#LeaderImage

Exploring, analysing and challenging attitudes towards gender and leadership in images of politicians in the digital age

Advertisements

I am co-convening a session at the Association for Art Historians annual conference in London in April 2018, entitled #LeaderImage – Exploring, analysing and challenging attitudes towards gender and leadership in images of politicians in the digital age.

Session outline:

During the 2017 UK General Election campaign, Theresa May presented herself as ‘strong and stable’ to try and convince the public she was a suitable Prime Minister. May’s inference of physically masculine attributes was an attempt to instil confidence. Her actions are reflected in themes discussed in Wendy Brown’s Manhood and Politics: A Feminist Reading of Political Theory.

In response to a culture whereby masculinity equates good leadership, digitally literate individuals are increasingly manipulating images of politicians to convey opinions on projected gender identities. For example, in 2017, supporters of Jeremy Corbyn Photo-shopped his head onto the muscular body of James Bond, while doubters superimposed his face onto ‘weak and wobbly’ jelly. Using screen grabs, captions, memes or, like these examples, Photoshop, some individuals feel liberated to create an online war of pictures, informed by ideas regarding gender and leadership, in the run up to elections and referendums.

The session convenors use observations on manipulated images disseminated during the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum to initiate a global summit on attitudes towards gender and leadership in political imagery – the purpose being to stimulate debate on boundaries in online spaces, for such images are impacting elections and perpetuating regressive and dangerous gender norms. Contributions on how the interplay between gender and leadership manifests online in any region are welcome. Papers on how technology can disrupt entrenched ideologies regarding this interplay are also encouraged, as are papers that examine historical links between digitally manipulated images and other political art.

With this session, we hope to evaluate freedom vs. censorship in online spaces and to explore the art historian’s role, purpose and alliances in an image-saturated post-truth world. Therefore, we encourage potential contributors to think broadly about how images like those mentioned above, and the processes of their creation and presentation, relate to historical specialisms in various fields.

Follow my tweets about the AAH conference, panellists and papers using the hashtag #LeaderImage 

FOUR CONVERSATIONS: A UNITED KINGDOM?

I am co-organising an event at this year’s Bloomsbury Festival examining the past, present and future of the (Dis)United Kingdom

Sunday 22 October 2017 | 1.15pm – 2.45pm

Event title: Four Conversations: A United Kingdom?

Location: Conway Hall, 25 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4RL

ScotRes in association with Bloomsbury Festival 2017

The relationships between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom has arguably never been more divided, nor have demands for various forms of independence been more vocal. This in-the-round event brings together four speakers to ask each other how they perceive the United (or Disunited) Kingdom. Each speaker will have an association with either England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland and each will have varying specialisms. They will bring to the conversation a variety of constitutional standpoints.

Panellists:

Daryl Leeworthy is an associate tutor in history and politics at the Department for Adult and Continuing Education (DACE), Swansea University. He is an expert on the labour history of modern Wales and has also published on sporting heritage, the LGBT movement, and relations between Welsh nationalism and the Welsh Left. His next book, Labour Country, a study of radical politics and democracy in South Wales, is published by Parthian as part of its new Modern Wales series in 2018. He is currently writing a biography of the Rhondda-born novelist and writer, Gwyn Thomas (1913-1981), which has also been commissioned by Parthian.

Jennifer Thomson is a Lecturer in Comparative Politics at the University of Bath. Her research focuses on devolution in the UK and women’s rights in post-conflict societies. Her first book, forthcoming 2018, addresses abortion right in contemporary Northern Ireland.

Ewen Cameron is the Sir William Fraser Professor of Scottish History at the University of Edinburgh, where he has taught since 1993. His research concerns the role of the state in the Scottish Highlands, the history of land reform, Scottish political history and the history of Scottish Education. Among his books are Land for the People? The British Government and the Scottish Highlands (1996); Impaled on a Thistle: Scotland since 1880 (2010). He is currently Head of the School of History, Classics and Archaeology at the University of Edinburgh.

J.D. Taylor is author of Island Story: Journeys Through Unfamiliar Britain, shortlisted for the Orwell prize this year. He lectures in history and philosophy at Goldsmiths, University of London, and the Mary Ward Centre.

BOOK TICKETS ON THE BLOOMSBURY FESTIVAL WEBSITE

Follow the conversation on Twitter @Scot_Res and the event hashtag #4viewsUK.

Masculinities, expert knowledge and planning the British home c. 1941-1951

Abstract for a paper being presented at the University of Glasgow’s Centre for Gender History on 2 October 2017

Between the environmental devastation of the 1941 Blitz and the optimism of the 1951 Festival of Britain, planners – such as Patrick Abercrombie, Ralph Tubbs and Arthur Ling – imagined the British home in multiple ways. From an environment analogous to the natural world to a ‘machine for living in’, this article uses conceptualisations of domestic space to examine the effects of masculinities on planners’ expertise and its influence on the rebuilding of Britain after the Second World War.

The figure of the planner recurs in planning sources of the 1940s and their representation – in text, photograph and film – provides an account of how planners’ perceived themselves at the time and the image they wished to present to those for whom they planned. Some paternalist traditions persisted, as planners continued to see it as their duty to emancipate the working classes from ‘slum’ environments, alongside efforts among planners to distance themselves from stereotypical associations of expert knowledge with the upper classes and a classical education. Planners instead used the language of rationalism, science and technology to convey their expertise, with domestic space and men’s actions with the home foregrounded as central tenets of post-war reconstruction.

Further information on the seminar is available on the Centre for Gender History’s website.

#LeaderImage – Exploring, analysing and challenging attitudes towards gender and leadership in images of politicians in the digital age

I am co-convening a session at the Association for Art Historians annual conference in April 2018. See the Call for Papers below:

During the 2017 UK General Election campaign, Theresa May presented herself as ‘strong and stable’ to try and convince the public she was a suitable Prime Minister. May’s inference of physically masculine attributes was an attempt to instil confidence. Her actions are reflected in themes discussed in Wendy Brown’s Manhood and Politics: A Feminist Reading of Political Theory.

In response to a culture whereby masculinity equates good leadership, digitally literate individuals are increasingly manipulating images of politicians to convey opinions on projected gender identities. For example, in 2017, supporters of Jeremy Corbyn Photo-shopped his head onto the muscular body of James Bond, while doubters superimposed his face onto ‘weak and wobbly’ jelly. Using screen grabs, captions, memes or, like these examples, Photoshop, some individuals feel liberated to create an online war of pictures, informed by ideas regarding gender and leadership, in the run up to elections and referendums.

The session convenors use observations on manipulated images disseminated during the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum to initiate a global summit on attitudes towards gender and leadership in political imagery – the purpose being to stimulate debate on boundaries in online spaces, for such images are impacting elections and perpetuating regressive and dangerous gender norms. Contributions on how the interplay between gender and leadership manifests online in any region are welcome. Papers on how technology can disrupt entrenched ideologies regarding this interplay are also encouraged, as are papers that examine historical links between digitally manipulated images and other political art.

With this session, we hope to evaluate freedom vs. censorship in online spaces and to explore the art historian’s role, purpose and alliances in an image-saturated post-truth world. Therefore, we encourage potential contributors to think broadly about how images like those mentioned above, and the processes of their creation and presentation, relate to historical specialisms in various fields.

How to submit a paper:

To offer a paper please email your paper proposals direct to the session convenor(s).

Fern Insh, Courtauld Institute of Art, fern.insh@courtauld.ac.uk

Kevin Guyan, Researcher, Equality Challenge Unit, kevin.guyan@ecu.ac.uk

You need to provide a title and abstract (250 words maximum) for a 25-minute paper (unless otherwise specified), your name and institutional affiliation (if any). Please make sure the title is concise and reflects the contents of the paper because the title is what appears online, in social media and in the printed programme. You should receive an acknowledgement of receipt of your submission within two weeks.

Deadline for submissions: 6 November 2017

ScotRes – launching 30 May 2017

Launch of London-based research forum to explore themes around Scottish independence

I am excited to announce the launch of ScotRes, a new London-based research forum to explore themes around Scottish independence, on 30 May 2017.

On 28 March 2017, a majority in the Scottish Parliament voted in support of a second independence referendum – the question is no longer ‘if’ but ‘when’ the referendum will take place.

Research will underpin the arguments put forward by both sides. I hope that ScotRes will provide a space for London-based researchers, who support Scottish independence, to share and develop their work ahead of the next referendum.

ScotRes will focus on one theme each month and open with a short talk from one or more researchers on that subject. This will be followed by chaired questions and informal discussion.

For further information visit the ScotRes website or follow on Twitter.

Gender and #GE2017

Let’s leave machismo politics in the past

Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale was angry when she spoke in the Scottish Parliament yesterday on the effects of austerity on those already hit hardest. Speaking specifically on the family cap (a two-child limit for tax credits) and the rape clause (which requires women who have given birth to a child as a result of rape to sign a declaration and provide evidence in order gain an exemption), the debate reminded us that women are often the worst victims of Conservative politics.

Yesterday’s Holyrood debate brought into the spotlight one way in which gender and politics intersect, and raised questions over the role of gender in the ongoing local and general election campaigns.

This is not about female leaders or male leaders, leaders who identify as heterosexual or leaders who identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual. It’s about the gendered effects of political decisions and how the performance of gender can be used for good or for bad.

In April 2017, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon spoke at the United Nations and explained:

‘The Government I lead is committed to tackling violence against women, closing the gender pay gap, and ensuring more women work in careers that have traditionally been seen as careers for men like engineering. We also want to encourage more men to work in careers that have often been seen as the preserve of women like childcare and teaching’.

This intelligent discussion of gender issues highlighted the need to tackle issues most specific to women (such as domestic violence and the gender pay gap) as well as themes that impact both women and men.

Although the SNP look likely to do well in local elections this month and retain most of the seats won in the 2015 general election (95% of all Scottish constituencies), competition will come from Ruth Davidson and the Scottish Conservatives. Yet, Sturgeon’s discussion of gender at the UN differs radically from the imagery emerging from the Scottish Conservatives.

Tory party strategists are unashamedly following two lines of attack: (i) the local and general elections are only about independence, to such an extent that some candidates make no mention of local issues in their leaflets (ii) Davidson is the only person strong enough to take the fight to the SNP.

Davidson’s already hard image has been cranked-up this month, putting herself forward as the only candidate with the strength and vigour to save the Union.

The latest poster campaign features Davidson staring coldly at the viewer, telling them ‘WE SAID NO WE MEANT IT’ (see above). In campaign literature, the Tories accuse the SNP of ‘running scared’ and becoming a ‘laughing stock’. These playground taunts eschew policies in place of a politics rooted in the age of toughness.

Davidson’s position is weakened when she finds herself a mouthpiece for Tory policies, such as Brexit and cuts to public services – standing tall and and talking tough is an easy fallback.

Even though politicians’ use and performance of gender differs, let’s keep speaking about gender throughout the 2017 elections.

However, at the same time, let’s leave the machismo politics of Ruth Davidson and the Scottish Conservatives in the past.

#ScotRef and the politics of indifference

Those who claim to be ‘outside of politics’ need to be called-out for what they really are: supporters of the status quo.

I spent last weekend with family in Aberdeen and found it hard to contain my frustration while watching news coverage of the public’s response to Nicola Sturgeon’s letter to Theresa May requesting a Section 30 order.

Typical vox pops on the question of a second independence referendum included:

‘Ach. I’m no interested in politics.’

‘I don’t like speaking about politics, it just creates confrontation and division.’

‘I don’t want another referendum, it’s too soon – I don’t have the time’.

Following my initial confusion over what exactly these people did in the 2014 independence referendum that occupied so much of their time (this random sample did not look as if they had spent evenings knocking on doors and delivering leaflets), it became clear that one of the great challenges facing the independence movement does not come from the official opposition but from the politics of indifference.

The views shared in these vox pops masquerade as being ‘above’ or ‘outside’ of politics but, in fact, only help to safeguard the status quo.

Historian and activist Howard Zinn wrote, ‘you can’t be neutral on a speeding train’. Politics in the UK and US in the past two years, perhaps more so than in the previous half century, fits the description of a ‘speeding train’. Neutrality is not an option – you must pick a side or find yourself complicit in the status quo.

Tacit support for the status quo, and the belief that whatever happens will not directly impinge upon your life, only comes from a place of privilege.

For those who bought their house at a bargain rate from Margaret Thatcher’s government in the 1980s or were born at the right time to enjoy a final salary pension, the dire situation of politics in 2017 may not appear to pose a direct threat.

But what about everyone else? Failure to act in a situation in which others are at risk, even when you find yourself in a safe position, is still a failure. Even worse, it is selfish.

Ahead of the next independence referendum, staying outside of politics is no longer an option. Sides must be taken, with those claiming political indifference called out by their real name: supporters of the status quo.