Nina Kolarzik – Pike & Hurricane

Do we ever learn? About the politics of recurring mistakes

Nina Kolarzik — Sun, 14 Jun 2020 09:25:53 +0000

“…it is well known that a vital ingredient of success is not knowing that what you’re attempting can’t be done.” ― Terry Pratchett, Equal Rites

A second world war, a second gulf war. Another outbreak of an infectious disease, an environmental crisis that scientists warn about since decades. Black Lives Matter does not only exist since last week and it is by far not the first movement against racism … it does not seem as if humans are capable of learning from mistakes. Or are we? Why are problems approached again, if people have failed before in solving them? And why is it important to make mistakes?

Learning from mistakes

A reason why people continue making mistakes is because we do not like to be wrong. In many cultures, for example in the USA, errors are avoided if possible. In everyday life, we have an internal sense of being right. This does become a dangerous problem, as an individual and a collective.

One reason why we insist on being right is because we might not realise when we are wrong. And another one is that when we realise it, we do not like the feeling of it. Culturally, we have learned dogmas about that successful means not to make mistakes. We learn that the one who does many mistakes is clumsy, lazy, does not work or study hard enough. We deal with this by becoming “perfect” and we are afraid of being wrong because it means in this situation that something is wrong with us, so we insist on being right. One example is Donald Trump: more than other politicians he always claims to be right.

However, being wrong is not a defect but it is something natural and fundamental to us. As humans, we are curious and ambitious and want to find out the truth and how things work. This is what drives us to produce things, to be creative, and it also includes failing from time to time. But insisting of being right can keep us from preventing mistakes.

However, when we realise and admit that we are wrong, we can learn from it. Learning from the aftermath of WWI, when Germans wanted revenge for the punishments they had received, the international community integrated Germany after WWII into the European society and included to build the European Union.

Acknowledging mistakes is an important step towards growth. How often was it said that we need to learn from the examples of 1945? What will the EU learn from the causes of Brexit? We explore mistakes and think about different solutions. It is important to make errors and study them, then we will also lose the fear of failure and embrace it instead. Productive failures enhance the learning eventually and if things do not work out, we come up with another idea. The more certain we were of a wrong answer, the more we remember when being corrected. This is probably because the surprise is bigger and we give more attention to the new information.

“Only a fool learns from his own mistakes. The wise man learns from the mistakes of others.” ― Otto von Bismarck

Mistakes happen to individuals as much as in politics. Take the COP15 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen 2009. Its results back then did not meet up with the expectations, and many tried to explain the failure. Years later, the Paris Agreement was signed and it can be argued that future negotiations have learned from the mistakes made in Copenhagen. Thin and thick learning has been taking place, means adjusting strategic decisions as well as expectations. Especially in international politics, failures are analysed to avoid future mistakes and blame.

From mistakes we learn and by learning we find new tools for another try. That is not to say that everyone will and it is not a promise for that the second try will work out. Or the third or the fourth. Bernie Sanders could tell you about that. Therefore, while it might seem like people do not learn from mistakes and do the same attempts over and over again like Sisyphos, they might actually have made adjustments with every new try.

Just as individuals, politics and foreign affairs, too, develop and change through the processes of making mistakes and learning.

Forget to learn

A part of learning is forgetting. It is a normal process and “necessary part of memory”. Contemporary research is increasingly treating learning, remembering, and forgetting as one process. Forgetting is not that information are actually lost from our memory, but it is not possible for us to access the information and remember it.

We are making memories all the time, intentionally or automatically. When we form a memory, the hypothalamus comes into play. It is one of many parts of the brain that is responsible for memories. It is critical for making the connections. The information that get to our brain through sensory systems (visual, audio etc.) are connected in the hypothalamus and synapses become stronger. A memory is created. The way we learn or experience things, how often we repeat and later actually make use of them, impacts of how safe the information is stored: in the immediate, the short-term, or the long-term memory.

Since this happens constantly, our brains would get literally filled up and overloaded one day. That is where forgetting comes in. After some time and if they are not “used”, the synapses go back to their former, lower level of strength. Information is captured and then the brain has some time to figure out what is worth keeping and what is not. The information that is considered boring or unimportant fades away to clear the mind for new information to be taken in.

The inference theory is a widely accepted explanation for why we forget: memories are interfering with one another. New information interferes with old memories, or previously learned information hinders forming new memories. The “forgetting curve” describes the relationship of forgetting to time. Most information is lost quickly, but if it is stored in the long-term memory, it is quite stable. Information that seems forgotten can be recalled or recognised when the memory is triggered.

What does the discussion of forgetting mean on the grand scale? Humanity needs forgetting to some extent to evolve, I would argue. Sometimes we might need to forget that someone has failed. If we forget it, or the severity of the consequences, then someone will try it again and at some point might succeed. This counts for fighting against social inequalities as much as for fighting a climate crisis.

History is the memory of humanity, as Golo Mann said. But knowing about history does not ensure that the same mistakes are not repeated. This memory might also forget certain things. Therefore, history can repeat itself. And earlier or later, problems are tried again after failure which is necessary to progress and arrive at something new.

by Nina Kolarzik

Photo Credits

Error 404, Aitoff, no attribution required

Earth hour, sumanley, no attribution required

Child, Tumisu, no attribution required

The post Do we ever learn? About the politics of recurring mistakes appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Anthropocene: how humans shape life on Earth

Nina Kolarzik — Sun, 17 May 2020 14:30:03 +0000

What is the evolution of life actually? In its essence it is that a species has the best chance in reproducing itself and surviving the longest if it is the best at adapting to its environment. This is the same for all the different life forms, plants, animals… and also for humans (if you want a specific kind of animal) this was for a long time the standard. But is it still?

A group of researchers claim that the earth has entered a new geological epoch: the Anthropocene. Since the last ice age around ten thousand years ago, humanity has lived in a very stable epoch, the Holocene. Compared to previous times, when the temperature of the earth has fluctuated much more and made living conditions far more difficult, the average temperature during the Holocene changed by plus-minus one degree celsius only.

As far as we know, this is the only epoch that makes life as we know it possible. But what happens when we move out of it? What happens if we cross the boundaries of our planet? According to the Anthropocene Working Group this is already happening as we enter the Anthropocene.

The human force

As explained by Johan Rockström, the development started around 1750 with the industrial revolution. In the beginning, humans still impacted the earth system little. The human pressure through greenhouse gas emission, extracting resources, overuse biodiversity etc. grew linearly. However, from 1955 onwards, the impact increased exponentially. The Earth today faces a geologic epoch in which humans define it more than any other species or natural process. The name “Anthropocene” says it: Other Earth systems in our geologic time period, the atmosphere, water systems, biospheres, are human-influenced.

The term proposed by the Anthropocene Working Group is not official in science yet, but there is increasing evidence that this is not just a symbolic name and that humans leave behind their geologic mark in stones and ice. If in the future researchers study sediments of our time, as archaeologists and geologists do today, they will find evidence of pollution, fertilizers, human waste, nuclear weapons and other signs of the human conquest. We are the force of change. The sun, any other living forms, seismic activities of the Earth… they all change the planet less than we do. Not only would it be the first time that we are witnessing a new era, but it is also the consequence of our own actions.

Acknowledging this is important to understand that the climate change the planet is currently experiencing is anthropogenic. But human impact on the Earth is not limited to climate change. It includes many more phenomena: urbanization and agriculture, mining and the production of new materials, loss of biodiversity and invasion of species, being some of them. Imagine cycling through Skåne and its agricultural fields. Imagine swimming in the sea and finding rubbish along the shores. Imagine walking through a forest nearby – the trees would not grow the way you see them if they were left alone. And when visiting the area around the Italian town Carrara, you can find that complete mountains disappear because they have been turned into one of the biggest marble quarries in the world. You see: nearly everywhere our environment is shaped according to human will. Can you imagine a place that did not carry any signs of human influence?

The Anthropocene argument has been criticised of its duality of human society and nature as reducing the world to simplistic binaries. It is challenged by the alternative understanding of a Capitalocene, that “signiﬁes capitalism as a way of organizing nature— as a multispecies, situated, capitalist world-ecology”. It describes the way we are attaching a monetary value to everything, we economise our world. The concept “Anthropocene” still needs to be developed and is not uncontested. However, it directs our attention to contemporary environmental concerns and raises an important question: Should we continue that way?

Local tip

The exhibition “Antropocen” in the Teknikens och Sjöfartens hus of Malmö Museer is taking place until the 7th of June. It is telling through photography and film the terrible beauty that science is warning us about.

by Nina Kolarzik

Photo Credits

photo 1, analogicus, no attribution required

photo 2, digital341, no attribution required

photo 3, dexmac, no attribution required

photo 4, MitchellShapiroPhotography, CC by-NC-ND 2.0

The post Anthropocene: how humans shape life on Earth appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

One country, many borders – an attempt to define Georgia

Nina Kolarzik — Sun, 19 Apr 2020 13:48:01 +0000

“Borders” imply one clear line. You are either in front of it or behind it. But in reality, borders are not that simple. They change throughout time. They follow different ways, depending on who you ask. They are multidimensional: cultural, physical, religious and linguistic. A web of borders can be found in the South Caucasus region. By looking at Georgia’s relation to Europe, this article shows that borders and identities are constructed.

One question to start: On which continent do you think is Georgia? On the Georgian tourist website the country is presented as European, based on the Caucasus as a European mountain range. At the airport of the capital Tbilisi you are welcomed to a European country. However, in the Central and West European public consciousness few would name Georgia as European. This question is not as easy to answer as it sounds at first and it is an issue that questions the nature of borders.

Considering Georgia

Georgia is a country located in the South Caucasus next to the Black Sea. Like other countries in the region between the European and the Asian continent, it faces the question of belonging and orientation. And this question is not simple to answer, since it depends on many different factors: politics and alliances, cultural influence and traditions and the will of the citizens.

Historically, Georgia was under both European and Asian rule. Geographically, the Caucasus Mountains are commonly seen as the Southeastern border of Europe, which means that Georgia is topographically located in Asia. Politically, Georgia orients itself on Western democracies. It is among others a member of the Council of Europe and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and is seeking to join the European Union (EU) and NATO. It also is part of the Asian Development Bank, but the ties to European states are closer. That counts also for the military sphere. The Rose Revolution 2003 marked the turn to a more pro-Western, Euro-Atlantic foreign policy. Culturally the country is closer to Europe and most Georgians identify themselves with Europe, not Asia.

I asked Georgians about how they feel about Georgia and Europe, and a man from Tbilisi told me: “Geographically speaking, the border of Europe goes on the south Caucasus. Historically speaking, few centuries ago we had strong connection with the European countries, even assigning their ambassadors; based on the ideology and Identity values, we are much more similar to Europe, rather than Asia. So yea, Georgia was as far as possible a part of Europe before and nowadays, indeed.”

However, Georgia’s culture has Asian origins as well and its music, architecture and food are a sign of this heritage. As it can be seen, Georgia is hanging in several dimension between the two continents.

Considering Europe

To know if Georgia belongs to Europe, we can turn around and ask where Europe ends. There is no universal definition of Europe but multiple interpretations. In geographical terms, we read about the Caucasus Mountains as its border earlier. In another understanding it is the river Aras, which would make Georgia part of Europe- which interpretation is the right one? When searching the history of Europe, it can be defined as building on the law of the Roman Empire and on Christianity. The Caucasus region was once part of the Roman Empire and they are some of the oldest Christian nations in the world. This again would imply the inclusion of Georgia to Europe.

After the Reformation, when Christianity, that served as a common ground for all the nations of the continent, became fragile, the name “Europe” became a diplomatic term. A term that did not include Georgia. The 17th century was a time of massive political changes on the continent: The Thirty Years’ War and the Peace of Westphalia arguably define our political system until today. The new concert of European nation states had the chance to defend and prove itself in the continuous Ottoman wars. While at times, the Ottoman Empire was seen as a European power, increasingly a border was drawn by the European states to its “Eastern neighbours”. The absence of natural borders made Europe feel the need of differentiating itself from others, be it in cultures or religions. This made up over time an European identity in contrast to others, especially Asian and Arabian identities.

In the 20th century a political idea emerged that is still upheld in the contemporary EU nations. Two aspects made up a new European consciousness: “‘Europeanism’, the sense of belonging to a centuries-old civilisation, and ‘Europeism’, the perception of an urgent need to ‘build Europe’ to end war.” Out of this the European Union was eventually formed. Often, when people talk about “Europe” they mean the EU, which does not make things easier. However, even this clear defined political organization carries a similar struggle as does the continent: an unfixed territory and constantly shifting borders. How can Europe be seen as one entity, when its political borders have been changed several times and through expansion its former neighbours are becoming a part of it?

Contemporary Europe is strongly connected to values: “Europe ends where the perception of the values are different from the European ones.” These values can be adopted, which means that the European territory is still up to change and growth: “Every state of this region […] is also able to add something new to the idea of European values and is somewhat connected to those shared ideas.”

So what do we learn from this about Georgia? It does not explain why Georgia is often not seen as European in Central Europe.

Who is making borders and why?

When constructs, for example borders, are made, it needs to be asked who is behind the construction and for what purpose. The uncertainty of defining Europe is at least also an advantage for the nations that determine the “European identity” and the norms that others have to comply with. It makes the definition of borders a strongly political question, since it is the basis for the inclusion or exclusion of countries. This is visible in frequent debates about European expansion, especially in the debates about a potential EU membership for Turkey. The uncertainties about Europe also mean uncertainty for the South Caucasus countries. Projects like the Eastern Partnership develop European values and build strong economic connections between EU institutions and Eastern countries like Georgia or Moldova, which are both backed by Romania as potential future EU member states.

Another citizen from Georgia’s capital said about his country: “I guess it’s more Europe than anything else and the main indicator, I would say, is culture, which is deeply rooted in Christianity and it matters. As [a] counter argument, one could say that Ethiopia is also [a] Christian nation but the country is in Africa. But that is more aberration. And of course it’s [a] matter of politics – Georgians want to be Europeans (mostly) and as it is on the edge of the Europa, there is [a] chance that they will build up [a] European nation and state one day”.

Why decide? Say yes to Eurasia

Georgia can be seen as having a dual identity. Georgia “could fit into either Europe or Asia, depending on which definition you use.” But why is there the need to put it into one of the two boxes, why Europe or Asia? “Like all other Caucasian people, the Georgians do not fit into any of the major categories of Asia or Europe. The Georgian language is not Semitic, indo-European, nor Turkic.” We can also see it as Eurasian or Caucasian, as one of its own kind.

Many borders exist- in our minds, on paper, or even in the physical world. But do we need them? What do they mean in everyday life? Who makes the borders? Who profits from them? Which one is the right one? Are there natural borders? … The question of Georgia opened up more questions about borders than it answered.

by Nina Kolarzik

Photo Credits

European connections, TheAndrasBarta

borderland, Free-Photos

The post One country, many borders – an attempt to define Georgia appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Pink, blue and gender stereotyping

Nina Kolarzik — Tue, 24 Mar 2020 15:35:37 +0000

Their favourite colour is pink. They love to wear dresses, they like dancing ballet and cooking. They like flowers more than cars and they enjoy taking care of younger children. Typical girls. We heard these clichés before.

What it means to be a woman and what gender roles are associated with is changing over time. Every generation defines femininity and masculinity. This shows for example in the dressing of children. How did these gender stereotypes become dominant and why is this a problem?

Different times, different colours

Already centuries ago in Europe, colour preferences did exist- but differently than we know it today. Red was seen as a signal colour for masculinity and power and since pink was the “small red”, it was used for young boys. Girls on the other hand were dressed in blue, the perceived colour of the Virgin Mary.

For a long time then there was a gender-neutral way to dress young children: white dresses and long hair for everyone until the age of six or seven. White could be bleached easily when it became dirty and it was a neutral colour: you could not dress the child wrong. Why did this tradition disappear?

Pastel colours started to be used for baby clothing, but not in a gender specific way until the beginning of the 20th century. Shortly before WWI, colours started to become signifiers for gender, but just as suggestions. Others advised to dress children according to their hair and eye colours. The shift to colours was slow, and pink and blue not the primary choices.

The colours we know today were established in the United States in the 1940s. Clothing industries interpreted the preferences of the population to sell as much as possible. Marketing teams created separate, gender-specific clothes and toys that were advertised as “must-have”. The women’s liberation movement of the mid-60s and 70s slowed it down for a bit. Girls were dressed in un-feminine, sporty or even masculine styles. Clothing was seen as a mirror of and responsible for gender role models. The female dress code then supported women’s subservient role. Equal clothing, the movement thought, would bring about gender equality. “If we dress our girls more like boys and less like frilly little girls, they are going to have more options and feel freer to be active.” It was argued that we learn gender through external influences.

Until the 1980s, gender-neutral clothing remained popular. But the market returned to the gender-specific colours and made them more popular. Prenatal testing was a strong accelerator of this development. Future parents could know the sex of their child early and prepare. Through the production of individual and gender-specific clothing and now also toys, more could be sold.

Consumerism and pop culture are main drivers for gender stereotyping until today. Through the success of capitalism, this phenomenon has spread over the globe to various cultural and ethnic backgrounds. The reviewed articles all talk about the Western (US/European) context. In other cultural regions, the associations might still be different. But as long as any gender stereotyping exists, then the problem is still the same, no matter the colours.

Being raised in colours- what’s the matter?

“Gender stereotypes are ideas about how girls and boys, women and men are ‘supposed’ to act, talk, think, and behave”. The colours pink and blue are a manifestation of these stereotypes.

Children are given from very early on gender specific toys, when they are not even self-aware of their gender. Around the age of three or four, children start to become more aware. At that age they are impressionable and easy to influence. Market industry is using this in campaigns and advertisements that reinforce the stereotypical social conventions. It becomes visible that children accept the colour preferences they are socialised into. They avoid the colours they are supposed to dislike, they search for things that define them as girl or boy, whilst before they did not show a tendency to gender-specific colours and toys. Subconsciously, girls choose Barbie dolls and wear the pink in order to look feminine.

The way adults treat children affects them. When a kid wears blue and it is assumed to be a boy, people play more physical games with it than a baby dressed in pink, which receives dolls or cooking equipment to play with. Chances and behaviour of children are altered that way. This “blue versus pink” drives gender inequality. They limit the choices of children and hold them back from reaching their full potential.

Same as with colours, there are the clichés of what men and women are suited for, for example in politics: men for leadership and women for social tasks. This is due to the association of men with rationality and women with emotions. There is a pressure to feminine activities or to “be a man”, instead of behaving the way it feels right. This can lead to children being directed to particular interests or careers, just because it is the socially accepted choice.

Women with the leadership style of men are criticised for it, even though they use the same methods. The idea of men not showing emotions or weaknesses leads to some checking less often on their health and suppressing mental issues. Stereotypes affect the mental health, the self-esteem and body image of people. Bullying, discrimination, and other violence, especially towards non-binary people lead to that some do not express themselves fully. Gender stereotyping interferes with the gender children truly feel like. Transgender or gender nonconforming children, that are still raised according to a specific stereotype will be more confused and stressed than children who grew up without constant manifestation of binary genders.

A growing movement today promotes going back towards gender neutrality. Some stores introduce a gender-neutral policy. A whole community does not want to conform, tries to eliminate the stereotypes, demands neutral clothing, to not introduce this binary to kids so early. Boys are dancing ballet too and why wouldn’t girls be able to play basketball?

Bend it like Beckham, girls!

What does it tell us about pink and blue? This dominance could have been exactly the other way around. Or any other colours. The youngest children are attracted by primary colours like red and blue, but studies could not find any preferences. Such preferences are not natural, but a result of capitalism and popular culture, they are constructed and taught to us through socialisation. Gendered colours changed over the course of history. They mirror what femininity and masculinity mean in a society and how gender is understood. Therefore, it is important to call the colours, the stereotypes, the genders into question.

Everyone should have free choices and opportunities, no matter if they are different from the majority. And much that is taken for granted is socially constructed and not natural. Why should there be one colour for one gender? Societies can stop seeing gender as binaries, but look at individuals and support them in a way that everyone can make choices without feeling pressured to fit into a category.

by Nina Kolarzik

Photo credits

Pink Harley Davidson, Daniel Kirsch

Gender Symbol Male Female, Clker-Free-Vector-Images

Intersexuality Symbol,John Hain

Pregnant Lady, Worlds Direction, CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0)

The post Pink, blue and gender stereotyping appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Hong Kong’s Protests and the reality of news

Nina Kolarzik — Sun, 23 Feb 2020 15:43:47 +0000

What do you think about when you read a newspaper, listen to the updates on the radio, the news app on your phone, the news programme on TV? For me, since it is far away, it often seems like a story, a myth. And I have to stop and take a step back to remind myself that these are things that are happening right now. The burning of the Australian bush. The plague of locusts in East Africa. The spread of the Corona virus from China. All the other news we list under Yesterday’s News, Today’s Reality. It continues while I read about it and people are affected by it.

And sometimes, you are one of these people and the events happen where you are. Be it a catastrophe, a surprising election, anything – there might be the moment when you realise that what is happening around you is a part of history, it will be in the news later. But how does it change our perspectives and focus?

A picture that changes

I have interviewed Maike about this topic, a student from Malmö University who was on exchange in Hong Kong from August until November 2019. Maike studied in Hong Kong during the time of some of the major events of the protests: when Carrie Lam withdrew the extradition bill or the protests during the anniversary of the People’s Republic of China. When police forces entered the university campus in November and students defended it, the confrontations between protesters and government forces caused big destruction of campus facilities and the university was unable to continue the semester and Maike returned home. Since she was directly affected by the protests that were going on in the city at that time, she could reflect on the difference between the news and reality and shared her experience with me.

Pike & Hurricane (P&H): The protests in Hong Kong already started in June and the media reported widely on it. Therefore, you were prepared about the situation of her host country. But talking about myths and the story media tell of an event, did the image you had change when you got there and saw what happened?

Maike: Yes and No. I think Hong Kong is very privileged in how it is being covered. I mean 2019 was a year of global protest, there were in so many different regions of the world protests between governments and citizens and very similar topics actually. And if you look at the coverage that Hong Kong got versus the coverage that Haiti or Ecuador for example got than it’s very different.

What I think changed about my impression of it is that, surprise!, it is not as black and white as presented. What I think for me really changed was that what the media really lacks is this human face behind it. So you see, there is the movement and there is the police, and the government and the protesters. And either you are completely for the movement or you are completely against it. But you don’t show the people that are super torn. And I think that for me was a very important acknowledgement to make. Because I recognised that I in the beginning judged people in terms of that they told me something about the protest and I tried to put them into a category: I think this person is for the movement, I think this person is against the movement.

The media coverage as I said is very extensive, but it’s also very sensation-led. So they look a lot on “this big event happened” and there are so many pictures of fires and the violence, but they show less about the personal struggle of people.

Maike said that after spending several months in Hong Kong, the picture of the events became less clear cut, because she got to know more about the context and different layers of the conflict. “What I didn’t really grasp before I got there, since it is missing from the coverage, was the different levels- that there are not only two parties in the conflict and that opinions are not clear cut. People might disagree with the government, but feel like being culturally Chinese. How does one deal with that? You know these kinds of things and I think it is such an important aspect since identity in general plays a big role in this conflict. And it is lacking in a sense from the media coverage in terms of that it is very categorised.”

P&H: How do identity and character influence your perception of the events?

Maike: I think I would have experienced it very differently if I would have been a Hong Kong local, whereas I am a European, who was there for half a year. I knew from the beginning that I would be able to leave at any point if things would get critical. And I think that is something that still now is very much there.

I know that sounds stupid, but I feel guilty. Because I know that I couldn’t have done anything as such and that it is not my fight to fight and I have no power whatsoever to help and I know that it is not my position to take. But it felt wrong to just be able to leave.

Maike is back in Malmö, but living in a place builds a connection. You know what certain events mean for the people. And at the same time the distance is back. “It is definitely weird now in that sense that I can literally turn off the TV or wherever I see it, Instagram or news outlet, I can just turn off my phone and it will not affect me in a sense.”

Stories we hear about

Media is creating a story, they tell an event in a certain way. And depending on the narrator, this story can differ a lot. “I don’t think the media is wrong in being critical when it comes to police violence and the government”, Maike says, “but you can definitely see that they are very West-centric. So they are very much tempted to make China look like the bad guy, no matter what they do. […] It is very striking when the Chinese government uses the words ‘rioters’ and ‘extremists’ for the protesters, but it is also striking when Western news outlets always use the words ‘democracy fighters’ and stuff like this, it is very much about this language aspect. I don’t say I think it is bad, but neutrality-wise… you could definitely see that a lot.”

Every story is just part of a bigger one. They give a context and meaning to it, describe the actors and their position, leave out bits and are rarely completely neutral. Most people in Hong Kong still lived their normal life. While the news showed a lot of conflict and smoke and fires, this is in reality rather isolated and just in a few parts of the city. And what was in Hong Kong news topic number one, it was for the world one of several news.

by Nina Kolarzik

Photo Credits

“Blätterwald”, Björn Seibert, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

“HONG KONG-INDONESIA-SOCIAL-LABOUR”, inmediahk, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

The post Hong Kong’s Protests and the reality of news appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

The myth of the right-wing East and how Thuringians proofed the opposite

Nina Kolarzik — Sat, 22 Feb 2020 16:03:50 +0000

The city Erfurt in the central German federal state Thuringia has a long tradition of being shaped by its citizens. This was shown again on the 5th of February, when an election woke up people and parties all over Germany. A regionally focused opinion about a global problem: citizens struggling with their elected representatives.

The progression of events

After the regional elections in Thuringia in November 2019, the election for the Bundesland’s prime minister (PM) took place in the regional parliament. For the context: the office holder Bodo Ramelow for the Left stood for election, as did Christoph Kindervater for the AfD, the right-wing nationalist party. The first two ballots saw no winner because no one gained the absolute majority. In the third ballot, when only a relative majority mattered, a third candidate suddenly appeared: Thomas Kemmerich from the FDP (liberal Democrats). He won with 45 votes against Ramelow (44 votes, Kindervater 0). To understand the political earthquake this created it is necessary to know that the FDP, with only 5% of the votes, barely managed to get into the parliament. The election of Kemmerich was only possible due to votes from the CDU (Conservatives) and the AfD. And with that, the chaos was perfect.

Protest against Kemmerich

Everything about the political events, statements and discussion of the parties can be read in the main German news outlets that constantly reported about it. What was little talked about is what happened in Thuringia’s streets, what moved civil society: They saw a problem and did not let it go without a comment. Spontaneously, demonstrations formed all over the state’s capital Erfurt. Around 5pm a crowd gathered at the state chancellery, where Ramelow’s office was located.

The message is spreading fast in social media. People are coming into the city just for the protest or join spontaneously while being on a walk. A speaker talks of 2000 participants. All generations are represented.

“Kemmerich wir woll’n dich nicht!” [Kemmerich, we don’t want you!]

It is cold but the crowd remains for hours in front of the state chancellery, peaceful, but shouting to the windows. Not everyone agrees – a man who passes says “Go home” to the protesters. But energy is rising with the call: “Bodo ans Fenster” [Bodo to the window]. It reminds of the historic meeting of Willy Brandt and Willi Stoph in 1970. The protesters demand the resignation of Kemmerich and re-elections. But Kemmerich refuses. After one hour, a human chain is forming around the chancellery to hinder Kemmerich from entering. He is not our PM, they say.

Why the protest?

In the political landscape there is not only Good and Bad. Maybe Kemmerich’s politics have some good ideas. A Kemmerich as PM is one thing – a PM who got into office thanks to the votes of a right-wing party is something different. One who thinks that the public is just going to accept that has miscalculated the situation, is short sighted or simple minded.

CDU and FDP decline a formal cooperation with the AfD, Kemmerich portrays himself as their opponent also in the future. So, what is the people’s problem? First, there is the size of the Thuringian FDP. Kemmerich is far from having a majority, since he declines to work with the AfD and the Left, and Social Democrats and the Green party decline to work with him. His government would have been incapable of working. With 5%, the FDP would have been governing a federal state that voted for something completely else. People felt ignored, their democracy betrayed.

The Left, that had the most support in the election, was the loser. Not because of the FDP’s own power, but only thanks to CDU and AfD. And there is the problem. Kemmerich only got his power thanks to a right-wing nationalist party. And even though he distances himself from them – is it justifiable? Not for the Thuringians on the streets. Kemmerich is positioning himself clearly against AfD, against Höcke, against the Right wing. But these words are apparently not enough, since he was so obviously supported in the election – even though he himself previously excluded an election through the AfD. The protesters fear that the AfD thus gains power in Thuringian politics and they criticise the hypocrisy of the Thuringian FDP. Some draw a comparison to the end of the Weimar Republic: “Wer hat uns verraten? Freie Demokraten!” [Who betrayed us? Liberal Democrats!]

Political chess

Many suspect a setup behind the election and the AfD is presenting itself as the puppet master. That it was planned shows in the way that the whole AfD voted for Kemmerich and not their own candidate. Pure political strategy: trusting that not enough delegates vote for Ramelow, waiting until the third ballot to then bring in a new candidate and bring him into office. The talks behind closed doors and the political manoeuvring are criticised. The election of the federal PM is not direct, but an indirect democratic process – in this case, too indirect for many. The people in front of the chancellery want Ramelow back, he has a lot of support. He brought about a lot of change in the past 5 years, necessary change, which is reflected by his growing popularity. His politics are described as integrative. The result of the regional election reflects the public’s wish for him to continue his work.

Whatever happens, the AfD is using it to present themselves as winners. What do they gain from the election? An overthrown left government and a lot of material to claim it was the will of the people. They portray the result as their own success and that Kemmerich did everything they wanted. Their goal: to prevent another left-social-green government. Party whip Gauland recently said, the AfD would also vote for Ramelow just to block him because he would not accept. This shows their destructive character. They celebrate that they cannot be ignored anymore but need to be included in decision-making. It could be seen how many oppose that just on Erfurt’s streets. But one thing was achieved: FDP and CDU walk into a crisis and are internally caught in an argument about their direction. The political parties are disunited in their reaction, fear to take any responsibility, are unsure about how to proceed.

All united?

I wrote based on my experience of the demonstration, that I supported and joined spontaneously. What impressed me was the fact that Thuringia can organize a protest like that. My home surprised me. It was a counterexample to the story of the right-wing East. When talking about the new federal states, it is often mentioned that so many nationalists are living there. That the East is different, less experienced with democracy. That right-wing tendencies are more accepted. Unfortunately, it is a fact that in Thuringia the AfD has particular strong support. But why is so little talked about why Thuringians went on the streets this time? A spontaneous demonstration for democracy and against nationalism? Yes, Thuringia can do that! People showed that they do not accept everything.

“Alle zusammen gegen den Faschismus!” [All united against facism!]

In everyday life, active participation in politics is not high on the agenda. You might complain, but on rare occasions there was as much interest as shown in the past weeks. People came together, they informed each other, with one common goal. This group dynamic and energy united people.

A breach of a taboo is what the events are frequently called in the media – and this is the central point of the political debate: what do you accept? The news is reporting a lot about the reactions in politics. Debates about re-elections or not, candidates and directions of the parties follow on an everyday basis and change quickly. Kemmerich announced his resignation after 25 hours. There is a lot of pressure coming from the top of the parties. But not only the pressure from above counts – also the one from below. From the population. Who talks about the people in Thuringia? They are the ones that showed: we are against nationalism! This article was supposed to show how pressure from below was done: peaceful, spontaneous, but with a clear message. Not only in Erfurt by the way, but also in Weimar, Jena, Gera und Ilmenau. There is much talk about a catastrophe in politics in Thuringia but little about the success of civil society there. And the protest goes on.

by Nina Kolarzik

Photo Credits

The post The myth of the right-wing East and how Thuringians proofed the opposite appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Nambia: Is the “i” silent in “dplomatc relatons”?

Nina Kolarzik — Mon, 06 Jan 2020 19:46:27 +0000

Two years ago, the president of the United States of America managed to give debates on his competence and capacity for remembering new fuel. At a meeting of the United Nations, when he spoke to African leaders, Trump was referring twice to the country “Nambia”, praising its increasingly self-sufficient health system. The world wide web quickly picked up on it since no-one knew about a country with such a name. While Zambia, Namibia and Gambia are real countries, some rumours suggested that the US president was simply inventing a new country. In an official transcript that was published later by the White House although, the error was corrected and it became clear that the Trump was referring to Namibia, which he mispronounced. Twice.

Next to criticism specifically in regards to the US president and his lack of knowledge or interest in a whole continent, this incident also raised questions about dependency relations that are often inherent in developmental assistance aid.

A critical case of foreign aid

One would expect a wide outrage as a reaction to such an ignorant mistake on a high diplomatic level. Imagine the reaction if the Namibian president Hage Geingob was calling Trump the president of the “United States of Amrica”. But on the official level no outrage followed. Geingob, who was present during the speech, showed no reaction. While this could be due to diplomatic protocol, it is also suggested that it was for the sake of good relations between Namibia and the US. For the latter speaks, that also in the following the Namibian government did not respond to it and the issue of “Nambia” was remarkably absent from the conventional Namibian media.

Developed and developing: unequal relations in foreign aid

Let’s use this case as a reason to look into the unequal relations that can be inherent in foreign aid, or official development assistance (ODA) as it is often called. Bilateral ODA (means through states or their agencies) is the most common aid flow. There is a wide range of scepticism when it comes to foreign aid regarding efficiency, conditionality or distribution and the global aid system is criticised as in-transparent, corrupt, in need of reforms and even as a new version of colonialism and imperialism. One major critic is written by Dambisa Moyo in her book Dead Aid.

One critical point is the intention behind ODA. Is it primarily intended to benefit the receivers or the donors? The motivation is often oriented towards the economic, political and strategic objectives of the donors and it becomes problematic latest when additional problems for the receiver emerge. Of course it is hard to see the true motivation and to differentiate between developmental and non-developmental reasons, official statements and truth. Roger C. Riddell, author of Does Foreign Aid Really Work?, compares ODA with a Trojan Horse. Common knowledge tells us that nothing is given without costs but that for the things we seemingly get for free, we often have to pay a high price in the end.

The United States: the helping hand to the world?

In context to the mentioned relation between Namibia and the US agency USAID, it is time to talk about the creation of dependency. Power inequalities in the global aid system come into being due to economic and political structures that are created to keep the poor receiver countries poor and give the donors power over them. One example to visualize this is trade. While on one hand developing countries are demanded to bring about market liberation, OECD countries on the other hand have tariff barriers to block free market access and protect their economies. This serves donors own trade interest.

Their domestic markets are increasingly mature and suffer from under-consumption, therefore they search for markets overseas. In less developed countries there is more consumption potential that only waits for more spending power. Aid provision serves here to increase the ability to consume. Dependency structures are built even more clearly when it comes to so-called tied aid, for example when it comes with the condition to consume goods and services from the donors. It makes the receivers not only dependent, but also increases costs instead of empowering the local market. These structures aim at preserving the status, wealth and power of the donor countries.

In the emerging discussion of China as an increasing donor of ODA in African countries and a future competition about access to natural resources between Chinese and Western interests, the discussions around ODA gain new relevance.

At the moment, the US is still the biggest bilateral donor. According to its state agency USAID, the twofold purpose of its ODA is “furthering America’s interests while improving lives in the developing world”. On its website, USAID stresses that self-reliance and improving the capabilities for the partners to develop themselves are the key objectives. The aid is linked to security, to the creation of democratic, stable societies and expanding the US export market. With that, USAID is part of the US foreign policy and puts its own interest first. America first. When USAID head Mark Green compares the agency to the Chinese approach it is highlighted that China is building dependencies.

But is the US ODA itself free from dependency structures? Fact is that Namibia was in its fight against HIV/AIDS greatly supported by US aid, thanks to the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) that was established with Bush and is set to continue with Trump. The question cannot be answered in this article, since the factors mentioned here are only few of all the relevant ones, but the facts are enough of a reason to raise the the question.

#Nambia

The purpose of this article is not to say there are no altruistic, humanitarian reasons, no empathy and morality. But the potential of aid is bigger then its real effect, since US ODA for example is structured in a way that helps only as long as it is beneficial for the US interests. This can end in politicians of small countries like Namibia not speaking up against the US president, as we have seen.

You could say that state leaders are also just humans and make mistake. That implies although, that they are to be corrected, as everyone else. Since Trump’s administration showed more interest in battling half of the world instead of caring about the international relations to African nations, people were not much surprised by the incident. The citizens of Namibia reacted with both anger and humor, making the best out of a situation, that put their country for once into the spotlight. They now use the hashtag #Nambia to promote their own country.

by Nina Kolarzik

Photo Credits

“USAID Relief supplies arrive in Port au Prince”, USAID_IMAGES, CC BY-SA 2.0

“#USAIDTransforms_1600x800_Quote-White_Pictograms_6”, USAID_IMAGES, CC BY-NC 2.0

“NaBo11_d60_2834a”, jerryoldenettel, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

The post Nambia: Is the “i” silent in “dplomatc relatons”? appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Eurovision: Can you stay away from politics?

Nina Kolarzik — Wed, 04 Dec 2019 16:36:23 +0000

In this edition we can see numerous examples of how music and (international) politics interlink. To date, music can be used as a way to mobilise people for the support of government organisations or revolutions. It is a means of supporting and expressing an identity, through national anthems or resistance songs.

We’ve heard all of that before. But what does it actually mean to be “political”? And, to turn the whole issue on its head: when is music not political anymore?

The Eurovision tunes

Let’s pay attention to an event that carries a significant political message to the cultural sphere: the Eurovision Song Contest. The name says it – “Eurovision” – it transports the vision of a European community, as Eurovision explains its own history:

“The Eurovision Song Contest was established 10 years after the Second World War to bring Europe closer together through music.”

But despite being concerned with such a big topic as European integration, the music contest ought to take place on the cultural level.

In the rules of Eurovision it says under point 2.6: “The ESC is a non-political event. All Participating Broadcasters, including the Host Broadcaster, shall ensure that all necessary steps are undertaken within in their respective Delegations and teams in order to make sure that the ESC shall in no case be politicized and/or instrumentalized.” This is a clear stance, although it has been questioned several times.

But thinking about the event itself, the message it sends, the rationales behind the national votings that are accused of being political etc. is another topic to talk about. I will turn today to a sentence later in that paragraph of the rules: “No lyrics, speeches, gestures of a political, commercial or similar nature shall be permitted during the ESC. No swearing or other unacceptable language shall be allowed in the lyrics or in the performances of the songs.” So far so good.

But then think about some of the performances from the past years. In 2014, Iceland participated with the song “No prejudice” by the band Pollapönk (one of the band members being an MP) that takes a stance against prejudices and for more tolerance. In 2018, the Israeli singer won with the feminist-themed song “Toy”. In 2019, the Norwegian contribution “Spirit in the Sky“ by KEiiNO incorporated traditional Sami Singing, to bring the indigenous people into the spotlight. In the same year, France was represented by the Singer Hassani and his song “Roi“ about valuing yourself and fighting discrimination.

This raises the more theoretical question of what it means to be political. When is a topic a purely social or cultural and when a political issue? Can you separate this clearly?

Define the political: capture a ghost?

When searching the term “politics” in online dictionaries and databases, most meanings refer to a narrow understanding that concerns the state system. It is associated with the activities of organisations and institutions, different parties and the governing of countries. The narrow, formal definition of politics concerns the state as the permanent institutions that enforces laws, provides public services etc. It is about the activities of politicians who serve the state temporarily (while the state remains).

Another understanding is seeing politics as a conflict: a process where differences coexist. When reading politics as a process, it is also viewed as a method to resolve conflicts (instead of resorting to violence or coercion). Political actions have to do with competition and gaining power. Understanding politics as exercising power though depends significantly on one’s definition of power.

In a broad definition, politics is understood as a social and public activity, as interaction and engagement with others and with a public orientation. Politics takes place between people of a society, which means that citizens can have a political opinion. Broader, informal understandings could incorporate the statements made by Eurovision songs, while the narrow definitions would not.

Though, the broader definitions get, there is an increased danger of a term losing its meaning- is every social interaction now political? All these definitions inhere some problems but also explain different aspects. Together, they might paint the full picture.

Noisy-famous protest sounds from Iceland

An interesting case at the last ESC is the Icelandic contribution by the group Hatari, with their song “Hatrið mun sigra” (“Hate will prevail”). The group is described as a political project and behind its eccentricity and artistic music is a motivation of criticising capitalism and modern consumer society.

Already before they became the representatives of Iceland, they announced to use in case of a national victory the ESC performance for a protest against Israeli politics. They challenged president Netanyahu to a Glíma competition (a Nordic version of Wrestling) with the Icelandic island community of Vestmannaeyjar as a price, to provoke. Political statements such as those might have brought them the sympathy of many Icelandic people: 2018 around 5% of the population signed a petition about not participating at the 2019 ESC because of the political situation of Israel.

During the ceremony of announcing the scores, Hatari was holding Palestine banners into the cameras, which they got a fine for because of violating the ESC rules.

After reading through the definitions of politics, can this band that is criticising with its performance and its actions one specific state as well as the neoliberal system that arguably runs the world, be defined as being political? Why do they get a fine for the banners, but were allowed to compete in the first place?

Infinite definition loop

As it is the case for many terms and concepts in social science, “politics” is a “contested concept”. In the same manner, this article will not propose one single definition – what is political is nothing singular or straightforward. Or, to put it into the words of the Oxford University Press: “Political is a ubiquitous and seemingly indispensable term in the discussion of human affairs. […] it it is difficult to say what, if anything, ‘political’ signifies in its various applications and how it signifies what it does.” When we listen to the tunes of ESC again next year we can therefore ask once more: where is the line of being political here?

by Nina Kolarzik

Photo Credits

Eurovision 2016 – Stockholm, johnpeart, CC BY-SA 2.0

Eurovision song contest 2010, kjelljoran, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Shaking Hands, 8385

Hatari, P1r, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

The post Eurovision: Can you stay away from politics? appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Concerts for change: the rhythms of rock, politics and democracy

Nina Kolarzik — Wed, 04 Dec 2019 16:21:29 +0000

Art is not always free from politics, music and politics overlap, which can be examined in many different ways. Political statements are expressed through music, intentions disguised in notes. What’s more, concerts of musicians with a specific political opinion are used for gatherings of certain political groups.

This article talks about so called “Rechtsrock” (right-wing rock) concerts that take place in Germany. Some concerts become tradition and places like the small town Themar in Eastern German Thuringia are now known for their Rechtsrock concerts and right-wing gatherings. Since 2017, the annual concert Rock gegen Überfremdung (“rock against foreign infiltration”) is taking place there – it is the biggest one in Germany with visitors from 23 European countries. But this is not the end – when there is political resistance against extremism, the background music is not far…

Power tunes: about the phenomenon

It is not only a phenomenon in Germany. In the second half of the past century what is called “White power music” developed in Britain (in Sweden known as Vit makt-musik) and has been spreading since then, mainly across Europe and North America. The music scene is part of the socio-political movement of neo-fascism and fulfills several functions that go beyond the enjoyment of good rhythms.The expression of political opinion and ideas in the lyrics and messages of the songs is of course one aspect – vocal propaganda that is more powerful and attractive than pamphlets. Bands as the British Skrewdriver are legends in the “hate rock” scene. Race, nation and people are common themes in their songs.

“Fight for your country, fight for your race,

Fight for your nation, fight made our people great.”

(We fight for Freedom)

They paint a picture of the ideal, Aryan man, and at the same time a left-communist enemy. In big groups and events like this, right-wing groups feel more confident to show their nationalist agenda in public.

But there is more to it than lyrics. It is also a way of getting around all the restrictions that come along with announcing a gathering as a political congregation, including a possible ban on such gatherings. It also means a profit for the groups through the distribution of the music.

Another, even more severe function, is the recruitment. Without being confronted with the actual political actions, white power music concerts introduce an entire subculture in particular to young people who might already have an anti-mainstream and anti-leftist stance. It can be the first contact with the right-wing scene in itself, without looking too obvious like political recruitment.

The most recent edition of the concert in Themar in 2019 was indeed registered as a political event. The federal states of Thuringia and Saxony plan to work harder on tightening up the loopholes in the right to assembly, to hinder right-wing gatherings like these concerts where extremist groups make money with gatherings that function as demonstrations. The issue is dividing towns and communities. But while politics might only wake up now, the citizens of Themar have a long time ago stood up and started to act.

Vive la Résistance!

Civil society is fighting against right-wing extremism and racism with organising own events and concerts, taking the issue in its own hands. Because extremism is not only a political, but also a social issue.

The citizens of Themar are struggling against their home towns being chosen as venue for the gatherings and do not want to be known as a place of neo-fascism. Particularly in Eastern German cities, that have on average a higher population that sympathizes with right-wing thinking, citizens are organising themselves to show they are more than that. With counter movements and political statements for multi- culturalism and democracy, like Themar gegen Rechts, they make a stance for human values. Musicians, anti-fascist organisations, political parties and hundreds of visitors form one colourful crowd that counters the white-power tunes, that is separated from them by police forces.

They have the support of the leading regional politicians. And that of many more people all across the country. Which is the goal of having concerts and festivals like this: to show all the individual activists and initiatives, that they are not the only ones.

Themar is not alone in its effort. Since Eastern Germany is, when it comes to political news, frequently mentioned in one sentence with strong right-wing support, citizens stand up to show that this does not represent a majority of the population. In Ostritz, locals bought all the beer in the area before a Rechtsrock festival. On the 1st of May 2019 the event Zusammenstehen (“Stand together”) for solidarity and diversity took place in Erfurt, including speeches and a Festival of the Many with dozens of musicians on the International Labour Day.

In Chemnitz in Summer 2018, a huge free concert was organised under the hashtag #wirsindmehr (“we are more”). It was organised by local civil initiatives as a statement for a peaceful, open, tolerant and democratic society. Big names of the German music landscape, that are known for their political activism against right-wing extremism, as FeineSahneFischfilet, Die Toten Hosen, Kraftklub or K.I.Z., performed. 2019 it was continued as “Wir bleiben mehr” (“we remain more”).

Music is made together

We can see that music can provide the energy for people to make themselves heard. For neo-fascism, but also for everyone who is countering the right-wing extremism and the fear of the unknown.

The band FeineSahneFischfilet returned in Autumn 2019 to Themar for a concert to support those people and initiatives in the region, that engage since years against right extremism. Their message is: frustration with politics is understandable, when no-one seems to care about your little villages. But it should not serve as a reason to support extremist parties.

That is activism for a diverse but united society through music. Kraftklub singer Felix Brummer said in Chemnitz: “We are not naive. We are not living in the illusion, that you do one concert and then the world is saved. But sometimes it is important to show that you are not alone.”

by Nina Kolarzik

Photo Credits

Neonazi-Kundgebungen, kai.schwerdt, CC BY-NC 2.0

Marteria | Marteria & Casper, Stefan-Mueller.pics, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Zusammenstehen

The post Concerts for change: the rhythms of rock, politics and democracy appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Building power- where architecture constructs more than houses

Nina Kolarzik — Wed, 06 Nov 2019 12:32:33 +0000

Power can be horrifying- when it is demonstrated in an obvious way, like parades showing off military strength. The more subtle, underlying ways of power we often do not notice, even though (or because) they are visible in all aspects of life.

A design of power

Have you ever tried to sit down comfortably on one of the benches at Malmö Central Station? Or did you try to get to the 8th floor in Niagara but could not? Or did you wonder why prisons sometimes have the shape of a star?

I am asking you this because I want to talk about the link between power and architecture. Or, to be more specific, how architecture and design can be used as a tool to execute power. Not in terms of the historical examples of megalomaniac emperors who celebrate themselves with a massive triumphal arch or buildings from the times of national socialism.

Instead I want to pay attention to where we can find it in our contemporary environment. Because once you open your eyes you will see the expression of power everywhere.

Today, it is common to find special features in public places and constructions. “Anti-homeless spikes” under bridges or on stairs and walls, benches with central armrests or sloping seats, metal lumps, … Every possible thing that may prevent homeless people from sleeping in public areas, people from vandalising, or even skateboarding in public spaces. In other words, they try to prevent the unwanted.

Please, sit down!?

In the professional jargon this is called hostile or defensive architecture. “Hostile architecture or hostile design is when public spaces are intentionally designed to exclude humans or hinder human use.” The original thought, was to prevent crime and make public spaces safer- which sounds like a good intention. But the more recent developments lead to the designing of public spaces for certain interests. Whether on purpose or not, processes of power are involved in this. In the words of Ocean Howell that means: “When we talk about the ‘public’, we’re never actually talking about ‘everyone’.” That reinforces a social division, but the prevention of bad behaviour is used as justification for these measurements.

Those with a bad social representation who are associated with a certain behaviour are hit and dehumanised- their treatment being similar to how pigeons are treated in cities. Simultaneously, these social groups barely have social power or representation on their own since they are not politically organised. And since the armrests on benches are as uncomfortable for a homeless person as everyone else who wants to take a nap they cannot be labelled as discriminating.

These and many more similar ideas can be found in mega cities around the world, from New York to Peking.

Barely visible, but it is uncomfortable to sit at: the short and uneven benches in Malmö C

The procedure is not solving the social problem, but only removing it from our eyesight. And not always the so called “anti-social behaviour” is taking place. The unofficial, but colourful Southbank Skate Park in London for example was saved by UK skaters from closing and by now has become a well-known sight of the city. In British media, especially, this practise has recently been debated.

Why is this important to talk about, especially in connection to foreign affairs? Because it means that those in power can control and regulate spaces and access rights, define what is normal and appropriate in societies and construct an image of “normality” through the architectural construction of spaces.

Open your eyes to Malmö: education seen through a different lens

Exercising social power does exist in infrastructural designs of cities. Not only public spaces but also the inside of buildings can reveal power dimensions. An example is Bentham’s Panopticon, a concept of constructing a building that is perfectly designed for surveillance. A center is surrounded by several wings of cells, for example. That makes it possible for a single person to constantly observe the people in the wings of the building, however, the inmates cannot know whether they are observed- the fact that they could be anytime is enough to discipline and control them. This concept is suitable for prisons (multiple ones exist around the world) but also for factories, hospitals or schools and in the digital age of CCTV.

Thinking about schools is a good call- in exam rooms the structural power of teachers is particularly visible: they can watch everyone at the same time from the front and see the slightest irregularity through the position of the tables. Once you start questioning architecture, other examples catch the attention, where the separation of society or exclusion through access rights manifests. But not all are as extreme as the examples above.

One building that crossed my mind is part of our own university: Niagara. Without knowing the true intention behind its architectural design, it does send some messages. Within its special triangulation of an A, B and C building, one part is mainly reserved for those working at the university. Students cannot use the elevator in the “C building” or access the levels above the 6th floor. Since the students are not able to enter the higher floors, the staff is literally standing above the students. That prompts the question: does it mean more than the spatial location? Is it meant as statement, a separation or even exclusion? Or was the design of the differently high towers a purely aesthetic and practical creation? In other universities the staff rooms are often accessible to visitors- which is necessary for getting into contact with each other. Is there a connection? Are people feeling the effect and how do teachers think about this division?

Is that art or trash?

There are also voices of defense that argue that not every design is intended to be hostile or excluding. But who can judge if a wavy bench is meant to be modern art or uncomfortable to lie down upon?

It is also important to think about how to address the original problematic in a more positive way. The Edible Bus Stop is an example of a community project in London, where the design includes not only benches but also an edible garden. The community which at first was afraid that the benches would encourage anti-social behaviour, now uses the space, looks after the garden, and started to be proud of their spaces. A whole new article could be written about how the designing of public spaces can encourage good behaviour (instead of preemptively punishing bad one).

by Nina Kolarzik

Photo Credits

A Park for Unpleasant Design, Kathleen Fu, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

The post Building power- where architecture constructs more than houses appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.