Unrestricted

Unrestricted (pronounced uhn-ri-strik-tid)

(1) Not restricted or confined.

(2) In the classification of documents, having no security classification.

1766: The construct was un-+ restrict + -ed.  The un- prefix was from the Middle English un-, from the Old English un-, from the Proto-West Germanic un-, from the Proto-Germanic un-, from the primitive Indo-European n̥-.  It was cognate with the Scots un- & on-, the North Frisian ün-, the Saterland Frisian uun-, the West Frisian ûn- &  on-, the Dutch on-, the Low German un- & on-, the German un-, the Danish u-, the Swedish o-, the Norwegian u- and the Icelandic ó-.  It was (distantly) related to the Latin in- and the Ancient Greek ἀ- (a-), source of the English a-, the Modern Greek α- (a-) and the Sanskrit अ- (a-).  The verb restrict was in use by at least the 1530s in the sense of “to limit, bound, confine (someone or something), prevent from passing a certain limit in any kind of action” and was from the Latin restrictus, past participle of restringere (bind fast, restrain) and perfect passive participle of restringō (draw back tightly; restrain, restrict), the construct being re- (back, again) + stringō (press, tighten, compress); as an adjective, it was a doublet of ristretto. By the eighteenth century, the word had come to be regarded as a Scotticism but the infection spread quickly to Standard English.  As the past-participle adjective from restrict (in the sense of “limited, confined”), restricted has become associated with the classification of government documents, in the sense of “not for public release”, use seems not to have been routine until 1944 when a system of classification was codified by the US government.  Prior to that, although restrictions of distribution were common, concepts such as “Restricted to [names or designations]”, “Secret”, “Top Secret” etc were used but there was no standardization within departments or even between branches of the military.  When used as a suffix to form possessional adjectives from nouns, -ed was from the Middle English -ed, from the Old English -od (the adjectival suffix), from the Proto-Germanic -ōdaz, from the primitive Indo-European -ehtos.  It was cognate with the Latin -ātus. 

Glory road: A “Derestricted” sign in Australia's Northern Territory from the days of “no speed limits”.

In use, the older adjectival use was simply “restrict” and although “unrestricted” would seem an absolute (ie something either is restricted or it is not), dictionaries confirm the comparative is “more unrestricted” and the superlative “most unrestricted” although at least one style guide notes those forms can be regarded in a similar way as “very unique” (ie technically incorrect but widely used and well-understood.  The related adverb “restrictedly” was and remains rare.  In the US, well into the twentieth century, the appearance of the word “restricted” in advertisements, signage and such was verbal shorthand for (depending on context and location): “No Jews”, “No coloreds” etc.  Although the words “unrestricted” & “derestricted” describe similar states, different histories are implied and that’s a product of the ways in which the absence of restrictions came about.  Unrestricted means literally “no restrictions” (access to something or somewhere; rights to engage in trade etc).  “Derestricted” means that previously restrictions must have been imposed but those have since been removed.  The use applies to document classifications and in the now rare cases of roads with no speed limits (although some of those were something of a linguistic outlier because in many cases they never had any restrictions to be derestricted.  For obvious reasons, in English, “unrestricted” is the more commonly used form.  Unrestricted, unrestrictive & unrestrictable are adjectives, unrestrictedness is a noun and unrestrictedly is an adverb.

1978 Mercedes-Benz 450 SEL 6.9 on the Northern Territory's derestricted roads.  Top speed of UK-delivered “Euro spec” 6.9 (ie one not fitted with the power-sapping anti-emission devices fitted to those built for sale in the US or Australia) turned out to be a verified 237 km/h (147 mph) which reflected the experience of European testers who achieved 238 km/h (148) mph on the German Autobahns.  Unexceptional now, in 1978 such pace was a reasonable achievement for a heavy cruiser with pre-modern aerodynamics and at high-speed, the fuel consumption was awe inspiring.    

Idealistic lawyers (they do exist) and others have for centuries argued it is the existence of and adherence to laws which makes possible civilized societies, the alternative often expressed as “the law of the jungle”, best understood in the vernacular “kill or be killed” world in which life of man was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”, memorably described in Leviathan (1651) by the very clever and deliciously wicked English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679).  However, what the lawyers, at least privately, acknowledge is the extent of adherence to laws closely is tied to (1) their enforcement and (2) a layered system of punishments for transgressions.  In domestic legal systems, this is comprehended as the apparatus extending from receiving a fine for overstaying one’s time at a parking meter to being hanged for murder; the existence of laws does not prevent crime but the perception of the chance of detection and the subsequent penalty for many operates as a deterrent and the debates about relationship between certain penalties and their deterrent effect continue.

Mahan's The Influence of Sea Power upon History 1660-1783.  In the last decade of the nineteenth century, probably no book was more read in palaces, chancelleries & admiralties.

In war, although usually the opposing sides have geo-political objectives, for those doing the fighting, historically the business was about killing each other and in practice that of course quickly and understandably came to imply “by whatever means possible” but for many centuries there have been conventions which form of “rules of war”, the most celebrated the various chivalric codes (codified during of the Middle Ages) which sought to regulate the behaviour of soldiers, particularly towards civilians.  However, as US Navy Captain Alfred Mahan (1840–1914) pointed out in the epoch-making The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660–1783 (1890), it’s impossible by mere agreement to outlaw the use of a militarily effective weapon so is it any more plausible for a statute, treaty or agreement to limit “mission creep” in the methods?  Whatever knightly codes may have existed, there seems little doubt that on the battlefield (or the towns subject to rape & pillage) habits do tend towards “unrestricted warfare”, military historians and legal theorists often pondering whether in “existential conflicts”, law reasonably can be expected to retain its intended force.

In what was a rhetorical flourish rather than a substantive legal point, in the dock before the IMT (International Military Tribunal) which in 1945-1946 sat in Nuremberg to try 22 of the surviving senior Nazis, Hermann Göring (1893–1946; leading Nazi 1922-1945, Hitler's designated successor & Reichsmarschall 1940-1945) claimed to be quoting Winston Churchill (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) in citing: “In the struggle for life and death there is in the end no legality.”  Like William Shakespeare (1564–1616), a few phrases have been attributed to Churchill on the basis of “sounding Churchillian” and although there’s nothing in the record to support the case those exact words ever passed his lips, Göring’s paraphrase was not unreasonable.  After the fall of France in 1940, Churchill did make clear his view “there could be no justice if, in a mortal struggle, the aggressor tramples humanity while those resisting remain bound by violated conventions” by which he meant if the Nazis ignored international law, it was an absurdity for the Allies fully to remain constrained by it while fighting for their very survival.  Churchill was not advocating the rejection of established law as a principle; he was saying when a state faces the prospect of destruction at the hand of an enemy ignoring the accepted rules of war, strict legalism must not be allowed to prevent an effective defence.  That wasn’t a novel idea Churchill formed upon assuming the premiership.  Months earlier, when serving as First Lord of the Admiralty (minister for the navy), he’d discussed whether the UK should regard itself still restricted by the legal conventions Germany’s forces were ignoring: “The Germans have torn up the conventions and the usages of war.  We cannot allow ourselves to be bound by rules which the enemy does not observe if by doing so we place our country in mortal danger.”  While not exactly the words used by Göring in the dock, he captured the spirit of Churchill’s meaning.

Lindsay Lohan on the cover of Vogue Arabia, March 2026.  Among the topics raised in discussion about her not uneventful life was “…coming of age in the spotlight in a time of unrestricted paparazzi access and near-constant tabloid scrutiny.”

Of course on 15 March 1946, borrowing the thoughts of “…one of our greatest, most important, and toughest opponents…” to support his argument modern, industrial, total war had rendered irrelevant traditional legal restraints, he was still harbouring the (faint) hope he might escape the noose and thus has a good motive in seeking to undermine the moral authority of the tribunal by suggesting even Churchill had acknowledged that in existential war, legal rules collapse.  This was not the construction of legal theory in the abstract, just as Churchill was explaining the pragmatic nature of military necessity because as he pointed out: “without victory there is no survival” and were the UK unilaterally to obey the rules while its opponents did not, the nation might lose the war.  Neither man ever sought to maintain that in war laws vanish, only that as demanded in extraordinary and reprehensible circumstances, they may need to be ignored.  Essentially, Churchill was asserting he wasn’t prepared to behave with the propriety of Caesar’s wife while Göring cavorted with Caesar’s whores; with that the Reichmarshall would have agreed and although his hopes the tribunal might find his paraphrased defence exculpatory were by then faint indeed, he still had an eye on how he hoped to appear in the history books.  

The doctrine of military necessity of course dates from the first time some prehistoric character picked up a stick or rock to gain tactical advantage in an argument and despite the various codes of warfare promulgated over millennia by philosophers, priests and politicians, that doctrine survived into the age of musketry and later, atomic bombs.  It’s the Prussian general and military theorist Carl von Clausewitz (1780–1831) who often is quoted because, with his commendable economy of phrase, succinctly he explained why necessity so often prevails over legality in existential war.  In On War (1832), he observed “War is an act of force, and there is no logical limit to the application of that force” and, anticipating the idealists, added: “Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed… Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy.”  What Clausewitz called Kriegsräson (necessity in war) meant in practice was (1) war has an inherent tendency toward escalation, because each side must use whatever means are necessary to defeat the other and (2) “arms races” will tend to ensue.

Imperial Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg in field uniform including the famous Prussian Pickelhaube (spiked helmet, the construct being Pickel (pimple, pickaxe) +‎ Haube (hood, cap)), Berlin, 1915.  Even when serving as chancellor (prime minister) von Bethmann Hollweg sometimes wore military uniform; Germans love uniforms (note the jackboots).

Later in the century, German military jurists expressed this logic through the principle Kriegsräson geht vor Kriegsmanier (military necessity overrides the customary rules of war) by which they meant the laws and customs of war could be followed only to the extent adherence did not impose an unacceptable military cost; if survival (and in practice: “immediate advantage”) demanded those rules be violated, necessity prevails.  What was at the time the most outrageous admission of the application of the doctrine came in 1914 after Germany violated Belgium’s neutrality and was delivered by Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg (1856–1921) who between 1909-1917 served as one of a series of inadequate replacements of Otto von Bismarck (1815-1989; chancellor of the German Empire (the “Second Reich”) 1871-1890); imperial chancellor of the German Empire 1909-1917).  In what must remain among the more ill-advised statements delivered by a politician, von Bethmann Hollweg on 4 August 1914 stood in the Reichstag (lower house of the imperial parliament) and explained to assembled members the German war-plan required the army marching Belgium to attack France and that Germany being a signatory to the Treaty of London (1839) which guaranteed Belgium’s neutrality had been rendered irrelevant by military necessity, the always quoted passage being: “We are violating international law, but necessity knows no law.”  Not all historians agree Realpolitik held a greater fascination for Germans than others but for students of the art, the chancellor’s speech appears in just about every text-book on the subject.  Warming to his theme, when the British ambassador to Germany protested the violation, von Bethmann Hollweg responded it would be an absurdity were Britain to go to war “just for a scrap of paper” (that scrap being the treaty the Germans had in 1839 signed as co-guarantors of Belgian neutrality).  That cynical turn of phrase was echoed a generation later when, under cross-examination in the dock at Nuremberg, Göring almost gloatingly admitted he and the other leading Nazis had regarded the many treaties they’d signed as “just so much toilet paper.”

Like many a defendant, the defrocked Reichmarshall was at times evasive or dissembling but on the matter of the regime’s attitude to treaties, he was truthful.  A highlight of the 50^th birthday celebration for Joachim von Ribbentrop (1893–1946; Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nazi Germany 1938-1945) had been the presentation to the minister of a diamond-studded casket containing facsimiles of all the treaties he had signed during (his admittedly busy if not productive) tenure.  When one of his aides remarked that there were only “a few treaties we had not broken”, Ribbentrop was briefly uncertain how to react until he saw “…Hitler’s eyes filled with tears of laughter.”  It was said to be a good party which must have been welcome because by 1943 there wasn't much to celebrate in Berlin.  Like Göring, Ribbentrop, was convicted on all four counts (planning aggressive war, waging aggressive war, war crimes & crimes against humanity) and sentenced to be hanged; his life did end on the gallows, unlike Göring who, in circumstances never explained, cheated the hangman by taking poison.

Periscope cam: Footage of USN submarine strike on the Iranian Navy’s frigate IRIS Dena (released by the Pentagon (unclassified)).

One of the intriguing legal matters explored before the IMT was the matter of the lawfulness of “unrestricted submarine warfare” and those discussions were recalled when, early in March, 2026, the Pentagon announced a USN (US Navy) submarine had torpedoed and sunk the Iranian Navy’s IRIS Dena (a Moudge-class frigate) with the loss of more than half the ship’s compliment of 130-odd.  Pete Hegseth (b 1980; US Secretary of Defense (and War) since 2025) described the act as one of “quiet death” although that was a reference to the torpedo’s stealthy approach rather than the explosions which doomed ship and crew.  It was the USN’s first sinking of an enemy warship by torpedo since World War II (1939-1945) and because (1) the US and Iran undeniably are in a “state of armed conflict” (any legal distinction between that and “war” as traditionally defined ceasing decades earlier much to matter), (2) the Dena was a warship and (3) the action took place in international waters, the attack doubtlessly was within the rules of war and the reaction of Tehran in branding it an “atrocity at sea” was a political rather than legal claim.

Defendants in the dock, Nuremberg, 1946.  All were guilty of something but the IMT acquitted three who subsequently were prosecuted by German courts.

What however remains of interest is the recent change in tactics by the US which now uses military-level missiles to target and sink what appear to be civilian vessels from Central America, the White House claiming the boats are being used to smuggle narcotics.  When considering the lawfulness of “unrestricted submarine warfare”, the IMT in 1946 held that while international law did limit the conduct of navies in their interactions with non-military (ie merchant craft, fishing boats etc) vessels, because the British merchantmen were from the beginning of the war armed and captains had been ordered by the Admiralty to if possible ram U-boats, they were not entitled to the warning provisions of the protocol.  Beyond that, with reference to the failure on the part of German U-boat (submarine) commanders to rescue their shipwrecked victims, the tribunal observed:

“The evidence further shows that the rescue provisions [of the Protocol] were not carried out and that the defendant [Großadmiral Karl Dönitz (1891–1980; head of the German Navy 1943-1945, German head of state 1945)] ordered that they not be carried out.  The argument of the defense is that the security of the submarine is, as the first rule of the sea, paramount to rescue and that the development of aircraft made rescue impossible.  This may be so, but the Protocol is explicit.  If the commander cannot rescue, then under its terms he cannot sink a merchant vessel and should allow it to pass harmless before his periscope.  These orders, then, prove Doenitz is guilty of a violation of the Protocol.”  Had the judgement at that point ended the legal position would have been clear in that having at least tacitly conceded the defense’s point that rescue was no longer practicable in light of the limitations of the submarine and modern technological developments, the use of submarines as commerce destroyers would have been deemed against international law.  However Doenitz’s counsel introduced evidence (including affidavits from Allied admirals) that the USN & Royal Navy had from the outbreak of hostilities also practiced the “unrestricted submarine warfare” of which the Germans were being accused and this was not a classic Tu quoque gambit (in international law, a justification of action based on an assertion that the act with which the accused is charged was also committed by the accusing parties.  It was from the Latin Tū quoque (translated literally as “thou also” and latterly as “you also”; the translation in the vernacular is something like “you did it too”, thus the legal slang “youtooism” & “whataboutyouism”)).  What counsel argued was that in practicing “unrestricted submarine warfare”, all navies were acting in accordance with international law because such law makes sense only if it is cognizant of the prevailing circumstances (ie reality).  The IMT’s judgement in the Doenitz case was difficult to read (it was only later it was revealed to have been written by a judge who voted for his acquittal) but what it said was (1) the defendant had violated the protocols which were the rules of international law as they at the time stood but (2) the nature of total war had so changed the reality of war at sea that those protocols were no longer law, rendered obsolete and thus defunct.  That was as close as the tribunal came to allowing a tu quoque defense.

Unclassified footage released by the Pentagon of one of dozens of strikes on alleged “narco-terrorist” boats by US Southern Command.  The video included a message from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth: “TO ALL NARCO-TERRORISTS WHO THREATEN OUT HOMELAND - IF YOU WANT TO STAY ALIVE, STOP TRAFFICKING DRUGS.”  As far as is known, in all cases of these strikes, all on board the boats were killed.

So, while the US military (and for this purpose that includes the Coast Guard, National Guard etc) have a free hand to attack on the high seas warships of a hostile combatant, does the doctrine of “unrestricted warfare” extend to civilian vessels allegedly being used for unlawful activities?  Legal scholars have explored this novel development (something genuinely new and introduced during the second administration of Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025)) and the consensus seems to be sinking manned civilian vessel with missiles as an instance in peacetime law enforcement is of dubious legality unless strict conditions are met.  The first thing to consider is whether it’s a matter of (1) peacetime law enforcement in international waters (something governed by the UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea)), customary international law and any bilateral interdiction agreements and thus a criminal matter rather than an act of war or (2) armed conflict at sea (and thus coming under the laws of naval warfare) which depends of a “state of armed conflict” existing between sovereign states.

However, whichever is held to be operative, as a general principle, civilian vessels are protected from missile attacks and enjoy freedom of navigation (certainly on the high seas); forces from warships may board, inspect, and arrest, but not arbitrarily destroy and under the UNCLOS there are explicit provisions under which a warship can stop a vessel suspected of statelessness or certain crimes but use of force must be necessary and proportionate.  Conceptionally, the notion of “proportionality” is little different from what is the domestic law of many states concerning matters such as self-defense: (1) there is no reasonable alternative and (2) force must not exceed what is needed to achieve a lawful objective.  Because these are events happening “on the water” there are also “graduations” in the use of force which are unique to the nautical environment including signals and warnings, maneuvering to compel a stop, warning shots (the classic “shot across the bows”) and disabling fire.  When civilian vessels are involved, historically, only in extremis (presenting a clear & present threat) would lethal force be deemed appropriate.  In other words, using missiles, without warning, to sink a civilian vessel would, in the context of law enforcement, be thought “disproportionate” especially if the crew’s lives are put at serious risk (inherent in missile attacks).  That’s all based on the precept that whether on land or at sea, states are expected to respect the right to life under international human rights law.  Because the adoption of this technique was so sudden, legal theorists are still working through the implications but it would appear an extension of the concept of “unrestricted warfare” beyond military targets.

Situationism

Situationism (pronounced sich-oo-ey-shuh-niz-uhm)

(1) A fork of Marxist political philosophy, a collection of (often abstract) theories used to build critiques of existing structures.  The overt political project emerged from the merging of a number of politically-minded, mid-twentieth century avant-garde art movement.  

(2) A theory in psychology which holds that personality and behavior is influenced more by external, situational factors than internal traits or motivations.

1955: A compound word: situation + ism.  Situation was from the early fifteenth century Middle English situacioun & situacion (place, position, or location), from Middle French situation, from the Old French situacion, from the Medieval Latin situationem (nominative situatio) (position, situation), the construct being situare (to locate, to place), from situs (a site, a position), thus situate +‎ -ion.  The Latin situs was from the primitive Indo-European root tkei (to settle, dwell, be home).  The meaning "state of affairs" was from 1710, extended specifically by 1803 to mean "a post of employment".  The suffix -ion was from the Middle English -ioun, from the the Old French -ion, from the Latin -iō (genitive -iōnis).  It was appended to a perfect passive participle to form a noun of action or process, or the result of an action or process.  The –ism suffix was from the Ancient Greek ισμός (ismós) & -isma noun suffixes, often directly, sometimes through the Latin –ismus & isma (from where English picked up ize) and sometimes through the French –isme or the German –ismus, all ultimately from the Ancient Greek (where it tended more specifically to express a finished act or thing done).  It appeared in loanwords from Greek, where it was used to form abstract nouns of action, state, condition or doctrine from verbs and on this model, was used as a productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence (criticism; barbarism; Darwinism; despotism; plagiarism; realism; witticism etc).  The use in political philosophy technically dates from 1955 (as situation ethics) although its origins can be traced to (at least) the nineteenth-century beginnings of sociology.  It was first seen in applied psychology in 1968 (as situational ethics) with publication of a monograph by Walter Mischel (1930-2018) who in later writings displayed some ambivalence.  Situationism is a noun, situationist is a noun & adjective and situationally is an adverb; the noun plural is situationisms.

The Internationale Situationiste (Situationist International)

Formed in 1957, dissolved in 1972 and eventually more a concept than a movement, the Situationist International (SI) was a trans-European collective of avant-garde artists and political radicals envisaged as a fusion of art & revolutionary activism; although originally a loose structure, it was later noted for its rigidity and its core critique was of modern consumer society, particularly under advanced capitalism. Influenced by criticism that philosophy had tended increasingly to fail at the moment of its actualization, the SI, although it assumed the inevitability of social revolution, always maintained many (cross-cutting) strands of expectations of the form(s) this might take but, just as a world-revolution did not follow the Russian upheavals of 1917, the events of May, 1968 failed to realize the predicted implications; the SI can be said then to have died with the discursive output between 1968-1972 treated either as a lifeless aftermath to an anti-climax or a bunch of bitter intellectuals serving as mourners at their own protracted funeral.

SI art: The Change (1957), paint on hardwood by Ralph Rumney (1934-2002).

The SI’s origins were in the north-western Italian town Cosio di Arroscia where, during a conference, several experimental art movements resolved to merge, the most prominent being (1) the Lettrist International, (2) the International Movement for an Imaginist Bauhaus and (3) the London Psychogeographical Association.  Tellingly, although many original members were focused on the imagery of art, the most influential figure was the French theorist Guy Debord (1931-1994) who had in left-wing circles become fashionable after the publication of a number of essays in which he argued modern capitalist societies had become dominated by what he called “spectacle”.  That was the thesis he most fully explored in his most famous work, The Society of the Spectacle (1967) which asserted: (1) social life had become mediated by images, media & commodities, (2) real human relations were being replaced by a passive consumption of representations and (3) individuals increasingly experienced life as spectators rather than participants.  What all this meant was Western society had become a system where appearance (depictions of a “construct of reality” which were simulacrums) had replaced lived experience.

SI Agitprop.

Despite the political slant, when formed, the SI certainly retained an identity as something artistic and although membership was erratic with factional alignments constantly shifting, there always was a strain which valued the art for its intrinsic qualities at least as much as for any utility as propaganda pieces; indeed, it was the notion of art abstracted from some purpose which was the SI's constant fault-line.  Those most influential in the early days of the SI had been much affected by the physical damage suffered by so many European cities during World War II (1939-1945) and especially the possibilities offered by re-building, thus the interest in concepts like unitary urbanism and psychogeography, essentially a response to the sociological aspects of the re-construction of those cities in the immediate post-war period.

SI propaganda: The Situationist Times 6: International Parisian Edition, Paris, December 1967.

The Situationist Times was an international, English-language periodical created and edited by Dutch artist Jacqueline de Jong (1939–2024), six issues published between 1962-1967.  Envisaged as a radical compendium encompassing Situationist tactics such as détournement and a printed form of dérive, the journals included essays, artwork, “found” images, and fragments of works concerned with such issues as topology, politics, and spectacle culture.  In the anarchist sprit of the collective, Ms De Jong insisted the periodical must be a “completely free magazine, based on the most creative of the Situationist ideas” and what appears on the pages does over the years show traces of the political and aesthetic schisms which would characterize the SI.  As well as the SI’s usual suspects, contributors included the English astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle (1915–2001) who (inadvertently) coined the term “big bang” and the French writer Noël Arnaud (pen name of Raymond Valentin Muller (1919- 2003) of the school of pataphysics (one of the late nineteenth century’s more curious alternatives to orthodox science which may (as QAnon seems to have) begun as a joke but took on a life because it so appealed to people who “wanted it to be true”).  With the failures of the Parisian revolutionaries in 1968, SI’s historic moment passed and the seventh edition of The Situationist Times, (The Pinball Issue) remained incomplete and was not published although extracts of the content have appeared.

SI Art: Untitled (Peinture collective situationniste) (1961).

As was done with the SI's “pieces by the collective”, Guy Debord and Jeppesen Victor Martin (1930–1993) signed along with eight other artists; within two years all except Debord and Martin had been expelled so in that sense, no work better illustrates the creative tensions which rent the SI.  Those “cancelled” in some cases regarded their erasure from the SI rolls as a badge of honor and Debord couldn't have them burned at the stake or taken outside and shot (which had over the years been the fate of a few artists who displeased a dictator) so there was that.  

Prior to the formation of the SI, some of what had been written about the form the physical reconstruction of post-war Europe should take had attracted interest from political theorists, especially those in anti-authoritarian Marxist circles who would come to position themselves as the inheritors of western political liberalism, notably the Lettrist International (formed in 1952).  In the way the European left did things in the early post-war years, the SI was conceived as an even more radical collective movement which wholly would renounce any connection with high-art and deal instead with the functional business of psychogeography, dissolving rather than exploring the boundaries between life and art.  However, whatever might have been the purity of the founders' intentions, because what the SI produced was eye-catchingly visual, it attracted practitioners in many fields of art and an audience which enjoyed the supposedly subversive pieces as just another spectacle.  That was tribute to the striking posters but wasn’t something which best pleased the uncompromising activists who viewed art merely as something with a revolutionary political purpose; factions formed and any commonality of interest between the utilitarians and the artists proved insufficiently strong to maintain the SI as a unified movement.  From formation to extinction, inherently it was fissiparous although, while members could be kicked out of the SI, it didn't mean their work ceased and the Scandinavian Drakabygget group (noted for the memorably titled Journal for art against atomic bombs, popes and politicians) essentially ignored their expulsion and continued to exhibit and publish in the Situationists vein.

SI art: Industrial Painting (1958), monoprinted oil paint, acrylic paint & typographic ink on canvas by Giuseppe Pinot-Gallizio (1902–1964).

Unrolled from a wooden spool and extending just over 75 metres (246 feet) Industrial Painting was one of a series of abstract works Pinot-Gallizio painted in this mode.  Unspooling in a swirl of blotches of colors, the idea was to recall the vibrancy of figures moving along a city’s streets and a deliberate limitation of the design was only some 9 metres (30 feet) could be displayed at one time, the idea being to emulate a journey in which much of what’s just been seen fades or vanishes from memory as the traveller proceeds along their path.  In an indication of the way the SI worked in an industrial age, Pinot-Gallizio made these works on his “painting machine” which he built with mechanical rollers attached to a long table.  What emerged was, in contrast to most of what came from “conveyor-belt” mass production, chaotic and wholly unique.

Modern situationist; modern spectacle: French content creator & author Léna Situations (Léna Mahfouf, b 1997), in Georges Hobeika (b 1962) black gown with inverted V-neckline (technically a wedge), Academy Awards ceremony, Los Angeles, March 2026.

Ms Mahfouf uses “Léna Situations” as an online pseudonym because that was the name of the fashion & lifestyle-focused blog she, as a teen-ager, created in 2012; it gained her a “brand identity” and was thus for some purposes retained in adulthood.  The blog would have seemed familiar to the members of the SI because her concept was sharing fragments of her life in different “situations” which might be defined by the place, the outfit worn or what was being experienced so was thus a series of spectacles, able to be understood as fragmentary relics of time & place or a series of narratives.  Using that model, platforms like Instagram have allowed just about everybody to become a situationist and while Debord didn’t live to see such things, he’d have recognized (if not approved) “social lives mediated by images, media & commodities”.

Charli XCX (stage-name of English singer-songwriter Charlotte Emma Aitchison (b 1992)) in a Christopher John Rogers (b 1993) white fit & flare dress with ruffled peplum, featuring a more conventional implementation of the V-neckline.

Ms Mahfouf's retention of a youthful online pseudonym is not unique, Charli XCX another example.  The star herself revealed the stage name is pronounced chahr-lee ex-cee-ex; it has no connection with Roman numerals and XCX is anyway not a standard Roman number.  XC is “90” (C minus X (100-10)) and CX is “110” (C plus X (100 +10)) but, should the need arise, XCX could be used as a code for “100”, on the model of something like the “May 35th” reference Chinese internet users, when speaking of the “Tiananmen Square Incident” of 4 June 1989, adopted in an attempt to circumvent the CCP's (Chinese Communist Party) “Great Firewall of China” censorship apparatus.  In 2015, Ms XCX revealed the text string was an element in her MSN screen name (CharliXCX92) when young (it stood for “kiss Charli kiss”) and, after appearing in the early publicity for her music, it gained critical mass so Charli XCX we still have.

SI art: Lettre à mon fils (Letter to my son, 1956-1957), oil on canvas by Asger Jorn (1914-1973).

What quickly coalesced as the core of situationist theory was the concept of the spectacle, an explanation of the mechanism of advanced capitalism’s modern tendency towards expression and mediation of social relations through objects and for structuralists it was a compelling model.  It was beyond a critique of materialism and might have been more effective had the SI been able to resist using the increasingly layered and complex language of the mid-twentieth century Marxist discourse, a sub-set of language which would come to delight academic deconstructionists but often baffled others.  As well as Debord’s writings, Belgium philosopher Raoul Vaneigem’s (b 1934) The Revolution of Everyday Life (1968) was a seminal work; in the riots of 1968, both proved influential, less as entire texts than as sources for the epigrammatic and graffiti-friendly phrases (Sous les pavés, la plage! (Under the paving stones, the beach!), L’ennui est contre-révolutionnaire (Boredom is counter-revolutionary) and Ne travaillez jamais (Never work!) among the most replicated) which appeared all over French cities during the uprising.  In that, the SI thus proved the primacy of objects in social relations (whether hegemonic or not) although the SI generally held that “situationism” was a meaningless term, a position necessitated by their inherent rejection of ideologies, all of which they dismissed either as useless utopian myths or constructed superstructures existing only to create the social controls required to serve the economic interests of a ruling elite.  Much of the history of the SI was one faction rejecting another; indeed, the SI’s transition from artistic to political movement was less organic than disruptive.

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011.

The critique of the consumer society resonated strongly with student radicals who were the failed revolutionaries of 1968 but, remarkably for a crew which was so influential on mass-movements, the SI was always tiny (it wasn’t untypical for there to be fewer than two-dozen active members) with internal conflicts and expulsions common, Debord given frequently to banishing members he believed had compromised the group’s revolutionary aims, the worst sin of heretics apparently the creation of art which shocked by virtual of its appearance but did nothing to in anyway transform society; comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) might have called such transgressors “formalists”.  Neglected for decades, the concepts developed by the SI attracted renewed interest in the social media age as much of what they’d described suddenly seemed familiar.  Key SI concepts included (1) psychogeography (the study of how urban environments affect emotions and behaviour, (2) dérive (drift) in which a wander through a city was documented with illustrative images, (3) détournement (appropriating using existing cultural elements (advertisements, comics, artworks etc) and, in subversive ways, repurposing them to undermine their original ideological message) and (4) constructed situations which were “moments of life” (events, environments, experiences) created for no purpose other than breaking the passivity of everyday existence.  If all that sounds something like what may have appeared in the check-list used by the designers of Instagram, TikTok and such, it hints (1) the SI may have been onto something and (2) as US billionaire investor Warren Buffett (b 1930) put it when explaining the outcome of class warfare: “We won”.

A requiem for the SI: No Title (1975-1976), lithograph on paper by Constant Niewwenhuys (1920-2005).

Debord no more wanted the SI to be what would come to be called a “think tank” any more than he wanted an artist’s colony but certainly envisaged it as a theoretical vanguard rather than a conventional political organization, his view being that even if created as something “revolutionary”, such movements tended to be “captured” (ie absorbed into the very system they were created to subvert or at least oppose).  That was why the orthodox SI position was not to exhibit their works in galleries or museums because, in the spirit of Marshall McLuhan (1911-1980) notion “the medium is the message”, once radical art was hung in such places, it became merely another commodity in the “spectacle”, dissenters accused of “recuperation” (a SI concept in which radical ideas had been neutralized and absorbed by mainstream culture).  So, members who were judged to have misunderstood or diluted Situationist orthodoxy (ie disagreed with Debord) were expelled, the rationale being what was valued in adherents was “quality rather than quantity”.  Although supposedly in the tradition of Marxist collective decision-making, Debord exercised extraordinary informal authority within the SI (despite the group officially rejecting hierarchy) and in practice, personally defined the SI’s theoretical parameters.  In a nice touch which would be familiar in places like the Soviet Union, the DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea)) or the modern Republican Party’s MAGA (Make America Great Again) faction, the “culture of exclusion” was ritualized in the journal Internationale Situationniste which regularly would publish lists of those un-personed (including the reasons), the former members denounced in harsh language, the worst insults including accusations of “theoretical confusion” and the practicing of mere “pseudo-Situationism”; by the time of dissolution in 1972, the membership consisted of Debord and one remaining loyal soul.  The SI, at least in the more reductionist works, did create some genuinely interesting critiques of the post-war West and some of the early art was, if not exactly novel, certainly stark and compelling.  However, it remains hard to identify enough ideas to justify the volume of text produced and phrasing it in what was surely deliberately difficult language does suggest there was an attempt to conceal the repetition of thought.

Veavage

Veavage (pronounced vee-vig)

(1) The expanse of bare skin a woman displays when wearing a dress (or top) with a neckline cut in a deep (often called plunging) “V”, the vertex (the bottom junction where the two diagonal strokes meet) typically reaching the midriff but the lines can intersect as low as the waist or even the hipline.  As a design, it’s the familiar “V-neckline” taken to its logical conclusion although much the same can be achieved with what technically are “scalloped necklines” or “U-plunges”.

(2) As “veavage dress”, “veavage top” etc, a garment so designed.

2026 (2010 for an earlier, now extinct purpose): A portmanteau word, the construct being ve(e) + (cle)avage.  In English, vee had a long history as an illustration of the pronunciation for the letter “V” but it was in US English in the mid-1860s it began widely to be used in building, architecture and engineering to describe various structures, components or configurations.  Because of the attractive properties of triangles, the “V-shape” would for millennia have been part of the man-made environment (indeed, it exists in botany, animals and geology) but the form “vee” appears in this context to have been well documented only from the mid-nineteenth century and use as a direct substitute for the Latin script letter “V/v” is documented from 1869.  In internal combustion engines, “vee” seems first used of piston engines in this configuration by 1915 although the first known V-twin was built in 1889 and the first V8 in 1903.  Although common as a descriptor of shapes or physical objects, the more abstract re-purposings included (1) a polyamorous relationship between three people, in which one person has two partners who are not themselves romantically or sexually involved and (2) in the (male) gay community, “a Vee” is a verbal shorthand for “a versatile” (one who is not exclusively “a top” (or “pitcher”) or “a “bottom” (or “catcher”) but indulges in both practices.  The coining is too recent for derived forms to have emerged but the possibilities include veavaged, veavaging and veavesque.  Veavage is a noun (and potentially a verb & adjective); the noun plural is veavages.

Of Vee

Cricket's “vee”, recommended for “high-percentage” shots.

Teevee was a respelling of the abbreviation TV (for television) so the two are synonymous but the former (with its four superfluous vowels) survived only as a “niche word”.  In the era between the early post-war years and services like YouTube and its many imitators becoming mainstream, a “teeveen” was a young person who “watched too much TV”.  In SF (sci-fi, science fiction) a three-vee was a screen able to display in three-dimensions; authors used also “3v”, “tri-v” “tri-vid”, “tri-d”, “trideo” & “tridim” and although they didn’t show quite the disdain for capitalization as later would emerge in the business of computer hardware & software, the literary preference seems to have tended to the lower case.  The humorists of the 1980s used a mix of upper and lower when creating shorthand critiques of the US cable television channel (1981) MTV (pronounced emm-tee-vee and an initialism of “Music Television”).  Claiming the channel’s programming was banal, they conjured up “eMpTyV”, “empty-vee”, “Empty-V”, “Emptyv”, “emptyV” & “eMpTy V”, all to be pronounced emp-tee-vee.  That was a variant of the technique used to produce rebus abbreviations (in structural linguistics technically a “gramogram”) such as “NRG” for “energy” or “XLR8” for “accelerate”.  All worked best when written because although non none possessed classic phonetic assimilation, sloppiness in real world use, sloppiness in pronunciation probably often rendered the sound of emm-tee-vee vs emp-tee-vee indistinguishable.  In cricket, the “vee” describes the arc of the field, forward of the batter, from cover to midwicket, in which drives classically are played (a shape better visualized as an “L” because, like many “vee” engines, the vertex is a 90^o angle) and coaches still instruct batters to “play in the vee” because that’s most productive for “high percentage” (ie more runs, fewer dismissals) shots but in the newer, shorter forms of the game, that’s now less relevant.  Whether “veagage” catches as jargon for coaches advocating “playing in the vee” remains to be seen.

Playing in the vee.  Australian cricketer Ellyse Perry (b 1990) with the trophies of the two Cricket Australia (the new name for the old Board of Control) Cricketer of the Year awards she won in 2023 (in the T20 and ODI (One Day International) categories). Note the splendid shoulder & upper-arm muscle definition.

In typography & computing, typography, a “vee” was a unit of vertical spacing, typically corresponding to the height of an ordinary line of text.  In machinery, a vee-belt (often as v-belt) was a drive-belt of reinforced rubber or other compounds which was mounted on drive wheels or pullies, the name gained from the V-shaped cross-section (some with notches which were called “toothed belts”).   “Vee Dub” was a slang term for a vehicle produced by Volkswagen (VW) and a “Vee Dubber” was a VW fan boy (some of whom were girls).  A “veejay” was the host of a television programme who presented videos, based on the earlier “DJ” (disc jockey, a radio presenter who introduced music broadcast by playing tracks from discs, a use which has survived many DJs now operating without discs).  A VJ was also a “vertical joist” which was a length of timber used as a vertical upright for structural support.  In vulgar slang, “VJ” also was a term for the vulva or vagina and the user-generated Urban Dictionary has an entry from 2010 listing “veavage” with the construct v(aginal) + (cl)eavage (ie the infamous “camel toe”) but that attracted negligible support.  A veep is “a vice-president”, a form popular use has made associated mostly with the VPOTUS (vice-president of the US).  

Of Veagage

Actor Keira Knightley (b 1985) in a classic black veavage dress, illustrating how the emphasis has shifted to skin rather than cleavage, the latter the traditional focus of the deeper “V-necklines”, things now done with “a hint”: less is more.

With due acknowledgment of the use in 2010 (documented by Urban Dictionary) which never gained traction, “veavage” is a new word but what it describes is not new though the emphasis genuinely is a variation of an old theme.  Veagage is a deeply plunging V-shaped cut in a garment which displays some of the chest & midriff down sometimes as far as the hipline although most stop at the waist.  Obviously something best worn on red carpets or for photo-shoots in controlled environments (light, surface irregularities, wind-speed & direction, crowds etc), it differs from the traditional approach to the female chest in that emphasis is on the skin rather than the breasts, the veagage look de-emphasising those glands so the cut is ideal for those able to summon much of a cleavage only with structural engineering such as a bra or Hollywood Tape (better known by the more evocative “tit-tape”).  So it can be a good, eye-catching choice for those without the anatomical advantage demanded by outfits optimized for “peak cleavage” but it has been criticized as a form of “privilege-dressing”, said to carry the whiff of “white feminism”.

Controversial and not accepted by all as something “real”, “white feminism” is said to be a fork of feminism concerned almost exclusively with concerns of white, middle-class, cisgender, heterosexual women, the problems of women not ticking those boxes ignored.  It’s thus an individualistic strain of feminism which aims to maximize one’s advantage within existing systems rather than seeking systemic reform for the collective benefit.  From there it may seem a bit of a leap to veagage as marker of political exclusion but it’s true a link can be constructed if one wishes to find such a connection (the notion of v=(c+p) (cleavage + privilege = veavage)) in that while it accommodates at least some on the spectrum of breast size, slenderness is essential and for those not genetically lucky or disciplined, there are the GLP-1 (Glucagon-like peptide-1) drugs and overwhelmingly, they remain a tool for those who are (in global terms) “rich”.  Like everything else, the frock is political.

Lindsay Lohan, Olympus Fashion Week, Bryant Park, Manhattan, February 2006.  Although Ms Lohan is more associated with the traditional use of the V-neckline, this is archetypical veavage.

Unlike some “straight-line letters” such as “W” or “X”, the letter “V” is almost always rendered with straight lines but fashion editors are more forgiving than geometers (since the time of the third century BC mathematician of Ancient Greece Euclid, the historic term for those whose primary research field was geometry) who would insist the plunging neckline of Ms Lohan’s red dress is not a “V” but a “curvilinear angle” (an angle with sides of curves rather than straight line segments).  In elementary geometry, the classic angle consists of two straight rays meeting at a vertex, whereas in a curvilinear angle the sides are arcs or other curves intersecting at a point.  In fashion, up to a certain stage, a “curvilinear angle” is still a “V-neckline” because the visual effect is so close but, as the curves become more curved, at some point the cut becomes closed to a “scallop” or “scoop” and is so described.

Model & writer Hari Nef (b 1992) in Schiaparelli.  Like the trade-off in warship design between armor & speed, less gland means more veavage so those not best suited to cleavage in a V-neckline have an alternative.

So with V-shaped necklines descending to the navel (or a little beyond) hardly a novelty given their not infrequent appearances over the last two-decades-odd, why did the word “veavage” suddenly make an appearance in 2026?  The obvious answer is of course “click-bait” but that’s not of necessity a bad thing because, in a sense, that trick is supply anticipating demand and there are aspects of the internet (which at least for now seem to have become structural) that should arouse more concern.  It’s a good word and a welcome addition to the fashion business; presumably an industry commentator noted a spike in the “deep vee” showing up on the catwalks or red carpets and, things “on trend” needing a tag, conjured up (or re-purposed) “veagage”.  The speculative link to the look becoming more prevalent because GLP-1s have rendered more women with physiques suitable for such things is intriguing but wholly impressionistic and trends anyway tend to wax and wane although, in its niche, veagage seems here to stay.

Of Cleavage

Actor Sydney Sweeney (b 1997) with a more traditional implementation of the V-neckline.  Empirically, this look is likely to remain the dominant approach although, as it has for years, the veavege will run in parallel. 

The noun cleavage seems first to have appeared in the 1805, the construct being cleave + -age.  It was used first in geology and mineralogy to describe “the tendency (of rocks or gems) to break cleanly along natural fissures” with the generalized meaning “action or state of cleaving or being cleft” emerging in the mid 1860s.  Although the artistic record confirms the popularity of the look had over the centuries come and gone in the cyclical way fashion behaves, use of “cleavage” in the sense of the “the hollow between a woman's breasts (usually when artificially supported), especially as exposed by a low-cut garment” appears not to have been seen in print prior to the use in an article in Time magazine discussing the (nominally) self-censorship codes of practice adopted (not entirely willingly) by the Hollywood film studios.  In finding a single word, Time’s editors proved good practitioners of journalistic succinctness because what they were reducing to a word had been described in the industry’s bureaucratese as “the shadowed depression dividing an actress' bosom into two distinct sections.”  Cleavage caught on although to this day the more up-market fashion glossies still hanker after the French décolletage.

Variations on a theme of Vee: Lindsay Lohan (during blonde phase) in V-neckline, V Magazine's Black and White Ball, Standard Hotel, New York City, September 2011.

Cleave was in use prior to 950 and was from the Middle English cleven, from the Old English strong verb clēofan (to split, to separate), from the Proto-West Germanic kleuban, from the Proto-Germanic kleubaną, from the primitive Indo-European glewb- (to cut, to slice).  It was a doublet of clive and cognate with the Dutch klieven, the dialectal German klieben, the Swedish klyva, the Norwegian Nynorsk kløyva; it was akin to the Ancient Greek γλύφω (glúphō) (carve) and the Classical Latin glūbere (to peel).  Given the time and place of cleave’s emergence, etymologists suspect the original sense was likely related to the handling of timber (ie to split or divide by or as if by a cutting blow, especially along a natural line of division, as the grain of wood).  The suffix -age was from the Middle English -age, from the Old French -age, from the Latin -āticum.  Cognates include the French -age, the Italian -aggio, the Portuguese -agem, the Spanish -aje & Romanian -aj.  It was used to form nouns (1) with the sense of collection or appurtenance, (2) indicating a process, action, or a result, (3) of a state or relationship, (4) indicating a place, (5) indicating a charge, toll, or fee, (6) indicating a rate & (7) of a unit of measure.  The French suffix -age was from the Middle & Old French -age, from the Latin -āticum, (greatly) extended from words like rivage and voyage.  It was used usually to form nouns with the sense of (1) "action or result of Xing" or (more rarely), "action related to X" or (2) "state of being (a or an) X".  A less common use was the formation of collective nouns.  Historically, there were many applications (family relationships, locations et al) but use has long tended to be restricted to the sense of "action of Xing".  Many older terms now have little to no connection with their most common modern uses, something particularly notable of those descended from actual Latin words (fromage, voyage et al).

Bella Hadid (b 1996, right), Cannes Film Festival, 2021.

A veavage can of course be an eye-catching billboard and the obvious stuff to advertise is jewellery (left).  Model Bella Hadid showed how it could be done with scalloped neckline, wearing a black Schiaparelli gown (cut for the purpose with an untypically wide aperture) used to frame a sculptural piece, fashioned in gilded brass to resemble an anatomical cast of the lungs’ bronchi (the paired series of cartilaginous, tube-like airways branching from the trachea into each lung, acting as the primary passage for air distribution).  However, in while in commerce a handy advertising space, those adopting a veavage seem most inclined to restrict adornments to earrings or other accessories which don't interrupt the line of skin between neck and waist, the trick being to achieve a “lengthening effect”  

Golfer and multi-media personality Paige Spiranac (b 1993).

Despite the etymological implication, a veagage is about the display of skin and is not dependent on being framed in a “V” but the point about it is the de-emphasis of the breasts (and thus the cleavage).  What Paige Spiranac wore to Sports Illustrated 60^th anniversary event could (with some strategically placed double-sided tape) be used for the purpose but technically the ensemble was a variant of the “curtain reveal” motif (in “open” mode).  Whether it would produce a veagage or a cleavage would depend on the wearer.

In the 1980s, US political scientists used the term “cross-cutting cleavages” to describe what had been revealed as a phenomenon both increasing frequency and spreading demographically and geographically.  The term referred to a social structure in which different lines of division in society intersect rather than coincide (ie groups created by one social division are mixed across the groups created by another division, instead of aligning with them).  In the West, as an identifiable trend, this likely was something that had ebbed and flowed since the decline of feudalism but in the post-war years it became of interest to political scientists because it was clearly something influencing social conflict and voting behaviour, the issue-by-issue alignment within and between sectional classifications no longer as predictable.  What had become obvious was the membership of groups in one dimension was overlapping with multiple groups in another.

Influencer Sophadophaa (she stresses : “It’s Sophia not Sophie”) in red gown with plunging vee.

Because the veagage effect is most effective when at its most 2D (two dimentional), when that’s what’s wanted, the usual approach is to have the fabric cling to the skin (with double-sided tape as required) but V-necklines can be executed differently for other outcomes; the double-sided tape is still applied but in different places.

Overlap was not new in that “coalitions of interest or concern” had long been known to be subject to these “crossovers” (especially at the margins) but in the days before big machine databases transformed this into something political parties could not merely manage but exploit, it was a genuine problem.  The more optimistic academics suggested cross-cutting cleavages operated to stabilize democracy because, with individuals simultaneously belonging to many groups (class, religion, occupation, region), the overlap prevented politics from collapsing into a series of polarized conflicts, what some called “the Balkanization of society”.  The argument was the behaviour compelled political parties to build broad coalitions across multiple groups, moderating the inherent tendency to conflict and reducing the likelihood of groups becoming the captives of extremist positions.  There may have been something in this because in the US, between the 1930s & 1980s it was those broad (notably geographical) coalitions which characterized US politics; political conflict didn’t go away but it was diffuse rather than binary.  In operation, that mid-century model was very different from Europe.  There, “cleavage theory” was a descriptive model of the way several centuries of major (and often bloody) social conflicts (cleavages) worked finally as the catalyst for state formation and industrialization.

Wonderbra New Deep Plunge Bra.

The manufacturers have for decades noted the appeal of the V-neckline and have created a vibrant market in accessories and devices.  Up to a point, the conventional cantilever method works but there are practical limits.  However, while physics can’t be fooled, optics can and what Wonderbra did for the New Deep Plunge Bra was replace the conventional fabric-covered gore with one of translucent plastic, thus creating a “one skin tone fits all” fitting.  Except on close inspection, it was close to invisible.

The West (and especially the US) is of course now in the age of “mega identity politics” and the parameters of those identities are in the effective control of a relative handful of extremists (“absolutists” or “purists” the more polite forms) who have the historically unique (in reach, immediacy and scope) platform of social media set agendas and cancel transgressors; even in groups originally created because of oppression, now routinely oppress heretics who depart from the orthodoxy.  This does not imply political parties have become “single issue” operations but substantially they are tending towards the ideologically monolithic as aggregations of what scholars have labelled “stacked identities” and the process of “purification” is not organic: within the party machines, those seeking absolute control undertaking purges, witness the gradual preponderance within the Republican Party of the MAGA (Make America Great Again) over those condemned as “pseudo conservatives”, the RINOs (Republicans in Name Only).  In the Democratic Party, identities have come to trump (the verb) all else and few now dare to raise the matter of trans-females competing in sporting competitions for women because the “trans rights” have become a litmus-paper test of adherence to orthodoxy.  So, the machinery which decades ago assembled coalitions of interest now creates tribes with much of what that word implies, political scientists sanitizing things a bit with the tag “affective polarization”.  While the cause-and-effect processes in all this were not wholly binary, it has rendered conflict now identity-based in that conflicts are between world views and way of life rather than the minutiae of policies.

Ultradeep U-Plunge.  Where the vee didn't plunge so deep, a more conventional construction could be used although many did include "clear" shoulder straps, made of the same kind of material as sometimes used for the gore.

So, whereas the national and state legislatures once thrashed things out and often managed to achieve compromises, that’s now less common because a “compromise” is seen as a “surrender” or “betrayal” and the consequences for that included being “cancelled” or “primaried”, two weaponized devices able successfully to be deployed by a remarkably small number of committed extremists.  None of this is any secret but there’s no obvious solution because the simple fix (mass active participation of the electorate (the so-called “sensible centre”) in party politics) has little appeal for either the voters or those running the party machines, both groups for their own reasons appalled by the notion.  The days are gone when the Republicans had their “moderate” faction (the so-called Rockefeller Republicans (named after Nelson Rockefeller (1908–1979; US vice president 1974-1977 and who earned immortality by having “died on the job”) and the Democrats their “Southern Conservatives” (the so-called “Dixiecrats” in the not always attractive tradition of figures like old Strom Thurmond (1902-2003; senator for South Carolina 1954-2003)).  By the 2020s, that overlap has almost completely disappeared with politics now more polarized than at any time in living memory and political scientists lament the shift but they should recall a remark in the paper Toward a More Responsible Two‑Party System (1950), published by the APSA (American Political Science Association): “The two parties do not differ enough.”  Expanding on that, the authors added: “Alternatives between the parties are defined so badly that it is often difficult to determine what the election has decided even in broadest terms.”  As a critique this came to be called the “Tweedledum & Tweedledee problem” (two characters in Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There (1871) by Lewis Carroll (pen name of Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (1832–1898)) who had different names but look the same and behave in identical ways.

Das U-boob Theorie.

Orla U-Plunge Backless Adhesive Bra in Black (left) and Salma Hayek (b 1966, right) demonstrates the uvage, Evening Standard Theatre Awards, London, November 2015.  Orla's “adhesive” is a reference to the side panels which adhere directly to the skin (using the same technology as surgical tape), allowing the bra to a achieve a “backless” effect.  Because the cut of some gowns obviously is a “U” rather than a “V”, the fashionistas might feel compelled to add “uvage” (pronounced yoo-vig, the construct being u + (clea)vage)) to the lexicon because, if the two styles appear together on the catwalk, single-word differentiation might be helpful.

Heart & wedge: Luciana Heart Cut Out Long Sleeve Mini Dress in black (left) and French content creator & author Léna Situations (Léna Mahfouf, b 1997), in Georges Hobeika (b 1962) black gown with inverted V-neckline (technically a wedge), Academy Awards ceremony, Los Angeles, March 2026.  Ms Mahfouf uses “Léna Situations” as an online pseudonym because that was the name of the fashion & lifestyle-focused blog she, as a teen-ager, created in 2012; it gained her a “brand identity” and was thus for some purposes retained in adulthood.  The blog would have seemed familiar to the members of the long defunct Situationist International because her concept was sharing fragments of her life in different “situations” which might be defined by the place, the outfit worn or what was being experienced so was thus a series of spectacles, able to be understood as individual relics of time & place or a series of narratives.  Using that model, platforms like Instagram have allowed just about everybody to become a situationist and while the original situationists would have recognized “social lives mediated by images, media & commodities”, they'd not have approved.

However, although tempting, being too specific about geometry might lead to a proliferation of terms because designers have proved inventive when shaping “cut-outs” in gowns.  A heart shape could perhaps attract “cardivage” (pronounced kar-dee-vig, the construct being cardi(ac) + (clea)vage) and an inverted vee could be called a “wedgeage” (pronounced wed-jige, the construct being wedge + (cleav)age).  In formal logic, the wedge symbol (∧) represents “AND” (the logical conjunction); in its opposite orientation (V) the symbol is called a “vee” and represents logical “OR”.  So, imposing precision may be a needless solution to a non-existent problem and the industry seems likely to continue to tolerate what Winston Churchill (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) in 1906 called “terminological inexactitude” (used as a euphemism for the un-parliamentary “lie” and coined because in the House of Commons, Mr Speaker had long since proscribed use of  “mendacious”).  Beyond the "V", "U", "heart" and "wedge", there are more shapes so veavage seems likely to serve as a generic for all.

Charli XCX (stage-name of English singer-songwriter Charlotte Emma Aitchison (b 1992)) in a Christopher John Rogers (b 1993) white fit & flare dress with ruffled peplum, featuring a more conventional implementation of the V-neckline.

Ms Mahfouf's retention of a youthful online pseudonym is not unique, Charli XCX another example.  The star herself revealed the stage name is pronounced chahr-lee ex-cee-ex; it has no connection with Roman numerals and XCX is anyway not a standard Roman number.  XC is “90” (C minus X (100-10)) and CX is “110” (C plus X (100 +10)) but, should the need arise, XCX could be used as a code for “100”, on the model of something like the “May 35th” reference Chinese internet users, when speaking of the “Tiananmen Square Incident” of 4 June 1989, adopted in an attempt to circumvent the CCP's (Chinese Communist Party) “Great Firewall of China” censorship apparatus.  In 2015, Ms XCX revealed the text string was an element in her MSN screen name (CharliXCX92) when young (it stood for “kiss Charli kiss”) and, after appearing in the early publicity for her music, it gained critical mass so Charli XCX we still have.

In 1950, the political scientists had concluded there was “too great a degree of internal heterogeneity” in that, housing both liberal and conservative wings, the forces tended to “cancel each other out” with the consequence being party programmes which were vague and often similar, meaning voters found it hard to identify clear policy alternatives.  In a sense, that took the “science” out of “political science” and the academics didn’t like it, preferring clear battle-lines (Roundheads vs Cavaliers; democracy vs fascism and such) for without clear differences, there really was no politics; all that remained was the dreary business of management.  In retrospect, the APSA likely agrees people should be careful what they wish for and and many contemporary political scientists now argue the system has moved too far in the opposite direction, producing intense polarization and reinforcing cleavages.  Still, we may as well get used to the system because, with cleavages widening and edges hardening, most conclude it’ll likely get worse before it gets better.

Of Vee Engines

Ford FE V8 (left) and Y-Block (right). The frontal view of the FE engine illustrates both why the configuration is called a “vee” and why it would have been understandable had the 90^o engines been dubbed “L8s”.  Ford’s first OHV (overhead valve) V8 (for pick-up trucks & passenger vehicles) picked up the nickname “Y-Block” because the skirt extended to an unusually low point, the additional cast iron thus recalling the tail of the letter “Y”.

The “V” in certain engines (V4, V8, V16 etc) is a reference to the angle of the banks of the block’s cylinder banks when viewed along the line of the crankshaft and the configuration in ICE (internal combustion engines) was used within half-a-decade of the “first” automobile appearing on the roads in 1886, Wilhelm Maybach (1846-1929) and Gottlieb Daimler (1834-1900) in 1889 installing a 565 cm³ (34 cubic inch) V-twin (ie two cylinder) unit in the Daimler Stahlradwagen (steel-wheeled car).  The Stahlradwagen’s V-twin used what was, by the standards of which would follow, a very narrow angle for the vee (quoted usually a 17^o but listed also “in the 20^o class”) and over the years, “vee” engines have appeared with angles ranging between 12.5 and 180^o (while the latter may seem a contradiction in terms, the 180^o vee (e a straight line) is accepted engineering jargon).  The first V8 (1903) & V12 (1904) appeared in what was for each the “ideal vee angle” (90 & 60^o respectively), the number dictated by desire for the even firing intervals to ensure the smoothest power delivery and those pioneers set the template which has tended since to be followed although there have been many exceptions.  Of course, a V8 in a 90^o configuration really should be a “L8” but because the Maybach & Daimler V-twin had established the terminological model, regardless of the angle, such things have always been “V-something”.  

Ferrparts schematic of crankcase parts for the 365 GT4 BB's 4.4 litre (270 cubic inch) flat-12.  According to engineers, this is a "flattened vee".

That’s fine because, conceptually, there’s always a vertex but according to Ferrari, the “Flat 12” engine fitted the various iterations of the Berlinetta Boxer (1973-1974) was also a type of “vee”, despite the two banks of six being horizontally opposed (ie at 180^o); they called it a “flattened vee” which, as Euclid would have told them, there being no vertex, that means they’re describing a “straight-line segment”.  The engineers would have acknowledged the wisdom of the geometers but argued the use was an established convention in engineering to distinguish the two types of “flat” engines (those with pistons which move in and out simultaneously (on the model of a boxer’s gloves) being “boxers” and those in which the pistons move in unison being “flattened vees” or “180^o vees”.  The Ferrari website explains all this while variously and cheerfully calling the engine a “flat 12”, “boxer-type” or “180^o V12”; so, take your pick.  It’s on that site the factory acknowledged the true story about how the original 365 GT4 BB (1973) picked up the “BB” designation and why “Berlinetta Boxer” was concocted as a cover story.

1930 Cadillac V16 452.

At one end of the spectrum, Lancia produced a range of what they described as “narrow-angle” small-displacement V4s and that was apt because the vee was set at 12.5^o, the compactness of the jewel-like power-plant permitting outstanding packaging efficiency.  Less obviously efficient was Cadillac which, for a brief, shining moment, made a 452 cubic inch (7.4 litre) V16 with the two banks eight arrayed in a 45^o vee; that made it a photogenic piece of machinery but it had the misfortune of being introduced in 1930, right at the onset of the Great Depression and although an encouraging 2,500 left the line in the first year of production, demand collapsed and it was only for reasons of prestige GM (General Motors) kept it in the catalogue.  By the time it was withdrawn from sale in 1938, not even a further 1400 had been ordered.  It was in that year replaced by a technically less intriguing 431 cubic inch (7.1 litre) V16 which, built with a 135^o vee, was even less successful, a reported 516 engines leaving the plant although it’s believed only 499 were installed in rolling chassis.  Also with a  vee was the most charismatic V16 of all, the BRM V16 (1947-1955) which was one of those “glorious failures” at which the British are so adept but no grand prix car since has sounded so good.

Factory cutaway diagram of Daimler-Benz DB 605 Inverted V12 as fitted to Messerschmitt Bf-109.

The DB 60X series was literally “an upside-down V12” but it was regarded thus only because the convention had been to mount them in the still familiar aspect.  Equipped with a dry-sump and direct fuel-injection, the angle assumed in flight made little difference to the engine, unlike the early Allied aero-engines which were carburetor-fed.  In combat, that was a great advantage for the German pilots who were fortunate the British didn't accept a spy's offer to supply them with a stolen example of the vital DB fuel pump.  As it was, the RAF (Royal Air Force) had to wait until Bendex developed a "pressurized carburetor" (a type of throttle-body fuel-injection) although the stop-gap "fix" which proved a remarkably effective partial amelioration was "Miss Shilling's orifice".   

In the first half of the twentieth century, the V12 engine held great appeal for the designers of military aircraft because the layout solved several critical aerodynamic and mechanical problems which would have remained insurmountable (and probably exacerbated) had the traditional in-line engines been further extended or enlargedused.  More cylinders meant more power and this the V12s achieved without the excessive length (and thus the dreaded “crankshaft flex”) which would have been suffered by an in-line 12.  The virtues the designers sought were (1) robustness, (2) lightness, (3) power and (4) compactness, the quest always for a better power-to-weight ratio and for this the V12 proved the “sweet-spot”.  The British industry in the inter-war years developed many V12 aero-engines (notably the Rolls-Royce Merlin which became famous by powering all the early Supermarine Spitfires) but because the Germans didn’t return to military aviation until the mid-1930s, they had the advantage of working on a “clean sheet of paper”, one of their many innovations being the “inverted V12”, the most numerous the Daimler-Benz DB 600 series.  In these, the crankshaft was above the cylinders so the cylinder banks pointed downward and this offered several advantages including (1) improved pilot visibility, (2) greater propeller ground clearance (meaning also the larger propellers became possible without needing longer landing gear), (3) easier access to accessories (fuel pumps, magnetos and such at atop, meaning mechanics could fix or replace components more quickly), (4) the fitting of a Motorkanone (a cannon firing through the propeller hub) became viable (5) shorter exhaust stacks and (5) the plumbing for the advanced MFI (mechanical fuel injection) system was both simplified and made more accessible.

Exhaust stubs of left-hand bank of a BRM V16.

Like the DB inverted V12s, some of the BRM V16 had low-mounted exhaust stubs but whether the flow of the gasses had any effect on aerodynamics was never studied although, the breathing must have been efficient because the 1.5 litre (91 cubic inch) V16 could at 12,000 rpm generate up to 600 HP.  At full cry it produced the most glorious sound ever heard in Formula One but unfortunately it was at the threshold of pain for those standing close so the system was revised to use a pair of long "dump pipes".

Almost as a footnote, the German designers noted they were able also to exploit the location of the stubs to gain unanticipated benefits from the path of the inverted V12’s exhaust thrust and cowling flow.  It’s overstating things to call it a “jet thrust” effect but that’s how it can be visualized, high-velocity exhaust gases exiting the stacks producing a small rearward thrust component and the engineers experimented to find the optimum length and angle, calculating the “effective thrust” at between 50–150 lb (220–670 N) depending on the power setting and throttle used.  In real-world conditions, this translated into perhaps an additional 25-odd horsepower which may not sound significant in engines generating over a thousand but in combat, it could be the difference between life and death.  Additionally, the aeronautical engineers used an aspect of fluid dynamics to improve the “boundary-layer management” along the cowling (ie using the hot, high-energy exhaust stream flowing along the sides of the cowling to “energize” the boundary layer of air "attached" to the fuselage surface).  What this did was slightly delay any flow separation, reducing “draw” and providing a better flow over the wing’s critical root area.  The differences were slight and subtle but again, in combat happening at altitude, at hundred of mph, inches and seconds matter so it could be the difference between life and death.