After an opaque summit, China and the US want to work together again. That might not be good news for the world

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Wesley Widmaier, Professor of International Relations, Australian National University

Back in 2005, US economist Fred Bergsten coined the term “Group of 2” or “G2”, proposing a stronger partnership between what are now the world’s two largest economies – the United States and China.

In the aftermath of the global financial crisis a few years later, economic cooperation between these two countries briefly seemed to attest to the success of efforts at integrating China into a liberal rules-based order.

To be sure, the ostensible G2 was not meant to replace the larger, formalised G20 group of major economies, so much as strengthen it. Underpinning the broader G20’s response to the global financial crisis, the US enacted an initial US$787 billion fiscal stimulus, while China provided its own US$586 billion stimulus. This helped avert a much larger global economic catastrophe.

This week’s summit between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping heralds a different sort of G2. On Friday, Trump claimed the countries had struck some “fantastic trade deals”. But anyone hoping for details of such deals – on tariffs, rare earths or Iran – was left disappointed on Friday afternoon.

Whatever may have transpired, US–China cooperation no longer automatically implies positive spillover effects for the rest of the world. Instead, in 2026, the G2 appears, at best, to be a private bargain between two great powers, imposing hidden costs on those outside, looking in.

The Trump administration has ushered in a noticeable shift in how the US views its economic interests: no longer premised on shared liberal values, but on spheres of influence among great powers. The key question, therefore, is not whether the US and China can cooperate. It is what kind of order their cooperation will produce.




Read more:
Trump-Xi summit: 3 ways the US and China can compete without going to war


West and East

An older economic contrast is useful here.

In the wake of the second world war, the Western bloc (led across the US, the United Kingdom, and Western European states) was united by a shared commitment to a Keynesian global order (under the Bretton Woods system) that sought freer trade in goods while preserving national economic autonomy.

In contrast, the Eastern bloc (led by the Soviet Union) organised trade through what was called the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Comecon), trading many goods between countries through planned barter arrangements, instead of for cash.

The irony for the present day is that the Trump–Xi agenda looks more like the old Eastern bloc’s approach.

In this light, the clearest sign that a G2 may be working outside the G20 or larger rules-based order is not that Washington and Beijing are talking. It is the range of issues that may be managed, tying together such concerns as tariff relief, airplane orders, rare-earths access, chip restrictions, Taiwan and Iran.

In each of these cases, it’s reasonable the two countries would want to coordinate their policies. But together, they point to a new global order where two superpowers increasingly call the shots in their own interests.

Chips and rare earths

Rare earths and advanced chips are the clearest example. Beijing wants access to the advanced semiconductors necessary to dominate the artificial intelligence race.

Washington wants rare earths and critical minerals whose importance has become more acute as the conflict with Iran has strained US stocks of missiles, drones, air-defence systems and other high-end military technologies.

If these are traded against one another, the summit is not about economic liberalisation. It is about whether strategic technologies remain national-security constraints or become bargaining chips in a bilateral deal.

An entourage of executives

The business delegations that have accompanied Trump on this trip point in the same direction.

The presence of executives such as Nvidia’s Jensen Huang, Apple’s Tim Cook, Tesla and SpaceX’s Elon Musk (not to mention others from Qualcomm, Citigroup and Boeing) gave the summit the appearance of a commercial negotiation.

Reported agreements on aircraft orders, agricultural purchases, investment forums and corporate access may all be presented as signs of economic normalisation.

But the question is not only whether US firms gain market access. It is whether commercial wins help stabilise a great-power bargain whose geopolitical costs are borne elsewhere.

Any deal the countries eventually reach on tariffs will likely have the biggest market impacts. But the deal itself could matter less than the optics, allowing Trump to claim a business victory.

This might calm markets in the short term, but it highlights the potential for a retreat from rules-based multilateral liberalisation in the longer term.

A warning on Taiwan, near silence on Iran

The question of Taiwan loomed large over this week’s summit. On Thursday, Xi gave an unusually direct warning to Trump, saying if the issue was not handled properly, the two countries could see “clashes and even conflicts”.

In a larger sense, the danger is not necessarily a formal US concession on Taiwan. It is that Taiwan and other regional actors bear the external costs of a private bargain.

If Taiwan becomes one variable in a wider negotiation, the costs of US–China cooperation may fall on those not in the room.

Iran and oil broaden the same logic. If Trump has pressed Xi to use China’s influence over Tehran, he is not simply asking for diplomatic help. He is treating Beijing as a co-hegemon in a great-power bargain based on order for some – the US and China – and exclusion for others.

This kind of G2 can undermine the global public good. It will also test whether middle powers like Australia, Canada and European countries can keep their seat at the table where decisions are made or, as Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney put it, risk being “on the menu”.

The Conversation

Wesley Widmaier receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

ref. After an opaque summit, China and the US want to work together again. That might not be good news for the world – https://theconversation.com/after-an-opaque-summit-china-and-the-us-want-to-work-together-again-that-might-not-be-good-news-for-the-world-282603

What is the ‘Thucydides trap’ Xi warned Trump about? Lessons from an ancient war between Athens and Sparta

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By David M. Pritchard, Associate Professor of Greek History, The University of Queensland

Grafissimo/Getty

During their high-stakes meeting in Beijing this week, Chinese President Xi Jinping reportedly asked US President Donald Trump if the two countries could overcome the “Thucydides trap”.

This phrase, popularised by contemporary US political scientist Graham Allison in the early 2010s, is used to describe how two countries can drift toward war when an existing superpower feels anxious about an emerging one. Allison had China and the US in mind specifically.

It takes its name from Athenian historian and general Thucydides, who wrote the History of the Peloponnesian War, about the 27-year war between Athens and Sparta that broke out in 431 BCE.

But what did Thucydides really say on this? And what do Athens and Sparta have to do with the current state of US–China relations?

An implied fumble

The implication in the term “Thucydides trap” is that the established superpower manages the rising power badly and feels obliged to go to war when that’s not necessarily the only option.

It is based on a quote from Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War (book one, chapter 23). He said:

The growth of the power of Athens, and the alarm which this inspired in Lacedaemon [Sparta], made war inevitable.

In other words, Thucydides is saying what made the Peloponnesian War inevitable was the rise of Athenian power.

At the time, lots of Greeks were saying Athens and Sparta had gone to war again because of smaller disputes.

But Thucydides says no, the real cause was the overall fear that Sparta (the traditional superpower) had for the new powerful state: democratic Athens.

The general idea, of course, is that in its anxiety about the rise of China, the US may tend toward war when other options are available.

But many scholars of ancient Greece take issue with the way the term is used today.

A contested term

The word “trap” implies Sparta made a mistake in 431 BCE and could’ve handled things better. But that’s not what Thucydides really narrates in book one of his History of the Peloponnesian War.

He shows that, in fact, Sparta had good reason to fear the rising Athenians. Athens was, by then, a predominate naval power in the Balkans and the Aegean Sea. It was stripping allies off Sparta left, right and centre, and beating up the ones that refused to defect.

Those allies basically said to Sparta in 432 BCE: listen, you have got to do something about Athens and if you don’t act, we will join them.

It was pressure from these allies that pushed the Spartans to act against Athens.

So yes, in a sense Sparta’s own anxieties about ever-increasing Athenian power led to war. Sparta felt compelled to wage total war against Athens to maintain its system of alliances, and in 431 BCE broke the peace treaty it had with Athens.

A longer-term perspective

More generally, the term “Thucydides trap” is about how over the longer term things didn’t turn out so well for Sparta; although they won the Peloponnesian War, it took them 27 years to do so.

And after the victory, Sparta engaged in a huge expansion to become an even greater superpower. That ended up making all the other Greeks very fearful for their security. This growth in Spartan power after 404 BCE caused many of its allies to become enemies. All those Greek states then came together to confront Sparta, which was completely and utterly destroyed in 371 BCE at the Battle of Leuctra.

The whole security architecture of Sparta collapsed; they lost all their allies, all their slaves were liberated and Sparta was reduced to just a minor state.

So the lesson for the US implied in the term Thucydides trap is that fear of superpowers is a potent shaper of international affairs.

But many people who use the term Thucydides trap forget to mention what happened to Athens in the longer term.

Athens survived the Peloponnesian War and restored its democracy and military, and became a regional power. But what’s fascinating is that by the early 4th century BCE Athens was under immense pressure from the Persian empire, which was many times more powerful than any Greek state.

So Athens clipped its own wings and gave up on being this huge Mediterranean superpower; it decided to forego any attempt to reassert its imperial control over the many Greek states of Anatolia, allowing them again to be subjects of the Persian empire.

Athens decided to focus more closely on the Aegean Sea and give up on fighting Persians; it recognised the constraints of its power.

So it’s not as though Sparta’s decision to enter war with Athens in 431 BCE led, in the long run, to total world domination by Athens.

A lesson for today

The history of the Peloponnesian War provides important lessons for China–US relations today.

One is that it may be foolish for an established superpower to check the rise of an emerging one. Sparta learned that trying to do so can come at a terrible cost.

Accommodating Athens would have allowed Sparta to continue as a superpower well into the fourth century.

Another lesson is that an established superpower, such as the US, can cut back its ambitions and focus on regions closer to home.

This is exactly what democratic Athens did after the Peloponnesian War. Doing so allowed it to flourish culturally and politically and keep enemies well away until the 310s BCE.

The Conversation

David M. Pritchard receives funding from the ARC.

ref. What is the ‘Thucydides trap’ Xi warned Trump about? Lessons from an ancient war between Athens and Sparta – https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-thucydides-trap-xi-warned-trump-about-lessons-from-an-ancient-war-between-athens-and-sparta-283054

Is baby talk bad? Why ‘parentese’ actually helps babies learn language

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Karen Stollznow, Senior Research Fellow of Linguistics, University of Colorado Boulder; Griffith University

Emphasizing the sounds of certain words to young children can help them retain language, not confuse them about speaking properly. MoMo Productions/DigitalVision via Getty Images

Many parents have heard the warning: Don’t use baby talk with babies and toddlers. Instead, caregivers are often encouraged to speak properly and use adultlike language, out of concern that simplified speech could confuse children or delay language development.

But my research, which I highlighted in in my new book, “Beyond Words,” suggests the opposite is true. The sing-song voice many adults instinctively use with infants, sometimes called “baby talk” but more accurately known as “parentese” or infant-directed speech, actually helps children learn language.

Far from confusing babies, exaggerating phrases like “Loooook at the doggie!” capture their attention, help them detect patterns in speech and strengthen social bonding.

And the funny mistakes children make along the way, such as saying “goed,” instead of “went,” or “mouses” instead of “mice,” are not signs that children are learning language incorrectly. They are evidence that children are actively working out the rules of language for themselves.

A man holds his hands away from his face and leans over a small baby lying on a bed and smiles.
Speaking ‘parentese’ to a child doesn’t involve nonsense words.
BjelicaS/E+ via Getty Images

What parentese really is

When many people think of baby talk, they imagine nonsense phrases like “goo goo ga ga” or made-up words like “num nums.” But that’s not what linguists and developmental psychologists mean by parentese.

Parentese uses real words and grammatically correct sentences, but with exaggerated intonation, a higher pitch, stretched-out vowels and a slower rhythm. Think of the way a caregiver might naturally say: “Hi, baaaaby! Are you huuungry?”

There is little evidence that occasional playful nonsense words harm children’s language development. But studies suggest that parentese in particular helps babies pay attention to speech, recognize patterns and engage socially.

Adults across cultures tend to speak this way to infants instinctively. Even people who swear they never use baby talk often slip into it around babies.

Researchers have found that infants actually prefer listening to parentese over regular adult speech. The exaggerated sounds and slower pacing make language easier to process. Babies are better able to pick out individual sounds, notice word boundaries and recognize patterns. In other words, parentese helps tune babies into language.

It also strengthens emotional connection. Language learning does not happen in isolation. Babies learn through warm, responsive interaction with caregivers during feeding, play, bath time and everyday routines.

Interestingly, humans are not the only ones who respond to this style of communication. Studies have even shown that cats react more positively when people use a baby-talk voice with them.

Babies are not passive learners

Children do not learn language simply by copying adults word for word. They actively test hypotheses about how language works. That is why toddlers make predictable and surprisingly logical mistakes.

One common example is overgeneralization. A child learns that people form the past tense of many verbs by adding “-ed,” so they produce forms like “goed,” “eated” or “comed.”

These are not random errors. In fact, they show that the child has understood a grammatical rule and is trying to apply it consistently. The problem is simply that English is full of irregular exceptions. The same thing happens with plurals. Children may say “foots” instead of “feet” or “mouses” instead of “mice.” Again, the logic behind these errors is sound.

Linguists sometimes say that children are little scientists, constantly testing patterns and revising their understanding as they receive more input from the world around them.

Why toddlers call everything a ‘dog’

Young children also make predictable mistakes with meaning.

A toddler might learn the word “dog” and then use it for every four-legged animal they encounter. Linguists call this overextension. On the flip side, some children use words too narrowly. A child may use “dog” only for the family pet and not recognize that other dogs belong in the same category. Linguists call this tendency underextension.

These mistakes reveal how children organize and categorize the world around them. They are gradually mapping words onto objects, people and experiences.

Pronouns are another tricky area. Small children often confuse “me” and “you” because these words constantly shift depending on who is speaking. If a parent says, “I’ll pick you up,” the child hears themselves called “you.” But when they try to repeat the sentence, they may not yet understand that the labels switch from speaker to speaker.

This is why toddlers sometimes say things that sound unintentionally cute or confusing. But beneath the confusion is a sophisticated learning process.

Even the Cookie Monster gets it wrong

Children’s speech errors are so recognizable that they often appear in popular culture. Sesame Street’s character Cookie Monster famously says things like “Me want cookie,” while Elmo often refers to himself in the third person: “Elmo wants this.” These speech patterns mirror real stages of child language development. Young children commonly confuse pronouns or refer to themselves by name before mastering forms like “I,” “me” and “mine.”

Despite occasional complaints from adults, there is no evidence that hearing this kind of speech harms children’s language development. If anything, it reflects the natural experimentation children go through.

A Cookie Monster puppet stands near a black tarp with its mouth open and holds a cookie.
The Cookie Monster saying ‘Me want cookie’ won’t teach babies and young kids to speak incorrectly.
Brian Killian/WireImage via Getty Images

‘Pasketti’ and ‘wabbit’

Pronunciation develops gradually too. Young children often simplify difficult sounds and groups of consonants. “Spaghetti” becomes “pasketti,” “rabbit” becomes “wabbit” and “yellow” may come out as “lellow.”

Speech-language specialists call these simplifications phonological processes. They are a normal part of development because some sounds are physically harder to produce than others. Sounds such as r, th, sh and ch tend to develop later because they require more precise control of the tongue and mouth.

Most children naturally outgrow these pronunciation patterns as their speech matures. However, persistent difficulties can sometimes signal a speech or language disorder, which may require professional support.

A graphic image shows a young child's head with various colorful thought bubbles inside.
Children don’t learn language by copying adults word for word. They learn through interaction, experimentation and repetition.
DrAfter123/DigitalVision Vectors via Getty Images

Mistakes are part of learning

Parents are often under enormous pressure to do everything right, including helping their children learn to speak a language. But children do not learn language by avoiding mistakes. They learn through interaction, experimentation and repetition.

Parentese helps babies focus on speech and engage socially. The funny mistakes toddlers make reveal that they are actively piecing together the complex system of language and are often signs of normal development. Language acquisition is messy, creative and remarkably sophisticated.

Speaking in an exaggerated sing-song voice to a baby is not something parents and caregivers need to feel embarrassed about.

Far from harming language acquisition, it may help lay the foundation for it.

The Conversation

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

ref. Is baby talk bad? Why ‘parentese’ actually helps babies learn language – https://theconversation.com/is-baby-talk-bad-why-parentese-actually-helps-babies-learn-language-282927

Would a $1 rideshare fee affect wealthier or working-class Philadelphians more? 2 Chicago studies offer some perspective

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Parth Vaishnav, Assistant Research Professor of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University

Riders will pay about $30 per hour in time saved when deciding between using a ride-hailing app or public transportation, one study found. Michele Pevide/E+ Collection via Getty Images

Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker has proposed a US$1 fee on all Uber, Lyft and other rideshare trips in the city to begin in 2027. The projected $48 million annual revenue would go entirely to support the chronically underfunded Philadelphia school district, which faces a $300 million budget deficit.

Critics, including Uber, claim the tax will disproportionately hurt working-class riders.

Parker argues that the tax will be applied to the rideshare companies: The companies can choose not to pass them on to riders.

We are a professor and a Ph.D. candidate who research the benefits and costs of green technologies and policies. In 2025, we conducted an analysis to understand what the decision by Uber and Lyft riders to use rideshare instead of public transit told us about how they valued their time.

Our peer-reviewed findings might help Philadelphians decide whether they want to support the mayor’s proposal.

Lessons from Chicago rideshare study

We found that, per hour of time saved by taking Uber or Lyft, Chicago riders paid about $30. That’s roughly the average hourly wage in the Chicago region, which works out to $60,000 a year before taxes for full-time work.

Our analysis sampled eight days. About 1.4 million trips were recorded on these days, and we analyzed origin and destination information for 950,000 of these trips. The rest either started or ended at O’Hare airport, were ordered between midnight and 6 a.m. when public transit is unavailable, or had some missing data. We excluded rides in and out of O’Hare because although our analysis accounted for wait times for Uber and Lyft, our model could not simulate the queuing system at O’Hare.

Origin and destination information was consistently available at the community area level. A community area is one of Chicago’s 77 divisions, which can contain one or several neighborhoods. Each community area has an average of 35,000 people, although the largest is home to 105,000 people and the smallest to just over 2,000.

About 60% of the trips we analyzed had either origins or destinations in community areas with median household incomes over $100,000. A further 23% of rides originated or ended in areas with household incomes between $50,000 and $100,000. This suggests to us that most Uber and Lyft riders in Chicago are middle class or above.

About 1 in 6 trips – 17% to be exact – started or ended in community areas with household incomes of less than $50,000. A $50,000 household income is roughly 150% of the federal poverty line for a four-person family in Chicago.

This suggests that ride-hailing is already unaffordable for these customers, and they are perhaps using it as a last resort. For example, public transit might not be available where they are or want to go, is too slow or is affected by bad weather.

Aerial view of block of colorful two-story rowhomes
Ride-hailing is already unaffordable for many people, who turn to it only as a last resort when public transportation is not readily available.
Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Low-income riders sensitive to extra fees

Another Chicago study, conducted by researchers at MIT and published in 2023, provides some evidence on the effect of the city’s Ground Transportation Tax. Beginning in January 2020, Chicago added an additional charge of $1.13 per ride-hailing trip, and an additional $1.75 for weekday trips that started or ended in downtown between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. The revenues went to the city’s Corporate Fund, which supports city operations and services, including improving service on Chicago public transit.

That study found that Chicago’s tax produced a significant reduction in trips between downtown Chicago and the South and Southwest of Chicago, two areas with a high proportion of low-income and Black residents.

The study notes that this is most likely because low-income people who live in these areas find ride-hailing too expensive to begin with, and are therefore more sensitive to additional fees.

In many parts of Chicago, the 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. weekday fee led riders to shift to pooled Uber and Lyft rides. Citing past research, the authors speculated that the reason this shift to pooled rides did not happen in South Chicago was that area likely has fewer Uber and Lyft drivers nearby, given that ride-hailing drivers tend to concentrate in wealthier areas with more demand.

This conclusion rests on a prior Chicago-based study conducted in 2018 and 2019 which found that areas with lower-income households requested five times fewer trips than areas with higher-income households.

A New York-based study similarly found that public transit, bike-sharing and ride-hailing all served wealthy areas of the city far better than they did poorer areas.

Limited data sharing in Philly

Philadelphians who worry that the additional $1 per ride fee will put ride-hailing beyond the reach of low-income riders should note that ride-hailing is already an unaffordable last resort for many in this demographic.

Also, what may be true in Chicago or New York may not be true in Philly. A Chicago ordinance requires rideshare companies to report data on their activities on a monthly basis. The analysis we did in Chicago was possible because Chicago publishes anonymized information about every Uber and Lyft ride taken in the city. This data includes the approximate origin and destination of the ride, approximate start and end times, and the cost.

One way to test which Philadelphia communities that a $1 fee would most affect would be for Uber and Lyft to make such data publicly available for Philadelphia, as they do for Chicago and New York. Uber’s assertion that this tax would disproportionately hurt working-class Philadelphians is based on its own analysis of its own data, not on transparent analysis of publicly available data.

Uber did not respond to our query about whether they share data that independent researchers can access to determine which Uber riders in Philadelphia would be most affected by the proposed fee. Lyft referred us to their March 2025 , which states that 61% of Philly rides start or end in low-income areas. They did not respond to a follow-up question regarding how a low-income area was measured or defined.

Read more of our stories about Philadelphia, or sign up for our Philadelphia newsletter on Substack.

The Conversation

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Would a $1 rideshare fee affect wealthier or working-class Philadelphians more? 2 Chicago studies offer some perspective – https://theconversation.com/would-a-1-rideshare-fee-affect-wealthier-or-working-class-philadelphians-more-2-chicago-studies-offer-some-perspective-281697

From medieval plague ships to hantavirus: How outbreaks at sea helped to shape the international public health system

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Katrine L. Wallace, Assistant Professor of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Illinois Chicago

Passengers on the the hantavirus-stricken cruise ship MV Hondius watch epidemiologists board the boat in Praia, Cape Verde, on May 6, 2026 AP Photo/Uncredited

Cruise ships are convenient floating hotels by which to see far-flung parts of the world – but as an epidemiologist, I know they are also everything an infectious pathogen could want: thousands of strangers packed into enclosed spaces for days or weeks, sharing dining rooms and high-touch surfaces such as elevator buttons and handrails, breathing recirculated air.

Each new port of call where passengers can explore for a few days is an opportunity for germs to embark – and once they do, they encounter a highly efficient setting for hopping from host to host.

The MV Hondius confirmed this well-known fact in April 2026, when an outbreak of Andes hantavirus began aboard the Dutch-flagged expedition vessel carrying 147 passengers and crew from 23 countries.

The Andes virus is one of several species of hantaviruses. It is the only one known to spread from person to person, though it doesn’t do so very efficiently. It is far less contagious than COVID-19 or the measles.

As of May 14, a total of 11 cases, including three deaths, have been reported in the Hondius outbreak.

Outbreaks at sea are one of the oldest problems in public health. From medieval plague quarantines to modern times, they have repeatedly tested the ability to control infectious disease – and have played a key role in shaping the international public health framework in place today.

That interconnected public health system, however, depends on the cooperation of countries around the globe.

From harbor quarantine to global disease control

The word “quarantine” was first documented in the English language in 1663, in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defined it as a period of 40 days during which people who might spread a contagious disease are kept isolated from the rest of the community.

The first official quarantine, though, came earlier, in 1377, when the Republic of Ragusa – modern-day Dubrovnik, Croatia – ordered ships from plague-affected ports to anchor offshore for 30 days before anyone could disembark. A quarter-century later, Venice extended this period to 40 days – hence the “quarantine” term, which stuck. In 1423, Venice officially opened the world’s first permanent quarantine island, the Lazzaretto Vecchio, specifically to manage the problem of the plague arriving by sea.

A black and white historical illustration of an island,
Lazzaretto Vecchio, the first quarantine island, was established in 1423.
Wikimedia Commons

The system worked during the medieval era because a single authority usually controlled most harbors. Ships waited because they recognized states’ authority to detain them.

For centuries, maritime quarantine operated on this principle. Harbor officials wielded broad public health powers over incoming vessels. In the 19th century this practice continued in the United States. Cholera ships – a nickname for trans-Atlantic vessels carrying migrants and troops that were breeding grounds for cholera and other diseases – arrived from Europe and the Mediterranean and sat offshore in New York for weeks. At quarantine stations on Ellis Island and ports across the Atlantic seaboard, ships were inspected, passengers isolated and captains overruled by public health officers who had the legal authority to isolate passengers for extended periods.

The system was crude and often brutal. Ships of the medieval period were floating sickrooms with poor conditions: putrid water in the casks, bread full of worms, and passengers packed into pitch-sealed berths with lice in the bedding and the bilge stinking under them. Many people died on board. But the system rested on a foundation of recognized, enforceable authority over the vessel and everyone on it for the purpose of protecting the city from disease.

International cooperation

As maritime trade and travel became increasingly globalized, however, no single port or government could manage outbreaks alone. Also, advances in vaccines, antibiotics and sanitation led many countries to downsize the maritime quarantine systems that had once defined disease control at sea.

This forced quarantine systems to evolve from local harbor control into international frameworks for coordination. The World Health Organization was established in 1948, and the International Health Regulations were created in 1969 to manage disease across borders.

Countries agreed to share information, notify one another of outbreaks and coordinate responses at ports and borders. The responsibility no longer fell on a sole harbormaster, but the system was designed to perform a similar coordinating function across an increasingly interconnected world.

Even within that system, however, cruise ships remain unusually vulnerable outbreak environments. A highly visible example was a COVID-19 outbreak that occurred on the Diamond Princess in 2020. The cruise ship, which was anchored off the coast of Yokohama, Japan, produced weeks of confusion between Japanese authorities, the British cruise operator and a dozen foreign governments as they struggled to coordinate responsibility for the 3,700 passengers and containment measures.

Some analyses later suggested the shipboard quarantine may have amplified transmission. At the time, most observers treated it as a crisis specific to the early chaos of the pandemic.

But the Hondius outbreak suggests the problem runs deeper.

The Andes hantavirus can spread from person to person, but not very efficiently.

Ships cross borders – so too do pathogens

Cruise ships combine dense social mixing, international mobility and fragmented legal authority in ways that continue to challenge modern disease-control systems – even decades after the creation of international public health frameworks designed to coordinate them, and even for diseases like Andes hantavirus that are extremely unlikely to cause a pandemic.

As the cruise industry has grown, it has expanded into more remote and epidemiologically unpredictable environments – expedition voyages to Antarctica, the Amazon, Alaska. Alongside the industry’s ambitions, disease risk has also increased. These trips routinely bring large groups of passengers into contact with wildlife, pathogens and ecosystems they may have little prior exposure to and then seal travelers together for weeks.

Nevertheless, the United States chose in January 2026 to withdraw from the World Health Organization, the primary institution administering the framework designed to coordinate responses when disease crosses the borders that cruise ships cross as a matter of routine.

The Trump administration framed the exiting of international organizations as a means of protecting U.S. sovereignty. In practice, it meant that when the Hondius needed a response, the U.S. participated from outside the systems it had spent decades helping to build.

A crack in the system

In the outbreak on the Hondius, the international system still functioned.

The WHO still issued risk assessments and guidance. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control still coordinated the response across Europe. And in the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention belatedly issued a health alert to physicians.

What changed is that the U.S. moved from being a central participant in the international public health system to operating more from its edges.

Who can say whether the next big outbreak will come from a disease spread on a cruise ship – or whether the pathogen involved will be one that spreads more efficiently between people than the Andes strain of the hantavirus does.

Whatever its source, outbreak response depends on cooperation between major governments, rapid information sharing and coordinated logistics. When a country as globally connected as the U.S. steps back from those systems, managing international health emergencies becomes slower, more fragmented and more dependent on ad hoc negotiations. Ultimately, this may make the world less safe.

The Conversation

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

ref. From medieval plague ships to hantavirus: How outbreaks at sea helped to shape the international public health system – https://theconversation.com/from-medieval-plague-ships-to-hantavirus-how-outbreaks-at-sea-helped-to-shape-the-international-public-health-system-282957

From landslide to leadership crisis: where did it all go wrong for Keir Starmer?

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ben Worthy, Lecturer in Politics, Birkbeck, University of London

The failure of many of the UK’s recent prime ministers, who have passed through Downing Street in quick succession, seems easy to explain. Theresa May couldn’t do what she promised and didn’t “get Brexit done”. Boris Johnson broke his own rules, and the law. Liz Truss failed through sheer incompetence.

But Keir Starmer won an election by a landslide and led his party to victory after 14 years out of power. So why is he looking at a probable leadership challenge after less than two years in office?

It is true that Starmer faced deep problems left by the Conservatives, Brexit and COVID. He then had to deal with the war in Gaza, a capricious US president in Donald Trump, and now a war in Iran. But Starmer’s struggles boil down to a failure of leadership.

US political scientist, Ronald Heifetz, has written that political leadership is about disappointing your followers at a “rate they can stand”. Hi fellow American scholar, Richard Neustadt, argued that leadership (in the case of presidents) was about “the power to persuade”. Keir Starmer has struggled because he disappointed too many, and persuaded too few.

Crucially, Starmer has never won over the public. Labour’s election in 2024 was an anti-Tory vote, not a pro-Labour one, and Starmer rode a wave of unhappiness from a moody and volatile electorate. Even at the height of his popularity in 2024 the public saw him as competent(ish) but – significantly – 49% also thought he might be indecisive.

After just 100 days, Starmer’s poll lead had plummeted and by July 2025 there was a deep sense that Labour had not delivered on its promises.

This failure was in part because the public had very high expectations of what the government would do, and Starmer had repeatedly promised to be all about “delivery”. But the public came to see the government as not delivering much.

Communication failures

The main policies that got attention were the unpopular ones: cuts to the winter fuel allowance, welfare cuts and harsh immigration reforms. But Starmer never used his power to persuade. Popular policies such as standing up to Trump and on climate were buried or went unnoticed.

So why hasn’t he done or said more? Starmer came to be seen as lacking any sort of vision or ideals, and journalists have written of how he seemed only to support “convenientism” and a wrong-headed strategy to take back votes from right-wing challengers Reform UK. His own attempts at communications were poor: in his “most personal interview yet” in 2024 he began by saying he didn’t dream, didn’t have a favourite book and was neither an optimist or pessimist.

It isn’t only the public. Starmer never won over another crucial group: his own MPs. Labour MPs were not loyal to Starmer to begin with, and were quickly upset by some policies purposefully designed to cut across their principles.

On top of this, his determination to appoint Peter Mandelson as UK ambassador to the US and the resulting scandal as the closeness of Mandelson’s connections to Jeffrey Epstein emerged, and the growing threat as UK voters fragmented, left Labour increasingly desperate. The local, Welsh and Scottish elections showed the party that the writing was on the wall.

The problems the UK faces will not go away if Starmer exits. His failure then begs the questions about who – if anyone – can succeed. Former health secretary Wes Streeting emerged as the first potential challenger. But does he have anything different to offer?

Much has been said about how Streeting is seen as the best communicator and a leader with a genuine working-class heritage. He has a record of delivering policy, and the NHS has improved under his watch, with public perceptions improving for the first time since before COVID. Interestingly, NHS workers themselves are much less convinced by Streeting’s record, with majority seeing the NHS as doing badly.

There are concerns. Streeting seemed to relish challenging striking doctors. And although he denied that he was close to Mandelson, the ongoing investigations could still show otherwise. And on a practical level, Streeting has little support among his party, much less than Starmer ever had.

Angela Rayner would be a more left-wing alternative. Rayner has a similarly Labour back story as a care worker and a rep with public service union Unison. She has a concrete record of delivery and getting things done, having championed what is arguably the signature achievement of this government in the Employment Rights Act.

But she was forced to resign as deputy prime minister in September 2025 after under-paying stamp duty. Now though, with remarkable timing, she has been cleared of deliberate wrongdoing by HMRC. A glance at Labour polling shows Rayner is also very popular with the party.

And of course Andy Burnham now has a seat to contest, which could plot his path back to Westminster and his route to a probable leadership bid. However, beating Reform UK to the Makerfield seat is very far from a given.

Despite Streeting’s resignation, everything remains in flux. Starmer has failed as a leader, but is not yet gone. The possible candidates now circling need to offer a better approach, one that can win over the public and, more immediately, Labour MPs. A general election must be held by August 15, 2029. It remains to be seen if the next Labour prime minister, if there is change at the top, can persuade more and disappoint less in the remaining time.

The Conversation

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. From landslide to leadership crisis: where did it all go wrong for Keir Starmer? – https://theconversation.com/from-landslide-to-leadership-crisis-where-did-it-all-go-wrong-for-keir-starmer-282935

How studying friendship has changed the way I understand my own loneliness

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Marie-Elisabeth Lei Pihl, Postdoctoral Researcher in the Department of Communication, University of Copenhagen

A few years ago, I had just moved into a house.

As relatively recent graduates, my husband and I had struggled with the banks to secure a mortgage – and worse still, I had a humanities background that didn’t exactly guarantee employment.

But after approaching several banks, we managed to persuade a kind loan officer to say yes. Suddenly, we found ourselves settled in the suburbs, with 190 square meters, two children and a garden trampoline.

One summer evening, while the children were asleep, we sat out on the terrace in the sunshine. We had eaten well, lit candles and were drinking wine. It sounds like the perfect evening, doesn’t it?

On paper, we had realised our dream. The problem was, it didn’t feel that way. I had a strange sense that something was missing, even though I adore my family.

What was missing were friends.

And although I felt lonely, I wasn’t alone. Studies show that many of us have experienced loneliness.


This essay was published as part of a collaboration between Insights, The Conversation’s longform series, and Videnskab.dk.


I research friendship and, over the past few years, I’ve immersed myself in everything from scientific studies to literary texts on the subject.

It is especially literature that has given me a new perspective – both professionally and personally – on what friends are, and what friendship can be.

Hungry for friendship

In other words, I have what romantic movies and popular culture tell us is important: a partner, children, a job and a mortgage.

But it isn’t quite enough.

And it made me wonder whether the life path many of us – myself included – are following might, in fact, contain some built-in flaws.

Does this path leave too little room for the relationships defined by choice and equality? The relationships that aren’t about starting a family, but about friends?

We are raised to follow a particular social script in life. One in which career, marriage and children take centre stage and where friendship is assigned a less important role.

Many of us leave behind youth – when friendship often plays a central part – in favour of the so-called serious romantic relationship of adulthood. More broadly, some people tend to treat friendship as a kind of optional icing on the cake rather than the dough that holds it all together.

But what if this script doesn’t make us happy? What if we are depriving ourselves of something essential? Renowned feminist writer and activist Betty Friedan wrote about the widespread unhappiness of women in the 1960s in her groundbreaking book The Feminine Mystique.

Among its core arguments is this: women who stay at home and care for children are bound to be unhappy due to wider social structures that hold them down. A challenge she labelled “the problem with no name”.

Certainly, an element of being tired of caring for others and not being at the centre of one’s own life played an important role in my own feelings of sadness and yearning. But it couldn’t account for everything: I had a job, and things to do outside the home – contrary to many women in the 1960s. I had things I wanted to do. Friedan’s analysis didn’t entirely capture the problem.

A midlife phenomenon

And so, you may recognise the feeling of being hungry for friendship, even if you don’t live in the suburbs, play house day to day, or identify as female.

Perhaps you’ve structured your life very differently from mine, and yet still found yourself wondering where your friends went.

Indeed, when do our friends slip out of our lives?

It is particularly in midlife that finding time for friends can become difficult.

American psychologists Willard Hartup and Nan Stevens have found that we spend less than 10% of our waking time with friends during the years when work and family take up most of our time and energy.

Another study, also from the US points in the same direction: more than 40% of adult participants said they wished they were emotionally closer to their friends and would like to spend more time in their company.

In concrete terms, we now spend less than three hours a week with friends, compared with six hours a decade ago. A halving, plain and simple.

This trend goes hand in hand with a broader societal shift: fewer people are members of political parties, affiliation with religious institutions is declining, and fewer engage in unions or local sports clubs. Developments the US political scientist Robert D. Putnam described in his 1995 book Bowling Alone.

And it is happening across the western world.

Even in Denmark where I live, with its strong traditions of clubs and associations, we are seeing the same pattern: we simply meet up with other people less often, and increasingly spend time alone and feel lonely. While being alone doesn’t necessarily entail feeling lonely – the latter being a subjective state – being alone does indeed raise the risk of subjective loneliness.

In my own case, there was plenty of time for friendship in my early twenties. I lived in student halls, and the best thing about those years was that I didn’t have to make plans to have a social life.

There were always people in the kitchen to talk to. Always someone to have coffee with. It was a life with built-in friendships.

So why leave that kind of collective life?

Why have children at all and, in my case, move to the suburbs?

It’s a fair question, and one I’ve asked myself. The simple answer is that I became pregnant and children weren’t allowed in student accommodation. In addition, housing in larger cities – such as Copenhagen – is almost impossible to afford for young people and young families. We are driven out of cities, to put it bluntly.

However, I was also somewhat tired of other people’s parties and other people’s mess. And sometimes, you simply want to drink your coffee alone.

If it had been possible to stay in some form of shared living that could accommodate children and still have a private kitchen, I would have done so. No question about it. But that option is rare.

And so we return to the social script I mentioned earlier.

What we might call both the social structure and the physical architecture leave little room for ways of living outside the standard couple, the nuclear family, or single life (more people than ever now live alone).

Cue a longing for new norms around friendship and community.

Literature and company

There are those who argue that the family is an oppressive institution that should be abolished altogether.

This stance builds on the radical feminism of the 1970s, where voices such as Shulamith Firestone argued that reproduction should be handed over to technology, freeing women from the burden altogether.

More recently, Sophie Lewis has made a similar case. In her book Abolish the Family: A Manifesto for Care and Liberation, she calls for dismantling the social structure of the family in favour of a more collective culture of care.

I understand the motivations behind arguments like these. But if people want to fall in love and have children together as a couple, then by all means they should. Regardless of what any intellectual might think about the matter.

Are there problems with families? Can they make us lonely by taking time away from friendships? Yes and yes.

Can they also be a source of joy and meaning? Just as much so.

The reason I bring up this critique of the family is that it reflects a broader trend in books, films and culture more generally: a growing willingness to question how we live and what place friendship should have in our lives.

I’ve written about this development elsewhere, describing how friendship is gaining prominence and offering three possible explanations for why that is.

One is the rise in loneliness , which makes friendship more valuable simply because it has become more scarce.

Another is that friendship can confer status and prestige in a world shaped by social media and visual culture.

Finally, I would argue that there is a growing cultural curiosity about whether friendships can serve as a framework for life in the same way romantic relationships historically have.

The French literary star Édouard Louis is one of the most prominent figures on the literary scene grappling with friendship.

In Change: A Method (2021), he describes his life as a movement away from his family. Instead, he seeks out different friendships that help him escape a homophobic working-class environment in northern France and move towards the literary scene in Paris.

He describes how his friendship with Elena, a middle-class girl, completely overturns his worldview, and how he later becomes close friends with notable French intellectuals Didier Eribon and Geoffroy de Lagasnerie.

The latter has described their friendship of three as a “way of life” and a “radical form of life” that breaks with the status quo.

One might object that cultural portrayals of the importance of friendship like these are the culmination of contemporary individualism.

For Louis, it is about living exactly as he wants to live – entirely free from conventions and expectations. And that does indeed invoke a particularly modern form of individualism.

At the same time, they contain a longing for other people and for community.

He seems to be asking if it’s possible to burn down existing social conventions and develop our own norms for friendship and togetherness. Both Louis and de Lagasnerie conclude that yes, that is indeed possible.

Breaking with convention

The Danish author Thomas Korsgaard’s stories about Tue offer a parallel to the French Louis: Tue comes from a poor, non-academic provincial background and, like Louis, Tue moves to the city to create a new life for himself.

In his book, You Probably Should Have Been There (2021), Korsgaard writes about Tue’s turbulent early days in Copenhagen, where he spends a long time living as a destitute homeless man, until he meets Victoria (the Danish version of Elena, if you like) and, through her, learns the social codes of the upper middle class. Slowly but surely, he begins the same kind of transformation that Louis describes.

Cultural and literary history also offers many examples of female friendships that have allowed people to live outside the norms and be themselves.

The Swedish writer, Selma Lagerlöf, did not marry and instead had close relationships with other women, and Virginia Woolf’s life and work were also shaped by deep female friendships.

For many years, it was not seen as suspicious or improper for women to have romantic and borderline erotic relationships with one another – they were in many cases regarded as intimate friendships.

Male homosexuality, by contrast, has in many cases and historical contexts been met with hatred and resistance, with the important exception of ancient Greek and classical societies.

The accounts of Louis, Korsgaard, Lagasnerie, and many others, all testify to a powerful urge to break with the structures that dictate that we must live our lives in a certain way and remind us of the importance of asking ourselves if we are living according to our own standards – or the standards of someone else.

An adult friend

The feeling of missing friends, the one that hit me that evening on the terrace, may be about something deeper than simply missing having lots of people to invite to one’s birthday party or many people one can call on on a rainy day. And that, above all, is what literature made me realise.

My hunger for friendship was not so much about a need for having people around. It was more about a need to broaden my horizon and listen to other perspectives.

I didn’t just miss friends; I missed different viewpoints, fresh input and new ways of thinking.

Friendships can help us see and explore the odd and unconventional sides of life – and in doing so challenge the status quo, much like the portrayals we find in literature.

Put simply, they can make us see the world differently.

When I went to elementary school, one of my closest friends was a woman in her seventies who had looked after me as a child.

After she was no longer being paid to spend time with me, I kept seeking her out. Her name was Lise, born in 1928. With her dark humour, curls and a wardrobe full of high-heels, her apartment was my number one refuge.

Lise had a Jewish background and, at 15, had fled the Nazis in Denmark on a Swedish fishing boat.

I loved her stories from the past and everything else about her. She cooked terrible food, always gave me presents and was impeccably elegant.

Our friendship cut across all the usual boundaries. It was unusual, even odd. But it was exactly what we both needed.

What can you do?

Inspired by literature’s many examples, can we live a life in which friends take up more space, where friendships are allowed to challenge our assumptions about life?

Even if we are not ready, or willing, to throw family and all other social conventions onto the scrapheap?

I am convinced that it is possible. But it requires us to push back, at least a little, against today’s emphasis on choice and individualism, and to do something slightly unfashionable: send a message instead of scrolling. Commit. Invite someone over. Perhaps someone who you never thought of as a friend before. But who nonetheless may turn out to be valuable to have in your life.

It also requires us to view strangers as potential friends. After all, this is what friendship boils down to: strangers that you come to know, like, and trust – a definition I describe in more detail in my book Friendship from Aristotle to Snapchat (in Danish).

Say hello to your neighbour. Smile and speak to people in shops or on the bus, because so-called “weak ties” are actually really good for us and give us a sense of belonging. Sometimes it’s as simple as this: Be friendly!

It is also helpful to reach out to those who are not like us on paper.

And in so doing, move beyond the idea that like attracts like, and instead connect with those who are different from us, just as Louis, Korsgaard’s Tue and de Lagasnerie did.

To recognise that friendships can take many forms and do not have to resemble the perfect parties and baby showers that dominate social media. For some, reading a book or being out in nature may facilitate a feeling of friendship – even if these things are done in solitude.

So, as strange as it may sound, friendships may not even require other people. I recently heard German sociologist and renowned thinker Hartmut Rosa give a lecture in Copenhagen, and his reflections on resonance were highly conducive for thinking about friendship. We resonate with other beings, says Rosa, and with the world broadly speaking – not just with other people.

As for me, I’ve started bringing friends together, including people I haven’t seen in a long time, for various gatherings.

It’s not exactly trendy or reminiscent of student life; people often bring their children, and time is spent building Lego or settling disputes. But that hardly matters. What matters to me is that we can make space for one another across different stages of life.

I’ve also broadened my understanding of friendship to include everyday interactions, everything from smalltalk with other parents at nursery to lunches with colleagues and friendly online messages.

Because you don’t need a large circle of friends.

As I see it, friendship is a practice.

It’s a way of being in the world – something you do, rather than something you have.

That shift has genuinely eased my hunger for friendship, and I now see my suburban life in a different light. I’ve learned that I’m not missing anything – it’s simply a matter of doing something.

Punctuating the notion that friendship necessarily looks a certain way has also really helped me. Because friendships come in all shapes and forms: from micro-interactions to life-long bonds. Perhaps with a tree or a dog?


This article was commissioned as part of a partnership between Videnskab.dk and The Conversation. You can read the Danish version of this article here.


For you: more from our Insights series:

To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter.

The Conversation

Marie-Elisabeth Lei Pihl receives funding from the Carlsberg Foundation

ref. How studying friendship has changed the way I understand my own loneliness – https://theconversation.com/how-studying-friendship-has-changed-the-way-i-understand-my-own-loneliness-281767

« Coalie », la nouvelle mascotte de Trump, prolonge des décennies de publicité autour du « charbon propre »

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Annie Persons, Lecturer in Literature, University of Virginia

Le secrétaire américain à l’Intérieur Doug Burgum a publié ce dessin le représentant aux côtés de « Coalie », un morceau de charbon personnifié.
Interior Secretary Doug Burgam/X

Pourquoi le charbon est-il si souvent représenté comme « propre », « beau » ou même « mignon » ? De la publicité du XIXe siècle aux réseaux sociaux de l’administration Trump, l’histoire de cette communication révèle une longue entreprise de banalisation des dangers du charbon.


Si vous suivez les publications de l’administration Trump sur les réseaux sociaux, vous avez peut-être remarqué sa nouvelle mascotte : un morceau de charbon en dessin animé, doté de grands yeux et de traits rappelant ceux d’un bébé. Baptisé « Coalie », le personnage a déclenché une vague de critiques presque immédiatement après sa présentation par le secrétaire à l’Intérieur Doug Burgum pour l’Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation Enforcement au début de l’année 2026.

Le design de Coalie s’inspire du style japonais kawaii, un terme signifiant « mignon » ou « adorable ». Cette mascotte s’inscrit dans les efforts récents de la Maison Blanche pour présenter le charbon comme quelque chose d’inoffensif, malgré les effets bien documentés de l’extraction et de la combustion de cette énergie fossile sur l’environnement et la santé humaine.

En tant que spécialiste de la littérature et de la culture américaines, je travaille sur les représentations médiatiques du charbon, depuis le XIXe siècle, lorsque cette ressource est devenue la principale source d’énergie aux États-Unis. L’utilisation du charbon a continué de croître jusqu’au début des années 2000, avant que d’autres sources d’énergie deviennent moins coûteuses et que ses effets néfastes sur la santé et l’environnement ne deviennent inacceptables pour une partie croissante du public.

Si « Coalie » est une nouveauté, la logique qui le sous-tend, elle, ne l’est pas. Depuis des siècles, les promoteurs du charbon s’efforcent de présenter cette ressource comme inoffensive — mais aussi « propre » et « belle », pour reprendre les mots du président Donald Trump.

« Une chaleur agréable »

Les humains vivant au contact du charbon brûlé s’en plaignent depuis aussi longtemps qu’ils l’utilisent. Ainsi, en 1578, la reine Élisabeth Ire se disait déjà « profondément incommodée et irritée par [son] goût et sa fumée » dans l’air. En 1661, le traité Fumifugium de John Evelyn décrivait quant à lui les effets néfastes du charbon sur la santé respiratoire.

Dans son traité Fumifugium, publié en 1661, John Evelyn décrivait les risques pour la santé liés à l’inhalation de fumée de charbon.
Université de Californie, San Diego Libraries/Wikimedia

Les colons anglais ont notamment été attirés vers l’Amérique du Nord en raison de l’abondance de ses ressources en bois, qui constituait une alternative au charbon devenu extrêmement coûteux en Angleterre à cause de la déforestation.

Mais au XIXe siècle, le prix du bois augmenta lui aussi aux États-Unis. Lorsque, dans les années 1820, la découverte des riches gisements d’anthracite de Pennsylvanie se répandit, les habitants des villes accueillirent avec enthousiasme cette nouvelle source d’énergie moins chère.

Outre son prix plus faible, l’anthracite est devenue attractive en raison de sa forte teneur en carbone et de sa faible teneur en soufre, qui produisaient moins de fumée visible lors de la combustion. Dans une lettre enthousiaste publiée en 1815 dans l’American Daily Advertiser, un lecteur décrivait cette forme de charbon — reflétant des opinions de plus en plus répandues — comme procurant « une chaleur très régulière et agréable ».

« Une maison saine »

La diffusion de l’anthracite a également renforcé l’acceptation d’un charbon bitumineux plus fumant, mais meilleur marché. Pour aider les ménages, des manuels domestiques destinés aux principales utilisatrices du charbon, les femmes, tentaient d’imaginer des solutions pour limiter la fumée. En 1869, Harriet Beecher Stowe, surtout connue comme autrice de La Case de l’oncle Tom, et sa sœur Catharine Beecher publient ainsi l’un des nombreux textes du XIXe siècle reconnaissant les « méfaits » de la fumée de charbon, tout en expliquant comment créer « une maison saine » dans leur manuel domestique American Woman’s Home.

Les consommateurs proposaient également des solutions temporaires pour préserver la qualité de l’air intérieur malgré l’usage du charbon, en envoyant leurs astuces aux manuels domestiques, magazines et journaux qui les publiaient ensuite.

Une publicité publiée en 1892 dans le Rocky Mountain News disait de ces poêles à charbon qu’ils étaient « les meilleurs, les plus élégants et les plus économiques ».
Nineteenth Century Newspapers

Dans le même temps, à mesure que le siècle avançait, les compagnies charbonnières et les fabricants de poêles à charbon commencèrent à affirmer que brûler du charbon était bon pour la santé, capable non seulement d’améliorer l’air intérieur mais aussi d’embellir les foyers. Une publicité publiée dans un journal en 1892 affirmait ainsi que les poêles étaient « nécessaires pour chauffer, égayer et embellir la maison tout en préservant sa santé ».

« Pour garder les enfants propres et pleins de vie… »

Au XXe siècle, les publicitaires ont multiplié les arguments plus colorés encore sur les prétendus bienfaits du charbon. Dans une publicité de magazine, une mère et son enfant montrent un poêle crépitant alimenté par le charbon de la compagnie, présenté comme « inégalé en matière de pureté, de propreté et de qualité de combustion ».

Une publicité pour un poêle à charbon vantait sa « pureté » et sa « propreté ».
Madison Historical, CC BY-NC-SA

De son côté, la compagnie ferroviaire Lackawanna Railroad Company a créé le personnage élégant — et souvent adepte des slogans rimés — de Phoebe Snow. Dans l’une de ses publicités, elle insiste sur l’importance du confort, suggérant que l’anthracite permettait non seulement de voyager plus vite, mais aussi de rendre les trajets, et la vie en général, plus agréables.

Une publicité sous forme de carte postale mettant en scène Phoebe Snow, publiée en 1912, vantait des trains fonctionnant à l’anthracite permettant d’éviter « fumée et escarbilles ».
Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania/Wikimedia Commons

Les campagnes publicitaires autour du charbon mettaient souvent en scène des enfants afin d’évoquer la sécurité et de toucher les parents. Une autre publicité de la série Phoebe Snow promettait ainsi que les voyages en train alimentés à l’anthracite permettraient aux enfants de rester « propres et pleins de vie ».

L’une des publicités mettant à l’affiche Phoebe Snow, publiée en 1910, faisait la promotion des trains à charbon de la Lackawanna Railroad Company en utilisant l’image d’enfants et la blancheur des vêtements pour évoquer la pureté.
Poster House/Poster House Permanent Collection

Dans les années 1930, une publicité est même allée jusqu’à placer un morceau d’anthracite à côté d’un enfant dans une baignoire, une proximité visuelle suggérant que le charbon était presque aussi bénéfique que le savon.

Il existait d’ailleurs — et il existe toujours — des savons fabriqués à partir de « goudron de houille », un sous-produit liquide issu de la production du coke, un combustible dérivé du charbon bitumineux utilisé dans les hauts fourneaux industriels. L’entreprise britannique Wright’s, également populaire aux États-Unis, a ainsi diffusé de nombreuses publicités vantant les propriétés antiseptiques de ses savons pour les enfants.

En 1922, Wright’s utilisait l’image d’un enfant endormi, vêtu de blanc et couché sur des draps blancs, pour promouvoir son « savon pour bébé », présenté comme une protection contre les infections chez les enfants.
Wikimedia Commons

Toutes ces publicités cherchaient à exploiter le désir des mères de protéger la santé de leurs enfants. Elles tentaient aussi de contrer l’image tyrannique du « King Coal » (« le roi charbon »), apparue dans un contexte marqué par les grèves de mineurs dénonçant des conditions de travail et de vie dangereuses et dégradées, ainsi que par l’augmentation des cas de maladie du poumon noir.

Le mythe du « charbon propre »

Au milieu du XXe siècle, le pétrole a remplacé le charbon comme principale source d’énergie aux États-Unis. Dans le même temps, le mouvement écologiste américain gagnait en influence, tandis que le gaz naturel commençait à apparaître comme une alternative au charbon.

En réaction, les compagnies charbonnières ont redoublé d’efforts pour entretenir le fantasme d’un « charbon propre ».

Une publicité d’American Electric Power publiée dans le Wall Street Journal en 1976 vantait les technologies de « nettoyage » du charbon.
Wall Street Journal archive

Une publicité de 1979 d’American Electric Power allait ainsi à rebours des obligations imposées par le Clean Air Act, qui forçaient les compagnies charbonnières à installer des systèmes de « lavage » destinés à retirer le dioxyde de soufre des fumées. La publicité représentait pourtant quelqu’un en train de nettoyer du charbon… à la main.

Le mythe perdure

Aujourd’hui, le charbon ne produit plus que 16,2 % de l’électricité américaine, contre plus de la moitié de la production électrique du pays dans les années 1990. Mais les États-Unis n’en ont pas fini avec cette énergie. Même si la production de charbon est aujourd’hui bien inférieure à son niveau historique maximal, et alors que les entreprises tentent de fermer d’anciennes centrales devenues non rentables, Donald Trump a promis de « relancer » l’industrie charbonnière américaine.

Outre le fait d’ordonner le maintien en activité de certaines centrales à charbon, l’administration Trump a ressorti d’anciennes méthodes de promotion du charbon, notamment en le qualifiant à plusieurs reprises de « propre et beau ». L’une des images de communication montre même Coalie aux côtés d’une famille de mineurs, dans une mise en scène rappelant les publicités d’il y a un siècle.

Une campagne promotionnelle de 2026 pour l’Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement montre une famille de mineurs en version dessin animé, accompagnée de « Coalie », représenté comme une sorte de jouet pour enfant.
OSMRE

Et, comme les campagnes qui l’ont précédée, cette image cherche à donner une apparence innocente à un produit qui nuit à la santé humaine et à l’environnement.

Une étude publiée en 2018 a montré que les cas de maladie du poumon noir étaient en augmentation dans les Appalaches, région où est aujourd’hui extrait environ 40 % du charbon américain. Vivre à proximité d’une centrale électrique fonctionnant aux énergies fossiles expose les habitants à des polluants qui contribuent à des décès prématurés, à l’asthme et au cancer du poumon, notamment les particules fines PM2.5, le dioxyde de soufre et le mercure.

Même lorsqu’il est simplement stocké en tas avant d’être utilisé dans une centrale, le charbon peut nuire à la santé humaine : le vent disperse alors la poussière de charbon dans l’air, jusque dans les poumons des habitants.

Le mythe d’un charbon sain et compatible avec une image familiale existe depuis des siècles — mais le charbon n’a jamais été ni propre, ni mignon.

The Conversation

Annie Persons 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.

ref. « Coalie », la nouvelle mascotte de Trump, prolonge des décennies de publicité autour du « charbon propre » – https://theconversation.com/coalie-la-nouvelle-mascotte-de-trump-prolonge-des-decennies-de-publicite-autour-du-charbon-propre-282892

Comment un fragment de l’« Iliade » s’est-il retrouvé à l’intérieur d’une momie égyptienne ?

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Stephan Blum, Research Associate, Institute for Prehistory and Early History and Medieval Archaeology, University of Tübingen

« Achille se lamentant sur la mort de Patrocle » de Gavin Hamilton (1760-1763).
National Galleries of Scotland Collection

Dans l’Empire romain, l’Iliade n’était pas seulement un grand texte littéraire : elle structurait l’éducation, le pouvoir et la mémoire collective. Jusqu’à finir, parfois, recyclée comme simple matériau de rembourrage dans une momie égyptienne.


Une découvert inattendue… En inspectant l’intérieur d’une momie égyptienne vieille de 1 600 ans datant de l’époque romaine, des archéologues ont trouvé un fragment de l’Iliade d’Homère. Le texte n’avait pas été placé à côté du corps, mais à l’intérieur même de l’abdomen de la momie. Pourtant la véritable surprise ne tient pas seulement à l’endroit où ce fragment a été retrouvé. Elle est surtout liée à la manière dont il s’y est retrouvé. Pour le comprendre, il faut remonter à l’Iliade elle-même — et à ce qu’elle est devenue dans le monde romain.

Dans L’Iliade, poème composé au VIIIe siècle avant notre ère et attribué à Homère, la guerre de Troie ne s’achève ni dans le triomphe ni dans le renouveau. Elle se termine dans la dévastation. Le poème s’achève au bord de l’effondrement, alors que Troie n’est plus qu’un paysage de ruines héroïques. Et pourtant, l’histoire ne s’arrête pas là.

Selon la tradition romaine ultérieure, un Troyen aurait pourtant échappé à la catastrophe. Énée — fils d’Anchise et de la déesse Aphrodite — aurait fui la ville en flammes en portant son père sur ses épaules et les dieux domestiques dans ses bras. Il aurait ensuite traversé la Méditerranée vers l’ouest, jusqu’en Italie, où il serait devenu l’ancêtre des Romains.

Cette suite ne figure pas dans l’Iliade elle-même. Elle a été élaborée plusieurs siècles plus tard, notamment dans l’Énéide de Virgile. Mais elle a profondément transformé le sens de la guerre de Troie. Le passé, autrement dit, était continuellement réorganisé à travers des récits sans cesse réécrits, prolongés et reliés entre eux à travers le temps et l’espace.

Tableau de Pompeo Batoni (1753) représentant Énée fuyant la ville de Troie en flammes avec son père Anchise et les dieux du foyer.
Galleria Sabauda

Transformer une défaite en récit fondateur

Pour les Romains, la guerre de Troie était bien plus qu’une lointaine légende grecque. Elle est devenue une manière de penser les origines, l’identité et le pouvoir.

Revendiquer une filiation avec Troie ne consistait pas simplement à établir une généalogie. Cela supposait un véritable travail culturel permanent, nourri par les récits, l’éducation et une mémoire collective partagée. L’Iliade fournissait la matière première : des personnages, des événements et des lignées que chaque génération pouvait remodeler et réinterpréter.

Dans tout l’Empire romain, les élites cultivées apprenaient Homère dans le cadre de leur éducation. Elles le citaient dans leurs discours, l’analysaient dans les salles de classe et s’en servaient pour affirmer leur autorité culturelle. Connaître l’Iliade, c’était maîtriser un langage commun compris à travers tout l’Empire.

Un sénateur à Rome, un professeur en Asie Mineure ou un étudiant en Égypte pouvaient ainsi se référer aux mêmes récits. Le poème constituait un cadre culturel partagé permettant à des populations très différentes de s’inscrire dans une histoire commune.

Plan de la citadelle de Troie
Plan de la citadelle de Troie à la fin de l’âge du bronze (vers 1300-1109 av. J.-C.), représentée en rouge, avec les structures de l’époque romaine en bleu, intégrées aux anciennes fortifications de manière à ce que les murailles conservées servent de décor théâtral, transformant la profondeur archéologique du site en une véritable mise en scène du passé.
Université de Tübingen, CC BY-SA

À l’époque impériale romaine, le site de l’ancienne Troie — situé dans l’actuelle Turquie — est devenu un véritable lieu de pèlerinage culturel. Les empereurs ont investi dans son développement, reliant directement la cité aux origines troyennes revendiquées par Rome. Sous le règne de l’empereur Auguste, Troie est intégrée au discours politique de l’Empire. Puis, sous Hadrien, elle devient un élément central d’une culture du voyage, de la mémoire et du patrimoine.

Un visiteur arrivant à Troie au IIe siècle après J.-C. découvrait un paysage soigneusement mis en scène. On y trouvait des bains, des lieux d’hébergement et des espaces destinés aux spectacles. Un petit théâtre — l’Odéon — avait même été construit directement dans l’ancienne citadelle, de sorte que les vestiges de la ville de l’âge du bronze, considérés comme le décor des batailles légendaires autour de Troie, formaient un arrière-plan spectaculaire. Les visiteurs pouvaient parcourir ce qui était présenté comme le décor même de l’épopée homérique, vivant la guerre de Troie comme une histoire littéralement ancrée dans le sol sous leurs pieds.

De Troie à l’Égypte

À travers tout l’Empire romain, l’Iliade circulait comme un texte vivant : copiée, enseignée et lue. L’Égypte, l’une des provinces les plus importantes de Rome, ne faisait pas exception. Mais Homère y circulait dans un paysage culturel très différent du monde littéraire grec dans lequel le poème avait vu le jour.

Pour les Romains, l’Égypte apparaissait souvent comme un territoire où l’Antiquité était non seulement racontée, mais aussi matériellement préservée — à travers ses temples, ses monuments et des pratiques soulignant la continuité avec le passé. Dans le même temps, il s’agissait d’une société profondément hybride, où traditions égyptiennes, grecques et romaines se mêlaient de manière complexe.

Homère figurait parmi les auteurs les plus copiés en Égypte romaine : il était lu et enseigné comme marqueur d’éducation et d’appartenance culturelle, profondément intégré à la vie littéraire quotidienne.

L’Odéon de Troie
L’Odéon de Troie, un petit théâtre couvert intégré à l’ancienne citadelle et construit au début du IIe siècle après J.-C., illustre la manière dont les Romains ont reconfiguré le paysage urbain et culturel du site.
Université de Tübingen, CC BY-SA

La version homérique de la guerre de Troie occupait une place particulièrement importante parmi les élites grecophones, notamment dans des centres urbains comme Oxyrhynque, où la momie a été découverte. D’autres versions du récit — accordant davantage d’importance au séjour de Pâris et d’Hélène en Égypte, tel que le rapporte Hérodote à partir des récits de prêtres égyptiens — étaient probablement plus répandues au sein de la population égyptienne dans son ensemble.

Les premiers articles consacrés à la découverte du fragment retrouvé dans la momie égyptienne ont suggéré que le texte avait été volontairement choisi pour accompagner le défunt, comme un objet chargé d’une signification personnelle, peut-être lié à son éducation ou à son identité culturelle.

L’explication la plus convaincante est toutefois peut-être la plus simple. Les papyrus abîmés ou devenus inutilisables étaient souvent réemployés comme matériau bon marché. Ce fragment aurait ainsi pu servir de bourrage, regroupé avec d’autres morceaux puis inséré dans la cavité abdominale sans réelle considération pour son contenu littéraire.

Mais le simple fait qu’un fragment de l’Iliade ait pu finir comme matériau de remplissage montre à quel point Homère était profondément intégré à la vie quotidienne dans l’Égypte romaine.

Un texte en mouvement

Dans le monde romain, donner du sens au passé impliquait de circuler sans cesse entre les récits et les monuments, entre les généalogies et les profondeurs du temps. Chaque perspective permettait d’éclairer les autres.

L’Iliade a contribué à façonner un monde où différents passés pouvaient être reliés, comparés et réinterprétés. En connectant récits, lieux et traditions à travers toute la Méditerranée, le monde romain a fait du passé une ressource souple et réutilisable, capable de produire de l’identité, de l’autorité et un sentiment d’appartenance dans des contextes changeants.

C’est précisément pour cela que l’Iliade comptait autant : le texte circulait dans des contextes très différents. Il structurait l’éducation des élites, mais faisait aussi partie de la culture ordinaire de la lecture. À Troie, il a contribué à transformer la ville en lieu de mémoire culturelle.

Le texte lui-même a également connu une longue vie matérielle, survivant non seulement comme récit d’autorité, mais aussi à travers les manuscrits et supports d’écriture copiés, transmis — voire réutilisés à des fins totalement différentes. Son enseignement le plus durable est peut-être celui-ci : le passé n’est jamais simplement conservé. Il est sans cesse fabriqué et refabriqué à travers les récits, les pratiques et les objets matériels qui le transportent à travers le temps.

The Conversation

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.

ref. Comment un fragment de l’« Iliade » s’est-il retrouvé à l’intérieur d’une momie égyptienne ? – https://theconversation.com/comment-un-fragment-de-l-iliade-sest-il-retrouve-a-linterieur-dune-momie-egyptienne-282886

My unsung hero of science: Carolyn Wood Sherif, pioneer of feminist psychology who foresaw the risks of scientific bias

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Madeleine Pownall, Associate Professor in Psychology , University of Leeds

In the US state park of Robbers Cave, Oklahoma, Carolyn Wood Sherif is standing squinting up at the sun. The two wooden cabins before her rattle with shrieks and cries from excited 11-year-old boys. They have been split into two groups of 11 and encouraged to bond.

Over three long, laborious weeks in the summer of 1954, Wood Sherif watches as these boys become enthusiastically dedicated to their allocated groups. When instructed to compete for resources, they grow hostile towards their opponents. The experiment descends into inter-group violence and aggression.

This research was among the first naturalistic psychological studies to show how group formation can lead to prejudice and intense conflict. It is considered a classic study upon which the subdiscipline of social psychology – how mind and behaviour are influenced by the presence of other people – was born. Wood Sherif should have made her academic career from it.

But in many ways, scientific research is a culture, a club. There are people with the power to warmly invite others to participate, and others who are intentionally kept out. Many female scientists have suffered because of this power imbalance.

Video: Cummings Center for the History of Psychology.

‘A wife helping her husband’

Wood Sherif ran the Robbers Cave study with her longstanding collaborator, colleague and husband, Muzafer Sherif. Yet while he enjoyed an illustrious career, her intellectual contributions to social psychology were literally written out of the historical record.

Wood started working as Sherif’s research assistant in 1944. At the time, his department at Princeton University did not allow women to be faculty members or graduate students, but he had the power to make an exception. They married a year later.

The pair collaborated extensively for over a decade. Wood Sherif was often the driving force behind their research, yet her scientific writing was often attributed solely to her husband. Wood Sherif’s name was removed from academic papers when they were circulated. “I was seen as a wife helping her husband,” she later recalled.

After her husband was awarded the American Psychological Association’s Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award in 1968, Wood Sherif began to realise that social psychology might never welcome her in the same way. She joined the American women’s movement, a national campaign for legal, social and political gender equality. This connected her with more women in her discipline who were having similar frustrated experiences. Finally, Wood Sherif found a welcoming academic home.

She turned her focus sharply to identifying and exposing the presence of bias in psychology. Her core thesis was that it was flawed because most research was based on men’s experiences and treated male behaviour as the “normal” standard, leading to distorted and damaging views of women.


Frank Malina beside a rocket

This series is dedicated to lesser-known, highly influential scientists who have had a powerful influence on the careers and research paths of many others, including the authors of these articles.


In 1979, Wood Sherif wrote my favourite psychological paper of all time. The paper, titled Bias in Psychology, offered a demolition job of psychological science over 16 glorious pages.

She warned that psychologists had gone awry by attempting to mimic the methodologies of the “hard sciences”, such as physics and chemistry, without first considering how these standards did not naturally apply to the scientific study of human beings in context.

Wood Sherif argued that people should be studied within their social context. She criticised psychologists for reducing complex human experiences into compartmentalised units that might have been easier to study, but were disconnected from real life.

She explicitly rejected the discipline’s reliance on experimental methods. Rather, she implored her peers to embrace the messy human aspects of their work in order for it to be useful, writing:

What goes on in our laboratories, clinics and classrooms must be seen for what it is: cultural phenomena and events where we can learn about individuals, provided we understand the times and the larger societies of which they are parts.

Wood Sherif set the agenda for a new, critical subdiscipline: feminist psychology. This includes analyses of how gender shapes both our experiences as people and the work we do as psychologists. Longstanding male bias in psychology has served as its manifesto.

As she pivoted away from social psychology, Wood Sherif’s work became funny, personal and prophetic. In their 1998 reappraisal of her seminal 1979 paper, psychologists Rhoda Unger and Arnold Kahn noted how her writing “provokes and excites as well as amuses”.

Sadly, this writing was also largely ignored. Cited predominately by feminist scholars, it never gained the discipline-wide impact it deserved.

The story of Wood Sherif, and psychology’s longstanding rejection of her work, has had a powerful impact on me. She helped me understand that we cannot evaluate the state of our science without first evaluating who is welcome within it. This is the crux of my own research, which I categorise as “feminist metascience”.

The garden of forking paths

Wood Sherif died in 1982 aged 60, but her ideas are arguably more relevant now than ever. Following widespread concerns about the replicability of psychological research in the 2010s, many psychologists are realising their research may be less objective than was previously believed.

Issues such as confirmation bias and the “garden of forking paths” (the many flexible decisions researchers make during analysis that can produce misleading results) are receiving widespread attention.

But while psychology is now in an era of science reform, there are two parallel conversations going on – by those who continue to insist upon reproducibility to strengthen psychological research, and those trying to reform the science as communal, compassionate and open to issues of bias.

The latter approach has been championed by a new generation of women in the discipline. They are forced to repeat the same critiques Wood Sherif made decades ago, because her warnings about bias and objectivity were not heeded.

There are, of course, many other examples of women’s contributions being written out of the scientific record. As I document in my new book Absent Minds: The Untold Story of the Women who Changed Psychology Forever, women have time and again been relegated to supporting roles as wives, secretaries or assistants of scientists, rather than scholars in their own right.

There is one, simple, enduring lesson that stories like Wood Sherif’s tell us: listen to women.


This article features a reference to a book included for editorial reasons, and a link to bookshop.org. If you click on this link and go on to buy something from bookshop.org, The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

The Conversation

Madeleine Pownall 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. She is the author of Absent Minds: The Untold Story of the Women who Changed Psychology Forever (Headline).

ref. My unsung hero of science: Carolyn Wood Sherif, pioneer of feminist psychology who foresaw the risks of scientific bias – https://theconversation.com/my-unsung-hero-of-science-carolyn-wood-sherif-pioneer-of-feminist-psychology-who-foresaw-the-risks-of-scientific-bias-282752