The opinions expressed in The Lawrentian are those of the students, faculty and community members who wrote them. The Lawrentian does not endorse any opinions piece except for the staff editorial, which represents a majority of the editorial board. The Lawrentian welcomes everyone to submit their own opinions. For the full editorial policy and parameters for submitting articles, please refer to the About section.
Every week, the internet discovers some new pop culture moment to dissect, and one of the most recent ones is Chappell Roan’s interview on the podcast “Call Her Daddy.” Although she talks about a variety of topics in this conversation, I want to focus on her statements about her role as a political figure. Chappell states that being a famous singer comes with a frustrating amount of pressure to stay informed about social and political issues because the media expects public figures to frequently make statements on their beliefs. This quote drew a variety of strong reactions from all areas of the political spectrum.
Firstly, I think it’s important to acknowledge that the entertainment industry is an exploitative facet of capitalism. When art is sold for profit, the artist and the audience are both drawn into a relationship with the capitalist machine: the artist produces and the audience consumes. As the artists acquire greater fame, the artists themselves often become commodified as a spectacle for consumption, and their personal lives become inseparable from their personas as artists.
This commodification is also exacerbated by gender norms. The misogynistic double standards that most women face in their everyday lives are magnified in the entertainment industry. In every era, women in the public eye have been targets of extreme scrutiny, from Marilyn Monroe to Britney Spears. Our patriarchal society enjoys running hate campaigns towards famous women because it gives them a common target for their misogyny. Furthermore, Chappell Roan holds a unique position as a lesbian artist in an industry where women’s sexuality is traditionally commodified for the male gaze. She is an openly gay woman who sings explicitly about queer relationships, and that adds an extra layer of scrutiny in a field where self-expression is already so heavily policed. Any analysis of Chappell’s social impact cannot be separated from the absurd expectations placed upon individuals — especially women — in the entertainment industry.
However, acknowledging the exploitative nature of the entertainment industry does not mean celebrities should be above criticism. In fact, shielding the rich and famous from critique actually upholds this exploitative capitalist system. While much of the visceral hatred towards Chappell is rooted in misogyny, homophobia and our society’s parasocial relationship to celebrities, there are also some valid critiques of Chappell amidst the noise. Authenticity is often accompanied by its problematic cousin Tone Deafness, and some of Chappell’s comments do feel disconnected from the broader context we are living in. Some people from marginalized backgrounds have argued that famous white women like Chappell should be using their platforms to fight for the most vulnerable communities, especially at a time when marginalized people in the U.S. are under increased attack from both the state and federal governments. In the same vein, many believe that Chappell has a responsibility to publicly stand up for these groups because she acquired fame largely through the support of the LGBTQ+ community. Regardless of whether we believe artists have a responsibility to participate in politics, these power dynamics must be acknowledged.
All art is political, whether that is the artist’s intention or not, because it impacts society. Of course, some art is inherently more political than others. Furthermore, not every artist is a full-time activist, and artists are not obligated to share their political beliefs with the world. However, an artist’s choice to avoid mainstream politics is a form of political expression in itself. While it would be ideal to live in a world where politics are not a matter of life and death, our society is so heavily political that it is impossible to be truly apolitical. We are all responsible for how we engage with society, and unfortunately this responsibility is greater for celebrities because they have such a large impact on society.
But the fervor of this discourse raises a new question: why are we so invested in the politics of celebrities? While it makes sense that we want to support artists that align with our values and avoid platforming those who do not, we often overestimate celebrities’ cultural impact. Make no mistake — an openly lesbian pop star being hailed for singing about queer relationships is a positive thing, especially in the face of rising anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment and policy. Chappell Roan’s pro-LGBTQ+ music, Kendrick Lamar’s Super Bowl halftime show commenting on anti-Blackness and Rachel Zegler’s tweet in support of Palestine despite pressure from Disney execs to remain silent are all great examples of celebrities positively contributing to a more progressive social culture and pushing back against harmful rhetoric. But the revolution doesn’t start with a concert or a tweet.
We cannot expect the rich and powerful to save us. As much as I enjoy Chappell’s music and her influence on pop culture, the notion that a famous white cisgender singer is the face of 21st-century queer liberation is a lukewarm liberal fantasy where society is gradually reformed through representation at the top without breaking down unjust systems. The LGBTQ+ rights movement has existed long before “Pink Pony Club” became a trending audio on TikTok, and the future of the queer community does not rely solely on whether Chappell Roan decides to talk about politics.
Freedom depends on the rise and fall of exploitative systems, not the rise and fall of a Midwest Princess.