Of Gods & Men
Discussing celebrity (in)activism with Alaia and Asisa
In a story of Gods & Men, Gods are seen hailed and praised for their transcendent powers and abilities that mere mortals could only dream of. In the mythological sense, these powers constitute the ability to dictate weather patterns, start wars, and shift the earth on its axis. In the contemporary context of a story set here in our world, these powers constitute influence, persuasion and (when deemed necessary) the ability to conceal true intention.
With the constant push for political action, people’s consideration of celebrity activism has never been so forefront. People are learning to finally de-pedestalize celebrities and in turn hold them more accountable for their political (in)activism, especially when there are clear inconsistencies. In spite of recognizing that celebrities have selfish qualities that nearly become a prerequisite for their status and that we can not hold them to the same standards as other high-influence individuals (such as politicians), there is also an expectation for celebrities to use their platforms positively, especially in a time of so much geopolitical tension. Fanbases are conditioned to constantly defend their celebrity favorites rather than ever having them explain themselves. This pattern opens up a key issue of marginalized people who were the foundation of fanbases not getting properly advocated for. It’s a cycle of behavior in which fans will constantly enable. Read on as we divulge into celebrity activism through Taylor Swift and Beyonce, following their failure to utilize influence for good. In the conversation surrounding the dynamic between celebrity activism and capitalism, no one is excused from political silence.
It has indisputably been Taylor Swift’s year. From the massive economic success of the Eras Tour celebrating her ten albums to being named TIME Magazine’s 2023 Person of the Year, people who had forgotten about Swift beyond the serial dater caricature now saw her everywhere. Whether that be in weather forecasts, cameras panning to her at Kansas City Chiefs games, financial reports, the list goes on.
As TIME editor Sam Lansky describes in his Person of the Year profile for Swift:
Cities, stadiums, and streets were renamed for her [during her tour]. Every time she came to a new place, a mini economic boom took place as hotels and restaurants saw a surge of visitors. In releasing her concert movie, Swift bypassed studios and streamers, instead forging an unusual pact with AMC, giving the theater chain its highest single-day ticket sales in history.
With the spotlight all on Swift, it’s hard to imagine her as purely an artist, and not a businesswoman in tandem. On the Eras Tour, setlists for more commercially successful albums (1989, reputation) were noticeably longer than those of albums that appealed to a slightly more niche audience (Speak Now, evermore). For the first time, Swift’s tact has not been demonized, but wholly praised. With mainstream feminism making its rounds (especially in the year of Barbie) people have found an easy female pillar to either support or dog on. Swift’s image hasn’t been as polarizing since her infamous Kardashian-West feud sparked over a doctored phone call.
Even the Person of the Year marketing was made in a way to tease a rerecording of her reputation album, following similar motifs and aesthetics of the era.
But where is your power now, Taylor?
Usually covered head-to-toe in performance suitable costume attire, we tend to forget the person underneath it all. If we remember the personhood, the humility of a celebrity it becomes far easier to hold them to standards we (mere mortals) adhere to. Our idolisation of celebrities whilst so frequently misplaced at the very least speaks to the truth that they of course possess far more power than we do. In currencies; social, economic and cultural capital they have far more to their names, and so as we praise them for their powers in entertainment, it’s worth asking them to put their powers of persuasion to good use.
Since early October many have been asking all the right questions in pertinence to Taylor’s failure to demonstrate support for Palestinians given her substantially wide outreach. There were of course armed Swifties at the ready with keyboard weaponry with the intention of defending her; “She’s an artist not a politician” they cried out. But I wonder where this defense came from, whether it derived from a belief in Taylor’s strong moral character, with their defenses an effort to protect an image they could believe in or whether the defense came from a projective need to prove that they would never support an individual who at best has only demonstrated an interest in politics when she might be directly affected.
In 2018 Taylor was conveniently recorded advocating as someone with a huge platform for her rights to ‘be able to speak about things that matter’. “I need to use my voice” she said.
This clip came before impending elections, and a desire to protect so-called feminist ideals against republican candidate Marsha Blackburn. She urged fans to register on National Voter Registration Day, posting on Instagram directing her 272 million followers to Vote.org. The post prompted a significant response, with Vote.org experiencing an average of 13,000 users every half hour after Swift's message. The organization registered more than 35,000 voters, marking a 22.5% increase from the previous year, with a 115% increase in registrations by 18-year-olds. Additionally, it’s reported that Vote.org assisted 50,000 people in verifying their registration status. Andrea Hailey, the CEO of Vote.org, expressed amazement at an 849% increase compared to 2021, highlighting the enthusiasm of this generation in shaping election outcomes. Hailey referred to the impressive numbers as a "love letter" to Taylor Swift for amplifying voter voices. Despite Bredesen’s loss this time around, Taylor was seen undertaking continued political engagement by endorsing the Biden-Harris campaign in 2020.
But I thought she was “An artist not a politician?”…
We have to admit that theoretically if Taylor swift was on tour and demanded for a ceasefire, then Swifties having wasted their money would be pissed and they would soon find a way to protest. In an ideal scenario, protests would be born from the right political motivation and not celebrity influence, but in the same way that change ensued in 2018, this very same energy could have been transferred to supporting Palestinian aid.
It is one thing to fail to involve oneself with geo-politics. It is another thing entirely to demonstrate selectivity when it comes to choosing which issues are pressing enough for public outcry. I ask again that we keep in mind our mistake in failing to recognise the human-like aspects of any celebrity, because a perception that illustrates them for being shallow plastic dolls for entertainment is one that can double as a shield from which celebrities are able to retreat behind in times of crisis.
But the receipts are there…
Going off of Asisa’s point: Swift has historically been able to rally people towards a cause, which only makes her silence more curious. It seems she plunges into the pitfall so many celebrities do: only truly speaking up if it somehow benefits her. When Ticketmaster sales were failing for the Eras Tour who called them out on it and placed attention on them but Taylor Swift. When Ticketmaster was on trial by the United States Senate, whose lyrics were used but Taylor Swift’s.
If her influence could yield results such as a large entertainment company like Ticketmaster being investigated for antitrust and consumer laws or the over 50,000 voter turn-out as a response to Swift’s Instagram post–why not take political action like she’s done in the past?
All of her major political moves seem to be concentrated around the 2019 Lover era, perhaps going into the previous and subsequent reputation (2017) and folklore (2020) eras as well.
In Lover, Swift made gay rights a focal point of one of her songs: You Need To Calm Down and seemingly the era as a whole. The music video featured countless queer celebrities and themes, even several drag queens. Ryan Reynolds even “briefly appears as an artist painting a picture of New York City's Stonewall Inn, where LGBTQIA+ patrons famously staged an anti-police riot in the name of equality back in 1969.” The final message at the end of the music video is a title card that asks viewers to sign her petition in support of the Equality Act, directly sparking a direct political conversation.
It seems that Swift categorizes her politics around her eras too. Lover was her “political era,” now that she’s at least three “eras” removed from it, she’s similarly removed from politics. Her documentary Miss Americana (2020), a so-called “vow” to become more political and outspoken, is practically forgotten.
From the perspective of someone who enjoys her music, it’s even easier to see these eras for what they are. Lover (2019): glittery girlboss feminism, establishing herself back into the mainstream. folklore (2020): proving to critics that she is beyond a pop sensation, she has lyrical merit that’s easier to see now. evermore (2020): she did it once, let her do it again. Midnights (2022): taking a look back now that she’s more respected, lets her tour again since she has a new album. Throughout all of these changes, fans will undeniably support her, and in turn her political movements (or lack thereof), without question because it’s easy. It is easy to support Taylor Swift when she seems to be so high in her cultural power and the dislike against her seems to be so rooted in misogyny and not a genuine or nuanced critique.
To reiterate, only when politics benefit her does she participate. Even then, she tends to take the easiest stance. Donald Trump stated his dislike for her verbatim in 2018, saying he likes her music “25% less now” following Swift’s endorsement of two Democrats, and in turn, Swift discounted her merchandise 25%. Not only doubling down on her opinion, but increasing sales and attention towards her own products.
Behind the pretty masks…
Because of the way in which celebrities prioritize branding and the curation of self image, it is easy to forget the ways in which they bear similarities to other business owners; CEO’s that we deem to be immoral or exploitative. But just like those we criticize; the Musk’s and the Besoses of our world, there is something to be said about fame as a more acceptable form of capitalism.
Even where celebrities aren’t always exploitative of a labour force (a debate that remains to be settled), we can see the ways in which they’re exploitative of the easily bought hearts and minds of adoring fans. Here, celebrities are able to remain consistent with an image, whilst behaving in ways that are contrary to progressive social norms that would usually demand other greedy capitalists face accountability.
Just like those we usually criticize there is a commodity here too, one not only for exchange but for profit. The commodity here is the access to their personal lives. In the age of social media, celebrities like Taylor commodify their personal lives, selling access to their daily activities, relationships and controversies for financial gain. Today’s artist has been seen doing this through her infamously consistent use of personal material in her songs about relationships.
Just like those we usually criticize, celebrities also live extravagant lifestyles. Whether they choose to show us this or not, celebrities use luxury in the same way that other capitalists do, where excessive spending and rash overconsumption help to facilitate convenience.
The capitalistic approach of accumulating wealth for personal enjoyment rather than contributing to societal well-being isn’t a vice only seen in those capitalists more clearly seen, and even in between our decision to praise celebrities for their successes, we should be far more vigilant of how cries of abundance really sound like proud boasts that speak to an inequity.
Whether these truths inevitably call into question the practices of some of our faves, it’s hard to discuss accumulated celebrity wealth without mentioning some of the most wealthy within the entertainment industry…
Beyonce’s Renaissance uses queer culture to the max, paying homage to her late gay uncle. She donned extravagant costumes reminiscent of the disco era, used musical motifs from ballroom culture, and connected it back to black heritage as a whole. She celebrates queer culture and bolsters it to public attention, yes. However, it’s hard to deny that a part of that uplifting doesn’t come from a personal gain perspective.
After accusations of “whitewashing” herself, Beyonce tries to reestablish herself within the circles that most ardently support her. She tries to gain respect because she’s become so far removed. And it’s successful! Similar to Swift, Beyonce becomes protected by her fanbase against allegations of capitalizing rather than paying tribute.
Omise’eke Tinsley, professor of Black Studies at UC Santa Barbara, sees the album as “an expansion to her advocacy.” She emphasizes that Renaissance signifies a “moving away from a sisterhood … [of] primarily Black cis women, and she’s really partnering with trans and gender nonconforming folks” aligning herself more with her marginalized fanbase.
Queen B, Black Capitalism and some clear comparisons
Beyonce; an honorary queen in the entertainment industry is for example always talking about generational wealth in song. We can’t discredit her for her success in a way that seeks to undermine her unique abilities or talent, and I could never claim not to appreciate her artistry and representation as an admirable performer for young black artists everywhere. But I wonder whether the illusiveness of her talent allows us to keep our eyes closed when it comes to the ways in which she, (like those we usually criticise) amongst other celebrities also mimics that of a capitalist executive. This becomes even more of an issue when we emphasise her representation as an esteemed black woman in our society, where the black community are seen making excuses for her as a result.
Still there is a larger discussion to be had here, especially in the context of a discussion centering celebrity activism (of the current lack of it).
There’s an argument to be made here, one that informs us of a truth that ultimately capitalism supersedes other forms of marginalization because of how it both supports and is supported by other oppressive systems.
Whether we’re discussing Taylor swift and her existence as a woman in the entertainment industry, or we’re talking about Beyonce and her success as a black person in the entertainment industry, both celebrities are seen disconnected from the experiences of the community they supposedly represent because of their proximity to wealth. This explains the consistency in a failure to demonstrate political solidarity when it's most needed, despite the two being representative of entirely different demographics.
Taylor Swift – The supposed feminist is seen repeatedly criticized for a white feminism that allows her to prioritize self-actualisation over collective liberation. Her version of feminism is nowhere to be seen now as women all over the world face problems more threatening to their sense of autonomy & basic human rights.
For example, as it happens now women everywhere in Gaza face a crisis of sanitation and hygiene as the U.N estimates that some 700,000 women and girls don’t have adequate access to basic reproductive products as a result of the genocide and their displacement.
Similarly, Beyonce has been seen over the years repeatedly capitalizing off of imagery and cultural references found within the African diaspora but fails to advocate for humanitarian crises happening in those same regions, and has in fact been seen overtly insensitive to these issues entirely.
The artist previously faced criticism for wearing a £22 million necklace, previously labeled a 'blood diamond’ during a Tiffany campaign with Jay-Z. She captioned the post "ABOUT LOVE @tiffanyandco”, and was reportedly unaware of the diamond's history and was ‘disappointed’ about the oversight. The diamond's origin dated back to De Beers’ Kimberley Mine in colonial South Africa, known for cruel working conditions and worker deaths, and the post came just years before further revelation about the exploitation of labour in the mining of similar resources in the DRC.
It seems that both of these stars have risen beyond the groups that created them and have entered a separate realm that caters only to the elite in a way that transcends racial boundaries and moves purely into wealth. It’s been stated before, but both women are intensely strategic about their public personas, understanding when to “team up” when the media tries to pit them against each other.
In particular, images of Taylor Swift and Beyonce at each other’s movie premieres are designed to squash rumors of their beef, and form a supposed allyship between two female superstars. A collaborative effort in order to strengthen fanbase protection. Each have been credited with “[driving] the global economy.” Collectively, they represent separate ideals, both rooted in money’s power. As Janelle Hobson of Ms Magazine states, “If whiteness is still culturally dominant, it stands to reason that one star is held up as an ideal, while the other is celebrated (yet still criticized) for her proximity to it.”
This clear marketing tactic theoretically designed to unite fans and maximize the outreach for the benefit of both artists is also fitting in the way that it reveals to us the ultimate takeaway. The ability of two artists in entirely different categories seen in the same spaces bears a reminder that whether we find ourselves identifying more closely with one of the other, the two (alongside hundreds of other celebrity favorites) belong to the same inaccessible category of wealth.
Ultimately the message here is one that advises us all to be more wary of how capitalism disguises itself behind prettier masks. We should remain consistent with our criticism of those with larger influence, especially where we’re contributing to their continued successes. Where the persona’s that appear fail to align with practices performed we should be more vigilant, and where tours are being promoted in place of links shared to aid in a crisis we should consider a collective re-focus.
After all, in the story of Gods & Men; Gods are only Gods because of the power we afford them, and as wings made from money carry them all to some higher place - I guess all we’re asking is for these positions to be put to better use.
- Alaia & Asisa
Thank you for reading (hopefully this was as exciting to read as it was to write).
Collab of the year and it's only January! This was such a pleasure to read :)