Reading ‘Iranian Love Stories’ as a New Wave of Young Women Fights Back in Iran

By Alyssa ShotwellOct 21st, 2022

On the final The Mary Sue Book Club entry of 2021, I recommended a translated graphic novel by a French duo that goes by the pseudonyms Jane Deusart and the artist known professionally as Deloupy, entitled Iranian Love Stories. (The name “Jane Deusart” is a shared pseudonym between the two journalists and kept a secret to protect the people they spoke to.) This series of interviews in graphic novel form features vignettes of people aged 20 to 30 speaking on love, freedom, and politics (both intimately and more broadly) in Iran

Despite it appearing like this has nothing to do with the ongoing protest following the death of Mahsa Amini (22), there’s a lot in common, and this book lays the background as to why Gen Z is leading the current fight.)

The journalists didn’t just speak to young people because they have less to lose and everything to gain from their stories being told. These Iranians speaking to the journalists (whose voices are mostly limited to a transition spread between chapters) were teenagers during the Green Movement in 2009. The crackdown and deaths color how they navigate contemporary Iran and their limited pushback against authority, even within their own family (who they put at risk by demonstrating in public or even interviewing for this book.)

More than about love

A significant portion of the book discusses actual love and relationships. Most of the romantic relationships (like the first section about Mila) involve secrecy, as getting found out before marriage can result in terrible consequences, especially for women. However, others include familial concerns. One man has dreamed of leaving and working abroad, but even if he could get out, he fears the state and morality police punishing his mother for his actions.

There’s also a story of a couple not quite being in sync because they didn’t get to know each other fully before moving in—thanks to strict laws in Iran. Even in their own homes, there is a division between politics and freedom.

(Graphic Mundi)

Despite the title and focus of the novel, many of the Iranians interviewed don’t want love alone or, really, at all. They want choice, freedom, and hope. This is not dissimilar to the Green Movement or even the ongoing protest in Iran right now, in which the freedom for women to express themselves is the rallying cry, but is really the tipping point. Several of them, like 20-year-old Saviosh, have done everything “right” as far as going to college, etc., but cannot find work, and the U.S. sanctions at the time squeeze the economy.

Speaking of the economy, not everyone spoken to was wholly upset with the status quo. Because of extreme circumstances, one woman was allowed to leave the country regularly and made bank smuggling over goods. Another pair of women, Kimia and Zeinab, gawked at the idea of working and called American women’s wants misguided, as they felt a semblance of freedom in not wholly participating in public life. With all three of these women, despite general contentment, they did wish for more, but not enough to disrupt their chance of survival. Everyone finds small and large ways of rebelling.

The Green Movement

I’ve talked a lot about The Green Revolution without actually saying what it is. It began as a protest following the reelection of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It’s widely considered the first social media resistance as it was largely organized online. The Arab Spring (proper) wouldn’t begin until 2011 or later, across the Arab region. Please note that most Iranians are Persian and speak Farsi (not Arabic), but are considered a part of the Arab or SWANA (South West Asia & North Africa) region.

Anyways, not to downplay the action in 2018, outside of the revolution that led Iran to become a semi-independent state, the most impactful protest in recent history is the Iranian Revolution (1979) and the Green Movement. Hundreds of people died in the 2009 protests, people disappeared, and cameras went up everywhere. In Iranian Love Stories, Vahid (26) meets the journalists at the largest cemetery in Iran and tells them, after the events of 2009 and the crackdowns after, he has nothing to lose.

(Graphic Mundi)

As stated earlier, it’s not just love that guides these people or a single candidate running on reform that influences these young Iranians. They face jail time, public harassment, torture, and execution (regardless of age) for disobeying laws or being suspected of being under “Western” influence. The year before the election, 130 children were sentenced to death or were already awaiting execution. Iran’s government is set up as a theocratic democracy, so people can vote (including women), but a top religious leader can veto laws passed. Also, extremists have their own party in the Iranian government

Amplifying the voices of the current moment

Spurred by the death of Amini, this current moment is both very similar to The Green Movement and yet very different—even more so if justice is brought to the Iranians. Similarly, it is starting with a single grievance but is symbolic of larger issues. Also, like before, this is a protest growing through social media, especially TikTok, and the most vocal are teenagers and preteens.

However, unlike the initial spread mostly staying within Iran, these are spreading across the world. Anyone half paying attention is seeing the siege of college campuses by the morality police and the community gathering as women cut their hair and burn their compulsory hijabs. Also, still early into the protest, people are not demoralized and pessimistic about the idea of change like most of the people spoken to in the novel. Many current protesters and activists are asking for international attention.

Amini’s death so young and as a part of an ethnic minority group (her family is Kurdish) has created solidarity among them. This is under-discussed and reported on in the U.S. because of the way we tend to flatten people we deem so different from us, but this is still important.

Correction 10/24/2022: Initially, I wrote both Jane Deusart and Deloupy were pseudonyms. While Deusart is a secret name for the two journalists, Deloupy is the illustrator’s last name and the one he goes by professionally. This book featured two writers (journalists), and one artist.

(featured image: Graphic Mundi)

 #WomanLifeFreedom: How Digital Technologies Enable Transnational Solidarity for Iran’s Feminist Uprising

byAtoosa Kasirzadeh

October 21, 2022

 

0

Image by Roshi Rouzbehani (http://www.roshirouzbehani.com/)

#WomanLifeFreedom: How Digital Technologies Enable Transnational Solidarity for Iran’s Feminist Uprising

An unprecedented feminist uprising in Iran has been ongoing since September 16th, 2022. This movement was born from accumulated fury and rage against unjust conditions of oppression for Iranian women. So far, new possibilities for fostering transnational solidarity through digital technologies have significantly helped the progression and continuation of this uprising.

The uprising started after a 22-year-old Kurdish woman, Mahsa Jina Amini, was arrested by the so-called “morality police.” According to the morality police, she was arrested because—even though she was wearing her hijab—she did not have on “appropriate attire.” Mahsa Jina Amini died in police custody on September 16th, 2022. Since the revolution of 1979, women and minority groups in Iran have suffered from misogyny and unjust legal conditions. The accumulated anger of over 40 years of repression erupted in the uprising that followed Amini’s death. Women began taking off their mandatory headscarves, waving them in the air, and burning them. They cut their hair as a symbol of rage and fury rooted in Persian poetry. The slogan “zan, zendegi, azadi” (in Persian) or “woman, life, freedom” has become the socio-political slogan of this uprising.

Social media and some mainstream news outlets provide a glimpse of the uprising to the rest of the world. It is a glimpse only, however, because the Iranian government does not want the public to know that this uprising is happening. The government has disrupted the internet and blocked access to popular digital platforms, including Twitter, Instagram, and Signal. Professional journalists in Iran, like Niloofar Hamedi, whose news reporting sparked the protests, have been detained or imprisoned. The combination of digital technologies such as virtual private networks for bypassing internet censorship and social media platforms such as Instagram or instant messaging services such as Signal has allowed ordinary people in Iran to become reporters on the ground by sharing live images and footage of their reality, resistance, and solidarity while risking arrest and death.

The demands of the protesters now go beyond the abolition of the mandatory hijab. The feminist uprising, which now encompasses inclusive voices across generations and is supported by multiple internationally renowned Iranian filmmakers and athletes, wants more: the end of injustice and oppression, and the end of the status quo! Challenging the status quo does not come cheap. Hundreds of people, including children, have already been detained, imprisoned, or killed across Iran—from Kurdistan to Sistan-Baluchistan—during the crackdown on protestors just because they publicly shared their hope and demanded to live with freedom, self-determination, and justice.

The mandatory hijab is perhaps the most visible symbol of the unjust conditions of being a woman in Iran. It is one of the government’s tools to oppress women. But it is not the only form of oppression Iranian women face. The collective consciousness of Iran still struggles with the devastating repercussions of the Iranian revolution, when people of all walks of life—including ethnic minority groups, clergy, landowners, and religious and non-religious intellectuals—revolted against the Pahlavi dynasty, the constitutional monarchy governing Iran from 1925 to 1979. Three reasons underpinned the 1979 revolution: (i) lack of political freedom under a one-political party state; (ii) rapid Westernization programs that disappointed those respecting the traditional values of Iran; and (iii) deeply unequal distribution of economic and social resources across different socio-economic classes. Diverse voices unified by these reasons cried out for equality, freedom, and justice.

The result of the 1979 revolution was a new form of governance—the “Islamic Republic of Iran.” Ayatollah Rohollah Khomeini, for many the leader of the 1979 revolution, assumed power in the form of a supreme leader. The question of what it could mean to govern according to both Islamic and Republican ideals had not yet been answered, and responses are sketchy, vague, and ambiguous even today. As it stands, the consequences of the 1979 revolution have been devastating for women; for example, the supreme leaders have made a woman’s testimony in Iranian court worth only half as much as a man’s, and a married woman cannot leave the country without her husband’s permission.

Iranian women—and some men—have since 1979 resisted the unjust conditions of their existence in multiple ways, both within and beyond the borders of Iran. The current uprising builds upon decades of activism and a long history of resistance. Women’s demands for justice and freedom have been loudly proclaimed in the works of Iranian artists such as Marjaneh Satrapi’s graphic novel Persepolis, the unprecedented legal efforts of Shirin Ebadi and Nasrin Sotoudeh for human and women’s rights, and the activism of Sepideh Gholian, to name just a few of many examples.

What women are and are not supposed to wear has been an integral part of Iranian politics for nearly a century. A bitter pill to swallow for the generation that grew up in post-revolution Iran is that at the time of the 1979 revolution, women could freely choose what they wore. This is perhaps hard to believe in light of the current uprising, but the concept of mandatory hijab in contemporary Iran became a socio-legal construct only after the 1979 revolution. Indeed, in the early 20th century, women were told that they could not wear Islamic veils. The founder of the Pahlavi dynasty, Reza Shah, issued an official decree (known as kashfe hijab) in 1936 that banned all Islamic veils (including the headscarf and chador) and some traditional forms of male clothing. At that time, many Iranian women from the educated elite participated in movements which resulted in this ban. However, by the time of the Islamic revolution, women no longer lived under a mandatory dress code of any kind. Our moms, our aunts, and our grandmothers could choose what to wear.

After the Islamic revolution, women held a protest against mandatory hijab on March 8, 1979. Even the clergy who assumed political power could not agree on whether hijab should be mandatory or not. But eventually, the voices against mandatory hijab were silenced. In June 1981, two years after the revolution, a compulsory hijab policy in the public sector was enacted, forcing all women working in the public sector to choose between putting on hijab or losing their jobs. My mother, like many other women of her generation, lived through the transition from the Pahlavi monarchy to wearing the mandatory hijab just to be able to continue working in the public sector. The enforcement of this policy continued in universities, schools, and the private sector. In 1983 in the midst of the Iran-Iraq war, the first codified law of mandatory hijab was established under Iran’s Islamic penal code.

Digital technology has enabled powerful new forms of collective solidarity to connect Iranians and non-Iranians beyond borders in this current feminist uprising. While we must strive for meaningful solidarity rather than mere empty words or gestures, effective transnational collective solidarity, fostered by the support of awareness-raising celebrities as well as cultural and political campaigns on social media, has resulted in global recognition as large-scale protests in support of the uprising have happened and continue to happen around the world. Such inclusive and transnational solidarity reinforces the idea that justice without freedom for women and minority groups is impossible on the national or global stages and the fight for the preservation of basic human rights is a shared transnational goal.

Digital technologies have helped to make visible to both Iranians and the rest of the world what their political leaders want to keep hidden. Fueled by acts of political solidarity, digital technologies have also helped the world to see Iranian society beyond a myopic focus on nuclear research programs. As a philosopher and ethicist of digital technologies, I am wary of the risks and challenges of digital technologies. But I cannot stop being grateful to the unprecedented role of technology-powered solidarities by hacktivist groups such as Anonymous, who have launched DDoS attacks against government websites and disrupted state TV News with anti-government messages. The impact of technologies such as Tor browser, Snowflake proxy server, and VPNs to thwart internet censorship is beyond words. Freedom is transparency and digital rights activists are furthering this ideal more than any other actor so far. Despite the serious ethical and social concerns that social media platforms and the dark web raise, they have filled a deep lacuna of action for basic human rights in the fragmented socio-political global world. Zeynep Tufekci explains how social media has changed social movements. As social media continues to shape social uprisings, we should explore how digital technologies can introduce new forms of solidarity and what kinds of digital-technology-enabled solidarity are worth pursuing. Digital platforms provide a powerful means for the silenced and marginalized. It is time for big tech and democratic governments to facilitate systematic efforts for free and safe internet access to Iranians inside Iran who are charting the path for a free and just future.

Part of what sustains this feminist uprising is the hope fueled by transnational collective solidarity. Born as a woman in Tehran during the Iran-Iraq war, my family raised me on principles of hope. My father was fired from his job as an economics lecturer at Sharif University of Technology during the cultural revolution. Despite multiple opportunities to emigrate, he decided to stay in Iran and work outside of academia because of his hope for building a better future. Hope fuels the ongoing uprising. And the transnational solidarity facilitated by digital technologies might fuel new theories of hope.

Cover image by Roshi Rouzbehani

The Women in Philosophy series publishes posts on women in the history of philosophy, posts on issues of concern to women in the field of philosophy, and posts that put philosophy to work to address issues of concern to women in the wider world. If you are interested in writing for the series, please contact the Series Editor Adriel M. Trott or the Associate Editor Alida Liberman.

Atoosa Kasirzadeh

Atoosa Kasirzadeh is a tenure-track assistant professor in the philosophy department and the Futures Institute at the University of Edinburgh. She holds a Ph.D. in philosophy of science and technology from the University of Toronto and a Ph.D. in mathematics from the Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal. She works on philosophy and ethics of emerging technologies (in particular artificial intelligence), philosophy of science, and increasingly their intersection with political philosophy and philosophy of language.

Popular gaming account leaves Twitter, citing Elon Musk’s ‘immaturity’ as factor

MobileSyrup - TODAY


Nibel, one of the most prominent gaming news accounts on Twitter, has announced that he’s leaving the platform.



In a statement posted to his now-private account, Nibel said he’s decided to “focus my time and energy elsewhere and move on from Twitter.” Over the years, Nibel — most recognized through profile pictures from anime like Mob Psycho 100 — grew in popularity for sharing gaming news from a variety of outlets, and with nearly 450,000 followers at the time of writing, he has had a significant reach.

In a post on Patreon, Nibel elaborated on the decision to leave Twitter. The first factor was that he was “not able to create an interesting and sustainable Patreon, which is evident in the number of Patrons stagnating during the first weekend and the first (of many) pledges being deleted in the first week.” Thanking Patrons for the support, he said he’ll look into refunds for recent payments and has already deactivated billing.

He went on to say that Twitter itself has also compelled him to step away from his work.

“I don’t think Twitter has yet experienced good leadership, and this trend will not change with Musk either,” referring to Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who officially took control of Twitter last week following his $44 billion USD (about $60 billion CAD) acquisition of the social media giant. “I do not trust the platform. I do not trust Musk and his seemingly infinite immaturity. I do not think Twitter will fall apart instantly but that it could be die a slow death. Why waste more time?”

Nibel ended his post by noting that he’ll keep the Twitter account up (“at least for now”) so that people can’t cause issues with the handle. Indeed, Nibel has criticized Twitter for difficulties in getting verified, as this lead to many accounts sharing fake news while posing as him.

Nibel is the latest person to announce a Twitter departure following Musk’s takeover. Other notable figures to do so include Grey’s Anatomy creator Shonda Rhimes, singer-songwriter Sara Bareilles and Bill & Ted star Alex Winter.

Musk’s first weekend in charge of Twitter has already been met with multiple controversies. Over the past few days, Musk shared a fake news story about the recent attack on Paul Pelosi, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Musk quietly deleted the tweet without taking accountability for sharing a conspiracy theory to his more than 110 million followers.

Meanwhile, Musk is reportedly planning to charge $20 USD (about $27.31 CAD) per month for Twitter verification, and has threatened to fire employees if they don’t implement the change by November 7th.

Image credit: One

Source: @Nibel Via: GamesRadar

Syllabus Showcase: Thrills, Chills, and Some Spills: The Philosophy of Horror, Kenneth Brewer

byKenneth L. Brewer

October 31, 2022

 

0

About ten years ago, I started idly musing about how horror movies are able to frighten and disgust viewers when they know that what they are seeing isn’t “real.” At that time, I was not a particular fan of the genre; like many people, I had watched a lot of horror as an adolescent (which for me was the era of the slasher films such as Halloween), and had lost interest as an adult. Still, this question intrigued me, and it led me to design a HUMA 1301 course, “Thrills, Chills, and Some Spills: The Philosophy of Horror.” I have frequently taught this class and will be teaching a new version of it in the fall of 2022. HUMA 1301 is an option to fulfill the university requirement for a required course in the Humanities. The aim, generally, is to introduce students from across the university to the methods of humanistic disciplines.

Instructors are given broad leeway in choosing topics; the only requirement is that the course focuses on a theme/topic. Topics have ranged from Russian poetry to medieval romances to super-hero narratives, and in my course, horror films (with a few films from the action genre included). The class typically has around 75-100 students, from many different academic disciplines. It’s been perhaps my most enjoyable course to teach because it’s really satisfying to see students who are initially skeptical about the humanities in general and horror films in particular completely change their views by the end of the semester.

The course syllabus follows the structure of Noël Carroll’s classic 1990 The Philosophy of Horror, or Paradoxes of the Heart, but the course content is more interdisciplinary than Carroll’s approach, as we also look at research from the social, psychological, and neurological sciences (which has to be updated frequently) to examine the appeal of horror narratives and their effects on viewers. I also include a unit on the business of horror—how it’s marketed, in particular—as Business is a very popular major at UT Dallas.

The course is not on the history of horror as a genre, and follows Carroll’s analytical categories in approaching horror, from definitions of the genre to specific types of plots to theories about the appeal of scary stories. While I do cover the history of the genre a bit, and include classic films on the syllabus (such as Alfred Hitchcock’s 1960 Psycho), the analytical structure of the syllabus allows me to choose recent films that students tend to find more appealing.

Assignments are aimed at developing students’ critical thinking skills. In short writing assignments and exams, they are asked to apply concepts to specific films (for example, plot structures) and a significant amount of time is spent on close reading visual images. Essentially, we treat horror films as machines and try to take them apart to see how they work. Not surprisingly, this approach tends to be very appealing to students in majors such as engineering.

At the end of the semester, I use a Likert Scale to have students rate the films we have watched. This is always one of the most interesting and fun class meetings. While there are films that typically finish at the top or near the top of the rankings (The Silence of the Lambs, Get Out) and ones that typically finish near the bottom (The Blair Witch Project), students are always surprised at how their ratings differ from those of other students.

For me, approaching horror films philosophically has been essential to the course’s success. A more historical or cultural studies-oriented course on horror, while valuable in other contexts, would probably not work as well with students from so many different disciplines. The analytical and concept-driven nature of the class is precisely what has made it appealing to a wide variety of students representing very different academic backgrounds and goals. The last unit we cover is on “The Ethics of Horror,” and we discuss whether there is something morally dubious about watching and enjoying horror. Students who were on the fence about horror when the course began often vehemently defend its aesthetic (and even moral) value, and as an instructor, listening to their heated and eloquent debate is a highly rewarding way to end the course and has made it consistently one of my favorite classes to teach.

The Syllabus Showcase of the APA Blog is designed to share insights into the syllabi of philosophy educators. We include syllabi in their original, unedited format that showcase a wide variety of philosophy classes.  We would love for you to be a part of this project. Please contact Series Editor, Dr. Matt Deaton via MattDeaton.com or Editor of the Teaching Beat, Dr. Sabrina D. MisirHiralall via sabrinamisirhiralall@apaonline.org with potential submissions.

Kenneth L. Brewer is an Associate Professor of Instruction in Arts and Humanities at the University of Texas at Dallas. His primary research areas are aesthetics, taste, and the ethics of humor.

REFERENCES, LINKS , FOOTNOTES:

Syllabus Showcase: Thrills, Chills, and Some Spills: The Philosophy of Horror, Kenneth Brewer | Blog of the APA (apaonline.org)

REST IN POWER

Remembering Bruno Latour and His Contributions to Philosophy

byGraham Harman

October 24, 2022

Bruno Latour

With the death of Bruno Latour from cancer on October 9, the world lost a prominent and paradoxical figure whose deepest contributions are not yet well understood. In one sense it would be absurd to call him “unappreciated,” given his receipt of the 2013 Holberg Prize and 2021 Kyoto Prize, his nearly 300,000 citations by other scholars, and his vast global network of admirers and co-workers. But like so many pivotal intellectuals, Latour was a peg who never quite fit the most prestigious holes. Blocked by enemies from potential appointments at Princeton and the Collège de France, he spent most of his career at the School of Mines in Paris before a late move to Sciences Po in the same city.

A practicing Catholic who moved with ease in the de rigueur atheism of contemporary thought, Latour eventually developed a system of thought that was basically secular in spirit despite the place reserved for religion near its core. Scolded by American science warriors as the “social constructionist” he never quite was, in France he was struck on the opposite flank by the disciples of Pierre Bourdieu, who viewed his fascination with non-human actors as a form of reactionary realism.

Tweeting the news of Latour’s passing, French President Emmanuel Macron rightly noted that Latour was recognized abroad before it happened at home. Indeed, despite pronounced French elements in his personality and lifestyle, Latour was in many ways more typically Anglo-Saxon, and some of his most important books appeared first in English. But perhaps the greatest paradox of his career was the contrast between his iconic status in the social sciences and his still minimal impact in philosophy, a field where his hopes of influence were generally thwarted. When we invited him in 2003 to speak to the philosophers at the American University in Cairo, he remarked that it was only the second time he had addressed a Department of Philosophy. I doubt that the number increased by much over the remaining nineteen years of his life.

Yet the reason for his relative lack of success with philosophy readers so far is also the reason for his inevitable future importance in the field: the blow he strikes against the central assumption of modern philosophy. The default Western assumption for the past four centuries is that the universe consists of two basic kinds of things: (1) human thought, and (2) everything else. In his early classic We Have Never Been Modern (1991 in French, 1993 in English), Latour tried to demonstrate that modernity as a whole revolves around the purported opposition between impossibly pure forms of these two poles. On one side we have culture, values, and freedom while on the other we have nature, facts, and necessity. Multiple strategies exist to deal with this predicament: social constructionists reduce science to power-plays; neurophilosophers counter by reducing thought to the secretions of the brain; others introduce the human body as a third term supposedly able to bridge the gap. What none of them question is the strangely implausible assumption that thought deserves to be placed in one basket of the cosmos with everything else packed together in a second. 

Latour’s innovation—foreshadowed by his intellectual ancestor Alfred North Whitehead—is to treat all entities equally as “actors,” analyzing them in terms of the effects they have on other actors. Non-human entities (speed bumps, garbage cans, trains, neuropeptides, box-cutters) play a prominent role in Latour’s philosophy, as do “hybrids” whose human and non-human ingredients are nearly impossible to distinguish. As a social scientist, the key to his method is to introduce specific local actors in place of such abstractions as “Society,” “Science,” or “Capital.” As a philosopher, he defends the equivalent position: that all interactions between actors are on exactly the same footing so that the single interplay between thought and world (modern philosophy’s obsession) becomes just one relation among trillions of others. At most, one might question whether Latour truly accounted for cases in which all humans are absent. Unlike Whitehead, he was not a philosopher of nature but of science, and for Latour human observers are always somewhere on the scene.

It has become a cliché to speak of the “early” and “late” phases of any given philosopher; Heidegger and Wittgenstein are two of the more over-analyzed cases. Latour also has an early phase and a late one, but with an unusual twist: his two periods were largely simultaneous. As early as 1987, Latour had grown weary of his trademark insight that every situation consists of a network of heterogeneous actors involving both human and non-human elements. Although this outlook is still fresh enough to be far from exhausted, Latour was increasingly interested in the way that certain zones of reality fold in on themselves and exclude other modes of discourse. After a quarter-century of labor, this led to the publication of his late masterwork An Enquiry Into Modes of Existence, in which two overarching modes (network and preposition) govern twelve others, grouped into four families of three. In an era when scientific discourse is generally assumed to be the gold standard of truth, Latour’s book argues that politics, law, and even religion form parallel realms with their own standards of veridiction. Economic reason, that powerful modern companion of the sciences, is decomposed into a prior threefold of attachment, organization, and morality, belying all attempts to cast Latour as a “neo-liberal.” Alongside these, we have the anti-Bergsonian ontological mode known as reproduction, which insists that reality must be constantly recreated at every instant. We also encounter such familiar—though welcome—guests as technology and fiction, and the dark outlier metamorphosis, which mixes aspects of shamanism and psychology. Modes has inspired puzzlement no less than enthusiasm, and it is safe to say that the history of its interpretation has hardly begun. In practice, even during the post-Modes period both Latour and his followers conducted most daily business in the earlier language of actor-network theory.

A closing word is in order about Latour as a political theorist, since here too he has innovations to offer. The most severe critiques of Latour have come from the political Left, as might be expected given his suspicion toward “capitalism” as a category of analysis. In his capacity as a French and European citizen, Latour’s political opinions were rarely colorful: in our years of conversation, he was reliably somewhere between the center-left and the center, and was always more public intellectual than activist. More intriguing were the theoretical underpinnings of his politics, which cut against the grain of modernity here as in every area he touched. It could be said that the modern conflict between Left and Right boils down to a basic disagreement over whether human nature is good (or at least improvable) or evil (or at least unimprovable).

In their recent best-seller, The Dawn of Everything, David Graeber and David Wengrow criticized this modern alternative, but simply replaced it with the notion that human nature is naturally experimental and imaginative. However refreshing their approach, it is ultimately just another theory of human nature, one that fails to account sufficiently for the non-human component of politics: ranging from the oft-discussed constraints of geography and resources to such recently studied elements as documents, microbes, nutrition, and pets. But only with the climate crisis do non-human political actors first approach their golden age, to such an extent that a new theoretical tradition will be needed to grasp their workings. 

The latter years of Latour’s career, from Facing Gaia (2015) to After Lockdown: A Metamorphosis (2021), were largely filled with efforts to develop a climate politics that could be something more than ineffectual protest or a stale call for revolution. Although the life of this ingenious and gregarious thinker has ended, the loose threads of his work will increasingly guide us in his direction, just as the art of his countryman Paul Cézanne set the agenda for a rising generation of painters.

This post is part of a partnership with the Institute of Art and Ideas. This article was originally published here

Graham Harman  is Professor at the Southern California Institute of Architecture, and author of Object-Oriented Ontology: A New Theory of Everything, and Prince of Networks: Bruno Latour and Metaphysics.

Hezbollah ends 'exceptional' mobilisation against Israel

The leader of Hezbollah said his militant group will end "exceptional" mobilisation against Israel after it struck a deal with Lebanon on demarcating their maritime border

Nasrallah had warned Israel against reaching for the reserves before a deal was finalised [Getty/archive]

The New Arab Staff & Agencies
27 October, 2022

Lebanese Shia armed group Hezbollah will end an "exceptional" mobilisation against Israel after threatening to attack for months, its leader Hassan Nasrallah said Thursday after Lebanon and Israel struck a maritime border deal.

"All the exceptional and special measures and mobilisation carried out by the resistance for several months are now declared over," Nasrallah said in a televised speech, calling the agreement a "great victory for Lebanon".

"Our mission is complete," Nasrallah said, adding that the deal "is not an international treaty and it is not a recognition of Israel".

On July 2, Israel said it had downed three drones launched by the Iranian-backed Hezbollah that were headed towards the border offshore field of Karish which was partly claimed by Lebanon.

Nasrallah had warned Israel against reaching for the reserves before a deal was finalised.

The agreement between the countries, which are still technically at war, was applauded by world leaders including US President Joe Biden.

It was signed separately on Thursday by Lebanon's President Michel Aoun in Beirut and by Israel's Prime Minister Yair Lapid in Jerusalem, and went into effect after the papers were delivered to mediators.

Earlier in the day Lapid had claimed that the deal meant Lebanon de facto "recognises the State of Israel, in a written agreement".

Aoun had retorted that the deal had no "political implications".

The United States-mediated deal is set to unlock potential off-shore gas resources for Lebanon, at a time when the country is reeling from three years of gruelling economic crisis.

It also streamlines gas production for Israel, as Lebanon's Iran-backed Hezbollah had threatened the Jewish state with attacks should it begin work in the disputed area before a deal was signed.

Renowned art expert 'willing' to head to Saudi to uncover mysteries of Salvator Mundi

A British art historian said he was 'willing' to go to Saudi Arabia to inspect the world's most expensive painting, Salvator Mundi - which is shrouded in mystery and controversy.

Some believe Salvator Mundi is the sole work of Leonardo da Vinci, others believe he was only a contributor [source: Getty]

The New Arab Staff
14 October, 2022

A renowned British art historian has expressed his "willingness" to travel to Saudi Arabia to inspect the $450-million-dollar Salvator Mundi painting, which is shrouded in mystery

The world’s most expensive artwork, owned by the Gulf kingdom, is thought to be a Leonardo da Vinci original. However, heated speculation among art experts has cast doubt over its authenticity.

The piece, once believed to be destroyed, was bought in 2017 by a little-known Saudi prince, who was reported to be a proxy for Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler.

Martin Kemp, an art historian at the University of Oxford who originally attributed the work to da Vinci, told journalists that Saudi Arabia made "moves" to get him to visit the Kingdom and look at the historic painting.

 

RELATED

Da Vinci's mysterious $450 million Salvator Mundi downgraded

MENA

The New Arab Staff

"It is in Saudi Arabia and the country is constructing an art gallery, which is to be finished in 2024…there have been moves to get me out to look at it," said Kemp, according to The Times.

The art expert added that he was "slightly reluctant" to go "for very obvious reasons" - in what appeared to be unsubtle reference to Saudi Arabia’s poor human rights record.

Saudi authorities have recently jailed citizens for over 30 years for mildly critical tweets.

"But if it helps to get Salvator Mundi out into the fresh air then I would be willing to do that," he said.

When asked if he believed the painting was a da Vinci, Kemp said he was "confident" it was one, but that he could not say "every brushstroke was by Leonardo".

The 500-year-old painting was reportedly hung on Crown Prince Mohammed's megayacht before it was taken to Paris for display.

However, the French government refused to showcase the artwork in the Louvre as "100 percent Leonardo da Vinci". This was despite alleged pressure from Riyadh to get Paris to authenticate da Vinci as the sole creator, rather than a contributor.

Madrid’s acclaimed Prado museum has also challenged statements which attribute the painting only to the renaissance icon.

Kemp said that perhaps da Vinci - while commissioning and envisioning the work - assigned one of his students to complete brushstrokes for Salvator Mundi.

POLITICAL POLICING

Here’s what I can tell you and here’s how you can help



Duncan Kinney <duncank@progressalberta.ca>


On Friday, Oct. 14 upon arriving at my office by bicycle at around 9 am I was arrested by Const. Freddie Challenger of the Hate Crimes and Violent Extremism Unit for mischief. He was accompanied by at least three other officers and there were at least two police vehicles there. I was handcuffed, placed in an unmarked police vehicle and taken to the downtown division. There I was interrogated by a fifth officer for about a half an hour where, on the advice of my lawyer, I refused to answer any questions.

I was arrested for mischief with regards to the vandalism of the statue of Roman Shukhevych outside of the Ukrainian Youth Unity Complex in North Edmonton in August of 2021. You can read my story about it here.

I was released on an undertaking to appear with my first court date at the Case Management Office taking place on Nov. 10. This is a purely administrative event. The case will be adjourned until my lawyer obtains and reviews full disclosure.

I will be pleading not guilty and defending this charge. As many have pointed out this appears to be an attempt by the EPS to silence and discredit a critic.

However, the advice from my lawyer on this is clear. I can not talk about the substance of the case. But I can promise you that I will mount a vigorous defence, if it comes to that.

Unfortunately while I can’t publicly defend myself, the void has been filled by media outlets making cartoonishly basic mistakes about the facts of the matter and the usual far-right, pro-police voices on social media saying things that are untrue.

But that’s not to say that you can’t reach out and say hi and ask me how I’m doing. To everyone who checked in, thank you. If you were thinking about sending me a text or a DM or a phone call to say hey and let me know that you support me, please do so, that would rule.

And if you would like to support me in person there is going to be a screening of the movie No Visible Trauma on November 9 at the Metro Cinema. This is an amazing documentary from two Calgary based filmmakers that examines a deeply troubled police service and reveals the devastating consequences of unchecked police brutality.

I will be part of a panel discussion afterwards that will feature: Temitope Oriola - Professor of criminology and sociology at the U of A.

Danielle Paradis - APTN Western Correspondent .
Courtney Walcott - Calgary city councillor (Ward 8).
Det. Dan Behiels - Police whistleblower.

The doors open and the reception starts at 6pm. The screening starts at 7pm and the panel discussion and Q&A will follow.

The event is free and you can reserve a spot here.

The Edmonton Police Service is not going to scare us away from continuing to produce investigative journalism that holds the police accountable. In fact, we’re working on two stories involving EPS right now that I don’t think anyone else in Alberta media would or could write.

EPS hasn’t been able to stop our work by revoking our media credentials or by tying us up in an interminable “media accreditation process,” and they won’t stop us with these charges either.

If you’d like to offer more than just moral support we are always grateful for new recurring donors. The pandemic put the squeeze on our organization too, and not having much to pay writers has really diminished what we’re getting out there. If you’re able to pitch in to fund the work that Jim, our freelancers and I do, that’s the thing we need the most.

You can donate online here—if you have any trouble with that just email me directly.

Duncan Kinney
http://www.progressalberta.ca/