When reading “What Europeans Talk about when They Talk about Brexit”, I was struck by the majority of Europe being heavily in favor of remain and harshly criticizing the United Kingdom after the referendum took place.
The reading provides the perspectives of numerous European nations when it comes to Brexit, from their own history regarding the European Union and referendums, to quotes, media titles, and the general narrative of mainstream media in these countries. I was genuinely surprised by the virtual unanimous opinion of the European nations. From the liberal Denmark lambasting the UK referendum’s outfall, to the anti-EU Greece claiming that Britain will paralyze itself and that there is no similarity between Brexit and Grexit, the overall perspective on Brexit does not seem to depend on other nations’ own relationship with the European Union. This brings forth multiple questions. How has the United Kingdom failed to recognize the dangers of Brexit when the rest of Europe has done so? Should other countries have interfered with the Brexit referendum in order to prevent the UK from leaving the European Union?
I believe we have a good and improving understanding of the first question. Britain, particularly the remain campaign, underestimated the power of fake news and targeted advertising. These were the two foundations upon which the leave campaign strategized their victory. The leave campaign took notes on the Trump campaign, also an election that the world perceived as a big loss, and ran with it. Thus, we live in an age where social media and false facts seem to overpower traditional media and political debates, which is frightening when combined with democratic elections or referendums.
This brings us to the second question at hand. If other countries or organizations realize that a candidate or referendum poses a significant threat to the welfare of the global society, is it an obligation to step in? It is a tough spot to be in as an outsider, as this could challenge the very notion of freedom of speech and democracy.
While reading Simmel’s “The Stranger,” I was trying to place this within our discussion of Anderson’s “Imagined Communities” as “The Stranger” seems to presuppose that these communities by which people identify/exclude others are well-defined. That presupposition lends itself to the question: What are the components that cause people to be seen as not only “the other,” but in a sense, “non-human”? Anderson suggested that this was in part due to language barriers, but I believe that in order to see someone as “non-human,” even once they are living in close proximity of a community, it requires much deeper lack of understanding between individuals, a behavior so different that individuals don’t even try to engage to understand one another. To that end, I believe that it’s important to discuss the nature of assimilation, in which individuals try to join society’s behaviors so they can become part of the group versus cultural isolation, by which unrelated communities never seem to interact, and thus never develop empathy for their respective “strangers.” Simmel seems to suggest that a behavioral change and rejection from one’s host community ideals may be enough to overcome this “othering” but I think back to when we discussed the nature of Albanian assimilation in Greece and how despite their integration, they never seem to fully gain the respect of being treated as non-strangers within Greece. On a personal level, it seems that this creation of a “stranger” is not one that can be easily regulated out of discourse.
If then, cultural assimilation is not enough to overcome othering on a personal level, how can society on an international level overcome these barriers to have more empathy and humanity for one another? In the context of Brexit, this seems difficult as xenophobic rhetoric used by a large proportion of the country has led to the isolation of foreigners within the UK population, but also led to the isolation of UK empathy on behalf of the entire European community. It’s very transparent that in “What Europeans Talk about when They Talk about Brexit,” less wealthy EU countries feel little sympathy for Britain throughout this process as they feel as if they individually have it worse than the UK, and if anything, the UK is targeting their specific citizens. Additionally, wealthier countries within the EU, such as France and Germany, seem to have the perception that the UK’s choice to leave the EU was founded in ignorant sentiments rather than intelligent, moral thinking. They isolate the UK in their agenda to prove that the UK made a mistake in regards to leaving UK, and in a sense, must do so to preserve their own power and order within the EU. Of course, the UK did leave based largely on xenophobic sentiments as well, so the EU’s perception is not entirely unfounded. But nevertheless, the EU and the UK as a whole must figure out a sustainable solution for both these groups as their proximity makes them tied to each other, despite the attitudes that perpetuate this idea that these two entities can be “strangers.” Going forward, we can only hope and watch that this rhetoric of victimization of each of the two groups can diminish and by replaced by compromise, a situation only attained through empathy and rationality.
While readings “What Europeans Talk about when They Talk about Brexit,” I found it interesting the ways in which these authors spoke about the respective EU countries in light of the Brexit, and how this revealed almost hidden qualities of the countries. I feel that in times of crisis, or in times that major change is on the horizon, the true “self” comes out and is exposed.
The piece about Croatia really stuck out to me because of the critique of the country in Dubravka Ugresic’s piece. In the Croatian press, it appears that the Croatian government is concerned for its citizens living abroad in the United Kingdom, but Ugresic seems to have a different opinion of the reality of the situation. He writes that the Croatian elite destroyed everything to the point that everyone was hungry and unemployed, and had to flee the country. Therefore it is hypocritical, or “something of a joke,” that now that the Brexit is on the horizon the Croatian elite is now worried about the people that it drove out of the country in the first place.
The piece about Germany, on the other hand, exposes the way in which Germany feels about Europe. Brexit it seems is almost embarrassing for the German people to think about in the context of Europe. Thomas Meaney categorizes Brexit in as “another element in the chaos,” along with the Arab Spring, the election of Trump, the botched intervention in Libya, and that this has made the Germans only realize again the “increased preciousness and value of Europe.” I think that Germany has always had a superiority complex, but it was reaffirmed with its perspective on Brexit.
In general, there was a sense that Brexit was unanimously disagreed upon and critiqued, but it was also almost disregarded amongst the other nations. News about the royal family, or really any other news, over shadows the idea of Brexit after a while, and people seem to forget about it.
Simmel’s essay on “The Stranger” in combination with Jeremy’ Harding’s article on France’s reaction to Brexit makes me wonder strongly about Britain’s future – will it’s perspective and relationship with migrants degrade further? Will the average quality of life decrease, or at least the perception of it from an external view? Simultaneously, Harding’s article makes me skeptical about the influence of predisposed expectation on the resulting description and opinions put out by French newspapers in reference to the referendum outcome.
I am surprised about the strong imagery produced by the media outlet, France Culture, portraying the UK as having an “extreme xenophobic climate”, “turning its back on freedom of movement”, and even that it’s “…a bit of a dump”. The notion of homeless sleeping in garbage bins at risk of being caught in a trash compactor both highlights the prevalence of poor populations, and also the lack of support for those people who are seriously disadvantaged. If Britain exits the EU, it seems possible that the relations with migrants and in general those without economic means may potentially be in even worse of a social and economic position as any statutes in place (if any such statutes exist) to help those populations which are enforced by the EU will no longer be upheld.
This perspective may be skewed though, as it is presented by Harding that the French overwhelmingly did not expect the referendum to pass, and therefore many news outlets have a negative outlook towards Britain’s decision. Naturally, negative comments towards Britain may also follow this commentary, such as those describing it as resembling its own garbage problems. I’m curious, if there had been no expectation either way (an impossibility, though still an interesting experiment to consider), whether the French media response would have been the same.
Going back to a point above, I want to see what dissimilarities that might exist between those populations described by the French press as being so extremely at a loss, and migrant populations that feel the “extreme xenophobic climate” in Britain, to the definition of “stranger”. The “stranger” description doesn’t align with the described issues of “poverty and human rights” as those in poverty, though they differ in economic status, may still have enough characteristics in common with the general population that they should not be considered an “other”. This, however, is the case and I am curious whether this will continue to do so as the movement progresses.
In his piece The Stranger, George Simmel’s explanation of the circumstances that cause strangers to stand out come into play when considering European countries’ relation to Brexit in What Europeans Talk about when They Talk about Brexit, specifically Croatia. According to Simmel, “The position of a stranger stands out more sharply if he settles down in the place of his activity, instead of leaving it again.” As becomes clear through What Europeans Talk about when They Talk about Brexit, this stranger-ness is two-fold—when a person moves from one country to the next, he both becomes a stranger to the new country and to the old.
Croatian citizens who have moved to Britain embody this dual stranger-ness. According to What Europeans Talk about when They Talk about Brexit, media in Croatia continuously reports on Croatia’s concern for the fate of Croatian citizens living in England after Brexit. This alleged concern highlights the reality of Croatian’s status in England amongst Brits—while the Brits’ status (whether that be economic status, social status, medical status) will be handled by England after Brexit, the status of these Croatians won’t be England’s responsibility because they are seen as strangers in British land. The British recognition of these Croatians’ existence and deliberate decision to leave them to fend for themselves highlights the “stranger” status of these Croatians in a way that wouldn’t be as obvious had these Croatians never come to England (and thus, had never been caught up in this situation).
The “stranger” status is not one sided for the Croatians. As explained by Dubravka Ugrešić in the “Croatia” section of What Europeans Talk about when They Talk about Brexit, this proclaimed Croatian concern for the Croatian citizens who moved to England is “something of a joke” given that it was the Croatian elite who drove many lower-class Croatians to immigrate to England through their nepotism and corruption that left these citizens “unemployed and hungry.” Croatia’s obvious lack of legitimate care for its Croatian citizens who have moved away highlights these citizens “stranger-ness” from Croatia as well as England. Perhaps, though, this ‘stranger’ status from one’s home country is not always attributed to one’s decision to settle elsewhere; in the case of Croatia, it seems that the country’s political elite made these lower-class citizens strangers even while they still resided there.
The ultimate irony in Simmel’s statement about the stranger standing out, logically, one should become less strange when he settles in one place because that marks the beginning of him officially introducing himself to that new land. When the person comes and suddenly leaves, he should be viewed as more of a stranger since he never became a part of that new land. However, the truth is that stranger-ness is rooted in the fact that once the person settles, that person becomes relevant enough to be called a stranger. Had the person come and then left immediately, he wouldn’t be called anything…perhaps just a visitor.
The film “Children of Men” is interesting because it takes the familiar attitude of British isolationism and puts it in the context of a futuristic dystopia. Through this futuristic and pessimistic lens, we view similar actions that we see today, the exclusion of migrants, rounded up, detained, and being expelled, as well as a mantra of British isolation being necessary for protection and survival. Although exaggerated, we see these same attitudes today, which is interesting especially considering this film was produced in 2006 before the recent refugee crisis. Brexit is another example of Britain wanting to return to a policy of isolationism, and much of the controversy is centered on controlling their own borders. Whether or not Brexit does occur, it brings up an important discussion of Britain’s relationship with continental Europe and the Republic of Ireland which is part of the EU. When discussing identities, Britain has always felt, and been perceived as separate from the continental European countries, and this has made integration into the EU difficult, with Britain receiving many individual stipulations in treaties to help retain some of their independence. However, with the rise of right-wing populism this view of isolationism is gaining power, and discussion surrounding Britain’s exit from the EU must be entertained. For this, “Children of Men” has been used as a talking point to discuss different attitudes. With immigration at the forefront of the discussions currently, it is relevant to reference. In the newspaper article discussing the other EU countries views on Brexit, it was interesting to see that some countries supported it because of Britain’s reluctance to every truly build a unified Europe and consistent feet dragging. Some viewed it a necessity that had to be done before the EU could move forward, while many others thought it would weaken the Union and hurt everyone involved. Until it happens, there is only speculation about the results, however, “Children of Men” is an ominous interpretation of these attitudes of isolationism.
As I was searching for materials to write about in my blog post this week, I started re-reading Tuesday’s materials after having watched the film, and something I never noticed before emerged. When consumed in the order that we are assigned, first the readings, then the film, I think it is easy to see the movie’s apocalyptic tone and dystopian narrative as an extreme version of the reality of British isolationism. However, when I unintentionally ended up watching the movie, then going back to the reading “What Europeans Talk about When They Talk about Brexit,” it is uncanny how many of the real headlines and voices can easily be seen situated in a movie like Children of Men.
For example, in responding to Brexit, Portugal’s foreign minister said, “We are preparing ourselves for all scenarios.” At the same time, Donald Tusk of Poland commented, “As a historian, I fear that Brexit will not only be the beginning of the EU’s fall, but also of the whole of Western political civilisation.” Meanwhile, another source reported, “The Irish Times announced that “Brexit bedlam” had wiped € 3.3 billion off the value of Irish shares.” In reading these statements, there is an almost apocalyptic tone to them that is not so far from that of the movie — it is not a far reach to see these headlines being flashed over an apocalyptic Britain like the one in the movie. Though the movie was made almost a decade before the massive influx of immigrants into Europe as a result of the 2015 refugee crisis, before the rise of populism plus the appeal of isolationism arose, one factor remains constant: regardless of whether one chooses to admit it or not, the UK is one of the biggest, if not the single biggest, player in European politics and economy. As a result, as much as it is about “isolationism” that the term “isolationism” itself suggests, and whether the UK is the last country remaining as it is in the movie or the first to leave as in the case of Brexit, the readings and movie seen in conjunction with one another highlights the impossibility of divorcing the UK from the rest of Europe. This, thus, puts into question the very idea that is the driving force of the Brexit movement in the first place.
Children of Men was weird; it was an apocalyptic, violent look into the future of an isolationist Britain, with migrants in cages and packed buses, with a little bit of hope for the future represented by Kee’s baby.
I viewed Kee’s baby in two different ways. The first is that the baby represents the possibility of hope for the future and peace between the waring sides of Britain. Which is shown a bit throughout the movie, especially when the Fishes (?)-the ‘terrorist’ group that Julian leads- talk about using the baby to stop the war and as Kee says “[her] baby is not a flag.” Which really just means that using her baby to ‘unite’ the people of Britain is the wrong reason to want/protect a baby. The second way I viewed the baby was as a way to say ‘immigrants are needed,’ all women are infertile and yet it was a Fuji(?) woman who is the first woman to give birth in eighteen years. A Fuji woman who is illegally in Britain. But she is the one who is pregnant! She could be the reason behind the discovery of why women are infertile, but since the movie ends with just a boat coming in, the audience will never know.
I would like to touch on the holocaust references I picked up on in the movie because there were quite a few and they are rather important. I viewed these scenes as a way for the director to bring attention to the direction some countries are going with their immigration policies and the increased hostility toward ‘the other.’ The first was at the beginning when the camera focuses in on a bus packed with migrants who are standing with their heads between the bars breathing in whatever fresh air they can. It is very similar to many holocaust films when the non-aryans were shipped off to concentration/death camps, only they were in cattle cars. It is also reminiscent of the scene in La Haine when the man talks of his forced journey to the Gulags on a packed train. There were multiple scenes of people in cages, one woman was German if I am not mistaken which I found ironic, with armed guards surrounding them as they cry put for help or assistance of any kind. It reminds me quite a bit of the chicken coup scene in Bread and Chocolate as the migrants stare longingly though the chicken wire at the Swiss teenagers, which as discussed in class was also shot like a scene in a Holocaust film. The song “Arbeit Macht Frei” by the Libertines is in the movie. “Arbeit Macht Frei” means “work shall set you free” and it was a phrase the Nazis placed at the entrance of their camps during WWII. Lastly, when Theo and Kee are going into the camp, they pass a row of dead bodies, piles of clothes and luggage, and Theo is forced to hand over his watch to a man in a military uniform. These are all reminiscent of the holocaust and holocaust films.
My first thoughts are wow, what an intense movie. There is a lot of action and violence throughout the movie, even when the main characters are not getting shot at. The violence and action felt different from your traditional superhero movie though. It was more raw, less suave. The fear, no maybe not just fear, the desperation was most palpable in those scenes of action and violence. Contrasting this desperation is the hope embodied in Kee’s child. Themes of hope play throughout the movie. The Fishes have hope for their revolution. The citizens hope for a better future. It seems many turned to religion as their last hope in an otherwise terrible place.
While I wish there was more background on the politics and history of this world, perhaps that was besides the point anyway. It appears everywhere on Earth has fallen to chaos (including the states as evidenced by the picture of Washington). Everywhere except the good ol’ UK. I don’t think this film is meant to be taken as a potential reality (after all, there is no explanation for why infertility happened or exactly why the world descended into madness as a result. And the idea the UK government survives?). Rather, the use of this extreme, implausible scenario is perhaps meant to highlight societal weaknesses. The infertility aspect reminds me of how across the western world, fertility rates have plummeted in the post-post WW2, neoliberal era. The chaos in the rest of the world is necessary to the plot of the film. It is the reason why the UK has seen such an extraordinary surge in refugees. Boy, you think too many refugees are reaching the UK now? Imagine the whole world trying to enter the country with the only functioning government left. Now that’s gonna be a mess. And indeed in this film, it’s not just a mess. It’s an outright war.
I also just want to take a moment to comment on the immense visual impact of this film. I never thought I could taste the color grey. Sooo much grey. The smog and smoke blankets nearly every scene. The only color? Graffiti, which covers every wall despite the government’s efforts to conceal it. The metro that Theo takes is grey and graffiti covered. The grey cages are right next to this metro. Seemingly, the citizens just ignore these cages as they go about their day.
Oh, one more little detail. This movie sets the pace rather quickly and abruptly. Theo buys a coffee and mere seconds after leaving the cafe, a bomb goes off inside that very cafe. The horror in this world is everywhere. It is so immense that the citizens have allowed themselves to be subjected to an authoritarian police state. And honestly who can blame them? If I lived in a world this desiccated and violent, I’d sell more than my freedom for a bit of safety.
This week’s topic, Brexit, plays a crucial role in the broad context of the semester long mission to address what is Europe. The entire Brexit campaign, referendum, and results are based on that very question. Is Europe a combination of nations with economic ties or a deep integration of states striving for an ever-closer union on all fronts? Is European identity truly shared by people in Athens, London, Minsk, and Warsaw? Can a specific definition for European identity ever be formed?
The Brexit referendum asked specifically a yes or no question of whether or not Brits wanted to remain in the European Union. Below the surface, however, the question was miles more complex. The Brexit referendum truly asked people their opinions on identity, immigration, globalization, their current economic state and more. Each voter in the EU referendum had to answer these questions personally. Each voter came from a very specific background, education history, socio economic status, geographic location. Each vote cast on either side was entirely unique. While large trends certainly persisted, ultimately each vote and each voter in some way was unique and specific to them. This is why over the course of the semester I have grown to believe that the individual is the most important player in identity
Ultimately, the question what is Europe is about the individual. Identity is personal. Each individual must determine themselves what Europe actually means. No two opinions will be exactly the same. While this may sound challenging, it is true in all aspects of global identity—EU and abroad. No one country on the planet has a sweeping definition applicable to everyone of what it means to be a member of the country. There is no one definition of what it means to be an American or what it means to be Danish, Polish, or Swedish. Cultural identities have formed over long histories and while cultural values are shaped and promoted by governments, each person has a uniquely personal relationship with national, supranational, or cultural identity. One of the most important elements in an identity are the feelings of pride or shame. Americans can feel pride for America. Americans can feel shame in America. Americans can’t feel pride or shame for Europe because their relationship is impersonal and as an outsider. Danes feel pride and shame for Denmark but do Danes feel pride and shame in Europe? Whether or not European identity continues to emerge and prosper is about Europeans. In 50 years, will Europeans feel pride on EU successes and shame for EU failures? That is a quintessential question for European identity.
I would leave this class by writing that Europe is many things and nothing at the same time. Europe is a geographic region. Europe is an ideal of liberal democracy. Europe is a collection of nations striving for lasting peace after a gruesome history of war. Europe is an attempt at long term economic prosperity. This is the European dream. This is Europe. Europe is also, nothing. No one person shares a view on what is Europe. Each person’s relationship with Europe is unique. Each person prioritizes different elements of identity in all walks of life. Each European is a specific individual and no two opinions on Europe are the same. Identities cannot be made. Feelings cannot be created. These must be formed by generations of individuals all internally deciding what Europe means to them.
Children of Men, while extreme, is actually somewhat relevant. No, we are not living in a dystopian world riddled with terrorism, natural disasters, and war. However, the concept of the closed, hard borders is directly related to Brexit, this weeks topic.
Much of the beauty of Dystopian films is the fact that while futuristic, and seemingly distant, at the root of the film is a problem that modern day society faces. The allusion to the multitude of of terrorist attacks is fresh in the heads of many Brits, as the film was shot at around the same time the London Bombings occurred. More recently, back in 2017 when there was the Manchester Bombings at an Ariana Grande Concert, terrorism has been at the forefront of problems to deal with for parliament. Beyond the terrorism, the extreme sense of anti-immigration sentiment around England in the film is present today, due partially to the fear of terrorism. In fact, it is one of the main reasons that Brexit negotiations are happening. The UK claims that they need to reclaim their own borders, tighten them up, and restrict immigration. Still on the topic of immigration, the movie also addresses the treatment of those seeking asylum. While today immigrants are not being caged up and executed, at least to my knowledge, they are often times placed in refugee camps with poor living conditions.
While this film was made in 2007, it seems far more relevant now than ever. From the hard borders, terrorist attacks, and xenophobia, Children of Men is less of a movie for the present, but a warning for the future.
The most telling scene in Children of Men was the scene where Theo meets Nigel. We see numerous works of famous art and symbols that convey the horrors of dystopian universe of the film. Interestingly, we see art from the past, present, and future. Beginning with ancient art, we are introduced to the sculpture of David via a low camera angle and are immediately captivated by Nigel and his power. Because of David’s famous victory over Goliath, it seemed at first to foreshadow that a battle was going to ensue, although judging by the damage to David’s leg, it was going to come at a price. Another interpretation is that David, or the representation of David the righteous hero, has been captured by Nigel and reduced to being a simple home ornament guarded by his dogs. We then see Guernica, hanging over a wall as decoration. This is certainly an odd choice because Geurnica was made to portray the horrors of war and to be an anti-war painting. To casually hang it by the dining table shows a complete disregard for the sufferings of violence, an idea that will be even more clear throughout the film as senseless violence fills the second half.
The dining table is filled with modern art. We see succulents and a gorgeous display of food. But what is the most interesting piece of art must be Alex, who I presume to be Nigel’s son. First of all, I am not sure what to make of him. His pimple ridden face, angsty demeanor, and general young-looking features suggest that he is young, perhaps not far off from the 18 year old who recently died. His skin is filled with art—a tattoo that seem to say Crazz, a faded cross on his right hand, what looks to me like a crude drawing of The Scream on his right hand, and markings over his knuckles. And then he takes this pills that were never further explained. Is he even human? He does not say a word or touch his food throughout this interaction. To me, he seemed less like a character, and more like an additional piece of art at the table.
Then there is the material that Alex is engrossed with, some sort of technology. For me, this represented the futuristic art. He fiddles with what looks like a complicated Rubik’s cube. Is he solving something, or creating something? It’s something that we don’t understand as an audience, and it seems like Nigel doesn’t understand it either. Maybe this represents how things are changing, and how differing generations at times are unable to connect.
The final entity, though I am not sure if it is art, is the flying pig in the background. This immediately made me think of Animal Farm. Propaganda, groupthink, and power over others were certainly key points in the film. And as Nigel watches the rest of society devolve into chaos, he comfortably lives with his collection of invaluable works of art, because he simply “does not care.” This reflects the inhumanity of Animal Farm as well as the inhumanity that will come in the film. Senseless violence occurs because people simply do not care or stop caring about others. But a more optimistic interpretation could also be that the pig is “flying.” Miracles happen when pigs fly, and perhaps the miracle of fertility was what this society needed to become humane again.
When reading “What Europeans Talk about when They Talk about Brexit”, I was struck by the majority of Europe being heavily in favor of remain and harshly criticizing the United Kingdom after the referendum took place.
The reading provides the perspectives of numerous European nations when it comes to Brexit, from their own history regarding the European Union and referendums, to quotes, media titles, and the general narrative of mainstream media in these countries. I was genuinely surprised by the virtual unanimous opinion of the European nations. From the liberal Denmark lambasting the UK referendum’s outfall, to the anti-EU Greece claiming that Britain will paralyze itself and that there is no similarity between Brexit and Grexit, the overall perspective on Brexit does not seem to depend on other nations’ own relationship with the European Union. This brings forth multiple questions. How has the United Kingdom failed to recognize the dangers of Brexit when the rest of Europe has done so? Should other countries have interfered with the Brexit referendum in order to prevent the UK from leaving the European Union?
I believe we have a good and improving understanding of the first question. Britain, particularly the remain campaign, underestimated the power of fake news and targeted advertising. These were the two foundations upon which the leave campaign strategized their victory. The leave campaign took notes on the Trump campaign, also an election that the world perceived as a big loss, and ran with it. Thus, we live in an age where social media and false facts seem to overpower traditional media and political debates, which is frightening when combined with democratic elections or referendums.
This brings us to the second question at hand. If other countries or organizations realize that a candidate or referendum poses a significant threat to the welfare of the global society, is it an obligation to step in? It is a tough spot to be in as an outsider, as this could challenge the very notion of freedom of speech and democracy.
While reading Simmel’s “The Stranger,” I was trying to place this within our discussion of Anderson’s “Imagined Communities” as “The Stranger” seems to presuppose that these communities by which people identify/exclude others are well-defined. That presupposition lends itself to the question: What are the components that cause people to be seen as not only “the other,” but in a sense, “non-human”? Anderson suggested that this was in part due to language barriers, but I believe that in order to see someone as “non-human,” even once they are living in close proximity of a community, it requires much deeper lack of understanding between individuals, a behavior so different that individuals don’t even try to engage to understand one another. To that end, I believe that it’s important to discuss the nature of assimilation, in which individuals try to join society’s behaviors so they can become part of the group versus cultural isolation, by which unrelated communities never seem to interact, and thus never develop empathy for their respective “strangers.” Simmel seems to suggest that a behavioral change and rejection from one’s host community ideals may be enough to overcome this “othering” but I think back to when we discussed the nature of Albanian assimilation in Greece and how despite their integration, they never seem to fully gain the respect of being treated as non-strangers within Greece. On a personal level, it seems that this creation of a “stranger” is not one that can be easily regulated out of discourse.
If then, cultural assimilation is not enough to overcome othering on a personal level, how can society on an international level overcome these barriers to have more empathy and humanity for one another? In the context of Brexit, this seems difficult as xenophobic rhetoric used by a large proportion of the country has led to the isolation of foreigners within the UK population, but also led to the isolation of UK empathy on behalf of the entire European community. It’s very transparent that in “What Europeans Talk about when They Talk about Brexit,” less wealthy EU countries feel little sympathy for Britain throughout this process as they feel as if they individually have it worse than the UK, and if anything, the UK is targeting their specific citizens. Additionally, wealthier countries within the EU, such as France and Germany, seem to have the perception that the UK’s choice to leave the EU was founded in ignorant sentiments rather than intelligent, moral thinking. They isolate the UK in their agenda to prove that the UK made a mistake in regards to leaving UK, and in a sense, must do so to preserve their own power and order within the EU. Of course, the UK did leave based largely on xenophobic sentiments as well, so the EU’s perception is not entirely unfounded. But nevertheless, the EU and the UK as a whole must figure out a sustainable solution for both these groups as their proximity makes them tied to each other, despite the attitudes that perpetuate this idea that these two entities can be “strangers.” Going forward, we can only hope and watch that this rhetoric of victimization of each of the two groups can diminish and by replaced by compromise, a situation only attained through empathy and rationality.
While readings “What Europeans Talk about when They Talk about Brexit,” I found it interesting the ways in which these authors spoke about the respective EU countries in light of the Brexit, and how this revealed almost hidden qualities of the countries. I feel that in times of crisis, or in times that major change is on the horizon, the true “self” comes out and is exposed.
The piece about Croatia really stuck out to me because of the critique of the country in Dubravka Ugresic’s piece. In the Croatian press, it appears that the Croatian government is concerned for its citizens living abroad in the United Kingdom, but Ugresic seems to have a different opinion of the reality of the situation. He writes that the Croatian elite destroyed everything to the point that everyone was hungry and unemployed, and had to flee the country. Therefore it is hypocritical, or “something of a joke,” that now that the Brexit is on the horizon the Croatian elite is now worried about the people that it drove out of the country in the first place.
The piece about Germany, on the other hand, exposes the way in which Germany feels about Europe. Brexit it seems is almost embarrassing for the German people to think about in the context of Europe. Thomas Meaney categorizes Brexit in as “another element in the chaos,” along with the Arab Spring, the election of Trump, the botched intervention in Libya, and that this has made the Germans only realize again the “increased preciousness and value of Europe.” I think that Germany has always had a superiority complex, but it was reaffirmed with its perspective on Brexit.
In general, there was a sense that Brexit was unanimously disagreed upon and critiqued, but it was also almost disregarded amongst the other nations. News about the royal family, or really any other news, over shadows the idea of Brexit after a while, and people seem to forget about it.
Simmel’s essay on “The Stranger” in combination with Jeremy’ Harding’s article on France’s reaction to Brexit makes me wonder strongly about Britain’s future – will it’s perspective and relationship with migrants degrade further? Will the average quality of life decrease, or at least the perception of it from an external view? Simultaneously, Harding’s article makes me skeptical about the influence of predisposed expectation on the resulting description and opinions put out by French newspapers in reference to the referendum outcome.
I am surprised about the strong imagery produced by the media outlet, France Culture, portraying the UK as having an “extreme xenophobic climate”, “turning its back on freedom of movement”, and even that it’s “…a bit of a dump”. The notion of homeless sleeping in garbage bins at risk of being caught in a trash compactor both highlights the prevalence of poor populations, and also the lack of support for those people who are seriously disadvantaged. If Britain exits the EU, it seems possible that the relations with migrants and in general those without economic means may potentially be in even worse of a social and economic position as any statutes in place (if any such statutes exist) to help those populations which are enforced by the EU will no longer be upheld.
This perspective may be skewed though, as it is presented by Harding that the French overwhelmingly did not expect the referendum to pass, and therefore many news outlets have a negative outlook towards Britain’s decision. Naturally, negative comments towards Britain may also follow this commentary, such as those describing it as resembling its own garbage problems. I’m curious, if there had been no expectation either way (an impossibility, though still an interesting experiment to consider), whether the French media response would have been the same.
Going back to a point above, I want to see what dissimilarities that might exist between those populations described by the French press as being so extremely at a loss, and migrant populations that feel the “extreme xenophobic climate” in Britain, to the definition of “stranger”. The “stranger” description doesn’t align with the described issues of “poverty and human rights” as those in poverty, though they differ in economic status, may still have enough characteristics in common with the general population that they should not be considered an “other”. This, however, is the case and I am curious whether this will continue to do so as the movement progresses.
In his piece The Stranger, George Simmel’s explanation of the circumstances that cause strangers to stand out come into play when considering European countries’ relation to Brexit in What Europeans Talk about when They Talk about Brexit, specifically Croatia. According to Simmel, “The position of a stranger stands out more sharply if he settles down in the place of his activity, instead of leaving it again.” As becomes clear through What Europeans Talk about when They Talk about Brexit, this stranger-ness is two-fold—when a person moves from one country to the next, he both becomes a stranger to the new country and to the old.
Croatian citizens who have moved to Britain embody this dual stranger-ness. According to What Europeans Talk about when They Talk about Brexit, media in Croatia continuously reports on Croatia’s concern for the fate of Croatian citizens living in England after Brexit. This alleged concern highlights the reality of Croatian’s status in England amongst Brits—while the Brits’ status (whether that be economic status, social status, medical status) will be handled by England after Brexit, the status of these Croatians won’t be England’s responsibility because they are seen as strangers in British land. The British recognition of these Croatians’ existence and deliberate decision to leave them to fend for themselves highlights the “stranger” status of these Croatians in a way that wouldn’t be as obvious had these Croatians never come to England (and thus, had never been caught up in this situation).
The “stranger” status is not one sided for the Croatians. As explained by Dubravka Ugrešić in the “Croatia” section of What Europeans Talk about when They Talk about Brexit, this proclaimed Croatian concern for the Croatian citizens who moved to England is “something of a joke” given that it was the Croatian elite who drove many lower-class Croatians to immigrate to England through their nepotism and corruption that left these citizens “unemployed and hungry.” Croatia’s obvious lack of legitimate care for its Croatian citizens who have moved away highlights these citizens “stranger-ness” from Croatia as well as England. Perhaps, though, this ‘stranger’ status from one’s home country is not always attributed to one’s decision to settle elsewhere; in the case of Croatia, it seems that the country’s political elite made these lower-class citizens strangers even while they still resided there.
The ultimate irony in Simmel’s statement about the stranger standing out, logically, one should become less strange when he settles in one place because that marks the beginning of him officially introducing himself to that new land. When the person comes and suddenly leaves, he should be viewed as more of a stranger since he never became a part of that new land. However, the truth is that stranger-ness is rooted in the fact that once the person settles, that person becomes relevant enough to be called a stranger. Had the person come and then left immediately, he wouldn’t be called anything…perhaps just a visitor.
The film “Children of Men” is interesting because it takes the familiar attitude of British isolationism and puts it in the context of a futuristic dystopia. Through this futuristic and pessimistic lens, we view similar actions that we see today, the exclusion of migrants, rounded up, detained, and being expelled, as well as a mantra of British isolation being necessary for protection and survival. Although exaggerated, we see these same attitudes today, which is interesting especially considering this film was produced in 2006 before the recent refugee crisis. Brexit is another example of Britain wanting to return to a policy of isolationism, and much of the controversy is centered on controlling their own borders. Whether or not Brexit does occur, it brings up an important discussion of Britain’s relationship with continental Europe and the Republic of Ireland which is part of the EU. When discussing identities, Britain has always felt, and been perceived as separate from the continental European countries, and this has made integration into the EU difficult, with Britain receiving many individual stipulations in treaties to help retain some of their independence. However, with the rise of right-wing populism this view of isolationism is gaining power, and discussion surrounding Britain’s exit from the EU must be entertained. For this, “Children of Men” has been used as a talking point to discuss different attitudes. With immigration at the forefront of the discussions currently, it is relevant to reference. In the newspaper article discussing the other EU countries views on Brexit, it was interesting to see that some countries supported it because of Britain’s reluctance to every truly build a unified Europe and consistent feet dragging. Some viewed it a necessity that had to be done before the EU could move forward, while many others thought it would weaken the Union and hurt everyone involved. Until it happens, there is only speculation about the results, however, “Children of Men” is an ominous interpretation of these attitudes of isolationism.
As I was searching for materials to write about in my blog post this week, I started re-reading Tuesday’s materials after having watched the film, and something I never noticed before emerged. When consumed in the order that we are assigned, first the readings, then the film, I think it is easy to see the movie’s apocalyptic tone and dystopian narrative as an extreme version of the reality of British isolationism. However, when I unintentionally ended up watching the movie, then going back to the reading “What Europeans Talk about When They Talk about Brexit,” it is uncanny how many of the real headlines and voices can easily be seen situated in a movie like Children of Men.
For example, in responding to Brexit, Portugal’s foreign minister said, “We are preparing ourselves for all scenarios.” At the same time, Donald Tusk of Poland commented, “As a historian, I fear that Brexit will not only be the beginning of the EU’s fall, but also of the whole of Western political civilisation.” Meanwhile, another source reported, “The Irish Times announced that “Brexit bedlam” had wiped € 3.3 billion off the value of Irish shares.” In reading these statements, there is an almost apocalyptic tone to them that is not so far from that of the movie — it is not a far reach to see these headlines being flashed over an apocalyptic Britain like the one in the movie. Though the movie was made almost a decade before the massive influx of immigrants into Europe as a result of the 2015 refugee crisis, before the rise of populism plus the appeal of isolationism arose, one factor remains constant: regardless of whether one chooses to admit it or not, the UK is one of the biggest, if not the single biggest, player in European politics and economy. As a result, as much as it is about “isolationism” that the term “isolationism” itself suggests, and whether the UK is the last country remaining as it is in the movie or the first to leave as in the case of Brexit, the readings and movie seen in conjunction with one another highlights the impossibility of divorcing the UK from the rest of Europe. This, thus, puts into question the very idea that is the driving force of the Brexit movement in the first place.
Children of Men was weird; it was an apocalyptic, violent look into the future of an isolationist Britain, with migrants in cages and packed buses, with a little bit of hope for the future represented by Kee’s baby.
I viewed Kee’s baby in two different ways. The first is that the baby represents the possibility of hope for the future and peace between the waring sides of Britain. Which is shown a bit throughout the movie, especially when the Fishes (?)-the ‘terrorist’ group that Julian leads- talk about using the baby to stop the war and as Kee says “[her] baby is not a flag.” Which really just means that using her baby to ‘unite’ the people of Britain is the wrong reason to want/protect a baby. The second way I viewed the baby was as a way to say ‘immigrants are needed,’ all women are infertile and yet it was a Fuji(?) woman who is the first woman to give birth in eighteen years. A Fuji woman who is illegally in Britain. But she is the one who is pregnant! She could be the reason behind the discovery of why women are infertile, but since the movie ends with just a boat coming in, the audience will never know.
I would like to touch on the holocaust references I picked up on in the movie because there were quite a few and they are rather important. I viewed these scenes as a way for the director to bring attention to the direction some countries are going with their immigration policies and the increased hostility toward ‘the other.’ The first was at the beginning when the camera focuses in on a bus packed with migrants who are standing with their heads between the bars breathing in whatever fresh air they can. It is very similar to many holocaust films when the non-aryans were shipped off to concentration/death camps, only they were in cattle cars. It is also reminiscent of the scene in La Haine when the man talks of his forced journey to the Gulags on a packed train. There were multiple scenes of people in cages, one woman was German if I am not mistaken which I found ironic, with armed guards surrounding them as they cry put for help or assistance of any kind. It reminds me quite a bit of the chicken coup scene in Bread and Chocolate as the migrants stare longingly though the chicken wire at the Swiss teenagers, which as discussed in class was also shot like a scene in a Holocaust film. The song “Arbeit Macht Frei” by the Libertines is in the movie. “Arbeit Macht Frei” means “work shall set you free” and it was a phrase the Nazis placed at the entrance of their camps during WWII. Lastly, when Theo and Kee are going into the camp, they pass a row of dead bodies, piles of clothes and luggage, and Theo is forced to hand over his watch to a man in a military uniform. These are all reminiscent of the holocaust and holocaust films.
My first thoughts are wow, what an intense movie. There is a lot of action and violence throughout the movie, even when the main characters are not getting shot at. The violence and action felt different from your traditional superhero movie though. It was more raw, less suave. The fear, no maybe not just fear, the desperation was most palpable in those scenes of action and violence. Contrasting this desperation is the hope embodied in Kee’s child. Themes of hope play throughout the movie. The Fishes have hope for their revolution. The citizens hope for a better future. It seems many turned to religion as their last hope in an otherwise terrible place.
While I wish there was more background on the politics and history of this world, perhaps that was besides the point anyway. It appears everywhere on Earth has fallen to chaos (including the states as evidenced by the picture of Washington). Everywhere except the good ol’ UK. I don’t think this film is meant to be taken as a potential reality (after all, there is no explanation for why infertility happened or exactly why the world descended into madness as a result. And the idea the UK government survives?). Rather, the use of this extreme, implausible scenario is perhaps meant to highlight societal weaknesses. The infertility aspect reminds me of how across the western world, fertility rates have plummeted in the post-post WW2, neoliberal era. The chaos in the rest of the world is necessary to the plot of the film. It is the reason why the UK has seen such an extraordinary surge in refugees. Boy, you think too many refugees are reaching the UK now? Imagine the whole world trying to enter the country with the only functioning government left. Now that’s gonna be a mess. And indeed in this film, it’s not just a mess. It’s an outright war.
I also just want to take a moment to comment on the immense visual impact of this film. I never thought I could taste the color grey. Sooo much grey. The smog and smoke blankets nearly every scene. The only color? Graffiti, which covers every wall despite the government’s efforts to conceal it. The metro that Theo takes is grey and graffiti covered. The grey cages are right next to this metro. Seemingly, the citizens just ignore these cages as they go about their day.
Oh, one more little detail. This movie sets the pace rather quickly and abruptly. Theo buys a coffee and mere seconds after leaving the cafe, a bomb goes off inside that very cafe. The horror in this world is everywhere. It is so immense that the citizens have allowed themselves to be subjected to an authoritarian police state. And honestly who can blame them? If I lived in a world this desiccated and violent, I’d sell more than my freedom for a bit of safety.
This week’s topic, Brexit, plays a crucial role in the broad context of the semester long mission to address what is Europe. The entire Brexit campaign, referendum, and results are based on that very question. Is Europe a combination of nations with economic ties or a deep integration of states striving for an ever-closer union on all fronts? Is European identity truly shared by people in Athens, London, Minsk, and Warsaw? Can a specific definition for European identity ever be formed?
The Brexit referendum asked specifically a yes or no question of whether or not Brits wanted to remain in the European Union. Below the surface, however, the question was miles more complex. The Brexit referendum truly asked people their opinions on identity, immigration, globalization, their current economic state and more. Each voter in the EU referendum had to answer these questions personally. Each voter came from a very specific background, education history, socio economic status, geographic location. Each vote cast on either side was entirely unique. While large trends certainly persisted, ultimately each vote and each voter in some way was unique and specific to them. This is why over the course of the semester I have grown to believe that the individual is the most important player in identity
Ultimately, the question what is Europe is about the individual. Identity is personal. Each individual must determine themselves what Europe actually means. No two opinions will be exactly the same. While this may sound challenging, it is true in all aspects of global identity—EU and abroad. No one country on the planet has a sweeping definition applicable to everyone of what it means to be a member of the country. There is no one definition of what it means to be an American or what it means to be Danish, Polish, or Swedish. Cultural identities have formed over long histories and while cultural values are shaped and promoted by governments, each person has a uniquely personal relationship with national, supranational, or cultural identity. One of the most important elements in an identity are the feelings of pride or shame. Americans can feel pride for America. Americans can feel shame in America. Americans can’t feel pride or shame for Europe because their relationship is impersonal and as an outsider. Danes feel pride and shame for Denmark but do Danes feel pride and shame in Europe? Whether or not European identity continues to emerge and prosper is about Europeans. In 50 years, will Europeans feel pride on EU successes and shame for EU failures? That is a quintessential question for European identity.
I would leave this class by writing that Europe is many things and nothing at the same time. Europe is a geographic region. Europe is an ideal of liberal democracy. Europe is a collection of nations striving for lasting peace after a gruesome history of war. Europe is an attempt at long term economic prosperity. This is the European dream. This is Europe. Europe is also, nothing. No one person shares a view on what is Europe. Each person’s relationship with Europe is unique. Each person prioritizes different elements of identity in all walks of life. Each European is a specific individual and no two opinions on Europe are the same. Identities cannot be made. Feelings cannot be created. These must be formed by generations of individuals all internally deciding what Europe means to them.
Children of Men, while extreme, is actually somewhat relevant. No, we are not living in a dystopian world riddled with terrorism, natural disasters, and war. However, the concept of the closed, hard borders is directly related to Brexit, this weeks topic.
Much of the beauty of Dystopian films is the fact that while futuristic, and seemingly distant, at the root of the film is a problem that modern day society faces. The allusion to the multitude of of terrorist attacks is fresh in the heads of many Brits, as the film was shot at around the same time the London Bombings occurred. More recently, back in 2017 when there was the Manchester Bombings at an Ariana Grande Concert, terrorism has been at the forefront of problems to deal with for parliament. Beyond the terrorism, the extreme sense of anti-immigration sentiment around England in the film is present today, due partially to the fear of terrorism. In fact, it is one of the main reasons that Brexit negotiations are happening. The UK claims that they need to reclaim their own borders, tighten them up, and restrict immigration. Still on the topic of immigration, the movie also addresses the treatment of those seeking asylum. While today immigrants are not being caged up and executed, at least to my knowledge, they are often times placed in refugee camps with poor living conditions.
While this film was made in 2007, it seems far more relevant now than ever. From the hard borders, terrorist attacks, and xenophobia, Children of Men is less of a movie for the present, but a warning for the future.
The most telling scene in Children of Men was the scene where Theo meets Nigel. We see numerous works of famous art and symbols that convey the horrors of dystopian universe of the film. Interestingly, we see art from the past, present, and future. Beginning with ancient art, we are introduced to the sculpture of David via a low camera angle and are immediately captivated by Nigel and his power. Because of David’s famous victory over Goliath, it seemed at first to foreshadow that a battle was going to ensue, although judging by the damage to David’s leg, it was going to come at a price. Another interpretation is that David, or the representation of David the righteous hero, has been captured by Nigel and reduced to being a simple home ornament guarded by his dogs. We then see Guernica, hanging over a wall as decoration. This is certainly an odd choice because Geurnica was made to portray the horrors of war and to be an anti-war painting. To casually hang it by the dining table shows a complete disregard for the sufferings of violence, an idea that will be even more clear throughout the film as senseless violence fills the second half.
The dining table is filled with modern art. We see succulents and a gorgeous display of food. But what is the most interesting piece of art must be Alex, who I presume to be Nigel’s son. First of all, I am not sure what to make of him. His pimple ridden face, angsty demeanor, and general young-looking features suggest that he is young, perhaps not far off from the 18 year old who recently died. His skin is filled with art—a tattoo that seem to say Crazz, a faded cross on his right hand, what looks to me like a crude drawing of The Scream on his right hand, and markings over his knuckles. And then he takes this pills that were never further explained. Is he even human? He does not say a word or touch his food throughout this interaction. To me, he seemed less like a character, and more like an additional piece of art at the table.
Then there is the material that Alex is engrossed with, some sort of technology. For me, this represented the futuristic art. He fiddles with what looks like a complicated Rubik’s cube. Is he solving something, or creating something? It’s something that we don’t understand as an audience, and it seems like Nigel doesn’t understand it either. Maybe this represents how things are changing, and how differing generations at times are unable to connect.
The final entity, though I am not sure if it is art, is the flying pig in the background. This immediately made me think of Animal Farm. Propaganda, groupthink, and power over others were certainly key points in the film. And as Nigel watches the rest of society devolve into chaos, he comfortably lives with his collection of invaluable works of art, because he simply “does not care.” This reflects the inhumanity of Animal Farm as well as the inhumanity that will come in the film. Senseless violence occurs because people simply do not care or stop caring about others. But a more optimistic interpretation could also be that the pig is “flying.” Miracles happen when pigs fly, and perhaps the miracle of fertility was what this society needed to become humane again.