By Ella Fortine, Staff Writer
The superficial pointing of fingers and blaming of celebrities doesn’t fix any real world problems, and we should stop pretending it does.
Sabrina Carpenter releases an album cover on Instagram. The whole online world immediately begins arguing…about the politics of it. “She’s setting feminism back 50 years,” admonishes one commenter. “This is so problematic,” sneers another. Now, the social commentary and artistic expression of Carpenter’s Man’s Best Friend can be discussed in a reasonable way, but since when did Twitter—sorry, X—become the hallowed ground of intelligent artistic discussion? Beyond that, what good would that discussion do anyone?
We have become increasingly invested in the philosophies of pop stars and red carpet darlings, letting their professed ideals guide national conversations about real and important issues. Taylor Swift endorses Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election—an election perceived to be the deciding factor in the fate of American democracy—and four hundred thousand people click through to register to vote. Chappel Roan decides to withhold her endorsement, explaining her choice to the masses in a TikTok, and flocks of fans and haters alike race to berate her for holding an opinion that did not match up with exactly what they wanted. Roan subsequently went through the online wringer a couple more times over red carpet interactions, an SNL performance, a podcast appearance, and…not wanting to take a selfie? One might even say she’s…canceled. Gasp!
Cancellation is the perfect tool of the performative internet activist. It is standing in the burning building yelling fire, then calmly sitting down and turning to the TV. The reality of the situation is feminist progress is being set back. The country is dealing with deep problems that need attention. But if we are looking to point fingers, I would turn to the Supreme Court and the current administration before Sabrina Carpenter (or any other random famous blonde woman). Reckoning with the loss of fundamental rights for several groups of people is difficult, and more so to attempt to engage in effective action, but moralizing to millionaire celebrities and their fans on social media is certainly not an effective action. Deeming something problematic is easy and almost thoughtless, organizing a protest is not. At a certain point, “problematic” becomes simply the refined, posh, and respectable “ew.” There exists a superficial language and performance of deep ideological opposition to “problematic” thoughts or actions. The reality is anything but. Debate buzzwords give an appearance of real meditation, but only serve as euphemistic signalers (see “male gazey”). Engaging with and considering an idea and rationally coming to a conclusion of opposition holds far more benefit than being told something is simply wrong or relying on gut reaction to form ideological principles. Is the Man’s Best Friend album cover problematic, or is it just…ew? It is worth acknowledging the argument that while these celebrity actions may not of themselves be deemed momentous political pivot points, they can certainly be seen as signs of them. The American Eagle Sydney Sweeney ad, for instance, has been heralded as a sign of impending political doom. Was it a thinly veiled piece of pro-eugenic and American nationalistic propaganda? That depends on your perspective, but for the sake of argument, let’s say yes. Was it also a marketing ploy and a pretty bad pun? Definitely. Not recognizing this fact runs the risk of elevating the actions of an actress and her marketing team to singularly responsible for the detriment of democracy as we know it. There is space to recognize the subliminal messaging of such an ad and its impact and also see it as reflective of current societal values, not the molder of them. This is nonetheless still a worrying fact, and that is another important conversation that can happen, but that conversation gets lost in the media whirlpool that ultimately devolves into a slut-shaming contest.
And yet, if all of these important conversations were to happen, it would still just be people talking—although maybe in a manner less mean to the Carpenters and Roans of the world. As Americans we are (for now…) endowed with our first amendment right to free speech. Why waste that on bickering in infinite comment sections—especially comment sections that are far from good faith debates? Ideally, there is value in engaging in debate over how feminist ideology manifests in modern pop music, but if the goal is to speak out about concerning political trends or unlawful government action, that would be much easier achieved through a megaphone in front of the White House. Real results, real impact, comes from action in the real world. But that of course, requires getting off the internet.