On the Strange Case of the Golden-Backed Frog With a Bonnet Mushroom Growing From Its Flank

 

Grenouille aux champignon

 

 

As if the rise of irradiated black frogs in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone wasn't enough to think about, we now discover that in the lush foothills of India's Western Ghats a live golden-backed frog has been found with a tiny bonnet mushroom sprouting from above its hind leg - which is not something you see every day ...

In fact, it's never been seen before - in India or anywhere else - and so scientists are naturally a bit puzzled by this, whilst those with a special interest in amphibians are particularly concerned, as this may not be a good development (for the frogs). 

 

Whilst it's true that even people can develop fungal infections - athlete's foot, for example - mushrooms usually grow on decaying plant matter and rotten wood, not live animal tissue; skin is a nutrient poor surface and not ideal for living upon as a rule. So perhaps this is just a very rare (rather freaky) occurrence. 

 

As the frog seen in the photo above wasn't captured, researchers are uncertain what's going on; whether there's something uniquely different about its skin, or whether the mushroom is harmful or benign, for example. But, as I've said, herpetologists are worried by this development, as frogs and hundreds of other amphibian species across the world are already under threat from another parasitic fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis).

 

Infections by what is commonly called the chytrid fungus - which ruin the salt/water balance of the skin and eventually cause heart failure - have resulted in a steady decline of amphibian populations globally, and this, in my view, is a terribly sad fact. For, like my mother, I love little gem-like frogs and think everyone should have to build and maintain a pond in their back garden by law.  

An American Battle-axe: Notes on the Life and Times of Caroline Nation

Caroline Amelia Nation (1846-1911) aka Hatchet Granny  

Photo c. 1900 

 

 

I.

 

One rarely hears people today using the amusing twentieth-century term battle-axe to describe a tough old bird who can at times be belligerent, overbearing, and bullying. 

 

I suppose it's now regarded (perhaps rightly) as sexist and derogatory in nature, although originally it was a gender-neutral descriptor and usually said with a certain amount of affection; who doesn't love Hattie Jacques's Matron in the Carry On movies, or Violet Carson as Ena Sharples in Coronation Street?    

 

Arguably the greatest (non-fictional) example of a battle-axe, however, was Caroline Nation [1]; a militant member of the temperance movement, who played up to her own popular image by actually wielding a hatchet and making it her trademark symbol. 

 

 

II.

 

Caroline Nation (née Moore) was born in Kentucky, in 1846. 

 

Although he suffered financial difficulties from time to time, her father, of Irish descent, was a successful farmer and slaveholder. Her mother - like other members of the family - suffered mental health issues; believing, for example, that she was Queen Victoria [2].  

In 1865, Caroline met and fell in love with an alcoholic young doctor and, despite parental objections, she married him in November 1867. They separated, however, shortly before the birth of a daughter the following year and he died of alcoholism in 1869. 

 

Perhaps not surprisingly, Caroline thereafter developed a vehement hatred for liquor and, after qualifying as a teacher, gaining a history degree, and marrying a much older second husband in 1874 [3], she convinced herself she had a divine mission to sober up America.

 

And so this formidable woman became involved with the more radical wing of the temperance movement which demanded prohibition long before it was passed in 1920. Caroline soon gained a fiercesome reputation for attacking establishments which served booze, justifying her actions by saying she was carrying out God's work:

 

I am a bulldog running along at the feet of Jesus and barking at what the Good Lord hates [4].     

 

III.

Initially, Nation would simply protest outside saloons, singing hymns accompanied by a hand organ and telling bartenders they were responsible for the destruction of men's souls. This had little effect, however, and she was mostly laughed at. 

 

And so Nation prayed for guidance and, finally, in the summer of 1900, the Lord spoke unto her; instructing her to enter the saloons and smash them up with rocks and promising that He would stand by her. 

 

As her arrest sheet lengthened [5] and her notoriety increased in Kansas and other mid-western states, such as Missouri and Oklahoma, she became increasingly violent and, at her husband's suggestion, she put down the rocks and picked up a small hand axe (or hatchet) in order to inflict maximum damage.  

 

It was this that really made her name and before long she was publishing her own newspaper, The Hatchet, which promised its readers that all drinkers would get what they deserved. 

 

In a very American manner, Nation also exploited her fame by appearing in vaudeville in the United States and music halls in Great Britain [6] whilst promoting her autobiography [7] and selling all manner of merchandising, including photos like the one above, in which she holds a hatchet in one hand and a Bible in the other. 

 

Nation died, aged 64, in 1911, having told her family, friends, comrades, and supporters: I have done what I could. 

 

Those who might wish to pay their respects will find her grave in Belton, Missouri. And any readers who happen to find themselves in Wichita may also like to visit the life-size bronze statue of the old battle-axe erected in front of the Eaton Hotel [8].   

 

 

'I am the destroyer of the works of the Devil 

by the direct command of God.'

Notes

 

[1] Her name was originally shortened to Carrie, but she changed it to Carry A. Nation believing she was ordained to carry a nation to sobriety (and salvation).

 

[2] Sadly, Caroline's mother Mary died in an insane asylum in 1893, having been placed there by her son (Caroline's brother Charles) three years earlier.  

 

[3] The couple divorced in 1901. 

 

[4] It might be noted that Nation also regarded herself as a suffragette or women's rights activist, and campaigned against tight clothing, including corsets, on the grounds that such garments not only restricted movements, but had a damaging effect on internal organs.

 

[5] Between 1900 and 1910, Nation was arrested more than thirty times for her militant activities. She paid her fines from lecture-tour fees and sales of stick pins in the shape of hatchets and which had the words Death to Rum engraved on the handle. 

 

[6] Sadly, she wasn't really cut out for showbiz, more given to sermonising than entertaining as she was. Whilst appearing in London in 1909, she was hit with an egg thrown by an audience member and not only did she immediately leave the stage, she ripped up her contract with the theatre and returned to the States. Like many self-righteous and self-serious types, she couldn't stand being embarrassed or made to look foolish (i.e., having egg on face).

 

[7] The Use and Need of the Life of Carry A. Nation (F. M. Steves & Sons, 1908): click here.  

[8] The six-foot bronze statue was sculpted by local artist Babs Mellor and erected in 2018. 

Reflections on the Black Tree Frogs of Chernobyl

A tree frog shown before and after the 

Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986

 

 

I. 

 

I have always liked D. H. Lawrence's description of little green frogs as gem-like [1].

 

But it seems that the frogs living in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone (CEZ) are no longer emerald green in colour. For in order to increase their survival rates in an irradiated environment, the frogs have undergone rapid evolution and now model jet black skins rich in protective melanin [2].

 

In 2016, whilst researching the effects over the previous three decades of Chernobyl's uniquely polluted environment on the flora and fauna, two Spanish scientists [3] made a strange discovery ... 

 

They expected to find that plant and animal species subjected to daily doses of radiation way above normal levels would have experienced negative consequences, but what they did not anticipate was that nature would respond in such an amazing way and recover so quickly - and they certainly weren't on the lookout for black frogs!

 

 

II.

 

So, what on earth is going on here? 

 

Well, cancer resistant wolves [4] and ebony-skinned tree frogs would seem to suggest that the Chernobyl disaster, which generated the largest release of radioactive material into the environment in human history, has accelerated natural evolution in a manner that Darwin - who always liked to stress the slow and gradual nature of evolutionary change by natural selection [5] - would have found hard to believe.   

 

And this - along with the absence of human beings - helps to explain why Chernobyl has become one of the largest nature reserves in Europe, where a diverse range of endangered species find refuge and live happily (or at least successfully) side-by-side. 

For whilst acute exposure to high doses of radiation can cerainly be damaging, both to the natural environment and the genetic material of living organisms, it can also kick-start and accelerate evolution in a surprisingly positive way, as species adapt to the new conditions. 

 

 

Notes

 

[1] See D. H. Lawrence, 'The State of Funk', in Late Essays and Articles, ed. James T. Boulton, (Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 221. 

 

[2] The pigment melanin which, as many people know, reduces the effects of ultraviolet radiation, can also, so it seems, afford protection against ionising radiation. And that's why it's better to be a black frog than a green frog if you're going to spend your life hopping about in the CEZ.   

 

[3] Germán Orizaola and Pablo Burraco; they discuss their study of over 200 male tree frogs taken from twelve different breeding ponds from various sites in northern Ukraine - including four outside the CEZ - in an article originally published on theconversation.com (28 Sept 2022): click here.  

      As Orizaola y Burraco make clear, the dark skin colouration is typical of frogs from within or near the most contaminated areas at the time of the Chernobyl disaster and it suggests that they have undergone a process of rapid evolution in response to the radiation. The black frogs, having better survival rates, are now the dominant type within the CEZ, which, in my view, is a bit of a shame, as I prefer the little frogs with bright green skins. 

 

[4] See the recent post entitled 'Cara Love and the Mutant Wolves of Chernobyl' (14 Feb 2024): click here.

 

[5] In what is considered to be the founding text of evolutionary biology - On the Origin of Species (1859) - Darwin emphasises how natural selection progresses at a glacial pace and we usually observe nothing of the changes being made until long periods of time have passed. 

      Although this is true, adaptation to new conditions can occur within a relatively short period of time and examination of the fossil record shows that many species undergo rapid bursts of evolution, even if true speciation takes time. Recent work in developmental biology has identified certain mechanisms of tissue morphogenesis that may help explain any swift structural transitions. 

      I am grateful to Dr Andy Greenfield - my go to science guy and longtime friend - for his guidance on this point.

 

 

For a frog-related follow-up post to this one, click here.

 

 

Reflections on Two Speeches by Emmeline Pankhurst

Emmeline Pankhurst (1858-1928) 

photographed in 1913

'I am by nature a law-abiding person - one hating violence, hating disorder - but from the moment 

we began our militant agitation to this day, I have felt absolutely guiltless. 

For in Great Britain there is no other way ...'

 

 

I. 

 

For some reason, the figure of suffragette Emmeline Pankhurst continues to haunt my imagination [1]. 

 

And so I thought I would take a look at a couple of her speeches, both from 1913, and perhaps find a clue as to why I find her so unsympathetic (although, actually, I know precisely what it is that irritates: her self-righteous moral and political idealism; i.e., her fascism with a human face, as BHL might say). 

 

 

II. 

 

Freedom or Death [2]

 

In a famous speech given in the United States in 1913, Emmeline Pankhurst identifies herself as a revolutionary and a soldier on the field of battle, waging civil war on behalf of women.

 

She wishes to make it clear to her American audience that she is not merely a spokesperson or an advocate - that the time for talking has been surpassed by a time for action: Deeds Not Words is the suffragette motto and if her deeds make her a dangerous person in the eyes of the authorities, well, she seems to revel in that.

 

Forced to choose between two evils - either having to "submit indefinitely to an unjust state of affairs" or rise up and adopt violent methods - Pankhurst chose the latter on the grounds that political (and maternal) history shows which option is most effective: 

"You have two babies very hungry and wanting to be fed. One baby is a patient baby, and waits indefinitely until its mother is ready to feed it. The other baby is an impatient baby and cries lustily, screams and kicks [...] until it is fed. Well, we know perfectly well which baby is attended to first."

 

Pankhurst could have refused this binary and opted for neither/nor, but instead she decided that she would make more noise and be more obtrusive - be more of a big baby - than anybody else, throwing her explosive toys out of the pram.

 

Initially, she says, the term militant was was wrongly applied to her and her cohorts. But after brutal ill-treatment at the hands of men simply for asking questions in public, they were now quite willing to accept the description and begin to terrorise the nation. 

 

And if shit happens, and the non-combatants suffer as well as the combatants, well, that's okay with her; "you cannot make omelettes without breaking eggs; you cannot have civil war without damage to something." 

 

Similarly, if suffragettes are killed for the cause (or die whilst on hunger strike in prison), well, that's unfortunate, but might also be viewed as one way of escaping male power; for the dead cannot be enslaved or denied their rights. And whilst human life is sacred, says Pankhurst, the sacrifice of life in the name of Freedom, Justice, and Equality is the greatest thing of all and she would fight for any of these noble ideals. 

 

And so we see how moral idealism turns deadly and collapses into the black hole of fascism ... 

 

 

III.

 

Why We Are Militant [3]

 

The Freedom or Death speech, as it is known, was not the only speech that Pankhurst made whilst on her fund-raising tour of the US in 1913. Why We Are Militant was another speech that is often cited and reproduced by her admirers today.

 

It opens by taking on her critics who argue that human emancipation is an inevitable evolutionary process and that women will therefore be given the vote sooner or later, thus making the violent campaign of the suffragettes unnecessary and unjustifiable. Such critics argue that educating women and preparing them for citizenship would be time better spent than smashing shop windows, burning down churches, and sending letters bombs in the post. 

 

Pankhurst, however, rejects this argument and sees little virtue in patience. Indeed, she sees patience as "something akin to crime when our patience involves continued suffering on the part of the oppressed" and argues that political change has only come at the point of a sword, i.e., via rioting, revolution, and war - not peaceful evolution. She reminds her listeners that the Reform Acts of 1832 and 1867 which extended the vote first to middle class men and then the urban male working class, were passed in response to violence and the threat of still greater violence to follow.   

 

Pankhurst thereby defends the arson attacks carried out by her suffragette comrades and suggests that if half of England needs to be burned down in a single night so that she might be able to put her X on a ballot paper, then so be it. Peaceful marches and meetings were having no effect - even if on a large scale - and appeals made fell on deaf ears - violence was unfortunate, but necessary.   

 

And the right to behave in a violent manner was part and parcel of female emancipation and equality; women should be free like men to behave in a non-constitutional and criminal manner - to break heads and destroy property - when the time called for direct action. They had the human right to do so when all other available means to bring about social and political change had failed. 

 

IV.

 

So, I think it becomes clear from these speeches why I don't like Emmeline Pankhurst. 

 

During the years she, her daughters, and the rest of her gang were particularly active on the UK political scene - from the founding of the Women's Social and Political Union in 1903 until the advent of the First World War in 1914 - there was, as Foucault would say, a certain style of political discourse and a certain ethics of the intellectual [4] - a style and an ethics that justified violence in the name of certain high ideals (such as freedom and equality). 

 

This radical moral philosophy appealed to a wide variety of political ascetics, angry militants, and potential terrorists - those who may claim to act in the name of Love, but are actually motivated by hate and resentment and seem to be particularly gripped by the molecular fascism that is in us all (in our speech and our everyday actions; in our thoughts and our desires). 

 

Paraphrasing Foucault once more, I would remind those who continue to admire Pankhurst and still think that revolutionary violence is justified by some greater good, that even if what you are fighting for is noble - and even if those you oppose are base and deplorable - you do not have to terrorise in order to be militant. 

 

And, further, don't think that politics is only and always about (defending or granting) individual rights as defined in liberal humanist philosophy.  

V.

 

It's worth noting, finally, that it was Emmeline's eldest daughter Christabel who was the real black shirt of the family. It was only after she took over leadership of the WSPU that the real violence began and the group resorted to terrorism as a legitimate political tactic - much to the horror of more moderate members who either spoke out against the bombings and arson attacks. 

 

In 1913, when Emmeline gave her speeches in America, several prominent individuals left the WSPU, including Pankhurst's younger daughters, Adela and Sylvia. 

Somewhat ironically, it was only with the outbreak of war the following year that Emmeline and Christabel called an immediate halt to their militant campaign and lent their full support to the British government in the conflict with Germany. Not only that, but they encouraged all women to assist in the war effort and all men to fight for king and country - happily handing out white feathers to those who had no wish to do so.   

 

After the War ended, Emmeline became more concerned with what she perceived as the threat posed by Bolshevism and joined the Conservative Party; her daughter Christabel, along with other more radical one-time suffragettes, chose to support the British Union of Fascists [5].   

 

 

Notes

 

[1] I have recently published two posts on Pankhurst and the insufferable suffragettes and their far-right political affiliations: click here and here. 

 

[2] This speech was delivered in Hartford, Connecticut on 13 November, 1913. It can easily be found in full online. An edited version was also reproduced in The Guardian (27 April 2007) as part of a series of great speeches of the 20th century: click here.     

 

[3] This speech is also from the US tour of 1913 and can also be found easily enough online: click here, for example. 

[4] See Michel Foucault's preface to Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-Oedipus, trans Robert Hurley, Mark Seem, and Helen R. Lane, (The Athlone Press, 1994), pp. xi-xiv. 

[5] Again, see the post 'On Suffragettes and the British Union of Fascists' (17 Feb 2024): click here. 

On Suffragettes and the British Union of Fascists

Photo illustration by Natalie Matthews-Ramo [1]

 

 

I. 

 

Having received a number of emails from readers responding to my last post on Sadiq Khan and the Suffragettes - most of which expressed shock and disappointment to discover that the latter were more than happy to use violent means to achieve their political ends - I thought it might be interesting to say a bit more about these insufferable women to whom history has granted heroic victim status [2]. 

 

Deeds Not Words - this is the slogan of many an ascetic militant or armed revolutionary. And it usually means that someone somewhere is about to be shot, blown up, stabbed, or beheaded in the name of some higher cause or greater good. In other words, such murderous actions are justifiable when they are committed in the name of freedom, justice, or God, for example. 

 

In addition to smashing shop windows and setting fire to all kind of buildings, including theatres and churches, not just government offices, the suffragettes were also prepared to kill politicians, judges, and members of the public. In 1912, one of these deranged harpies even threw an axe at then Prime Minister Herbert Asquith (it missed him, but injured another MP, almost slicing off his ear) [3]. 

 

If only a handful of people were actually killed as a result of the suffragette terror campaign, there were dozens severely injured. But that's not really the issue: the issue is whether such violence can ever be acceptable [4]. I don't mind if someone answers yes to this question, but then I don't expect them to complain about the violence that invariably befalls them or start squawking about their human rights. 

 

If you live by the sword ...

 

 

II. 

 

The fact is, Pankhurst, her daughter Christabel, and the rest of her criminal gang, essentially revelled in the violence and the chaos caused - dismissing those women who called for patience and peaceful protest. It's little wonder, therefore - and this too will come as a shock to some readers - that many of the most militant suffragettes eventually drifted into the sweaty embrace of the black-shirted strongmen of the British Union of Fascists ...  

As the British historian Martin Pugh points out [5], Oswald Mosley's paramilitary movement drew all kinds of cranks and crackpots, including Mary Richardson, the former suffragette notorious for slashing The Rokeby Venus in 1914, who ran the Women's Section of the BUF (est. 1933), after Mosley's mother gave up the role.

 

When asked what attracted her to Mosley and the BUF, Miss Richardson explained that she saw in the Blackshirts the same courage, dedication, and loyalty that she had known in the Women's Social and Political Union. The fact that the BUF were ultranationalists who wanted to make Britain great again and keep Britain for the British, also appealed to her extreme brand of patriotism.         

In the interwar period, votes for women was no longer the burning issue it once was for women like Richardson and Christabel Pankhurst [6]. In fact, they now repudiated the entire parliamentary system and advocated total obedience to a supreme leader. They also regarded feminism as a form of decadence and openly sneered at women such as Nancy Astor, the first female member of Parliament.

For these women in their black blouses, black berets, and grey skirts it was fascism which uniquely offered a true form of feminism and promised an escape from the twin evils of domesticity and democracy and they enthusiastically gave the BUF their full support.

 

 

Notes

 

[1] This image was used to illustrate an article by Martin Pugh entitled 'Why Former Suffragettes Flocked to Fascism' (14 April 2017), in the online magazine Slate: click here. The article was excerpted from Pugh's book Hurrah for the Blackshirts!: Fascists and Fascism in Britain Between the Wars, (Pimlico, 2006).

 

[2] There are even memorial statues of Emmeline Pankhurst, founder of the Women's Social and Political Union (1903), in London and Manchester. 

[3] Readers might also find it interesting to know that future PM Winston Churchill was also assaulted by a suffragette using a horse-whip, whilst on a platform of Bristol railway station, in November 1909. The woman was arrested for assault, but was simply found guilty of disturbing the peace. 

 

[4] For me, the acts of terror and political violence perpetrated by the suffragettes are objectionable on several grounds, including the fact that they betray class privilege and indifference to the suffering of those deemed social inferiors. These ghastly women simply didn't care if a policeman, or a postal worker, or a train driver, was injured or killed, because they didn't know any such people personally and were most unlikely to have family members employed in such roles.

      A bit like the Just Stop Oil protestors today, they also knew they were unlikely to be subject to the full force of the law as they came from posh backgrounds and had friends and supporters in postions of power and influence.  

 

[5] See note 1 above. I am indebted to Pugh for his published work in this area. 

 

[6] During 1916-17, the House of Commons Speaker chaired a conference on electoral reform which recommended limited women's suffrage. Then, in 1918, the Representation of the People Act was passed which allowed women over the age of 30 (who met a property qualification) to vote. Although 8.5 million women met this criteria, it was only about two-thirds of the total population of women in the UK. It was not until the Equal Franchise Act of 1928 that all women over 21 were finally able to vote. This act increased the number of women eligible to vote in UK elections to 15 million. 

 

 

For a follow-up post on two speeches by Emmeline Pankhurst, click here.  

Sadiq Khan and the Insufferable Suffragettes

A group of Suffragette terrorists pictured in 1913

 

 

That human weasel posing as London mayor, Sadiq Khan, has come up with a way to waste millions more of tax payers' money: a rebranding of six Overground lines with names said to celebrate the city's diverse history and culture. 

 

In other words, it's another attempt to impose a pernicious ideology and for Khan to virtue signal his own wokeness to the world. 

 

But there's a certain irony, of course, in naming the Gospel Oak to Barking Riverside route the Suffragette Line. 

 

For as readers who have read the history of this women's organisation from the early part of the 20th-century will know, their activism included an orchestrated bombing and arson campaign in the years 1912-14 that was described as terrorist in nature by the authorities and admitted as such by leaders of the movement, including Emmeline Pankhurst, whose daughter Christabel directed militant actions from the safety of exile in France.

 

Their radical slogan Deeds Not Words meant targeting not only government officials, but members of the public, with the aim being to make every aspect of English life insecure and unsafe. 

 

On 25 October 1912, this involved setting fire to a train carriage as it pulled into Harrow station. Fortunately, nobody was hurt in this incident - but they certainly could have been. Which is why, as I say, there's an irony in naming a train line in honour of these fanatics. 

 

One wonders if a hundred years from now they'll accord the same honour to the Islamist suicide bombers who targeted commuters travelling on London's public transport network in July 2005 ...? 

 

 

For a follow-up post to this one on the suffragettes and the the British Union of Fascists, click here. 

 

For a follow-up post on two speeches by Emmeline Pankhurst, click here.

 

 

Cara Love and the Mutant Wolves of Chernobyl

Dr Cara Love and a grey wolf 

Images via caranlove.com 

 

 

I. 

 

Since it's Valentine's Day, I thought it might be appropriate to give a shout out to Love - Cara Love, that is, a post-doctoral research fellow at Princeton University who specialises in the ecological and evolutionary consequences of anthropogenic stressors in a variety of species worldwide, but who has recently been in the news due to her work with the grey wolves of the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone (CEZ) ... 

 

II.

 

As many readers will know, ever since the nuclear reactor at the Chernobyl power plant exploded back in the spring of 1986, a 1000 square-mile exclusion zone has been maintained in order prevent the evacuated residents from returning to an area where radiation levels remain dangerously high.   

 

This hasn't, however, stopped many forms of wildlife - including wolves, horses, bears, bison, and wild boar - from occupying the zone and multiplying in a contaminated but, crucially, human-free environment.   

 

Whilst there are several scientific studies involving the wolves who live at the heart of the exclusion zone, and most of these are being conducted in the hope that they may enable researchers to better assess the impact of radiation levels on the health of the animals, it seems to be Dr Love who is being credited with the amazing discovery that Chernobyl's wolves - after generations of exposure to radioactive particles - seem to have developed resistance to cancer.    

 

Love and a team of researchers visited the CEZ in 2014 and have been monitoring a number of wolves fitted with radio collars since then. They discovered that the animals were exposed on a daily basis to a level of radiation more than six times the legal safety limit for people. 

 

Dr Love also found that the wolves have altered immune systems similar to cancer patients undergoing radiation treatment, but, more significantly, she identified specific parts of the wolves' genome that seemed resilient to increased cancer risk. In other words, the wolves have genetically mutated in a manner that is beneficial to their survival.

 

Unfortunately, recent events - the Covid pandemic and Russia's invasion of Ukraine - have prevented Dr Love and her colleagues from returning to the CEZ in recent years. Nevertheless, she felt able to present her findings so far to a meeting of the Society of Integrative and Comparative Biology in Seattle, Washington, last month.

 

The hope is that Love's work with mutant grey wolves will one day help to prevent (or treat) cancer in human beings. But my concern, however, is that this will inevitably lead to cruel experimentation on the wolves (and doubtless other mammals) currently inhabiting a radioactive paradise ...  

 

 

Birthday Reflections

 

 

I. 

 

February 13th is a day of quiet reflection for me now: the day I was born (1963) and the day my mother died (2023).

 

In the Bhagavad Gita it is written: Learned is he to whom the mystery of birth and death is revealed. [1]

 

But I'm not a Hindu and don't particularly wish to be learned in the religious sense indicated here. For I remain sceptical of the idea that there is a mystery to be revealed. And even if there is, I prefer that Isis remain veiled and keep her secrets. 

 

 

II. 

 

Not that the idea of reincarnation is much of a mystery any longer. For it's common knowledge that Hindus believe that the salvational goal is to fully realise the self as some kind of pure, unchanging spiritual essence following a series of material and transient incarnations.

 

Birth and death are facts of little real importance, according to Hindu teaching. What matters is liberating the soul from this cycle so that it may achieve lasting perfection in the great sea of Being that lies beyond life and death.   

 

Thus we can say of the great Hindu gurus what Lawrence says of Buddha, Plato, and Jesus; namely, that these grand idealists were utter pessimists, teaching that Truth lay in "abstracting oneself from the daily, yearly, seasonal life of birth and death and fruition, and in living in the 'immutable' or eternal spirit" [2]. 

 

Personally, I don't want to move from the known world to the unknown world; from the visible to the invisible; from the seen to the unseen. I know, as Lawrence knew, that such abstraction brings "neither bliss nor liberation, but nullity" [3].

 

I'm happy to live and die and be endlessly reincarnated in the flesh like a karma chameleon forever changing colour, shape, form, etc., and I don't want to lose myself in the infinite completeness of the Whole thank you very much. 

 

If that means never being free from desire, pain, anxiety, and delusion - never obtaining supreme wisdom or eternal peace - well, again, that's fine with me. 

 

When holy fools tell me I must learn not to identify with the objects of the world I immediately wish to bring one of these objects crashing down on their heads; when they tell me not to become attached to my body I want to give them a kick up the arse. 

To conclude, if I may, with another quotation from Lawrence: 

 

"For man, the vast marvel is to be alive. For man, as for flower and beast and bird, the supreme triumph is to be most vividly, most perfectly alive. Whatever the unborn and the dead may know, they cannot know the beauty, the marvel of being alive in the flesh." [4] 

Notes 

 

[1] The Bhagavad Gita ('Song of God') is a 700-verse Hindu scripture, which forms chapters 23-40 of Book 6 of the epic Mahabharata called the Bhishma Parva. The work is dated to the second half of the first millennium BC.

 

[2] D. H. Lawrence, A Propos of 'Lady Chatterley's Lover', published together with Lady Chatterley's Lover, ed. Michael Squires, (Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 330.

 

[3] Ibid., p. 331.

 

[4] D. H. Lawrence, Apocalypse and the Writings on Revelation, ed. Mara Kalnins, (Cambridge University Press, 1980), p. 149. 

 

 

This post is for all those who were born (like me and Kim Novak) or who died (like my mother and Richard Wagner) on this day. 

Galliano's Auntie

John Galliano and Auntie (2021) [1]

 

I. 

 

By his own confession, the British fashion designer John Galliano loves to surround himself with much-loved objects collected over the years and it's good to know that he recognises the vital nature of his relationship with them. 

 

For not only do objects inspire as alluring things-in-themselves, they also trigger, he says, the memories and emotions that allow him to create.

 

 

II. 

 

As might be imagined, Galliano has a lot of paintings, drawings, and photographs that he treasures, but the objet d'affection that most interests me is an artist's mannequin (or lay figure) called Auntie, whom, Galliano informs us, is over a hundred years old and yet still assists him with his all fittings whilst acting also as his sternest critic. 

 

Apparently, Auntie was residing in Montmartre when Galliano first encountered her and he likes to imagine that, in her youth, she inspired some of the great modern artists who would have lived and worked in the area during the final years of La Belle Époque. 

 

As something of an agalmatophile myself, I can fully appreciate Galliano's fascination with this life-sized wooden doll. 

 

 

III. 

 

For those readers who are unfamiliar with mannequins such as Auntie, I should perhaps explain that they were used by artists keen to improve and refine their knowledge of the postures and movements of the human body (although they were not, however, intended as substitutes for live models). 

 

For unlike mannequins made for medical or fashion purposes, an artist's doll is fully articulated:

 

"The flexibility of its shoulders and arms, hips and legs, wrists and ankles allows it to be configured into any position possible [...] even each finger is easily manipulated to individually open and close. This remarkable agility was made possible by an intricate system of rotating wood ball-and-socket joints, numerous dowels, and an elaborate internal mechanism [...] or 'skeleton', that holds its parts in place." [2]

 

As might be imagined, dolls of this quality took several months to make and were extremely costly. Nevertheless, they were increasingly in demand from the late 18th to the mid-19th century and even after this date some artist's still liked to have a lay figure in their studio.    

 

Personally, I think it sad that there are now so few surviving examples of these skilfully-crafted dolls in tip-top condition and so one is grateful to Galliano for taking such good care of Auntie and providing her with such a beautiful retirement home. 

 

 

Notes 

 

[1]  Screenshots of Galliano and Auntie from an episode of Objects of Affection, dir. Nikki Petersen, and uploaded to the Vogue YouTube channel on 16 Nov 2021. Whilst graciously showing us around his treasure-filled French hideaway, Galliano introduces us to some of the objects that mean the most to him: click here.    

 

[2] Marjorie Shelley, 'Mannequins: A Tool of the Artist's Workshop' (April 2016) on the Met Museum website: click here. 

 

 

For a related post on Surrealist mannequin fetish (published on 6 april 2017), please click here.  

 

 

Notes on 'The Crisis of Narration' by Byung-Chul Han (Part 3)

Byung-Chul Han pictured with the Spanish language

edition of Die Krise der Narration (2023) [a]

I. 

 

Byung-Chul Han is very good at coming up with memorable phrases and titles for his books. Arguably, indeed, that's his greatest talent and I understand why a friend of mine characterised (and dismissed) his work as merely a mix of soundbite and slogan distilled from the work of other much greater thinkers. 

That's a bit harsh, but I know what she means (even if I wouldn't wish to criticise Han for this). 

 

Anyway, on we move to section six of The Crisis of Narration [b] - 'From Shocks to Likes' ...

 

Reading Benjamin (who is in turn reading Baudelaire and Freud), Han argues that external reality impacts upon the subject as a form of shock and that consciouness is a way of registering and protecting us from stimuli that would otherwise be too much to handle: "The more readily consciousness registers these shocks, the less likely they are to have a traumatic effect." [44]  

 

Having dreams and forming memories are thus delayed ways of coming to terms with things that might otherwise overwhelm us. And the modern world is profoundly shocking; "the shock aspect of individual impressions has become so intensified that our consciousness is forced to be permanently active as a shield against stimuli" [45].  

 

But that isn't good; for it means we register less and less reality and have weaker and weaker experiences (our dreams become less disturbing and our memories less vivid). We need some degree of shock in order to feel and to think and to create. 

 

Unfortunately, we don't just now act as living organisms to protect ourselves from stimuli - we employ digital technology to (literally) screen off reality. Han writes:

 

"Etymologically, a screen [Schirm] is a protective barrier. A screen bans reality, which becomes an image, thus screening us from it. We perceive reality almost exclusively via digital screens. [...] On a smartphone screen, reality is so attenuated that it can no longer create any shock experiences. Shocks give way to likes." [46] 

 

That's what we want today: a non-threatening, non-disturbing, non-shocking world that we can like. Not a world of otherness that we can gaze at and which gazes into us, but a familiar, friendly, flat, sealed-off and smoothed-off world that is pleasing to the eye and satisfies our need for safety and smartness. 

 

Nietzsche would not approve. Lawrence would not approve. Heidegger would not approve. Baudrillard would not approve. In fact, anyone who loves objects and otherness and wishes to live dangerously in a world in which dreams, memories, and disturbing artworks are still possible would not approve.  

 

For Han, this world cowardly new world is typified by Netflix and Jeff Koons:

 

"In the age of Netflix, no one speaks of having shock experiences in connection with films. A Netflix series is nothing like a piece of art that corresponds to a pronounced danger to life and limb. Rather, it typically leads to binge watching. Viewers are fattened like consumer cattle. Binge watching is a paradigm for the general mode of perception in digital late modernity." [47] 

 

"The type of artist represented by Baudelaire, someone who inadvertently causes fright, would today  seem not only antiquated but almost grotesque. The artist who typifies our age is Jeff Koons. He appears smart. His works reflect the smooth consumer world that is the opposite of the world of shocks. [...] His art is intentionally relaxed and disarming. What he wants above all is to be liked." [48][c]

 

 

II. 

 

I do agree with Han: big data does not explain anything and the numbers never speak for themselves. 

 

Having said that, if we know the how, what, where and when, perhaps it becomes a bit easier to answer the metaphysical question of why and I don't see why theory shouldn't be based upon data. 

 

Similarly, I agree that whilst AI can compute and count it doesn't really think, but that doesn't mean it can't help us conceptualise and comprehend and continue to produce narratives (be they philosophical, psychoanalytic, or artistic in character) if that's our wont. 

 

Because Han tends to think in quite stark (and oppositional) terms - narrative community contra information society, for example - his work can unfortunately become trapped in its own binaries.         

 

III.

 

I have to admit, I'm a bit dubious about the healing power of narrative, even if I quite like the idea of the philosopher as cultural physician practicing the art of critique et clinique, and even if I have in the past promoted an idea of rescripting the self. 

Obviously, Han sees himself very much as one who has come to heal (even save) mankind by helping us to come to terms with the many ills and woes of contemporary culture by embedding them in a meaningful context; if not, indeed, in what comes close to being a religious narrative that "provides consolation or hope and thus carries us through the crisis" [57]. 

 

Jesus! This reminds me of that pompous egg-headed philosopher Alain de Botton, who, thankfully, seems to be keeping a lower media profile of late. He also treated his readers like small children in need of the consoling voice or gentle touch of a loving parent when they felt bad. 

At best, it's patronising and at worst, it's philosophical mollycoddling. 

 

 

IV.

  

As a Lawrentian, I often refer to the inspiration of touch and/or the democracy of touch: click here or here, for example. 

 

Touch is one of the key terms in Lawrence's phallic vocabulary [d] and so I'm pleased that Byung-Chul Han also recognises the importance of touch: "Like storytelling, touching also creates closeness and primordial trust." [58] 

 

That's true, but I suppose it depends on who's doing the touching and in what context.        

Han goes on to suggest that we now live in a society "in which there is no touching" [59] and that this has negative consequences:

 

"The retreat of touch is making us ill. Lacking touch, we remain hopelessly entrapped in our ego. Touch in the proper sense pulls us out of our ego. Poverty in touch ultimately means poverty in world. It makes us depressive, lonely and fearful." [59-60]   

And, paradoxically, the rise of digital connectivity and social media only makes things worse. 

Again, I think that's probably true, but I understand why some would dismiss this as a series of groundless assertions, made as they are without any supporting evidence. In the end, when you read an author like Han, you simply have to take a lot on trust (those who love his work will believe every word; those who don't will adopt a more sceptical position).  

 

V. 

I mentioned above Han's notion of a narrative community. But other than being something in contradistinction to the information society, what is a narrative community? 

 

It seems to refer to a small village (with or without an ancient tree at its centre), where the villagers sit around and swap stories that reinforce values and norms and thereby ensure unity (i.e., produce a we). There's no competitive individualism in the narrative community; just solidarity and empathy.

 

But Han doesn't want his readers to mistake the narrative community for some kind of Volksgemeinschaft as conceived by the Nazis and rooted in ethno-nationalism (or blood and soil). 

 

He wants, rather, that we conceive of the narrative community as a dynamic society allowing for change and otherness and do not "cling to a particular identity" [63], embracing instead a model of universal humanism informed by Kantian philosophy [e] and the poetry of Novalis [f].  

     

Well, I'm sorry, but where Han leads I will not follow ...

 

Push comes to shove, I think I prefer even the hell of the present to a future utopia promised by Idealist philosophers and Romantic poets! And Han's optimistic political vision, based on his concept of a narrative community which "provides meaning and orientation" [68] and opens up a new order, is not one I share.      

Notes

 

[a] This image is borrowed from a review of Byung-Chul Han's La crisis de la narración, by Marco Nicolini entitled 'El regreso del storytelling' (20 Oct 2023) and published on the Arzeta website: click here (or here for the English translation).

 

[b] Byung-Chul Han, The Crisis of Narration, trans. Daniel Steuer, (Polity Press, 2024). The work was originally published as Die Krise der Narration, (Matthes & Seitz Berlin, 2023). Page numbers given in the above post refer to the English edition. 

 

[c] Han really hates Jeff Koons. I have written on this (and in defence of the latter and his artwork) previously on TTA. See for example the post dated 16 Feb 2022: click here.  

[d] I explore this phallic vocabulary on James Walker's Memory Theatre (a digital pilgrimage based on the works of D. H. Lawrence): click here.

[e] Han refers to and quotes from Kant's 'Perpetual Peace', a philosophical sketch from 1795 in which the latter dreams of a global community in which all human beings are united and there can be no refugees: "Every human being enjoys unlimited hospitalty. Everyone is a cosmopolitan." [Han, The Crisis of Narration, p. 63.]

      Kant's essay can be found in Political Writings, ed. H. S. Reiss, (Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 93-130.  

 

[f] Han writes: "Novalis is another thinker who argues for radical universalism. He imagines a 'world family' beyond nation or identity. He takes poetry to be the medium of reconciliation and love. Poetry unites people and things in the most intimate community." [63] 

      That Han should simply take us back to moral idealism and Romantic fantasy is disappointing to say the least. However, those readers who wish to know what Novalis has to say about the world family all living as one in a beautiful society, should see his Philosophical Writings, trans. and ed. Margaret Mahony Stoljar, (State University of New York Press, 1997).   

 

 

Part 1 of this post can be read by clicking here. 

 

Part 2 of this post can be read by clicking here.