BLOG POST 2: TAYLOR SWIFT

This particular post was an Instagram story posted by Taylor Swift on her account a while back. It depicts the wording as so; “Are you registered to vote?” I've been so lucky to see so many of you guys at my US shows recently. I’ve heard you raise your voices, and I know how powerful they are. Make sure you’re ready to use them in our elections this year! Register to vote in less than 2 minutes at “VOTE.ORG/NVRD”.

The particular stance I want to make of this post is rather more on the cynical end, with some critical deliberation of why I feel like this is an interesting incorporation of politics by a well-known celebrity.

Celebrities in the media are having a rather more prevalent influence than ever before i must say. In one article posted by Newport Academy, they state “A survey found that 80 percent of teen girls compare themselves to images they see of celebrities. Almost half of those reported that celebrity images make them feel dissatisfied with the way they look.” In regards to mega superstar Taylor Swift, a lot of her audience consists of young teenage girls or rather more feminine-presenting people who resonate with her music and art as a whole. If we look at the plenty of imagery that makes up Taylor Swift’s discography, it mostly consists of seemingly harmless lyrics and content, mostly consisting of music and songs detailing heartbreak, relationships, and womanhood. All seemingly harmless stuff right? Yet this isn’t a critique of Taylor Swift’s discography, but rather the extent of the power over her “fandom” she has, and to what length.

Taylor Swift has been one of several celebrities who has been lumped in several “purple-washing” controversies; a term that has been tossed around in the media as meaning a type of “woke neo-liberal propaganda” used by the liberals to promote “feminism” - or something along the lines that your average Republican or Conservative politician would say. The term “purple-washing” can be defined in this article by Ishika Aggarwal as “colour washing the ‘not so feminist stuff’ by sugar coating things with feminist values. It is basic to hide one’s inherent anti-feminist and anti-women opinions with some other feminist values (because society likes inclusion and they want society’s support) (Aggarwal, 2023).” At times, many of Taylor Swift’s music comes off as a back-handed perspective and narrow minded view of a universal experience of womanhood and femininity as a whole piece; it seems her music is more so catered to “white feminists'' who mostly feel empowered by content that speaks to a rather dissonant image of their experiences. So it seems somewhat backhanded at times that she would want to venture into the world of politics as a whole. 

In terms of the voting process, was Miss Swift aware of such disadvantages to openly voting the party you want due to other factors? Gentrification? Gerrymandering, perhaps? Gerrymandering is a political tactic that is created due to something in the US political system known as “redistricting”; this can be seen as problematic for a number of reasons. The whole process can only be described as a way for a specific political party to gain more votes by using the redistribution of smaller districts towards their own registered areas, thus making it oftentimes impossible for a normal individual living in the United States to vote for the party they want. This is even harder for those in gentrified areas, where predominantly POC or minorities reside; in an article published by Brennan Center for Justice, it can only be defined as “rather than voters choosing their representatives, gerrymandering empowers politicians to choose their voters.  But of course, Miss Swift would probably not be aware of that, would she?

However, I will not want to leave the critique on a purely cynical route; Taylor Swift, I must admit, has been known for advocacy for women and the queer LGBT community. She also has been known for speaking against homophobia and sexism within and outside her fandom, which she should address as an artist. She, as a mega superstar, is at least using her voice to speak on issues that she feels attached towards, which many celebrities in the public refuse to do at times due to their own inclinations to stay out of political discussion without having their own opinions used against them. Here, Taylor Swift is obviously more on the liberal side of the discussion, with her extensive resume and record of donating towards notable charities and organizations. Her outspokenness on issues she is passionate about is at least something to be commended.

I would like to go back to the point I had made on Taylor Swift entering the political realm; in an article posted in Cosmopolitan, they had reinstated that “A 2021 survey from Pipslay, found that 63% of Americans said they believed celebrities made good politicians, with 58% saying they would support Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson or Matthew McConaughey if either actor decided to run for president (Hall, 2023).” This phenomenon of celebrities entering the political realm is reserved with the term, “celebrity politics.” Many notable celebrities such as Kanye West or Caitlynn Jenner have been known to have ventured into politics while having had the status of celebrity beforehand, although both the latter have had the notoriety for being openly Republican and Conservative in their opinions. On one hand it seems at times Taylor Swift’s oftentimes “tone-deaf liberalism” comes off as a barrier in recognizing her actual stance in this example of political product placement. On the contrary it is rather a good mechanism for her to be able to gain more respect from her fanbase, while also being able to introduce the process of voting to her younger generation of fans. In doing so creating a way for “most” of them to gain access; emphasis on those who can even have access to these resources.

BLOG POST 1: DAVID SEYMOUR

BLOG POST 1: 

The first post is highlighting the leader of ACT Party, David Seymour, openly talking about removing benefits of drug addicts if they refuse to partake in any treatment. There seems to be a neutral stance on Seymour’s attitude towards drug addicts within the tone of the post.

My stance on this particular social media post is a more negative stance; I do not agree with the way that this story was framed in the news article, nor do I agree with the particular viewpoint this post was taking.

My first point I would like to make is that David Seymour has made a rather selfish and misjudged generalization about drug addicts in the overall public sense, and this stance has seemingly been guided by his outlook on a small number of the population within that group. The article frames his statement as being so - “ACT wants “drug addicts” to lose their benefit if they refuse treatment.” It begs to question, are they referring to the entire community of drug addicts, or those who simply refuse treatment? It hence comes to feel as if both Seymour’s statement and the post are generalizing the entire community of drug addicts as if they all consecutively refuse to take themselves to rehabilitation.

According to this survey, taken by State of the Mind, back in 2022, showed the demographics of those who were in drug and alcohol addiction rehabilitation centers, and the numbers usually ranged from the thousands, with Auckland having around 10,000, Taranaki with the lowest around 2000, and Whanganui with the highest at over 18,000 attendees at their rehabilitation center. One of those who were interviewed in this particular survey stated, “The process of finding services online is challenging, even via specific search engines such as health navigator and the Ministry of Health ... Once services are found it is then difficult to understand the information around what they offer and how to best access them. The eligibility criteria are often not mentioned or are vague.” On the same note within the same article, another facilitator at a AOD service center outside of Auckland stated that during the “lockdown” which occurred around early 2020, that “most [of our clients] reported this time that they were more ready and it helped them with their journey to quit or cut down.” 

I would like to point out that it seems David Seymour has not seemingly talked to a single person who has or is experiencing drug addiction, nor do I feel like he had taken the initiative alongside his party to talk to the facilitators who are more in depth with the knowledge of this experience.

From a personal and rather unbiased viewpoint, I would like to briefly conclude and point out my own personal biases against many of ACT Party’s values and why it inherently is why I have taken a rather cynical stance on this post.

The first point is that one; the ACT party seems to strive in an egotistical manner that by eliminating the access towards benefits of drug addicts it will solve the problem. There is currently a crisis of homelessness in Auckland as we speak; Auckland has been found according to a 2018 survey conducted by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, to accommodate at least the highest number of people experiencing homelessness at precisely 43.9%. I would like to point out why many people turn to drugs in the first place; as stated by State of the Nation,  “People use alcohol and other drugs for many reasons – recreation, spiritual discovery, performance enhancement, peer pressure, or to medicate physical or emotional pain.” It is already established, especially in this country, that much of the stress of mental and emotional pain that is being experienced in Auckland alone is the living cost; again going back to the stats of Auckland having one of the highest numbers of homelessness in New Zealand. Isn’t that the discussion that we as a nation should be having? Those who are addicts who are experiencing these symptoms of emotional pain, wouldn’t have to turn to these substances if it weren’t for the state of this country’s living cost in the first place.

The second, and final point I would like to make here is that ACT PARTY is a political affiliation whose values stand against issues I deeply care about. They have openly advocated for the bombing of the Ministry of Pacific Peoples, and are against the incorporation of co-governance within the parliament of New Zealand. It is feased for me to say that I believe ACT is rather using the emotional labor and mental health well-being of drug addicts as a talking point to articulate a sense of attraction for people to vote for his party. Again I often feel and strongly believe that many of David Seymour’s talking points are directed towards communities and groups of people that he knows nothing about.

It is merely another chance for him to speak on issues that he clearly has no idea what he is speaking on behalf of anyways. I have heard about instances of people who had been addicts themselves who managed to get the proper care they needed, and make it through. In doing do I would like to add on with my own personal anecdote; as someone who personally was addicted to alcoholic substances for a period of time, and affecting my studies at high school, I wouldn’t still be here if it wasn’t for the mental health services and access to resources available. I can’t speak on behalf of any other person who has gone through addiction, as mine wasn’t to that extent, yet I guess I empathize with the plight of those who have gone through addiction and lived to tell the tale, as it seems that addicts don’t get or are not allowed to be given any sense of understanding and empathy. It’s always the discussion of “we can’t help you anymore” or the quotes of “YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN NOW”. Within this post it seems Seymour wants to create a negative narrative that in doing so will make it harder to fully enable ourselves to understand and be able to work through giving access and rehabilitation services for addicts. It’s almost as if addicts do actually and actively offer to get help, and yet what David Seymour doesn’t realize is that for some people, many are not able to get that access.