.
Dans les années 1960, les recherches en biologie du cancer ont conduit à la découverte du cisplatine. Utilisée en chimiothérapie, cette molécule est à l’heure actuelle administrée à 10 à 20 % des patients atteints de cancer.
Le cisplatine, largement utilisé en chimiothérapie, a été mis au point grâce aux recherches fondamentales menées pour comprendre la biologie du cancer, lesquelles ont été financées par les NIH. FatCamera/E+ via Getty Images
Sans ce type d’investissement public financé par les contribuables, nombre de projets fondateurs ne verraient jamais le jour, les entreprises privées hésitant à s’engager dans des travaux aux horizons lointains ou aux profits incertains. Notre étude n’a pas chiffré ces effets, mais les données montrent que lorsque la recherche publique ralentit, l’innovation en aval et les bénéfices économiques sont également retardés. Cela peut se traduire par une diminution du nombre de nouveaux traitements, un déploiement plus lent de technologies permettant de réduire les coûts et une croissance moindre des industries qui dépendent des avancées scientifiques.
Une réduction de la main-d’œuvre scientifique
En octroyant des subventions pour financer les étudiants, les chercheurs postdoctoraux et les jeunes scientifiques, ainsi que les laboratoires et infrastructures où ils sont formés, les NIH jouent également un rôle central dans la préparation de la « relève » scientifique.
Lorsque les budgets diminuent, le nombre de postes disponibles se réduit et certains laboratoires sont contraints de fermer. Cette situation peut décourager les jeunes chercheurs d’entrer dans un domaine ou d’y rester. Ces conséquences dépassent le seul cadre académique. En effet, certains scientifiques formés par les NIH poursuivent ensuite leur carrière dans le secteur des biotechnologies, de l’industrie des dispositifs médicaux ou de la science des données. Un système de formation affaibli aujourd’hui signifie donc moins de professionnels hautement qualifiés dans l’ensemble de l’économie demain.
L’innovation se déplace vers des marchés plus limités
Les investissements publics et privés remplissent des fonctions différentes. Le financement des NIH réduit souvent le risque scientifique en menant les projets à un stade où les entreprises peuvent investir avec davantage de confiance. Des exemples passés incluent le soutien à la physique de l’imagerie ayant conduit à l’imagerie par résonance magnétique (IRM) et à la tomographie par émission de positons (TEP), ainsi que des recherches en science des matériaux qui ont permis la mise au point des prothèses modernes.
Nos recherches mettent en évidence le fait que lorsque l’investissement public recule, les entreprises tendent à se concentrer sur des produits présentant des retours financiers plus immédiats. L’innovation s’oriente alors vers des médicaments ou des technologies aux prix de lancement très élevés, délaissant des améliorations qui pouvant répondre à des besoins plus larges (optimisation de thérapies existantes ou développement de diagnostics largement accessibles). Or, lorsque le financement public se réduit et que les entreprises privilégient des produits onéreux plutôt que des améliorations accessibles à moindre coût, la dépense globale de santé peut croître.
Les technologies d’imagerie, telles que l’IRM, ont été développées grâce au financement public de la recherche fondamentale par les NIH. Tunvarat Pruksachat/Moment via Getty Images
Certains médicaments anticancéreux, par exemple, reposent fortement sur des découvertes fondamentales issues de la biologie cellulaire et de la méthodologie des essais cliniques, découlant de recherches financées par les NIH. Des études indépendantes révèlent que sans ce socle initial de recherche publique, les délais de développement s’allongent et les coûts augmentent – des effets qui se traduisent par des prix plus élevés pour les patients et les systèmes de santé.
Ce qui apparaît comme une économie budgétaire à court terme peut donc produire l’effet inverse, les programmes publics tels que Medicare (système d’assurance-santé destiné aux plus de 65 ans et aux personnes répondant à certains critères, ndlr) et Medicaid, qui procure une assurance maladie aux personnes à faibles ressources, devant finalement absorber des coûts supérieurs.
La prévention et la santé publique reléguées au second plan
Les NIH financent également une part importante de la recherche consacrée à la promotion de la santé et à la prévention des maladies. On peut par exemple citer les études sur la nutrition, les maladies chroniques, la santé maternelle ou encore les expositions environnementales telles que la pollution au plomb ou la pollution atmosphérique.
Ces projets contribuent souvent à améliorer la santé des individus avant que la maladie ne s’aggrave. Ils attirent cependant rarement des investissements privés, car leurs bénéfices, qui apparaissent progressivement, ne se traduisent pas en profits directs.
Repousser à plus tard ou annuler la recherche en prévention peut conduire à des coûts ultérieurs plus élevés, en raison de l’augmentation du nombre de patients dont l’état se sera dégradé et nécessitera des traitements lourds afin de soigner des affections qui auraient pu être évitées ou mieux prises en charge en amont.
Des décennies d’observation dans le cadre de la Framingham Heart Study (une étude épidémiologique au long cours, dont l’objet initial était l’étude des maladies cardiovasculaires, et qui se poursuit encore aujourd’hui) ont façonné les recommandations thérapeutiques sur des facteurs de risque tels que l’hypertension artérielle et les troubles du rythme cardiaque.
Au-delà de ces domaines précis, la véritable question est de savoir comment les États-Unis choisiront à l’avenir de soutenir la recherche scientifique et médicale. Pendant des décennies, l’investissement public a permis aux chercheurs de s’attaquer à des problématiques difficiles et de mener des études s’étalant sur plusieurs décennies.
Si le soutien du gouvernement s’affaiblit, la recherche médicale et la recherche en santé publique pourraient devenir plus dépendantes des marchés et de la philanthropie. Cette situation risquerait de réduire l’éventail des problématiques étudiées et de limiter la capacité de réaction face à des urgences telles que l’émergence de nouvelles infections ou la gestion des risques sanitaires liés au climat.
Les auteurs ne travaillent pas, ne conseillent pas, ne possèdent pas de parts, ne reçoivent pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’ont déclaré aucune autre affiliation que leur organisme de recherche.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nils Mallock, PhD Candidate, Department of Psychological and Behavioural Science, London School of Economics and Political Science; King’s College London
There has been a recent rush of countries to formally recognise the state of Palestine. Affirming Palestinian sovereignty marks a historic diplomatic milestone, yet the exact layout of its territory, a central requirement under international law, remains fiercely contested from every hilltop in the West Bank to the ruins of Gaza.
To grasp what this moment means, we need to trace how borders have evolved – or dissolved – over Palestine’s tumultuous political history. The 1947 UN partition plan had envisioned two semi-contiguous territories for Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem as an international city.
But that vision quickly collapsed into the war that led to the establishment of Israel in 1948. Palestinians found themselves confined to the West Bank and Gaza Strip as fully separated territories, demarcated by the “green line” and placed under Jordanian and Egyptian control.
These initial contours remain the internationally recognised basis for Palestinian statehood until today – and are referred to as the “pre-1967 borders”. That year, the six-day war saw Israel effectively tripling its territory. It occupied all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and annexed East Jerusalem.
Israeli settlements immediately began fragmenting Palestine’s geography, especially in the West Bank. These settlements are illegal under international law, and in many cases lacked even the government’s authorisation.
Yet they faced limited government pushback – and were often directly supported by Israeli authorities. The Oslo accords later carved the territory into Areas A, B, and C with varying degrees of Palestinian governance.
Following suicide bombings during the second intifada (2000-05), Israel built a separation barrier cutting deep inside the 1967 borders. Six decades on, the West bank resembles a fragmented archipelago more than a cohesive state territory.
Building insecurity
In a recent study, my colleagues and I used satellite imagery to show, for the first time, what exactly this does to the West Bank. We tracked all 360 settlements and outposts that existed in 2014 across the following decade.
During this time alone, the average settlement expanded by two-thirds in size. Collectively, they now occupy 151 sq km of built-up area – compared to 88 sq km ten years ago – a 72% increase. Adding to this are hundreds of new settlements, especially with a wave of approvals following October 7 2023.
Each of these settlements comes with extensive Israeli military presence and infrastructure. This has created a complicated system of roads and checkpoints that typically exclude Palestinians, severely restricting movement and economic activity.
What’s worse, violent attacks and harassment by extremist settlers are well documented in some locations. To say that building an independent state under these conditions is challenging would be a massive understatement.
A recently approved development project on the West Bank exemplifies this. On paper, the E1 project it will be yet another settlement. But if constructed, E1 – short for “East One” – will choke off the main road running north to south outside Jerusalem, effectively cutting the West Bank in half.
Israel’s far-right finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, celebrated the move as “erasing” the idea of a Palestinian state while bolstering national security – the government’s official justification for settlement expansion.
In reality, the settlements have the exact opposite effect. Our research, involving four months of fieldwork and surveying over 8,000 Palestinians, found an alarming dynamic. Living within a few kilometres of settlements almost doubled the likelihood of engagement in high-risk and violent action (more than 82%), while moderate protest dropped by 30-36%. Similarly, support collapsed for diplomatic initiatives, and surged for violent attacks.
Critically, this isn’t simply a reaction to settler violence. Beyond the effects of such exposure, settlement presence alone intensified collective moral outrage, a cognitive state known to drive violent conflict.
Studies demonstrate how this state primes people to think in terms of threat and punishment rather than the risks of taking action – particularly dangerous in the West Bank. And this factor is likely to persist: the settler community today counts upwards of half a million people, many of them armed, violence prone, and radically opposed to leaving.
What this implies for Israeli-Palestinian relations is that, as settlements expand, so will political violence and retaliation, fuelling further cycles of conflict. The recent attack in Jerusalem, in which Palestinian gunmen shot six people just weeks after E1’s approval, tragically shows this reality already.
Looking for leaders
Any viable Palestinian state must include a vision for Gaza’s reconstruction and integration once the horrific suffering and famine caused by Israel’s brutal attacks ends. Yet as I’ve reported based on data collected in January, Gaza’s largest political constituency (32%) now consists of those who feel represented by nobody.
Hamas is militarily decimated and has lost almost all remaining support among the public. The UK and other countries have also proscribed the terrorist group. Yet no viable alternative has emerged to represent Gazans’ interests.
Over in the West Bank, a Palestinian Authority (PA) dominated by elderly men offers little better. Three decades since its establishment as part of the Oslo peace process, it is widely seen as illegitimate, corrupt and incapable, as polls consistently show.
The most realistic governance scenario involves a restructured PA administering both territories. It’s likely this will still be dominated by Fatah but with fundamentally reformed structures and leaders.
If elections were held today, the 89-year-old president, Mahmoud Abbas, would almost certainly lose. One candidate with more prospects is the imprisoned Marwan Barghouti, complicating succession planning.
Whoever eventually leads a unified Palestine will inherit decades of failed self-governance, deep public scepticism, and Israel undoubtedly attempting to intervene in this process.
Making recognition matter
Despite massive challenges, building a functioning Palestinian state is not impossible. So recognition can be more than a symbolic act. Already, it’s reshaping in tangible ways how major powers engage with Palestinian representatives while applying meaningful pressure on Israel’s leaders.
But as nations line up to recognise Palestine, they must confront what they’re actually recognising. Given the vicious cycles of settlement expansion and violence that our research shows, recognition risks becoming an empty gesture unless this issue is addressed diplomatically head on. Without creating genuine conditions for statehood that uphold the interests of all parties, neither goal will be achieved.
The choice is no longer between one-state and two-state solutions. It’s between recognising borders that have long been rendered meaningless – or committing to build something viable. Both the future of Palestinian statehood and Israeli security may depend on that choice.
Nils Mallock receives funding from UK International Development, in the UK government, as part of his affiliation with the XCEPT research program at King’s College London. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the UK government’s official policies. The author declares no conflict of interest.
Could tattoos be the secret weapon in the fight against skin cancer? It might sound incredibly unlikely at first, but new research suggests there’s more to tattoo ink than meets the eye, especially when it comes to melanoma risk.
For years, people worried about the possiblehealthdangers of tattoos. But new research suggests something surprising: people with multiple tattoos appear to have less melanoma, not more. However, before anyone rushes to the tattoo parlour for cancer prevention, it’s crucial to take a closer look at the fine print because every study has its flaws, and this one is no exception.
Researchers in Utah – the US state with the highest melanoma rates – studied over 1,000 people. They compared melanoma patients with healthy people to see if tattoos, especially extensive ones, affect cancer risk.
The results suggested that people who’d had multiple tattoo sessions or possessed several large tattoos actually experienced a reduced risk of melanoma. In fact, the risk was more than halved.
This was a striking finding, especially given the longstanding concerns about tattoo inks, which contain chemicals that – in other settings – can be harmful or even carcinogenic. Scientists have previously worried that introducing foreign substances into the skin could promote cancer development.
Extensive recent research has in fact linked tattoos to a type of cancer called lymphoma. But this broad population-based study did not support these fears for melanoma.
Why the results might be misleading
Yet the evidence comes with a number of critical caveats. The first and perhaps most significant issue was the lack of data about key melanoma risk factors, which is essential for drawing reliable cause-and-effect conclusions.
Important risk factors such as sun exposure history, tanning bed use, how easily people sunburn, skin type and family history of melanoma were only recorded for people with cancer – not for the healthy people in the study. Without this information, it’s impossible to tease apart whether the observed lower risk in tattooed people actually stems from the tattoos themselves, or whether it’s merely a byproduct of other lifestyle differences.
Another issue lies in something called behavioural bias. Tattooed participants were more likely to report riskier sun habits, such as indoor tanning and sunburns, although here the apparent “protection” of multiple tattoos remained even after adjusting for smoking, physical activity and some other variables.
However, data on key risk factors for melanoma, such as sun protection behaviour and the use of sunscreen, weren’t available across both groups. This raises the possibility that the supposedly protective effect might actually be a result of unmeasured differences – perhaps those with many tattoos are more likely to use sunscreen or avoid sun exposure to protect their body art.
Adding further complexity, the response rate among melanoma cases was only about 41%, meaning that most people with melanoma didn’t answer questions about it, which is relatively low, though typical for studies using surveys like this. This could create what’s called selection bias. If people who answered the survey were different from those who didn’t, the results might not apply to everyone.
No information was collected on where the tattoos were located, so we don’t know if they were on sun-exposed or covered areas of the body – an important distinction since ultraviolet light is a major risk factor for skin cancer. In fact, recent research suggests air pollution may protect from melanoma and it does this by filtering out harmful UV rays.
Interestingly, the study did not show that melanomas occurred any more frequently within tattooed skin than in un-tattooed areas. This suggests that tattoo ink itself is unlikely to be directly carcinogenic, though some research suggests that it mightbe.
However, the researchers urge caution. This is one of the first major studies on tattoos and melanoma, so the results suggest new ideas to test rather than prove that tattoos are protective.
Comparisons with previous research, conducted in other countries, also reveal inconsistent findings. Some studies have shown skin cancers – including melanoma – in tattooed populations or areas of the body. However, these studies have also been hampered by small sample sizes, lack of information on other key risk factors, and diverse sun-bathing habits around the world.
What does this all mean in practical terms? The findings are far from a green light to seek out tattoos as a shield against melanoma. Crucially, the absence of detailed behavioural and biological data means that the observed effects could just as easily reflect differences in lifestyle or unrecorded habits in tattooed populations.
For now, the fundamental advice for melanoma prevention is unchanged: limit sun exposure, wear sunscreen, and check your skin regularly, regardless of ink status.
For those who already have multiple tattoos, the study does, however, provide some reassuring news: there is currently no evidence that tattooing increases the risk of melanoma, and any association with reduced risk may simply reflect other factors.
The broader message, though, is one of scientific caution. Interesting signals like these warrant further investigation in larger, more carefully controlled studies, that can fully account for all the complexities of cancer risk and human behaviour. Until then, tattoos may remain a personal choice, but definitely not a medically endorsed strategy for staving off skin cancer.
Justin Stebbing 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.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Katarzyna Kosmala, Chair in Culture Media and Visual Arts, University of the West of Scotland
Currently on show at the Royal Botanic Garden in Edinburgh, Linder’s retrospective Danger Came Smiling showcases half a century of trailblazing art. The exhibition delves into her fascination with plants, inviting the viewer to see beyond traditional notions of gender and sexuality.
For the Liverpool-born artist, there is enchantment in creating imaginary worlds, generating new meanings and inviting others in. Turning toward botanical themes marks a compelling evolution in Linder’s art practice. This new twist fuses a more glamorous side of her punk-feminist roots with symbolic power of the natural world.
Her fascination with plants isn’t just visual, it’s conceptual. In Danger Came Smiling she uses botanical imagery to examine how nature has historically been feminised, controlled and aestheticised, as she explores plant reproduction, horticultural histories and the cultural symbolism associated with flowers.
The Goddess Who Lives in the Mind (2020) features a gigantic lily with stamens protruding from a glamorous woman’s body, while Double Cross Hybrid (2013) reveals an enormous rose blooming out of a woman’s stomach – a monstrous “other” taken away from the domestic space, dressed in botanical themes.
A living critique of gendered power structures – the way access to power, privilege and resources is disproportionately dominated by men – the exhibition is rooted in the organic and the ephemeral, with echoes of her earlier subversive photomontages.
Linder is best known for this disruptive technique – cutting and pasting images from disparate sources to create new, often shocking visual narratives. Her work embodies the radical spirit of early 20th-century European Dada and Surrealists such as Hannah Höch, George Grosz and Dora Maar who pioneered the method, amalgamating images from popular media, magazines and photography into political and satirical statements.
Her critique of the commodification of the female body also draws inspiration from feminist artists such as Hannah Wilke, Carolee Schneemann and Martha Rosler. Here, her photomontages are like jigsaw configurations that blur the boundaries between art, ecology and mythology.
Linder’s outdoor performance A Kind of Glamour About Me was staged to great effect this summer at the opening night of the Edinburgh Art Festival. A dazzling, genre-defying spectacle, it fused Holly Blakey’s visceral choreography, Maxwell Sterling’s haunting soundscapes and Ashish Gupta’s flamboyant fashion. Showcasing an eerie synthesis of body and nature, it turned the Royal Botanic Garden into a site of transformation and storytelling. Here visitors can enjoy it as a video installation.
An improvised take on the myth of Myrrha – the Greek mythological figure who was turned into a myrrh tree after having sex with her father – three dancers in exquisite costumes appear as shifting identities, with one eventually merging into a tree for protection.
Linder draws inspiration from the mythical symbolism of plants. The word glamour in her work comes from the Scots word glamer, which means a magic spell – witches in 16th-century Scotland were hanged for casting “glamer”. Traces of Linder’s photomontage style spill over into the verdant green of the gardens – gigantic lips appear out of nowhere, like a haunting Cheshire cat’s smile.
Linder reclaims women in history and mythology as forbears and heroines. Just like her photomontages, whether in live performance or in video, they are made of parts and fragments that come together in ethereal improvisations.
Her eerie video work Bower of Bliss (2018) is inspired by the detention of Mary Queen of Scots at Chatsworth House in the late 16th century (Linder was in residence there in 2017). In the video, Mary and her custodian Bess of Hardwick are dressed in lavish, colourful costumes designed by Louise Gray. They move to a Maxwell Sterling composition that signals the pleasures and boredom of confinement through clinging, holding and posing. Here we see fabrication mixed with history, witch with knight, warden with prisoner.
Featuring themes of female empowerment and enchantment with nature, Linder’s signature tableaux vivants (living pictures), reveal performers’ dramatically made-up eyes and lips covered with herbs and flowers from the kitchen garden.
Bower of Bliss refers to an enchanted garden from Edmund Spence’s poem The Faerie Queene. The work was originally recreated for Art on the Underground as a billboard at Southwark station in 2018, featuring women who worked on London Underground and performed in the dance work created from it.
Linder’s newer digital works appear to depart from the DIY-rebellion aesthetic of the radical punk era of the 1970s and early 1980s (such as her iconic Buzzcocks’ Orgasm Addict album cover). Cut-and-paste aggression, visual noise, and an anti-polish vibe were reactions to her life story at the time, when she was fighting the feminist cause.
Newer works acknowledge the limitations of punk’s visual language and Linder’s desire to move beyond shock value toward more ritualistic, poetic and nature-infused forms of resistance. She invites us to see plants not as decorative or scientific specimens, but as symbols of survival, sensuality and subversion. These works recycle her artistic technique of combining imagery from domestic or fashion magazines with pornography and other archival material featuring petals, plants or marine life.
Her botanical turn is both a continuation of her feminist sensibility and a new way of engaging with the world, through the slow, radical language of nature. Cleansing the wounds of women represented in her works as well as her own, it leans into the language of plants as a profoundly healing experience.
It is a joy to watch this groundbreaking icon evolve her practice, transformed from an angry young rebel to an accomplished multimedia artist. At the age of 71, Linder continues to challenge societal norms while embracing the beauty and complexity of identity, cementing her legacy as a trailblazer in contemporary art.
Danger Came Smiling is on at Inverleigh House, the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, until October 19, and then transfers to the Glynn Vivian Art Gallery, Swansea, in November 2025.
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.
Katarzyna Kosmala 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.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By George Kyris, Associate Professor in International Politics, University of Birmingham
The UK, France, Canada and Australia are among a group of nations that are moving to formally recognise the state of Palestine like most other states have done over the years. This move is a major diplomatic shift and turning point in one of the world’s most intractable conflicts. Here’s what it means.
What does it mean to recognise Palestine?
Recognising Palestine means acknowledging the existence of a state that represents the Palestinian people. Following from that, it also means that the recogniser can develop full diplomatic relations with representatives of this state – which would include exchanging embassies or negotiating government-level agreements.
Why have these countries moved together – and why now?
Diplomatic recognition, when done in concert, carries more heft than isolated gestures – and governments know this. A year or so ago, Spain tried to get European Union members to recognise Palestine together and when this was not possible opted to coordinate its recognition with Norway and Ireland only. Further away, a cluster of Caribbean countries (Barbados, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, the Bahamas) also recognised Palestine around the same time.
By acting together, countries amplify the message that Palestinian statehood is not a fringe idea, but a legitimate aspiration backed by a growing international consensus. This collective recognition also serves to shield individual governments from accusations of unilateralism or political opportunism.
This wave of recognition comes now because of concern that Palestinian statehood is under threat, perhaps more than ever before. In their recognition statements, the UK and Canada cited Israel’s settlements in the West Bank in their reasoning.
The Israeli government has also revealed plans that amount to annexing Gaza, the other area that ought to belong to Palestinians. This is after months of assault on its people, which the UN commission of inquiry on the occupied Palestinian Territories and Israel found amounts to genocide. Public sentiment has also shifted dramatically in support of Palestine, adding to the pressure on governments.
Why do some say recognition isn’t legal?
Israel and some of its allies argue that the recognition is illegal because Palestine lacks the attributes of a functioning state, such as full control of its territory or a centralised government. Legal opinion on whether Palestine meets the criteria of statehood is divided. But, regardless, these criteria are not consistently used to recognise states.
In fact, many states have been recognised well before they had complete control over their borders or institutions. Ironically, the US recognised Israel in 1948, refuting critics that this was premature due to the lack of clear borders. Recognition has, therefore, always been political.
But even if we take a more legal perspective, the international community, through numerous UN and other texts has long recognised the right of Palestinians to have a state of their own.
Does recognition ‘reward Hamas’, as Israel claims?
Recognising a state does not mean you recognise those who govern it. At the moment, for example, many states do not recognise Taliban rule, but this doesn’t mean they have stopped recognising the existence of Afghanistan as a state.
Similarly, the fact that Netanyahu is under arrest warrant of the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity has not resulted in states withdrawing their recognition of the state of Israel and its people. Recognising a state is not the same as endorsing a specific government.
Not only that but all of the states that recently recognised Palestine have explicitly said that Hamas must play no role in a future government. France said that although it recognises the state of Palestine it won’t open an embassy until Hamas releases the hostages.
Will recognition make a difference?
The past few years have laid bare the limits of diplomacy in stopping the horrific human catastrophe unfolding in Gaza. This doesn’t leave much room for optimism. And, in a way, states taking brave diplomatic steps are, at the same time, exposing their reluctance to take more concrete action, such as sanctions, to press the government of Israel to end its war.
Still, the recognition brings the potential for snowball effects that would enhance the Palestinians’ international standing. They will be able to work more substantively with those governments who now recognise their state. More states may now also recognise Palestine, motivated by the fact others did the same.
And more recognition means better access to international forums, aid and legal instruments. For example, the UN’s recognition of Palestine as an observer state in 2011 allowed the International Court of Justice to hear South Africa’s case accusing Israel of genocide and the International Criminal Court to issue an arrest warrant for Netanyahu.
The implications for the Israeli government and some of its allies could also be significant. The US will now be isolated as the only permanent member of the UN Security Council not recognising Palestine. States that do not recognise Palestine will be in a dissenting minority and more exposed to critiques in international forums and public opinion.
This growing isolation may not force immediate changes and may not bother the current US administration, which often does not follow the logic of traditional diplomacy. Still, over time, the pressure on Israel and its allies to engage with a peace process may grow.
In the end, recognition from some of the world’s biggest players breaks their longstanding alignment with consecutive Israeli governments. It shows how strongly their public and governments feel about Israel’s threat to Palestinian statehood through annexation and occupation. For Palestinians, recognition strengthens their political and moral standing. For the government of Israel, it does the opposite.
But recognition alone is not enough. It must be accompanied by sustained efforts to end the war in Gaza, hold perpetrators of violence accountable and revive peace efforts towards ending the occupation and allow Palestinians their rightful sovereignty alongside Israel.
George Kyris 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.
_-_558_-_Gem%C3%A4ldegalerie.jpg#mw-jump-to-license){kind=link}
