Search results

In a 1967 interview, Marcel Duchamp, one of the key figures of the early twentieth-century avant-garde and an artist who drew extensively on contemporary science, declared that ‘the public always needs a banner; whether it be Picasso, Einstein, or some other’.[1] In naming these individuals, Duchamp was responding to the emergence during the 1940s-60s of the popular perception of Picasso and Einstein as the archetypal modern artist and scientist of the twentieth century. Picasso’s Cubism and Einstein’s Relativity Theory had first been linked in the early 1940s and that fallacious association continued to figure in discussions of the style well into the 1980s and, occasionally, beyond. In 1943, for example, Museum of Modern Art director Alfred Barr had claimed in his highly influential primer What is Modern Painting?  that the ‘introduction of a time element into an art usually considered in terms of two- or three-dimensional space suggests some relationship to Einstein’s theory of relativity in which time is thought of mathematically as a fourth dimension’.[2] Barr was seeking to explain the multiple viewpoints in Cubist paintings, such as Picasso’s 1910 Portrait of Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler (fig 1) or his 1932 Girl Before a Mirror (fig 10), and here he echoed the first major source to promulgate the supposed Cubism-Relativity connection, Sigfried Giedion’s 1941 Space, Time and Architecture . For Giedion, Barr, and those who followed them, connecting modern architecture or Picasso’s Cubism to Einstein was a means to validate new and unfamiliar forms of artistic expression for a sceptical public.[3] Fig 1. Portrait of Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler (Pablo Picasso 1910, oil on canvas, 100.4 x 72.4 cm). Art Institute of Chicago © 2025 Estate of Pablo Picasso / Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York. Photo: The Art Institute of Chicago / Art Resource, NY. What disturbed Duchamp in 1967 and should trouble anyone interested in the cultural history of modernism was this trope’s oversimplification of a complex art world (made up of a variety of artists, including Duchamp himself) and its ahistorical characterization of the physical science known to the general public in the years before and during World War I. In France, for example, Einstein and his 1905 Special Theory of Relativity were barely noticed and, even then, only in a few scientific journals. Only in 1919 would Einstein be catapulted to world celebrity, when a November 1919 eclipse expedition confirmed the bending of light rays by the mass of the sun, as predicted in his 1916 General Theory of Relativity.[4] Instead of Einstein and Relativity, in the prewar and wartime years the attention of the general public was focused on a series of developments from the mid-1890s onward that had transformed contemporary conceptions of matter and space. Wilhelm Röntgen’s discovery of the X-ray (1895), Sir JJ Thomson’s identification of the electron (1897), Marie and Pierre Curie’s isolation of radioactive elements (1898), Ernest Rutherford’s subsequent work on the structure of the atom, and the emergence of wireless telegraphy via the electromagnetic waves Heinrich Hertz had identified in 1887—all pointed to an invisible reality beyond the reach of sense perception. Science in this period was not distant from daily life, since its applications, such as medical X-rays and wireless telegraphy, were radically transforming modes of seeing and communicating. Rather than Einstein or Hermann Minkowski, the architect of Relativity’s 1908 space-time continuum, the scientific heroes of pre-World War I France, for example, were Henri Poincaré, the Curies, Jean Perrin, and scientific popularizer Gustave Le Bon. From abroad, names such as Röntgen, Rutherford, Tesla, Sir William Crookes, and Sir Oliver Lodge—rather than Einstein—appeared regularly in popular coverage of physics.[5]   In addition to the specific discoveries that captured the popular imagination in the prewar era, two other concepts were central to the public’s altered conception of the nature of reality in the first two decades of the century. First was the ether of space, which was understood to suffuse all space and matter, serving as the necessary medium for visible light and the various invisible vibrating electromagnetic waves that now fascinated the public. What was new about the ether in the later nineteenth and early twentieth century was the considerable expansion of its hypothetical functions. While Lord Kelvin in the 1860s had proposed that atoms might be whirling vortices of ether, at the end of the century Joseph Larmor and Oliver Lodge propounded the ‘electric theory of matter’, grounded in the newly identified electron and its interaction with the ether.[6] Lodge also celebrated the ether as the fundamental source of continuity in the universe, quoting Maxwell’s assertion that ‘no human power can remove [the ether] from the smallest portion of space, or produce the slightest flaw in its infinite continuity’.[7] Hopes were high for the ether among scientists and occultists alike. Sir William Crookes declared in his 1898 presidential address before the British Association for the Advancement of Science that ‘ether vibrations have powers and attributes equal to any demand—even to the transmission of thought’.[8]   The second issue characteristic of the early twentieth-century worldview was the widespread belief in the possible existence of a suprasensible fourth dimension of space. If such a dimension existed, our familiar world might then be merely a three-dimensional section of it, akin to the shadow world in Plato’s allegory of the cave. The highly popular ‘Fourth Dimension’ was an outgrowth of the formulation of n -dimensional geometry earlier in the nineteenth century.[9] Following its initial popularization in the 1870s and 1880s in sources such as EA Abbott’s Flatland  of 1884, the fourth dimension quickly took on multiple philosophical and mystical / occult significations as well. Higher dimensions could also be linked to the ether, as in the theories of Balfour Stewart and PG Tait, along with the British hyperspace philosopher Charles Howard Hinton. Stewart and Tait argued in the revised 1876 edition of their book The Unseen Universe  that the three-dimensional world might be ‘merely the skin or boundary of an Unseen whose matter has four  dimensions’ with the ether as a bridge between them.[10] Hinton proposed that electrical current might be created by particles of ether in four-dimensional rotation.[11]   Both the ether and the spatial fourth dimension—central themes in early modernism—were largely displaced by the popularization of Relativity Theory after the November 1919 eclipse. Just as Einstein in 1905 dismissed the ether as having no mechanical properties and hence unnecessary to his theory, Minkowski’s four-dimensional space-time continuum of 1908 posited time instead of space as the fourth dimension.[12] By the 1930s and 1940s, the ‘space-time’ world of Einstein had triumphed in popular culture: a temporal fourth dimension reigned and the ether, the prior sign of universal continuity, had largely faded from view. However, as discussed below, the ether did not go easily—and the spatial fourth dimension survived underground to emerge gradually in the second half of the century and reach its current prominence in string theory, computer graphics, and popular culture more broadly.[13]   The year 1920, then, stands as a watershed between an early modernist phase in art and literature and a quite separate postwar milieu, in which Relativity Theory and space-time did indeed become major cultural determinants. This essay examines these two phases of artistic response to contemporary science—recovering the place of ether physics and the spatial fourth dimension in the first phase and sampling artists’ reactions to the new world of Einsteinian space-time during the 1920s through 1940s, particularly that of American painter Stuart Davis. Fundamental to this discussion is the contrast between the pre-World War I Cubist style of Picasso and Georges Braque (fig 1) and the later, very different variation on their subsequent planar-oriented Synthetic Cubist style made by Davis in the 1930s-1940s in direct response to the popularization of Relativity Theory (eg his Hot Still-Scape for Six Colors  of 1940, fig 14). As a complement to early Cubism, the essay also considers briefly three other artists of the prewar / wartime period: Duchamp (the modern artist most engaged with science), the Italian Futurist Umberto Boccioni, and Russian-born Expressionist Wassily Kandinsky—all three of whose writings provide crucial evidence of the kinds of science that stimulated early twentieth-century artistic invention. Before considering Davis’s Cubism in the post-1919 era, the essay briefly addresses alternative artistic responses to Relativity Theory, ranging from kinetic art to the paintings of Salvador Dali.   1900-20: ‘The Fourth Dimension’ and the Ether of Space   Picasso’s Portrait of Kahnweiler  exemplifies the style known as Analytical Cubism, which he developed in Paris, working along with Braque, between 1909 and 1912. Here the geometrical faceting of the seated figure suggests a more complex reality beyond immediate perception, and the interpenetration of figure and space makes it impossible to read the image as three-dimensional. Although the stylistic roots of Picasso’s Cubism lie in Cézanne and African art, his move beyond the solid volumes of Cézanne he was still exploring into 1909 would have been encouraged by the contemporary fascination with the possible existence of an invisible fourth dimension of space. Picasso later described his goal as ‘paint[ing] objects as I think them, not as I see them’,[14] and his friend the critic Guillaume Apollinaire found in the fourth dimension a specific rationale for the Cubist artist’s freedom to reject three-dimensional perspective and to reconfigure objects according to a higher law. ‘It is to the fourth dimension alone that we owe a new norm of the perfect’, Apollinaire declared in his 1913 volume Les Peintres Cubistes .[15] The insurance actuary Maurice Princet, who was a member of Picasso’s circle, is thought to have shared with him the pioneering geometrical diagrams in Esprit Jouffret’s 1903 treatise on four-dimensional geometry (fig 2).[16] In both Picasso’s monochromatic painting and the Jouffret drawing, the image is opened up and its complexity suggested by means of multiple partially shaded angular facets that fluctuate in an indeterminate space. Fig 2. Perspective cavalière of the Sixteen Fundamental Octahedrons of an Ikosatetrahedroid. From Esprit Jouffret, Traité élémentaire de géométrie à quatre dimensions (Gauthier-Villars 1903) fig 41. If there is a sense of time and process here, as Barr suggested, time is not the goal, but only the means to gather information about higher dimensional space—just as Poincaré in his 1902 Science and Hypothesis had suggested that one might represent a four-dimensional object by combining multiple perspectives of it.[17] We know that Jean Metzinger and his co-author Albert Gleizes drew directly on Poincaré’s writings about perception using senses other than vision, ie tactile and motor sensations, and they and others were undoubtedly encouraged by Poincaré’s bold prediction that ‘motor space would have as many dimensions as we have muscles’.[18] Indeed, in Cubist theory, vision is deliberately downplayed in favour of other sensations, such as touch and muscular movement, and conception is clearly privileged over perception.   There was a strong impetus for early twentieth-century artists to downgrade both vision and visible light in this period: Röntgen’s discovery of the X-ray (fig 3).[19] X-rays had demonstrated definitively the inadequacy of the human eye, which detects only a small fraction (ie visible light) of the much larger spectrum of vibrating electromagnetic waves then being defined. Indeed, the spatial fourth dimension might well have remained the province of philosophical idealists and occultists but for this discovery, which made it impossible to deny the existence of an invisible reality simply because it could not be seen. In Picasso’s Portrait of Kahnweiler —on the model of the X-ray—matter becomes transparent as the artist penetrates the skin to reveal the figure’s substructure. There is also an unprecedented fluidity between figure and ground, with the figure’s contour dissolving like the flesh in an X-ray. Fig 3. Photographs taken with Röntgen rays and with ordinary light (Albert Londe). From Charles-Edouard Guillaume, Les Rayons X et la photographie à travers le corps (Gauthier-Villars 1896) plates 5, 6. The interpenetration of matter and space in Picasso’s painting would also have been supported in this period by widespread popular discussion of radioactivity, as well as the ether. In contrast to the traditional image of matter as stable and constant, radioactive substances emitted particles, suggesting a vibrating realm of atomic matter in the process of transformation. In his best-selling books, such as L’Evolution de la matière (1905), Le Bon argued that all substances were radioactive and that matter was dematerializing into the ether-filled space around it by means of its radioactive discharges.[20] Le Bon was a friend of the philosopher Henri Bergson, a figure important for Cubists as well as Futurists, and both men’s world views were, in fact, grounded in ether physics.[21] Bergson cited Michael Faraday and Lord Kelvin in his 1896 book Matière et mémoire , and there—as well as in his 1907 L’Evolution Créatrice —he argued that the essence of reality was flux.[22] Bergson’s heading for one section of Matière et mémoire —‘All division of matter into independent bodies with absolutely determined outlines is an artificial division’—would have been highly suggestive for artists. The same is true for his remarkable assertion later in that chapter, that ‘matter thus resolves itself into numberless vibrations, all linked together in uninterrupted continuity, all bound up with each other and travelling in every direction like shivers through an immense body’.[23]   In addition to their X-ray-like transparency and fluidity, Picasso’s prewar Analytical Cubist paintings, with their surfaces activated by shimmering Neo-Impressionist brushstrokes, suggest an ethereal realm of continuous cohesion and diffusion as evoked in the writings of Le Bon and Bergson. Matter and space of whatever dimensionality are here reconceived as degrees on a continuum. Picasso need not have read Le Bon’s best-selling books himself, since his close compatriot Apollinaire owned a 1908 edition of L’Evolution de la matière —along with such books as Commandant Louis Darget’s text on photographing invisible fluids and ‘V-rays’ as well as a personally inscribed copy of Gaston Danville’s 1908 study, Magnétisme et spiritisme. [24]   Like the fourth dimension, the ether was a concept on which the interests of science and occultism converged in this period—as in the regularly drawn links between telegraphy and telepathy or electromagnetism and the still-extant practice of animal magnetism. Picasso’s photography in this era documents his cultivation of unusual photographic effects, suggestive of invisible phenomena. And in comments decades later about the nature of the ‘reality’ in his Analytical Cubist paintings, he resorted to terms such as ‘smoke’ and ‘perfume’, two of the numerous metaphors for the immaterial ether.[25]   In most cultural histories of the twentieth century, the ether of space barely survives to the end of the first decade of the century. If not banished by the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment’s failure to detect an ‘ether wind’ resulting from the earth’s motion, the ether is said to have died in 1905 with Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. But the story is not that simple. As is suggested by active publishing on the ether by Lodge and others through the 1920s, the ether hardly disappeared in 1905. Not only did the general public not hear of Einstein’s theories until 1919, the question of the ether’s existence was hotly debated among scientists sceptical of Einstein’s theories during the 1910s and 1920s, with passionate defences of the concept published in both scientific and popular literature.[26] Reflecting the mood of the ether’s adherents, Sir Thomson declared in his Presidential Address before the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1909 that ‘the ether is not a fantastic creation of the speculative philosopher; it is as essential to us as the air we breathe. […] The study of this all-pervading substance is perhaps the most fascinating duty of the physicist’.[27]   Recovering the ether’s centrality to early twentieth-century conceptions of reality is a much-needed step for cultural historians to take. Set against the backdrop of the ether, the art of both Boccioni and Kandinsky—like Picasso’s Cubism—gains new coherence and meaning. Boccioni’s 1912 painting Matter (fig 5) and his 1913 sculpture Unique Forms of Continuity in Space  (fig 4)   both demonstrate his firm belief that ‘what needs to be painted is not the visible but what has heretofore been held to be invisible, that is, what the clairvoyant painter sees’.[28] Unlike the taciturn Picasso, Boccioni wrote extensively about his artistic goals and referred specifically to the ‘electric theory of matter’ and the ether, from both scientific and occult points of view, as his reference to clairvoyance suggests.[29] Virtually unknown to historians is the fact that Boccioni’s greatest sculpture, Unique Forms of Continuity in Space  of 1913, is an homage to the ‘infinite continuity’ of the invisible ether. As the end of his 1913 treatise Pittura scultura futuriste , Boccioni finally reveals his goal as the ‘materialization of the ethereal fluid, the imponderable’, declaring that ‘we want to model the atmosphere, to denote the forces of objects, […] the unique form of continuity in space’.[30] With its striking effect of ‘ether drag’, Boccioni’s dynamic striding figure manages to defy the fixed boundaries of a three-dimensional, sculptural object.   Fig 4. Unique Forms of Continuity in Space (Umberto Boccioni 1913, bronze, 111.2 x 88.5 x 40 cm). The Museum of Modern Art, New York, Acquired through the Lillie P Bliss Bequest. Digital Image © The Museum of Modern Art. Licensed by SCALA / Art Resource, NY. Fig 5. Matter (Umberto Boccioni 1912, oil on poplar, 570 x 380 cm). Mattioli Collection, Milan. Photo: Luca Carra, Milan, 2002. In his painting Matter Boccioni, a confirmed Bergsonist, explores simultaneously the process of particulate dematerialization (like Picasso) and the materialization of form from the vibrating ether-filled space around his mother. Boccioni’s painting is a graphic demonstration of the widely held view of the ether expressed by popular science writer Robert Kennedy Duncan in his 1905 book The New Knowledge : ‘Not only through interstellar spaces, but through the world […] [and] through our own bodies; all lie not only encompassed in it but soaking in it as a sponge lies soaked in water. How much we ourselves are matter and how much ether is, in these days, a very moot question’.[31] Boccioni believed that ‘solid bodies are only atmosphere condensed’[32] and explained in 1913 that ‘it should be clear, then, why an infinity of lines and currents emanate from our objects, making them live in an environment which has been created by their vibrations’.[33]   I have elsewhere termed this phase of early twentieth-century art ‘vibratory modernism’, and ethereal vibrations were also central for Kandinsky and Duchamp as well as for avant-garde writers from FT Marinetti to Ezra Pound.[34] Like Boccioni, in his 1911 treatise On the Spiritual in Art  Kandinsky cited the ‘electron theory—i.e., the theory of moving electricity, which is supposed completely to replace matter’ and considered the ‘dissolution of matter’ to be imminent.[35] In Kandinsky’s view, the time had come for spiritual qualities to replace material objects in a new type of totally abstract composition of colour and form, such as his Composition VII of 1913 (fig 6). Kandinsky’s goal for his paintings was to set up a sympathetic vibration or Klang  in the soul of the viewer. He drew vital support for his theories not only from music and synaesthesia, but also from the widely discussed analogy between wireless telegraphy and telepathy in this period. Having lived on the outskirts of Paris for a year during 1906-7, Kandinsky encountered the active French interest in the ether and its vibrations in the writings of figures such as Camille Flammarion, Hippolyte Baraduc, Albert de Rochas, and Darget.[36]   The thought transfer Crookes had attributed to ether vibrations was a central model for Kandinsky, along with the ‘thought photography’ of Baraduc, working at the Salpêtrière Hospital in Paris. Kandinsky was deeply interested in Baraduc, who was but one of a number of figures, including the American engineer Edwin Houston, exploring the possibility of vibratory thought patterns being captured on a photographic plate. Houston, whose 1892 lecture on ‘Cerebral Radiation’ was reprinted as one of sixteen appendices in Rochas’s 1895 L’Extériorisation de la sensibilité , suggested that such an image could serve as a storage device, subsequently activating the same thought vibrations in another viewer—just as Kandinsky intended his paintings to do.[37] Fig 6. Composition VI (Wassily Kandinsky 1913, oil on canvas, 195 x 300 cm). State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg. © 2025 Artists Rights Society (ARS). Photo: Erich Lessing / Art Resource, NY. Vibratory communication was also a theme of Duchamp’s nine-foot-tall work on glass, The Bride Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors, Even  ( The Large Glass) of 1915-23 (fig 7). Determined to ‘put painting once again at the service of the mind’, Duchamp investigated a wide range of scientific fields as well as four-dimensional geometry in order to invent the ‘Playful Physics’ of this work. [38]  His extensive notes on the subject, which he considered as important as the visual image, stand as a time capsule of the popular scientific milieu of the pre-World War I era. In Duchamp’s humorous scientific allegory of sexual quest, the Bride hangs in her ethereal, four-dimensional realm at the top of the Glass  and communicates with her desiring, three-dimensional, gravity-bound Bachelors below by means of her ‘splendid vibrations’.[39] The Bride’s basic form is rooted in X-ray images, and her vibratory communications are based on the model of wireless telegraphy and radio control. He also drew on a variety of other aspects of science and technology to create the insuperable contrasts between the upper and lower realms of the Glass : radioactivity, atomic theory, the kinetic theory of gases, Perrin’s work on Brownian movement, thermodynamics, the liquefaction of gases—as well as classical mechanics, chemistry, biology, meteorology, and automobile and airplane technology. Fig 7. The Bride Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors, Even (The Large Glass) (Marcel Duchamp 1915-23, oil, varnish, lead foil, lead wire, and dust on two glass panels, 277.5 x 175.9 cm). Philadelphia Museum of Art, Bequest of Katherine S Dreier. © 2025 Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York, 2025 / ADAGP, Paris / © Association Marcel Duchamp.  Photo: The Philadelphia Museum of Art / Art Resource, NY. In the 1960s, long after both the fourth dimension of space and early wireless communication had faded from prominence (and before their return to cultural awareness in the later decades of the century), Duchamp contributed to the recovery of the largely forgotten spatial fourth dimension by publishing his extensive notes on the subject in his 1966 deluxe White Box  [ A l’infinitif ].[40] It was a highly significant gesture by the artist who before World War I had unquestionably known more about contemporary science than any other. Yet the paradigm shift that occurred after 1919 left Duchamp detached from that cultural grounding. He would never engage Relativity Theory in a similar way, and his reference to the public ‘always need[ing] a banner, whether it be Picasso, Einstein, or some other’ was surely a reflection of the wrenching shift Einstein’s emergence created for an artist of thirty-two who was deeply grounded in an earlier scientific paradigm.   1920s-1940s: The Triumph of Einstein and Relativity Theory   While Duchamp’s study of science in the prewar period had predated Einstein, avant-garde artists in the 1920s, such as the Russian Naum Gabo and Bauhaus artist László Moholy-Nagy, responded directly to the new, temporal fourth dimension of Relativity Theory by incorporating time into their art.[41] Among these pioneering works were Gabo’s Kinetic Construction  of 1920 and Moholy-Nagy’s Light Display Machine  or Light-Space Modulator of 1922-30 (fig 8). The latter’s 1947 book Vision in Motion , published the year after his death, served as a highly influential codification of modernism in terms of the new space-time aesthetic and actually included Duchamp’s Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2 in this context. Indeed, Duchamp’s own experiments with rotating optical devices (eg the Rotary Demisphere  of 1925) were incorporated into the lineage of kinetic art during the 1940s and regularly exhibited alongside works by Moholy-Nagy, Alexander Calder, and others during the 1950s and early 1960s. Fig 8. Light Prop for an Electric Stage (Light-Space Modulator) (László Moholy-Nagy 1930, aluminum, steel, nickel-plated brass, other metals, plastic, wood and electric motor, 151.1 x 69.9 x 69.9 cm). Harvard Art Museums/Busch-Reisinger Museum, Gift of Sibyl Moholy-Nagy. Photo © President and Fellows of Harvard College, BR56.5. If adding time to art was the dominant response to Einstein and space-time, several other approaches emerged in this period as well. One of the first reactions to Einstein’s new celebrity occurred in Berlin Dadaist Hannah Höch’s collage Cut with the Kitchen Knife Through the Last Weimar Beer-Belly Cultural Epoch of Germany  of 1919. There Höch, relying simply on Einstein’s visage, clipped his photograph from the front page of the Berliner Illustrierte Zeitung  and included him among her images of revolution in the upper left quadrant of the collage.[42] Beyond Einstein’s image itself, other artists responded to the deformations of distance and time posited by the Special Theory of Relativity.   Dali’s The Persistence of Memory  of 1931 (fig 9), for example, embodies the parallel he saw between Einstein’s ‘physical dilation of measures’ and his own Surrealist ‘psychic dilation of ideas’.[43] Although Dali referred to his limp watches as ‘the soft, extravagant, and solitary paranoic-critical Camembert of time and space’, he generally drew on Special Relativity Theory rather than the curved space-time of General Relativity.[44] By contrast, younger Surrealist artists in the 1930s, such as Matta Echaurren, actually attempted to envision of the ‘look’ of the curved space-time continuum of General Relativity, as in his painting The Vertigo of Eros  of 1944. André Breton wrote in 1939 that such works demonstrated the painters’ ‘deep yearning to transcend the three-dimensional universe […] as a result of Einstein’s introduction into physics of the space-time continuum ’.[45] Fig 9. The Persistence of Memory (Salvador Dali 1931, oil on canvas, 24.1 x 33 cm). © 2025 Gala-Salvador Dali Foundation / Artist Rights Society (ARS), New York. Photo: The Museum of Modern Art/licensed by SCALA /Art Resource, NY. However, it was the American painter Davis who made perhaps the most original artistic innovations in response to the new paradigm of Relativity Theory. Davis’s unique variation on Picasso and Braque’s Cubism grew out of Cubism’s second, collage-based phase, referred to as Synthetic Cubism, which commenced in 1912. (That style lies behind Picasso’s 1932 Girl Before a Mirror (fig 10), which reflects its later, more decorative qualities—along with the patterns of Henri Matisse—as well as the newer Surrealist focus on interior psychology and organic form.) Although Davis had spent a year in Paris in 1928-9, observing French painting at close range, it was only in the early 1930s that he began to develop his mature theories about how to paint landscapes in a modern style that both respected the two-dimensional surface of the canvas and could evoke landscape space. In contrast to the ‘window’ on invisible reality of prewar Analytical Cubism or Futurism, Davis’s planar works (see fig 14) essentially diagram the American landscape in a hard-edged, syncopated style that also owes something to the jazz piano rhythms he adored. However, it was Einstein and the literature on Relativity Theory that played a more fundamental role in the development of Davis’s mature theories and painting style. Fig 10. Girl Before a Mirror (Pablo Picasso 1932, oil on canvas, 162.3 x 130.2 cm). © 2025 Estate of Pablo Picasso / Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York. Photo: The Museum of Modern Art/licensed by SCALA / Art Resource, NY. Einstein had attracted Davis’s attention when the former visited the United States as a guest at Cal Tech during winter 1930-1 and 1931-2.[46] His visits triggered a barrage of journalistic coverage, inspiring the phrase in the verse of Herman Hupfeld’s ‘As Time Goes By’: ‘We get a trifle weary with Mr. Einstein’s theory’. Yet Davis was clearly not weary of Einstein’s theory in this period, and a clue to one of his specific sources occurs in a 1932 entry in his daybook (fig 11). One of Davis’s pages includes two diagrams, with the notations ‘when you draw this—you are drawing this rectan[gular] linear space, potentially’ and ‘you are drawing this angular direction, potentially, when you draw this’.[47] In his highly important popularization of Relativity Theory, The Mysterious Universe  (1930), James Jeans had drawn just such a diagram to illustrate the fusion of space and time in the new space-time world of Einstein (fig 12). At this moment Jeans’s diagram offered Davis a new avenue for configuring nature via angles and triangles, which he termed ‘angular variation’.[48] As Davis recorded above his own drawing,   From any given point the line moves in a two-dimensional space relative to all existing points […] Relativity, knowledge of this fact, and the ability to visualize logical correlatives of a given angle allows the artist to see  the real  angular value of his drawing as opposed to associative value.[49] Fig 11. Daybook drawing (Stuart Davis 1932). From Diane Kelder (ed), Stuart Davis (Praeger 1971) 55. Fig 12. Diagram to illustrate the motion of a train in space and time. From James Jeans, The Mysterious Universe (The Macmillan Co 1931) 108. When Davis used angular variation and triangles in paintings of 1932 such as Landscape with Garage Lights , his diagrammatic triangles also implied temporal associations through the model of Jeans’s space-time diagrams. Davis’s reliance on Jeans also helps to explain his statement that ‘a triangle could be analogous to a second of Time. The picture itself could be called a Duration of so many seconds of Time’.[50] Time would continue to be a central issue for Davis, although he would ultimately leave planar angular variation behind as a primary organizing element and pursue what he termed ‘color-space’.[51] While remaining committed to the two-dimensional surface of his paintings, Davis now followed Jeans up a dimension in order to create a logical space that would transcend the accidents of perception.[52] As Jeans had written following his space-time diagram, ‘We can imagine the three dimensions of space and one of time welded together, forming a four-dimensional volume, which we shall describe as a “continuum”’.[53] Indeed, Davis’s adoption of the hyphenated ‘color-space’ to describe his approach to space-making via colour suggests a deliberate response to the space-time continuum that was to become a conceptual touchstone for his painting.   When Davis painted Hot Still-Scape for Six Colors  in 1940 (fig 13), he wrote of the new kind of ‘reality’ the work embodied:   The painting is abstract in the sense that it is highly selective, and it is synthetic in that it recombines these selections of color and shape into a new unity, which never existed in Nature but is a new part of Nature. An analogy would be a chemical like sulphanilamide which is a product of abstract selection and synthetic combination, and which never existed before, but is none the less real and a new part of nature.[54]   In Jeans’s discussions of the space-time continuum Davis would have found support for his position in contemporary debates about abstract painting. Jeans explained that while it could be said that ‘the four-dimensional continuum is […] purely diagrammatic, […] because we can exhibit all nature within this framework, it must correspond to some sort of objective reality’.[55] Similarly, Davis argued in his 1945 ‘Autobiography’ that ‘through science the whole concept of what reality is has been changed. Science has achieved the most astounding ‘abstract’ compositions, completely ‘unnatural’, but none-the-less real’.[56] Fig 13. Hot Still-Scape for Six Colors—7th Avenue Style (Stuart Davis 1940, oil on canvas, 91.44 x 113.98 cm). The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Gift of the William H. Lane Foundation and the M. and M. Karolik Collection, by exchange. © 2025 Estate of Stuart Davis / Licensed by VAGA at Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York. Photo © 2025 The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Hot Still-Scape for Six Colors (subtitled 7th Avenue Style ) reflects Davis’s exuberant embrace of urban experience, including the ‘hot’ jazz rhythms that delighted him in and around his 7 th Avenue studio. He had considered several possible titles for the painting, including Contra-Rural Landscape  and Chemical Landscape , which make clear the work’s ‘abstract selection and synthetic combination’ of aspects of a city dweller’s experience—like the new sulfa ‘wonder drugs’. As listed by Davis, these included ‘Fruit and flowers; kitchen utensils; Fall skies, horizons, taxi cabs; radio; art exhibitions and reproductions; fast travel; Americana; movies; electric signs; dynamics of city sights and sounds; […]’.[57] Yet rather than depict such elements specifically Davis, as he subsequently explained, ‘introduced Time into Form by referring the immediate concrete shapes to more general shapes which have a much more extended existence in Time and Place’.[58]   Davis’s references here to ‘more general shapes’ as well as to ‘extended existence in Time and Place’—along with his mention in his 1940 text on Hot Still-Scape for Six Colors  of ‘a new unity’ which ‘is a new part of Nature’—all point to the centrality of ideas about the space-time continuum for Davis and, specifically, its interpretation as a ‘block universe’. Minkowski had formulated the four-dimensional space-time continuum in 1908 in order to unify the multiple frames of reference of individual observers after Einstein had made them relative in 1905, and he actually referred to his structure as an ‘absolute’ world.[59] With events in an individual’s existence redefined by Minkowski as ‘world-lines’ traversing this four-dimensional continuum, subsequent theorizing led to the conception of a ‘block universe’. In this interpretation, summarized by Jeans in The Mysterious Universe , the space-time continuum is understood as a four-dimensional geometric structure in which future events are already extant (and past events preserved), and an individual simply progresses through three-dimensional cross sections of the structure as time progresses.[60]   Eager to create a rationalized vision of nature, Davis wrote in 1933 of his recent paintings:   This series of pictures […] presents simultaneously that which is observed sequentially. It rationalizes vision and creates a new view of nature which is not entirely the accident of binocular vision.   In contrast to ordinary methods which present on a canvas observations made in time and are therefore to a degree unrelated, this system brings into one focus and one place, the past, present, and future events involved in the act of observation of any given subject.[61]   Or, as he asserted in 1943 of his paintings’ similarity to the space-time continuum’s fusion of the relative viewpoints of all observers: ‘The result is an objective coherence not obtained before in painting. […] The total quality of the design evokes a cosmological point of view for the observer’.[62]   After the 1941 publication of Giedion’s Space, Time and Architecture , Davis was operating as the primary contemporary American Cubist in an artistic context in which connections between Picasso and Einstein or Cubism and Relativity were regularly being drawn. Yet it was Davis—not Picasso—whose art theory and style owed a debt to Einstein’s theories. Davis believed his art was an accurate response to the ‘spirit of modern society, which in its progressive aspects is materialistic and scientific’.[63] Einstein and the four-dimensional space-time continuum of Relativity Theory thus served as an effective vehicle for Davis to fashion himself as a logical, scientific painter in the art world of New York, in which the far more subjective style of Abstract Expressionism was emerging by the late 1940s.   Implications for the Question of Modernism in Art and Science   During 1950-2 Marcel Duchamp and Davis, two artists who found rich stimulation in science (albeit pre-Einsteinian for Duchamp and Einsteinian for Davis) were both consulting editors for the New York journal Trans/formation . The periodical affirmed on its masthead that ‘art, science, technology are interacting components of the total human enterprise’ and that, contrary to the contemporary tendency to treat them in isolation, Trans/formation  would ‘cut across the arts and sciences by treating them as a continuum ’.[64] That motto is a good reminder that in the early twentieth century scientific discoveries such as X-rays, radioactivity, and the Hertzian waves of wireless telegraphy generated a vast amount of popular literature that made them readily accessible to the general public. Popularizations of Relativity, including those by Jeans and Arthur Eddington, also brought aspects of Einstein’s theories into public purview, but the increasingly mathematical orientation of physics—and especially quantum physics—gradually dampened the early twentieth-century sense that the layperson should and could grasp the latest science. No longer would articles on the newest science routinely appear in general interest magazines like Harper’s Monthly , as they had done in the early years of the century. Only the explosion of the atomic bomb in 1945 would turn the public’s attention once again to atomic science in the later 1940s and 1950s, but other themes—fear of the atom or its potential for good—would dominate such discussions, rather than the science itself.[65]   Even if its subjects were phenomena invisible to the human eye, ether physics was still visualizable to some degree, and it clearly inspired artists to attempt to paint windows onto a ‘meta-reality’ just beyond perception’s reach. As in Picasso’s Portrait of Kahnweiler or Boccioni’s Matter , it was an ethereal, spatially ambiguous, vibrating, and fluctuant realm of interpenetrating matter and space that was envisioned—supported by the model of continuity offered by the ether, Le Bon’s focus on dematerializing matter, and Bergson’s philosophy. Here the ‘fourth dimension’ was another sign of that higher reality: a suprasensible dimension of space, often linked to the ether, rather than a component of Einsteinian space-time. And in that earlier context painters regularly sought to give form to invisible energies and dimensions.   How different, then, are the flat, diagrammatic images of Davis with their hard-edged clarity and logic; they are not meant to be looked through , but stand instead as self-sufficient inscriptions, composed of discrete, discontinuous components. As noted earlier, Davis’s planar units derive stylistically from the prewar Synthetic Cubist collages and paintings of Picasso and Braque, which subsequently became standard fare in modern painting. However, those planes had nothing inherently to do with Einstein until Davis determined to use them as elements in a painting style that he believed could approximate the objectivity he identified with the space-time continuum as a ‘block universe’, free of the accidents of individual perception. With its forms transcending the specifics of observation at any given moment, works such as Hot Still-Scape for Six Colors accomplished Davis’s goal for painting, which he ultimately designated as ‘The Amazing Continuity’ (as he painted the phrase on his 1952 painting Visa ).[66] Rather than the ethereal continuity of Boccioni’s Unique Forms of Continuity in Space , however, continuity for Davis signified a new matrix of experience—the space-time continuum.[67]   Just as there is no single entity ‘modern art’, but rather the products of multiple artists on two sides of a major divide between 1900-19 and the 1920s-40s, the ‘science’ to which the artists responded in the two periods differed significantly. In the 1890s and the early years of the twentieth century, discoveries made in the context of the still-reigning ether physics excited the imaginations of cutting-edge artists of the era, but predated public knowledge of the science later considered to be ‘modern’, ie Relativity Theory. There was no zeitgeist  that meant that Picasso must have responded to Einstein. Instead, for artists, the concept of ‘science’ in any given year after 1905 signified a variety of exhilarating new ideas other than Relativity Theory—at least through World War I. Popular scientific writing, including by scientists like Lodge and popularizers like Le Bon, abounded in this period and served as the interface between the realms of art and science. We miss far too much of the richness of modernism when the simplistic tendency to link the two ‘banners’—Picasso and Einstein—impedes the historical recovery of that highly creative and complex moment in the early twentieth century. Linda Dalrymple Henderson Linda Dalrymple Henderson is the David Bruton, Jr. Centennial Professor in Art History, Emeritus at the University of Texas at Austin. Her research and teaching have focused on modern art in its broader cultural context, including ideas such as ‘the fourth dimension’, the history of science and technology, and mystical and occult philosophies. In addition to over eighty journal articles and essays in book and catalogues, she is the author of The Fourth Dimension and Non-Euclidean Geometry in Modern Art  (Princeton University Press 1983; new ed MIT Press 2013) and Duchamp in Context: Science and Technology in the Large Glass and Related Works  (Princeton University Press 1998).  [1] Pierre Cabanne, Dialogues with Marcel Duchamp  (Thames and Hudson 1971) 26. This essay is an updated version of a text of this title published in the catalogue for the 2012 exhibition The Moderns  at the Museum Moderner Kunst in Vienna, curated by Cathrin Pichler and Suzanne Neuberger. The discussion of Stuart Davis herein draws directly on the ‘Reintroduction’ I was then adding to the 2013 edition of my book The Fourth Dimension and Non-Euclidean Geometry in Modern Art (originally 1983). I am currently at work on a project titled ‘Ether and the Energies of Modernism: Art, Science, and Occultism in the Early Twentieth Century’. This new book recovers a crucial backdrop for the develop of modern art by tracking science as known to the public in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, including the prominent role of the ether of space both in its scientific and occult contexts. [2] Alfred H Barr Jr, What is Modern Painting? (The Museum of Modern Art 1943) 29. [3] For this phenomenon, see Linda Dalrymple Henderson, ‘Four-Dimensional Space or Space-Time? The Emergence of the Cubism-Relativity Myth in New York in the 1940s’ in Michele Emmer (ed), The Visual Mind II  (MIT Press 2004) 349-97, as well as typical texts such as Paul M Laporte, ‘The Space-Time Concept in the Work of Picasso’ (1948) 41 The Magazine of Art 26-32; Paul M Laporte, ‘Cubism and Science’ (1949) 7 The Journal of Aesthetics and Criticism 243-56. [4] For the principles and popularization of Relativity Theory, see eg Helge Kragh, Quantum Generations: A History of Atomic Physics in the Twentieth Century  (Princeton University Press 1999) 90-104. On the absence of significant interest in Special Relativity in France, where Henri Poincaré was the dominant figure of science, see Stanley Goldberg, Understanding Relativity: Origin and Impact of a Scientific Revolution  (Birkhäuser 1984) ch 7; Thomas Glick (ed), The Comparative Reception of Relativity  (D. Reidel Publishing Co 1987) 113-67. For a sampling of early responses to Einstein, see Linda Dalrymple Henderson, Duchamp in Context: Science and Technology in the Large Glass and Related Works  (Princeton University Press 1998) 234 n 19. [5] For these developments in late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century physics, see eg Kragh (n 4); PM Harman, Energy, Force, Matter: The Conceptual Development of Nineteenth-Century Physics  (Cambridge University Press 1982); Alex Keller, The Infancy of Atomic Physics: Hercules in His Cradle  (Clarendon Press 1983). I discuss the popularization of the work of the scientists listed here in Henderson (n 4) and in the book in progress. The public appeal of scientists like Crookes and Lodge was augmented by their openness to aspects of the occult; see the pioneering study by Richard Noakes, Physics and Psychics: The Occult and the Sciences in Modern Britain  (Cambridge University Press 2019). [6] Oliver Lodge, ‘Electric Theory of Matter’ ( Harper’s Monthly Magazine , August 1904) 383-9. On the ether, see eg Bruce J Hunt, ‘Lines of Force, Swirls of Ether’ in Bruce Clarke and Linda Dalrymple Henderson (eds), From Energy to Information: Representation in Science and Technology, Art, and Literature  (Stanford University Press 2002) 99-113; MJS Hodge and GN Cantor, Conceptions of Ether: A Study in the History of Ether Theories 1740-1900  (Cambridge University Press 1981); Harman (n 5). For a more recent discussion, see Jaume Navarro (ed), Ether and Modernity: The Recalcitrance of an Epistemic Object in the Early Twentieth Century  (Oxford University Press 2018), with its documentation of the ‘recalcitrance’ of the ether. Donald R Benson, ‘Facts and Fictions in Scientific Discourse: The Case of the Ether’ (1984) 38 The Georgia Review 825-37 remains a useful introduction to the ether in the cultural context of nineteenth-century science. [7] Oliver Lodge, The Ether of Space  (Harper & Brothers 1909) 104-5. [8] William Crookes, ‘Address by Sir William Crookes, President’ in Report of the Sixty-Eighth Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (1898) (John Murray 1899) 31. [9] For this history, see Linda Dalrymple Henderson, The Fourth Dimension and Non-Euclidean Geometry in Modern Art  (Princeton University Press 1983) ch 1. For a more extensive discussion, see Mark Blacklock, The Emergence of the Fourth Dimension: Higher Spatial Thinking in the Fin de Siècle (Oxford University Press 2018). [10] Balfour Stewart and Peter Guthrie Tait, The Unseen Universe, or Speculations on a Future State  (4 th  edn, Macmillan 1876) 221. [11] Charles Howard Hinton, The Fourth Dimension  (Swan Sonnenschein & Co 1904) 17-8. On the impact of the ideas on the fourth dimension and the ether propounded by Hinton as well as Stewart and Tait and their larger context, see Linda Dalrymple Henderson, The Fourth Dimension and Non-Euclidean Geometry in Modern Art  (MIT Press 2013) 2-7, 15-21; Henderson (n 9) ch 1. [12] On Relativity Theory, see Kragh (n 4) 90-104. [13] Henderson (n 11) 69-91. [14] Ramón Gómez de la Serna, ‘Completa y veridical historia de Picasso y el cubisme’ (1929) 25 Revista de Occidente 100. [15] Guillaume Apollinaire, The Cubist Painters: Aesthetic Meditations  (Wittenborn and Co 1944) 12. [16] Duchamp cites Jouffret in his notes for his Large Glass project, documenting the book’s presence in the Parisian avant-garde; see Marcel Duchamp, Salt Seller: The Writings of Marcel Duchamp  (Oxford University Press 1973) 89. On Princet’s much-debated role, which itself forms an interesting history, see eg Henderson (n 9) ch 2. Artist Tony Robbin has reconstructed the history of early attempts to model four-dimensional geometry and suggests further convincing comparisons between specific elements in Picasso’s Cubist works and Jouffret’s innovative technique in Tony Robbin, Shadows of Reality: The Fourth Dimension in Relativity, Cubism, and Modern Thought  (Yale University Press 2006) 29-33. [17] Henri Poincaré, La Science et l’hypothèse  (Flammarion 1902) 89-90. [18] ibid 72-73. See Henderson (n 9) ch 2. For Cubist theory in its larger context, see also Mark Antliff and Patricia Leighton, Cubism and Culture  (Thames & Hudson). [19] The discussion of X-rays and radioactivity that follows is presented in greater detail in Linda Dalrymple Henderson, ‘X Rays and the Quest for Invisible Reality in the Art of Kupka, Duchamp, and the Cubists’ (1988) 47 Art Journal 323-40; Linda Dalrymple Henderson, ‘Editor’s Introduction: I. Writing Modern Art and Science—An Overview; II. Cubism, Futurism, and Ether Physics in the Early 20th Century’ (2004) 17 Science in Context 447-50. [20] See eg Gustave Le Bon, ‘The Decay of Matter’ ( The Independent , 26 July 1906) 183-6. [21] On Bergson and Cubism, see again Antliff and Leighten (n 18). [22] Henri Bergson, Matter and Memory  (Zone Books 1988) 200-1. [23] ibid 196, 208. [24] Gilbert Boudar and Michel Décaudin, Catalogue de la bibliothèque de Guillaume Apollinaire  (Editions du CNRS 1983) 52. See Commandant Darget, Exposé des différentes méthodes pour l'obtention de photographies fluido-magnétiques et spirites: Rayons V (vitaux)  (Ed. de l'Inititation 1909). [25] For a fuller version of this case for the relevance of the ether for Picasso and prewar Parisian culture—and its documentation, see Linda Dalrymple Henderson, ‘Editor’s Introduction: I. Writing Modern Art and Science—An Overview; II. Cubism, Futurism, and Ether Physics in the Early 20th Century’ (2004) 17 Science in Context 448-53. For Picasso’s photography, see Anne Baldassari, Picasso and Photography: The Dark Mirror  (Flammarion 1997) eg figs. 83, 84, 109. [26] On this topic, see eg Navarro (n 6). Indexes such as the Reader’s Guide to Periodical Literature  document the continued public interest in the ether after 1919. [27] JJ Thomson, ‘Address by the President, Sir J. J. Thomson’ in Report of the Seventy-Ninth Meeting of the British Associaton for the Advancement of Science (1909)  (John Murray 1910) 15. [28] Esther Coen, Umberto Boccioni  (The Metropolitan Museum of Art 1988). On Boccioni, see Linda Dalrymple Henderson, ‘Vibratory Modernism: Boccioni, Kupka, and the Ether of Space’ in Clarke and Henderson (n 6) and, for a fuller discussion, Linda Dalrymple Henderson, ‘Umberto Boccioni’s Elasticity, Italian Futurism, and the Ether of Space’ in Navarro (n 6). [29] Umberto Boccioni, Dynamisme plastique: peinture et sculpture futuriste (L'Age d'Homme 1975) 105. [30] ibid. [31] Robert Kennedy Duncan, The New Knowledge  (A. S. Barnes 1905) 5. [32] Coen (n 28) 239. [33] Umberto Boccioni et al, Futurist Manifestos  (Viking Press 1973) 89. [34] Linda Dalrymple Henderson, ‘Vibratory Modernism: Boccioni, Kupka, and the Ether of Space’ in Clarke and Henderson (n 6). [35] Wassily Kandinsky, ‘On the Spiritual in Art’ in Complete Writings on Art  (Da Capo 1994) 142, 197. For a fuller discussion of Kandinsky, see Linda Dalrymple Henderson, ‘Abstraction, the Ether, and the Fourth Dimension: Kandinsky, Mondrian, and Malevich in Context’ ( Interalia , November 2020) < https://www.interaliamag.org/articles/linda-dalrymple-henderson-abstraction-the-ether-and-the-fourth-dimension-kandinsky-mondrian-and-malevich-in-context/ > accessed 16 August 2025. [36] Kandinsky cites both Flammarion and Crookes in a footnote in On the Spiritual in Art , see Kandinsky (n 35) 143. On Kandinsky's interest in Flammarion, Baraduc, and Rochas, as well as Crookes, whose writings were regularly translated in France, see eg Sixton Ringbom, The Sounding Cosmos: A Study in the Spiritualism of Kandinsky and the Genesis of Abstract Painting  (Abo Akademi 1970) 51-5, 122-3. A copy of Darget's book—owned also by Apollinaire, see (n 24)—is in the Nina Kandinsky archive in the Bibliothèque Kandinsky, Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris. While Kandinsky knew the 1901 book Thought-Forms by Theosophists Annie Besant and CW Leadbeater (who cite Baraduc), his belief in the coming ‘epoch of the Great Spiritual’ and the role his art could play in that process drew significantly on the Anthroposophy of Rudolf Steiner, as documented in Long 1980. For Kandinsky’s paintings of this period, see the excellent Museum of Modern Art exhibition catalogue: Magdalena Dabrowksi (ed), Kandinsky: Compositions (The Museum of Modern Art 1995). [37] For a further discussion of Baraduc, Rochas, and Houston, see Henderson (n 34) 140-2; Henderson (n 35). [38] Duchamp (n 16) 49, 125. See Henderson (n 4), on which this paragraph is based. For a concise overview of the science Duchamp engaged, see Linda Dalrymple Henderson, ‘The Large Glass  Seen Anew: Reflections of Science and Technology in Marcel Duchamp’s “Hilarious Picture”’ (1999) 32(2) Leonardo 113-26. [39] Duchamp (n 16) 42. [40] See ibid 74-101. [41] For the artists’ responses to Einstein here and in the following two paragraphs, see Linda Dalrymple Henderson, ‘Einstein and 20th-Century Art: A Romance of Many Dimensions’ in Peter Galison, Gerald Holton, and Silvan S Schweber (eds), Einstein for the 21 st Century (Princeton University Press 2008) 101-29. On Moholy-Nagy and Duchamp in this context, see Henderson (n 11) 35-42. [42] See Maud Lavin, Cut with the Kitchen Knife: The Weimar Photomontages of Hannah Hôch  (Yale University Press 1993). [43] Salvador Dali, The Collected Writings of Salvador Dali  (Haim Finkelstein ed, Cambridge University Press 1998) 229. [44] ibid 272. [45] André Breton, Le Surréalisme et la peinture  (Brentano’s 1945) 152. For an excellent study of Surrealism and science, including both Einstein and quantum physics, see Gavin Parkinson, Surrealism, Art, and Modern Physics  (Yale University Press 2007). [46] Ronald W Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times  (World Publishing 1971) 426-35, 444-5. [47] Diane Kelder (ed), Stuart Davis  (Praeger 1971) 55. [48] ibid. [49] ibid. [50] ibid 58. [51] See eg John R Lane, Stuart Davis: Art and Theory  (The Brooklyn Museum 1978) 66. [52] See ibid 28. [53] James Jeans, The Mysterious Universe  (The Macmillan Co 1931) 109. [54] Stuart Davis, ‘Stuart Davis’ (1940) 12 Parnassus 6. [55] Jeans (n 53) 109. [56] Kelder (n 47) 30. [57] Davis (n 54) 6. [58] Lane (n 51) 17-8. [59] Eddington echoes that language in his talk of the space-time continuum as an ‘absolute world-structure’; see Arthur S Eddington, The Nature of the Physical Universe  (The Macmillan Co 1929) 62. [60] Jeans (n 53) 127-8. [61] Lane (n 51) 28. [62] Lane (n 51) 57. [63] ibid 66. [64] 1 Trans/formation: Arts, Communication, Environment, A World Review (1950) inside front cover. [65] On this subject, see eg Paul Boyer, By Bomb’s Early Light: American Thought and Culture at the Dawn of the Atomic Age  (The University of North Carolina Press 1994). [66] For further discussion of the ‘Amazing Continuity’, which to date has always been interpreted in purely art historical terms (following a 1952 comment to Alfred Barr by Davis), see Henderson (n 11) 27-34. [67] While a shift away from the fluidity suggestive of the ether characterizes modern painting after Cubism, Futurism, and Kandinsky of the 1910s, artists like Duchamp and Russian Suprematist Kazimir Malevich engaged the ether but adopted hard-edge, diagrammatic styles. On the ether-related aspects of the Large Glass , see Henderson (n 4) ch 8. As I have argued elsewhere, Malevich's interest in ‘cuts’ through a plane or space of a lower dimension followed Charles Howard Hinton's association of such planes / spaces with a fluid film analogous to the ether, an argument reiterated by PD Ouspensky in his Tertium Organum (1911), a book well known to the Russian avant-garde. On this subject, see Henderson (n 35); for a basic discussion of Malevich (sans ether), see Henderson (n 9) ch 5.

Dr Alison Gilliland was Dublin’s 353rd Lord Mayor in 2021/2022. She is currently a Dublin City Councillor for the Labour Party, representing her local area of Artane / Whitehall and works as a facilitator, advisor, and researcher. Her community-oriented council work is underpinned by her previous experience as a training and equality officer for her trade union, the Irish National Teachers’ Organisation. CJLPA : Dublin has had a mayor for nearly 800 years. How do you view your role as mayor this year? Dr Alison Gilliland : The role of mayor this year is a particularly pertinent one in the sense that we're transitioning out of a global pandemic. And then suddenly, we have the dark cloud of a war in Ukraine. So it's a year with lots of ups and downs. When I was elected in June, I had three priorities: the sustainable recovery of our city, giving visibility to women and girls, and housing. I chose those three because they were issues in our city, like other cities around the world that are trying to recover from COVID, but they also speak to the global perspective—of the climate crisis, for example. Firstly, COVID gave us great opportunities here in Dublin to accelerate some of the plans we had, particularly with regard to active travel and mobility. You might see a huge increase in cycling infrastructure around the city. That change took place over a couple of months, to allow people greater space to walk around and to cycle, conscious that people didn't want to get on public transport, but also conscious at the back of our head that we need to keep people less dependent on private cars. So there's an element of human and community recovery as well one of climate resilience. Women, secondly, because globally women are not equal partners at the decision-making table. I'm only the 10th female Lord Mayor of Dublin City. The 10th in the last 80 years, because our first female was in 1939. So I'm very conscious of that gender imbalance. Also, from the perspective of urban planning and development, we need to have both views. How women move around the city and their experiences of work, culture, and recreation are very different to those of men. And finally housing. We have a massive housing crisis in the country, but more so in Dublin as our capital city and biggest urban centre. We have people struggling to make rent, and people who would like to buy their own home but can’t, due to lack of supply. We’re seeing an excess of ‘build-to-rent’ development, generally funded by investment funds demanding very high rents. That has a financial impact on people's ability to live and work in the city, and a knock-on impact on our domestic economy. The question is: how can we square that circle? We do as a city have responsibility for the provision of what we call social housing, housing for people under a certain income threshold. While we don't technically have a responsibility for the provision of housing for those above that threshold, we're very conscious of those at a middle income that are struggling, so we've taken it upon ourselves to build cost-rentals: lower rent, not-for-profit rentals on public land. They're the three big issues for me. And, of course, other issues pop up during the course of the year. One of the issues that has come up for me is the high level of street issues: on-street homelessness, on-street addiction and substance misuse, and on-street safety. CJLPA : You said earlier that ‘we only have a responsibility for social housing, but have taken on developing cost-rentals on public lands’ to ameliorate the housing crisis. Who is ‘we’? Is that the Dublin City Council? AG : Yes, it's the Council. At the national level, the Minister for Housing, Local Governments, and Planning produced legislation that allows for what we call cost-rentals. As a local authority, we own some of the public land in Dublin City, with other public land owned by state bodies or the Office of Public Works. What we are doing on some of our larger developments is mixing social with cost-rental. I think one of the reasons we have got into a situation where we have so little housing stock in public ownership is because we've had a scheme whereby local authority tenants could buy out their local authority rental house. We've ‘lost’ 25,000 units because of that and I'm very concerned about the long term. We have people now paying very high rents. My question is: what will happen to those people when they retire and they take a significant drop in their income? They won’t be able to afford those rents. We need to build and increase our housing stock so that we have a cushion there for that eventuality down the line. We also need to increase our stock to accommodate those on social housing waiting lists. As a state, I believe we have a responsibility to help those who can’t afford housing because we need sustainable communities. If we don't have sustainable mixed income communities, we're going to get different ghettos and communities isolated from each other. CJLPA : How has Russia’s invasion of Ukraine impacted Dublin? AG : We now have refugees arriving in the city every single night. We have established several ‘resting centres’ with the civil defence and housing section, where we look after them for 24 or 48 hours until they're allocated somewhere for accommodation. That's our role at the moment. I can see that developing into the provision of housing and also integration. I’m conscious that most of the families are women and children, who will need schools, and involvement in local community activities. They are safe here, but probably suffering trauma and we need to figure out how we can best support the manifestation of that trauma. CJLPA : You have been a Dublin City Councillor from 2014 to 2021. Over those seven years, which of Dublin’s issues have grown in salience and which have shrunk? AG : What has particularly grown in importance is the climate crisis. Every report that we get is worse. The national government does have a Climate Action Plan, which is very good in the sense that it sets out very clear objectives. But I don't feel that we are doing enough. I don't feel a sense of urgency from some of the actors at a national level. So for ourselves at council, it's our responsibility, and my responsibility as Lord Mayor, to push that agenda. The climate lens permeates everything I do. For example, in the sustainable COVID recovery, we’re concerned with accessibility in the city, permeability in the city, walking, and cycling. This ensures sustainability, but also enhances the quality of our air. I’m old enough to remember smog in Dublin clinging to your clothes. We've come a long way, but we still have a long way to go. We also need to be more conscious of greening our city, not only from the carbon and climate change perspective, but also in terms of quality of life and the aesthetics in the city. We started a pilot to pedestrianise some of our streets. We have two main areas that are pedestrianised, and a third one which we trialled on weekend evenings last summer. That is now going to be made permanent. This should really enhance the city. What we hope to do is have people arrive into the city by Connolly Station, which is our north-south access, and be able to walk at least five kilometres in a pedestrianised or traffic-free area. That will give great accessibility to the city, a lovely sense of flow, and a sort of added ambience. CJLPA : The Dublin City Development Plan 2022-2028, and the development strategy of other cities such as Paris, emphasise the ‘15 minute city’. Can you speak to the significance of this? AG : Yes. What the idea of the ‘15 minute city’ will do for Dublin is make us focus on creating communities that have all the services they require within a 15 minute walk, cycle, or journey by public transport. There are two challenges in that. Obviously, it's about reducing your carbon footprint by limiting the need for private transport, but it's also about growing communities and bringing people back together. I think we all saw that during COVID lockdowns, with small enterprises developing within local communities. The challenges we have in this respect are getting more people to live in the city centre, because that's where a lot of the employment is, and getting employment into local communities. We now need to be more conscious of the balance between employment opportunities and housing. We can’t build residential units and housing on every single piece of land we have and take every piece of land, because it's more than houses. You need community infrastructure, recreation, and employment. One of the issues I'm working on is over-the-shop vacancy, or what we call upper floor vacancy. I hosted an online summit just before Christmas, where we brought in a lot of the stakeholders, owners of some of those buildings, architects, developers, and businesses, to identify what the key challenges were. There are challenges around planning requirements. But one of the biggest challenges is that those who own them are not motivated to go through the pain of planning, financing, and regenerating the floors of the shop. In a lot of cases, they don't need the income. Many of the owners don't even live in Dublin. So that is a challenge. We have a few ideas of how we might partner with private developers and owners to help regenerate those upper floors because they're such a valuable resource. We can't demolish and rebuild everything. We need to be sustainably ‘recycling’ these buildings, reusing them and not releasing any more carbon into the atmosphere. CJLPA : Do you compare Dublin to other cities? And if so, are they other Irish cities, other EU capital cities, or global cities? AG : I consider Dublin a European capital city. The size of our country and the size of our capital is similar to Denmark, one of the smaller European countries. Every city, particularly Dublin, has its own unique characteristics, but we do aspire to be one of the leading European capital cities and I think we're well respected. Tourists love Dublin because of its unique character and the people. Dublin people make Dublin. And we have similar challenges to other European countries with regard to climate, housing, resilience, and post-COVID recovery. So there are a lot of similarities, but Dublin has its own unique context. One of the things that really struck me this year was the reaction from Dubliners to outdoor dining. We don't have a tradition of outdoor dining in Dublin because of the climate, but with COVID we introduced outdoor dining as a way of enabling the hospitality industry to get back on its feet while there were still restrictions on eating indoors. We doubled the number of seats and tables in an outdoor space in the city in a couple of weeks. And I think that that atmosphere, along with the pedestrianisation of a lot of the streets, has really increased the European vibe in the city. I know a lot of people have fed it back to me and said the city now feels like those modern European capital cities. You have it in Paris, and it rains in Paris as well. I think we don't mind sitting outside, under the heater, with coats on. It's an element of the city that we can then enjoy. CJLPA : How has COVID impacted Dublin? AG : No more than any other European city. We've lost businesses, particularly in the hospitality sector because they suffered most from the lockdown and the restrictions. I wouldn’t say we ‘lost’ our arts and culture and industry, but they really, really suffered. I think that had a two-fold impact on us. We realised how central arts and culture are to our well-being, and the balance that we need in every community within our city. Previously, there was focus on the city centre and on people coming into what we call ‘town’ to go for a bite to eat, go to the theatre or cinema. COVID exposed the dependence the city centre had on workers coming in every day for retail, for hospitality, and for culture. When they weren't there, communities in the periphery of the city were flourishing because everybody was located at home in their own area. And the city centre was vacant and empty. That has given us a real impetus to work harder on upper floor vacancies, for example, to get more people living in the city. CJLPA : Why are arts and culture important to communities? AG : I suppose it's the coming together of the community. Even though you may not know most of the people in the cinema, everybody laughs at the same thing. It's that sharing. As there can be such a focus on academia, and business, and the economy, people tend to forget the importance of people who work and thrive in the arts, how we as humans thrive through the arts. One of our challenges is to find more arts and culture spaces. Because it's not a business as such, it's hard to make a profit that will allow you to pay the high rents. When we came out of lockdown just after my election last year, myself and the head of city recovery approached some of the big landlords on our main retail shopping street, Grafton Street, where they had vacant commercial space, and asked them if they would give us the space for six months at a very cheap rent, where we could experiment with pop ups. Whether that be arts workshops or the circular economy and upcycling, to see what people would react to, what they wanted in a space, and at the same time create footfall. CJLPA : Where, and in what way, is Dublin’s local art and culture under threat? AG : We’re particularly conscious of ‘The Liberties’, Dublin 8. We’ve had a significant amount of applications for build-to-rent. We’re looking at thousands of new apartments. But it’s also one of the areas that has the fewest green spaces. We’re in favour of preserving green spaces for recreational use. If we’re going to be true to the concept of a 15-minute city, you should also be able to walk to your local football pitch to play, or your local club. So there’s always a tension around use of land. The other challenge we have is where private owners develop older buildings that might have a cultural space in them. One earlier this year was called the Cobblestone which, for all intents and purposes, is a pub. But it’s bigger than that! It has rooms for people to learn to play Irish traditional music or take Irish language classes. It brings people together for that Irish cultural space, and you just can’t recreate that. That was going to be demolished, and a hotel built on it, but planning wasn’t given. We’ve written a compromise into our Development Plan: where a cultural space is going to be redeveloped, the size of the cultural space has to be retained and recreated as far as possible. One of our problems, in the interaction between national and local, is that we have no definition of ‘cultural spaces’ in national legislation. So for some, as in this case, a pub was a cultural space, even though that would generally come under hospitality. The other is the architecture of the place. These new shiny buildings are beautiful, but it's almost like we’re sanitising the city. We have to be conscious to retain what makes Dublin City’s character and hold onto some of those old buildings. We have a beautiful theatre, Smock Alley Theatre, and we’re in the process of reclaiming that as a municipal theatre space. We have the old school of music off Grafton Street, which is vacant at the moment. In our Development Plan, we’re looking at how we can best use that space. We’re giving it over to artists for temporary use, but questions remain in the long term. Should we use it as a museum? My preference would be using it for something that’s more interactive. That could be science, tech, or arts, but the aim would be something that people can actually go in and interact with, instead of just passively looking. My underlying principle when it comes to developing our city is: if it works for Dubliners, it’ll work for tourists alike. I think there was an over-emphasis during the early 2000’s on the tourist economy. We’re creating an experience in the city for tourists without thinking about our own Dubliners who need experience. Another challenge is that our public cultural experiences like museums all close at six, which isn’t always accessible to families with children or workers. We hosted an exhibition at the Round Room of the Mansion House this past summer open until eight o’clock, and the public reception towards this showed these opening hours are more accessible. CJLPA : In an architectural sense, how do you balance progress with culture and heritage? AG : We have a scheme called ‘Protected Structures’, according to which we are conscious of buildings with a particular architectural, social, or historical value. Once they're included in that record of protected structures, the physical and cultural integrity of those buildings has to be preserved. In some cases, planning would just require the façade to be retained, whilst the inside can be regenerated in a more modern way. Other times it’s the integrity of the entire building, including the contents. That's probably the best way that we can retain our cultural and social architectural heritage. CJLPA : Who puts structures on that protective list? AG : We retain the list. Anyone can apply and say ‘let's save this building, we think this building is of significant architectural heritage’. You make an application, then it is assessed by heritage officers in the Council. Every building has some sort of architecture, culture, or social value to it. It is a balancing act, since you have to ensure you’re not blocking a huge amount of modern development, but we're very conscious of the need to preserve our cultural and architectural heritage. CJLPA : How does a city facing a housing crisis balance the rapid delivery of houses with social infrastructure? AG : We use our Development Plan. In this Plan, we have certain criteria with regard to social and community infrastructure. For example, our Development Plan requires a childcare or creche facility for every X number of residential units. There are requirements in some of our zonings for 20% of the land to be used for public open space. It's not always easy. Take schools, for example: the Department of Education decides where schools are. If we own the land we can work with them, but where private owners own the land this isn’t possible. One of the difficulties we have run into is that the Department of Education doesn't take account of the 15-minute city or sustainability. They look at a five kilometre radius, but you cannot walk five kilometres, and you probably couldn't cycle it if you're a young kid. Again, it's trying to align national and local parameters. CJLPA : Dublin is a short city, slow to incorporate skyscrapers. But are they a viable solution to the housing crisis? AG : We've been gradually moving to higher buildings in the city. Our docklands are a wonderful example of height when it's well planned. I think that there's an aesthetic ‘skyline’ consideration. There are questions with regard to them being the solution to residential needs. I'm not sure about that. There is a cost: the higher you build, the more expensive it is. And with regard to our own fire safety requirement, once you pass a specific height, you then have to increase your fire safety installation requirements. There's also the energy concern as regards the installation of lifts up and down. There's a lot to consider there. We have some very high-density areas that are low; height doesn't necessarily give you density. The other consideration is the amount that a residential skyscraper would cost either to buy or rent. We have a lot of very high end, high buildings that are financially inaccessible to those who need housing. While developers will say ‘I want to build a 42 storey residential building that will provide X amount of residential units’, my question is: well, how much will they cost through rent? Because if it's more than 30-40% of somebody's disposable income, it's not going to serve the city. CJLPA : What would be some popular misconceptions about solutions to the housing crisis? AG : That there is a solution. It's very, very nuanced. We do have to build, but planning regulations can inhibit this. The new, special planning policy requirements that were brought in nationally, which superseded our development plan, particularly with regard to height, have held up so many planning applications. With regard to social housing, we have to jump through hoops with the Department of Housing when we're building. It takes about a year and a half to go through that application process with them. The big challenge now is how to build sustainably. The war in Ukraine has created difficulties with international trade and prices of construction products have increased. There is a difficulty finding people now to work on construction. So there are lots of factors and no one simple solution, except just build! And build sustainably. This interview was conducted by Kylie Quinn, who was born in Dallas, Texas, and studies Law and Political Science (LLB) at Trinity College Dublin. Focusing her final year on Law, Sustainability, and Finance, she will graduate in 2023.

Manuel Rabaté is Director of Louvre Abu Dhabi. He has taught Arts & Cultural Management at Paris-Dauphine University and Paris-Sorbonne University Abu Dhabi. He is a Knight of France’s National Order of Merit.   Dr Souraya Noujaim is Scientific, Curatorial & Collections Management Director of Louvre Abu Dhabi. She has studied the British Museum’s Arabic weights and measures, and has been Islamic Art History Chair at the École du Louvre.   Louvre Abu Dhabi sits at a tense but enriching cultural crossroads. The museum brings the name of France’s most treasured cultural institution to the desert of the United Arab Emirates. The museum is innovative but its geopolitical context is difficult: a background of continuous government negotiations, and the cultural friction between East and West. The institution’s Director, Manuel Rabaté, and Curatorial Director, Dr Souraya Noujaim, discussed their creative vision and difficulties with honesty.   CJLPA : Louvre Abu Dhabi arose in 2017 out of a 2007 agreement between France and the UAE. What was the intention behind the agreement?   Manuel Rabaté : This agreement was extraordinarily visionary. You cannot read it in isolation. It was part of a master plan to make Abu Dhabi an important international centre of knowledge, education, sustainability, and tourism. It was made in tandem with other agreements that led to Sorbonne Abu Dhabu, Berkley Abu Dhabi, New York University Abu Dhabi, Zayed University and National Museum, and Guggenheim Abu Dhabi. Tourism was undoubtedly an important motive. The government of Abu Dhabi was keen to ensure diversification of economic assets, and found that strong investment in its educational and cultural fibre was an excellent way of achieving this. The UAE federation dates only to 1971, but the place has a rich, much older heritage. The UAE wants to preserve this and create a cultural legacy. There is much more there than just the sun.   The community is built on other institutions and ideals too. Many of the buildings in which Abu Dhabi’s cultural institutions sit have been designed by Western architects, and many institutions bear Western names. But they are not necessarily extensions of Western points of view and ways of doing things. A key part of the vision behind Louvre Abu Dhabi, as well as the wider cultural objectives of the Abu Dhabi government, was to promote a universal story. Much like the British Museum in London and the Louvre in Paris are not museums of British art or French art, Louvre Abu Dhabi is place where you invite the world to come and see how you perceive human interconnectedness. We want to tell the story of the world through artworks and objects of beauty, at the same time raising points about Arab identity and the interaction of East and West. This may sound like a cliché, but I mean it truly.   CJLPA : What are your goals as Director?   MR : My mission as Director can be structured around four pillars, which chime with what my view of what a museum is. First, I want to focus on the building itself and its surroundings. We have an incredible, delicate building on the sea. It is a challenge to maintain, but I take pride in being its custodian and improving its health and accessibility.

As described by The Arts Desk , Dr Laura Bowler is ‘ a triple threat composer-performer-provocatrice ’ . She is the vocalist in Ensemble Lydenskab, and as a composer she has been commissioned by orchestras and ensembles across the globe. She is a Tutor in Composition at the Royal Northern College of Music and Lecturer in Composition at Guildhall School of Music and Drama.   I interviewed Dr Laura Bowler on the evolving relationship between music and politics through the captivating, yet sometimes overlooked sphere of contemporary experimental music.   Bowler really is one of kind. Described by The Arts Desk as a ‘triple threat composer-performer-provocatrice’,[1] she is a renowned composer, vocalist and artistic director, specialising in theatre, multidisciplinary work and opera. Her works have been performed by some of the world’s leading ensembles, including the BBC Symphony Orchestra, London Philharmonic Orchestra and the Manchester Camerata. Bowler is also a Tutor in Composition at the Royal Northern College of Music, where she invites her students to also explore the unique fusion between music and theatre in the realm of contemporary experimental music. However, it is Bowler’s utilisation of pressing political topics as central themes for her music—including climate change, social media and political ‘slacktivism’—which were the prime sources of intrigue in this illuminating dialogue. Indeed, by incorporating brash and provocative theatrical techniques, Bowler urges her audiences to subsequently reflect on the issues she presents to them. In our discussion, I invited Bowler to consider the mechanics by which compositional praxis and the production and consumption of new music can act as political intervention. By placing special emphasis on her two most notable works, Antarctica and FFF  (Freeze, Flight, Fight), Bowler addresses the complex dialectic between content and form, unpicking the functions that compositional intervention and dissemination can offer political objectives. Especially in the realm of contemporary experimental music, where her target audience may seem narrow, Bowler also considers the limits and challenges faced when mobilising musical material for social change.   Before unpacking her music, I was intrigued to hear about Bowler’s rather unique educational background. Born in Staffordshire, Bowler first studied Saxophone at the Royal Northern College of Music as an undergraduate, before switching to Composition after a term because of stage fright. This is ironic, of course, since she performs in all her musical projects. However, it was not until her master’s studies at the Royal Academy of Music in London that theatre started to play a central role in her work. After coming across the provocative Theatre of Cruelty  manifesto by the French dramatist Antonin Artaud, she made the text the focal point in her master’s thesis: ‘It made such an impact on me because of Artaud’s desire to search for the real  and the raw  in performers’. Experiences outside of music college at the   time further fuelled her passion for the theatrical, including a trip to the National Theatre in Warsaw to watch a production of Sarah Kane’s 4.48 Psychosis  . Language barrier notwithstanding (the play was translated into Polish), it was the physicality of the performance that moved Bowler above all else. Indeed, she ‘could not believe the level of sacrifice of these performers, and what they were giving and sharing’.   ‘How can I find this  in the western Classical music tradition?’ It was this question, Bowler asserts, which became the focal point of her doctoral work. Finding any solutions to this puzzle proved challenging. Despite Bowler’s passion for theatre, she had not received any formal training in theatre or drama. To overcome this barrier, she embarked on a theatre master’s degree at the Royal Academy of the Dramatic Arts (RADA), a move which, for Bowler, was fundamental to where her work is now.   The wonderful thing about the course [at RADA] was that not only did you get incredible training on how to facilitate rehearsals and facilitate a room and a psychology of a room, but you also got physical theatre training from the Theatre Ensemble Course there. I studied Grotowski theatre—very much linked to my work on Artaud at conservatoire—and focused on physicality and the ‘raw’ in performance and pushing my body to the extreme.   This passion for physicality is not only transferred to her work but also in her composition teaching. At the Royal Northern College of Music, Bowler leads a ‘Physicality and Performance’ course. By introducing her students to ‘Jerzy Grotowski theatre’ (which aims for complete integration of the actor’s mental and physical senses to reveal the core substance of a character) and the ‘Stanislavski Technique’ (a system comprising various techniques designed to allow actors to create and embody believable characters), Bowler is constantly questioning her students (an ‘interrogation’ method, she jokes) to find their true ‘rawness’.   This approach is perhaps similar to how theatre directors work today: Constantly questioning their actors, their motivations within the character, so that they then can reflect back on that, and find what it is they are ‘doing’ but not quite ‘doing accurately ’.   It was after her ‘fundamental’ studies in the Dramatic Arts that Bowler’s urge to write political works came about. She realised that abstract music on its own terms was not a strong enough vehicle to fully communicate the true human experience of the world; a composition could, therefore, be ‘directed’ if it wants to be. However, it was actually during her final years of her undergraduate degree when she first gained an interest in moulding her works around sociopolitical issues and, more importantly, in using her unique compositional idiom to convey a fully human experience. Bowler wrote a work on her experience of anorexia as part of a collaboration with the BBC playwright Lavinia Murray. Bowler toured this very human work round schools in her hometown in Staffordshire where, before performing the piece, she would also talk to students about her experiences of anorexia. This was especially provocative at the time, because she was still ill. This compositional ethos—that of writing music based on personal experiences which, subsequently, invites her audiences to reflect on their own actions—pervades her writing today.   I was very much doing it because this was my experience of the world, and that was what I was using to create this work. This certainly became the starting point for this need to communicate about the human experience in a more direct way than what was possible with ‘abstract music’.   This forms the crux of one of her most significant works, Antarctica , an immersive multimedia work for orchestra and   vocalist which was co-commissioned by the Manchester Camerata and BBC Radio 3. As suggested by the title, it is the pressing issue of climate change which takes pride of place in this piece. Before writing, Bowler realised that, like most people in privileged populations, her view of climate change was too obscure, preventing her from creating a truly personal, provocative work. So, in order to overcome this limitation, she embarked upon a voyage to Antarctica. While sailing, she recorded videos and took audio samples which, upon writing the work, were manipulated and juxtaposed to create an evocative ‘soundscape’ work. By essentially bringing back her experience of this environment that so few people get to experience first-hand, Bowler’s immersive experience persuades her audiences to reflect on this beautiful, fragile landscape, ‘so that it remains that way’. This is especially the case with the work’s ‘dark turn’.   The flipside of the work is the politics surrounding climate change and the manipulation of governments, the presentation and rejection of climate laws, and the use of text from the media and politicians. That complete juxtaposition with this beauty and landscape was important. The point of it all was to allow audiences to wallow in that beauty, only to be hit by the grotesqueness of the reality and our ignorance.   What do audiences themselves think? For Bowler, discussions with her listeners—or more accurately, ‘spectators’—are crucial for understanding whether the messages conveyed were powerful enough that they then felt the need to take action. These engagements have clearly stuck with Bowler, and she seems surprised by the things she has been told or asked. For example, after Antarctica , an elderly couple approached her, since they had also visited Antarctica, but on a cruise ship.   They were saying that ‘we did not see any rubbish when we were there, and we didn’t see any of the things that you described’. I then told them that the areas a cruise ship ventures in are obviously maintained for tourism, thus explaining the differences of our own experiences. Yet, because their experience of Antarctica was so pure and untainted, they almost could not accept what I had presented to them. It ruined their memory of it, which was very interesting.   The question Bowler seems to be asked most often is this: what new solutions is she presenting in her works? This question is certainly relevant here, especially since we are exploring this work through the lens of political action. Certainly, the theatrical elements embedded in her work imbibe connotations of protest. However, Bowler simply sees her unique musical idiom—her responsiveness to the ‘indirectness’ she perceives in pure abstract music—as a vessel to encourage audiences to simply reflect on the issues at hand and take action.   I don’t have the solutions. I’m not a scientist. Audiences experiencing this piece should then go home and think a little bit more about it. It takes them one step further on their path to acknowledging climate change and doing their individual bit towards it. That is what I see my role as here.   Bowler is excited to be addressing climate change again in a work provocatively titled temperatures aren’t what they used to be , which she is currently writing for the London Sinfonietta as part of a collaboration with play-writer Cordelia Lynn, theatre director Katie Mitchell, and documentary filmmaker Grant Gee. In stark contrast to Antarctica , the work centres on the issues of climate denial and climate psychology, inspired by responses she received on the subject by people completing a questionnaire.   It is a very individual experience. It does not really concern science or facts, but it’s about the process of going ‘OK, climate change is a thing, what does that mean? What can I maybe do as an individual?’ It is quite broad with regards to the spectrum of responses I got. Some people are activists, others do not do anything, and some recycle but drive an SUV. As you can see, this is a hugely complex topic, which is what I want to explore here.   Alongside her interest in global warming, Bowler’s works also address the problems associated with political ‘slacktivism’. This is an informal term which the Oxford Dictionary defines as ‘the practice of supporting a political or social cause by means such as social media or online petitions, characterised as involving very little effort or commitment’.[2] Some of her frustrations are addressed by her most physical work, FFF  (Freeze, Flight and Fight) for ensemble and vocalist, co-commissioned by BBC Radio 3 and the Huddersfield Contemporary Music Festival.   I came to write this piece because, like everyone else, I was on social media and sharing various things that were making me angry, and I was getting very involved in very heated conversations online, which were generally not very helpful for either party. I realised the physical  impact it was having on me, that although the existence of social media is one step removed from reality, it was affecting me so much on a really physical level.   What has this got to do with ‘Freeze, Flight, Fight’, a phrase which describes our instinctive and physiological response to danger? Well, while thinking about the physical effect on social media, she came across an article concerning the relationship between ‘Freeze, Flight, and Fight’ and politics, in relation to how one behaves in relation to political news. Bowler was intrigued and decided to write a work which conveyed this paralysing physical response to social media.   Like most of her works, moulding these very physical ideas into music comes with many challenges. One big obstacle to overcome is the fact that Bowler herself performs all of her music. Indeed, she sings through her pieces before writing them, which substantially aids the compositional process. I asked Bowler a question many have asked her before, namely whether she would ever give her pieces to someone else to perform. She replied with a firm ‘no’. Perhaps, Bowler states, she would consider it at some point, but would want to be present in the rehearsal process. It is clear how attached she is to her music, given that the messages reflected emanate from her own experiences. Audiences, therefore, are moved by such authentic, visceral projections of these messages, and are perhaps inclined to reflect on what they have just witnessed.   What about the players she works with? While watching FFF , I was immediately struck by how physical the orchestra was. Not only did the complexity of the instrumental texture lead to extremely gestural playing, but the players themselves were required to act at times and make various vocalisations. This is all very demanding, but Bowler’s training in Theatre Directing is a crucial asset here as she goes through all the actions in detail to ease the players’s tension. Of course, while her ensemble enthusiastically seeks to grasp and perform her ideas, Bowler is willing to compromise because, at the end of the day, musicians perform better if they are comfortable. Furthermore, Bowler’s role as a performer here also helps because her passionate demeanour in performance is very much absorbed and echoed by the players. A sense of comradeship evolves here, which also fuels the powerful messages of this work.   FFF is formed of three movements named ‘Freeze’, ‘Flight’, and ‘Fight’, with chaos and disorder emerging right from the work’s outset. The first movement commences with Bowler announcing, ‘In the beginning’, words from the opening of Genesis: words which, contrary to Bowler’s musical texture here, reflect stillness, serenity and, more importantly, order. The connotations of immobility and self-protection associated with the ‘Freeze’ are vividly captured in this movement.   The conflict between music and text is exactly to do with the passiveness with the experience of social media. It addresses how ‘pervasive’ social media is becoming in society and how it is slowly but surely affecting our behaviour. The movement shows how incredibly violent social media is, even if we do not know that it is. All of these juxtapositions of how it behaves is what I am trying to capture in some way in that first section.   The second movement ‘Flight’ sees Bowler appropriately embody the role of an air stewardess. Anger is momentarily sidelined, as she is seen signing sheets of paper, scrunching them up and throwing them across the stage. This all represents the act of signing online petitions, which Bowler considers to be emblematic of political ‘slacktivism’.   The movement functions as a commentary on our privilege to not only want the internet, but to want the internet to go ‘Yes, I can sign it, and then I’ll share it as a good deed, because I’m a good person’. But, how many people would sign it had they not been exposed to it on social media in the first place? I am certainly guilty of this, but it is important to reflect on that, and notice this process as ‘slacktivism’.   The chaos then resumes for the final movement ‘Fight’, where Bowler puts on an ‘emoticon’ head mask, repeatedly shouting the words ‘You capitalist! You socialist’. This represents a call to arms demanding that, instead of sitting there, scrolling and doing nothing, we take action. This is perhaps the most intense we see Bowler, shouting and pushing her voice to breaking point. However, Bowler then shuts down and a pre-recorded video of herself appears playing for the remainder of the piece. At this point, the players are spraying themselves with detergent and Bowler is passing round disinfectant wipes to the audience, though this has nothing to do with the current pandemic. While this is all happening, the virtual Bowler tells the audience that they ‘all need to get into a great big bath of disinfectant and we need to disinfect ourselves’. Bowler explains: ‘This moment here the idea of “cleaning” ourselves before we go out and take part in the “true and honest” fight, and not the “slacktivist”, easy one’.   While these works engage provocatively with global issues, challenges arise when presevnting them in the elitist world of contemporary experimental music, let alone Western classical music. Bowler is always aware that her music attracts a very niche type of audience and, as a result, thinks a lot about what is presented in her works and how. This is certainly an arduous task, since one can never predict what her audience is going to think or whether her ideas have come across in the way she intended. However, what is vital for Bowler is that, when one makes political works, regardless of what artistic medium one is working in, the formatting which is presented has to be fundamental to the context in which it is performed in. She unpacks this a little further:   With FFF , for example, the work was specifically designed for that form of the contemporary music festival. It wouldn’t work the same it if was presented at Bridgewater Hall for the Manchester Camerata, because the people who go would not experience the piece with the same kind of context of works that they know, and it would mean very different things, and they may be drawn the ‘peculiarity’ of the work rather than what’s in  the work.   However, despite the apparent solidity of her craft, Bowler poignantly reveals that she is constantly learning, seeking new ways to communicate the issues she is so passionate about, to ensure her audiences feel that same ardour to take swift action and to reflect on their own actions. It was inspiring to hear Bowler’s thoughts on music’s multifaceted power to express pressing political issues. Filippo Turkheimer, the interviewer, is a postgraduate Music student at New College, Oxford, where he holds a Senior Scholarship. He previously read Music at New College, sang in the college’s prestigious chapel choir, and was president of the music society. [1] Rayfield Allied, ‘Laura Bowler’ < http://www.rayfieldallied.com/artists/laura-bowler > accessed 30 March 2021. [2] ‘Slacktivism, N’. ( Oxford English Dictionary Online ) < https://ezproxy-prd.bodleian.ox.ac.uk:2446/view/Entry/51394141?redirectedFrom=slacktivism#eid > accessed 30 March 2021.

Dr Mostafa El Feki is Director of the New Library of Alexandria. He has been a Professor of Political Science at the American University in Cairo, and has held numerous posts in the Egyptian government, including Ambassador to Austria.   Dr Mostafa El Feki has witnessed five Egyptian presidencies and been prominent in the political sphere for the last four and a half decades. He is well placed to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of each Egyptian President to have served over the last 50 years. He outlines in detail how each President has helped or hindered Egypt’s status as a major Middle Eastern state, in addition to how the Egyptian populace have felt about each President.   I have to be honest and say that if I answered this question based on my own personal emotions, I would favour President Nasser’s legacy above all else. However, objectively speaking, with regard to stratagem and policy-making, I am compelled to highlight President El Sadat’s policies for their success. At first glance, this may feel like a contradiction. However, I don’t feel it is so. To offer you just a snapshot of my thought process regarding your question, President Nasser’s charisma and leadership were extremely attractive to my generation. For us, and many after us, he was a national hero. However, President El Sadat’s wisdom and political initiatives were also well received by the majority of the Egyptian people, especially in relation to the breakthrough he accomplished towards securing peace between Egypt and Israel in 1978, an accomplishment for which he was rightfully recognised by virtue of his ascertainment of a Nobel Peace Prize.   Having ‘worked most closely with [Hosni Mubarak] during [his] time as Political Secretary’ (July 1985–October 1992), Dr El Feki speaks candidly of this highly controversial President, whose 30-year reign incited the 2011 Egyptian revolution. Acknowledging that ‘Mubarak was a highly nationalistic leader and had a great career in the military service within the Egyptian Air Force’, Dr El Feki also expresses his reservations. ‘His problem was that he didn’t take full advantage of the “time factor” despite his extensive presidency, hence losing out on several valuable opportunities for the country during his term in office’.   With respect to the 2011 Egyptian revolution, Dr El Feki identifies ‘the main goal of the revolution’ as ‘the call for social justice and equality in Egypt. This is the reason you could see signs reading “A loaf of bread and justice” at the heart of the mobilisation in Tahrir Square […] This is also why many raised the picture of Nasser, as he was considered the symbol of social justice during his period of leadership’. Dr El Feki insists, ‘[i]t is also important to note that none of the slogans of the Egyptian revolution made an indication towards foreign policy or propaganda against Israel’.   When asked about Mohammed Morsi, a President yet more controversial whose term was cut short after one year and one month, Dr El Feki keeps his response brief and forthright. ‘With respect to President Morsi, he had no remarkable achievements during his tenure and his policies were widely considered to be a reflection of those the Muslim Brotherhood adopted’. When pressed on why Morsi’s tenure proved fruitless, Dr El Feki insists that ‘he made no progress whatsoever in any field of development. In fact, I believe his entire presidency was an immense failure’.

John Dewey Distinguished University Professor and Arthur F. Thurnau Professor of Philosophy and Women’s Studies at the University of Michigan, Elizabeth Anderson is famously redefining egalitarianism in the field of political philosophy. Conventionally, philosophical debate has imagined the two concepts of equality and freedom to be polar opposites. Anderson has sought to challenge this perception by subordinating the popular egalitarian notion of distributive equality to that of democratic equality, which brings the concepts of freedom and equality together. Anderson’s groundbreaking work extends beyond political philosophy and engages in interdisciplinary research across fields and topics such as racial integration, the philosophy of economics, theories of value and rational choice, and the history and philosophy of the work ethic. In this interview, Anderson reveals the importance of empirical analysis within philosophy, what we can learn through an analysis of the history of egalitarianism and the role of social movements within its discourse, and how present inequalities have come about.   CJLPA : Could you perhaps tell us a bit about your trajectory to becoming a philosopher?   Professor Elizabeth Anderson : I started off in college studying economics, but there I noticed issues that I had at a very foundational level. These were questions like: should we assume that preferences are all in the person’s self-interest? We often choose to observe social norms: for example, out of norms of etiquette, you don’t take the last roll in the basket. But if the host offers it to you, you would prefer that to not having it. I thought economics wasn’t sorting out the distinctions well, and that was leading to mistakes in welfare economics. If people are declining to do things just out of social norms, it doesn’t necessarily mean that their welfare is being advanced, even though they’re doing what they want in the sense that they are choosing to do it. Such foundational questions moved me into philosophy, because philosophers want to put pressure on concepts that are used in the social sciences that maybe haven’t been probed adequately, and to think about introducing other ideas that could call into question some of the normative conclusions that people are drawing from their social scientific research. So that moved me into philosophy, but I have always been engaged in the social sciences. I think economics would be enriched if it drew distinctions that better tracked normatively important ideas.   CJLPA : Your current research interest is in the history of egalitarianism. What was your motivation behind this recent research interest?   EA : If you look in contemporary political philosophy, you see that much is written about freedom, and what freedom means, and why it is important. Equality is there, but I found it to be under-theorised. In particular, there’s the dominance of a certain distributive notion of equality that is kind of cosmic, which I think makes no sense. It applies to situations like this: imagine there is a distant world out there with beings just like us, only they have half the welfare levels that we do. Some conclude that there would be this unfairness in the universe because there’s an inequality. I think this notion of inequality has nothing to do with the inequality that people care about in real society. What people care about is not just some abstract difference between what I have and what you have. It’s all about social relations and social processes. How did those rich people get all that money? Did they get it at others’ expense? And are they using that wealth to dominate others? Does society turn wealth disparities into grounds for stigmatising the less advantaged? If it’s just some cosmic inequality with some distant planet, there’s no causal connection between our well-being and their well-being, and there is no injustice in that.

Mark Cazalet, born 1964, trained at the Chelsea and then Falmouth Schools of Art, after which he held scholarships in Paris and India. He works in a variety of media, including engraved glass, paint, prints, mosaics, and graphic media. He has taught in several art institutions and has been a Senior Member of Faculty at The Royal Drawing School since 2012. Travel has always played an important role in his art. Through the experience of his journeys, he has opened up rich colloquy between contemporary and traditional arts, between classical and folk forms. Architecture, film, fiction, and theology have all played a role in his creative evolution.   Professor Frances Spalding, CBE, FRSL, PhD, the interviewer, is an art historian and biographer. After studying History of Art at the University of Nottingham, she became a specialist in twentieth-century British art. Following the publication of her British Art Since 1900 , in the Thames & Hudson ‘World of Art’ series, she was commissioned by the Tate to write its centenary history. She has also produced five biographies of artists as well as one on the poet Stevie Smith. She taught at Newcastle University 2000-15, becoming Professor of Art History. In 2014 she guest-curated the exhibition ‘Virginia Woolf: Art, Life and Vision’ for the National Portrait Gallery. During the year 2015-6 she acted as Editor of The Burlington Magazine and became a Fellow of Clare Hall, Cambridge.   This conversation took place at Clare Hall, Cambridge, on 25 February 2021.   Professor Frances Spalding: Our guest this evening is Mark Cazalet. Mark is an artist who has pursued a very wide-ranging career. He could be described as a latter-day John Piper, for, like Piper, he has worked in a variety of media, received major public commissions, has a strong sense of place and has travelled widely. Both Piper and Cazalet remind me of Beethoven’s remark, ‘Art demands of us that we do not stand still’, a challenging statement that refers to much more than travel. Travel, however, is something which many of us have greatly missed during the COVID crisis. Some years back I heard a speaker at a conference in Cambridge say, ‘The most radical thing you can do today is to stay at home’. This was with reference to ecology, but today we understand this command in relation to COVID, as well as in relation to our carbon footprint. Yet the fact that a common swift can stay in the air for ten months without touching ground shows how innate within the natural world, including within us, is the need to move, to migrate, to travel. Friedrich Nietzsche advised, ‘Never trust a thought that didn’t come by walking’. And I want to suggest that the current interest in reviving a habit that began seven hundred years ago, namely that of pilgrimage, is further evidence of our need to locate ourselves in place and time, and to realise that remembrance is key to the continuing of life.   This evening Mark Cazalet will deliver a presentation on his work and travels, and the understanding he has gained from the latter. So, over to you, Mark.   Mark Cazalet : Frances wrote the first important essay on my work back in 1994, and since then has put her finger on the pressure points in my work, consistently, sparingly but fiercely. This opportunity to present the role that travel has had in my work has made me aware that my creativity has been subject to two forces: a centrifugal force, and a gravitational force. Since the seventies, the opportunity to propel ourselves out into the far corners of the world has been an exciting liberation. But it has come at a cost. I think we are now beginning to ask ourselves why we are travelling such big distances. What do we really learn from these travels? And how might—in this present time and after the pandemic—our notions of  significant  travel change? That is what I call the gravitational aspect—what matters to us here and now and within our environment, and which calls on our need to stay still, the alternative to travel.   Because I will start by showing you some of my early work, which I’m frankly terrified to see again, I thought I’d jump ahead in this first slide to a recent work from my Kyoto Zen gardens series which I’m pleased with and excited by (fig 1). But I want to compare it with work from my degree show (such as fig 2). The comparison makes me aware that, as an artist, you don’t travel forward in a linear way, but are endlessly bumping into old iterations of yourself. With creative work you travel cyclically. Things you thought you had dealt with come up again. While studying at Falmouth, in Cornwall, I imagined myself as another Peter Lanyon, in a glider, flying over the countryside and becoming a Cornish abstract painter. As so often happens on long journeys, you end up doing the very opposite thing you thought you would do. I ended up as a student hunting in charity shops collecting detritus and creating strange, theatrical, mise-en-scène, dark cityscapes. Fig 1. The stillness the dancing, Kyoto Zen garden collage (Mark Cazalet 2020, collage papers, inks, MT tape, pencils, and oil pastels, 46 x 130cm).

Well-known for her book  Bananas, Beaches and Bases , exposing the embedded systemic and institutionalised patriarchy that is evident not only in global politics, but in the political science and literature of international relations, Professor Cynthia Enloe is one of the most compelling feminist theorists and political scientists of the twenty-first century. Currently a Research Professor of Political Science at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts, Professor Enloe has written countless articles and books on the important role gender plays in the areas of militarism, war, and globalisation. In this interview, Professor Enloe outlines the difficulties faced by feminist theorists and researchers, how to identify gender disparities during crises (with reference to the current pandemic), and the questions one should ask in order to be able to expose patriarchy, as well as the importance of asking these gender-curious questions.     CJLPA : In your most recent book, The Big Push: Exposing and Challenging the Persistence of Patriarchy , you write that, contrary to common belief, patriarchy is not weakening, but modernising and adapting to current times. Why has this happened?   Professor Cynthia Enloe:  First of all, I’m not a pessimist. I’m not somebody who says that all the efforts of women around the world in so many different countries that challenge patriarchal practices, patriarchal beliefs, and patriarchal institutions are fruitless. That’s not my message. But what I am more and more aware of is how those people who are committed to patriarchy—even if they don’t call it that; they call it ‘preserving normalcy’—constantly are updating their ways of preserving their privileges. That’s what I mean. Here’s one example: when a comics artist and a comics company, for example, together created Wonder Woman  in 1940, that looked then like a big breakthrough: a woman could be a fictional superhero! But Wonder Woman ’s creators and marketers—she was created by a man and a male-owned comics company—deliberately dressed her in a sexualised costume. Wonder Woman  didn’t look like most women in the world. Opposition to her sexualised portrayal motivated dozens of UN staff women dramatically to protest this comic book figure being named (by a male-led UN department) the ‘ambassador for women and girls’ in 2016. To these hard-working international civil servants, that UN choice looked like an updated version of patriarchy. So, on the one hand, the creation of a woman superhero seemed to challenge the patriarchal presentation of the usual masculinised superhero; on the other hand, though, the creative innovation seemed designed to perpetuate the sexualisation of women with power. Patriarchal imagination was simultaneously being challenged and confirmed.   Here’s another example of patriarchy’s adaptability. There used to be no women cabinet officers in virtually any government. I have a friend whose mother was the first woman to be a cabinet minister in Chile, becoming the Minister of Education back in the 1960s. She was a Chilean feminist pioneer. Women’s breaking into the masculinised world of government cabinet officers has been indeed a real gender achievement in any country. Nevertheless, while we recognise that, we still have to keep asking when and how the male political elite transformed their cabinets so as to feminise some cabinet posts—for instance, now routinely appointing women to the posts of Ministers of Environment, Culture, Health, and Education, while carefully ensuring that the most powerful cabinet posts have remained in the hands of male ministers (Defence, Interior, and Finance today still are the most commonly masculinised).   You’ll notice that the ‘patriarchal sustainability formula’ relies on masculinising some things, while feminising other things, and—this is key to any patriarchy’s perpetuation—always acting as though the things that are masculinised are more serious, more valuable, more significant than the things that are feminised.   With this understanding in mind, we can take a fresh, feminist look at the still-unfolding history of women and men in governments’ cabinet posts. Patriarchal people’s preferred scenario is: first, men (and a few ‘Margaret Thatcher’s) with political power stubbornly resist women being allowed to take up senior cabinet posts. But then, though, when women begin to stick their collective feet in the political door, thereby managing to gain a few senior cabinet offices, the male political elite begin to appoint them to ministries that, in their shrunken masculinised political imaginations, are deemed less politically important.   Now is the point where you probably want to intervene and ask, ‘But nowadays, in our current era of climate crisis, how can even patriarchal politically powerful men imagine that their own government’s environment ministry is less important for their country than, say, their defence ministry?’ Or, put another way, you might ask, ‘With climate change threatening entire populations’ ways of life, how can patriarchal men kid themselves into thinking that environmental policy-making can be feminised, that is, shoved to the political margins?’.   These are exactly the sorts of questions feminists— as thinkers, researchers, and activists— pose. So we have to stay on our toes. Will ministries of environment today start to acquire more political saliency? As they do, will the proportion of all of the world’s ministers of environment who are women begin to drop? As climate change acquires the precious mantle of a ‘state security issue’, will male political elites begin to deem environmental policy ‘too important’ to be left in the hands of mere women? Stay tuned!   People who are invested in patriarchal ways of doing things, I’ve learned, are always trying to update their strategies, trying to convince the rest of us that their revised formulas amount to ‘progress’. Patriarchal people, in other words, are never just old fusty men in pinstripe suits, smoking cigars in their private clubs. Patriarchal people are now the hip Silicon Valley guys working out, eating salads, and sporting black T-shirts. I think it’s a big mistake for us ever to imagine that patriarchy is old-fashioned. It can be as up-to-date as tomorrow.   CJLPA : In your opinion, what current challenges do feminist thinkers like yourself face more generally, and more specifically within the field of international relations?   CE:  Lots of people who ask feminist questions about international politics face not so much direct hostility as in attention. Feminist questions—and their answers—about the gendered causes and consequences of Brexit, Iran’s weaponry, Palestinian rights, Myanmar’s military coup, the world trade in Xinjiang cotton, implementing the Paris Climate Accord, the trials at the International Crimes Court, too often are met with ‘Who cares?’ The scores (really scores!) of us who are seriously pursuing these and many similar questions (nothing is out of bounds for feminist international politics specialists!), have become convinced, as a result of what we’ve uncovered in the workings of international politics, that we can help citizens and policymakers be more effective by helping them become more realistically informed about the complex workings of power.   Our findings over the last 50 years of gender-curious research have shown us, first, that there are a lot more wieldings of power in more sites (especially efforts to control women—as mothers, wives, girlfriends, daughters, sex workers, factory workers, plantation workers, domestic workers, refugees, and widows) than non-feminist commentators want to admit. Non-feminist commentators constantly underestimate power. Second, our collective investigations have revealed that power takes many more forms than most commentators acknowledge. That’s one of the findings that all the activists and their academic allies who’ve made #MeToo into a genuinely global movement have lit up in neon.   In the academic field of what is called ‘IR’, gender-curious scholars have made a lot of headway. There are now new books and whole book series by publishers like Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, Palgrave, and Routledge focused on gender and international politics. That’s big. Major transnational NGOs such as Human Rights Watch, The International Crisis Group, and Refugees International now fund and publish gender-conscious investigatory reports. In no small part that is due to there being a lot more feminist-informed staff people inside those NGOs. We also have created or transformed dozens of academic journals that publish very interesting articles that explore the workings of gender and power—that explore the relationships between diverse women, men, and power, as well as the contests over the norms of masculinity, femininity, and those contests’ implications for gaining, losing, and wielding power.   Furthermore, we’ve created academic associations and caucuses within academic associations around the world. Both the US-based International Studies Association and the British International Studies Association have large and lively gender studies sections. Just recently, I was talking with women who have created a Women and Gender Caucus inside the Brazilian International Relations Association. Last week, I was talking with a professor in Bucharest who has launched a new network of South-eastern European feminist security experts. There also are now at least two separate Feminist Foreign Policy groups.   Still, it can be hard for feminist researchers to get a hearing in the most prestigious media or most prominent international politics academic forums. What oftentimes happens is that you look at undergraduate and graduate course syllabuses and what do you see? The faculty member teaching the course doesn’t think of themselves as knowing much—or, frankly, caring much—about the workings of gender in international politics, yet nowadays feels they’ve got to give at least a token nod toward gender and IR (this is progress!). So, they squeeze the topic of gender and international politics into just one week. One week for the world’s workings of masculinities: really?  One week for exploring women’s resistances to abuse and   privilege:  really?  And, of course, this single week is put at the end of the term. This means that by the time the faculty member gets to the end of the term, she—or usually he—hasn’t covered everything else they consider important and therefore zips over gender political analysis without serious consideration.   That’s how patriarchy works. It was a big success to get most people who teach international politics—especially in the introductory undergrad or grad courses—at least to assign one reading on gender in international politics, and to devote at least one week to the topic, but neither in a way that might infuse the entire course and its students with a deeper feminist curiosity. Despite tokenisms, though, there are nowadays more and more graduate students in more and more countries—South Korea, Japan, India, Sweden, Poland, Argentina, Brazil, Romania, Turkey—who are really serious about investigating and teaching about the multiple gender dynamics shaping international politics. There’s where hope lies.   CJLPA : That’s exactly why I wanted to ask that question because I have spoken about it quite a lot recently with some of the female peers in my course. We have asked in seminars, for example, why should feminist critiques not be incorporated in other module topics?   CE:  You are so right: ask ‘Why?’ See if you can get the instructor in the course to be a little uneasy about their own segregating of gender dynamics into a separate section, as if it had nothing to do with everything else you all are investigating. I call this ‘patriarchal siloing’. It’s a teaching practice that is designed to foster the risky notion that most of international political life is pristinely un-gendered—as if contests over manliness do not shape militarism, as if practices of making women’s factory labour ‘cheap’ does not affect international trade, as if efforts to control women’s reproduction do not play roles in migration, development, or nationalism. You could even suggest that the instructor reorganise the course. Everyone is very possessive about their own course syllabuses. Still, you might suggest, ‘Next term, couldn’t you place the gender-curious analytical questions up in the second week of the course so that then we will be prepared throughout the rest of the course to ask those probing questions?’ That’s not asking the faculty member to completely reorganise his or her thinking, though it might have that effect on the students! Give it a try, and then tell me what happens!   CJLPA : What has been the effect of COVID-19 on gender inequalities across the world, and what are we likely to see happen to these inequalities post-pandemic?   CE:  This is so interesting. In recent months as the pandemic lockdowns have rolled across diverse countries, I’ve been hearing two things: first, that the ‘politics of care’ finally, after decades of neglect as a mere ‘women’s issue’, might be taken seriously; second, that what has happened in so much conventional (that is, not gender-curious) political commentary is that a lot of people who are treated as ‘experts’ because they presumably know how to talk about budgets, balance of payments, and national security, but haven’t a clue about the workings of child care, are having to move over and give at least a bit of authoritative space to those feminist economists, feminist sociologists, feminist historians, and feminist labour researchers who do know the broad policy implications of low-paid and unpaid gendered child and elder care.   One of the things I’m very hopeful about in the new Biden–Harris administration here in the US is that both care and experts on care are getting a lot of official attention. Joe Biden has appointed specialists in the gendered political economies of care to senior posts both in the White House and in several cabinet departments. Women representatives in the House (for instance, Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut) and the Senate (Patty Murray of Washington stands out) are finally getting the legislative and executive backing their childcare and family bills deserve.   Perhaps the biggest conceptual innovation in US politics today is that ‘infrastructure’ now includes not only the conventional bridges and highways, but also family care provision. Talk of government funding for bridges and childcare in the same policy sentence—that’s big!   Since eldercare and childcare in so many countries relies not only on women’s unpaid labour but also on the low paid labour of migrant women workers, of course, that means—as it has long meant— that the political economy of care is an international political phenomenon. This means that in the not-quite-yet-post-COVID world, all of us who do international political analysis had better get up to speed on the gendered international politics of care.   During my doctoral studies at the University of California, Berkeley, nobody ever urged me to investigate the politics of paid and unpaid care. But when I was researching what became the first edition of Bananas, Beaches and Bases , it dawned on me that I should look at the international migration of domestic workers. It was Filipinas who stirred my curiosity. I’ve been interested in Philippines politics for decades because of its experience as an American colony, because of its serving as the site of major US military bases, because of its vibrant electoral politics, and because of its prominent women’s movement. So, when researching Bananas , my attention was caught by the data showing that remittances sent back home by thousands of Filipina women and Filipino men working abroad was a significant factor in the Philippines’s balance of payments. The men were working especially as crew members on globalised cargo ships. The women were working as nurses and as domestic workers. Suddenly I realised, ‘I should pay attention to that’.   One reason that I think I was kind of ready—not an expert, but intellectually ready—for the COVID-19 era was that I had already been tutored by women in international domestic migration networks (which now include Brazilian, Sri Lankan, Ecuadorian, as well as Filipina women) to keep track of domestic work as an international political phenomenon, even if most political commentators weren’t paying much attention.   As we haltingly, stunningly, unevenly move beyond COVID, what will the gendered patterns of paid and unpaid work look like? Will the economic inequalities between women and men in post-pandemic UK, Brazil, US, India, and Australia gape even more widely than they did before 2020? What will be the consequences for both national and international politics? We had better start paying attention now.   CJLPA : Do you think that we also need to keep an eye on the kind of crisis management that goes on afterwards?   CE:  What are the gender analytical skills required today by employers of anybody who gets a crisis management job? My guess is none. That likelihood is despite a burgeoning literature on the gender differences in what happens in all sorts of natural disasters and public health crises to men and to women.   For example, feminist geographers have investigated what happens to men in earthquakes, hurricanes, and tsunamis and what happens to women. Gender differences, they have found, loom large. Who was taught to swim, who wasn’t? Whose customary attire enables them to run fast? Who must rescue the children? Who fishes in boats out the ocean, who harvests seafood close to shore? Who in any household is responsible for collecting firewood and fresh water? Who in a hastily assembled refugee camp is most likely to be threatened with sexual assault? If crisis managers don’t know of these findings or do not integrate their lessons into their organisations’ preparedness practices and their response practices, they will not only fail to address the particular needs of women and men; their gender-ignorant actions will deepen gender inequities.   CJLPA : Would you say you are quite hopeful in this instance?   CE:  Wherever any gender analytical skills are being seriously taught is a cause for hope. Any university that is making the acquisition of gender analytical skills a degree requirement gives me even more hope. We can’t wait until people are hired into policy-making or crisis management jobs, and then imagine that they’ll suddenly become gender-curious—though, thankfully, I’ve seen this happen occasionally. Far more effective is to build gender curiosity and gender analytical skills acquisition into the career-building curriculum.   CJLPA : Do you have any recommendations on how to be a conscious feminist?   CE:  Each of us is most likely to see the value of a feminist curiosity in our own lives as citizens and in our own work in any field if we can grasp how gender dynamics of any sort shapes the thing we care about. So, first, I’d suggest that everyone plunges into case studies. In most of my writings I try to mix case studies with larger analytical questions and patterns. The big picture and the small picture—I never choose one over the other. It’s the relationships between the two that I’ve found most revealing. I’m wary of those commentators who imagine that their own badges of ‘intellectual sophistication’ are earned by talking only about the big picture.   I think we all learn lasting lessons from exploring grittily detailed case studies. We learn to appreciate complexity; we learn to stay wide awake to subtleties; we train ourselves to have long attention spans. We can learn a lot too from delving into case studies of poor policy-making.   Look, for instance, at the relationships between men and women and the operations of masculinities and of femininities in London’s Grenfell Tower fire disaster, in Flint, Michigan’s water contamination tragedy. Investigate the workings of masculinities in the Boeing MAX 8 disasters. Explore the sexual abuse of local Congolese women by international male health workers during the country’s recent Ebola outbreak. Take a close look at the gender dynamics shaping responses to COVID in New Zealand, India, and South Korea.   Second, I would suggest that we all pay attention to what data are being collected and what data are not being collected—with what consequences. It’s amazing how much feminist energy has been and is still being spent trying to get national and international agencies to collect gender-disaggregated data for the sake of making better, fairer, more effective, more sustainable policies. For years, the UN collected nutritional data by ungendered household caloric intake. Households, though, do not eat! Men and women and boys and girls eat—and, lo and behold, gender-smart data collectors found that, even within poor households, adult men consume more calories and especially more protein than do adult women.   Finally, data must be gender-collected and gender-disaggregated on everything: illness, deaths, carers, students, teachers, paid work, unpaid work, bankruptcies, arms manufacturing, policymakers, budget expenditures, policing, market vendors, vaccinations, contractors, detentions, weapons possession, mining, farming, banking, peacekeepers, donors, sexual assault perpetrators, child marriage…everything. Teresa Turkheimer, the interviewer, is a final-year undergraduate in Politics and International Studies at the University of Warwick, working towards an MSc in European and International Public Policy at the London School of Economics in the 2021-22 academic year. Her interests lie in European politics, European Union foreign and security policy, and political philosophy.

Professor Andreas Rahmatian is Professor of Commercial Law at the University of Glasgow School of Law. Originally from Vienna, he obtained his first degree in law and a PhD in Private Law from the University of Vienna, and completed another degree in musicology and history there. He holds an LLM from the University of London. He worked as an associate attorney-at-law in Vienna and qualified as a solicitor with a City firm in London before he became a full-time academic. He has been a fellow at the Institut d’études avancées in Nantes, France. His research focuses on intellectual property law and commercial law. His books are  Copyright and Creativity: The Making of Property Rights in Creative Works (2011),  Lord Kames: Legal and Social Theorist (2015), and Credit and Creed: A Critical Legal Theory of Money (2019).    CJLPA:  Do you think all forms of creativity should be protected by the law? Professor Andreas Rahmatian : It’s a difficult question, of course, because it depends what you mean by creativity. Here we probably talk about creativity in relation to copyright in particular, because creativity can otherwise be in relation to all sorts of things. Now the problem with copyright creativity is that it’s not necessarily dealing with artistic creativity. Obviously, artistic creativity is also part of copyright creativity, but the understanding of creativity in copyright is based on a normative definition, if not a completely clear one. Whether that is artistic creativity as an artist understands it is actually immaterial. So the question is, when you ask, ‘Should all forms of creativity should be protected by the law?’, it is already the case that non-artistic creativity is protected by the law. Whenever you have got a kind of selection or arrangement which somehow points back to some individual, then you have got, as it were, creativity in the sense of copyright as ‘originality’.   The judgment of Infopaq [1] and the following cases of the CJEU in the EU didn’t change very much the originality ideas in the UK, in my opinion. In the United States the understanding of originality is pretty much the same, but whether that original work is also artistic in any way is rather irrelevant. It [the work] can be rather trivial. That is actually immaterial for the protection. And this is how copyright laws envisage creativity—even on the Continent, where they operate with all sorts of devices to water down the (theoretically) more personal requirement of the author’s input. In theory there is an approach more geared towards creativity in the sense of artistic creativity, but in reality this is much less so. There is, for example, this nice legal concept of ‘small change’, or kleine Mü̈nze —it is really called like that in Germany—where you have works of everyday use, really ordinary works which can have some notional modicum of creativity put in, and you still get protection. Then below that level you quite often have neighbouring rights, for works which do not fulfil the required creativity level or originality level, but the neighbouring rights still protect them. Then below these, you have under certain circumstances protection against parasitical competition in the sense that you actually have a prohibition to copy someone else’s work. So you have got all sorts of protection levels, both on the Continent and in the UK (or in the common law countries), and they achieve protection in different conceptual ways.   Now some people will say ‘creativity’ also means creative investments, or even ‘creative’ accounting, which is usually illegal but perhaps also creative. So it’s very hard to pin down ‘creativity’. A typical problem is restoration work in the arts, by a picture restorer, or a restorer of musical pieces. The classical case in that area in the UK was the Sawkins v Hyperion  case, 2005,[2] which shows that for copyright protection you need not be creative in the sense that you are actually creating anything new. Artistic creativity, if you go to an art school or to a conservatoire as a composer, has a tinge of novelty, but we are not interested in novelty in copyright law. So the restorer, who actually writes his counterpoint in the style of the music of the late seventeenth century, as Sawkins did, in order to restore the missing parts to produce a performing edition, did exactly not [sic] mean to be creative but faithful to the work to be restored. It’s meant to be in the style of the Baroque composer. And yet it is protected as original for copyright purposes, and there’s no doubt that this also applies on the Continent: the result in such a case would have been, and in fact was, the same, because in France, in a parallel case, Sawkins’ work was viewed as being original. That was decided under French copyright law, although the French authors’ rights system is supposed to be totally different. It’s a very nice case where we have two different legal systems with essentially the same facts, the same claim in both cases, and the same result, based on a different conceptual system. Although it may be quite difficult to appreciate this from an ‘artistic’ viewpoint, the creativity or the skill of a restorer should get protected. In fact, in France and in Italy there are quite a few cases in relation to restoration, especially in the visual arts, and there is no doubt that they get protection.

Currently Professor of Government at King’s College London, Professor Vernon Bogdanor is a leading expert in British constitutional politics and history and has received a CBE in recognition of his extensive contribution to the field. In his most recent book, titled Britain and Europe in a Troubled World , published in 2020, Professor Bogdanor traces Britain’s historical relationship with the European Union in order to understand how Brexit came to be. In this interview, Professor Bogdanor tackles the constitutional issues that the United Kingdom is likely to face in a post-Brexit era, the different lessons learnt as a result of the referendum vote in 2016, and the role that the monarchy has to play in the current British parliamentary democracy . This interview was conducted across 28 and 29 April 2022. CJLPA : What brought you to research and understand British politics? What fascinated you the most about British politics or the British political system? Professor Vernon Bogdanor : Our very strange constitution. The Queen once said that the British constitution has always been a puzzle and always will be. I have tried to elucidate that puzzle. We are in fact one of just three democracies in the world which do not have constitutions. The other two are New Zealand—whose population is half that of Greater London—and Israel, although the Israelis are working towards a constitution. Now, some people in Britain ask, ‘Should we have a constitution?’ But in a sense, that is an absurd question. The real question is: ‘What is there about the air in Britain that means we should not have a constitution, not do what every other country does?’ This problem has become more acute since we left the European Union (EU). In my view, when we were in the EU, we were in fact living under a constitution, namely the treaties of the EU, which provide for a division of power both at the centre between the Commission, the Council of Ministers, the Court of Justice, and the Parliament, but also territorially between the EU itself and the member states. Also, in recent years, the EU has yielded the protection of rights in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights which was enacted in 2009. That led to a remarkable episode in British constitutional history which has not been very much noticed. In Benkharbouche v. Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs [1], Ms. Benkharbouche claimed against the Sudanese embassy unfair dismissal, failure to pay her the national minimum wage and holiday pay, as well as breaches of the Working Time Regulations. The Sudanese embassy claimed immunity under the provisions of the 1978 State Immunity Act. But the Supreme Court ruled that sections of the Act were incompatible with Article 6 of the European Convention providing for a fair trial. The remedy for this would be a declaration of incompatibility which is not a strictly legal remedy, since it has no legal effect. But Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights provides that if rights had been violated by the Convention, they have also been violated by the Charter. So, the relevant parts of the State Immunity Act were disapplied. For the first time in British history, the Court disapplied part of an Act of Parliament because it conflicted with human rights. That, I think, would have Dicey turning in his grave. It was something new and unprecedented. As we have now left the EU, the Charter no longer applies, but Benkharbouche, nevertheless, is an important precedent. The European Charter protects a far wider range of rights than the European Convention. The Convention was enacted in the early 1950s and human rights are, in my view, a dynamic phenomenon. For example, in those days there was no thought of the right to protect the environment which is in the European Charter. Few thought of the right to academic freedom which is in the European Charter. But the most important right is the right to equality in terms of gender, sexual orientation, race, religion and so on which is not in the European Convention. There is also a right to healthcare in the European Charter but not in the Convention. The Convention provides a right to education but not healthcare. Leaving the EU took us out of a constitutional system. We have incorporated almost all EU law into our own law, so that the government and parliament can decide what they want to keep, what they want to modify, and what they want to repeal. That is, of course, a huge task. Incorporation itself is nothing new. For example, our ex-colonies incorporated British law so that they could decide which British laws they wanted to keep. But when they did that, it was because they wanted to develop a constitution of their own. We have done something perhaps unique in the democratic world and instead of entrenching we have been dis-entrenching. We have moved away from a constitutional system to an unprotected constitution. This is emphasised by the fact that one part, almost the only part I think, of EU law that we have not incorporated is the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. This means we have moved from a system which protects rights, to one which does not protect rights. We do have the European Convention, but the way we have adopted it is rather different from almost every other country because judges are not given the right by the Human Rights Act to disapply legislation conflicting with the Convention. All they can do is to issue a declaration of incompatibility. That is just a statement which has no legal effect, and it is then up to Parliament to decide whether to take action. Parliament has a special fast track procedure by which it can take action if it so wishes, but courts in other European countries have much greater powers because they can disapply legislature. This raises a very interesting question because the other 27 member states of the EU do, of course, retain the European Charter. So, I would ask this question: Are our Members of Parliament (MPs) so much more sensitive to human rights than the legislators of other countries in Europe that they can be entrusted with this very important function? I will leave the answer to this question to those reading the interview! It is worth stressing that rights are not solely for nice people like ourselves, but also for very small minorities who may not necessarily be very nice, for example, prisoners, suspected terrorists, suspected paedophiles, and so on—also, asylum seekers, a very small minority not effectively represented in Parliament, also have rights. Brexit raises this issue of whether we should continue to live under an unprotected constitution which does not effectively protect human rights. And there is a further question arising from Brexit. Does the devolution settlement need further protection in Scotland, Wales, and particularly in Northern Ireland? I will discuss devolution a little later. With our strange constitution, law and politics are closely intertwined. Much more of our constitution than in other countries is based on convention. These conventions, in turn, often depend upon popular feeling. For example, we have the case now of Boris Johnson and Partygate. A Prime Minister who has deliberately misled Parliament must, so the Ministerial Code declares, resign. But this convention depends in large part on popular feeling. Are people angry enough to protest to their MPs or do they say that it does not matter too much? A great writer on the constitution, not as well-known as Bagehot, but well worth reading, Sidney Low, author of The Governance of England first published in 1904, said, ‘We live under a system of tacit understandings, but the understandings are not always understood’. That seems to me a very perceptive point about the British constitution. CJLPA : I am assuming on the basis of the points you have just mentioned, do correct me if I am wrong, you are a supporter of a codified constitution in the UK. In light of this, has this been received or acknowledged by figures in the political system? Are there supporters for a constitution at the moment? I can imagine that the current opposition might not be keen on that idea. VB : When we had a Labour government, Gordon Brown who was Prime Minister from 2007 to 2010—and I think it no accident that he came from Scotland—favoured a constitution. If he had been re-elected in 2010, he would have tried to enact one in 2015 which was the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta—but he was not re-elected. The Liberal Democrats have long been in favour of a constitution, and I think some in the Labour Party are. Perhaps the longer Labour is in opposition, the more likely it is to support a constitution. But the Conservatives are, in general, not in favour, partly because they are the natural party of government in the sense that they tend to be in power most of the time. I mentioned that it was not an accident that Gordon Brown, being Scottish, was in favour of a constitution, for many Scots have never accepted the idea of the sovereignty of Parliament. They say that it is the Scottish people who are sovereign, and that point has been tacitly accepted by Westminster. There was a referendum in Scotland on independence in 2014. The Scots voted against it, but had they voted for it, they would have become independent. There was also a referendum before devolution was introduced. In both cases it was accepted that it was for the Scots to decide, even if their decision went against the wishes of Westminster. So, for the Scots, the central principle is perhaps less the sovereignty of the Westminster parliament than the sovereignty of the Scottish people. That is also accepted in Northern Ireland. If a majority in Northern Ireland were to decide that it wished to join with Ireland, that would be accepted by Westminster. An American once said that in politics where you stand depends upon where you sit. Perhaps that is true in Britain because it may be that the sovereignty of parliament is primarily an English concept. The Welsh government favours a quasi-federal system for the United Kingdom (UK). The Scots believe in the sovereignty of the Scottish people. In Northern Ireland there is a divided community, but there also, the principle of the sovereignty of parliament is overtaken by the principle of the sovereignty of the people. There are, however, two different views about the Northern Ireland constitution depending on whether you are a unionist or a nationalist. CJLPA : Say Gordon Brown is attempting to get re-elected again and he has the idea of codifying the constitution within his manifesto. What is the extent of the risk of the codification of the constitution becoming a politicised issue in the media? VB : I doubt if there is much risk. Enacting a constitution would be a long process because it would require popular consent. Most people in England do not think much about the constitution, although they do in Scotland and Northern Ireland. We would first have to have a body to draw up an agenda; then you would need a Royal Commission which would have to travel around the country having evidence sessions. That would be a kind of learning exercise for the public. Then the government would draw up a constitution and then there would have to be a referendum, probably with a majority needed in all parts of the UK, unlike the Brexit referendum. So, it would be a long process. I do not think it would necessarily be party political. I think, however, that it will be a long time before we get a constitution. It is not an immediate issue, and it is very low on most people’s priorities. Human rights also are very low on most people priorities, though one lawyer, former MP and former attorney general Dominic Grieve, has made the interesting suggestion that the European Convention should include a right to healthcare as the European Charter does, in addition to the right to education. The reason is that the right to healthcare would affect large numbers of people, and therefore it would be more likely that more people would feel they own the Convention, which they do not at present now because they think of it as defending disreputables such as criminals. But they would then own it and there would be more respect for human rights. Otherwise, constitutional issues are a minority concern. There are no mass meetings in Trafalgar Square with crowds clamouring for a constitution! CJLPA : If a human rights issue is quite prominent and has a lot of media following, perhaps it could grab some attention? VB : Only amongst a small group of the intelligentsia, the academics—the chattering classes if you like, not amongst the people as a whole. I do not think academics are very representative of public opinion in general or necessarily have much insight into public opinion. Opinion polls show that enacting a constitution is not a priority. CJLPA : I think you would agree with me that there have been many, but not all, British politicians who have been out of touch with the citizens that they are trying to represent: take the recent Partygate scandal that you mentioned earlier and the fact that it is currently difficult to punish a misbehaving government, or Brexit where even though the referendum was a close result, MPs were evidently not representative of the UK because a majority of them actually wanted to remain. In light of that, to what extent is the current UK political system truly a representative democracy? VB : I think your introduction of the referendum is very important. For, as you say, the majority of MPs were against Brexit, and the government was against Brexit. For the first time in British history, Parliament was enacting legislation in which it did not believe. Legally, Parliament is still sovereign, it could have ignored the referendum, it would not have been unlawful to do so. But, in practice, it was not possible to ignore the referendum. So, Brexit is a milestone in our constitutional history. Not only was Parliament no longer in practice sovereign, it was shown not to be representative of the people. As you know, many in the British political elite were fervent Remainers and did not want to accept the result. The EU does not like referendums either. In 1974, shortly before we were to have our first referendum, the ex-President of the European Commission Monsieur Jean Rey said these matters should be left to trained people. ‘You cannot’, he said, ‘have a system in which housewives should be allowed to decide the future of Britain!’. A lot of the arguments against referendums, in my opinion, are similar to the arguments used against extending the suffrage—that the people are ignorant, that they do not understand the issues, and that political decisions are best left to elites. A French reactionary, Joseph de Maistre, declared that the principle of the sovereignty of the people—which is now a part of our constitution I believe—is so dangerous that even if it were true, it would be best to conceal it! Not only is the referendum now part of our constitution, but there are, what we might call, ‘shadow referendums’, referendums which were not held because of fear of the result, but which nevertheless influenced the political agenda. For example, when Tony Blair was Prime Minister from 1997 to 2007, he very much wanted Britain to join the Euro, but he believed that this required a referendum. However, he never put the issue to referendum because there was not one single opinion poll which showed a majority in favour of the Euro. You may say looking at the experience of continental countries, particularly Mediterranean countries such as Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Greece, that we were lucky not to join the Euro! CJLPA : On the topic of democracy, I would like to ask a question specifically about the role of the British monarchy because monarchs by now are the exception, not the rule. Especially now, in Britain, it is quite difficult to support the monarchy when its role in the UK constitution might be minimal but its influence, as we have seen, has proven to be plenty. What role, if any, does the monarchy have to play in a democratic system? VB : The main role of the monarchy is not constitutional. Its constitutional powers are almost nil. But as well as being head of state, the Queen is head of the nation. She can, as it were, represent the whole country to itself. By contrast, if you have a president, you either have a president such as Macron in France or Biden in America who is head of the executive. They represent not the whole country, but just half of the country. Or you can have a constitutional president without political power which, for example, Italy and Germany have. I suspect that very few people could name the presidents of Italy and Germany, I certainly could not, and the position is usually given to a harmless retired politician who is put out to grass. Do we want that here? President Cameron or President Blair? They could not represent the whole country. This is particularly important with the devolution settlement because any elected person would be either English, Scottish, Welsh, or Northern Irish. The Queen is none of these and all of them at the same time. We are lucky in the Queen because she instinctively understands, what you might call, ‘the soul of the British people’, which it would be very difficult for a politician to do. Unlike a politician, she has no party-political history. No one knows whether she is Labour, Liberal Democrat, or Conservative, or what her views are on politically controversial matters. I think we are fortunate to have a constitutional monarchy. The constitutional monarchies in Europe are very stable, moderate countries: some Scandinavian countries, Britain, the Benelux countries, and Spain. We are lucky that we have never had a revolution because revolutions or defeat in war tend to get rid of monarchies. For example, in Italy the monarchy was removed after the defeat in the Second World War because the king was thought to be associated with fascism, in Germany after the First World War, and in France after the revolution. We are lucky, perhaps because we are an island, that we have never been involved in revolutions or upheavals. In 1945, when we had the first Labour majority government, the American president Harry Truman was visiting Britain and he said to King George VI, ‘I see you’ve had a revolution here’, and the King said ‘Oh no we don’t have things like that’. CJLPA : You say that the monarchy is the ‘soul of the British people’. I would perhaps counter that. You mentioned the Nordic countries and the role that their monarchy has to play. I would say that the level of influence is completely unparalleled. It is true that the power is minimal, but the influence and the presence is not. VB : I do not know if the Queen has much political influence. When has she exerted political influence? I do not think that is right. CJLPA : I was thinking more of the case of Prince Charles. VB : Yes, that is interesting. He has had influence, but not on party political matters. His technique is to raise an issue which he thinks has been hitherto ignored by politicians, for example, the environment and climate change. When the politicians do take up the issue, he steps back. He has also spoken on a number of other issues that he thinks important which are not party political, for example architecture, teaching Shakespeare in schools, and so on. He has said controversial things, but they are not controversial in the party-political sense. He has never spoken publicly about Brexit or whether we should have a Conservative government or Labour government. He is very careful in all his speeches not to appear partisan. He does not speak on advice like the Queen but, out of courtesy, he shows his speeches to ministers. I suspect that if ministers said, ‘Well, look, this does entrench on government policy’, he would back down. He has known since birth what his role will be, and he has been trained and brought up in the constitutional tradition. He has not been party-political, but he has influenced opinion in other ways. I agree with you on that. CJLPA : With race and identity coming up a lot, regarding the institution itself and its imperialist past, rather than the Queen more specifically or the members of the family, I think people disagree that it is representative of the British people. VB : The monarchy in Britain is unlike the other monarchies I have mentioned because it has an international dimension thanks to the existence of the British empire, now the Commonwealth. Of the 54 countries which are members—around a third of the world’s population—15 of them, now that Barbados is a Republic, are Commonwealth monarchies. The rest are republics. The Commonwealth is a voluntary organisation of equals, while the empire was based on domination. But the empire cannot have been quite as terrible as some suggest if almost all of the colonies have voluntarily agreed to join the Commonwealth. The only former countries ruled by Britain that have voluntarily left the Commonwealth are Burma, now Myanmar, and Ireland. Two counties which were not part of the empire—Mozambique and Rwanda—have joined. The Commonwealth gives the monarchy an international dimension. The majority of people in the Commonwealth are not white and not Christian. This means that the monarchy must stand and does stand for racial and religious equality. In her Diamond Jubilee in 2012, the Queen’s first visit was to Leicester which is an example of a multiracial city where integration has proved successful. And in 2004 she made a particularly interesting Christmas broadcast. She spoke of the parable of the Good Samaritan, the implication of which was clear. ‘Everyone is our neighbour, no matter what race, creed or colour. The need to look after a fellow human being is far more important than any cultural or religious differences. Most of us have learned to acknowledge and respect the ways of other cultures and religions, but what matters even more is the way in which those from different backgrounds behave towards each other in everyday life’. She then went on to say: It was for this reason that I particularly enjoyed a story I heard the other day about an overseas visitor to Britain who said the best part of his visit had been travelling from Heathrow and into central London on the tube. His British friends, as you can imagine, were somewhat surprised, particularly as the visitor had been to some of the great attractions of the country. ‘What do you mean?’, they asked. ‘Because’, he replied, ‘I boarded the train just as schools were coming out. At each stop children were getting on and off—they were of every ethnic and religious background, some with scarves or turbans, some talking quietly, others playing and occasionally misbehaving together, completely at ease and trusting one another’. ‘How lucky you are’, said the visitor, ‘to live in a country where your children can grow up in this way’. We can also see the influence of the monarchy in the Queen’s broadcasts on COVID and in broadcasts commemorating D Day and VE Day where she was able to speak for the whole country. In my opinion, the case for constitutional monarchy is unanswerable. CJLPA : To what extent did the countries in the Commonwealth remain within the Commonwealth for economic reasons? VB : That is part of the argument, but one should not exaggerate it because, after all, when countries become independent, they do not ask whether they will be better off or worse off. If you had said to the Nigerians in the 1960s, ‘You will be economically worse off outside when you are no longer a British colony, when you are no longer ruled from Westminster’, they would have said ‘That’s completely irrelevant. We want to govern ourselves’. The Indians and other newly independent countries would have said the same. So, I would not overstress that argument. The Commonwealth is in a way a sentimental organisation which does a great deal of good because one of the main problems in the world is the relationship between people of different ethnic groups and religions. It is often forgotten that the Queen’s Christmas broadcast is not delivered in her role as Queen of Britain but as Head of the Commonwealth in which a majority are neither white nor Christian. I think it must be valuable to bring together people of different countries and different ethnic groups. CJLPA : We know that the Northern Ireland protocol is a particularly precarious issue, and a very delicate part of the Brexit process. We know it has been ruled by the High Court and the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland as legal. If it is not constitutional, on the other hand, what does that mean for Brexit as a whole, or even just the UK constitution in general? VB : What it means is that at the very least the Protocol must be radically amended. The Protocol may or may not be constitutional. But the courts were asked to pronounce on whether it is lawful—a different matter. They have said that it is lawful, but it does not follow that it is constitutional. After all, a statute that is incompatible with the Human Rights Act is lawful, but it is not constitutional. It would be lawful for the government to have ignored the Brexit referendum, which was an advisory referendum. But most of us think it would not have been constitutional. CJLPA : What is likely to happen from here on in with the Northern Ireland protocol? What are we likely to see? VB : The Northern Ireland Protocol is a consequence of Brexit. Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK with a land border with an EU country. That has become of greater importance since Brexit because Britain will probably diverge from EU rules and regulations. The question is whether the regulatory and customs border should be on the island of Ireland or in the North Sea. Wherever it is, there is going to be trouble because if it is in the island of Ireland, the Irish nationalists are going to be annoyed. If, as is the case, it is in the Irish Sea, the unionists will be annoyed. Brexit goes against the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement or Belfast Agreement—I should say that there is no agreement on what it is to be called. If you are unionist you will call it the Belfast Agreement, if you are nationalist you will call it the Good Friday Agreement. But whatever it is called, the Agreement was an attempt to resolve the Irish problem. It enabled residents of Northern Ireland to identify as British, Irish, or both, and to enjoy Irish citizenship as well as British citizenship. But, with Brexit, if someone decides on Irish citizenship, she cannot access in Northern Ireland the rights of an EU citizen. She cannot, for example, access the European Charter for Fundamental Rights. So, Brexit does complicate the Irish problem. Both John Major and Tony Blair said in Northern Ireland that this would be a consequence of Brexit. Northern Ireland, as it happens, did not vote for Brexit: 56% voted to stay in the EU. But Britain is not a federal state and so Northern Ireland was overruled by the rest of the country. The Northern Ireland courts have been considering the contention by the unionists that the Protocol is unlawful because it goes against the Act of Union of 1800 which provided that there should be no customs barriers between Britain and Ireland. The courts have said that the relevant part of the Act of Union was overridden by the Withdrawal Act which is also a constitutional statute. Parliament well knew what it was doing when it enacted the Protocol, and in so doing, it implicitly repealed the relevant part of the Act of Union. The argument against the constitutionality of the Protocol would be that the Act of Union is absolutely fundamental because it is constitutive of the UK itself. So, it cannot be implicitly repealed but has to be explicitly repealed. That issue may go to the Supreme Court, I do not know whether leave to appeal to the Supreme Court has been given but the unionists are seeking it. CJLPA : Because of the fact that it was brought by staunch unionists to the courts, is conflict almost inevitable? VB : Yes. The withdrawal agreement is a victory for the Irish nationalists. It is a zero-sum game. The Good Friday Agreement, or the Belfast Agreement, tried to avoid the zero-sum game. Both unionists and nationalists could win, one could be both British and Irish. But, in relation to the Protocol, one can understand the unionist position, since the Protocol divides the UK economically. CJLPA : Regardless of how the Northern Ireland protocol is likely to turnout, are we likely to see a chain reaction of similar, but more sovereignty-related, issues in the other devolved nations? VB : Yes, Brexit has caused renewed conflict between Westminster on the one hand and Scotland and Wales on the other, for this reason. When the devolution settlement was made in the late 1990s the assumption was that Britain would stay in the EU. The devolution of some functions, for example, agriculture and fisheries, was fairly meaningless because almost all policy in those areas was determined by Brussels, so there was no real scope for an independent policy in these areas from Edinburgh or Cardiff or, indeed, Westminster. In theory, with the incorporation of EU law back into Britain, all EU powers relating to devolved matters should go to Scotland and Wales. But this raises a problem since we cannot have, for example, four different systems of agricultural subsidies in the UK, especially when agriculture will almost certainly be the subject of trade negotiations. Suppose we seek an agreement with America. The Americans would want to ensure that they had access to the whole of the UK market, not just England. So, in the Internal Market bill, the government reserved some powers which had been devolved. There has been much annoyance in Scotland and Wales and their governments have tried to amend the law through the courts. They have, however, not succeeded since we do not have a federal system. So, Parliament can still legislate on matters devolved to Scotland and Wales. But in Scotland and Wales many say, ‘This may be lawful but it’s unconstitutional, you shouldn’t be legislating on devolved matters without our consent’. So, Brexit has raised problems in Scotland and Wales as well as in Northern Ireland. CJLPA : On a similar note, there is the looming possibility of a second independence referendum. In Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon has promised the Scottish people that in a stable post-COVID era she would propose to them the question of independence. VB : That is possible, but contrary to what many think, Brexit makes independence more of a gamble because there would then be a hard border between Scotland and the rest of the UK. The rest of the UK is Scotland’s largest trading partner: almost all its exports go to the rest of the UK, not to the Continent. So, independence could be economically catastrophic for Scotland. In addition, Scotland gets more per head in public spending than England thanks to the Barnett formula. And she would face the same problem she faced in 2014 of what her currency should be. If it were to be the pound, she would have her monetary policy controlled from London. A similar arrangement caused Greece and Italy many problems with the EU. They were restricted in their economic policy since they had no control of monetary policy which lay with the European Central Bank. If Scotland had her own currency, interest rates might rocket sky high, since the new currency would be such an uncertain quantity. If Scotland joined the Euro, she would have to reduce her budget deficit to around 3%. Her budget deficit is now at around 7 or 8%. The cuts in public expenditure or increases in taxation would need to be huge. They would make George Osborne, the austerity Chancellor, look like Santa Claus! Scotland would not get the benefit of Margaret Thatcher’s EU rebate either, I suspect. So, independence is a less viable project than when Britain was in the EU, but, as I mentioned a moment ago, it might be argued that these economic factors are not really fundamental when it comes to independence. When India and Nigeria became independent, they did not ask whether they would be better off of or worse off. Nor did Ireland when she became independent. Pressure for independence seems to be receding a little at the moment, though it is stronger amongst younger voters than older ones. The current Conservative government will not grant a second referendum but if there is a Labour government dependent on the Scottish National Party (SNP), the SNP might insist on a second referendum as a price for supporting that government. So far, we have been talking about the British problem, but I think Brexit gives rise to great EU problems as well. Donald Tusk, the President of the European Council, said it was a mistake to believe that the factors leading to Brexit are not also present in other EU countries. Brexit, he said, should be a warning signal for the EU. President Macron of France—on the Andrew Marr Show in early 2017—could not guarantee that if a referendum were held in France that it would not yield the same result as in Britain—Frexit. The EU faces problems and I think the main problem is that the original model—the Jean Monnet model, the Jacques Delors model—has reached its limit. As the EU comes to entrench upon national sensitivities, it encourages a populist reaction, particularly in areas such as immigration and control of economic policy. I think it would be better for Europe to develop along Gaullist lines, as a Europe des etats , a Europe of states (De Gaulle has often been mistakenly accused of using the phrase Europe des Patries ). The Commission remains the only body that can initiate legislation. Many find that odd since it is not elected and cannot be dismissed by the voters. Some Gaullists have said that it should become a secretariat of the Council, and that seems to me sensible. The federalists, Jean Monnet and Jacques Delors, wanted the Commission to be eventually responsible to the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers to become the upper house of member states. But Europeans do not regard the European Parliament as their primary legislature. Their primary allegiance is to their domestic legislatures and the European Parliament is seen as part of an alienated superstructure – representing them not us. There is a conflict, exacerbated by the EU, between the political class and the rest. The political class favours integration but the people are sceptical. This is particularly so in France. It was first revealed 30 years ago when the French, thought to be at the centre of European integration, only narrowly accepted the Maastricht treaty. Then, in 2005, they rejected the European constitution. Nevertheless, the elites go ahead regardless and that seems to me foolish. They need to take account of popular feeling. The EU was founded in a different age, the early 50s, when there was much greater deference, and I am not sure it works as well today when there is a demand for greater accountability. So, Brexit contains important lessons for the EU as well as for Britain. CJLPA : What lessons have the member states themselves learnt? And do they have a responsibility for how Brexit played out? VB : I think they need to look at how to combat populism and I have tried to suggest how that might be done. What is remarkable in Britain, contrary to many predictions—and I was myself a Remainer – is that Brexit, paradoxically, has liberated Britain’s liberal political culture. Survey after survey has shown that the public is more sympathetic to immigration than it was. We have developed more liberal attitudes to immigration than most EU member states, and immigrants have more of a chance of finding employment here than in many other European countries. The present government contains six members from non-white ethnic minorities. Angela Merkel’s last government in 2017 had none at all. When we left the European Parliament, we took a large percentage of ethnic minority Members of the European Parliament with us. A number of European countries have none at all. Contrary to what many predicted, we have not become a more insular racist country, we have become a more liberal country. Populist forces seem to have been weakened. The EU must itself learn how to combat populism. CJLPA : After Brexit we saw many far-right parties recoil very quickly from their own plans to exit from the EU. What has the far-right learnt with regards to Brexit? VB : The far-right benefits from general alienation from government, particularly on immigration and on the fact that the EU makes it very difficult for national governments to control economic policy. In the Mediterranean countries—not so much in Italy but in Spain and Portugal and possibly Greece—the far-left has gained more. The far-left has gained in France as well. It is the entrenching by the EU on national sensitivities that is so worrying. If you look at past federal states, many have been built after war—the American Civil War, the German wars under Bismarck, the Swiss war in 1848—and took a long time to form, even in America where everyone speaks the same language. There is not going to be any sort of federation in a Europe comprising so many different national traditions, languages, and cultures for a long time. One might have got it and might possibly still get it if an inner core of the original six got together—Germany, Italy, France, and the Benelux. But there is very unlikely to be a federation of the 27 member states. CJLPA : In light of some of the negotiations being postponed to a later date, when will we see a post-Brexit life? Will we be seeing it anytime soon? VB : Brexit is a process not an event. I think the process will continue for a long time. And it will be some time before we can judge the economic and constitutional effects of Brexit. On these matters the jury is still out on whether Brexit will prove beneficial or not. The jury is also still out on the future of the UK. Will Scotland remain part of it? Will Northern Ireland? No one knows, and I am not going to predict. It is difficult enough for the historian to find out what has happened in the past let alone what will happen in the future. This interview was conducted by Teresa Turkheimer, an MSc student in European and International Public Policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Her main interest lies in understanding the causes and effects of inequalities that characterise the labour market today, and is hoping to pursue a career in research in the coming years. [1] [2017] UKSC 62.

A front-runner in the fight for equality and justice, Professor Judith Butler is one of the most influential philosophers of the past century whose work has transformed the field of queer and feminist scholarship. By redefining what gender means and how it is displayed, Butler has broken down societal and cultural barriers, and, most importantly, allowed others inspired by their work to finally understand their identity and their place in the world. Both an activist and a scholar at UC Berkeley, they have also worked to blur the lines between the academic and public spheres, redefining what it actually means to be an intellectual in the current era. In this interview, Professor Butler delves into the increasing censorship of gender studies, discusses the unjust treatment of war victims, and reflects on their career thus far. This interview was conducted on 10 May 2022. CJLPA : For the interest of our readers, could you tell us about your story and your professional trajectory, how you got to where you are now? Professor Judith Butler : I was trained in philosophy at Yale University and in Heidelberg in Germany and was meant to be a somewhat classical continental philosopher. I studied Hegel, Marx, Kant and I continue to love that work but I did enter the world of gender studies and gender politics in the late 1980s, in part because I suffered discrimination on the job market on the basis of my gender presentation and sexual orientation. I realised I couldn’t get past those obstacles easily and so I thought that I should probably write about it, make it my theme. As a result, I produced scholarship that is a melange of continental philosophy and feminist theory. I’ve also been active in human rights organisations including a former organisation called the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, but also the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York City—and I am involved in Jewish Voice for Peace and engage in activism for Palestinian rights of political self-determination. I also continue to consult with a wide number of countries, policymakers, and feminist, queer, and trans activists on gender politics, trying to fight the anti-gender ideology movement which has turned out to be quite influential and destructive. In fact, I’m writing a book on that topic now. CJLPA : You mentioned your work in gender studies as well as your work with regard to feminist theory. Are the two inextricably linked or are they two separate entities, and should they be regarded as so? JB : They’re interlinking projects. They’re not the same but I do not think it is possible to do work in one area without connecting with the other. Both of them are important academic forms of inquiry, and they each need institutional support. Many scholars would not be able to distinguish between what is feminist studies and what is gender studies, since gender is at the heart of both forms of inquiry. Indeed, as academic fields, they are also related to social movements, often teaching literature generated within the context of social movements. And they both require institutional support. Even when one is doing scholarly work in feminist studies—let’s say one is working on renaissance literature or psychoanalytic theory, or something that feels very academic and not particularly activist—one still needs to have an institutional space where that can happen. I need funding for my research, I need a job, or I need a fellowship—in other words that research has to be supported. It cannot be censored, it cannot be criminalised, and my programmes cannot shut down otherwise I can’t do my academic work. So, we might say that even the most self-referential academic work is still dependent on institutional support of some kind: publishers willing to publish, or universities establishing programmes that are keeping them alive. Our academic work depends on institutional conditions that are of public concern, and under certain circumstances, we can be censored or criminalised or our programmes can be shut down, at which point we can’t do that academic work. So, the politics of the problem are in some ways linked to the academic activities themselves. That said, I would say that not all feminist theory has to immediately say, ‘Oh and here’s the activist implication of what I just wrote’. I don’t think so. Sometimes we are trying to understand the world, we’re trying to reconfigure how we understand social relations or history or even the psyche, we’re undertaking projects that are academic in nature that may change people’s understanding and maybe even change their lives or their activism. But I don’t believe we have to justify our academic work through its activist potential, nor do I think we always have to lay out what the activist potential is. CJLPA : Is this a source of frustration for academia, and is there a way to change that? JB : There are two sorts of problems. On the one hand, we are fighting censorship across the world. In India, they closed down something like 40 gender studies programmes, in Hungary gender studies had to move to Vienna, along with the entire university: the Central European University. They were shutting down gender studies because gender is apparently this terribly frightening and destructive ‘ideology’ according to those who oppose it. And now we’re seeing legislation that seeks to keep the word out of certain languages, or keep gender studies and critical race theory out of curricula—both of which have become caricatures, phantasms by those in the positions that criticise them or seek to censor them. So, we do have to be able to say, ‘Look, what we do is open inquiry’. And that’s what universities are supposed to be supporting. We’re asking key questions. We are discussing and debating, we clearly don’t all hold the same view. This is a field of study like other field of studies where there are methodologies that are contested and discussed and revised. There are norms of research and ways of proceeding that are academic in character, and that have as their aim an open-ended inquiry to know something better, to find out what is true or what is real. That is what we do as scholars. We need to defend the study against those who would caricature it, demean it, and substitute a frightening phantasm for the complex work that we actually do. On the other hand, very often in the classroom these days young people want to know what one’s own political position is or what political position they should take immediately on an issue. Sometimes, when you’re asked to take a position, for instance, are you for or against gender studies, it is important to take a step back and question whether gender studies is a monolithic thing that any of us could, or should, vote on in that way. Maybe the reduction of gender studies to a monolith to which we say yea or nay is precisely the problem. As somebody for whom critical thought requires a willingness to call a framework into question, I don’t want to have to take a political position if I don’t like the way it is framed, when it is the frame that is politically problematic. That’s where a critical form or reflection becomes important and that’s also part of pedagogy: we have to ask people to think through their positions, the way they are framed, what they imply, which is precisely not the same as prescribing a certain position or training them how to take them. CJLPA : On the note of critical thinking, how can one be a gender conscious researcher, whatever the field may be? JB : Well it’s interesting, you know I’m reminded of EP Thompson’s very important work on the working class, and he did quite an impressive job in treating the working classes as a kind of subject, and what they underwent, and how this was produced in time and in history—a very textured and persuasive work that had, and continues to have, enormous influence in the field of social history. And my friend Joan W Scott came along and said, ‘Oh I just love this work but he’s missing something, which is that the world of work and the world of the public is already gendered’. It was not a factor or something added onto a class analysis, but it informed the very way in which we conceptualise the working class subject. Further, what Scott proposed was that gender operates through a wide number of fields as an active and consequential presupposition. Gender doesn’t just describe gender identity, as many people now assume. An entire public world might be gendered in the sense that it’s structured by certain masculine values or presumptions that are not always marked. What, for instance, is the gendering of the public sphere? Is the public sphere presumptively masculine and, if so, how we can read that? Even now, with the war in Ukraine, we don’t see much commentary on the gendering of the war, but it’s very much there. There is a form of masculinism at stake for Putin, but also for Zelenskyy whose t-shirt and appearance re-enforced a form of heroic masculinity—the fighting man. How many women can assume that position? What does it mean that this heightened militarism and even the resistance some of us support, relies on certain ideas of embodiment: able-bodied, willing to fight, capable of fighting, of the age in which you could fight, and masculinised?—with an occasional woman with the shotgun looking like a Kurdish fighter who we’re supposed to appreciate for the feminism she represents. The recent reports on sexual violence at the border or in family homes in Ukraine are just absolutely appalling, which is why the recognition of gender-based violence is so important for legal and public policy. I think we do need to think about gendered practices, gendered spheres of life and not just gendered persons. CJLPA : On the topic of gender, you’re most well-known for your ground-breaking theory JB : of gender performativity which was introduced most famously in your book Gender Trouble in 1990. On the note of the Ukrainian war, as well as the gendered reporting of the war and the gendered war itself, if gender is performative, who or what dictates the script in the current era? JB : In general, you can try to dictate a script—people do try, and sometimes scripts seem to be pretty strongly dictated when strong directors are at work, and actors are willing to acquiesce to their will. In such cases, scripts are fixed in place—but I think in fact there’s some contingency and unexpected turns in scripts that, if I follow your metaphor, are a bit more improvisational, sometimes departing from the script, or sometimes shredding the script. For me, there may be gender norms that prescribe what we should do, but even in the act of apparent compliance, we can be departing from the norm, even contesting its power. Obviously, there is a hyper-gendering of issues going on right now, not only in the war, but in a wide range of political efforts to deny reproductive freedom, LGBTQI+ rights, and debunk gender studies. Obviously, Putin and his version of masculinity has been commented upon at length, but I would underscore the public and shameless form in which he displays his willingness to destroy and to subject the most vulnerable people to violence. This is a sign of the kind of masculinity he values, one measured by the shameless infliction of harm. It is important to remember that there is no one masculinity, no single norm that organises the appearance or operation of masculinity. With Putin, we see a lethal version of masculinity at work. For instance, Masha Gessen has written about Putin’s masculinity in a way that I think is pretty interesting, and then of course in the Boston Review, just recently, there was an important statement by the Director of Gender Studies at Kharkiv National University, her name is Irina Zherebkina, and she’s a translator who, in fact, translated some of my work and some of the major work of feminist theory from across the globe. She understands the attack on gender and feminism as a key component of this war. Putin himself named ‘gender’ as a potential threat to the spiritual values of Russia in his policy statement on national security in 2015. CJLPA : Does performativity extend to other forms of identity? Whether that be race, disability, class, religious association, to what extent is identity in these instances on the other hand performative? JB : I said gender was performative over 30 years ago and I’m not sure I would hold to the exact same position I put forward then. It’s interesting the positions you write about when you’re unemployed. I did have a temporary position at the time, but I think that when we say gender is performative, we don’t mean that it’s only performative or that’s the only thing we can say about gender. It just means that people generally have to establish their gender within a grid of legibility, or that gender is established through various means. Though the ways in which we do in a daily way unconsciously or consciously assert gender or establish it, suggests that it needs to be asserted or established, it could go another way. And it is never fully or exclusively in our power to do that establishing. There’s no natural necessity about the ways in which gender becomes available to us, which is not to say that nature plays no role or that volition is all that matters. Gender is established and re-established through various powers, and always through processes articulated in time and space. Performativity doesn’t mean it’s all fake or false or artificial, and it surely doesn’t mean that it’s fully chosen in the sense that ‘Oh, I can choose whatever I want to be today’. It means only that gender is negotiated for us before we have any agency, and we come to negotiate it in quotidian ways in time. It is not established once and for all through sex assignment, and even sex assignment cannot stabilise sex through time. As I have moved through the world, there were times where I would walk into a bathroom or locker room, because I’m a swimmer, and be told that I’m in the wrong one and I’m pretty sure I’m in the right one. Once in China I was not able to speak the language, so I literally took my shirt off so that they could see, then they were, ‘Ohhh ok, ok, ok, ok!’ But like, what did I have to do? It wasn’t immediately clear. I mean there’s some ways in which cultural legibility works this way. Obviously not just about myself, but a range of people who deal with how they are perceived, what they have to make clear time and again in order to be known or recognised or even to pass into or out of regulated spaces. This happens differently with disability. Sometimes you have to let it be known. It doesn’t mean that your disability is a performative effect in the sense that it has no substantial reality; on the contrary, the problem is that if you seek to make yourself known, legible, recognisable, or seek to evade forms of recognition that imply criminalisation or pathologisation, then a kind of orchestration of the body becomes important, a way of making plain or public one’s bodily situation, quite regardless of whether or not one has a visible disability. There are, of course, many misunderstandings about performativity because it draws on both linguistic and theatrical traditions. In my view, it cannot be reduced to either domain, but rather names their interconnection, the site of their overlapping. For those who take performativity to be a theatrical mask that you put it on and take it off at will, performativity is a bit of entertaining fakery. Although masks, as we know, can have much more important meanings in dance, religion, and rituals. The example of drag that I offered in Gender Trouble became inadvertently exemplary for some readers of what performativity means. A number of women do get up and ‘put on their face’ and ‘fix their eyes’ and ‘do their hair’. These are just daily ways of crafting, inspired by both anxiety and, presumably, gender idealisations of various kinds. One might not describe such activities as a gendered kind of crafting, but it is a gendered kind of crafting, just as some sorts of activities seek to de-constitute those norms on purpose, or engage in another way of doing gender that doesn’t really work with masculine and feminine, either exposing a gendered spectrum, or a position outside the spectrum as it has been established. At the same time, and equally importantly, we’re done to by norms, by the unconscious, by others; we’re undone and redone by norms that work on us in ways that we can neither track nor control. We’re not just crafting ourselves in some radically agentic way; we are struggling with the ways in which we were treated and situated and formed over time, and that’s why it’s a struggle rather than an arbitrary expression of personal liberty. On the issue of race people have thought, ‘Oh well does Butler think that somebody could just say: ‘Well I’m Black’, when they’re not Black, when they have no Black formation, they have no Black legacy, they don’t come from Black parents or a Black world, they just have decided that they feel Black and they want to say they’re Black. Or they want a fellowship, so they falsely claim they’re Black, or they want to belong to a certain community and deceive people in order to achieve that sense of belonging. We’ve seen people who have lied, who have fraudulently appropriated racial or cultural identities, including indigenous ones, and these are all unethical actions. That is not performativity—that is lying. For me, performativity is actually a way of challenging restrictive and oppressive norms, but cultural appropriation is an example of racial oppression. Sometimes one has to make plain what one’s background is, the community from which one comes, the sexuality that is one’s own, or the gender that represents one’s lived reality. In those cases, performativity does not create that history or sexuality or lived reality, but it does make it legible, and sometimes for the first time, or against a way of saying and naming that leaves one effaced and erased. Performativity seeks to break through that erasure, but cultural appropriation is a form of erasure. Obviously, we have to be able to understand the situations in which performativity is operating in order to evaluate its effects. We can, for instance, ask how racial norms consolidate racism through forms of performativity, in which case performativity is a way of analysing a social issue, but not, by itself, something to be celebrated or condemned. It helps us to see how reality is construed, how intelligibility is established and contested, and we might sometimes like that contestation, and sometimes not. Performativity is not its own frame of reference. CJLPA : On the note of the changing terms of reality—you also briefly mentioned your example of Drag queens—what role, if it plays a role at all, does art have to play in performativity? JB : At the time that I used the drag example, I wanted to show that what counts as feminine and masculine can change, and that some traits we take as natural or fixed are, in fact, constituted over time by virtue of practices and repeated styles. But the example was taken to be exemplary of performativity itself, and that produced some consequences I neither anticipated nor wanted. For instance, some drag performers do, in fact, clothe themselves and act in certain ways under very specific conditions, but then ‘return’ to their truer genders in everyday life. This is, of course, not the same as what happens with trans people who are living their gender reality in every aspect of their lives. The idea of a punctual, discrete, and transitory performance was reinforced by the example of drag, but, in fact, gender as lived is another matter. I did not clearly grasp the implications of that example when I wrote about it nearly 35 years ago, but I see it better now. For those who quite legitimately want the reality of their genders recognised, or who prefer to use the language of sex to describe their trans lives, it is important to underscore that sex can be reassigned, that genders can change, and that the sex or gender arrived at by trans people designated their reality. I believe that performativity can still describe that reality, since the language and recognition is achieved by various means. I would now say that gender is the apparatus through which sex is assigned, established, and re-assigned and re-established. Gender is not the cultural form that natural sex assumed, but the process through which that assumption and establishment takes place. In this sense, it is not an identity, but the process through which identity is established. Similarly, performativity is not fluff or artifice, but rather the name for the very consequential process by which subjects are formed and come to identify themselves, establish their reality, and demand recognition. Art is enormously important for me. It was what I missed most, aside from friends, during the pandemic. It has the power to embrace and fix my mind, claim my attention and transform me. CJLPA : Is it a vessel for power or is it more a platform for self-expression? JB : If we are speaking about art or artistic practice, or art objects, we have approached a complex problem. Personally, I love going to museums even though I understand the critique of museums and love both public art and performance. I am also drawn to abstraction, even though I understand the critique of abstraction from several quarters. I’m very often interested in when a painting is finished, in what year, and seek to understand how history is refracted in non-representational modes. That doesn’t mean I don’t love realism, but I do wonder about the ways in which it has been written about. Lukacs interests me, for instance, but his writing also maddens me. Is it realistic to imagine that society gives itself to us as a totality? I suppose I am always somewhat ambivalent in museums. I might want to burrow myself within the frame in order to take in what that painting is asking of me, but it’s very hard as I move around a museum structure not to be saturated with capitalism, with the hurting feet of the guards, the cost of membership, and, of course, the cost of the artworks themselves. One is, after all, roaming around a market. I remember one day I had fully enjoyed a day inside the Whitney in NYC only to exit and find people I knew protesting members of the museum’s board, Warren Kanders, who eventually resigned because his company was selling tear gas used against protestors! How do I allow myself that absorption in painting, that sense of renewal and reconfiguration, that can happen within a frame, or within a play, or even in a performance piece that is provisional without thinking about the infrastructure, who’s paying, who’s profiting? I suppose I am influenced by Brecht who cautioned not only against identification, but absorption as well. I’m very interested in performance studies, and luckily taught in the field a couple of times at UC Berkeley with my colleague, Shannon Jackson, so seeing what happens when performance moves off the proscenium and into the street or various public spaces is important to me. Performance can become part of a strike against museums or other corporate entities, and that counterpoint is very powerful. In general, there is a performance dimension to strikes and protests that is very important for the articulation of political rage but also political sorrow. We see a lot of improvisational art and performance in the Movement for Black Lives, as Patrisse Cullors has shown. I am also aware of the power of plays that were written in classical Athens but have enormous power in contemporary life: Esperanza Spalding’s rendition of Iphigenia is one. But Antigone remains ever-generative; Antigone was played under dictatorial Argentina and then post-dictatorial Argentina. Antigone was played in Colombia, in Ecuador. Colombians in exile performed the play in Mexico City; it was performed in Palestine on a rubble of rocks that used to be somebody’s home, changed into a platform. The Jenin theatre project on which I served on the international board, was all about turning political rage and sorrow into art, especially photography and performance. I think for me, some of the most emotionally powerful and life-changing, but also conceptual-framework-changing events have happened through powerful, powerful performances and powerful art, including poetry. We could document, as well, the way photography has changed our experience of illness, of war, of science, of the virus in ways that have enormous social and political implications. CJLPA : You say how walking through a museum and seeing certain frames, paintings, sculptures, whatever they may be, emotionally affects you, and that art has both positive and negative aspects. I can also see how that could be a source of anxiety for many people, not being able to, for example, walk through the museums and enjoy the art available without the knowledge of how it was retrieved—take, for example, the current scandal with the British Museum and how they retrieve certain historical items. How do we manage that anxiety? JB : I followed Christopher Hitchens’ writings on the Elgin marbles scandal, and I thought it was among the better things he did, really instigating that campaign to return the marbles to Athens. I’ve seen the partial display of those marbles in Athens as well as in the UK, and I’ve deliberately gone between the two sites to see what was stolen and how it was presented by the British Museum. I won’t not go see stolen art, but then part of looking involves seeing how the stealing is framed, and how the frame effaces the crime. Something similar happened in France after the opening of the Musée du quai Branly and art stolen from Africa was identified. After being petitioned by Felwine Sarr from Senegal, Macron agreed to return the art to Africa. Reparations of this kind are crucial to exposing the continuing colonial legacies at work in the art world, including legacies of military destruction and pillage. The repatriation of artworks is a counter-imperialist move that we need to examine and continue to think about, including the way that those legacies have contoured the canon of art history itself, as Banu Karaca has demonstrated. The history of looting is also something we look away from when we become absorbed in the work of art, but maybe we can somehow have both. There are aspects of capitalism, imperialism, and colonialism that enter into my ‘seeing’ when I go to museums, but it does not fully preclude becoming claimed by a work of art. It is that seeing moves from one dimension to another, and that the one is always hovering in the background of the other. I think we can allow ourselves that absorption, but also try to figure out what the institutional and labour conditions for this beautiful encounter I’m having are. It doesn’t destroy it for me, but it needs to be part of what I take in when I go. CJLPA : I’m particularly interested in your notion of grievability and your work in the field of necropolitics more generally, and I wanted to ask you a more topical question on this basis. I was wondering whether grievability could be applied to describe the differences we see in the treatment of war victims. Are there differences in the grievability of war victims, for example, in Ukraine compared to Palestinian citizens, or Syrian refugees? And if there is, how do we minimise this? JB : I think there’s no way to think about war without thinking about those who are fleeing war, and that means that we’re thinking about borders and detention practices. Wars are often about contesting or claiming borders, as we know. They can be ways of moving borders or breaking borders. But the border, wherever it is, is the place for the gathering of refugees and the treatment of refugees, the negotiation of alterity, citizenship, and rights of mobility, even rights of existence. Some people, following Michael Walzer, make a distinction between just and unjust war and, according to that framework, an unjust war is obviously being waged against the Ukrainian people (as of 2 June 2022). But is it right to say that the Ukrainians are waging a just war? Or is it better to say that they are engaged in a fully legitimate resistance to military aggression? Those kinds of debates centre on established nations, but let’s remember that nations get established through establishing territorial boundaries and regulating rights of passage. On the border with Poland, radical social inequality accompanies, and qualifies, the general admiration for Polish hospitality. Some refugees merit hospitality, but others clearly don’t. I’m reminded of Mahmood Mamdani’s book Good Muslim Bad Muslim where he argues that the Muslim who can assimilate well, the one who is well educated, who shares cultural or class behaviours and values with Europeans, including secular commitments, stands a chance of becoming the good one. But the one who holds out, affirming their community of belonging, participating in religious or cultural activities that deviate from dominant religious, cosmopolitan cultures, is usually deemed bad or suspect, not only because they adhere to certain religious practises, but because they are seen to adhere: they are publicly regarded as adhering to that community rather than assimilating to a national one, or they wear something that announces that they are in fact religious, or that they belong to a religious tradition and community. I recall Mamdani’s distinction because at the borders of Europe, we are witnessing mechanisms that distinguish between good and bad refugees. It’s been the case for some time that wealthy people can buy their way into citizenship in places like Spain, and that other European nations demand to see bank and investment accounts in deciding who can come in and who can stay. Even as Angela Merkel invited Syrians to Germany—and that was a great thing that she did—she discriminated against a number of North Africans at the border and did not open that same door to them. These are all examples of social inequality, but also decisions about whose lives are worthy of supporting and whose can be abandoned. For those who make those decisions according to national policies, they are all the time distinguishing between those lives that are legible, intelligible, valuable, and those that are clearly not. Even if they never say it to themselves, they are deciding whose lives are dispensable, can be tossed, or can be left to die at the border or drown at sea. For instance, in Honduras, people are living in conditions at borders that not only put them at extreme risk for COVID, but also, now, other diseases. They are living in unsanitary conditions, or without basic medical or health provisions. They are a population that is left to become ill, made increasingly susceptible to illness and to death by the lack of infrastructure provided. Maybe nobody is shooting them or bombing them, but some powers are letting them die. This is a form of slow violence, as Rob Nixon has said. That letting the population die in a way that many countries do—and I think Europe does this as well in its maritime restrictions on immigration over the Mediterranean—constitutes the second form of death-dealing that Foucault describes in Society Must Be Defended. The first might be understood as the deliberate decision of sovereign powers to declare war or sentence someone to death. Putin is emulating that form of sovereign power as we speak. But then there’s this ‘letting die’, which usually happens through policy or through neglect and dispensability. Neglect can be unthinking or it can be deliberate policy, as when Malta turns back leaky vessels filled with migrants. I think that by letting them die, we can call it necropolitical as Achille Mbembe has, I have no problem with that and I use that term myself, but sometimes those forms of death dealing are intertwined and I think we do see that in war. CJLPA : In light of that, should there be a criteria or international law in place so that countries, or specific countries, keep their borders open and welcome refugees with open arms? JB : I think there’s clear racism at the border of Poland, and the Polish government was clearly happier with Ukrainian refugees than with refugees coming from Afghanistan or Syria or North Africa. At work is both racial and religious discrimination. It’s also part of this assimilationist logic that says, ‘Oh you can come to a European country, but you must assimilate to this culture, or be regarded in advance as capable of that assimilation’. Why does anyone make a demand of that sort? Why can’t anyone come and actually change the country, change and enrich the culture of the country? Inviting migrants in implies agreeing to be transformed by new members of the society and, yes, becoming a different country. Yes! Allow the country to evolve into a more international, transnational region, that’s actually enormously hopeful. Multilingualism, that’s no less than fabulous, especially when educational and cultural institutions provide for that, and support that vision. So, although we surely need firmer anti-discrimination laws at the border, that only goes part of the way toward realising the new vision of society that is required. We also need to strengthen international covenants to stipulate that all stateless people have the right to belong somewhere, and that it is the obligation of every state to admit people from whatever origin or location for asylum procedures and to give their petitions fair, transparent, and comprehensive reviews on a non-discriminatory basis. Also, it will be imperative to rethink the state not just as a sovereign entity that defends its borders through military means and hyper surveillance but considers its borders as a portal and a threshold. The border should be rethought as portal and threshold, the site of translation, exchange, and movement, and the state should be rethought as a set of dynamic relations with other territories, regions, and states. It should be defined by that relationality rather than by its sovereign defensive position. CJLPA : What advice would you give to aspiring researchers, students of inequality, or activists? JB : I would say that if you’re a researcher in a university, make sure you do not stay fully enclosed within the university, that you don’t treat the university walls as protection and enclosure. You actually need to insist that those walls become porous and that the communities around you, the broader world, enter the university and help to decide the purpose and plan of research. I think that academics can become very self-referential within the university, and I believe some of the anti-intellectualism on the right comes from not really understanding what we do in universities and why we do it. I think there’s also anti-intellectualism on the left or on the part of those who believe that the internet provides more knowledge than any possible classroom. I don’t know about this term, ‘scholar/activist’, I don’t know if I am that or not: sometimes I’m just a scholar, sometimes I’m just an activist, and sometimes I’m blending, so I don’t really know how to reflect upon that distinction. But I think learning how to go out into the world through other platforms and making our knowledge known, and explaining its value, and handling the challenges to it in various kinds of venues, whether it’s online or in person, is a really important thing for academics to do. If we work in public universities, and the public cannot understand the value of what we do, they will seek to defund us, especially during austerity. Besides, it sharpens our thinking and it connects us with people, so we don’t become hermetically sealed within academic life and too neurotically self-referential. The academy is a place where neurosis can breed dangerously, so one needs to remember to stay connected to a larger world; it lifts one out of oneself and reminds us that we are not the centre of the world. I do think academics at the start of a career should be afforded the chance to wake up in the morning and feel passionate about what they do. Don’t pick the topic that you don’t love because you think it’ll get you somewhere professionally: No. Especially if you’re writing a dissertation or a first book, you must want to see that page when you wake up. You must be eager to get back to where you left off. But that means you have to find your desire and stay with it, and trust that it will yield something that’s valuable to you and to others. CJLPA : At this moment in time what is your current research interest, what are you working on, and what was your motivation behind this interest? JB : Well, I’m writing a book called Who’s Afraid of Gender? which is a critique of the anti-gender ideology movement. I’m trying to take apart their arguments while tracking the phantasms that haunt their thinking, which show the limits of argumentative discourse. Of course, it’s hard to argue with somebody who won’t read the work in question but nevertheless has a firm idea of what it is about. One is confronted with a highly phantasmatic side of anxiety and fear. One also has to think about how to address that. If you can’t work at the level of argumentation and evidence, how do you proceed? How do you address somebody’s massive anxiety and fear and hatred? So, that’s my problem and I’m trying to confront that question. And then I have a long-standing project on Kafka on the law—I guess we could have talked about that—where I am trying to understand, in general, how his writing relates to indefinite detention. Indefinite detention has become the most common carceral practice in the world, and Kafka had a developed premonition about how it works. In particular, he was interested in the status of legal systems when the sequence of a trial and punishment is reversed, that is to say, when one is found guilty first and then the trial and its deferment becomes an indefinitely extended form of punishment. So, I’m also interested in how Kafka thinks about the architecture of law because law is both a temporal and spatial problem in his work. When it takes architectural form, law comes to resemble prisons and their impasses. His literary writing collapses narrative into carceral space and its impasses. CJLPA : What kind of course is feminist philosophy currently taking? JB : I think there are several things going on. I think Black feminism has enormous influence not only in the US and UK, but throughout Europe, Africa, and Latin America. There’s a great deal of work being done by contemporary feminist philosophers on race and gender, but also prison abolition. We have to think about abolitionism as a form of Black feminist philosophy. There continues to be work being done in the philosophy of science relating to reproductive freedoms, personhood, the question of life, care, and the technologies of both reproduction and sex assignment. There is also a fair amount being done on feminist movement politics, especially the feminist strike, bringing forward the work of Rosa Luxemburg into contemporary feminist politics, and a great deal of reflection on both resistance and revolution. Many feminist philosophers are interested in how we think about desire and affect in politics. To answer that question, many feminist philosophers go back to Spinoza or bring Spinoza forward into the present to try to do that—I find those positions very interesting even though I cannot always go along. Decolonial feminism is important for philosophy and for several other fields, engaging feminist thinkers who have written extensively on colonisation such as Rita Segato and Françoise Vergès. CJLPA : Do you have any career memories or regrets that you have as a philosopher or as an activist? JB : I think that Gender Trouble was written when I was trying to secure a permanent job, and I think it was kind of trapped in the French discourse of the time in the US. It was written in a more difficult style than it should have been. Despite its difficulty, it remains popular and people still read it. Perhaps I could have shown more clearly how I was influenced by social movements, especially AIDS activism and LGBTQI emergent movements, but also the history of feminist thought, including Black feminist thought and poetry. I wish that I could have written that book for a broader audience and perhaps with a broader citational base, but I somehow imagined that it would not have much of a life. Of course, I have many regrets in my career, and there were times when I responded to a plea from a friend that ended up putting me in a morally compromised position. I cannot undo that kind of mistake, but I can now live my life differently. One has to be humble in relation to one’s errors, affirm the errancy, as it were, to become a more attentive and responsible person. On the other hand, I have been gifted by the connections that my work has made among readers and translators, the latter group being some of the most important intellectuals I have met. They have introduced my words, and me, to worlds that I would have never understood or known about. So, basically, I feel gratitude. So, I’m much more connected to different parts of the world by virtue of very brilliant translators who spent time with me and who ultimately became my intellectual colleagues and friends. Translation is difficult, frustrating, and transformative, like life. This interview was conducted by Teresa Turkheimer, an MSc student in European and International Public Policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Her main interest lies in understanding the causes and effects of inequalities that characterise the labour market today, and is hoping to pursue a career in research in the coming years.

Shona Illingworth is a Danish-Scottish artist and Professor of Art, Film and Media at the University of Kent, UK. Her work examines the impact of accelerating military, industrial, and environmental transformations of airspace and outer space and the implications for human rights. She is co-founder with Nick Grief of the Airspace Tribunal ( https://airspacetribunal.org/ ). Recent solo exhibitions include Topologies of Air at Les Abattoirs, Musée—Frac Occitanie, Toulouse (2022–23), The Power Plant, Toronto (2022), and Bahrain National Museum, Manama (2022–23). Illingworth was a Stanley Picker Fellow, is an Imperial War Museum Associate and sits on the international editorial boards of the Journal of Digital War and Memory, Mind & Media . The monograph Shona Illingworth—Topologies of Air was published by Sternberg Press and The Power Plant in 2022 ( https://www.sternberg-press.com/product/shona-illingworth/ ). With over 40 years’ experience as a legal academic in three universities, Nick Grief is now Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of Kent where he completed his undergraduate and doctoral studies. Throughout his career he specialised in public international law, international human rights law, and EU law, with particular reference to airspace, outer space, and nuclear weapons. Nick also practised at the Bar for 25 years, mainly as an Associate Tenant at Doughty Street Chambers, where he is now an Honorary Associate Tenant. He was a member of the legal team which represented the Marshall Islands before the International Court of Justice in cases against India, Pakistan, and the UK concerning the obligation to negotiate in good faith towards nuclear disarmament. This interview was conducted in September 2023. CJLPA: First, I just wanted to say thank you both for taking the time to interview with The Cambridge Journal of Law, Politics, and Art  to discuss your work on the Airspace Tribunal, a revolutionary human rights project that considers the case for the freedom of individuals to live without physical or psychological threat from above.[1] So I would just like to start by asking if you can tell us a little bit about the inception of the idea, and how things have progressed thus far with respect to the work of the Tribunal.   Nick Grief : It sounds crazy, but the germ of this idea originated at a meeting that we both attended at the University of Kent in 2016. It was a planning meeting, and I was at the time Dean for our Medway campus. Shona was there as a senior member of her school, and during one of the breaks we found ourselves sitting next to one another. We didn’t know each other, but we got chatting and discovered mutual interests in human rights, airspace, outer space, etc. And that’s what led us to start talking and thinking about this project. I think that’s probably where it dates from Shona, isn’t it?   Shona Illingworth : Yes, that’s the first time we met. We had an immediate connection through our common interests and concerns. The reasons for that are also quite important, particularly considering that I am an artist and Nick is a lawyer.   I grew up on the northwest corner of Scotland in a small community of craft workers that had established itself in a former military early warning station on the edge of the Cape Wrath Range, one of NATO’s most extensive live bombing ranges. It’s a 360-degree range, which aso means that it can be attacked simultaneously by land, air and sea. Twice a year, NATO and its allies conduct Europe’s largest military training exercise called Joint Warrior, using this landscape and airspace as a proxy for places of conflict elsewhere. Up to 20 countries participate in these large-scale ‘war’ exercises, which include live artillery fire, aerial bombardment, anti-submarine ships, and more recently drone technology. Around 75 aircraft are regularly involved across northwest Scotland and numerous warships appear on the horizon.   Most critically, for me, in terms of my relationship with the sky, was that without warning, three or four GR4 Tornado jets could suddenly come in very quickly and very low to drop 1000-pound live bombs on a small island just off the coast. As a child growing up there in the 1970s, the vast open skies of this remote and sparsely populated landscape would instantly collapse into an oppressive lid over our heads. The sonic force was visceral, our spatial world contracting with the overpowering military presence above. It was a complete transformation of our environment through the sheer force of the jets—that level of violence and control.   My parents were part of the 1960s post-war generation looking for another kind of life. They moved to this remote location, also hoping to escape the threat of nuclear annihilation. There was, growing up there, this constant sense of threat. This was a place that had been part of the Chain Home Command during the Second World War, then identified as the site for an early warning station at the start of the Cold War. There was always a sense there of imminent threat coming from the over the horizon.    The military use of the Highland landscape had been an area of focus in my practice for many years.[2] In 2012, I began work on a project called Topologies of Air, during an artist residency at Taigh Chearsabhagh Museum and Arts Centre in the Outer Hebrides. I was particularly interested in the planning and consultation process for a large expansion of the Hebrides Range, extending from the Outer Hebrides out into the North Atlantic. The Range is used for complex weapons trials and live-firing and is managed by a commercial company called QinetiQ. I’d read the consultation documents, and it was clear to me that the terms of the consultation were very constrained. For example, the economic case presented was that if the expansion didn’t take place, the military may close the Range and jobs would be lost. Employment and the risks of de-population have long been of critical concern for remote communities. The environmental impacts were considered in equally narrow terms.   During the residency, I recorded conversations with people living there, and undertook research. I was interested in the cultural history of the sky and relationships between people in that landscape and the space above. I became very aware of how modernity’s representation of the sky as open and empty contributed to an erasure of the deeper cultural history of the sky and understanding of its place in many different cosmologies. This act of cultural erasure, I would argue, supports the military instrumentalisation of the sky as a ‘sanitised’ space of ‘unlimited altitude’ for weapons testing.[3]    When I returned, I met Nick and discovered that he was a lawyer and law professor with expertise in international airspace law and human rights. When we met again to discuss my research in the Outer Hebrides and the consultation on the expansion of the Hebrides Range, I also described my experience growing of up in the edge of the Cape Wrath Range. Nick asked me whether I thought freedom from the effects of those oppressive forms of occupation above could be a question of human rights. I said, absolutely. Nick then explained how the legal framework for defining airspace had not significantly changed since 1944 and we agreed that this did not reflect the radical transformations in how the sky is now being used. It was during that first meeting that we decided to set up an international people’s tribunal, which we called the Airspace Tribunal, to develop the human rights dimension of airspace and outer space and consider the case for and against a proposed new human right.[4]   NG : Let me just add a little bit of colour on the legal side. My background is as a lawyer specialising in international law and human rights. In particular, I did my PhD on international airspace law, because I’ve always been intrigued by aviation and airspace even as a youngster. Before I went to university, I was fascinated by the concept of airspace and how airspace is controlled. I was particularly fascinated by the legal regime governing international airspace where there is no sovereign territory below, for example, the airspace over the high seas.   One of the first things Shona and I did was to look closely at the airspace over the UK and adjacent to the coast. We were keen to see how these military activities that Shona has described in and around the north of Scotland were provided for in terms of airspace regulation. We plotted the various restricted zones and danger areas on a map of the UK, and it allowed us to see their impact at a glance. Another thing we did was ask whether there were existing human rights laws by which this kind of activity could be challenged with respect to people’s enjoyment of the space above their heads, as live munitions are being used in these test zones.   SI : Just to add to this, during the production of an earlier work of mine called Balnakiel , I was filming the Joint Warrior Exercise from the Range Control Tower on the Cape Wrath Range.[5] I was with cinematographer Bevis Bowden and we were filming a Show of Force, which is a military tactic used to disperse civilians in an area of conflict by bringing fast jets in extremely low over the ground. I didn’t know, however, that the target area for the exercise was the control tower where I was standing. Within seconds, I experienced three GR4 Tornado jets flying incredibly low towards the building. The rush of adrenaline, the fear, the physiological transformation of my body lasted for 48 hours. It was so intense I could not sleep. I say this because even though I knew that I was not under attack or at risk, the impact was overwhelming. It has been incredibly important for the Airspace Tribunal to gain an understanding of the actual lived experience of the expanding militarisation and weaponisation of airspace and increasingly outer space, by hearing from people in different parts of the world who are being subjected to threats, violence and risk of injury or death from above, and who are often living in a perpetual state of anticipatory anxiety which can cause long-term physical, psychological, and physiological harm.[6] Fig 1 and 2. Shona Illingworth, Topologies of Air, 2021. Three-channel digital video and multichannel sound installation, 45 min. Courtesy of the artist. Commissioned by The Wapping Project. Installation view: Topologies of Air, The Power Plant, 2022. Photo: Toni Hafkenschied.