Pop-culture Politics: Why Authors, Artists, and Actors are as Important as Politicians 

“A plan to ambush this Bush administration, mush the Senate’s face in and push this generation of kids to stand and fight for the right to say somethin’ you might not like”. Although Eminem, through his 2002 song Square Dance, may not have performed in-depth political analysis that fundamentally shattered the foundations of George W. Bush’s White House, it did mobilise a movement of rebellious young voters. Specifically, the rising cohort of outspoken, anti-establishment youths who espoused liberal change through brutal, often crude, honesty. It may surprise you that academic literature has accredited the rise in youth turnout between the 2000 and 2004 US elections turnout, the largest increase amongst any age group during the period, to politicised celebrities. Resonating with their respective audiences is innate for pop-culture stars, and something politicians have long attempted to emulate: so why do we often fail to recognise the political significance of celebrity figures?

The name George Orwell has likely invaded your English Literature education at one point or another. Orwell, through his deeply perceptive work, instilled a deep societal understanding of the horrors of totalitarianism, serving as a warning to the political extremism plaguing the 20th century. High-brow political literature, emanating sophisticated (if not overtly overt) philosophical critique, can be considered, with relative ease, a political force. 1984 and Animal Farm were intended as means of steering political discourse assuredly against controlling, coercive governance. Whether it be dystopian classics or allegorical novellas, Orwell’s work is arguably not as prominent as the influence the work itself had in instilling anti-totalitarian views across its readership at a time in which belligerent nationalism and Marxist-Leninism were accepted on a minimal, but still eerily sizeable, scale. The work of Orwell was envisioned to provide thought-provoking narratives as a means of political influence, and because we perceive it as such, we easily credit its success in this regard. Yet, the political influence of any work, classic or contemporary, ought to be evaluated based on the influence it has - as opposed to the influence we perceive it to have.  

The dramatically entitled ‘crisis of politics’ refers to rising levels of apathy when it comes to elections, governance and socio-economic issues, often stemming from the frightening levels of distrust the electorate has in public officials. During a time in which being anti-political has arguably never been more popular, people still generate distinct personal webs of political opinion. Those who do not seek to inform themselves through what can be classified as traditional means, whether it be news reporting, the rhetoric of politicians themselves or political literature, still become informed in that they gain a personal political position. This can be accredited to the media we consume, the most influential of which being the transfixions of popular culture, which possess the largest audiences and thus provide the largest platforms. Popular culture is the intersection - the area in which those who consider themselves distinctly political, apolitical or non-political are all exposed. The remit of the politicians extends only to those within the sphere of the political. It is left to the world’s artists, authors, and actors to inform the realms beyond. 

Whether it be the outraged lyricism against the violence of The Troubles (Zombie by The Cranberries), a show exploring societal morality through the ethics of crime and human nature (AMC’s Breaking Bad), or a film graphically exploring the barbarism generated within a trickle-down class structure (Basque Film’s The Platform), our culture defines our political parameters. The diffusion of political ideals portrayed within media by those acting within, producing, and publicising it, are often not fully grasped by audiences, especially those who claim they despise politics. An example I find personally humorous is the BBC’s Doctor Who, a science-fiction show in which the main villains are reflections of Nazisim and Marxian Communism, and yet many members of the public (and bafflingly some academics who ought to know better) claim it has no political inclinations. Whether it be issue-focused, bringing a topic to light across the sofas and coffee tables of the world or agenda-setting, establishing what ought to be acceptable or unacceptable conversations, popular media is never apolitical or non-political, or at least I have yet to be shown an example of such. Politics concerns itself with philosophy, policy and personality, the same blocks upon which popular culture's narratives, notations and novellas are built. The phrase ‘Pop-culture Politics’ is fitting, in that it reflects the underlying and underappreciated significance of one upon the other, but more prominently the former upon the latter. 

Christopher Lasch once said, “The effect of the mass media is not to elicit belief but to maintain the apparatus of addiction”—he was wrong; it does both. 

Cianan Sheekey

Managing Editor

28th November 2024