Sound intentions or reinforcing the class ceiling

Listen to article here. 

 

Row over anti-yob speakers blaring out ‘weaponised’ music, was a recent news story about the antisocial deterrent methods used by Merseyside Police and Liverpool City Council, in the Whitechapel area of Liverpool to reduce violent and antisocial behaviour. The intervention has seen speakers attached to lamp posts in the area, blaring out classical arrangements of music. Whilst the desired effect has been seen as successful by the partnership, it has also been met with concern from members of the community, including musical professionals.

This article questions, to what extent is this deterrent about hearing loud music blaring out and therefore, would any music do? Or is it due to the class-ical music in itself being used? In regard to the former, I suggest that the use of sound in this way is akin to an ultrasonic pest- control device, used to disrupt unwanted nuisances from settling into the fabrics of a space, through sound frequencies that become too discomforting, that the unwanted guest has no choice, but to move on. As a representative from the council noted, “the speakers are used on occasion as a tactic to disperse people from an area when there is anti-social behaviour and have proved successful at doing so.”

This method is also similar to some of the forced interrogation techniques used in psychological warfare. On a low-key level (excuse the pun), this is like living with a noisy neighbour who blares out their music all day and night, and into the early hours of the morning, not only breaking your sleep, but also the unwritten codes of being a good fellow citizen. On a more drastic level, ‘music torture’, as it has been called, is strictly forbidden under international law, after numerous examples of how it had been used during warfare. Most famously it was employed in the arrest of Panama’s General Manuel Noriega in 1989, by US soldiers. Blasting a wall of non-stop Heavy Metal music from speakers, over three consecutive days, the General who ironically was an opera lover, eventually surrendered. According to Sara MacNeice from Amnesty International, this was not about ‘music’ in any normal sense, “but more like an aural assault on a person designed to intimidate, disorientate and eventually break down a prisoner.” Indeed, it was noted that traders from the local community of Whitechapel were concerned of having to listen to the same classical arrangements on repeat

The genre of music being played is significant to this story, but not for the reasons that I’ve mentioned so far. In fact, different genres of music would have had the same desired effect, especially once repeated. The actual importance of this story relates to what it tells us about class. It unintentionally reinforces class stereotypes and says that classical music is the genre of the elite, of those who are imbued with “cultural capital”. Indeed, this music, as this intervention would suggest, creates an aversion to “yobs” and “yob culture”. Yob is a slang term which had its prominence in the 90s, a descriptive category that according to Rosalind Crowd in her seminal article ‘Whipping Boys’, in The Guardian Weekend, 1994, is defined as “a species of young, white, working-class male”. Crowd continued with a list of other associations including yobs being seen as ‘foul-mouthed, probably unemployed, violent, someone who hangs around council estates and where he terrorises the local inhabitants, possibly in the company of his pit-bull terrier”. Crowd’s damning picture highlights the frictions and tensions that are created within class dynamics, amplified through the use of sound, and in this case, classical music.

 

This article was written by Dr Ope Lori, Founder and CEO of Pre-Image Learning and Action.

To read the full article, you must be a PILAA Member.

Main Photo by Claudia Moise on Unsplash

The duality of being an academic badass and a track goddess; or of other similar types

Listen to article here. 

 

March was a month that saw major global sporting events taking place, such as the Winter Paralympics in Italy, and the World Athletics Indoor Championships in Poland. In the latter, the Great Britain team put in a well-deserved performance and went on to secure four gold medals from athletes including Keely Hodgkinson in the 800m, Georgia Bell in the 1500m, Josh Kerr in the 3000m and Molly Caudery in the pole vault. Whilst not featuring in this year’s medals table, Amy Hunt the 200m silver medallist at last year’s World Championships, has been the subject of discussion in the run up to the games, as journalists looked to reflect on her career amidst the impact of the spontaneous statement she made that went viral:

“You can be an academic badass and a track goddess.”

Slightly out of breath at the time, a jubilant Hunt said these words in the spur of the moment, during a post-race interview with a BBC journalist. According to Hunt, she immediately believed that she would be bleeped out of the live recording following what she had said, but luckily, it was not. This was not a question of foul language, especially where the word badass could be considered as a low-level inappropriate slang word with negative connotations, however in this context, it was used in quite the opposite. Using badass is similar to the term “baddie”, a popular cultural vernacular term, which refers to ‘someone, usually a woman, who is confident, stylish, and attractive.’

So here we can see a gendered connection through the use of the term, and to the fact that Hunt is speaking about women in the sport. Another gendered association, and a reason why the statement may have gone viral, could have been that making such a comment, was akin to seeing female footballers like the England Lioness Chloe Kelly celebrating her winning goal in the 2022 Euro’s and taking off her shirt, whipping it around, and running in her sports bra, as something that is typically seen of players in the men’s game? It just doesn’t happen. When it does, it’s so absurd, that in that absurdity, it sticks in one’s mind. Making strange was a strategy that I have used in my practice as a visual artist, when challenging ideas around the construction of whiteness, building on the words of the American art historian Amelia Jones, when she says in order to make it visible, we need to render it ‘ethnic’ and bring it out of its invisibility (1).

But perhaps that level of strangeness and absurdity, links to something beyond gender as it were, to ideals that many of us can relate to. The first one being around the multiple hats or faces that we all wear in our waking life. As a former university Academic, I was often told that I didn’t look like your typical lecturer, granted that I was quite young when I took on my first role. This was not the norm, where the image of a lecturer is typically perceived as being older, whiter, male, and coming from a particular middle to higher socio-economic class. Admittedly, I was also very conscious that I didn’t want to come across as your typical Academic, because I was fully aware of the responsibility that came with me being in my position, and that for some students, I would be seen as a role model. Echoing Hunt’s words, I was fully aware of being young, Black, female, queer, doing a PhD and looking good whilst doing it! In this case, representation matters in terms of what others looking in could see and achieve, but with this, also came the burden of what social psychologist Dr. Claude Steele, termed as ‘stereotype threat’, as the fear of confirming a negative stereotype about one’s group. Because of my multiple identities outside of the norm, I was all too aware of having to prove that I was as good as anyone else in my role.

 

This article was written by Dr Ope Lori, Founder and CEO of Pre-Image Learning and Action.

(1) Whiteness, A Wayward Construction (2003) Tyler Stallings

 

To read the full article, you must be a PILAA Member.

A learning reflection on the United Nation’s General Assembly (UNGA) at 80

 Listen to article here. 

 

“I think that people are sometimes reluctant to confront the powerful. But the truth is that if we don’t confront the powerful, we will never be able to have a better world.” – UN Secretary General António Guterres

 

Waiting in queues that would flow into numerous streets to cope with the capacity of the audience, on the 17th of January 2026, I was fortunate to have attended the 80th Anniversary of the United Nation’s General Assembly, ‘UNGA at 80: From 1946 to Our Future’. Marketed as an event that would see 1800 people in attendance and was open to the public, post-event, the organisers broadcasted that in fact “2,000 brilliant people had come together “to remember the reasons why the UN was founded in the first place and to talk seriously about how to keep the spirit of peace and cooperation alive in a changing world.”

This powerful event took place at the iconic Central Hall in Westminster, where the first general assembly had taken place in 1946. This is our account of the festivities, an event that would was jam packed with influential figures of our time, notwithstanding the departing UN Secretary General António Guterres, who despite the current geo-political turbulence, gave the opening address. Guterres himself would be in campaigning in the UK, and on the news, about the importance of the UN and its founding principles, as well as the institutes pressing financial crisis, that would see much of its work hanging on a shoe thread.

The UN currently is made up of 193 member states, countries, that are bound by the UN Charter, an instrument or rulebook rather on international law. Tellingly, in reference to the founding structure and its principles, given the current geo-political turbulent climate that the world sees itself in now, Guterres himself, a former Portuguese prime minister would go on to say to the audience, that “1945 problem- solving” wouldn’t solve 2026 problems”. These problems centred on growing global conflict, inequality and unpredictability, wilful violations of international law and on the death of multilateralism.

The message was clear, not just in remembering the importance and need for the United Nations, but also of the Security Council as one of its main organs. The Security Council was designed to maintain international peace and security, however, its image of late, was no longer seen to represent the world and was “ineffective”. Despite these challenges however, for a better world and society, we are urged to come together, as people beyond borders. Borders which are not just in terms of land and sea, geography, but borders on an interpersonal level.

Guterres said, ‘if this period has taught us anything, it is that our challenges are ever more borderless, and ever more interconnected. The only way to address them is together.
And that requires a robust, responsive and well-resourced multilateral system.”

Indeed, the key theme throughout the event, was advocating for ‘multilateralism,’ meaning the alignment of multiple countries in pursuit of a common goal. The idiom “united we stand, divided we fall”, has never chimed truer.

 

A few other takeaways from this historic moment included:

 

This article was written by Dr Ope Lori, Founder and CEO of Pre-Image Learning and Action.

To read the full article, you must be a PILAA Member.

Paying Homage to Disability Game Changer Alice Wong (1974 – 2025)

Listen to article here. 

 

Alice Wong, the disability activist, writer and gamechanger sadly passed away last month on the 14th of November 2025. Wong was a pioneer of the Disability Justice Movement and there have been floods of accounts and powerful testimonies of who she was and the impact that she has left on the lives of many people, including friends and family, collaborators, and more centrally, to the community of disabled people, that she had tirelessly advocated for and with. As someone living with muscular dystrophy and self-identified as a “disabled cyborg”, she used a powerchair and assistive breathing devices, as well as text-to-speech technology, following losing the ability to speak in recent years. However, she used her voice to not only to raise awareness around the different complexities and challenges of people living with disabilities, and their experiences, but she did so in a way that spoke to the everyday experiences of being disabled, in all its forms, shapes and sizes.

Wong was also the daughter of Honk Kong immigrants, and it was due to these overlapping experiences, that she took aim at dismantling the systemic structures that disadvantaged disabled people, especially those from marginalised groups, whether they be people of colour, immigrants or members of the LGBTQ+ community. She was an advocate for ensuring that people with disabilities should have the full autonomy to live their lives, on their own terms and without permission from others.

Whilst equality, diversity and inclusion (ED&I) is my line of work and more specifically a way of life, I’m aware that the field of disability inclusion, is something that I still need to learn more about, especially where those experiences of disability are outside of my own lived experience. Indeed, even coming across the work of Alice Wong, only came recently, on a visit to the V&A exhibition Design and Disability, which is currently on display until the 15th of February 2026. In this fantastic show that looked at all things around disability, accessibility, communicative technology, art, design and fashion, it was here that I came across Wong’s edited book Disability Visibility: First-Person Stories from the Twenty-First Century (2020), that was being sold in the gift shop.

In addition to purchasing this book, I also bought the exhibitions catalogue of the same name and the children’s book You’re So Amazing (2023) by James & Lucy Catchpole, with illustrations by Karen George. This beautifully written and illustrated story, won the award for the most inclusive book for children in 2024. This is a story about a little boy called Joe with one leg, and how as a society, we respond to those with disabilities, and how we can do better, in sometimes, not “over doing it”.

To celebrate the impact of Wong’s legacy, this article will reflect on some of her words and themes from the book. Whilst the breadth and range of the collection of essays and contributors, aren’t necessarily the focus of this article, for that I urge you as a reader to do the work and get the book, but it is her voice, as the thread that glues them all together that I’ll be drawing upon, as a call to action and a beacon of hope.

 

 

This article was written by Dr Ope Lori, Founder and CEO of Pre-Image Learning and Action.

To read the full article, you must be a PILAA Member.

The Nobel Prize and celebrating achievements at work

Photo by Anastasiya D on Unsplash

Listen to article here. 

 

Early October is always an interesting and exciting time in certain fields, because that’s when the six Nobel Prizes are announced in medicine or physiology, chemistry, physics, economics, literature and peace. For people who work in these subjects or industries, they are often eager to find out whose discoveries or achievements will be honoured this time; for some, there’s even a hope that maybe this year it could finally be them getting that phone call from Stockholm (or, in the case of the peace prize, that phone call from Oslo). The announcement of the award could be the pinnacle of someone’s career or, conversely, it could be the reason behind crushing disappointment and the worry that their hard work won’t ever be formally recognised.

Perhaps part of the stress and anxiety around the Nobel Prizes or other major awards, such as the Fields Medal for mathematics, or the Oscars or Emmys for acting, or the Turing for computer science and so on, is due to the fact that only one such award is handed out each year, sometimes to just one individual, as in the Nobel Prize for literature or the Golden Globe for best actor, and in some cases to two or three people who have worked together. For every person, pair, trio or small group that is given the award, there are hundreds or even thousands of others who continue to toil and to contribute to their subject area without much acknowledgement. Certainly, many people work at a particular job because they love what they do and they want to make the world a better place, even if in a small way, on a daily basis. But it’s also true that to receive a little bit of gratitude and credit can go a long way. This is important to remember in a workplace.

It’s worth acknowledging that the Nobel Prizes – and all other such awards – are a little controversial. In terms of the Nobel, Alfred Nobel was a Swedish inventor and businessman. He made a fortune when he invented dynamite; while dynamite definitely has its benefits, some people argue that it may also have contributed to the destruction wrought by wars and also led to the deaths of many innocent people. Nobel lived well off this and other inventions and it has been suggested that he tried to assuage his guilt somewhat by writing a will that said he wanted to leave his estate to a foundation that would honour important human – and ideally humane – achievements. A further controversy is that only certain fields are recognised by the Nobel Prizes; besides the lack of mathematics, biology is missing, as are nearly all arts other than literature, the social sciences and still others. This can suggest that those fields are considered to be less vital than the ones that receive an award. Again, this is true of other awards; for each field or individual that is honoured, many others are excluded.

Related to this, many major scientists, writers or activists who are widely considered to have been worthy of the Nobel Prize have not received it, while others who are more or less now forgotten in their fields are viewed as erroneous choices; similarly, some areas within a given field seem to get more attention than others; and some decisions seem very iffy in retrospect. There’s also been plenty of discussion about how biased the Prize committees are and whether their decisions are influenced by geopolitical concerns; as an example, it’s broadly assumed that the literature committee tries not to pick winners from the same nation or same language too often, which means that some of their choices are thought to be forced by such considerations, in turn leading to some literary critics and authors shrugging at or even criticising the Prize in Literature. Furthermore, some recipients of a Nobel have turned it down, such as George Bernard Shaw, or have refused to attend the Award ceremony, not wanting to be linked to such an award or event.

 

Written by Dr B.J. Woodstein (Research Associate, PILAA)

To read the full article, you must be a PILAA Member.