There was nothing particularly out of the ordinary when considering the road trip I embarked on earlier this semester: four friends, 12 hours of travel, and stunning 73-degree California weather. Shortly after we took off, a popular ’20s hit blasted from the Spotify queue, and without skipping a beat, one of my friends pressed the skip button. “He’s, like, super cancelled,” she blurted out at my perplexed expression. “His politics are a mess.”
Courtesy of my friend’s wariness, I did not visit the artist’s discography for the rest of the trip, but amidst the silence, I noticed a curiosity greater than my dissatisfaction bubbling. By no means did I condone his alleged actions, nor did I consider myself a politically apathetic person, yet suspended between these extremes, I remained unsure how I felt about the artist himself. I believed two things to be true: that the artist’s morals, as they appeared outwardly, were murky, and that the artist produced good music. Perhaps my attachment to his lyricism, or perhaps a more rational line of thinking, invited me to view these aspects not as irreconcilable but simply capable of coexisting. It is also at this junction that I thought to ask myself: Why do we want celebrities to be on “our side” anyway? What do we gain from morally aligning ourselves with individuals we have never met and likely never will, who know not of us nor about us, and who possess no tangible impact on our day-to-day living?
Modern-day America remains faithful to being both a melting pot and a mixed bag. At least in theory, the liberty of speech and thought has the quality of inviting a parade of diverse opinions that sometimes blur the lines between relative and absolute. Is climate change real? Education funding is shrinking! Inequality rises even as GDP increases! Minimum wage is higher than ever and still not enough! When an environment is perpetually producing something to stand behind, how does one know where to stand at all? What can guide us to adopt the most virtuous, the most just, and the most trendy values? Or, perhaps, who can?
Taylor Swift said it best: “You should find another guiding light, but I shine so bright.” The media spilling out of our devices, the billboards crowding our commutes, the intermissions between TV episodes — everything is decorated with the hypnotic lullabies of pop culture, of that which is old and new, and of the newest age’s guide to maintaining social aptitude. Against the backdrop of ineffective local administrations, declining trust in government, and rising political polarization, celebrities have not only become beacons for the values the public wants represented, but also checkpoints for navigating an increasingly noisy social environment.
Of course, it is not merely celebrities and their audiences starring in this discourse. As a matter of fact, an entire wave of emerging and existing political movements is driving this cultural shift. For the fans, assurance is a powerful motivator. An influential public figure supporting their most salient views means that the belief now feels safer, more accredited, and less isolating. Naturally, a search for this validation escalates into either a sense of pride or bitterness, depending on the context.
Celebrities, on the other hand, sign a much more complicated contract. Accompanying the appraisal, acknowledgement, and visibility that speaking up can bring to a figure or movement is the knowledge that silence or deviation may very well be interpreted as complicity, ruthlessness, or moral corruption. Add the fact that the internet has allowed fanbases to become more spread apart, diverse, and polarized than ever before, and it becomes abundantly clear that it is impossible to please everyone.
My personal take on this dilemma is that it illuminates a core flaw in contemporary politics: the assumption that political alignment is an inseparable part of individual identity and that variation is not a difference of opinion but a betrayal of trust. Given their stature as simplified, perpetually available public figurines, celebrities are particularly vulnerable to this dynamic. That is not to say they are solely victims to the situation. It is very well the case that a correctly issued statement from an A-list celebrity can make as large — or perhaps even larger — of an impact as an entire political rally. Yet, the fundamental problem remains that modern-day American politics have increasingly begun to engineer a system in which abstinence from political participation can escalate into targeted, wide-scale vilification.
The result? Poorly worded statements that fail to make any real point in their vague, ambiguous, and (in the worst sense) people-pleasing cadence. Then again, what else can be expected? If contemporary silence is considered a scandal, what alternatives remain? By that account, isn’t forcing an individual to disclose their personal stance on politics or crises a supreme breach of privacy? I will leave that up to the reader’s discretion.
In an ideal world, political alignment would not require constant validation. The search for signatories for what should otherwise be an autonomous decision has become increasingly normalized in the post-pandemic era of rapid online activity, and as I finish writing this article in this stuffy car, I find myself still unsure of whether I should be allowed to listen to a “taboo” artist’s discography. Perhaps it is that insecurity in self-determination that we should endeavor to cancel.
Featured Image Source: iStock Photo