Influencer Culture in Social Media as Role Playing

Recently, I have discovered a little corner of social media that focuses on reducing the impact social media can have on our lives. The irony of this is not lost on me, discovering critical commentary about social media on social media. Regardless, this type of commentary is often formatted as video essays where content creators encourage viewers to engage critically with the social media they are consuming, in particular when it comes to issues related to influencer culture, hyper consumerism and microtrends. 

I don’t look at TikTok or spend much time scrolling through Instagram but I do watch a lot of YouTube. At one stage, I did consume and enjoy a lot of YouTube channels that seemed to portray people’s everyday lives. Often these videos were ASMR-like in presentation with text on the screen instead of voice narration. The atmosphere of the videos was chiefly created through the soothing ambient sounds of the content creators’ environment as they took us through their day of shopping, cleaning, exercising, cooking and eating. The thing is, while these videos purported to depict the mundane, “everyday” lives of these content creators, the lives they portrayed sometimes left me yearning for a kitchen drawer full of colour coordinated, freshly laundered and pressed tea towels neatly tucked into their own clear drawer container. I also started hankering for tranquil, immaculate living spaces featuring large plants and designer knickknacks artfully placed around the room. 

I realised when I started to crave more beige and designer items in my life that I could do with a break from these channels. But I kept watching for a little while longer and sure enough, one blustery day I put on a nice dress, boarded a bus to the shopping district in my city, marched myself into an expensive department store and bought a designer vase. Yes they got me, I had been successfully influenced. Now granted, I do love this vase and do not regret the purchase. However, what I do regret and what I feel chagrined about is that even after buying my vase, I wanted even more designer items. I had a mental list of all the items I wanted to buy. I visited that department several times over several weeks, eyeing my desired purchases. I sent screenshots of what I wanted to buy to my sister who just seemed slightly puzzled at my uncharacteristic zest for designer items. 

Several months after that initial purchase, I was again standing inside the lower level of that luxury department store where all the homeware and kitchen items were located and finally, a small part of me wondered what I was doing inside this department store? Surrounded by items I could not afford, I remember feeling an overwhelming need to shop. I felt this incredibly anxiety driven pang that what I had in my life was not enough and somehow the answer lay in something inside this shop. I recognised that I was spiralling and that I needed to stop. 

Taking the advice B has always give me about purchases, I told myself that I should really think carefully about my next purchase and this idea of mindful consumption created the mental breathing space I needed to allow me to walk out of that department store and literally into a bright and lovely day. As I merged with the other shoppers into the hustle and bustle of the street, I knew that it was very unlikely I was going back to that department store in the near future. I have little doubt that this overwhelming impulse to consume was directly fueled by the visions of loveliness and perfection these YouTube channels were filling my head with. Looking back on this period of time, I can clearly see now how uncritical I was of what I was consuming on social media.

While I might not have been consciously critical of what I was exposing myself to, I nevertheless did have a vague feeling that there was something not quite right or truthful about these channels and that they were in some way not good for me to consume. The fact that I had a list of expensive items to buy for the sole purpose of home decoration speaks to this. I have enough items to decorate my home and anything extra I bring into my living space would require me to remove something currently on display and store it somewhere. Despite knowing this, during the height of my watching certain YouTube channels, these pointless and inanimate home decor objects came to dominate my head space as I tried to think of ways to store and display all the new, expensive items I wanted. 

After that final department store browsing session, I felt quite perturbed. Luckily, my prior years of consuming content about minimalism eventually kicked in as did the lessons I had taught myself about financial literacy and what money actually means to me. For me, money has always been a way to buy my own freedom, every dollar I spent on consumer items was a dollar I would have to work for or find in my budget. The less I spent, the more I would have in life in regards to financial security and free time. Nothing is more valuable to me than time because the time we have on this earth is finite. I don’t really want to spend it working or surrounded by clutter that I would have to care for. 

Feeling more grounded and closer to my regular self again, I made the decision to stop watching this type of content for a while and eventually these channels dropped out of my active awareness. Fast forward to the present day and my recent encounters with content creators such as Hannah Alonzo, Cara Nicole and Kyla James brought these channels and my experiences with them back to my memory. The commentary provided by Alonzo, Nicole and James hit the nail on the head in regards to explaining what had happened to me while I was consuming what I now recognise as influencer content on YouTube. 

One of the main points coming from creators who are critical about social media and the negative impact it can have on audiences, is to understand that most of what we see on social media isn’t real life (Alonzo, 2024; James, 2024). The reels, the stories, the YouTube videos and so forth are often to varying degrees constructed narratives. It is to some extent role playing where influencers act out to some level, what an ideal life should look like, be it vanlife, tradwife, the 5am Club, intentional living, the wealth/success narrative and so forth (Alonzo, 2024; James, 2024). It’s been deeply informative to listen to and watch content that seeks to analyse and pick apart influencer culture. 

A deeply illuminative concept for me has been the idea that even the influencer filming the reel, story or YouTube video is most likely not living the life they are portraying on their social media platforms (Alonzo, 2024;James, 2024).  For example, content creators are not waking up in a tranquil, sun kissed room with slightly tousled hair. They have woken up, most likely taken care of morning bodily needs, perhaps done an outfit change, applied a little make up and brushed their hair, set up lights and a camera, pressed record, climbed back into bed and then pretended to wake up in a tranquil, sun kissed room with slightly tousled hair. It is for show. It is constructed. They are role playing what waking up in an idealised life would look like. Just like when influencers shop, bake, exercise, eat, travel etcetera, it is always portrayed in idealised terms. There is a very good chance it is not a realistic depiction of their real life and how they are actually experiencing these things or events. 

When influencers step into frame, they are not filming just a day in their lives. They have set up lights and cameras, done their hair and make up and have often dressed a set with products or items they more often than not have affiliate links to in order to film what basically amounts to an advertisement for both themselves and the products they are selling or recommending (Alonzo, 2024; James, 2024). I must point out that the YouTube channels that influenced me the most did not have affiliate links in their videos but this does not alter the point that they were still constructing narratives that were not really depicting what their real lives actually looked like. They were actively creating an idealised version of their real life and then acting out these narratives for the cameras they had set up. What they were filming, editing and publishing as content had strong performative elements embedded into it. It was designed to sell something, in this case, themselves and their YouTube channels. They were drawing income from views and the more eyeballs they could bring to their channel through idealised narrative creation, the more they could earn. 

Earlier this year, I started watching a YouTube channel that featured their Costco hauls and them storing, using and cooking what they had bought at Costco. This channel does have a lengthy affiliate link list accompanying their videos and as sure as night turns to day, I clicked those links and began examining whether I too wanted a variety of containers to store my freezer goods. I’m easily influenced I know but don't worry I remembered my earlier experiences with social media and overconsumption and the affiliate link browsing for this channel was short-lived and amounted to no purchases. But if you stop and think about it, influencer and consumer orientated social media content can offer advertisers and companies quite a sophisticated form of advertising. Instead of a direct sales spiel, many influencers often advertise products and encourage sales by selling an idealised, aspirational lifestyle that features a collection of products that their audiences can buy in an attempt to emulate the idealised lives these influencers portray. It’s seductive and most likely rather effective because it can’t always be readily seen or perceived that selling and advertising is happening in frame. 

Perhaps I am more gullible than most but I also think gullibility isn’t what necessarily leads to copy buying of influencers or the clicking on affiliate links. We are critical and wary of the ads we see in traditional media but how many of us see the advertising embedded into the very fabric of the social media we consume? Social media has the potential to be one big, long ad and horrifically, we are spending hours of our time consuming these ads. This means companies and advertisers have more or less unfettered access to our eyeballs and our attention through our consumption of social media. We might not even be aware that we are being heavily advertised to because we can scroll past ads or use ad blockers but what if the content itself might be one big, subtle and gorgeously filmed advertisement? If you view everything you see on social media that falls within the lifestyle influencer realm as being not depictions of a person’s real life but instead as performative actions based around narrative design for the purpose of selling something to you as a viewer, be it either themselves or consumer goods, I would wager that some of the appeal of these types of videos would mostly likely drop away. The soft sell won’t work on you or at the very least, is reduced in its ability to persuade. 

It can be said that there is nothing necessarily wrong with consuming this type of content if you watch it with the same level of awareness that we have in regards to traditional media. Problems can arise however, if you don’t acknowledge or realise that the video you are watching possesses a strong constructed element. It is not someone just turning on their smartphone and haphazardly recording their life then editing it down to a short video. These videos are deliberately and consciously constructed by a content creator. They are literally called content creators. Their job is to create narratives, to create entertainment or content for their viewers. They are working when they film their content, they are not opening a small window into their real lives for our pleasure and consumption. They are actively constructing and consciously performing a narrative to us. 

While I might not go as far as some critics who call what some influencers do cosplay (Alonzo, 2024), I do think that influencers are to a large degree role playing a type of idealised real life in order to sell something to their viewers, be it themselves or actual consumer items. It’s a bit like The Truman Show but unlike the film, the star of the show is in on the act and it’s the audiences who might be the unsuspecting dupes. 

In their video titled “Fake Rich Flexing”: Vacation Edition! YouTuber Cara Nicole talks about cultural homogenisation within the sphere of social media where everything takes on a ‘sameness’ quality because we are all .”... busy imitating each other” (Nicole, 2024).  Cultural homogenisation can be defined as:

... the process by which distinct cultural practices, beliefs, and identities become increasingly similar due to globalization and the influence of dominant cultures. This trend can result in the erosion of local traditions and diversity, as global norms and values overshadow unique cultural expressions (fiveable. n.d.)

If we understand cultural homogenisation as being the global replication of the values and norms of a dominant culture, the potential for the normalisation of conspicuous or hyper consumption via  influencer culture on social media, can clearly be seen. Cultural homogenisation can for example, make it seem normal to buy several versions of the same, expensive reusable water cup (beyond what you actually need) because you are ‘collecting’ these cups or wanting the cup to match outfits. The same can be said of something like international travel. Instead of being something you experience quite sparingly, it may seem normal to regularly take or aspire to regularly take expensive international vacations due to what we constantly see on social media. 

This is problematic on several levels. Firstly, there are issues surrounding the amount of environmental damage done due to the overconsumption of consumer goods and services. Secondly, there are deep seated issues regarding slave labour and low waged labour and working conditions within largely obfuscated global supply chains. Lastly, the normalisation of hyper consumerism via influencer culture can be detrimental to the financial well being and mental health of social media consumers. 

The impact of influencer culture on phenomena such as cultural homogenisation can be argued as being further accentuated when you take into account the issue of role playing idealised lives within influencer culture or even just faking content within influencer culture. As Nicole covers in multiple videos in her “Fake Rich” series, some social media content can be faked or paid for by sponsors, thereby giving a misleading impression of wealth (Nicole, 2024) which further exaggerates the role playing/not real aspect of influencer culture within social media. I was blown away when I found out that some places offer a fake private plane studio which not only can be used for shooting movies and video clips but also potentially used by influencers to fake content (Nicole, 2024). 

Through the impact and interaction of something like cultural homogenisation and role playing idealised narratives within influencer culture, hyper consumption can become embedded into the very fabric of what seems ‘normal’ to us. Thus, when we consume a certain type of social media content that is influencer culture based, we could be hit with the double whammy of role playing working alongside phenomena such as cultural homogenisation to deliver a crippling blow to us every time we consume social media. If we begin to see the same constructed images or visual motifs again and again within lifestyle/consumption oriented content, I think it would help us tremendously if we ask ourselves, “what is being normalised here and am I okay with that?” If you are not okay with it, consciously push back on the messaging that is occurring in these videos. 

I don’t think all influencers are manipulative or harmful towards their audiences but their content can do harm if we absorb it uncritically or without awareness. If we are unwilling to deconstruct what we are being exposed to through influencer culture we can potentially wreak havoc in our own lives and speed up the environmental damage that has already been wrought on our planet via the overconsumption influencer culture often promotes (Nicole, 2024). Moreover, an unquantifiable negative outcome of the uncritical consumption of influencer culture and microtrends can also be the impact it has on our financial well being, mental health and self-esteem. 

While it has been wonderfully detoxing to be exposed to accessible and digestible analysis regarding influencer culture, I note that there seems to be a bit of dependency thing happening between channels that critique social media and the social media accounts and content they are critiquing. Some of these social media critics are obtaining income from social media by critiquing social media content and/or social media content creators. Without these creators and their content, these critique channels and accounts would not have content themselves. Thus, they may have a vested interest in keeping the outrage burning. 

Furthermore, many of the critique channels I have watched often have sponsors. True, they are being upfront about their sponsorships but they are building their brand based on being critical about social media. This might make the advertising on their channels a little more persuasive in that the narrative here could be: you can trust me, I am an honest and critical content creator so trust the product or service I am advertising to you. The fact of the matter is, if we use their code they are probably getting a commission on top of the view YouTube and TikTok are paying them. While there is nothing inherently wrong with making a living from social media, it’s extremely valuable to take a critical eye to all the social media we consume. Being critical and aware is what reduces the impact of social media on our lives and on our wallets.  

I may have learnt my lessons a little late and I think I was very naive about social media but I would like to think I have gained some degree of social media literacy these past few months. It’s been freeing to be able to bring critical tools with me as I consume social media and I would like to think that I am no longer at the total mercy of influencers. Education is liberation. I do like my social media and I honestly enjoy consumption but only if it is reasonable and I can afford it. For me, there is nothing worse than living beyond my means. Financial security is the best thing money can buy. Once you have given yourself this, I do believe life can be padded out with a few nice things but excessive consumption is something we should all be mindful about and having a critical awareness about the content we see within social media has a big role to play in that.

References:

Alonzo, H. (2024, 23 Jan). THE UNHINGED CONSUMERISM OF "RESTOCK" INFLUENCERS, SO UNREALISTIC! | Influencer Insanity Ep 1. [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/PEY8IyB653c?si=dndjEaayxS7ZM_g8

Alonzo, H. (2024, 25 March). CATCHING INFLUENCERS LYING ABOUT THEIR LIFESTYLE, IT’S ALL FAKE! | Influencer Insanity Ep 4. [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/6HR2D2EmnC0?si=N6_Nnu2hU9UbI_4W

Alonzo,H. (2024, 3 Jun).TRADWIVES: THE BUSINESS OF BEING A "TRADITIONAL WIFE" INFLUENCER | Influencer Insanity Ep 7. [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/pszhb_p7F2g?si=L55PcbEtrVizGgnA

fiveable. Cultural Homogenization. Retrieved 21 October, 2024. https://library.fiveable.me/key-terms/global-perspectives-on-identity-and-diversity/cultural-homogenization

James, K. (2024, 11 June). A Deep Dive on Tradwife Influencers | Ballerinafarm, Nara Smith, Estee Williams. [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/_JLDnnX83zM?si=Npu2RlDp78ggZWu4

James, K. (2024, 13 Aug). The Unhinged World of Restock Influencers - CRAZY Overconsumption on TikTok. [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/QaDg1hqmPbg?si=qoUH0M15jaNeHQ7O

Nicole, C (2023, 11 January). How Designer Brands Keep You Poor. [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/UzJQiqhldXo?si=bboOkzLtTjnkDUBf

Nicole, C. (2024, 14 June). 'Fake Rich Flexing': Vacation Edition! [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/dYFSBhm2Ao0?si=pg1y34g2BEz4jF1T

Get Punked: How Punk Offers a Systemic Pressure Release Valve

I am back from something of a sabbatical from blog writing and it is little wonder that it’s a punk album that has given me the impetus to write again. This post started life as a piece of writing for my music blog (This Metal Road) but as I listened to Soul Glo’s latest LP, Diaspora Problems (2022) while also reading an interview with Soul Glo’s vocalist, Pierce Jordan, my mind kept drifting back to the issues of punk, politics and music. Given the topics I am covering, I thought it would be more relevant and appropriate to write about this topic here rather than the music blog. 

Looking back on my music listening history it was the duality of punk and metal that drew me away from the pop sensibilities of my tween years and into the world of extreme music. Hardcore, punk and extreme metal with their accompanying subcultural semiotics were the tonics I needed for an angst ridden youth. In more recent times, reconnecting to extreme music as a fully fledged and increasingly settled adult has been quite the experience, part nostalgia and part release for a feral and riotous self that has never been completely quelled. My nerves and brain fizzle and pop as a wild, fractious energy pours through my system. This is what hardcore, punk and extreme metal still does to me. A usually dormant aggression surges when I listen to these genres of music and in those moments, I want to tear everything down and burn it all. From the safety of living in a quiet, stable and relatively prosperous Western, liberal democracy I curl my small hand into a tight fist and enjoy the rancour punk, hardcore and extreme metal offer me. 

But in recent years, as history seems to have sped up with humanity and western societies becoming increasingly wedged between shifting world geopolitics, late neo-liberal capitalism and significant environmental degradation, Gaza happened and it all changed for me. The last vestiges of my belief in liberalism was torn away as I witnessed live on television, an attempted genocide occur and the West not only stepped away but aided and abetted it. Moreover, it is still on-going. Many of us continue to watch helplessly from the sidelines because powers that are greater than our anger, our horror and our sense of injustice have allied with a nation that seeks to eliminate another. Historically, I can not dispel the belief that Gaza and what is happening there will be both a milestone and a reckoning for the West. By allowing what is happening in Gaza to continue, I believe we are collectively losing something in the West, that intangible element that gives our system and our institutions a sense of legitimacy and hope for our future. In a similar vein to Vietnam, perhaps Gaza will be this generation’s awakening. It certainly was my awakening. 

In light of this, I have, whether I want it or not, been given a new perspective. Being a student of the social sciences, I have often analysed my world through the prism of structuralism. Wikipedia gives a nice, succinct summation of structuralism: 

 

Structuralism is an intellectual current and methodological approach, primarily in the social sciences, that interprets elements of human culture by way of their relationship to a broader system. It works to uncover the structural patterns that underlie all the things that humans do, think, perceive, and feel (“Structuralism,” 2022). 

However much a structuralist approach to analysis has been something I am inclined towards, I must admit that I have been rather reticent in applying it to liberalism. As a moderate I critiqued neo-liberal capitalism, frequently through the prism of structuralism but still held firmly onto the liberal tenets bestowed onto me by a liberal arts education. Gaza ripped that to shreds. If aiding and abetting an attempted genocide and suppressing civilian and citizen opposition to this genocide through the use of censorship, heavy handed policing and McCarthyism style threats to livelihood and employment, is something that liberals and liberalism can bend towards then I am off the bandwagon. Decency demands as much. Idealism can only stretch so far before the veil is pulled away. 

But what has this to do with punk? Nothing directly but the recent galvanising of my willingness to look critically at things in my society has made me renew my analysis of punk and place it within a structuralist interpretation. From a pop cultural perspective, punk has often been thought of as being subversive. Its main draw was and remains its seemingly contrarian nature. It’s also been regarded as being an expression of youth rebellion, of a loud and angry resistance to mainstream culture and values and rightly or wrongly, it has often been perceived as having a noticeable political edge to it. But what is largely not dwelled upon is that punk emerged from within liberal, capitalist, democratic states and some of its early cultural manifestation was nursed by materialism and fashion, so much so that it heavily informed both street and couture fashion thanks largely to the likes of Vivienne Westwood, Malcolm McLaren and the bands McLaren promoted, such as the Sex Pistols. Punk strutted its stuff on high street, main street and the underground. 

Many would associate the origins of punk with the United Kingdom. At a time when Keynesianism seemed to be faltering, punk emerged in an age of unrest and uncertainty. In a chaotic period that would eventually usher in Thatcherism and neoliberalism, punk was about nihilistic rage and yet even in its early days, its strong DIY ethic, anti-establishment and anti-materialism stance gave it an aura of politicking and pointed rebellion. With blood and spit it seemed to scream NO to the system. But if punk was something that was meant to be understood as being underground, subversive and possibly political, why was its fashion in boutiques and its musicians signed by major labels? Taken from this perspective, it could be said that punk was perhaps less about revolution and agitating for substantive, systemic change and more of a pressure release valve for cultural angst for those who felt disaffected. It took the questioning and challenging of norms and funnelled it into something that was satisfying to express but largely empty of real political action and/or intent. In some ways, it could be argued that punk took the politics out of a subculture that was potentially ripe with political intent. Punk allowed you to express cultural angst without significant political impact.

As a musical form, punk is highly expressive and emotional. This is why Soul Glo’s latest LP Diaspora Problems (2022) is so satisfying to listen to. It punches and growls in all the right places and hums with a wildness that is thrilling. A highly collaborative offering, Diaspora Problems is as Andrew Sacher from Brooklyn Vegan notes, the band’s most "accessible" album to date (Sacher, 2022) and like all good punk it shimmers with a sense of politics and contains degrees of social commentary. Indeed, politics and a political statement about the lack of cultural recognition of African American contribution to popular music through the ages sits at the heart of some of the sensibilities informing the album. Soul Glo’s Pierce Jordan says: 

"Black people are inextricably linked to all forms of Western music. Like, that’s just the way that it is … Black people are the true culture and content curators of the entire world, but specifically Black people in America. And what I would really like is just more knowledge and respect of that fact to come as a result of having existed.” (Sacher, 2022). 

If you read the referenced article from where this quote was taken (which you can find linked in the references section below) you will see that while Jordan mentions the “entire world” he appears to be largely talking about the West and about jazz, blues, pop music and rock n roll. Taken in this way, Jordan isn’t wrong about the claims that these forms of music owe much to African American musicians and the musical communities from which they came from and that there is a distinct lack of recognition in regards to this contribution. He is also correct about the unrecognised cultural influence and significance of African Americans on global pop culture due to America’s highly effective and immense though now arguably waning soft power reach. 

But contained within Jordan’s statements are sentiments that perhaps pinpoint part of punk’s problem. By seeking legitimisation and recognition from a system that systematically de-legitimises you, you remove your revolutionary aspect and contain your protest to that of reform and not revolution. But maybe this is what punk has always been about? This has been its cultural function. Punk offers an effective venting experience for those dissatisfied, disillusioned or disengaged with the current hegemon but without substantially challenging it in any significant way. This somewhat explains why punk has at times awkwardly stratified both main street and the underground and why it sits so comfortably within haute couture. Sacher argues that Soul Glo, though being touted as a political band, could more accurately be described as an “emotional punk band” (Sacher, 2022). But aren't almost all punk bands emotional? Is not the unbridled rage, fury and anger what makes punk so captivating? Though punk is a broad church, especially if you take into consideration the different melds it has undertaken over the years, it could still be said that some of what we understand and classify as punk has been less about politics and more about extreme emotional expression underscored with some political commentary. Emotion sits at the heart of punk and I would argue this is exactly what its cultural function has been and still is. 

Generally, I have found through my years of jumping in and out of punk and hardcore, that there seems to be something missing or lacking within punk and hardcore. Punk felt political and subversive but then again, it didn't quite feel that way either. Punk and hardcore seemed like they were making highly important statements about society and politics but what these exactly were felt slippery, vague and almost deliberately out of focus. I'm curious if this is something other listeners of punk can relate to? As I have already noted, punk is a broad umbrella that doesn’t only just house those on the left or those with political intent. But undeniably punk has had a traditional linkage to the idea of protest, subversion and politics and I would argue as someone who has casually listened to and studied punk, that it's a strong enough link that many would recognise these elements as being part of punk’s subcultural and musical characteristics. They act as part of punk’s subcultural markers in regards to how the musical form and subculture perceives itself and projects itself outward onto others. 

However much politics might appear to form a part of punk's subcultural make up, quite often its political aspect seems to get swallowed by the nihilistic, raw and untethered emotion of punk and perhaps this is not just incidental. Does punk really want to tear down the system? I’m not sure, I do question if that is what punk actually seeks? Punk emerged from societies deeply informed by market economics and liberalism and just like limited parliamentary democracy which was designed to express but ultimately contain and stifle effective political opposition to the dominant hegemon, perhaps punk was never meant to be more than a limited expression of opposition to the norm. I think that punk was and is too embedded within the liberal and market system to truly seek a break with what nurtured it in the first place. In light of this, it could be time to set aside the notion that punk is genuinely politically and culturally subversive or that it harbours within its lacerating expression a deeper political intent than what it actually has despite its rancorous energy and some of its own politics.

Am I picking on punk? Maybe. But it could also be argued that punk exposes itself to this type of critique given it has harboured at times a distinct political aspect and it trades to some degree on having an edged, political undertone to it. I have been a fan of punk on and off through the years and spent some time reading up a bit about its subculture, even going so far as identifying with it in my youth. I am sure that shaving my head in my thirties was certainly informed by punk, having finally worked up the courage to challenge social norms in regards to the ideals surrounding femininity. In my teen years I yearned for a mohawk but lacked the social courage to do it. In my thirties I finally had had enough of mainstream values and culture to undertake a physical and symbolic representation denoting my internal break with mainstream values. It was punk that gave me the pop cultural framework to have the courage to do this. When I shaved my head it was the lessons in semiotics that punk gave me which allowed me to understand how to express my opposition to the cultural norm through a symbolic and representational act. 

Punk, like metal, has had a lot of personal meaning for me over the years. However, while I was drawn to punk’s outlier persona and its undertone of political subversion, I tended to feel its political dimension often sat glimmering at only a surface level. Why did punk and hardcore often feel like they were part of the system they were criticising? Then again, I also thought that possibly I just didn’t get punk enough and that I was missing out on perceiving its true subversive nature. But now, having unleashed a structuralist perspective on this issue, it appears feasible to posit that punk isn't as necessarily as straight forward or romantic as it seems. It can be argued that punk has a cultural function and value as a pressure release valve for society’s discontents and by having this role, it effectively reveals that punk's intent is perhaps more politically and socially benign than what it might first appear. Moreover, it can also be said that punk's effectiveness as a vehicle for venting and its allowance for the expression of societal aggression contains and channels what might sometimes manifest as political protest and engagement, especially from its more youthful, motivated and idealist listeners. It therefore, in some situations, could be perceived as harnessing this youthful political protest and societal questioning into something that can be absorbed and managed by the prevailing hegemonic structure. Thus, seen from this perspective, it could indeed be argued that punk stands inside rather than outside of the status quo. 

Although this may quell the romanticism of punk it by no means takes away from it as a subcultural entity. Punk is meaningful and motivating for many both as artists and listeners. Its DIY ethos lowers the bar of entry into music and fashion and allows those who feel disaffected to be part of a subcultural community and/or movement. It can be the anchor some people need in turbulent or personally challenging times, as Pierce Jordan can most likely attest to. It also safely vents social disaffection. This could be either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your perspective. For me on a personal level, does the sheen come off punk in light of what I have written about in this post? Perhaps a little but I feel like I understand punk more because of the contextualisation structuralism has allowed. By being willing to examine punk from a structuralist perspective, it perhaps allows for a greater honesty in regards to assessing punk’s role and function within Western, modern, industrial societies. It places punk within the context of both capitalism and liberalism which together form the dominant hegemony that structures society economically, politically and culturally. Liberal, capitalist societies are extremely adaptable and almost always allow for points of societal pressure release. It should surprise none that music and some of its subcultures have a role to play in this. 

Gaza has forced me to take a harsher look at my own society and question at a deeper level my own beliefs and how I interpret and frame my world. Everything is on the table now and I believe that I only stand to dupe myself if I continue to attempt to dally in a romanticised view of the things that I used to believe or want to believe in. That society has pressure release valves through things like sport, entertainment and subcultures isn't necessarily a bad thing, it isn't a conspiracy, just only bread and circuses or a duping off people by cynical elites. Human society and the structures that hold our societies together are far too complex for simplistic answers or ideas like this. However, having an awareness of how society's structures may be managing our economic, cultural, political and societal angst to possibly offer an outlet that is de-politicised or empty of genuine political impact and why this might be happening is good knowledge to have, especially in light of events like Gaza. It never hurts to ask ourselves, if our attention and energy is being directed here, where is it being directed from? If we are encouraged to vent here, in what places are we being discouraged from venting in? In comparing George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four with Aldous Huxley's Brave New World series, Neil Postman writes: 

Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance ... As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us ("Brave New World", 2022).

There is nothing inherently wrong about having distractions in our lives but they can't be our whole world, not now, not anymore. In our current turbulent times, being engaged, aware and critical may help us hang onto what is worthy and good within our modern, democratic societies as we collectively face the enormous challenges of our undetermined and as yet undecided futures. 

References 

Brave New World (1 May, 2024). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World

Sacher, A. (March 22, 2022). Soul Glo are paving the path to punk's future. Brooklyn Vegan.  https://www.brooklynvegan.com/soul-glo-are-paving-the-path-to-punks-future-interview/

Structuralism. (27 April, 2024). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuralism

A Day of Protest

Walking through the city centre and heading towards one of the parks, it took a moment to realise that the many police officers we saw riding bikes and motorcycles were going to the same place we were. This dawning of realisation was the beginning of the frisson of adrenalin that begins coursing through your system as you head towards the rallying point of a civic protest against the actions of your nation state. Though permits and permissions had all been organised by the rally organisers, rallies and civic protest always carry a slight edge to them as multiple individuals become part of a cohesive collective expressing a singular intent. With the amount of families present at the rally and with the admirable manner in which the organisers controlled the event, the rally was never going to be anything other than peaceful but a large gathering of concerned civilians and citizens in any city centre is always a worry for authorities and a reminder to us of the visual and symbolic power of protest.

Symbols of Protest. Photo credit: HammieRiffs

As we peeled off the main road and headed towards the park, weekend shoppers and protesters began to distinguish themselves. Those going to the rally walked more purposefully as we got nearer to our rally point and with definitive intent, stepped over the low curb of the boundary that marked the park and in an instant we became politically active and identifiable. 

Mercifully the organisers had set up the stage near the shade of the trees so we were able to shelter from the biting early summer Australian sun. The opening of the rally was ushered in by First Nations people affirming their solidarity with the oppression of the Palestinian people and the importance of what land is for the expression of culture for both themselves and for the Palestinians. As the dancers began the welcome ceremony to their ancestors and didgeridoos played, the wind eerily began to pick up again and shake the leaves of nearby trees with a surprising intensity. As this occurred the speaker announced that the wind was representative of their ancestors coming to give protection and blessing to the gathering. A shiver went down my spine. This oddly enough has not been the first time I have experienced this. A very similar phenomenon happened at a previous ceremony I witnessed.

The rest of the rally was taken up by speeches and artistic pieces performed by various local artists along with announcements for fundraisers. Sitting nearby on the grass was a family group with a happy, charismatic little baby boy who was seemingly fascinated by two young women sitting ahead of me who looked like his mother but were not wearing hijabs. He was amazed by their faces and hair and seeking to impress them, on multiple occasions, with a wobbling determination, he used his chubby little hands and arms to haul himself up unsteadily onto his feet using his stroller for leverage. Upon doing so, he would turn pointedly to the two young women and smile broadly and proudly at them. 

They responded to his big, gummy grins with smiles of their own. He was being so cute and with a sudden rush in my heart I unexpectedly felt the horror of what was happening in Gaza. So many babies and small children such as himself had been rendered homeless, had lost their entire families, were going thirsty, were being bombed and being starved out in Gaza and my government, my own government were using our ports, our military weapons and our satellite facilities to aid and abet these crimes against humanity. It was a moment of humanisation. The atrocities being committed in Gaza was not just something I was witnessing on the television but was now suddenly and emotionally being embodied and represented by a very sweet and innocent child sitting on the grass in the speckled shade in front of me. Though not wanting to cry, I nonetheless put my head down and swiped at the tears that fell. 

Time to March. Photo credit: HammieRiffs

Soon it was time to march. Bringing up the rear, I took B’s caution of not getting caught up in the middle of the rally where the loudness and ferocity of the chanting on loudspeakers will surely clip a few decibels off your long term hearing. With our accommodating police escorts, we ambled down the entertainment drag of our city. Shoppers and those seated at pubs, eateries and cafes watched us as if we might have been part of the day’s local entertainment, a curiosity of the city to observe. At the end of the march we congenitally lingered together as a group and chanted a little more before dispersing. It was getting late and everyone needed to get home to start the working week. 

Wearing no overt symbols of protest or comradeship such as keffiyehs nor carrying any protest signage, it was easy for B and I to meld back into the rapidly dwindling crowd of city day trippers after the protest finished for the day. We joined the great exodus of people emptying out of the city as the vast majority of us boarded the trains and buses that would ferry us back to suburbia. As we left those who are largely forgotten and marginalised, the homeless, the mentally ill and the addicted, moved in the emptying spaces of the city. The negative space that is societal abandonment and indifference to their plight is regrettably the place where they largely exist. It is an isolating and unkind space that we can largely ignore by fleeing to our homes in the suburbs. Observing the homeless and the marginalised occupy public space more dominantly once the hustle and bustle of commerce recedes, it's hard not to surmise that the bar we sometimes set for ourselves as a society can be quite low.

Sitting in front of my dinner that night I felt both energised and desultory. It felt like we hadn’t accomplished anything but we had also accomplished something. Our protest action today didn’t change or alter a single thing in Gaza but by being a warm body to count at the rally still meant something I feel. It largely means support, to show Gazans suffering unspeakable horrors that are in part being facilitated by our own governments and tax dollars, that we know they are suffering, we are bearing witness to what is being done to them and for what it matters, that they are not facing this entirely alone. It’s also a sharp reminder to our political leadership that we protest what they do. In a democracy, all of this matters. It’s what helps to keep our system not just liberally inclined but somewhat democratic as well. 

The realpolitik of this world along with the maintenance of the current system and its accompanying ideological framework will most likely mean that might not right will determine when this conflict and the suffering endured by Gazans will end. By that stage I would think that the civilian death toll in Gaza will be quite unimaginable and it will be a mark forever against the West and rightly so. The West has undone so much of the good that it thinks itself to stand for by allowing Israel to collectively punish Palestinians for the crimes of Hamas. The Emperor has no clothes and the protest continues. 

What Do We Stand For When We Stand Aside: Gaza and Liberalism

Israel has the right to respond to an attack on its citizens and state but the scale and proportion of that response matters. Similarly, Palestine has the right to resist occupation but again, how that resistance is expressed also matters.

In some respects, we in the West have been a bad ally to Israel for not holding it to greater account prior to Hamas’ brutal and shocking attack on October 7. Israel’s method of dealing with the claims and actions of Palestinian nationalists and ultra-nationalists has been to enforce an apartheid style occupation of Palestinian territories, thereby creating the asymmetrical conditions that terrorism often thrives in. The West tacitly supported the transformation of Gaza into what amounts to an open air prison. Under these conditions, Palestinians living in Gaza were largely unable to obtain gainful employment and were mostly nourished and sustained via a thin and perilous system of international aid delivered by trucks through checkpoints. Furthermore, although not happy with the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, our political leaders in the West have over the years, mostly turned a blind eye to it. 

Had the West demonstrated to Israel that we as its allies supported a true two state solution, perhaps Israel might not have so readily enacted the collective punishment of the Palestinian people as being a suitable response to the October 7 Hamas attack. Israel’s fear of possible sanctions, the potential denial of military aid and the threat of diplomatic isolation might have restrained its hand in those understandably furious moments in the aftermath of October 7 had it known that it would have been sanctioned by its allies if its response contravened international law. But Israel knew no such actions from its allies were in the wings, it knew it could respond with something akin to genocidal intent if it so wished. When you enforce and subject people to apartheid style conditions for a long duration of time, it’s easier to dehumanise them and from there, the road to potential genocide by your nation state as a response to the inevitable resistance those oppressed will express and enact is possibly paved. In this respect by not urging restraint through the levers of diplomacy and military aid and more actively and forcibly discouraging Israel from seeking to aspire to build a Greater Israel from Palestinian lands, the West has been a poor friend to Israel and an even poorer advocate for the values of equality and common humanity in relation to Palestine.

As I have been watching the humanitarian disaster unfolding in Gaza over the past month I have asked myself what does the West stand for if we actively, through the provision of military aid and diplomatic support, allow Israel to undertake a total war response against the people of Gaza that has undertones of genocide? Who are we as nation states if we help to uphold an apartheid style state? If we remove being proponents of equality and justice and thus having a shared and worthy common humanity from our narratives as nation states, what are we other than the conduits for neo-liberal capitalism? 

The scale and extent of the ongoing Pro-Palestine and Ceasefire marches across much of the West indicate that many Western citizens feel similarly disturbed by what has been happening in Gaza. I would argue that many citizens in the West want more from their political leaders on this issue. If we in the West do not stand up for those who are unarmed and unable to stand for themselves in the face of overwhelming military might, particularly if the targeted group is religiously, culturally or ethnically diverse from those who are targeting them and living on land coveted by their aggressors, what do the values of our democratic nation states actually mean? From an ideological and philosophical perspective, what are we in this situation? If the West not only stands aside but actively facilitates through the provision of military aid, the possible genocidal intent of an ally for what purpose do our nation states exist other than as the expression of and enforcement of imperialistic, neo-liberal capitalism? Is this what we want to be, who we want to be? What morality can we stand on hereafter? 

In its ardent support of Israel’s response to the October 7 terrorist attacks by Hamas, our political leadership has allowed its citizens to glance at the realpolitik that often governs our international system. While acknowledging the reality of international politics and relations, for many of us, our political leaders have nonetheless failed on this issue. The question isn’t Israel’s right to defend itself, it of course has that right, as all sovereign nation states do but its total war response on the civilians of Palestine has been disproportionate and most likely in breach of international law. 

As the bombing of Gaza continues as does the ongoing deprivation of food, fuel, medicine, water and electricity to the Palestinians living in Gaza, what gives me hope is watching citizens in the West engage in peaceful mass protest. For decades now neo-liberal capitalism and their political advocates have sought to turn citizens into consumers and it’s been uplifting to witness citizens fire back up on this issue. We impact our nation states. Don’t let neo-liberal capitalism cynically disavowal you of this. While neo-liberal capitalism has sought to make politics and being political an anti-social concept there actually is nothing wrong with reading up on issues and trying to understand something or better yet, trying to analyse it from differing perspectives. We are moving, with alarm speed and rapidness, towards very complex and challenging times. The need to understand our world better has never been greater. In times of increasing peril, the values we espouse as nation states also matter because they will in part determine who and what we will be in the future and what sort of civilisation we will build to try to ensure our survival as a species. Gaza is a horrific line in the sand for us as an international community and where we stand in relation to it does matter. For our common humanity, it does matter. 

Nourish: A Craftmaker’s Tale

What is nourishment? The Collins Gem Dictionary tells me it’s the noun for nourish: feed, nurture, tend, encourage. 

For as long as I can remember I have crafted. My mum taught me how to knit but it was teaching myself how to crochet and weave that truly opened the world of crafting to me. I make things. Blankets, rugs, scarves, cushion covers, cowls, hats, jumpers, tea cosies, coasters, bags, purses and placemats. After watching Coraline I wanted a small Coraline doll so I crocheted one for myself. One of the nicest things about crafting is being able to make things you want on a whim. 

A book about van life first introduced me to weaving. A young woman living in a 1980s Roma caravan spoke about her environmentally conscious, seasonal lifestyle of summers spent at music festivals, fruit picking in the autumn and weaving in the winter on looms stored at her studio. Included in the photos about her caravan were pictures of her woven blankets. This single entry sparked a keen interest in me about weaving and over the course of the next few years, my loom collection would grow from a modest loom I fashioned out of cardboard to frame looms, round looms, rigid heddle looms and finally a semi-automated, Japanese Saori loom. I wish I could say that I am a great weaver but in all truth, I often feel I produce lacklustre results but this doesn’t lessen the allure of weaving for me. I keep trying and every time I dress or warp a loom, I feel a renewed sense of hope and optimism that this time, I will make something really wonderful. 

The crafting I have embraced has always had a strong utilitarian streak. To justify the environmental and social cost of consuming resources for my hobby I try largely to restrict my crafting to making useful things rather than purely decorative items with doll making being the exception. Regardless of what one chooses to make, there is a silent beauty and magnificence in the humble, often inexpensive balls of yarn jumbled around various tables, baskets and work surfaces in my home. These balls of yarn represent the hope of what will one day be made. It isn’t the hobby itself that gratifies but it is the hushed joy of time spent doing pleasant work, of seeing something of material beauty emerge from your hands. 

The thrill of starting a new project and witnessing it reveal itself is to experience a frisson of pure excitement that feels so unadulterated. Crafting nourishes me in a way food and drink does. It is such a part of me that it feels elemental and yet there will be a time when I will no longer be able to craft or hold pieces of yarn. Early onset arthritis will eventually take away my ability to make things. I fervently craft things today knowing that it will come to an end one day and most likely not of my choosing. 

Some mornings I stretch my aching, sore hands and shiver about what life will be like when I can no longer hold the tools of my trade. Similar to life itself, for me, crafting and making things exists on a finite timeline. I see the end even as I am in the midst of the middle. It feels like foresight laced with a heavy sense of loss, foreboding and grieving even though things at the moment are still pulsing, full and bright. It’s odd to see the grimness of a most likely future in the serene joy of the present. 

In the muted surrounds of my apartment, I hear the traffic glide past outside, the ticking of the clock, the quiet scrolling and clicking of the B’s mouse as he browses the internet as he sits next to me at our large dining table and I pass the shuttle back and forth on my frame loom, opening and closing the shed, allowing the yarn to pass through as the small project on the loom begins to materialise. I pause often to run my fingertips over the tabby weave I am creating, marvelling at how nice and orderly the weave looks now that I have finally learnt how to warp my frame loom properly. Time moves fast but also stands still in these silent moments of creativity and quiet work. The rest of life melts away as I only see the taunt, cool whiteness of the cream coloured yarn of the warp threads and the colourful, playful colours of the weft yarn that forms the body of my weaving. I drink in the simplistic beauty of the plain, wooden loom in front of me, relishing the moment as the shuttle passes back and forth, back and forth. In these moments I am at peace. I am at rest. I am nourished. 

While the end is tangible and potentially a barren place for me, the present exists now and I make what I can, while I can and that is all I can do. I suppose at the end of the day, that is all we can ever do. 

Artificial Intelligence, Hollywood, Writing and Creativity: The Value of a Human

Like many I have loved movies my entire life and have an interest in the glitz, glamour and murkiness of Hollywood. For a few weeks now, I have been reading a few articles here and there about the joint strike action taking place in Hollywood by both writers and actors. Alongside the issue of pay, profit distribution and streaming, concern over the potential impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI)I within the film and entertainment industry has emerged as a highly interesting issue. In a recent press conference earlier this month, Fran Dresher, president of the Screen Actors Guild – American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA), revealed that in SAG-AFTRA’s negotiations with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP), it was discovered that some studios were advocating for the idea of scanning background/extra actors, paying them a single daily sum and then using their images in perpetuity presumably without additional pay for the actors involved (Hughes, 2023; Roundtree, 2023).

While this type of scanning, also known as VFX photography, is not a new practice or technology within the film industry, it seems to be something that sits uneasily with many actors with some fearing how studios will use their digital images, especially after their death (Lee, 2018). In an interview with Rolling Stone many actors who have participated in VFX felt confused as to exactly what they were being scanned for with many stating there was a lack of paperwork and/or clear explanation as to what their images were going to be used for (Roundtree, 2023). There seems to be a real and palpable unease within the industry that some actors may be replaced by their digital doppelgangers. As Cheyenne Roundtree writes: 

Many voice their fear that those images and/or scans could be later used to train AI programs and develop full-body replicas in their likeness … Matthew Kershaw, Vice President of Commercial Strategy for AI firm D-ID, tells Rolling Stone he understands the concerns around the use of AI when it comes to making sure talent are confident that their images and rights are protected. “I suppose it’s a bit like the invention of the motorcar – no one was going to go back to horses,” Kershaw says, pointing to the implementation of traffic lights, street crossings, and safety provisions to help navigate the change. “What is going to be liberating also needs to be thought through, and you need to have safeguards and protections around it,” he adds (Roundtree, 2023).

In light of the media interest in this story, AMPTP responded to the expressed concerns of SAG-AFTRA and stated that its AI proposal had been misrepresented by SAG-AFTRA and that it did offer protection around the issue of digital replicas for SAG-AFTRA members though many within SAG-AFTRA remain sceptical of the protections AMPTP are offering in relation to VFX and AI. (Roundtree, 2023; Maddus & Rubin, 2023). AI is also worrying those who work in the fields of scriptwriting and voice acting (Smith, 2023). Although deeply concerned about AI’s impact on the future of scriptwriting, The Writers Guild of America, which represents TV and film writers, has not called for a ban on AI, as it was expected to, but urged caution and proposed that chatbots and AI could help with writing scripts so long as writers get to maintain the credit for the writing to ensure that writers and not software manufacturers receive residuals for the writing work (Smith, 2023; Maddus, 2023). Some voice actors are also fearful of how AI might affect their livelihoods. Tim Friedlander, president of the advocacy group, The National Association of Voice Actors, states that some voice actors have expressed concern that their voices are possibly being used to create synthetic voices or “train synthetic voices for machine learning” which might result in unlicensed versions of their voices being used without their permission and therefore depriving them of income and work (Smith, 2023).

As important as these matters are to the writers and actors who need to make a living wage from their craft and to protect the legacy of their work and images, the use of AI in the film industry goes beyond the issue of pay, rights and revenue streams. Other less defined almost existential queries arise as we contemplate AI and its potential contribution to the cultural zeitgeist of our present and our future. For example, what is an authentic expression of a story and of a character and how does its manifestation affect or not affect connection with an audience? If one day, AI could be trained to reproduce in a convincing manner, human mannerisms and expression, would that be as compelling to audiences as real acting done by humans? I know one of the reasons why I love film, theatre and opera is witnessing someone inhabit a role, to watch and observe and be convinced of, the emotional morphing of someone into someone else. 

If a digital representation of a human executed the perfect habitation of a role, would it still feel the same for me knowing that no struggle or turmoil to inhabit a role by a real life actor was undertaken in order to portray this character? Would my investment in their narrative weaken as a result of this? Would it change or affect my connection to the story being told knowing that the portrayal of this character on screen was done through an AI program? It can be argued that in many ways, art just doesn’t exist on a surface level, limited to what the eye sees and what the mind observes. I think the value of art and artistic creation is linked in a rather intrinsic manner, to human struggle, effort and endeavour. 

The imperfect and sometimes tortured way that humans learn to inhabit a role and then execute it is part of the art of acting. It’s why we value it creatively as a society. Acting is fallible, messy and taxing on the actors involved. I marvel at the sometimes bland exteriors actors give off in promotional interviews for their movies compared to the searing intensity of their performances within a role. It makes you realise how much must get consumed and burned up in the creation of the portrayal of a character. How much value does the neurosis, fragility, brittleness and vulnerability that humans bring to art and creative work worth? How much of this is part of art and artistic expression itself and moreover, part of the connection we feel to the art and creative work we consume? 

Another area that I recently observed as having been impacted on by AI is a field far closer to home for me. It is writing. After finding out a little about AI writing tools such as Jasper AI and language model based chatbots like ChatGPT I soon realised that because these models and programs learn through their AI assistant and users interacting with it, AI could more than likely write like me, if not now, then one day. In the near future, I could more than likely have ChatGPT write my blogs and would you, as my reader, know? In this moment of technological revolution, I may have just become redundant, or at the very best, I have come closer to becoming redundant. I don’t use Jasper AI or ChatGPT so I do not know what their limits are nor at what stage of learning they are at so perhaps I have a little while yet to still be useful as a purveyor and examiner of ideas. But very likely AI will one day write a better blog post than I am capable of since it can draw on the vast amounts of knowledge available online and offer far more smooth, grammatically correct writing. But it wouldn’t be me writing and perhaps that is the difference and value of what I offer as a human trying to think and write about these ideas in a manner that I hope is both interesting and coherent. 

My ideas and expression are imperfect and clouded by my perspective. My blog posts will never offer a completely fair, thoroughly researched and exhaustive account of anything. I try to offer well thought out thoughts informed by frankly ad hoc research that I often do on the hop and if you wanted some real information on a subject, your own research would probably be a better option than only just reading my blog post. But perhaps because my writing and thinking is flawed due to it being human based, this is what makes it worth reading. It is my own thoughts and perspective I offer. Maybe the connections we feel to the creative content that we consume are formed because of its imperfections and an understanding and empathy for the struggle of those who offer such things, to do their work well. When asked about the notion of AI writing an entire script, Ben Mankiewicz, a primetime host of Turner Classic Movies states, “I find it very hard to believe that it’s ever going to get the humanity that makes a screenplay great.” (Smith, 2023).

If in the long run, we can survive ourselves and the system we have created to live under which seems to be actively destroying the single planet we have to call home, what is the future for AI in relation to its contribution to the collective cultural pool? More importantly, it can be asked, does the output of the work of AI in the fields of writing, art, music and entertainment reflect and represent us as a human society? Where is the line between machine and human in regards to creative endeavour? If it has been made by a machine, can it be said to be an embodiment and representation of human emotion and stories? On some level, because of how AI programs learn, the answer is yes it can be but without an active human hand present within the creative process, will it be as relatable? 

This brings us to a large question, why do we create? I feel the answer is fairly obvious: we create because we are expressive beings. A more pertinent question for me is why do we seek out creative content? Why do we watch movies, livestreams and YouTube, read books, listen to music, look at art and read online blogs and articles? Sometimes it’s because we are trying to learn new things but oftentimes it’s also because we are seeking out something ephemeral from our fellow humans. A connection and a desire to feel something, to be stimulated or inspired by emotion, ideas or thoughts. 

The predictions about the impact of technological revolution on our society and how we interact with it are never complete or resolute. Remember how computers were meant to make offices paperless? There is no doubt that work will be lost to AI. I have read anecdotally that some writers have already been losing writing work to AI as some former clients turn to AI to generate marketing copy instead of employing a writer. We are at the beginning point of AI. What it is capable of seems to be rather immense and as such, it is quite improbable that we can predict at this present stage what its impact will be, both positive and negative. As David Smith writes for The Guardian:

AI is already earning comparisons to the agricultural revolution, industrial revolution and internet revolution. It is moving fast and gathering speed. The most profound effects for Hollywood and elsewhere have probably not yet been imagined (Smith, 2023).

I agree with Matthew Kershaw, Vice President of Commercial Strategy for AI firm D-ID, that safeguards and protections will be needed around AI as it rolls out but this seems easy to say and difficult to define. How do we know what safeguards and protections we need in relation to AI if we do not know how it will grow, learn and impact on us? I don’t think we should not seek to develop AI but who will define for us as a society what protections and safeguards are needed around AI? Ethicists? Government? Surely it would be reckless to leave it to those who are developing AI to determine their own safeguards and protections. Industry has often shown reluctance to properly self-police and self-regulate. Nick Bilton who has been covering the development of new technologies for over twenty years, writes in Vanity Fair:

GPT-3 is far from perfect. It can be wonky, repetitive, even racist. As TechCrunch noted in 2020, GPT-3 language models have associated the word Islam with terrorism, and female pronouns with the word naughty. That’s because it’s crawling text that has been written by humans in the past. These platforms are learning not from other A.I. entities but from us —which has its upsides from a creative standpoint, and its downsides from a humans-are-jerks perspective. Dall-E’s own documentation warns that words like personal assistant and flight attendant will generate images of women, and words like CEO will likely give you white men … The question is, will the creators of these platforms be able to discover the negatives before this tech is released into the public? (Which, let’s be honest, has never happened before in technological history.) Perhaps it will take years to foresee all the potential outcomes of these services. There’s a fun irony in the thought that the only thing saving our jobs from being replaced by algorithms is the fear that humans will do terrible things with the technology (Bilton, 2022).

Many of the articles I have read about AI end ominously. I think we are in danger of technological advances outstripping our ability to have the time to think about the ethics and impact serious and far reaching technological advancements like AI will have on our society. We rush into the future because there is money to be made by the few and many of us, despite ourselves, still nurture hope in our hearts that the future is still a bright, hopeful and better place than where we are today and surely wondrous technology will be part of that amazing future. I would like to think this too but my honest opinion is that without seriously dealing with climate change, I don’t see how we can have much of a future at all. But if we were able at some stage to ensure the long term health and safety of our planet and climate, I think we need to give studied thought about what makes us connect to artistic and creative endeavour and whether AI can fulfil what we seek when we look for the thing within art and creative work that soothes our souls and inspires us. Within this thought, you surely will find the value of a human. 

References: 

Bilton, N. (2 June, 2022). The New Generation of A.I. Apps Could Make Writers and Artists Obsolete. Vanity Fair. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/06/the-new-generation-of-ai-apps-could-make-writers-and-artists-obsolete

Hughes, W. (13 July, 2023). SAG accuses studios of wanting to scan extras' faces so they can own them forever. A.V.Club. https://www.avclub.com/sag-accuses-studios-of-wanting-to-scan-extras-faces-so-1850638753

Lee, C. (12 December, 2018). Digital Doubles Are Revolutionizing Hollywood. But Why Do Movie Stars Hate Them? Vulture. https://www.vulture.com/2018/12/why-do-movie-stars-hate-being-digitally-scanned.html

Maddaus, G. (21 March, 2023). WGA Would Allow Artificial Intelligence in Scriptwriting, as Long as Writers Maintain Credit. Variety. https://variety.com/2023/biz/news/writers-guild-artificial-intelligence-proposal-1235560927/

Maddaus, G. & Rubin, R. (13 July, 2023). SAG-AFTRA Declares Double Strike as Actors Join Writers on Picket Lines. Variety. https://variety.com/2023/biz/news/sag-aftra-double-strike-wga-amptp-1235669492/

Smith, D. (23 March, 2023). ‘Of course it’s disturbing’: will AI change Hollywood forever? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/mar/23/ai-change-hollywood-film-industry-concern

Roundtree, C. (22 July, 2023). Hollywood’s Fight Against AI Puts Background Actors in the Spotlight. RollingStone. https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-features/hollywood-actors-strike-ai-background-visual-effects-sag-aftra-1234792405/

A Look at Third Way Politics

 A few years back, someone wrote to me a great turn of phrase: “ageing out of the zeitgeist” and I thought “yes, that is me”. As surely as my hair turns grey with the passage of time, the recognisability of pop culture and its icons has faded also. I no longer recognise, let alone know the name of those who are paid handsomely to spruik various consumer products to me as I traverse the internet. The swirling allure, glittering snap and surly snarl of youth culture has truly left me behind and I am completely comfortable with that. I don’t mind not being young.

What is more startling of late has been the realisation that I have become old enough to start seeing and reading historical analysis of my formative years. More specifically, historians are beginning to be able to look with some degree of distance at the ideology and the political culture of the socio-political phenomenon that defined my high school and university years: the Third Way. It’s fascinating but also somewhat jarring to witness the ideas of my youth passing into history.

What inspired this post was recently reading an article in The Nation by Lily Geismer analysing the much vaunted but also heavily criticised Third Way politics of the late twentieth and early twenty-first century. I will link the article here: How the Third Way Made Neoliberal Politics Seem Inevitable. I was a child of the Third Way. I believed in it and it fueled my idealism and interest in politics as a youth. Standing in the far flung and little visited political science wing of my high school where my politics and law classes were held, I saw my future in politics and my youthful heart was captured by the idea of making a better world through building consensus and harnessing the profits of capitalism to help to create fairer and more prosperous communities. Generally speaking, these were the ideals of the Third Way and I passionately wanted to be part of the cohort taking us into what appeared to be a bright and hopeful future.

I became an ardent advocate of the type of consensus politics the Third Way promoted as the elixir to class division and I rallied behind its call for the shedding of the old parochial left and right divide. B was one the first people I met in my social circle who did not admire the Third Way. He said unprintable things about Tony Blair at a time when Blair was riding waves of unimaginable popularity as ‘cool Britannia’ dominated the zeitgeist. I was shocked and shook my head sadly at the crusty, old dinosaur politics he seemed so enthused about as a member of a socialist party. Touting my Tony Blair and Bill Clinton biographies alongside my political science textbooks, I proudly and loudly occupied what I thought was the political centre.

Third Way politics can be broadly described as this:

The Third Way is a centrist political position that attempts to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of centre-right economic policies with centre-left social policies (“Third Way”, 2023).

A central plank of the Third Way was the idea of consensus politics. Consensus politics is not something the Third Way thought of but it certainly reinvigorated it during the late twentieth century. Prior to the Third Way, it could be said that there existed a strong sense of consensus politics during the postwar period between 1945 and 1970 in many developed, Western democracies when governments on both sides of the political spectrum endorsed public policies that protected social safety nets, advocated for government intervention in the economy, promoted government ownership of national industries and called for full employment (tutor2u, 2021). It is generally thought that the consensus politics of the postwar era started to fray in the 1970s as the oil shocks of 1973 and 1979 took hold and economies stagnated with inflation skyrocketing leading to stagflation in many developed economies (tutor2u, 2021; “1970s Energy Crisis,” 2023). As the socio-political fallout from stagnating economies reverberated at the political level, consensus politics began to break down with the advent of Thatcherism and Reaganomics effectively ending it. Some have even characterised Thatcherism as the outright repudiation of the consensus politics of the postwar period (“Thatcherism,” 2023).

Into this political landscape stepped the Third Way. From the outset the Third Way had its critics with many commenters disturbed by its ambiguity and apparent lack of substance (Geismer, 2022). The Third Way shimmered like a political chameleon, flashing reassuringly to the right with its neoliberal economic policies and making soothing noises to the left with its social rhetoric. In truth, the appeal of the Third Way most likely rested in it doing exactly this. I think that many who advocated for it wished for the continuation of capitalism as an engine for wealth creation for our societies but wanted the cruelties and excesses of capitalism to be curtailed by strong public policy legislated from democratic and representative parliaments. Without doubt, some of the faith in the Third Way more than likely rested on a certain naivety in regards to fully grasping the nature of neo-liberal capitalism and how it would interact with our political systems. I suspect very few centrists thought that neoliberal capitalism would capture our socio-political systems so ruthlessly and with such levels of totality.

In theory at least, Third Way politics is predicated on having a healthy and strong social democratic system in place which is renewed and supported by an informed and engaged citizen base. But as Geismer discusses, the real life enactment of Third Way politics and policies in its effort to dominate and determine what the centre is actually helped to erode social democracy by inhibiting the development of progressive, movement based politics:

The third way also proved instrumental to another key post–Cold War undertaking: discrediting and marginalizing movement-based coalitions on the left, stigmatizing them as holdovers from the recently resolved—in capitalism’s favor—postwar clash of ideologies. In many ways, the most lasting legacy of the third way may well be its determination to consign the political left to the dustbin of history, setting the stage for the new millennial age of reaction and crisis (Geismer, 2022).

Despite the extensive damage Third Way politics and ideology would do to the left, some of which is still reverberating through the centre left today, Geiser correctly identifies why the Third Way seemed so appealing at the time it appeared:

… it would be a mistake to dismiss the third way as just another errant fad in a fickle decade. For all its imprecision and shallowness, the third way represented a genuine shift in thinking about the role of government and ideology. It emerged from the efforts of political thinkers and leaders across the West to move beyond the divisions of the Cold War and face the new challenges of globalization and the information age (Geismer, 2022).

My belief in Third Way consensus politics more or less held until I began to recognise that we had entered late stage capitalism. Perhaps moving into a new century helps to facilitate an analysis of the previous century though in historical terms, not that much time has passed as yet. However, the slow hollowing out of our democracies as capitalism’s grip on our political representatives became more blatant and obvious, the profits that flowed out from multinational behemoths in the face of dwindling social safety nets, stagnating wages, modest homes becoming unaffordable for a substantive number of salaried people and witnessing how things like medical care and even the purchasing of fresh fruit and vegetables have become unaffordable for some has forced me to recognise something deeply uncomfortable. The consensus politics of the Third Way seems to have yielded a pathway for the realisation and near domination of neoliberal capitalism.

As Geismer observes in their article, Third Way politics did not find a way for capitalism and social democracy to co-exist. If anything it helped to blunt the potency of social democratic politics and policies as the Third Way co-opted and then hollowed out the meaning of the ideas behind progressive, socially democratic public policy. Geismer writes:

By describing the third way as “progressive,” the New Democrats ensured that the left lacked a key term to define its own politics. It meant that groups on the left had little room to create meaningful dissent from the third way or the agenda it represented. Robert Reich, who was freer to speak his mind after resigning as Clinton’s labor secretary, observed in an interview with The Nation’s David Corn that if the third way did not gain more substance, it would “leave the progressive left in tatters and do little to rectify the social injustices experienced by modern capitalism” (Geismer, 2022).

Why did Third Way politics seemingly help to realise Margaret Thatcher’s slogan “there is no alternative” in regards to society embracing the tenets of neoliberal capitalism? Chiefly, it can be argued that at the heart of Third Way public policy were the same goals and assumptions that drove neoliberal capitalism. That is, privatisation through private and public economic relationships and the deregulation of markets combined with a weak vision, if not lack of real commitment, to the social protections that would be needed to buffer the community against the socio-economic consequences of having achieving the economic agenda of the Third Way (Geismer, 2022). For all intents and purposes, the goals and policy objectives advocated by neoliberal capitalism were achieved through the centre left via the Third Way. There is no easy way to write that and it’s hard to swallow but how can one argue with history? Was there another way for the Third Way? Possibly if there had been a greater commitment to a more interventionist manifestation of it which would have sought to reinforce social safety nets alongside genuinely pushing for progressive politics but it’s also very hard to say because the economic agenda of Third Way was so driven in ideological terms by neoliberal ideals. Its economic agenda stood in conflict with its social aims.

It could be said that the Third Way has somewhat tarnished consensus politics. The politics and ideas of the Third Way certainly have emptied of much meaning what the centre left stands for and pushed the centre overall further to the right, normalising ideas that have been strongly influenced by neoliberalism. If the Third Way has shown me anything, it’s to be more critical in analysing whose favour the consensus is for. Furthermore, in assessing the Third Way it’s difficult to argue against B’s assertion that it made democracy safe for capitalism. 

But more worryingly, consensus politics itself could be something of a fallacy because it assumes that the left and right can converge in a type of post-ideological political landscape. But for this to truly occur, politics has to become de-politicised and when this is done, it is usually because there exists an active and powerful hegemony and hegemonic power in place because behind the enactment of hegemony is power and what drives power is ideology of some description. But not all hegemony is necessarily bad, if it rests on principles of fairness, equality and justice then perhaps it will be benign if not beneficial to humanity. Our job I guess as citizens is to recognise and witness hegemony and possibly attempt to break it if it threatens to destroy our ability to survive long term as a species or when it no longer is representative of what the majority of us advocate for as a society. Hegemony and ideology have become deeply present aspects again of our society and our political landscape, both domestically and internationally. Multiple crisis beckon in the new century and the need for informed and engaged citizens has never been greater as democracy stands on a new precipice and with reason as some people ask this question: why should they invest in a system that doesn't invest in them? 

References:

1970s Energy Crisis. (27 April, 2023). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970s_energy_crisis

Geismer. L. (13 December, 2022). How the Third Way Made Neoliberal Politics Seem Inevitable. The Nation. https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/third-way-dlc-bill-clinton-tony-blair-1990s-politics/

Thatcherism. (27 April, 2023). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism

Third Way. (27 April, 2023). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way

tutor2u (22 March, 2021). Study Notes: Consensus Politics. https://www.tutor2u.net/politics/reference/consensus-politics Retrieved 27 April, 2023

Not Too Many Questions or Too Much Eye Contact Please: Finding and Caring For My Introvert Self

“You don’t talk. It’s the quiet ones you have to watch out for.” 

Working on the conveyor belt sorting out small silver spheres that would eventually be shipped to the US to be minted into quarter dollar coins, my workmate’s attack was as vicious and blunt as it was unexpected. Up until then I had quietly been listening to the swirl of chatter bubbling up from the women who were working the belt alongside me. I was floored and didn’t know what to say. Being young and full of vinegar I might have snapped something brief and snarly back but I realised then that quietness was no longer really an option for me in my workplace. I needed to force myself to pretend to be what I really wasn’t: an extrovert, a people-person. I would have to force myself to make small talk and every time I did it, it would be death by a thousand, tiny cuts.

I worked my factory job for a little over a decade and every day I would come home dirty from the grime and sweat of the workday, sometimes physically exhausted from the heavy work. But arguably the heftiest toll was the mental and emotional depletion caused by the constant interaction that the work day obliged. Being quiet and a good listener, bored workmates would sometimes unload onto me, not understanding that my sensitivity led me to feeling almost injured at times by some of the details and things they told me about their private lives. Things I didn’t want to know. I came to my workplace to earn my crust. I wasn’t there to make friends or bond with people and yet it became hard not to care about these people because I knew too much about them not to. Sometimes my supervisor or leading hand would take pity on my exhausted looking self and knowing that I enjoyed solitary work, I would be offered a few hours of solo work but even then they themselves would come into my work space to make desultory chit chat. The only place I found solitude during my working hours was when I locked myself inside a grimy toilet cubicle. For those precious moments I could rest and recharge.

To be an introvert is to be quite misunderstood at times. You are frequently seen as a troublemaker for not integrating better into cultures often dominated and set by the standards of extroverts. Your quietness and strong desire to be left alone is regularly misinterpreted as anger, sullenness, surliness, bitchiness, coldness or superiority. To this day I don’t think some members of my own family accept that I am an introvert with many of the accompanying needs and quirks that being an introvert entails. The only person who really accepts me as I am is B, a fellow introvert. His own friendship group once expressed disbelief at how we can be together all the time but what they don’t understand is how introverts share space: together yet alone. B and I are often wrapped up in our own pursuits, happy to be in each other’s presence but giving each other plenty of space to be. After we have had sufficient “alone” time together, we’ll reconnect and chat about what we’ve read or seen or we’ll binge watch some Netflix. Currently we are watching an amazing series called Fauda. I highly recommend it.

But the truth of the matter is that for the longest time I thought there was something really wrong with me and my lack of socialising. I strongly felt that I needed to have vibrant social outlets in order to be ‘normal’. Thus, I forced myself to do things like cosplay, to participate in community projects in my local neighbourhood and join various online chat groups like Discord. It was all quite terrible at times. I enjoyed some of it but most of the time the overstimulation of the experience meant that I was locked into a cycle of activities that left me feeling exposed, frazzled and drained. It’s been only very recently that I have given myself permission to step into my comfort zone and let the noise and clutter of my social life fall away. I do socialise still but not very much and only with a very small circle that you can count on one hand. Without really intentionally doing so, I discovered my introvert self and saw how beat up and haggard she was and I took her to my heart and said, “enough.”

Part of this process began several years ago when I discovered that I might be HSP: a Highly Sensitive Person through a marvellous TED talk by Elena Herdieckerhoff which I will link here: The gentle power of highly sensitive people. However enlightening this TED talk was for me, the real legitimising framework for feeling comfortable enough to allow myself to be the introvert that I am came from reading The Secret Lives of Introverts: Inside Our Hidden World by Jenn Granneman. It was equal parts comforting and shocking to read my personality traits jumping out of this book. It explained and talked about so much of what I knew about myself in a positive light whereas for most of my adult life, these traits and quirks have persistently been discussed with me and about me in mostly negative terms. I agree with Granneman that sometimes labels can help. In my particular case, calling myself an introvert has been a profound relief because I am no longer just a weirdly unsociable person who may or may not be maladjusted. Instead, I am someone who contributes differently and quietly, in my own way, in my own time and on my terms. It gives me great confidence to frame my personality in this way and by perceiving B as a fellow introvert, I can also understand him better now too.

Blogging is my way of reaching out in the world and I thank every reader who stops by here or the music blog. Blogging allows my inner world to reach outwards. I am so grateful to have a place where I can write and share my thoughts and I look forward to writing again next time.