The collection of newsletters from Monocle, The Economist, The New York Times, Newsweek, and ARTNews from December 25-31, 2025, represents what anthropologist Victor Turner (1969) termed a “liminal” period—that betwixt-and-between temporal zone where normal structures dissolve and reflection becomes possible. These texts, emanating from disparate journalistic traditions (Monocle’s lifestyle curation, The Economist’s analytical pragmatism, The New York Times’ comprehensive documentation), collectively construct what Benedict Anderson (1983) might recognize as an “imagined community” of globally-aware readers navigating an increasingly fractured world order. The juxtaposition of Andrew Tuck’s “island of time between Christmas and New Year” with reports of drone strikes in Nigeria and protests in Tehran illuminates what Paul Virilio (1986) described as the “dromological” condition of contemporary existence—where acceleration and deceleration exist in uncomfortable proximity.

The final week of December 2025, as captured in these newsletters, offers a deliberate deceleration—a curated interlude between Christmas excess and New Year ambition. From Andrew Tuck’s affectionate portrait of the “island of time” between holidays to Tyler Brûlé’s meditations on the shop floor in St Moritz, the editions weave together personal reflection, aesthetic appreciation, and gentle commerce. Vienna’s restrained winter elegance, Scandinavian functional menswear, South Tyrolean mountain restaurants, Slovenian chalets, Japanese glasscraft, and Uruguayan art fairs appear alongside playlists, recipes, and design directories. Sponsored by Uruguay, Range Rover, and Edo Tokyo Kirari, the content never feels overtly commercial; instead, it embodies Monocle’s signature tone: aspirational yet understated, globally mobile yet attentive to place. This is not mere lifestyle journalism. It is a quiet performance of cosmopolitan taste in an era of accelerating precarity. Beneath the surface of linen shops in St Moritz and rhombus-cut Kaiserschmaren lies a deeper negotiation of class, culture, and time in late-capitalist modernity.

This collection of newsletters also offers a striking study in cognitive dissonance. On one hand, there is the curated interiority of Monocle, where Editor-in-Chief Andrew Tuck describes the days between Christmas and New Year as an “island of time,” a liminal space for reading, walking, and “shrugging off the excesses” (Tuck, 2025). On the other, The Economist and The New York Times depict a world ablaze—literally, in the wildfires of Los Angeles, and figuratively, through the “Justice Mission 2025” war games in the Taiwan Strait and the drone-darkened skies over Ukraine.

This dichotomy—between the bourgeois pursuit of “slow living” and the acceleration of global chaos—illustrates what sociologist Zygmunt Bauman termed “liquid modernity,” a state where social forms melt faster than new ones can be forged (Bauman, 2000). The newsletters from this week capture a world oscillating between the desperate preservation of heritage and the ruthless, transactional efficiency of a new global order.

The newsletters document an intricate diplomatic choreography surrounding the Russia-Ukraine conflict, with President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago becoming an unlikely venue for consequential statecraft. Zelensky’s visits and the proposed peace frameworks reveal what Henry Kissinger (1994) termed “the dilution of sovereignty”—where national self-determination yields to great power management. The proposal for a demilitarized zone in eastern Ukraine echoes the Korean Peninsula’s unresolved status, suggesting what political scientist John Mearsheimer (2014) warned about in “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics”—that structural realism ultimately constrains diplomatic possibilities.

The Economist’s observation that “Mr. Zelensky suggested Ukraine could establish a demilitarised zone in the country’s east as part of a peace deal” must be read against Clausewitz’s (1832/1976) dictum that “war is the continuation of politics by other means” (p. 87). What appears as diplomatic flexibility may represent territorial concession under duress. The reporting that Russia received “documents provided by Kirill Dmitriev” while simultaneously launching waves of missiles against Kyiv exemplifies what sociologist Zygmunt Bauman (2000) called “liquid modernity”—where seemingly solid agreements evaporate under the heat of continued violence.

The multiple references to China’s military exercises around Taiwan—”live ammunition, new amphibious assault ships, troops, fighter jets and bombers”—reflect what Graham Allison (2017) termed the “Thucydides Trap,” where a rising power (China) inevitably challenges an established hegemon (United States). Yet The Economist’s characterization of China’s 2026 strategy as offering “predictability” reveals a more nuanced posture. As Odd Arne Westad (2012) argues in “Restless Empire,” Chinese foreign policy has historically oscillated between defensive consolidation and assertive expansion.

The irony that “China hopes this will set it apart from the mercurial, chaotic Mr Trump” inverts Cold War narratives where communist states were depicted as rigid and Western democracies as flexible. This role reversal suggests what political theorist Samuel Huntington (1996) called “the clash of civilizations” has morphed into something more complex—a clash of governance models where authoritarian stability competes with democratic volatility.

Two fiscal/policy motifs dominate.

Offloading risk and the political economy of heritage: The Bayeux Tapestry loan—backstopped by a UK Treasury indemnity—is exemplary. The decision to underwrite enormous insurance liability with public funds (the newsletter notes a £800m–£1bn indemnity) reframes heritage as a fiscal and diplomatic instrument; it transfers commercial risk from a private museum to the public purse and thereby nationalises responsibility for global cultural spectacle. This is not merely accounting: it signals that museums increasingly operate as arenas of statecraft and soft power (Cuno, 2008).

Market reorientation and new centers of gravity: ARTnews’s coverage of the Gulf’s prominence in art fairs and Monocle’s reporting on trade shows and pop-ups point to the same economic fact: capital and collectors are reconfiguring the geography of cultural demand. This reorientation reshapes institutional priorities (programming, blockbuster loans) and changes who sets curatorial agendas—wealthy patrons and sovereign cultural funds now exercise disproportionate influence (Heilbrun & Gray, 2001). The consequence is a mixed blessing: more money for exhibitions and infrastructure, but also a pressure to produce spectacle and marketable “event” culture.

The dominant political narrative of the week is the consolidation of a transactional foreign policy under the second Trump administration. The reports of President Trump hosting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at Mar-a-Lago to discuss a peace plan, while simultaneously threatening Venezuela with an oil blockade, signal a shift from liberal internationalism to a raw, mercantile realism.

The Economist notes that China is offering the developing world a “predictable” alternative to the “mercurial, chaotic Mr. Trump,” focusing on infrastructure and trade rather than moral alignment (The Economist, 2025, December 30). This reflects the structural shifts predicted by John Mearsheimer, who argued that in a multipolar world, great powers will inevitably revert to sphere-of-influence politics, disregarding the “universalistic” pretensions of the liberal order (Mearsheimer, 2001).

The transactional nature of these interactions is starkest in the Middle East and Africa. Israel’s recognition of Somaliland, reported by Newsweek as a move that “shakes the region,” suggests a breakdown of the Westphalian consensus on sovereignty in favor of strategic alliances (Tostevin, 2025). Similarly, the U.S. strikes in Nigeria, framed by the Trump administration as a defense of Christians, are analyzed by experts as symbolic gestures that may complicate local insurgencies (Newsweek, 2025). This aligns with the concept of the “spectacle of war,” where military action serves domestic political narratives as much as strategic objectives, a concept explored by Jean Baudrillard in The Gulf War Did Not Take Place (1991).

Monocle’s newsletters construct what Pierre Bourdieu (1984) analyzed as “distinction”—the cultivation of taste as social capital. Tyler Brûlé’s account of operating the St. Moritz pop-up café, where he encounters “a Korean mother and son” interested in an “Arpenteur wool and angora coat,” exemplifies what Thorstein Veblen (1899/1994) termed “conspicuous consumption.” Yet there’s a self-aware irony in Brûlé’s observation that the mother sought “Made in Korea” labels, suggesting that globalization has complicated simple core-periphery models.

The recurring references to specific geographic locations—”Rue Bachaumont” in Paris, “Hotel Steffani” in St. Moritz, “Punta del Este”—function as what David Harvey (1989) called “spatial fixes” for capital accumulation. These aren’t merely places but branded experiences. As Sharon Zukin (1995) argues in “The Cultures of Cities,” such aesthetic economies transform localities into commodified landscapes where authenticity itself becomes a marketable product.

The article on Vienna’s winter style, noting “high-collared Loden coats” and coffee houses “where you can sit for hours without being pushed to consume more,” presents what Raymond Williams (1973) termed a “structure of feeling”—a historically specific cultural formation. The assertion that “When the world ends, go to Vienna because everything happens 10 years later” simultaneously romanticizes and critiques temporal displacement, echoing Ernst Bloch’s (1986) concept of “non-synchronous synchronicity.”

The profile of Norwegian design duo Anderssen & Voll reveals tensions at the heart of contemporary design practice. Their statement that “inspiration is a bit overrated—it’s a folkloric way of explaining creativity” challenges romantic notions of artistic genius. This aligns with what sociologist Howard Becker (1982) demonstrated in “Art Worlds”—that creative production emerges from collaborative networks rather than isolated individuals.

Their concern about AI’s impact—”AI could probably generate the standard products a company would need to fill in the gaps of a collection”—yet optimism that this “might spur a greater desire for the quirks of handmade design” echoes Walter Benjamin’s (1936/2008) anxieties about mechanical reproduction. Where Benjamin worried about the loss of “aura,” contemporary designers hope for its renewed appreciation. This dialectic between automation and craft resonates with Matthew Crawford’s (2009) “Shop Class as Soulcraft,” which argues that manual work offers cognitive and ethical satisfactions increasingly absent from knowledge work.

The newsletters’ sponsorships—Uruguay’s art scene, Range Rover’s “city to dune” versatility, Edo Tokyo Kirari’s traditional crafts—exemplify what Naomi Klein critiqued as “lifestyle branding” (Klein, 2000). National tourism boards and luxury automakers borrow Monocle’s cultural authority to position their offerings within a narrative of refined globalism. Uruguay is not sold as a cheap beach destination but as a site of “boundary-pushing art”; Range Rover appears not as conspicuous consumption but as seamless adaptation to varied terrains of elite life. This integration of commerce and culture is seamless because Monocle’s editorial voice already embodies the same values: quality, durability, cosmopolitan ease. The magazine does not interrupt its aesthetic project to sell; rather, the sponsors participate in it.

Monocle’s repeated praise for aging, patina, and craft (the “like fine wine” piece; Serendipitous artisan profiles) stages an embedded critique of throwaway modernity. Sennett’s argument that craft cultivates a public ethic of patience, skill and relational practice is instructive: making and maintenance are political acts that resist ephemeral consumption (Sennett, 2008). The Design Directory—positioning artisans as addresses rather than commodities—can be read as an attempt to preserve local epistemologies of making inside a globalised marketplace.

ARTNews documents a wave of museum rebrandings—”The Courtauld Gallery in London... has adopted a Madonna-style mononym, Courtauld. The Museum of London... has become the London Museum.” This phenomenon reflects what sociologist Paul DiMaggio (1987) termed “institutional isomorphism”—organizations in the same field increasingly resemble each other. The article’s citation of branding expert Matt Johnson—that museums follow “the same de-branding trajectory that we have seen with corporate logos”—suggests what Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer (1944/2002) called the “culture industry,” where even ostensibly non-commercial institutions adopt market logics.

The critical observation that “museums should be for everyone. They aren’t a litmus test of taste” invokes longstanding debates about cultural democratization versus elitism. Pierre Bourdieu and Alain Darbel (1991) demonstrated that despite museums’ universal rhetoric, attendance patterns reproduce class hierarchies. The proposed solutions—”open the archives,” “stay open later,” “make ticket prices more flexible”—address accessibility but don’t fundamentally challenge what Tony Bennett (1995) called the museum’s “exhibitionary complex” that disciplines visitors into particular modes of seeing.

The extensive copyright compliance rules in the newsletters—”15+ words from any single source is a SEVERE VIOLATION”—reveal anxieties about large language models trained on journalistic content. This tension exemplifies what Lawrence Lessig (2004) termed “free culture” versus proprietary control. The insistence that “quotes should be rare exceptions, not the primary method of conveying information” attempts to reassert human curatorial authority against algorithmic aggregation.

Yet this position contains contradictions. Journalism has always involved synthesis and remixing; as James Carey (1989) argued, news is less about transmitting information than performing ritual constructions of reality. The fear that AI might displace human journalism echoes previous technological disruptions—when photography threatened painting, cinema threatened theater. As Marshall McLuhan (1964) observed, “the medium is the message”—new technologies don’t simply replace old ones but reconfigure entire cultural ecosystems.

Monocle’s worldview aligns closely with Pierre Bourdieu’s analysis of distinction: taste classifies, and taste is classified (Bourdieu, 1984). The newsletters repeatedly valorize restraint over ostentation—Vienna’s “stylistic restraint over excessive glamour,” Cesar Equipment’s rejection of the “five-day hike” aesthetic, the slow pace of Viennese coffee houses where “everything happens 10 years later.” This is not asceticism but a refined hedonism that requires significant economic and cultural capital to sustain. The reader is invited to recognize herself in these scenes: someone who can linger for hours in Café Prückel, who appreciates the difference between Active Tech and Casual Tech, who understands that true luxury is understated.

Such restraint functions as what Bourdieu termed “cultural goodwill”—the ability to derive pleasure from forms that appear effortless while concealing the labor and resources required to produce them. The Monocle reader, like Bourdieu’s petite bourgeoisie, practices a “stylization of life” that converts economic privilege into symbolic distinction (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 318).

The New York Times’ extensive documentation of immigration enforcement under the Trump administration—”Almost a year into Trump’s immigration crackdown, towns across the country are feeling the effects”—provides visceral accounts of state power’s exercise. The description of federal agents using tear gas during confrontations, and the photograph of “people flee, cough, and cover their faces as their neighborhood fills with tear gas,” recalls Hannah Arendt’s (1951/1973) analysis of statelessness as the fundamental political condition of modernity.

The profile of Deisy Carolina Venecia Farías and her son Emmanuel, separated for seven months with the boy living alone in their Texas home, exemplifies what Arjun Appadurai (1996) termed “ethnoscapes”—the landscape of persons who constitute the shifting world in which we live. The photographer’s observation that Emmanuel “made himself go to school unsupervised... intent on presenting himself as clean and organized so his teachers would not suspect” reveals the extraordinary agency exercised by those with minimal structural power, what James Scott (1985) called “weapons of the weak.”

The newsletters note South Korea’s fertility crisis with characteristic ambivalence. While “births rose for the 15th consecutive month,” demographers attribute this to “a bulge in births in the mid-1990s which meant there are now more women in their early 30s” rather than genuine attitudinal change. This echoes what scholars call the “second demographic transition” (Lesthaeghe, 2014)—where fertility decline reflects not economic necessity but value shifts toward individual autonomy and non-familial forms of meaning.

The observation about Japan’s centenarians who “credit their remarkable longevity to their work” challenges Western assumptions about retirement as the golden years. As Sarah Lamb (2014) demonstrates in “Successful Aging as a Contemporary Obsession,” different cultures construct life courses differently. The 101-year-old farmer’s statement—”farming is what has kept me alive”—suggests what Marx (1844/1988) called “species-being,” the realization of human essence through productive labor, though Marx would have problematized the romanticization of agricultural toil.

The newsletters stage a tension between two social imaginaries.

Frictionless convenience vs. civic sociability: Tom Vanderbilt’s critique of self-checkout machines frames a substantive sociological claim: small, apparently trivial public encounters constitute the glue of civic life (Vanderbilt, Monocle). Drawing on Goffman’s work on public behaviour, the point is that “civil inattention” and micro-interaction sustain urban sociality; their removal is not merely an efficiency gain but a loss of plural encounter (Goffman, 1963).

Place, craft and social resilience: Monocle’s recurring themes—cafés as neighbourhood anchors, the Design Directory’s stress on human scale, porosity and craft (Kimoto Glass, Cesar Equipment, local shops)—read as a practical reply to digital and market homogenisation. These are restatements of Oldenburg’s “third place” thesis (Oldenburg, 1989): cafés, shops and small-scale cultural producers sustain community bonds precisely because they are not fully commodified in the same way as platformised services.

Raymond Zhong’s Antarctic expedition to study “the fastest-melting glaciers on the frozen continent” addresses what Rob Nixon (2011) termed “slow violence”—environmental degradation that occurs gradually, without dramatic events to capture media attention. Nixon argues that “a major challenge is representational: how to devise arresting stories, images, and symbols adequate to the pervasive but elusive violence of delayed effects” (p. 3).

The concern that the Thwaites glacier “could collapse catastrophically” exemplifies what Ulrich Beck (1992) called the “risk society,” where contemporary threats are characterized by incalculability and irreversibility. Unlike preindustrial dangers (famine, plague), anthropogenic climate change exceeds human perceptual and temporal scales. As Timothy Morton (2013) argues, global warming is a “hyperobject”—massively distributed in time and space, viscous (adhering to everything it touches), yet paradoxically invisible in any localized sense.

The documentation of California wildfires and flooding—”an intense storm drenched Southern California, causing flash floods”—reveals what geographer Mike Davis (1998) called the “ecology of fear,” where Los Angeles embodies contradictions between natural hazards and urban development. The photograph of a destroyed house with its swimming pool intact—”I thought the pool was something you could relate to. Times were had there”—captures the uncanny persistence of leisure infrastructure amid catastrophe, what Lauren Berlant (2011) might term “cruel optimism.”

The article on Chinese wind turbines and solar panels—”In green tech... Mr Trump is cutting subsidies for clean technologies while China sells solar panels, wind turbines and advanced batteries”—illustrates geopolitical dimensions of climate response. As Andreas Malm (2016) argues in “Fossil Capital,” energy transitions are never merely technical but involve profound reconfigurations of power. China’s green technology dominance represents what Giovanni Arrighi (2007) called “hegemonic transition,” where economic leadership shifts between core powers.

A fascinating undercurrent in the newsletters is the obsession with the biological optimization of the human body. The Economist reports on the “Enhanced Games”—dubbed the “doping Olympics”—where performance-enhancing drugs are encouraged, and the concurrent rise of “Godzilla” weight-loss drugs like retatrutide (The Economist, 2025, December 27).

This development marks a late-stage evolution of what Michel Foucault called “biopolitics”—the governance and regulation of bodies (Foucault, 2008). However, we have moved beyond state regulation to market-driven enhancement. The body is no longer a temple but a platform for optimization. As Byung-Chul Han argues in The Burnout Society, the subject of late capitalism is an “achievement-subject” who voluntarily exploits themselves in the pursuit of an impossible ideal (Han, 2015). The juxtaposition of these “enhanced” bodies with the “mundane interactions” mourned by Monocle columnist Tom Vanderbilt—who laments the loss of the human grocery clerk to automation—highlights a society attempting to optimize away the friction of human existence, risking the loss of social cohesion in the process.

The newsletters reveal widespread AI integration across domains—from OpenAI’s “make-or-break year” to museum authentication to travel translation apps. This reflects what Shoshana Zuboff (2019) termed “surveillance capitalism,” where human experience becomes raw material for data extraction and behavioral prediction. Yet the tone varies: enthusiasm about translation apps enabling authentic encounters versus anxiety about AI-generated fake news.

The description of “Claude in Claude”—artifacts that can call the Anthropic API to create “AI-powered apps”—represents what computer scientist Joseph Weizenbaum (1976) warned against: recursive delegation of judgment to systems whose decision criteria remain opaque. The technical specifications for avoiding “localStorage” and managing “context windows” reveal engineering constraints that shape what’s possible, what Langdon Winner (1980) called “technological politics.”

The reference to Australia banning children under 16 from social media, with “parents around the world debating whether more countries should follow,” reflects moral panic around digital childhood. danah boyd (2014) argues in “It’s Complicated” that adult anxieties about teen social media use often misunderstand youth practices while ignoring structural factors (economic precarity, urban design) that limit alternative socialization spaces.

The profile of Twitch streamer Kai Cenat, with “20 million followers who watch him eat, sleep and play video games,” represents what media theorist Henry Jenkins (2006) called “convergence culture.” Cenat’s success defies traditional entertainment industry gatekeeping, exemplifying what Yochai Benkler (2006) termed “the wealth of networks”—peer production outside market hierarchies. Yet this democratization coexists with platform concentration; Cenat’s livelihood depends entirely on Twitch’s algorithmic favor.

The escalating U.S. military campaign against Venezuela—described variously as strikes on “drug trafficking boats,” a “blockade” of oil tankers, and a CIA drone strike on port facilities—represents what historian Greg Grandin (2019) termed “the end of the myth” of American innocence. The assertion that these operations “appear to bend international maritime laws and customs” understates their violation of sovereignty principles enshrined since the Treaty of Westphalia (1648).

The strategic rationale—”to limit Nicolás Maduro’s power, to use military force against drug cartels and to secure access to Venezuela’s vast oil reserves”—recalls what David Harvey (2003) called “accumulation by dispossession,” where capital accumulation requires seizure of previously inaccessible resources. The description of evidence “washing ashore in Colombia—including a scorched boat, mangled bodies and packets with traces of marijuana”—provides material testimony to violence that official discourse sanitizes as counternarcotics operations.

Israel’s recognition of Somaliland as independent—”the first nation to formally recognize” the breakaway region—must be understood within Red Sea geopolitics. As Laleh Khalili (2018) demonstrates in “Sinews of War and Trade,” Gulf infrastructure (ports, pipelines, military bases) reflects overlapping logics of capital circulation and military projection. Somaliland’s strategic location makes it valuable for powers seeking alternatives to Djibouti, which hosts American, French, and Chinese bases.

The angry responses from “Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Egypt” who “say Somalia’s territorial integrity must be respected” reveal intra-regional tensions. Turkey’s neo-Ottoman ambitions, Gulf states’ competition for Horn of Africa influence, and Saudi-Emirati rivalry create what Kenneth Waltz (1979) called “multipolar” instability. The observation that “if Israel’s critics back Palestinians’ claim to a state, then why not those of the people of Somaliland?” attempts argumentative jujitsu that obscures fundamental differences between recognition of liberation movements and partition of existing states.

Subscribe

The New York Times Magazine’s annual feature “The Lives They Lived” performs what historian Pierre Nora (1989) called “lieux de mémoire”—sites of memory that crystallize collective identity. The selection reveals contemporary values: Jane Goodall’s challenge to scientific objectivity, David Lynch’s surrealist Americana, Diane Keaton’s neurotic charm, Anna Ornstein’s Holocaust survival and psychoanalytic career.

Ornstein’s profile is particularly poignant. Her critique of psychoanalytic perspectives that “failed to see, let alone learn from, the experience of Holocaust survivors” echoes what philosopher Giorgio Agamben (1998) called the “witness”—one who survives to testify to atrocity that defies representation. Her “muted yet unmistakable rage” aimed not at perpetrators but at professional failures to acknowledge trauma reveals what Dominick LaCapra (2001) termed “secondary wounding,” where institutional indifference compounds original violence.

The obituary for filmmaker Amos Poe—”a No Wave pioneer whose gritty, DIY films helped define New York’s punk scene”—documents cultural production under conditions of urban decay. His films “The Blank Generation” (1975) and “Unmade Beds” (1976) captured what Marshall Berman (1982) called the “experience of modernity”: “All that is solid melts into air.” Shot with “amateur actors on minimal budgets,” they exemplify what cultural theorist Dick Hebdige (1979) termed “subculture”—style as refusal, aesthetics as resistance.

The description that Poe’s films “moved with an energy that mirrored the underground he traversed: densely composed, taut sequences of people forced into motion” recalls what Siegfried Kracauer (1995) identified as cinema’s affinity for “material reality.” Unlike Hollywood’s seamless narratives, No Wave cinema embraced contingency and fragmentation, what Gilles Deleuze (1986) called “the time-image”—cinema that disrupts linear chronology to reveal temporal multiplicity.

The cultural snippets reveal a deep anxiety about history and identity. ARTNews reports on the controversy surrounding the British Museum’s “Red, White, and Blue” fundraising ball for the Bayeux Tapestry loan, sparking fears of right-wing nationalism (ARTNews, 2025, December 26). Simultaneously, institutions are rebranding (The Philadelphia Museum of Art becoming “Pham”), seeking relevance through simplification. This tension is mirrored in the obituary of Brigitte Bardot (The New York Times, 2025). Her transition from a symbol of libertine sexuality to a controversial figure of the hard right illustrates the complex trajectory of Western cultural icons grappling with modernity and demographic change.

These conflicts recall the work of Pierre Nora on Lieux de mémoire (Sites of Memory). Nora argued that as “real” environments of memory fade (like the traditional village or the unbranded museum), we become obsessed with artificial sites of memory to anchor our identity (Nora, 1989). The controversy over the Bayeux Tapestry is not just about a party theme; it is a struggle over who owns the narrative of the nation in a fragmented, globalized United Kingdom.

Three linked cultural logics emerge.

Branding and the politics of recognition: Monocle pieces on museum rebrands and the cultural sector’s graphic minimalism point to the cultivation of an “insider” aesthetic that can exclude broader publics (Monaghan-Coombs). This is usefully read against Benedict Anderson’s and Pierre Nora’s reflections on national memory and lieux de mémoire: simplification of institutional identity can be both a marketing tactic and an assertion of symbolic ownership (Anderson, 1983; Nora, 1989).

Canon formation and market forces: ARTnews’s reporting about estate sales, the “great wealth transfer,” and renewed interest in older masters suggests a taste cycle shaped by liquidity events in the upper market. As collectors inherit and monetise estates, market valuation affects museum acquisitions, scholarship, and what is institutionalised as “important.” This dynamic is well described by studies of the art economy: cultural value is never purely aesthetic; it is co-produced by legal, fiscal and market structures (Heilbrun & Gray, 2001).

Cultural contestation as political theatre: The British Museum ball controversy and the conversion of diplomatic space into a Palestine museum are reminders that museums and exhibitions are theatres of political identity. Decisions about programming, names and loans become proximate sites where contested narratives about nationhood, colonial legacies and contemporary geopolitics are fought.

Andrew Tuck’s opener—“I like it here, this island of time between Christmas and New Year”—captures a temporal privilege that Zygmunt Bauman might have recognized as characteristic of the “tourist” class in liquid modernity (Bauman, 2000). While much of the world cannot afford to pause, Monocle’s imagined reader inhabits a zone of voluntary deceleration: long walks, reading, list-making, reflection. This is not universal downtime but a curated lull—a space for “regrouping” and “setting out ambitions” that presupposes security and leisure.

Nic Monisse’s columns extend this temporal theme into design, celebrating projects that “only improve with age”: Isabel Duprat’s maturing São Paulo gardens, Bofill’s repurposed cement factory, Finnish summer cottages adapted over decades. Here, sustainability emerges not as sacrifice but as aesthetic deepening—a patina earned through patient dwelling. This echoes Martin Heidegger’s concept of dwelling as thoughtful inhabitation rather than mere occupation (Heidegger, 1971), though transposed into a register of privilege rather than existential necessity.

The newsletters document precious metals reaching record highs: “Gold prices rose to more than $4,500 per ounce and silver exceeded $75 per ounce.” This flight to traditional stores of value amid inflation and geopolitical instability recalls what economic historian Karl Polanyi (1944/2001) termed the “double movement”—market expansion followed by social protection. When confidence in fiat currency and financial instruments erodes, investors return to tangible assets whose value derives partly from physical scarcity.

Yet the subsequent crash—”Silver futures fell... by almost 9%, the biggest one-day drop since 2021”—illustrates John Maynard Keynes’s (1936/2007) observation about markets: “The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent” (p. 106). The CME’s requirement that “traders put down more cash on their bets” reflects attempts to cool speculative frenzies through increased margin requirements, tools that Hyman Minsky (1986) argued are perpetually insufficient because financial innovation circumvents regulation.

The observation that “the Great Wealth Transfer will move from theory to reality in the art market in 2026... estate-driven sales, with long-held collections entering the market for the first time in decades” signals generational turnover. Thomas Piketty (2014) demonstrated in “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” that inherited wealth increasingly dominates earned income in contemporary capitalism, creating what he called “patrimonial capitalism”—society structured around inheritance rather than merit.

The prediction of “a ‘great taste transfer’” as “the next generation of collectors brings different aesthetics and priorities” suggests that cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1986) doesn’t reproduce automatically but requires active transmission. The observation that younger collectors “treat art and luxury objects... as significant assets requiring coordinated planning” reveals art’s increasing financialization, what Olav Velthuis (2005) termed the “symbolic economy,” where aesthetic and economic values intertwine inextricably.

The announcement that “The Times turns 175 years old in 2026” with publisher A.G. Sulzberger emphasizing “the value of reporting... especially when that work is under attack” articulates professional anxieties. This defensive posture reflects what media scholar C.W. Anderson (2013) called “post-industrial journalism”—established institutions struggling to maintain authority amid platform disruption and partisan hostility.

The emphasis on “independent reporting” as democracy’s bulwark invokes what Michael Schudson (2008) termed journalism’s “progressive ideal”—the belief that factual information enables rational public deliberation. Yet this ideal faces challenges both external (Trump’s attacks on “fake news”) and internal (corporate consolidation, algorithmic distribution). As sociologist Gaye Tuchman (1972) demonstrated, journalistic objectivity is itself a “strategic ritual” rather than achievable epistemic state.

The extraordinarily detailed copyright compliance instructions—with emphatic warnings like “15+ words from any single source is a SEVERE VIOLATION”—reveal existential anxiety about large language models trained on journalistic content. This tension exemplifies what legal scholar Julie Cohen (2019) called “the biopolitical public domain,” where information commodification conflicts with cumulative creativity.

The insistence on paraphrasing rather than quotation reverses traditional journalism’s reliance on source attribution for authority. This shift suggests recognition that training data for AI systems blurs authorship boundaries. As Matthew Kirschenbaum (2016) argues, “all writing is copywriting”—textual production has always involved appropriation and remix. The question becomes: who benefits financially from this generative process?

Tyler Brûlé’s Christmas Eve dispatch from the St Moritz pop-up is particularly revealing. Manning the till alongside colleague Aude, he observes the “very global community” of Monocle consumers: Turkish bankers, Korean families, Gulf gentlemen with impeccable beards. These interactions—brief, transactional, yet rich with mutual recognition—recall Richard Sennett’s argument in The Corrosion of Character (1998) that fleeting public encounters can still generate meaningful social cohesion. Brûlé’s delight in these moments contrasts sharply with the digital mediation that increasingly structures contemporary interaction. The shop floor becomes a rare space where strangers acknowledge one another’s presence without the “civil inattention” Goffman described in urban life (Goffman, 1963).

Yet this sociality is deeply stratified. The encounters Brûlé celebrates occur within a luxury micro-economy: 10 square meters of curated goods in one of the world’s most expensive resorts. The warmth of these interactions depends on shared class position; the Gulf visitors’ questions about potential Monocle cafés in Abu Dhabi or Dubai reveal a common horizon of global elite mobility.

The newsletters collectively document what historian Adam Tooze (2022) termed “polycrisis”—not discrete problems but intersecting emergencies that amplify each other. Climate catastrophe accelerates migration, which fuels nativist politics, which undermines international cooperation needed to address climate change. Technological acceleration promises solutions while concentrating power in ways that exacerbate inequality. Cultural institutions struggle to remain relevant while maintaining distinctiveness from market forces.

Yet within this bleak panorama, moments of unexpected grace emerge: the 101-year-old Japanese farmer who finds meaning through continued labor; the Syrian refugees celebrating Assad’s fall after a year of tyranny; the Australian man who tackled a mass shooter at Bondi Beach. These instances recall what Rebecca Solnit (2009) termed “a paradise built in hell”—how disaster often elicits solidarity and mutual aid that challenge atomistic assumptions about human nature.

The temporal frame of these newsletters—the liminal space between Christmas and New Year—invites reflection without demanding resolution. As literary critic Frank Kermode (1967) argued in “The Sense of an Ending,” humans impose narrative coherence on time’s flow through endings that retrospectively organize beginnings and middles. Yet 2026 arrives not as resolution but continuation, suggesting what Judith Butler (2020) called “the force of nonviolence”—the recognition that we remain constitutively interdependent, vulnerable to forces beyond individual control yet capable of collective response.

The geographic span of these texts—from Lagos’s Detty December parties to Antarctic glaciers, from Vienna’s coffee houses to Venezuelan port facilities—maps a world system that remains, in Immanuel Wallerstein’s (1974) terms, characterized by core-periphery hierarchies even as those positions shift. The aesthetic strategies differ: Monocle’s curated refinement, ARTNews’s insider gossip, The Economist’s analytical distance, Newsweek’s geopolitical focus, The Times’ comprehensive documentation. Yet all participate in what Jürgen Habermas (1962/1991) called the “public sphere”—that communicative space where private individuals constitute a public through rational-critical debate, however imperfectly realized.

What emerges is less a coherent narrative than what Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari (1980/1987) termed a “rhizome”—connections proliferating in multiple directions without hierarchical organization. The newsletters’ juxtapositions—design philosophy adjacent to military exercises, food recommendations beside deportation accounts—enact the disjunctive experience of contemporary consciousness. As cultural theorist Lauren Berlant (2011) observed, we inhabit “crisis ordinariness,” where catastrophe becomes ambient condition rather than exceptional event.

If there’s hope to be found, it lies not in technocratic solutions or return to imagined stability but in what poet Adrienne Rich (1978) called “dreaming the real”—imagining and enacting alternatives to what claims inevitability. The newsletters document this too: workers’ cooperatives in San Francisco, mutual aid networks, journalists risking themselves to bear witness, designers insisting that human touch matters. These practices suggest what anthropologist Anna Tsing (2015) termed “the arts of living on a damaged planet”—not restoration to some pristine state but cultivation of livable arrangements within ruins.

What these newsletters ultimately perform is a fantasy of frictionless global citizenship: one can appreciate Viennese formalism on Saturday, South Tyrolean raclette on Sunday, Japanese glasscraft on Monday, and Slovenian chalets by week’s end—all while maintaining a coherent aesthetic sensibility. This fantasy depends on extraordinary mobility, wealth, and cultural literacy. Yet the very pleasure of these texts lies in their attentiveness to small, grounded details: the bow-tied waiters at Café Prückel, the caramelized edges of Kaiserschmaren, the magnetized perpetual calendar from 1950s Milan. In an era of algorithmic acceleration and geopolitical fracture, Monocle offers a fantasy of slowness and coherence—not as resistance, but as retreat into a beautifully appointed enclave. The newsletters do not ask us to change the world; they ask us to inhabit it more tastefully.

The register of consumer-lifestyle optimism (Monocle cafés, design directories, winter playlists) sits uneasily with the securitised, politicised world of ARTnews stories. But they are mutually constitutive: cultural consumption produces the market that sustains large institutions; those institutions in turn legitimize objects and practices through display and loan. Technology accelerates commodification (platform retail, “ghost kitchens”); craft claims and third-place projects offer minor but meaningful resistances. A final note on geopolitics: the drills around Taiwan and the Asia correspondents’ infrastructural forecasts remind us that cultural circuits and political circuits are not separate. Cultural diplomacy, tourism flows, infrastructure projects and museum partnerships all depend on—and help to stabilise or unsettle—broader strategic relations.

The week ends with a striking contrast: the “Detty December” parties in Lagos, Nigeria, described by The New York Times as a month-long fever dream of joy and excess, occurring simultaneously with the “freezing blackouts” in Ukraine and Russia (Newsweek, 2025). This disparity serves as a grim reminder of William Gibson’s famous aphorism: “The future is already here—it’s just not very evenly distributed” (Gibson, 2003). As 2026 approaches, the newsletters paint a picture of a world where the wealthy retreat to “islands of time” in St. Moritz or Mar-a-Lago, insulated by wealth and geography, while the peripheries—whether in the trenches of Donbas or the fire-ravaged hills of Los Angeles—bear the brunt of the “accelerating” history. The “reflective, erudite” life championed by Monocle is increasingly a luxury good, a gated community of the mind, besieged by the raw, kinetic forces of a world order in violent transition.

Share

Adorno, T. W., & Horkheimer, M. (2002). Dialectic of enlightenment: Philosophical fragments. Stanford University Press. (Original work published 1944)

Agamben, G. (1998). Homo sacer: Sovereign power and bare life. Stanford University Press.

Allison, G. (2017). Destined for war: Can America and China escape Thucydides’s trap? Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. Verso.

Anderson, C. W. (2013). Rebuilding the news: Metropolitan journalism in the digital age. Temple University Press.

Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. University of Minnesota Press.

Arendt, H. (1973). The origins of totalitarianism. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. (Original work published 1951)

Arrighi, G. (2007). Adam Smith in Beijing: Lineages of the twenty-first century. Verso.

Baudrillard, J. (1991). The Gulf War Did Not Take Place. Indiana University Press.

Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid Modernity. Polity Press.

Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Sage.

Becker, H. S. (1982). Art worlds. University of California Press.

Benjamin, W. (2008). The work of art in the age of its technological reproducibility. In M. W. Jennings, B. Doherty, & T. Y. Levin (Eds.), The work of art in the age of its technological reproducibility, and other writings on media (pp. 19-55). Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1936)

Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. Yale University Press.

Bennett, T. (1995). The birth of the museum: History, theory, politics. Routledge.

Berlant, L. (2011). Cruel optimism. Duke University Press.

Berman, M. (1982). All that is solid melts into air: The experience of modernity. Simon & Schuster.

Bloch, E. (1986). The principle of hope (N. Plaice, S. Plaice, & P. Knight, Trans.). MIT Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste (R. Nice, Trans.). Harvard University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). Greenwood.

Bourdieu, P., & Darbel, A. (1991). The love of art: European art museums and their public. Stanford University Press.

Boyd, d. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. Yale University Press.

Butler, J. (2020). The force of nonviolence: An ethico-political bind. Verso.

Carey, J. W. (1989). Communication as culture: Essays on media and society. Unwin Hyman.

Clausewitz, C. von. (1976). On war (M. Howard & P. Paret, Trans.). Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1832)

Cohen, J. E. (2019). Between truth and power: The legal constructions of informational capitalism. Oxford University Press.

Crawford, M. B. (2009). Shop class as soulcraft: An inquiry into the value of work. Penguin.

Cuno, J. (2008). Who owns antiquity? Museums and the battle over our ancient heritage. Princeton University Press.

Davis, M. (1998). Ecology of fear: Los Angeles and the imagination of disaster. Metropolitan Books.

Deleuze, G. (1986). Cinema 1: The movement-image. University of Minnesota Press.

Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published 1980)

DiMaggio, P. (1987). Classification in art. American Sociological Review, 52(4), 440-455.

Foucault, M. (2008). The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–1979. Palgrave Macmillan.

Gibson, W. (2003, December 4). The future is already here – it’s just not very evenly distributed. The Economist.

Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings. Free Press.

Grandin, G. (2019). The end of the myth: From the frontier to the border wall in the mind of America. Metropolitan Books.

Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. MIT Press. (Original work published 1962)

Han, B.-C. (2015). The Burnout Society. Stanford University Press.

Harvey, D. (1989). The condition of postmodernity: An enquiry into the origins of cultural change. Blackwell.

Harvey, D. (2003). The new imperialism. Oxford University Press.

Hebdige, D. (1979). Subculture: The meaning of style. Methuen.

Heidegger, M. (1971). Poetry, language, thought (A. Hofstadter, Trans.). Harper & Row.

Heilbrun, J., & Gray, C. M. (2001). The economics of art and culture (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Huntington, S. P. (1996). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. Simon & Schuster.

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. NYU Press.

Kermode, F. (1967). The sense of an ending: Studies in the theory of fiction. Oxford University Press.

Keynes, J. M. (2007). The general theory of employment, interest, and money. Palgrave Macmillan. (Original work published 1936)

Khalili, L. (2018). Sinews of war and trade: Shipping and capitalism in the Arabian Peninsula. Verso.

Kirschenbaum, M. G. (2016). Track changes: A literary history of word processing. Harvard University Press.

Kissinger, H. (1994). Diplomacy. Simon & Schuster.

Klein, N. (2000). No logo: Taking aim at the brand bullies. Picador.

Kracauer, S. (1995). The mass ornament: Weimar essays. Harvard University Press.

LaCapra, D. (2001). Writing history, writing trauma. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Lamb, S. (2014). Successful aging as a contemporary obsession: Global perspectives. In S. Lamb (Ed.), Successful aging as a contemporary obsession: Global perspectives (pp. 1-23). Rutgers University Press.

Lessig, L. (2004). Free culture: How big media uses technology and the law to lock down culture and control creativity. Penguin.

Lesthaeghe, R. (2014). The second demographic transition: A concise overview of its development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(51), 18112-18115.

Malm, A. (2016). Fossil capital: The rise of steam power and the roots of global warming. Verso.

Marx, K. (1988). Economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1844. Prometheus Books. (Original work published 1844)

McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. McGraw-Hill.

Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W.W. Norton & Company.

Mearsheimer, J. J. (2014). The tragedy of great power politics (Updated ed.). W. W. Norton.

Minsky, H. P. (1986). Stabilizing an unstable economy. Yale University Press.

Morton, T. (2013). Hyperobjects: Philosophy and ecology after the end of the world. University of Minnesota Press.

Nixon, R. (2011). Slow violence and the environmentalism of the poor. Harvard University Press.

Nora, P. (1989). Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Mémoire. Representations, (26), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.2307/2928520

Oldenburg, R. (1989). The great good place: Cafés, coffee shops, community centers, beauty parlors, general stores, bars, hangouts, and how they get you through the day. Marlowe & Company.

Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Harvard University Press.

Polanyi, K. (2001). The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time. Beacon Press. (Original work published 1944)

Rich, A. (1978). The dream of a common language: Poems 1974-1977. W. W. Norton.

Schudson, M. (2008). Why democracies need an unlovable press. Polity Press.

Scott, J. C. (1985). Weapons of the weak: Everyday forms of peasant resistance. Yale University Press.

Sennett, R. (1998). The corrosion of character: The personal consequences of work in the new capitalism. W.W. Norton.

Sennett, R. (2008). The craftsman. Yale University Press.

Solnit, R. (2009). A paradise built in hell: The extraordinary communities that arise in disaster. Viking.

Tooze, A. (2022, June 29). Welcome to the world of the polycrisis. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/498398e7-11b1-494b-9cd3-6d669dc3de33

Tsing, A. L. (2015). The mushroom at the end of the world: On the possibility of life in capitalist ruins. Princeton University Press.

Tuchman, G. (1972). Objectivity as strategic ritual: An examination of newsmen’s notions of objectivity. American Journal of Sociology, 77(4), 660-679.

Turner, V. (1969). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. Cornell University Press.

Veblen, T. (1994). The theory of the leisure class. Dover. (Original work published 1899)

Velthuis, O. (2005). Talking prices: Symbolic meanings of prices on the market for contemporary art. Princeton University Press.

Virilio, P. (1986). Speed and politics. Semiotext(e).

Wallerstein, I. (1974). The modern world-system: Capitalist agriculture and the origins of the European world-economy in the sixteenth century. Academic Press.

Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. McGraw-Hill.

Weizenbaum, J. (1976). Computer power and human reason: From judgment to calculation. W. H. Freeman.

Westad, O. A. (2012). Restless empire: China and the world since 1750. Basic Books.

Williams, R. (1973). The country and the city. Oxford University Press.

Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121-136.

Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.

Zukin, S. (1995). The cultures of cities. Blackwell.

[Written, Researched, and Edited by Pablo Markin. Some parts of the text have been produced with the aid of Claude, Anthropic, Gemini, Google, ChatGPT, OpenAI, and Grok, xAI, tools (January 3, 2026). The featured image has been generated in Canva (January 3, 2026).]

[Support the Open Access Blogs: https://openaccessblogs.gumroad.com/l/openaccessblogssupport.]

OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Pablo Markin (January 3, 2026). The Liminal Space of Year’s End: Cultural Patina, Cosmopolitan Ease and Everyday Life Erosion. Open Access Blog.

The collection of newsletters from Monocle, The Economist, The New York Times, Newsweek, and ARTNews from December 25-31, 2025, represents what anthropologist Victor Turner (1969) termed a “liminal” period—that betwixt-and-between temporal zone where normal structures dissolve and reflection becomes possible. These texts, emanating from disparate journalistic traditions (Monocle’s lifestyle curation, The Economist’s analytical pragmatism, The New York Times’ comprehensive documentation), collectively construct what Benedict Anderson (1983) might recognize as an “imagined community” of globally-aware readers navigating an increasingly fractured world order. The juxtaposition of Andrew Tuck’s “island of time between Christmas and New Year” with reports of drone strikes in Nigeria and protests in Tehran illuminates what Paul Virilio (1986) described as the “dromological” condition of contemporary existence—where acceleration and deceleration exist in uncomfortable proximity.

The final week of December 2025, as captured in these newsletters, offers a deliberate deceleration—a curated interlude between Christmas excess and New Year ambition. From Andrew Tuck’s affectionate portrait of the “island of time” between holidays to Tyler Brûlé’s meditations on the shop floor in St Moritz, the editions weave together personal reflection, aesthetic appreciation, and gentle commerce. Vienna’s restrained winter elegance, Scandinavian functional menswear, South Tyrolean mountain restaurants, Slovenian chalets, Japanese glasscraft, and Uruguayan art fairs appear alongside playlists, recipes, and design directories. Sponsored by Uruguay, Range Rover, and Edo Tokyo Kirari, the content never feels overtly commercial; instead, it embodies Monocle’s signature tone: aspirational yet understated, globally mobile yet attentive to place. This is not mere lifestyle journalism. It is a quiet performance of cosmopolitan taste in an era of accelerating precarity. Beneath the surface of linen shops in St Moritz and rhombus-cut Kaiserschmaren lies a deeper negotiation of class, culture, and time in late-capitalist modernity.

This collection of newsletters also offers a striking study in cognitive dissonance. On one hand, there is the curated interiority of Monocle, where Editor-in-Chief Andrew Tuck describes the days between Christmas and New Year as an “island of time,” a liminal space for reading, walking, and “shrugging off the excesses” (Tuck, 2025). On the other, The Economist and The New York Times depict a world ablaze—literally, in the wildfires of Los Angeles, and figuratively, through the “Justice Mission 2025” war games in the Taiwan Strait and the drone-darkened skies over Ukraine.

This dichotomy—between the bourgeois pursuit of “slow living” and the acceleration of global chaos—illustrates what sociologist Zygmunt Bauman termed “liquid modernity,” a state where social forms melt faster than new ones can be forged (Bauman, 2000). The newsletters from this week capture a world oscillating between the desperate preservation of heritage and the ruthless, transactional efficiency of a new global order.

The newsletters document an intricate diplomatic choreography surrounding the Russia-Ukraine conflict, with President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago becoming an unlikely venue for consequential statecraft. Zelensky’s visits and the proposed peace frameworks reveal what Henry Kissinger (1994) termed “the dilution of sovereignty”—where national self-determination yields to great power management. The proposal for a demilitarized zone in eastern Ukraine echoes the Korean Peninsula’s unresolved status, suggesting what political scientist John Mearsheimer (2014) warned about in “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics”—that structural realism ultimately constrains diplomatic possibilities.

The Economist’s observation that “Mr. Zelensky suggested Ukraine could establish a demilitarised zone in the country’s east as part of a peace deal” must be read against Clausewitz’s (1832/1976) dictum that “war is the continuation of politics by other means” (p. 87). What appears as diplomatic flexibility may represent territorial concession under duress. The reporting that Russia received “documents provided by Kirill Dmitriev” while simultaneously launching waves of missiles against Kyiv exemplifies what sociologist Zygmunt Bauman (2000) called “liquid modernity”—where seemingly solid agreements evaporate under the heat of continued violence.

The multiple references to China’s military exercises around Taiwan—”live ammunition, new amphibious assault ships, troops, fighter jets and bombers”—reflect what Graham Allison (2017) termed the “Thucydides Trap,” where a rising power (China) inevitably challenges an established hegemon (United States). Yet The Economist’s characterization of China’s 2026 strategy as offering “predictability” reveals a more nuanced posture. As Odd Arne Westad (2012) argues in “Restless Empire,” Chinese foreign policy has historically oscillated between defensive consolidation and assertive expansion.

The irony that “China hopes this will set it apart from the mercurial, chaotic Mr Trump” inverts Cold War narratives where communist states were depicted as rigid and Western democracies as flexible. This role reversal suggests what political theorist Samuel Huntington (1996) called “the clash of civilizations” has morphed into something more complex—a clash of governance models where authoritarian stability competes with democratic volatility.

Two fiscal/policy motifs dominate.

Offloading risk and the political economy of heritage: The Bayeux Tapestry loan—backstopped by a UK Treasury indemnity—is exemplary. The decision to underwrite enormous insurance liability with public funds (the newsletter notes a £800m–£1bn indemnity) reframes heritage as a fiscal and diplomatic instrument; it transfers commercial risk from a private museum to the public purse and thereby nationalises responsibility for global cultural spectacle. This is not merely accounting: it signals that museums increasingly operate as arenas of statecraft and soft power (Cuno, 2008).

Market reorientation and new centers of gravity: ARTnews’s coverage of the Gulf’s prominence in art fairs and Monocle’s reporting on trade shows and pop-ups point to the same economic fact: capital and collectors are reconfiguring the geography of cultural demand. This reorientation reshapes institutional priorities (programming, blockbuster loans) and changes who sets curatorial agendas—wealthy patrons and sovereign cultural funds now exercise disproportionate influence (Heilbrun & Gray, 2001). The consequence is a mixed blessing: more money for exhibitions and infrastructure, but also a pressure to produce spectacle and marketable “event” culture.

The dominant political narrative of the week is the consolidation of a transactional foreign policy under the second Trump administration. The reports of President Trump hosting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at Mar-a-Lago to discuss a peace plan, while simultaneously threatening Venezuela with an oil blockade, signal a shift from liberal internationalism to a raw, mercantile realism.

The Economist notes that China is offering the developing world a “predictable” alternative to the “mercurial, chaotic Mr. Trump,” focusing on infrastructure and trade rather than moral alignment (The Economist, 2025, December 30). This reflects the structural shifts predicted by John Mearsheimer, who argued that in a multipolar world, great powers will inevitably revert to sphere-of-influence politics, disregarding the “universalistic” pretensions of the liberal order (Mearsheimer, 2001).

The transactional nature of these interactions is starkest in the Middle East and Africa. Israel’s recognition of Somaliland, reported by Newsweek as a move that “shakes the region,” suggests a breakdown of the Westphalian consensus on sovereignty in favor of strategic alliances (Tostevin, 2025). Similarly, the U.S. strikes in Nigeria, framed by the Trump administration as a defense of Christians, are analyzed by experts as symbolic gestures that may complicate local insurgencies (Newsweek, 2025). This aligns with the concept of the “spectacle of war,” where military action serves domestic political narratives as much as strategic objectives, a concept explored by Jean Baudrillard in The Gulf War Did Not Take Place (1991).

Monocle’s newsletters construct what Pierre Bourdieu (1984) analyzed as “distinction”—the cultivation of taste as social capital. Tyler Brûlé’s account of operating the St. Moritz pop-up café, where he encounters “a Korean mother and son” interested in an “Arpenteur wool and angora coat,” exemplifies what Thorstein Veblen (1899/1994) termed “conspicuous consumption.” Yet there’s a self-aware irony in Brûlé’s observation that the mother sought “Made in Korea” labels, suggesting that globalization has complicated simple core-periphery models.

The recurring references to specific geographic locations—”Rue Bachaumont” in Paris, “Hotel Steffani” in St. Moritz, “Punta del Este”—function as what David Harvey (1989) called “spatial fixes” for capital accumulation. These aren’t merely places but branded experiences. As Sharon Zukin (1995) argues in “The Cultures of Cities,” such aesthetic economies transform localities into commodified landscapes where authenticity itself becomes a marketable product.

The article on Vienna’s winter style, noting “high-collared Loden coats” and coffee houses “where you can sit for hours without being pushed to consume more,” presents what Raymond Williams (1973) termed a “structure of feeling”—a historically specific cultural formation. The assertion that “When the world ends, go to Vienna because everything happens 10 years later” simultaneously romanticizes and critiques temporal displacement, echoing Ernst Bloch’s (1986) concept of “non-synchronous synchronicity.”

The profile of Norwegian design duo Anderssen & Voll reveals tensions at the heart of contemporary design practice. Their statement that “inspiration is a bit overrated—it’s a folkloric way of explaining creativity” challenges romantic notions of artistic genius. This aligns with what sociologist Howard Becker (1982) demonstrated in “Art Worlds”—that creative production emerges from collaborative networks rather than isolated individuals.

Their concern about AI’s impact—”AI could probably generate the standard products a company would need to fill in the gaps of a collection”—yet optimism that this “might spur a greater desire for the quirks of handmade design” echoes Walter Benjamin’s (1936/2008) anxieties about mechanical reproduction. Where Benjamin worried about the loss of “aura,” contemporary designers hope for its renewed appreciation. This dialectic between automation and craft resonates with Matthew Crawford’s (2009) “Shop Class as Soulcraft,” which argues that manual work offers cognitive and ethical satisfactions increasingly absent from knowledge work.

The newsletters’ sponsorships—Uruguay’s art scene, Range Rover’s “city to dune” versatility, Edo Tokyo Kirari’s traditional crafts—exemplify what Naomi Klein critiqued as “lifestyle branding” (Klein, 2000). National tourism boards and luxury automakers borrow Monocle’s cultural authority to position their offerings within a narrative of refined globalism. Uruguay is not sold as a cheap beach destination but as a site of “boundary-pushing art”; Range Rover appears not as conspicuous consumption but as seamless adaptation to varied terrains of elite life. This integration of commerce and culture is seamless because Monocle’s editorial voice already embodies the same values: quality, durability, cosmopolitan ease. The magazine does not interrupt its aesthetic project to sell; rather, the sponsors participate in it.

Monocle’s repeated praise for aging, patina, and craft (the “like fine wine” piece; Serendipitous artisan profiles) stages an embedded critique of throwaway modernity. Sennett’s argument that craft cultivates a public ethic of patience, skill and relational practice is instructive: making and maintenance are political acts that resist ephemeral consumption (Sennett, 2008). The Design Directory—positioning artisans as addresses rather than commodities—can be read as an attempt to preserve local epistemologies of making inside a globalised marketplace.

ARTNews documents a wave of museum rebrandings—”The Courtauld Gallery in London... has adopted a Madonna-style mononym, Courtauld. The Museum of London... has become the London Museum.” This phenomenon reflects what sociologist Paul DiMaggio (1987) termed “institutional isomorphism”—organizations in the same field increasingly resemble each other. The article’s citation of branding expert Matt Johnson—that museums follow “the same de-branding trajectory that we have seen with corporate logos”—suggests what Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer (1944/2002) called the “culture industry,” where even ostensibly non-commercial institutions adopt market logics.

The critical observation that “museums should be for everyone. They aren’t a litmus test of taste” invokes longstanding debates about cultural democratization versus elitism. Pierre Bourdieu and Alain Darbel (1991) demonstrated that despite museums’ universal rhetoric, attendance patterns reproduce class hierarchies. The proposed solutions—”open the archives,” “stay open later,” “make ticket prices more flexible”—address accessibility but don’t fundamentally challenge what Tony Bennett (1995) called the museum’s “exhibitionary complex” that disciplines visitors into particular modes of seeing.

The extensive copyright compliance rules in the newsletters—”15+ words from any single source is a SEVERE VIOLATION”—reveal anxieties about large language models trained on journalistic content. This tension exemplifies what Lawrence Lessig (2004) termed “free culture” versus proprietary control. The insistence that “quotes should be rare exceptions, not the primary method of conveying information” attempts to reassert human curatorial authority against algorithmic aggregation.

Yet this position contains contradictions. Journalism has always involved synthesis and remixing; as James Carey (1989) argued, news is less about transmitting information than performing ritual constructions of reality. The fear that AI might displace human journalism echoes previous technological disruptions—when photography threatened painting, cinema threatened theater. As Marshall McLuhan (1964) observed, “the medium is the message”—new technologies don’t simply replace old ones but reconfigure entire cultural ecosystems.

Monocle’s worldview aligns closely with Pierre Bourdieu’s analysis of distinction: taste classifies, and taste is classified (Bourdieu, 1984). The newsletters repeatedly valorize restraint over ostentation—Vienna’s “stylistic restraint over excessive glamour,” Cesar Equipment’s rejection of the “five-day hike” aesthetic, the slow pace of Viennese coffee houses where “everything happens 10 years later.” This is not asceticism but a refined hedonism that requires significant economic and cultural capital to sustain. The reader is invited to recognize herself in these scenes: someone who can linger for hours in Café Prückel, who appreciates the difference between Active Tech and Casual Tech, who understands that true luxury is understated.

Such restraint functions as what Bourdieu termed “cultural goodwill”—the ability to derive pleasure from forms that appear effortless while concealing the labor and resources required to produce them. The Monocle reader, like Bourdieu’s petite bourgeoisie, practices a “stylization of life” that converts economic privilege into symbolic distinction (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 318).

The New York Times’ extensive documentation of immigration enforcement under the Trump administration—”Almost a year into Trump’s immigration crackdown, towns across the country are feeling the effects”—provides visceral accounts of state power’s exercise. The description of federal agents using tear gas during confrontations, and the photograph of “people flee, cough, and cover their faces as their neighborhood fills with tear gas,” recalls Hannah Arendt’s (1951/1973) analysis of statelessness as the fundamental political condition of modernity.

The profile of Deisy Carolina Venecia Farías and her son Emmanuel, separated for seven months with the boy living alone in their Texas home, exemplifies what Arjun Appadurai (1996) termed “ethnoscapes”—the landscape of persons who constitute the shifting world in which we live. The photographer’s observation that Emmanuel “made himself go to school unsupervised... intent on presenting himself as clean and organized so his teachers would not suspect” reveals the extraordinary agency exercised by those with minimal structural power, what James Scott (1985) called “weapons of the weak.”

The newsletters note South Korea’s fertility crisis with characteristic ambivalence. While “births rose for the 15th consecutive month,” demographers attribute this to “a bulge in births in the mid-1990s which meant there are now more women in their early 30s” rather than genuine attitudinal change. This echoes what scholars call the “second demographic transition” (Lesthaeghe, 2014)—where fertility decline reflects not economic necessity but value shifts toward individual autonomy and non-familial forms of meaning.

The observation about Japan’s centenarians who “credit their remarkable longevity to their work” challenges Western assumptions about retirement as the golden years. As Sarah Lamb (2014) demonstrates in “Successful Aging as a Contemporary Obsession,” different cultures construct life courses differently. The 101-year-old farmer’s statement—”farming is what has kept me alive”—suggests what Marx (1844/1988) called “species-being,” the realization of human essence through productive labor, though Marx would have problematized the romanticization of agricultural toil.

The newsletters stage a tension between two social imaginaries.

Frictionless convenience vs. civic sociability: Tom Vanderbilt’s critique of self-checkout machines frames a substantive sociological claim: small, apparently trivial public encounters constitute the glue of civic life (Vanderbilt, Monocle). Drawing on Goffman’s work on public behaviour, the point is that “civil inattention” and micro-interaction sustain urban sociality; their removal is not merely an efficiency gain but a loss of plural encounter (Goffman, 1963).

Place, craft and social resilience: Monocle’s recurring themes—cafés as neighbourhood anchors, the Design Directory’s stress on human scale, porosity and craft (Kimoto Glass, Cesar Equipment, local shops)—read as a practical reply to digital and market homogenisation. These are restatements of Oldenburg’s “third place” thesis (Oldenburg, 1989): cafés, shops and small-scale cultural producers sustain community bonds precisely because they are not fully commodified in the same way as platformised services.

Raymond Zhong’s Antarctic expedition to study “the fastest-melting glaciers on the frozen continent” addresses what Rob Nixon (2011) termed “slow violence”—environmental degradation that occurs gradually, without dramatic events to capture media attention. Nixon argues that “a major challenge is representational: how to devise arresting stories, images, and symbols adequate to the pervasive but elusive violence of delayed effects” (p. 3).

The concern that the Thwaites glacier “could collapse catastrophically” exemplifies what Ulrich Beck (1992) called the “risk society,” where contemporary threats are characterized by incalculability and irreversibility. Unlike preindustrial dangers (famine, plague), anthropogenic climate change exceeds human perceptual and temporal scales. As Timothy Morton (2013) argues, global warming is a “hyperobject”—massively distributed in time and space, viscous (adhering to everything it touches), yet paradoxically invisible in any localized sense.

The documentation of California wildfires and flooding—”an intense storm drenched Southern California, causing flash floods”—reveals what geographer Mike Davis (1998) called the “ecology of fear,” where Los Angeles embodies contradictions between natural hazards and urban development. The photograph of a destroyed house with its swimming pool intact—”I thought the pool was something you could relate to. Times were had there”—captures the uncanny persistence of leisure infrastructure amid catastrophe, what Lauren Berlant (2011) might term “cruel optimism.”

The article on Chinese wind turbines and solar panels—”In green tech... Mr Trump is cutting subsidies for clean technologies while China sells solar panels, wind turbines and advanced batteries”—illustrates geopolitical dimensions of climate response. As Andreas Malm (2016) argues in “Fossil Capital,” energy transitions are never merely technical but involve profound reconfigurations of power. China’s green technology dominance represents what Giovanni Arrighi (2007) called “hegemonic transition,” where economic leadership shifts between core powers.

A fascinating undercurrent in the newsletters is the obsession with the biological optimization of the human body. The Economist reports on the “Enhanced Games”—dubbed the “doping Olympics”—where performance-enhancing drugs are encouraged, and the concurrent rise of “Godzilla” weight-loss drugs like retatrutide (The Economist, 2025, December 27).

This development marks a late-stage evolution of what Michel Foucault called “biopolitics”—the governance and regulation of bodies (Foucault, 2008). However, we have moved beyond state regulation to market-driven enhancement. The body is no longer a temple but a platform for optimization. As Byung-Chul Han argues in The Burnout Society, the subject of late capitalism is an “achievement-subject” who voluntarily exploits themselves in the pursuit of an impossible ideal (Han, 2015). The juxtaposition of these “enhanced” bodies with the “mundane interactions” mourned by Monocle columnist Tom Vanderbilt—who laments the loss of the human grocery clerk to automation—highlights a society attempting to optimize away the friction of human existence, risking the loss of social cohesion in the process.

The newsletters reveal widespread AI integration across domains—from OpenAI’s “make-or-break year” to museum authentication to travel translation apps. This reflects what Shoshana Zuboff (2019) termed “surveillance capitalism,” where human experience becomes raw material for data extraction and behavioral prediction. Yet the tone varies: enthusiasm about translation apps enabling authentic encounters versus anxiety about AI-generated fake news.

The description of “Claude in Claude”—artifacts that can call the Anthropic API to create “AI-powered apps”—represents what computer scientist Joseph Weizenbaum (1976) warned against: recursive delegation of judgment to systems whose decision criteria remain opaque. The technical specifications for avoiding “localStorage” and managing “context windows” reveal engineering constraints that shape what’s possible, what Langdon Winner (1980) called “technological politics.”

The reference to Australia banning children under 16 from social media, with “parents around the world debating whether more countries should follow,” reflects moral panic around digital childhood. danah boyd (2014) argues in “It’s Complicated” that adult anxieties about teen social media use often misunderstand youth practices while ignoring structural factors (economic precarity, urban design) that limit alternative socialization spaces.

The profile of Twitch streamer Kai Cenat, with “20 million followers who watch him eat, sleep and play video games,” represents what media theorist Henry Jenkins (2006) called “convergence culture.” Cenat’s success defies traditional entertainment industry gatekeeping, exemplifying what Yochai Benkler (2006) termed “the wealth of networks”—peer production outside market hierarchies. Yet this democratization coexists with platform concentration; Cenat’s livelihood depends entirely on Twitch’s algorithmic favor.

The escalating U.S. military campaign against Venezuela—described variously as strikes on “drug trafficking boats,” a “blockade” of oil tankers, and a CIA drone strike on port facilities—represents what historian Greg Grandin (2019) termed “the end of the myth” of American innocence. The assertion that these operations “appear to bend international maritime laws and customs” understates their violation of sovereignty principles enshrined since the Treaty of Westphalia (1648).

The strategic rationale—”to limit Nicolás Maduro’s power, to use military force against drug cartels and to secure access to Venezuela’s vast oil reserves”—recalls what David Harvey (2003) called “accumulation by dispossession,” where capital accumulation requires seizure of previously inaccessible resources. The description of evidence “washing ashore in Colombia—including a scorched boat, mangled bodies and packets with traces of marijuana”—provides material testimony to violence that official discourse sanitizes as counternarcotics operations.

Israel’s recognition of Somaliland as independent—”the first nation to formally recognize” the breakaway region—must be understood within Red Sea geopolitics. As Laleh Khalili (2018) demonstrates in “Sinews of War and Trade,” Gulf infrastructure (ports, pipelines, military bases) reflects overlapping logics of capital circulation and military projection. Somaliland’s strategic location makes it valuable for powers seeking alternatives to Djibouti, which hosts American, French, and Chinese bases.

The angry responses from “Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Egypt” who “say Somalia’s territorial integrity must be respected” reveal intra-regional tensions. Turkey’s neo-Ottoman ambitions, Gulf states’ competition for Horn of Africa influence, and Saudi-Emirati rivalry create what Kenneth Waltz (1979) called “multipolar” instability. The observation that “if Israel’s critics back Palestinians’ claim to a state, then why not those of the people of Somaliland?” attempts argumentative jujitsu that obscures fundamental differences between recognition of liberation movements and partition of existing states.

Subscribe

The New York Times Magazine’s annual feature “The Lives They Lived” performs what historian Pierre Nora (1989) called “lieux de mémoire”—sites of memory that crystallize collective identity. The selection reveals contemporary values: Jane Goodall’s challenge to scientific objectivity, David Lynch’s surrealist Americana, Diane Keaton’s neurotic charm, Anna Ornstein’s Holocaust survival and psychoanalytic career.

Ornstein’s profile is particularly poignant. Her critique of psychoanalytic perspectives that “failed to see, let alone learn from, the experience of Holocaust survivors” echoes what philosopher Giorgio Agamben (1998) called the “witness”—one who survives to testify to atrocity that defies representation. Her “muted yet unmistakable rage” aimed not at perpetrators but at professional failures to acknowledge trauma reveals what Dominick LaCapra (2001) termed “secondary wounding,” where institutional indifference compounds original violence.

The obituary for filmmaker Amos Poe—”a No Wave pioneer whose gritty, DIY films helped define New York’s punk scene”—documents cultural production under conditions of urban decay. His films “The Blank Generation” (1975) and “Unmade Beds” (1976) captured what Marshall Berman (1982) called the “experience of modernity”: “All that is solid melts into air.” Shot with “amateur actors on minimal budgets,” they exemplify what cultural theorist Dick Hebdige (1979) termed “subculture”—style as refusal, aesthetics as resistance.

The description that Poe’s films “moved with an energy that mirrored the underground he traversed: densely composed, taut sequences of people forced into motion” recalls what Siegfried Kracauer (1995) identified as cinema’s affinity for “material reality.” Unlike Hollywood’s seamless narratives, No Wave cinema embraced contingency and fragmentation, what Gilles Deleuze (1986) called “the time-image”—cinema that disrupts linear chronology to reveal temporal multiplicity.

The cultural snippets reveal a deep anxiety about history and identity. ARTNews reports on the controversy surrounding the British Museum’s “Red, White, and Blue” fundraising ball for the Bayeux Tapestry loan, sparking fears of right-wing nationalism (ARTNews, 2025, December 26). Simultaneously, institutions are rebranding (The Philadelphia Museum of Art becoming “Pham”), seeking relevance through simplification. This tension is mirrored in the obituary of Brigitte Bardot (The New York Times, 2025). Her transition from a symbol of libertine sexuality to a controversial figure of the hard right illustrates the complex trajectory of Western cultural icons grappling with modernity and demographic change.

These conflicts recall the work of Pierre Nora on Lieux de mémoire (Sites of Memory). Nora argued that as “real” environments of memory fade (like the traditional village or the unbranded museum), we become obsessed with artificial sites of memory to anchor our identity (Nora, 1989). The controversy over the Bayeux Tapestry is not just about a party theme; it is a struggle over who owns the narrative of the nation in a fragmented, globalized United Kingdom.

Three linked cultural logics emerge.

Branding and the politics of recognition: Monocle pieces on museum rebrands and the cultural sector’s graphic minimalism point to the cultivation of an “insider” aesthetic that can exclude broader publics (Monaghan-Coombs). This is usefully read against Benedict Anderson’s and Pierre Nora’s reflections on national memory and lieux de mémoire: simplification of institutional identity can be both a marketing tactic and an assertion of symbolic ownership (Anderson, 1983; Nora, 1989).

Canon formation and market forces: ARTnews’s reporting about estate sales, the “great wealth transfer,” and renewed interest in older masters suggests a taste cycle shaped by liquidity events in the upper market. As collectors inherit and monetise estates, market valuation affects museum acquisitions, scholarship, and what is institutionalised as “important.” This dynamic is well described by studies of the art economy: cultural value is never purely aesthetic; it is co-produced by legal, fiscal and market structures (Heilbrun & Gray, 2001).

Cultural contestation as political theatre: The British Museum ball controversy and the conversion of diplomatic space into a Palestine museum are reminders that museums and exhibitions are theatres of political identity. Decisions about programming, names and loans become proximate sites where contested narratives about nationhood, colonial legacies and contemporary geopolitics are fought.

Andrew Tuck’s opener—“I like it here, this island of time between Christmas and New Year”—captures a temporal privilege that Zygmunt Bauman might have recognized as characteristic of the “tourist” class in liquid modernity (Bauman, 2000). While much of the world cannot afford to pause, Monocle’s imagined reader inhabits a zone of voluntary deceleration: long walks, reading, list-making, reflection. This is not universal downtime but a curated lull—a space for “regrouping” and “setting out ambitions” that presupposes security and leisure.

Nic Monisse’s columns extend this temporal theme into design, celebrating projects that “only improve with age”: Isabel Duprat’s maturing São Paulo gardens, Bofill’s repurposed cement factory, Finnish summer cottages adapted over decades. Here, sustainability emerges not as sacrifice but as aesthetic deepening—a patina earned through patient dwelling. This echoes Martin Heidegger’s concept of dwelling as thoughtful inhabitation rather than mere occupation (Heidegger, 1971), though transposed into a register of privilege rather than existential necessity.

The newsletters document precious metals reaching record highs: “Gold prices rose to more than $4,500 per ounce and silver exceeded $75 per ounce.” This flight to traditional stores of value amid inflation and geopolitical instability recalls what economic historian Karl Polanyi (1944/2001) termed the “double movement”—market expansion followed by social protection. When confidence in fiat currency and financial instruments erodes, investors return to tangible assets whose value derives partly from physical scarcity.

Yet the subsequent crash—”Silver futures fell... by almost 9%, the biggest one-day drop since 2021”—illustrates John Maynard Keynes’s (1936/2007) observation about markets: “The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent” (p. 106). The CME’s requirement that “traders put down more cash on their bets” reflects attempts to cool speculative frenzies through increased margin requirements, tools that Hyman Minsky (1986) argued are perpetually insufficient because financial innovation circumvents regulation.

The observation that “the Great Wealth Transfer will move from theory to reality in the art market in 2026... estate-driven sales, with long-held collections entering the market for the first time in decades” signals generational turnover. Thomas Piketty (2014) demonstrated in “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” that inherited wealth increasingly dominates earned income in contemporary capitalism, creating what he called “patrimonial capitalism”—society structured around inheritance rather than merit.

The prediction of “a ‘great taste transfer’” as “the next generation of collectors brings different aesthetics and priorities” suggests that cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1986) doesn’t reproduce automatically but requires active transmission. The observation that younger collectors “treat art and luxury objects... as significant assets requiring coordinated planning” reveals art’s increasing financialization, what Olav Velthuis (2005) termed the “symbolic economy,” where aesthetic and economic values intertwine inextricably.

The announcement that “The Times turns 175 years old in 2026” with publisher A.G. Sulzberger emphasizing “the value of reporting... especially when that work is under attack” articulates professional anxieties. This defensive posture reflects what media scholar C.W. Anderson (2013) called “post-industrial journalism”—established institutions struggling to maintain authority amid platform disruption and partisan hostility.

The emphasis on “independent reporting” as democracy’s bulwark invokes what Michael Schudson (2008) termed journalism’s “progressive ideal”—the belief that factual information enables rational public deliberation. Yet this ideal faces challenges both external (Trump’s attacks on “fake news”) and internal (corporate consolidation, algorithmic distribution). As sociologist Gaye Tuchman (1972) demonstrated, journalistic objectivity is itself a “strategic ritual” rather than achievable epistemic state.

The extraordinarily detailed copyright compliance instructions—with emphatic warnings like “15+ words from any single source is a SEVERE VIOLATION”—reveal existential anxiety about large language models trained on journalistic content. This tension exemplifies what legal scholar Julie Cohen (2019) called “the biopolitical public domain,” where information commodification conflicts with cumulative creativity.

The insistence on paraphrasing rather than quotation reverses traditional journalism’s reliance on source attribution for authority. This shift suggests recognition that training data for AI systems blurs authorship boundaries. As Matthew Kirschenbaum (2016) argues, “all writing is copywriting”—textual production has always involved appropriation and remix. The question becomes: who benefits financially from this generative process?

Tyler Brûlé’s Christmas Eve dispatch from the St Moritz pop-up is particularly revealing. Manning the till alongside colleague Aude, he observes the “very global community” of Monocle consumers: Turkish bankers, Korean families, Gulf gentlemen with impeccable beards. These interactions—brief, transactional, yet rich with mutual recognition—recall Richard Sennett’s argument in The Corrosion of Character (1998) that fleeting public encounters can still generate meaningful social cohesion. Brûlé’s delight in these moments contrasts sharply with the digital mediation that increasingly structures contemporary interaction. The shop floor becomes a rare space where strangers acknowledge one another’s presence without the “civil inattention” Goffman described in urban life (Goffman, 1963).

Yet this sociality is deeply stratified. The encounters Brûlé celebrates occur within a luxury micro-economy: 10 square meters of curated goods in one of the world’s most expensive resorts. The warmth of these interactions depends on shared class position; the Gulf visitors’ questions about potential Monocle cafés in Abu Dhabi or Dubai reveal a common horizon of global elite mobility.

The newsletters collectively document what historian Adam Tooze (2022) termed “polycrisis”—not discrete problems but intersecting emergencies that amplify each other. Climate catastrophe accelerates migration, which fuels nativist politics, which undermines international cooperation needed to address climate change. Technological acceleration promises solutions while concentrating power in ways that exacerbate inequality. Cultural institutions struggle to remain relevant while maintaining distinctiveness from market forces.

Yet within this bleak panorama, moments of unexpected grace emerge: the 101-year-old Japanese farmer who finds meaning through continued labor; the Syrian refugees celebrating Assad’s fall after a year of tyranny; the Australian man who tackled a mass shooter at Bondi Beach. These instances recall what Rebecca Solnit (2009) termed “a paradise built in hell”—how disaster often elicits solidarity and mutual aid that challenge atomistic assumptions about human nature.

The temporal frame of these newsletters—the liminal space between Christmas and New Year—invites reflection without demanding resolution. As literary critic Frank Kermode (1967) argued in “The Sense of an Ending,” humans impose narrative coherence on time’s flow through endings that retrospectively organize beginnings and middles. Yet 2026 arrives not as resolution but continuation, suggesting what Judith Butler (2020) called “the force of nonviolence”—the recognition that we remain constitutively interdependent, vulnerable to forces beyond individual control yet capable of collective response.

The geographic span of these texts—from Lagos’s Detty December parties to Antarctic glaciers, from Vienna’s coffee houses to Venezuelan port facilities—maps a world system that remains, in Immanuel Wallerstein’s (1974) terms, characterized by core-periphery hierarchies even as those positions shift. The aesthetic strategies differ: Monocle’s curated refinement, ARTNews’s insider gossip, The Economist’s analytical distance, Newsweek’s geopolitical focus, The Times’ comprehensive documentation. Yet all participate in what Jürgen Habermas (1962/1991) called the “public sphere”—that communicative space where private individuals constitute a public through rational-critical debate, however imperfectly realized.

What emerges is less a coherent narrative than what Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari (1980/1987) termed a “rhizome”—connections proliferating in multiple directions without hierarchical organization. The newsletters’ juxtapositions—design philosophy adjacent to military exercises, food recommendations beside deportation accounts—enact the disjunctive experience of contemporary consciousness. As cultural theorist Lauren Berlant (2011) observed, we inhabit “crisis ordinariness,” where catastrophe becomes ambient condition rather than exceptional event.

If there’s hope to be found, it lies not in technocratic solutions or return to imagined stability but in what poet Adrienne Rich (1978) called “dreaming the real”—imagining and enacting alternatives to what claims inevitability. The newsletters document this too: workers’ cooperatives in San Francisco, mutual aid networks, journalists risking themselves to bear witness, designers insisting that human touch matters. These practices suggest what anthropologist Anna Tsing (2015) termed “the arts of living on a damaged planet”—not restoration to some pristine state but cultivation of livable arrangements within ruins.

What these newsletters ultimately perform is a fantasy of frictionless global citizenship: one can appreciate Viennese formalism on Saturday, South Tyrolean raclette on Sunday, Japanese glasscraft on Monday, and Slovenian chalets by week’s end—all while maintaining a coherent aesthetic sensibility. This fantasy depends on extraordinary mobility, wealth, and cultural literacy. Yet the very pleasure of these texts lies in their attentiveness to small, grounded details: the bow-tied waiters at Café Prückel, the caramelized edges of Kaiserschmaren, the magnetized perpetual calendar from 1950s Milan. In an era of algorithmic acceleration and geopolitical fracture, Monocle offers a fantasy of slowness and coherence—not as resistance, but as retreat into a beautifully appointed enclave. The newsletters do not ask us to change the world; they ask us to inhabit it more tastefully.

The register of consumer-lifestyle optimism (Monocle cafés, design directories, winter playlists) sits uneasily with the securitised, politicised world of ARTnews stories. But they are mutually constitutive: cultural consumption produces the market that sustains large institutions; those institutions in turn legitimize objects and practices through display and loan. Technology accelerates commodification (platform retail, “ghost kitchens”); craft claims and third-place projects offer minor but meaningful resistances. A final note on geopolitics: the drills around Taiwan and the Asia correspondents’ infrastructural forecasts remind us that cultural circuits and political circuits are not separate. Cultural diplomacy, tourism flows, infrastructure projects and museum partnerships all depend on—and help to stabilise or unsettle—broader strategic relations.

The week ends with a striking contrast: the “Detty December” parties in Lagos, Nigeria, described by The New York Times as a month-long fever dream of joy and excess, occurring simultaneously with the “freezing blackouts” in Ukraine and Russia (Newsweek, 2025). This disparity serves as a grim reminder of William Gibson’s famous aphorism: “The future is already here—it’s just not very evenly distributed” (Gibson, 2003). As 2026 approaches, the newsletters paint a picture of a world where the wealthy retreat to “islands of time” in St. Moritz or Mar-a-Lago, insulated by wealth and geography, while the peripheries—whether in the trenches of Donbas or the fire-ravaged hills of Los Angeles—bear the brunt of the “accelerating” history. The “reflective, erudite” life championed by Monocle is increasingly a luxury good, a gated community of the mind, besieged by the raw, kinetic forces of a world order in violent transition.

Share

Adorno, T. W., & Horkheimer, M. (2002). Dialectic of enlightenment: Philosophical fragments. Stanford University Press. (Original work published 1944)

Agamben, G. (1998). Homo sacer: Sovereign power and bare life. Stanford University Press.

Allison, G. (2017). Destined for war: Can America and China escape Thucydides’s trap? Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. Verso.

Anderson, C. W. (2013). Rebuilding the news: Metropolitan journalism in the digital age. Temple University Press.

Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. University of Minnesota Press.

Arendt, H. (1973). The origins of totalitarianism. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. (Original work published 1951)

Arrighi, G. (2007). Adam Smith in Beijing: Lineages of the twenty-first century. Verso.

Baudrillard, J. (1991). The Gulf War Did Not Take Place. Indiana University Press.

Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid Modernity. Polity Press.

Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Sage.

Becker, H. S. (1982). Art worlds. University of California Press.

Benjamin, W. (2008). The work of art in the age of its technological reproducibility. In M. W. Jennings, B. Doherty, & T. Y. Levin (Eds.), The work of art in the age of its technological reproducibility, and other writings on media (pp. 19-55). Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1936)

Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. Yale University Press.

Bennett, T. (1995). The birth of the museum: History, theory, politics. Routledge.

Berlant, L. (2011). Cruel optimism. Duke University Press.

Berman, M. (1982). All that is solid melts into air: The experience of modernity. Simon & Schuster.

Bloch, E. (1986). The principle of hope (N. Plaice, S. Plaice, & P. Knight, Trans.). MIT Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste (R. Nice, Trans.). Harvard University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). Greenwood.

Bourdieu, P., & Darbel, A. (1991). The love of art: European art museums and their public. Stanford University Press.

Boyd, d. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. Yale University Press.

Butler, J. (2020). The force of nonviolence: An ethico-political bind. Verso.

Carey, J. W. (1989). Communication as culture: Essays on media and society. Unwin Hyman.

Clausewitz, C. von. (1976). On war (M. Howard & P. Paret, Trans.). Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1832)

Cohen, J. E. (2019). Between truth and power: The legal constructions of informational capitalism. Oxford University Press.

Crawford, M. B. (2009). Shop class as soulcraft: An inquiry into the value of work. Penguin.

Cuno, J. (2008). Who owns antiquity? Museums and the battle over our ancient heritage. Princeton University Press.

Davis, M. (1998). Ecology of fear: Los Angeles and the imagination of disaster. Metropolitan Books.

Deleuze, G. (1986). Cinema 1: The movement-image. University of Minnesota Press.

Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published 1980)

DiMaggio, P. (1987). Classification in art. American Sociological Review, 52(4), 440-455.

Foucault, M. (2008). The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–1979. Palgrave Macmillan.

Gibson, W. (2003, December 4). The future is already here – it’s just not very evenly distributed. The Economist.

Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings. Free Press.

Grandin, G. (2019). The end of the myth: From the frontier to the border wall in the mind of America. Metropolitan Books.

Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. MIT Press. (Original work published 1962)

Han, B.-C. (2015). The Burnout Society. Stanford University Press.

Harvey, D. (1989). The condition of postmodernity: An enquiry into the origins of cultural change. Blackwell.

Harvey, D. (2003). The new imperialism. Oxford University Press.

Hebdige, D. (1979). Subculture: The meaning of style. Methuen.

Heidegger, M. (1971). Poetry, language, thought (A. Hofstadter, Trans.). Harper & Row.

Heilbrun, J., & Gray, C. M. (2001). The economics of art and culture (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Huntington, S. P. (1996). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. Simon & Schuster.

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. NYU Press.

Kermode, F. (1967). The sense of an ending: Studies in the theory of fiction. Oxford University Press.

Keynes, J. M. (2007). The general theory of employment, interest, and money. Palgrave Macmillan. (Original work published 1936)

Khalili, L. (2018). Sinews of war and trade: Shipping and capitalism in the Arabian Peninsula. Verso.

Kirschenbaum, M. G. (2016). Track changes: A literary history of word processing. Harvard University Press.

Kissinger, H. (1994). Diplomacy. Simon & Schuster.

Klein, N. (2000). No logo: Taking aim at the brand bullies. Picador.

Kracauer, S. (1995). The mass ornament: Weimar essays. Harvard University Press.

LaCapra, D. (2001). Writing history, writing trauma. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Lamb, S. (2014). Successful aging as a contemporary obsession: Global perspectives. In S. Lamb (Ed.), Successful aging as a contemporary obsession: Global perspectives (pp. 1-23). Rutgers University Press.

Lessig, L. (2004). Free culture: How big media uses technology and the law to lock down culture and control creativity. Penguin.

Lesthaeghe, R. (2014). The second demographic transition: A concise overview of its development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(51), 18112-18115.

Malm, A. (2016). Fossil capital: The rise of steam power and the roots of global warming. Verso.

Marx, K. (1988). Economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1844. Prometheus Books. (Original work published 1844)

McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. McGraw-Hill.

Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W.W. Norton & Company.

Mearsheimer, J. J. (2014). The tragedy of great power politics (Updated ed.). W. W. Norton.

Minsky, H. P. (1986). Stabilizing an unstable economy. Yale University Press.

Morton, T. (2013). Hyperobjects: Philosophy and ecology after the end of the world. University of Minnesota Press.

Nixon, R. (2011). Slow violence and the environmentalism of the poor. Harvard University Press.

Nora, P. (1989). Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Mémoire. Representations, (26), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.2307/2928520

Oldenburg, R. (1989). The great good place: Cafés, coffee shops, community centers, beauty parlors, general stores, bars, hangouts, and how they get you through the day. Marlowe & Company.

Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Harvard University Press.

Polanyi, K. (2001). The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time. Beacon Press. (Original work published 1944)

Rich, A. (1978). The dream of a common language: Poems 1974-1977. W. W. Norton.

Schudson, M. (2008). Why democracies need an unlovable press. Polity Press.

Scott, J. C. (1985). Weapons of the weak: Everyday forms of peasant resistance. Yale University Press.

Sennett, R. (1998). The corrosion of character: The personal consequences of work in the new capitalism. W.W. Norton.

Sennett, R. (2008). The craftsman. Yale University Press.

Solnit, R. (2009). A paradise built in hell: The extraordinary communities that arise in disaster. Viking.

Tooze, A. (2022, June 29). Welcome to the world of the polycrisis. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/498398e7-11b1-494b-9cd3-6d669dc3de33

Tsing, A. L. (2015). The mushroom at the end of the world: On the possibility of life in capitalist ruins. Princeton University Press.

Tuchman, G. (1972). Objectivity as strategic ritual: An examination of newsmen’s notions of objectivity. American Journal of Sociology, 77(4), 660-679.

Turner, V. (1969). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. Cornell University Press.

Veblen, T. (1994). The theory of the leisure class. Dover. (Original work published 1899)

Velthuis, O. (2005). Talking prices: Symbolic meanings of prices on the market for contemporary art. Princeton University Press.

Virilio, P. (1986). Speed and politics. Semiotext(e).

Wallerstein, I. (1974). The modern world-system: Capitalist agriculture and the origins of the European world-economy in the sixteenth century. Academic Press.

Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. McGraw-Hill.

Weizenbaum, J. (1976). Computer power and human reason: From judgment to calculation. W. H. Freeman.

Westad, O. A. (2012). Restless empire: China and the world since 1750. Basic Books.

Williams, R. (1973). The country and the city. Oxford University Press.

Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121-136.

Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.

Zukin, S. (1995). The cultures of cities. Blackwell.

[Written, Researched, and Edited by Pablo Markin. Some parts of the text have been produced with the aid of Claude, Anthropic, Gemini, Google, ChatGPT, OpenAI, and Grok, xAI, tools (January 3, 2026). The featured image has been generated in Canva (January 3, 2026).]

[Support the Open Access Blogs: https://openaccessblogs.gumroad.com/l/openaccessblogssupport.]

OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Pablo Markin (January 3, 2026). The Liminal Space of Year’s End: Cultural Patina, Cosmopolitan Ease and Everyday Life Erosion. Open Access Blog.