Holly Batty’s analysis of Harry Potter primarily demonstrates that the main character of the book presents a fluid, posthumanist identity. Nevertheless, her reflections on animal metamorphoses in J. K. Rowling’s bestseller also shed light on people’s fascination for (fictional) protagonists who have non-human powers and, in particular, for those who are able to simultaneously have human and animal characteristics. Indeed, readers of fantasy novels seem to be eager to discover the adventures of characters who are able to transform and to overcome their limitations through their ability to mutate and to go through alternative embodied experiences, usually while preserving human intellectual capacities, such as reason and language (one can think of the range of animalistic super-heroes: Batman, Spiderman, Catwoman, etc.).

I believe that our strong interest for creatures who are both human and (non-human) animal, or for humans who are able to (temporarily) transform themselves into animals, unfolds from a deep connection that we feel between terrestrial, embodied species and, perhaps, from the muffled awareness that we are not in fact superior to animals, since we are aware that we do lack some skills they exclusively possess. As a matter of fact, we are a certain kind of animal ourselves and, therefore, it is not surprising that we do feel close to other animals: we share an embodied presence in the world, a sentient nature, and an experience of space and time. For instance, non-human animals are, just like us, mortals, that are subjected to finitude. Given our shared existential fragility, it is not far-fetched to assume that animals are confronted with some of the issues and anxieties humans face: they, too, have notions of time and space, experience pleasure and pain, age, fear for their lives, feel and care for others, etc. Our embodied experience of the world, that is our fragile, sentient, and mortal bodies, are the common grounds which explain why we can relate to them, try to become like them, empathize with their pain or pleasure, or even envy some of their physical abilities we lack.

As humans, we can hence understand and relate to other animals’ experiences and behaviors, even though we often read them through analogies with our own abilities and limitations. But these parallels we draw precisely prove that we feel close enough to them to find comparisons relevant. Indeed, we use categories that describe human attitudes to qualify animals: for instance, we see lions as “strong” and “fierce”, sloth as “lazy,” etc. Besides, this perhaps suggests that the heuristic and empathic value of anthropomorphism could be reassessed as a means of making us relate to and empathize with animals.

Moreover, we have also extensively used animals to describe our own world through fictions, myths and fables (from Aesop’s Fables and Ovid’s metamorphic poems to Orwell’s Animal Farm, through Jean de La Fontaine’s highly politicized bestiary). This literary trope emphasizes that we actually feel close enough to animals, and that we think they resemble us enough so that they can convincingly convey messages about social life. Indeed, this means that we are empathic enough with them that we can care about stories in which they play the lead roles.

Regardless of the impossible transformation of a human being into an animal in the real world, the implementation of this possibility in our imagination through fictions prompts us to reflect on our own animality. However, because we are highly intelligent creatures, it does not seem so far fetched nor out of reach to try to develop some animal abilities that we’d like to acquire. Indeed, many of the technological breakthroughs we have achieved over our history were inspired by animal abilities we wished to acquire (our planes are our way to fly, our boats our way to swim, our shoes our way to move swiftly on uneven grounds, our clothes our protective “furs”, our knives compensate for lack of sharper teeth, etc.). Similarly, we often challenge ourselves to emulate some of animals’ most impressive skills: running for long periods, swimming fast, or climbing trees, For instance, it is common today to see people trying to increase their competence to free dive, thus staying in the water without specific equipment for a great amount of time. Some free divers, such as Tom Sietas or Stig Severinsen, dive as deep as 250 meters while holding their breath for more than 20 minutes. This kind of feat can be seen as the result of a desire to experience other forms of embodiment, that of marine animals in this case, whose abilities inspire such challenging human practices.

Therefore, the creation of fictif creatures that have the ability to be both human annimals invites the reader to re evaluate the premise that, as a human being, he is utterly supperior to an animal. Perhaps, from the existence of those fictif creatures, the readers call into question the hyrachique order they have created, which is solely based on the values that are essentiel according to their perception.

Work cited

Batty, Holly. 2015. Harry Potter and the (Post)human Animal Body. Bookbird: A Journal of International Children’s Literature 53(1):24-37.

Orwell, George. Animal Farm (Signet Classics). New York: Signet Classics, 2004. Print.

The introduction of What Gender Is, What Gender Does unveils how the binary classification of gender, as male and female, is highly reductive. It is a normalized and normative polarity which, in spite of its specious self-evidence, is far too simplistic and rigid to account for each individual’s idiosyncratic, perpetually changing and multi-faceted gender identity. If Judith Roof acknowledges that, “binary gender appears as natural, preexistent, and necessary”, it is only to stress that gender is commonly thought of as organically tied to one’s sexual organs. However, the author underscores that this persisting commonplace conception of gender overlooks the nuances and complexities that gender positioning actually encompasses, as well as the processual nature of gendering. In reality, even if one’s gender can often be read according to the dichotomy of male and female, masculine and feminine, it is always much more complex, diverse, heterogeneous, flexible and slippery than this binary paradigm suggests. Not only do these dual archetypes (male/female) fail to designate the complex process of gendering, they also have normalizing and prescriptive effects on people’s identities and behaviors since they reify two specific categories (of a much broader spectrum of gender possibilities) in which people are expected to fit.

Roof’s analyses invited me to ponder on why it is so hard to reevaluate what we conceive as gender and the elements that we associate to it. Why can’t we easily call into question our definition of gender? Why does binary gender seem so natural and incontestable? Perhaps what’s most striking to me is our tendency to tie people’s identities to their gender. Indeed, I find it strange that gender is seen as such an extremely prominent facet of one’s identity, as one of the key elements that supposedly determines one’s personality even though gender is not thought of in strict terms of physiology anymore and is rather tied to one’s social status. In other words, gender is now understood as a set of social characteristics as much as a set of biological ones. In our current societies, most of us expect people’s tastes, states of mind, behaviors, bodies, and ideas to correspond to a certain gender, as we have traditionally attributed certain qualities and certain flaws respectively to males and to females. But, why is our perception of gender so limited and so polarized if we acknowledge that being born a woman or a man does not necessarily determine our behaviors, desires, ambitions etc.? Why do we respond so easily to the social construct that is binary gender?

Even though we’re growing more and more aware of the over-simplistic and hence inappropriate nature of binary gender, we somehow cling to it: instead of abolishing gender as a binary social product, we try to invent nuances that ultimately confine ourselves to the dichotomous conception of gender. For instance, a man who does not conform to the masculine stereotype is likely to be labeled “effeminate”, which is a way to explain his gender position by simply understanding it through the other polarity of binary gender. Similarly, a girl whose behavior does not correspond to the social standard of femininity and who manifests “masculine” interests might be called a “tomboy”, thereby read as pertaining to the other polarity to the one she is expected to. The mere fact that we have incorporated words such as “tomboy” or “effeminate” in our vocabulary clearly proves that our gender is not tied to our sex but also suggests that we have failed to think of gender identities outside of the binary paradigm, as a position on a spectrum instead of as a box ticked in a two-option survey.

Moreover, the intricacy of defining and naming gender identities emanates from the fact that the relation of individuals to their gender constantly evolves. Nevertheless, even though we are, somehow, aware that gender identities are immutable, set in stone, we stubbornly perceive as weird the ones who do not fit into their sex category and who are hence marginalized.

It is arguable that the pressure to enforce binary gender largely stems from businesses and advertising, which play out binary gender narratives and imagery to target certaindifferent audiences and to sell more products (businesses would lose profits if a whole family or the two persons of a couple were sharing the same clothes, accessories, devices, and thereby consuming less). Indeed, most products are designed to attract either a male or a female consumer. But it is actually surprising that “gender neutral” products are so rare. Why do men and women need different moisturizing cream to moisturize their skin? Shouldn’t the product just be targeted for the various types of skin (oily or dry for instance)? Instead of debunking and rejecting this trend, we unconsciously tend to embrace it. For instance, how many mothers would be likely to worry and even seek medical or paramedical help if their 5-year-old boy seems to enjoy playing with Barbies, dressing and brushing doll, or putting make up on? I think we’re barely starting to realize and acknowledge the normalizing and prescriptive strength of binary gender because these cultural norms are so prevalent and so insidiously naturalized that we can hardly see them for what they are, social constructs that also often are social constraints which we should call into question in order to emancipate ourselves and not to have to conform ourselves to prescribed identities.

Work cited

Roof, Judith. 2016. “Introduction,” in What Gender Is, What Gender Does, pp. 1-35. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press.

Although sexual disparities in terms of levels of desire and arousal, as well as in capacities for reaching orgasms are rather common among heterosexual couples, they are seldom tackled in socio-medical discourses and in the media. Indeed, considered a highly personal subject that should only be addressed within the intimacy of the couples, or even a taboo, these sexual differences are often overlooked and therefore rather unexplored. This leads many women who experience pain, discomfort or a lack of pleasure during intercourse to “perform” the norms of heterosexual sex by working hard to achieve the most socially and medically validated form of sexuality (frequent sexual desire, high level of arousal, penetrative sex and orgasms) by resorting to diverse sorts of aids (medication, psychological therapies, self-help books, etc.) that require effort, time and money. This is what Cacchioni terms the “labour of love”.

Cacchioni’s text thus suggests that heterosexual norms reflect men’s sexuality rather than women’s. Indeed, the pharmaceutical industry, which echoes these norms, focuses on helping women to achieve penetration and orgasms, and, implicitly, to meet their partner’s level of desire and arousal to satisfy them. As a matter of fact, in most societies women are expected to engage themselves in an active sexual life, and by doing so, to provide sexual pleasure to their partners. But Cacchioni’s study highlights that in reality many women do not find the expected pleasure during sexual intercourse and some of them feel disinclined or even averse due to genital pain or lack of sexual arousal or libido. But these issues are often taboo because women feel pressured to comply with the heteronormative representation of sex, as they fear rejection, social exclusion or even economic repercussions.

In keeping with this, I find it striking to observe the extent to which women and men’s sexual problems are differently tackled by the medical industry. On the one hand, the cause of men’s lack of sexual pleasure or men’s sexual issues during intercourse, such as erectile dysfunction, is often attributed to physical reasons, independent of their behavior. The array of reasons for this dysfunction varies from endocrine disease (for example diabetes), to the consumption of medicine, drugs and alcohol, through neurological disease, or even cardiac conditions. Therefore, the pharmaceutical industry provides effective responses to men’s sexual troubles by offering a wide range of remedies, such as Viagra or Cialis. On the other hand, women’s lack of sexual arousal is usually attributed to a lack of well-being or to psychological disorders, like depression, stress or anxiety. Contrarily to men, the pharmaceutical industry does not provide women with a vast choice of medication (there is no “pink Viagra” as Cacchioni puts it) and will likely advise them to change their lifestyle, to adopt healthier habits, to eat less, exercise more or to modify their mindset. However, it does not suggest that these women could try not complying with the sexual performances they feel are expected of them and explore other sexual or non-sexual practices. The prevalent norm remains that women should strive to achieve so-called “normal” intercourse.

Even though women’s sexual discomfort is often taboo and its causes are usually thought to be psychological rather than biological, there actually exist diseases that concern many women and whose symptoms involve sexual pain. For instance, the most common sexual disorder (which affects one woman in ten), endometriosis, is a disease in which tissue that normally grows inside the uterus grows outside of it. The main symptoms of this malady are pelvic pain, painful periods and an excruciating pain during sex (especially during penetration) that often makes intercourse torturous for women. Many women who suffer from endometriosis are even misdiagnosed since their symptoms are usually considered to be common or psychological. The lack of awareness regarding this disease shows the extent to which women’s sexual troubles are neglected and not taken seriously by the medical industry, whose research rather privileges men’s sexual issues. We can thus conclude that there is not the same regard on women’s sexuality and pleasure than on men’ssexual contentement. Hence, the pramaceutical and medical industry, which mirrorre the trend in our socity, favor men’s sexual satisfaction and underminds women’s sexual fufillement that is is deemed less important.

Work cited

Cacchioni, Thea. 2015. “Introduction: The Labour of Love in the Sexual Pharmaceutical Era,” in Big Pharma, Women, and the Labour of Love, pp. 3-22. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

In The British Journal of Sociology, Judith Butler sheds light on a tension between sexual politics on the one hand, and cultural and religious politics or, more specifically, immigration politics on the other. Her main argument or, rather, her main concern lies in the instrumentalization of progressive sexual politics to push a racist, culturally exclusive agenda (in other words, she reflects on the possible contradiction between progressive sexual politics and progressive migratory politics, as progressive sexual politics seem to be increasingly used to legitimate conservative migratory policies).  The author emphasizes how sexual politics and correlated notions, such as modernity and freedom, fluctuate according to various factors such as time, culture, and religion. Because sexual politics are so closely tied to the specific time and space where it applies (with its cultural norms and presumptions), it might cause tensions when people from another culture are faced with that of the country they migrate to. Butler ponders whether these tensions are the sign of an indissoluble contradiction between cultures or the symptom of the instrumentalization of ideas of progress, modernity and freedom?

While I found Butler’s interrogations extremely stimulating, I also felt that she might have sharpened the cultural opposition between Western people and Islamic migrants in order to bring to the fore the surprising tension between progressive sexual politics and progressive migratory ones, that is the use of progressive sexual politics to justify conservative and often racist migratory policies. My sentiment is that the author didn’t really question the opposition between so-called modern, developed, secular and sexually progressive countries, and “backward”, conservative, Islamic migrants. Indeed, to me it sounded like she took for granted that European countries were by and large sexually progressive while Islamic migrants were not (regardless of the country and culture they were originating). However, this tendency I found in her text overlooks the fact that Muslims are not uniformly conservative in respect to sexual practices and choices and, likewise, that Europe is not uniformly sexually progressive. As a matter of fact, and contrarily to prevalent narratives, European sexual politics are not tantamount to a quiet and continual increase of freedom.

Indeed, Europe’s recent history bears witness to some very conservative sexual politics. This can be exemplified through the case of abortion legislation. For instance, abortion is still banned in Ireland, Malta and The Vatican and is only “granted” under specific reasons in the UK, Finland and Italy (which means that in these countries abortion is not just granted on request). Outside of these firm, structural restrictions of freedom, Europe has recently been the arena for surges of conservative or even regressive sexual politics. This was illustrated by the highly mediatized “Manif’ pour tous” in France, a huge wave of protests led by Catholics against the gay marriage bill in 2012, but also, and more insidiously, by the same group’s lobbying for the rejection of gender studies in French primary and secondary schools. More worryingly even, in Spain, in 2013, the council of ministers approved Alberto Ruiz-Gallardón’s proposal to suppress the Abortion Act, which had been passed by the previous socialist government. His bill aimed at restricting the possibilities for women to be granted such a procedure on demand. Also, just a few weeks ago a bill to ban abortion in Poland almost passed. Polish women had to fight hard all over again to prevent this bill from being approved by going on strike and organizing a massive and spectacular street protest, the “Black Monday Protest”

In particular, the recent events in France and in Poland were eye opening to me, as they made me realize that in fact they do not create the basis for shared cultural norms within the European population insofar as it is such a major and increasingly divisive bone of contention amongst people of the same nationality. Above all, and as already suggested, these examples show that European sexual politics do not necessarily follow the progressive narrative of a constantly increasing freedom for people. They highlight that nothing should be taken for granted, that some liberties that were previously thought of as “normal” or definitely acquired can be called into question or even revoked. These conservative resurgences made me aware of how volatile sexual politics are. It showed me that acquired freedoms are not acquired once and for all, and that women have had to fight over and over again to have control over their own bodies and life choices, and many are still fighting for this. From a French perspective, I used to consider abortion as a fundamental right, as something that was now well established and that could not be taken away anymore. In other words, for me abortion was a woman’s legitimate ability to be the master of her own body and I believed that it was more-or-less irrevocable, set in stone, right. Hence, the events in France, Spain and Poland really took me aback and my certainties tottered. They made me realize how sensitive topics such as abortion and gay unions still are, and that some European conservative parties could well re-establish bans on these rights if elected. As what I considered a fundamental right is jeopardized, I’m now aware that the narrative through which I used to read Europe’s sexual politics, the constant broadening of freedom, was not attuned to the ebbs and flows of history, the drive some people feel to hold on to traditions and long-held practices, the fear of otherness, as well as demagogical and specious discourses about “identity” (which tend to reify national identities and overlook the ever-evolving nature of any kind of “identity”), etc.

In conclusion, I would argue that the question of modernity in sexual politics has to be raised in more complex terms than the mere division between rich, educated, white, people and relatively disadvantaged, Islamic migrants.

Work cited

Butler, Judith. 2008. Sexual Politics, Torture, and Secular Time. The British Journal of Sociology 59(1):1-23.

The Birth of Occupy underscores how paramount social media has become to social and political activism and how it has dramatically changed the way in which activists work, protest, and address their claims, but also how their demands are being heard. In particular, White recalls how his utilization of Twitter and YouTube exponentially amplified the “Occupy Wall Street” movement he contributed to launching as people endorsed, circulated, and advertized the emerging movement. The example of “Occupy Wall Street” illustrates the extent to which social media is nowadays crucial to the spread of any form of protest, to the attention activists receive and, hence, to their efficiency in actually achieving their goals.

Firstly, social media enables the people whose voices are dismissed by traditional media (mainstream TV channels, newspapers and magazines) to express their opinion, put forward their convictions and spread their own political agenda to whomever they choose. Indeed, social media is an indisputably powerful instrument for broadcasting opinions and ideas to a wide audience, which encompasses people from a variety of backgrounds and of various social classes, races, sexes and ages.

As a result of the decline in the popularity of newspapers, TV news and the radio, we are now both spectators and actors in the striking rise of social media (in the US, 90% of people between 18 and 29 use social media on a daily basis). From political figures to ordinary citizens through celebrities and influential people, the majority of the population is not only aware of what happens on social media, but also participates in setting the terms of debates and in shaping what is deemed important. Consequently, social media have become a major way of communicating and expounding ideas, thereby offering a key platform for activists to set out their convictions. In other words, social media sheds light on messages, ideas and beliefs that might be taboo, despised, overlooked or underrepresented in society, and which can reach a larger audience through this kind of showcasing.

Furthermore, social media has utterly changed the notion of time and space regarding the circulation of news and information, as well as the formation of protest movements. Social media accelerates time and actions: within a few minutes, one is able to organize a protest through the publication of an event on Facebook, Twitter or Instagram, which will quickly reach thousands of people’s attention through statuses, videos, hashtags, notifications, pictures, or captions. Social media is not restricted by geographical boundaries, thereby allowing anyone to “connect”, discuss and interact with potentially everyone else all over the world. These virtually free, instantaneous online connections enable groups of people who share similar ideas to be formed and to decide how to act accordingly. Through a “like” on Facebook, a picture on Instagram or a tweet on Twitter, people feel that they are part of an international community, linked by shared ideas and ideals and, hence, they feel empowered to act and express their claims. Anyone can collaborate in the online organization and popularization of an event, which might then concretize itself in real life in the form of a gathering of hundreds or thousands of people coming together in one place for the same purpose, usually to bring to the fore demands they have to change society and politics.

For instance, the French social movement “Nuit debout” is one of the most impactful protests in which social media played a leading role. “Nuit debout” (which has been translated as “Up All Night” or “Rise up at Night”) started on the 31^st of March 2016. For months thousands of French people were occupying specific public spaces at night in order to bring about the withdrawal of the “Loi Travail”, that is the labor reform proposed by the French government, which includes cuts in social benefits and job security (though the movement went beyond this specific demand and consisted in a manifold protest against capitalism, austerity measures, the obsolescence of some political methods, etc.). The organization of this event occurred through social media and led to mass protests that bypassed the state of emergency, which was established by the French president François Hollande after the terrorist attacks in November 2016 and which radically restricted the organization of protests in France. Moreover, social media was more than just a tool for organizing this occupation and reappropriation of public spaces. The nightly assemblies, group discussions, debates and artistic events were filmed and broadcast live via Periscope (on average, 75 000 people were following the live stream on the event’s Web channel). This allowed many more people to feel like they were taking part in the protest and to discuss its proposals, even though they were not physically in the locations of the protest.

It could thus be concluded that social media exacerbates the spread and the efficiency of protests by connecting huge crowds and also by bypassing traditional media, which are often owned by big business groups or powerful people who tend to be more conservative, as the status quo works very well for them…

Work cited

White, Micah. 2016. “The Birth of Occupy,” in The End of Protest: A New Playbook for Revolution, pp. 9-23. Toronto: Alfred A. Knopf.

Through my reading of A.J. Angulo’s introduction to Miseducation: A History of Ignorance-Making in America and Abroad, in which he reflects on ignorance and gives a synopsis of the history of the origins, the persistence and the exploitation of ignorance, I was struck by the extent to which ignorance has shaped history, by the weight of ignorance in (mis)guiding of our life paths and in our (mis)understanding of the world, as well as by the variety forms of ignorance we suffer from. Indeed, the text highlights that we are all born ignorant (native ignorance); that we will continue to be affected by ignorance due to our physical, intellectual and temporal limitations, which force us to circumscribe the domains in which we can become knowledgeable and entails that we’ll remain ignorant about many things (passive ignorance); and that we will also be trapped in ignorance by businesses, governments or people every time they have an interest in creating or maintaining our deficit of education and awareness (active ignorance). Throughout the text ignorance is thus presented as something deplorable and detrimental, that everyone should strive to reduce by all means. However legitimate this conception of ignorance is in most regards, it could also be argued that ignorance has some virtues and that this text, which only underscores the shortcomings of ignorance, lacks nuances. Perhaps, certain kinds of ignorance are actually beneficial or even vital to people and could thereby be considered from a more favorable perspective.

. I personally believe that native ignorance can bring about a certain type of open-mindedness. In fact, by definition, the native ignorant subject has everything to learn, to discover and thus, he is the perfect candidate to find marvel not only in the experiences that s/he will encounter, but also in the amount of knowledge that s/he is about to acquire. This naTive ignorance seems to echo Locke’s empiricist conception of the blank mind. Locke argues that the mind is first “void of all characters, without any ideas” and that the mind evolves and becomes more knowledgeable thanks to the harvest of experiences. Therefore, this naTive ignorance can also be seen in a positive light as the very condition of curiosity, surprise, wonder, and improvement. Ignorance, and the awareness of it, can indeed be a springboard to philosophical processes (the desire for and love of knowledge): they are an incentive to learn and discover what we don’t know yet, since the lack of something and the consciousness of this deficiency constitute the impetus for desiring it and striving for getting it. Native ignorance can also be seen as a symptom of freedom, since we’re (partly) responsible for the formation of our own ideas and knowledge.

In order to illustrate Locke’s statement, as well as the idea that native ignorance is not devoid of positive effects, we can take the example of Candide, the eponymous character of Voltaire’s philosophical tale. At the beginning of his initiatory journey, Candide, as his name suggests, epitomizes native ignorance. Candide’s main feature is indeed his lack of knowledge: he thinks that the castle of Thunder-ten-tronckh is the most beautiful on earth and agrees with Panglos’ absurd ideas, for instance that noses have been created for the purpose of wearing glasses. However, throughout his journey, Candide faces war, barbarism, experiences slavery, and is present at an auto-da-fé. The hardship enables him to grow, to mature, to shape his own personality, and reach his own conclusion about life (“it’s better to cultivate one’s own garden”). Therefore, through Candide’s character, it is possible to see that native ignorance offers a great range of possibilities for the creation of one’s personality and convictions. Indeed, as native ignorance leaves room for discoveries, it is, in a sense, the starting point for one’s own personal accomplishments.

Moreover, as is often the case with “simple-minded” or ignorant characters, it is noteworthy that Candide, is not portrayed as despicable; far from it, he is indeed likeable and his naiveté is moving: it betrays his innocence, and we feel for him because he yet has to discover life’s most repulsive realities. The “native ignorance” of the protagonist prompts the reader’s sympathy and compassion because we know that leaving this state of ignorance often entails a painful process of realizing everything that’s wrong and unfair; it means quitting a state of happy unconsciousness.

Work cited

A.J. Angulo. Miseducation: A History of Ignorance-Making in America and Abroad

Jhon, Locke. Essay concerning Humane Understanding

While reading Sarah Ahmed’s introduction to A Willfulness Archive, I realized that my own understanding of the notion of will was quite elementary since I was inclined to think that will, willfulness and willpower were synonymousThe introduction to Sarah Ahmed’s A Willfulness Archive enabled me to have a deeper reflection on will and related concepts by clearly explaining how will, willfulness and willpower are interlinked notions with some common features, but not in fact identical notions.

I was particularly interested in her analysis of the contemporary usage of these words. Indeed, she suggests that in contemporary culture “will is transformed into willpower,” that is into something that a responsible and moral subject must develop and strengthen.. By shedding light on the transformation of the notion of will into that of willpower, Sarah Ahmed shows that on top of having simplified the complex philosophical understanding of the concept, contemporary culture has shaped a more naive approach to it. We now commonly consider will to be an equivalent of mental strength, something within one’s control, which one has to cultivate so as to achieve one’s goals.

I believe this conception of will as an extendable capacity that empowers, that enables one to go beyond one’s own limits has been greatly fueled by advertising. For instance, the sports brand Asics clearly exploits this notion of will in its ads, portraying it as a mental strength that allows one to accomplish ever more. Significantly, the main slogan of its last winter collection was “I want it more”. In the background of the ad, we can see the blurred face of a woman: her eyes are wide open and she is looking straight ahead, which suggests an unflinching determination. The woman extends her arms towards the camera, thereby foregrounding her wounded hands, which are covered with dirt and band-aids. This depicts her relentless drive to train, in spite of the physical pain it causes her. Her gesture also makes her appear to be “pushing forward” and the ad correspondingly reads “WANT IT MORE” in big, white capital letters. The image and the motto thus suggest that the woman’s will is limitless and that will is not so tied to reason or judgment (it’s not exactly rational or reasonable to injure one’s body to supposedly improve its capacities!), but chiefly to the desire to surpass oneself and reach excellence. The ad uses this understanding of will in order to sell a product: in particular, it suggests that thanks to Asics’ items, people can step up their training efforts and, by doing so, achieve ever-greater performances.

However optimistic these sorts of “empowering” ads might appear, their implications should be questioned, as they seem to be socially and politically suspect. First, I am personally inclined to think that even if mental volition can play a great part in one’s achievements, we do have physical and psychological limits that we cannot, and perhaps should not, exceed if we wish to preserve our physical and/or mental health. After all, why should we tire or hurt ourselves to always do more, better, faster? For instance, why should we work more to earn some extra money that we don’t necessarily need? Why should we take the risk to injure ourselves to run a few extra kilometers? Why should we put our health or happiness at risk to lose a few more pounds? What are the possible repercussions of this culture of “wanting more”? What is the cost of this culture of performance we live in and the constant glorification of effort or even pain the media convey? Isn’t it time to rehabilitate the values and, paradoxically, the productivity of idleness and leisure time (in terms of what it gives room to: love, friendship, thinking, etc.)? When we work harder or exercise more to become better (than others?), do we still have time to think, to love, to be social? Isn’t this fostering a culture not of surpassing oneself, but of surpassing others, of distinguishing oneself, that brings about a competitive society in which it is then harder to see others as anything other than potential rivals? It seems to me that this “capitalistic understanding” of will worsens individualism and competition instead of social bonds and solidarity.

Work Cited

Ahmed Sara, A Willfulness Archive Willful Subjects  first ed.

In Culture is Ordinary, Raymond Williams debunks the notion of culture as it had long been understood, namely the reduction of culture to high culture (what he calls the “teashop culture”) and he undermines the preconceived idea that culture is the monopoly of an elite. As suggested by the title of his work, Williams “redistributes” culture to everyone; culture appears to be “ordinary”, not the privilege of a happy few. Indeed, the author underscores that everyone is cultured because as social beings culture (language, codes, ways of life) is what we all live in. By redefining culture in an anthropological sense, synonymous with everyday life, Williams describes culture as instinctive, as the natural product of social life (human interactions), as well as the result of creative activities (literature, philosophy, arts, etc.).

Williams both draws on and fends off Marx and Leavis’ conceptions of culture. For instance, William disproves Leavis’ “false equation”, which argues that popular education gives rise to commercial culture and that the consumption of popular culture impairs one’s cultural evolution. On the contrary, according to Williams, one’s culture consists of a variety of components, which, indeed, include popular culture. I am particularly convinced by William’s refutation of this argument, as I tend to think that popular culture can be a major component in one’s cultural development. Therefore, I’d like to illustrate and, hopefully, corroborate it with my personal experience.

I think popular culture often facilitates the discussion around subjects that are deemed ‘taboo’, that are overlooked or eluded in most institutional contexts; that are in short hard to broach without a pretense that expressions of popular culture can provide. The issue of transgenderism strikes me as a relevant example of a subject that is tackled by popular culture more than by conventional education. Many people, just like I was and to a certain extent still am, are unfamiliar with this topic since it is often “untalked about” in education (at least before college), as well as in familial and social contexts. Hence, popular culture is particularly relevant in such cases, as it can shed light on transgender situations, lifestyles, ethics, etc. For instance, some TV shows deal with transgenderism, thereby allowing people to learn more about it, the community it concerns, the everyday issues it faces, etc. Personally, it is thanks to a popular TV show, Orange is the New Black, that I acquired a better understanding of one’s choice to become transgender and of various issues that this entails.

The third episode of the series, Lesbian Request Denied, revolves around Sophia Burset (Laverne Cox), a transgender woman who has been incarcerated because she financed her operation with stolen credit cards. In this episode, the viewer is invited to understand intimately the reasons of her transition and the manifold ways changing gender impacts her life. First of all, the spectator notices the extent to which being transgender disturbs Sophia’s familial balance. Not only does it jeopardize her relationship with and authority on her son and spark tension in her couple, but it also triggers people’s hostility towards her. Furthermore, social prejudices and disrespect in regard to transgenderism are reflected by the fact that her transformation is threatened by the prison’s abrupt and unjustified decision to take her off of her estrogen. However, the viewer is led to understand that, for her, becoming a woman is worth facing the hurdles it brings about since it is what allows her to be herself and at ease in her body.

I believe that these forms of popular culture participate in my education and improve my culture and understanding of social issues, such as gender issues.

Thus, it seems to me that popular culture is an essential tool in education as, on top of the information it provides, it can actually challenge our perceptions and open debates and discussions around topics that could otherwise be difficult to raise, especially in contexts in which we are assessed and judged (such as schools, universities and workplaces).

Work cited

Foster Jodie, Orange is the New Black, Lesbian Request Denied . 2013

Willam, Raymond. Culture is Ordinary The Everyday Life Reader  first ed

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!