TheCommonRoom
Modern-day Witch Hunts
Chat GPT and Academia
Big Brother's Digital Currency
Theatre’s relevance in society
Design:
Design psychology
Written by: Laurence T
AS humans we have always been aware of the impact of design, it can be used to manipulate or empower users. Every product we buy, every building we enter, has a direct emotional impact on us. Good designers use knowledge of human instincts and traditions to create products that make our lives simpler, calm us and nurture the surrounding environment, however they can only do this with a basic understanding of observational psychology.
that what the designer ‘affords’ us commands us to commit certain actions (like a pull door having a handle). An affordance is an aspect of a product that instructs us. Therefore, human error arises via bad design: it is never your fault if you cannot work out how to use a product. Products are usually designed using forms that help our brains predict how they will be used. These assumptions are partially based on instinct for simple statements made by the brain like danger and partially based on past experiences for statements like comparing products. Observation is perception and perception is prediction.
“What we think of as physical, objective reality is in fact perceived reality” (Richard Gregory). When we see something, our brain’s cognitive pre-processing immediately makes assumptions. Perception creates its own reality that guides us quickly and effectively through the surrounding world that contains fuzzy and ambiguous information. Our brains essentially simplify information to colour and form for pre-processing; this is why “whether something is attractive or not is decided long before we can find a good reason for it” (Claus Christian Carbon). As we perceive objects our brains immediately make predictions to plan ahead understanding how we generate these predictions is vital for minimalising human error in the use of products. The theory of affordances (established by J.J Gibson) suggests
Prediction is nurtured by familiarity.
People do not like change, we love to reminisce about the past and so people will buy products that remind them of the past. ‘Innovative design often breaks common visual habits’ (Claus Christian Carbon and Helmut Leder); it is for this reason people do not like completely original products because they cannot compare them to anything in the past. If you ask someone about the future, they will try and extrapolate the present with ingredients of the latest innovations. This is because
present innovations are so alien to them. People need to be lulled into the future, they need to be introduced to changes one step at a time so that a product will feel safe. This is why innovative companies will often use analogies in products, for example, Apple’s metaphorical garbage can for deleting files; even analogies as simple as a downward arrow as a button activating a downward movement. Analogies do not even need to be obvious so long as they roughly resemble something of the past; if you can link a product to the past, your visual habits are not completely broken but moulded over time, this leads to a more enjoyable experience of innovative products.
Product personalities
“Because the distribution of technological advancements is so widespread, companies have to compete beyond mere function, products must represent lifestyles” (Claus Christian carbon). From this the idea of product personality arose, it is a widely accepted concept that refers to the “personality characteristics that consumers perceive or ascribe to a certain product” (Claus Christian carbon). The product’s personality enables consumers to predict how the product will behave in different scenarios, it makes a product seem more reliable. This also makes the product livelier and allows us to form a relationship with it (based on com-
patibilities between our personalities and the products) which means we are more likely to stay loyal to the product, so we will not be so quick to replace the product (which is better for the environment) and if we were to replace the product we are very likely to return to the same brand. A product’s personality is widely sensed in the gestalt of a product which is essentially the product as a whole, although “The whole is something else than the sum of its parts.” (Kurt Koffka). What you see in a product is the emergence of the gestalt, for instance, if you see a group of dots that look like a face, you see the face and then the dots, the gestalt and then the parts. If a product and environment has conflicting aesthetics, without unity and consistency, the gestalt is killed. This is why items that are out of place in a room will catch your attention better, it has interrupted the gestalt and the personality/ atmosphere of the room, your brain now sees a different personality, focused on the product and not the room.
To summarise, design is a dialogue between human perception and the physical world. By understanding how our brains instinctively interpret visual cues and draw on past experiences, designers can cre-
ate products that feel intuitive, familiar, and emotionally engaging. Affordances guide our interactions, while product personalities and Gestalt principles shape our emotional connections and perceptions of harmony. Ultimately, thoughtful design bridges innovation with human nature, ensuring that new ideas are embraced rather than resisted.
Why Letting ChatGPT Do Your Work Is a Bad Idea
Written by AI Technology :
OKAY let’s be real
We’ve all thought about it. You’ve got a huge essay due tomorrow, you’re already three episodes deep into a Netflix binge, and the idea of asking ChatGPT to just “do it for you” sounds way too good. But before you copy-paste that AIgenerated homework, you might want to think twice. Trust me, it’s not as smart of a move as it seems.
First of all, using ChatGPT to do your work can totally backfire. Yeah, it can write pretty good essays and even explain complicated stuff like algebra or history facts. But sometimes, it gets things wrong like, embarrassingly wrong. Imagine handing in a paper where you confidently talk about George Washington fighting dinosaurs (yes, that kind of thing actually happens). Teachers are not stupid; they can tell when something sounds off, or when it’s written in a way that’s way too fancy for how you normally write.
Second, you’re cheating yourself. I know, I sound like a teacher right now, but it’s true. If you let AI do all your work, you’re not actually learning anything. And guess what? That test you have next week? ChatGPT can’t sneak into the classroom and take it for you. When you finally need to know the stuff, you’ll be sitting there like, “uhhh…” while everyone else is cruising through.
Another thing is, teachers are catching on. A lot of schools are using programs now that can actually tell if something was written by AI. There’s even software that checks for it, just like how they check for plagiarism. If you get caught, you could get a zero, detention, or even worse depending on the school rules. Not really worth it for an essay you could’ve just done in like an hour.
Finally, there’s something kinda important about owning your work. Even if it’s not perfect, at least it’s yours. It shows who you are, how you think, and how you’re improving. Letting some random AI bot do it for you just makes you another kid who didn’t bother trying.
So, bottom line: ChatGPT is cool, and it’s awesome for getting help, brainstorming ideas, or checking your work. But don’t let it be your work. You’re smarter than that. (And honestly, your future self will thank
FROM the very second you are born until death, you are constantly shaped by the people you surround yourselves with and the institutions built around you.
The main query I’ll seek to answer is who actually has the most influence on our identities, school, family, or society?
Many may immediately argue that the answer is simply family; the people we spend on average 70% of our childhood with, who teach us right from wrong, shaping our mannerisms and how we hold ourselves.
Sociologists have long debated which factor is the most influential on us, or what dynamic they play together to frame who we are. They constantly reference the term 'socialisation’ (which is the process through which individuals learn the norms and values of society, enabling them to function effectively within it) to explain how family, school, and society can all act like invisible hands, sculpting who we become, as if we are clay in their control.
First and foremost, it can be argued that family are the first drafts of who we are, and could potentiallybecome.
One of the most famous Functionalist sociologists, Talcott Parsons, named the family as the “primary agency of socialisation” as it sets us up to learn the basics needed to survive in society: how to talk, think morally, the correct mannerisms to know, and so on.
Parsons further stated that the family is a place which provides a warm, safe environment for children to internalise societal norms and values, bridging the gap between the individual and wider society.
Children learn key transferrable knowledge which they take with them into their later lives, for example gender roles, societal expectations of them, and so on, all within the family unit.
However, the influence of the family doesn’t end here, because as children grow, they encounter new socialising forces that further influence who they end up becoming.
Secondary socialisation, which is primarily experienced through school, peer groups, media, and other institutions, plays a crucial role as we grow older. It is the process in which individuals learn the norms, values, and behaviours expected of them outside the immediate family.
Emile Durkheim, another extremely significant Functionalist in this debate, argued that education is the system where secondary socialisation takes place.
Psychology :
Who really raises us?
The roles of family, school and society in shaping identity from a Sociological perspective:
Through both formal lessons and the “hidden curriculum” of school ethos, expectations, rules, and more, students learn skills like discipline or respect for authority, all of which prepare them to become functional members of society.
Peer groups, another important agent, provide opportunities for individuals to experiment with their own personal identity, gain acceptance, and learn social skills outside the family context, seeing an oppositional viewpoint.
The influence of these secondary agents continues throughout life, shaping our beliefs, behaviours, and sense of self in ways that are often distinct from our early family experiences.
Beyond family and school, society at large exerts a powerful influence on identity.
Henri Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory (SIT) highlights how individuals derive a sense of self from their membership in social groups, such as nationality or social class, and seek self-esteem by identifying with these “in-groups” while distinguishing themselves from “out -groups.”
The media, laws, cultural norms, and so on all contribute to shaping our values and behaviours, often subtly reinforcing what is considered “normal” or desirable within a given society.
Postmodernist sociologistslike Bauman and Baudrillardargue that in today’s frag-
Written by: Charlotte
mented world, identity is less fixed and more fluid, with individuals actively constructing and reconstructing who they are through their choices and interactions, promoting individualisation rather than collectivism.
So, this concludes with the same question presented with: who really raises us?
The answer, according to most sociologists, is not a single factor but the interplay between family, school, and society.
Each agent of socialisation contributes uniquely to the process.
Family provides the initial blueprint, while school and peers refine and expand our horizons beyond the home, and society offers the broader cultural framework within which we continually develop our identities. Whilst Functionalists - like Durkheim and Parsons - emphasise the harmonious roles these agents play, Interactionists and Postmodernists remind us that individuals are not passive recipients - they actively interpret, negotiate, and sometimes resist the influences around them.
Essentially, the answer is is that it is the dynamic relationship between these forces, and our own agency within them, that truly shapes who we are.
Nature: What is the future of the Great Barrier Reef?
Written by: Kara L
THE Great Barrier Reef is located along the northeastern coast of Australia and extends for over 2,300 kilometres. It is home to over 9,000 known species. The reef is crucial to tourism and Australia’s economy, attracting at least 1.6 million visitors every year. Consisting of about 3,000 individual reefs of coral, the Great Barrier Reef is one of the seven natural wonders of the world, and is remarkably rich in its biodiversity.
Coral is made up of many small animals, which build a hard external skeleton to make their vibrant structures. When healthy, coral has a symbiotic (mutually beneficial) relationship with algae (called zooxanthellae) that lives within their tissues. The coral aid the algae by producing fluorescent chemicals that protect the algae from the sun, as well as providing nutrients for the algae. Meanwhile, the algae use photosynthesis to harness solar energy to make sugars for themselves. This helps the coral as the algae provides food and oxygen (produced as a byproduct of photosynthesis) for the coral. The algae are also what give coral its many colours.
However, this relationship only occurs within a specific temperature range (usually between 22-29̊C). When tem-
peratures rise, even a few degrees above normal, their relationship is disrupted due to the heat stressing the algae, interfering with the photosynthesis the algae carries out. This is due to high light and heat intensity, which interferes with the electron transport chain in photosynthesis, causing a leakage of energy that leads to excessive production of reactive oxygen species (ROS). ROS are highly reactive molecules that contain oxygen, e.g. hydrogen peroxide and hydroxyl radicals. They are chemically unstable, potentially damaging cells due to readily reacting with other molecules. In regular conditions they are a natural byproduct of cellular metabolism, such as photosynthesis and respiration, but they can become harmful in excess, such as when the photosynthesis occurring in the algae in coral is disrupted. Usually, ROS can be managed by coral and algae by using antioxidants to allow their symbiotic relationship to continue. However, in increased temperatures, the coral’s antioxidant defences get overwhelmed and can’t manage the unusually large amounts of ROS. This therefore leads to ROS damaging the coral’s cellular structure, such as its proteins, DNA, and photosynthetic
pigments. This reduces photosynthesis in the algae even further, hence causing the coral to either expel the algae or allow it to die off inside the coral. This is coral bleaching.
Coral bleaching leads to many negative effects for the coral. This includes a loss of pigmentation due to the algae no longer being present and corals have a reduced amount of energy as they depend on algae for up to 90% of their energy, meaning bleached corals tend to starve. Bleached corals are not dead, but they are much more at risk to diseases and starvation without the algae
reefs around the world.
There are other triggers for coral bleaching, although elevated sea temperatures are the most common and severe trigger. Excessive sunlight can also cause an overwhelming increase in photosynthesis in the algae, amplifying ROS production, worsening bleaching. Another cause of coral bleaching is pollution. This occurs in two forms: nutrient and chemical pollution. Nutrient pollution occurs from agriculture and sewage in the sea, causing algal overgrowth (resulting in more photosynthesis occurring than normal, so more ROS is produced) and a reduction of water quality, stressing corals. Chemical pollutants, like oil, sunscreen, or heavy metals, can be directly toxic to the corals.
Another issue corals are facing is competition for space with seaweed. Seaweed growth has increased due to: nutrient runoff (such as pesticides) stimulating seaweed growth, coral bleaching leading to coral death (and therefore leaving behind empty space that seaweed can quickly colonise before new generations of coral can form), overfishing of herbivorous fish that graze on seaweed leading to a surge in seaweed growth (and in some places fish actively avoid the areas due to disliking the taste of the seaweed or fear of predators hiding in the foliage). Additionally, seaweed can grow rapidly and colonise areas much faster than coral, outcompeting them for sunlight and space, especially as they grow fast and tall,
taking up all the sunlight, resulting in more seaweed than coral in the reefs. Also, some seaweed species can release chemicals that negatively impact coral growth and development as they put off coral larvae, preventing coral from returning to these spaces in the seabed. Therefore, due to many exacerbating factors, seaweed has a competitive advantage against corals, making it harder for coral to reproduce and grow new colonies. Once seaweed gets a foothold onto the seabed, it is hard for coral to compete. Although the Great Barrier Reef hasn’t experienced this shift widely just yet, there have been signs of seaweed takeover, and it is only expected to accelerate, especially with the continuation of climate change.
able to act as a carbon sink – although this is still being studied). Carried out in a small scale (three hundred metres squared), seaweed was removed from the area two or three times a year. After just a year, corals could be seen to be making a return to the area. After the full three year study, seaweed cover of originally 80% of the seafloor has dropped down to less than 40%. Additionally, the diversity of coral species increased too.
So, how is seaweed takeover being managed? A study has been carried out where, on the fringing coral reefs of Arthur Bay and Florence Bay on the coast of Magnetic Island, the sea bed has been weeded – the seaweed was removed from the seafloor by hand and disposed of back on shore (with the seaweed potentially being
However, as reported by the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI) in the 2024 Great Barrier Reef Outlook s long-term outlook remains one of deterioration due to driven threats such as ocean warming, severe cyclones, as well as poor water quality and fishing, all continuing to impact the reefs. The s ability to recover is increasingly compromised by climate change, however, there are management initiatives taking place such as enhanced ranger patrols to help protect the biodiversity, and the current condition of coral habitats (in 2023) has improved across the Great Barrier Reef. But, to be able to continue to protect these reefs and encourage more coral to grow back, it is important that global and national efforts are made, as well as local, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Can the therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer be quantified through scientific means?
Written by: Laura B
IS it truly possible to ‘pray away the pain’ or is that simply wishful thinking?
Well for many years scientists and theologians alike have been trying to answer that question. Arguably the most famous of these investigations is the ‘Great Prayer Experiment’ or more technically called the ‘Study of Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP)’. This groundbreaking study was billed as “The Largest Study of Third-Party Remote Intercessory Prayer” by the Tempelton Foundation (a philanthropic organisation that funded most of the study). And aimed to overcome the flaws of previous studies into the therapeutic effects of prayer.
In 1998 the study commenced and was led by Dr Herbert Benson (a cardiologist and director at the Mind/Body Medical Institute near Boston). Dr Bennson and his team monitored over 1,800 volunteers who had recently received coronary bypass surgery. These patients were divided into three different groups. One group received no prayers; another received prayers and were aware of this; the third group acted as a control as these patients received intercessory prayer but were unaware of it. The results were revealing.
Whilst the publication of the study’s findings in 2006 demonstrated no significant differences in recovery between the group
unknowingly receiving prayer and the group that received no prayers. There was a marked difference between these two groups and the control group of patients that knowingly received prayers. Indeed, complications occurred in 59% of patients knowingly receiving prayers compared to only 52% in the group unknowingly receiving prayers. Prompting the question... why?
Well, the scientists involved in the study such as Dr Bertha concluded that “It may have made them uncertain, wondering am I so sick they had to call in their prayer team?” Thus, the scientists concluded that these unexpected results were the consequences of ‘performance anxiety’ due to the additional pressure these patients were under because of the prayers they were knowingly receiving.
Indeed, this hypothesis is further supported by the fact that the most common complication in all groups was atrial fibrillation (fluctuations of the heart related to stress). This was most likely to occur in the patients who knew they were being prayed for. At first glance, the logical conclusion to draw from this study is that the only impact intercessory prayer has on a patient (if it has one at all) is negative. However, this is a terribly fatalistic approach which raises several troubling questions concerning the power or even existence of a divine being. So, before we get too existential. It is important to consider if scientific means are an appropriate way to study religious practices (such as prayer) at all. Richard Swinburne
came to the defence of prayer noting that God only answers prayers that are offered with good intensions. He argued that this explained the results of the prayer experiment as the prayers of petition were offered with an ulterior motive and not solely for the good of the recovering patient.
Therefore, one may argue that it is important to stop regarding God as ‘celestial vending machine’. Something that Jesus emphasised in Luke 4:12 when he warned against putting ‘the Lord your God to the test.’ So perhaps we need to reframe the initial question of if we can simply ‘prayaway the pain’ to ensure we are not too reductive of God’s power. Instead shifting our focus to whose pain, we are attempting to alleviate through prayer.
Indeed, the benefits of prayer can extend beyond only the prayer's recipient. Thus, it is important to consider the positive effects prayers of petition can have on the person offering the prayer. As it allows an individual who would otherwise be helpless to feel as if they are aiding the recovery of someone close to them. So, the alleviation of this emotional pain of feeling unable to help those you love cannot be overlooked. Therefore, it is plausible to draw the conclusion that despite the seemingly nonsensical use of language prayers of petition primarily aide those who are offering them up.
Thus, we cannot dismiss the potential healing properties of prayer. Even if this form of healing cannot be quantified in purely scientific terms (as attempted by the Great Prayer Experiment)
Finance: Big Brother's Digital Currency: The Control Implications of Central Bank
Written by: Giovanni M
THE potential benefits of central bank digital currencies are becoming increasingly hard to ignore in global financial discussions. However, although having great economic advantages, they raise concerns about financial surveillance and government overreach, spreading fears of a future where Big Brother – though fictional – feels all too real. As countries around the world explore the use of central bank digital currencies, will safeguards be implemented to protect privacy and limit control, or will this be a gateway to larger government control?
Recently, digital currencies issued by central authorities have gained attention due to their potential economic benefits. These are known as central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), which differ from cryptocurrencies. While cryptocurrencies are issued privately, CBDCs are issued by central banks, giving governments greater control over monetary flows and data.
One of the innovators in this field has been China, with the digital Yuan, which was made available in 2020 and as of mid 2024 China’s
digital Yuan transactions amounted to 7 trillion Yuan which is close to 1000 billion U.S dollars.
As digital currency is programmable, one of CBDCs’ major advantages is their ability to facilitate real-time transactions, eliminating delays caused by traditional banking processes and reducing transaction fees. Each user’s account is tied to a unique digital ID, which for example means tax revenue could be collected directly from users’ balances, making it impossible to evade taxes or hide any transaction as nothing is anonymous. Therefore, this gives the government access to detailed transaction data, providing a tool for financial surveillance and potential behavioural control if the features of the currency are modified based on the government's goals.
Theoretically, if the government wanted, they could freeze someone's assets at any point in time and if they object to what a user is spending then instantaneously their balance could be set to zero. Furthermore, as trialled by the digital Yuan in 2021, the government could set an expiration date on money
to incentivize spending and prevent saving.
This control could be taken even further. Hypothetically, if the government disagrees with a person's viewpoint or what they are posting on social media they could erase their funds. Therefore, from being a tool of great use to boost the economy, CBDCs could turn into a mechanism of control leading to the prevention of free speech and constant surveillance: a true form of oppression.
Having said all this, the likelihood of this level of control is not very high however, the possibility for abuse of power is there. As many more countries begin or continue to implement CBDCs – with a report by Citi stating that by 2030 major economies across the globe could have up to $5 trillion worth of CBDCs in circulation - the concerns on privacy and control should be made ever more present to hopefully prevent any abuse of power. As we get closer to the potential era of CBDCs, public oversight will be crucial in preventing financial surveillance from evolving into a new era of digital authoritarianism.
History: ‘To play or not to play?’ The Women’s Orchestra of Auschwitz
Written by: Evie W
WHEN we think of Auschwitz, one of the most infamous Nazi concentration camps during World War II, the first images that come to mind are usually of suffering and loss. But hidden within the horrors of Auschwitz is the lesserknown story of a group of young women who found a way to survivethrough music.
Maria Mandel was an SS commander of the women’s camp at AuschwitzBirkenau. She was known for her fanatical admiration for music, yet also for her brutality, Her desire to further her own career was her motivation behind forming a women’s orchestra. The Germans wanted a propaganda tool for visitors and camp newsreels and a tool to boost camp morale. Led first by a Polish music teacher, Zofia Czajokowska, the orchestra remained small until Jews were admitted in May 1943. According to the professor of music Susan Eischeid, by June 1943 the orchestra had 20 members; by 1944 this number had risen to 47 players and 4 musical copyists. It consisted mostly of Jewish, Polish, Romanian and Russian women.
Its primary role was to play (often for hours on end in all weather conditions) at the gate of the women’s camp when
the work gangs left and returned. They might also play during ‘selection’ and in the infirmary. In the early months, the ensemble consisted mainly of amateur musicians, with a string section, accordions and a mandolin. The orchestra acquired its limited instruments and sheet music from the men’s orchestra at the main Auschwitz camp. The repertoire of the or-
chestra was limited, in terms of available sheet music, the knowledge of the conductor, and the wishes of the SS. It played mostly German marching songs, as well as the Polish folk and military songs that Czajkowska knew.
Playing in the orchestra earnt many members privileges that effectively led to their survival. One example of this was Anita Lasker - Wallfisch. Anita was
Alma Rosé
Anita Lasker-Wallfisch
selected upon entrance to the camp to play in the orchestra after revealing herself to be a professional cellist. Anita used one of her rations while in Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp to exchange for a red knitted jumper before being moved to Bergen-Belsen. The jumper provided her with vital warmth in extremely challenging conditions.
However, in spite of these privileges, many members were on the fence between thinking of how much they truly benefited them. In many ways, it was a battle between survival and the constant reminder of the heavy betrayal of their fellow prisoners which they were conducting.
Despite the circumstances, these women showed incredible courage
and strength. Many had been professional musicians before the war, while others were amateurs who learned quickly to survive. They practiced in freezing barracks, using worn-out instruments and sheet music when they could find it. Alma Rosé (the orchestra leader from 1943) pushed the orchestra to perform as well as possible, believing that their survival depended on their musical excellence. Tragically, Alma Rosé died suddenly in 1944, possibly from food poisoning. After her death, the orchestra struggled to stay together. As the war came to an end and the Nazis evacuated the camps, many members were forced on death marches. Some survived, and after the war, they shared their stories
The story of the Women’s Orchestra of Auschwitz reminds us how powerful the human spirit can be, even in the darkest times. These young women found a way to cling to life and to one another through music. Their bravery is an important piece of history and a reminder that even when faced with the worst cruelty, creativity and hope
Culture : Witch Hunts Then and Now: From Salem to Social Media
Written by: Rose W
DO witches still walk among us? No rational person today would accuse someone of witchcraft. With the benefit of modern scientific knowledge and reason, society no longer believes in an individual’s supernatural ability to cause hailstorms, spread mass disease, or summon dark spirits. Yet, during the 17th Century such beliefs were not only common – but deadly. The Witch Craze can be understood today as a moral panic weaponised to withhold the power of the patriarchy.
Three quarters of the accused during the 1692 Witch Trials in Salem, Massachusetts were women. Historically, witchcraft accusations have served as a tool to silence and control women, either through execution or social exile. The patriarchal perception of women as morally and intellectually weaker is embedded in texts like the 1494 witch-hunting manual ‘Malleus Maleficarum’, which claimed “when a woman thinks alone, she thinks evil”. The detrimental implications of the Witch Craze were not confined to Salem. Across Europe and colonial New England, an estimated 100,000 innocent people were tried and 50,000 executed, frequently under the guise of patriarchal authority. Key figures like King James I, legitimised the persecution of women in his published work ‘Daemonologie’. As discussed in the historical work ‘The Ruin of all Witches’ by Malcolm Gaskill, leaders often perpetuated fears to reinforce their own power, particularly in times of social upheaval when their own equilibrium was threatened. Witch hunts thrived amid the external factors of war, economic tension, and political instability. Conditions ripe for triggering the
scapegoating of the powerless in response to collective fear.
Given that we are living through tumultuous times, it is unsurprising that the contemporary phenomenon of ‘cancel culture’ echoes this same dynamic of moral outrage and enforced social conformity. The Cambridge Dictionary defines ‘cancel culture’ as a social practice –facilitated by platforms such as social media – where individuals are publicly rejected for actions or opinions deemed offensive. In essence, cancel culture claims to pursue moral accountability. Yet the crucial question is raised: who decides what’s offensive? In principle, it is valid to disagree and express criticism as an aspect of free speech. However, cancel culture relies on public shaming and ostracising based on insufficient context or evidence. It holds an oppressive power over all, but particularly women, pressuring them to conform to societal expectations. The fear of being “cancelled” can discourage women from speaking out, reinforcing patriarchal norms that have historically silenced their voices.
Though centuries have passed since the witch hunts, the pattern remains familiar: public shaming, the loss of reputation, and the policing of behaviour under the façade of righteousness. The gendered logic behind the witch craze permeates modern society, as seen in the persecution of women and those perceived to be the “other” around the world today. Women who challenge the traditional roles that define the patriarchy are attacked online, especially under the cover of online anonymity which provides accusers with no accountability. A single comment can destroy a career or reputation. Science has disproven the existence of witches, yet
cancel culture operates on a similar basis of insufficient evidence, relying instead on public outrage. Both expose the failures of the judicial systems, allowing accusations to become convictions without due process – guilty until proven innocent. It is alarming that despite 400 years of technological and societal progress, women remain easy scapegoats. In the 1600s, misinformation spread through superstition; today it spreads through the equally dangerous screens. The effects remain the same – silence, shame, and control.
Drama:
Is drama and theatre still relevant in modern society?
Written by: Charlie S
tion and discussion in society.
THE roots of Western theatre began as early as 6 BC in Ancient Greece, and have developed and grown substantially since then. Theatre’s early purpose was as a tool to educate, inform and guide civilians. It focused on social issues, religious views, and morals which were included to prompt active reflection and cathartic response. The genres of early dramatic performance consisted of tragedies, comedies and satyr plays, (a lost dramatic art focusing on mythology and folklore). These genres of performance are in communication with topics and anxieties we are still engaged with today: the concept of fate, fear, humour and delight. Going to the theatre was an essential civic duty: it was so essential that many people were paid to go and watch. Crucially, both the rich and poor alike were expected to carry this task out, underlining an unexpected system where theatre was highly accessible in Ancient
Greece, unlike today.
The 16-17th century, off the back of the Reformation in 1517, prompted a mass change in theatre, with the rise of secular drama. Theatre was under severe threat due to religious opposition from Puritans, suggesting that it was frivolous and sinful, raising questions around its value within society. Moving into the 1600s, we see new playwrights, such as Shakespeare, changing what theatre can do through innovations in new genres such as the romantic comedy and the history play. He transformed theatre into a more accessible art form for the masses, primarily through the construction of the Globe Theatre in 1598, which swiftly became a hub for public entertainment, social interaction and artistic expression. All classes were brought together to share a common experience through watching theatre, which asked questions about what it means to be human, which in many cases were more relatable. Plays such as Hamlet embodies this new form of theatre in their focus on challenging aspects of religion and the meaning of existence, in order to spark conversa-
Shifting our focus to today, theatre has overall become a powerful medium for creativity, innovation and interpretation. More than ever, people from underrepresented backgrounds have had a chance to share their stories, and we now have the privilege to learn from them. We have come a long way –people like Paapa Essiedu and Cush Jumbo have shed new light on traditional Shakespeare plays, and dramatists such as Sabrina Mahfouz, who adapted Malorie Blackman’s series Noughts and Crosses to the stage, have led the charge for wider representation in the art that influences us. However, there are still mountains to climb: today, the average price of West End ticket is over 60 pounds, a price that is inaccessible to many. In recent years “value” in theatre has become about justifying the price of a ticket, and not about experiencing the quality of the art itself. In this way, we have in some senses lost the true meaning of art and theatre: to spark conversation, to think outside of the box, and to put yourself in someone else’s shoes. There is still a long way to go, but we can get back to that place and reconnect with theatre’s
threatens Marin s power as an educator.
Marin can be compared to a tragic hero figure due to his arrogant attitude with his students. His hamartia comes from the fact that he does not properly reflect on the way he acts, thus a lack of anagnorisis. This is evident in the three ways that he fails his students: by not allowing alternative interpretations into class discussions, by putting the privilege onto himself in terms of authority meaning that the students are treated as secondary, and by his lack of empathy, shown in his unwillingness to listen. This dynamic can be identifiable as a masterservant relationship, of which mutual recognition is crucial. However, the lack thereof in the film means that the power dynamic fails. Marin can never earn true authority, and the students will not be validated. This creates a situation where nothing substantial can be gained. As Cantet notes, “I tried to show a teacher that just tries to do his best, and sometimes makes mistakes, sometimes misses his purpose, you know? And I think it’s much
Despite his flaws, Marin shows respect towards the students by appearing as a fair educator, aiming for them to come to their own conclusions and really understand the content. However, his participation in the class banter that he sometimes stimulates himself, causes the atmosphere of his lessons to be more relaxed and thus open for conflict and resistance. Though he does characterise himself as an approachable figure for the students, with whom they are sufficiently at ease to reveal personal information to, his need for power and authority does not allow him to use that characterisation in a way that creates a heathy power dynamic.
This concept is also evident in his relationship with Khoumba. Most of their conversations turn into arguments that reflect a need for respect. In her letter to him (45:55), she believes that students learn to respect teachers because of threats yet this respect must be mutual. Her solution to the problem is to sit at the back of the class to avoid further conflicts.
However, she feels targeted by Marin and does not seem to understand why he wants to discipline her. This is a clear example of miscommunication since both parties are not clear on the nature of the issue and why it should be resolved. Therefore, it is not successful which is clear in the conflict arisen when Marin says that Khoumba and Esmerelda were acting like sluts, ”. (1:30:30). The word escapes him before he realises how badly it can be misinterpreted. The consequences of his actions include a rumour being circulated around the school and the girls wanting to see Marin punished. Their want for revenge parallels Souleymane’s view that all teachers want revenge (1:28:37). As a result, this situation serves to underscore how difficult it can be for teachers to maintain control of their emotions and maintain a professional composition in the face of such a demanding and frustrating profession.
Overall, “Entre les murs” provides an insightful portrait of the complexities of education, identity, power dynamics, and communication in a multicultural and diverse classroom. Therefore, ‘power’ is the most important aspect of the film because it is the defining factor of the relationship between Marin and his students which is seen in the continuous transfer of power in the classroom, due to Marin’s tragic flaw. It is only if he learned from his mistakes that the issue could have been resolved, yet his students felt targeted, humiliated and inferior which is why their relationship struggled.