Tagged: Social Media


An NZ Herald article on Saturday titled ‘She’s Back – The Return of the Nanny State’ claimed that the National Party government has engaged in forms of social coercion to force behavioural changes as the previous Labour government did. The concept of the nanny state always misses the point. Subtle measures and incentives for ‘correcting’ social behaviour are used by whoever is in charge – whether centre-left or centre-right – but built on different concepts of both the social good and the relationship between citizen, the market, and government. These concepts typically dominate mainstream confines of both camps. This two part series addresses the rationale and consequences when both centre-left and centre-right overreach.


Helen Lovejoy: “You’ve got to lead our protest against this abomination!”
Marge: “Mm, but that’s Michelangelo’s David. It’s a masterpiece”.
Helen: [gasp] “It’s filth! It graphically portrays parts of the human body, which, practical as they may be, are evil”.
Marge: “But I like that statue”.
Helen: [gasp] “I told you she was soft on full frontal nudity! Come on, girls…”

This isn’t about lightbulbs and showerheads – rather the roots and consequences of the modern mainstream left approach to inequality and oppression prevalent in the modern public discourse – rooted in politics, journalism, and social media.

Since the 1970’s and 80’s, mainstream left wing politics in the Western world has become dominated by conservative rather than radical elements of social movements working within the establishment, whose approach has emphasised racial, gender, and ethnic identity rather than class as the cause of oppression and inequality. Chris Trotter effectively highlights the resultant dominance of the NZ Labour Party caucus by middle class managers – teachers, social workers, academics, civil servants, parliamentary staffers, and trade union hierarchy – rather than formerly working class heroes such as Norman Kirk. From this time, centre-left parties have implemented gender equity legislation, gay anti-discrimination and couple rights laws, and racial quotas while simultaneously have enacted and/ or maintained economic deregulation, privatisation, and tax reforms similar to conservative parties.

Mainstream journalism equally transformed though the inclusion of sexually and ethnically diverse viewpoints but with a decline in discussion of working class viewpoints and commentary on welfare and poverty dominated by opinion columnists lacking personal insight or solicitation of the opinions of those who do. Consider this thoughtful piece from the perspective of a working class American woman on why poorer people are perpetually in debt – an exception rather than a rule. Similar claims could be made of the blogosphere.

Without class, elections and public debate are centred on social issues: gay rights, law and order, gender rights, racial equality, and modest adjustments to economic policy – all within the acceptable realm of modern free market economics. Within the context of identity, the working class is seen as the cause of social ills and poverty as a disease – bogans, chavs, white trash and helpless victims – in which the cure is to end class and transform everyone into socially tolerant middle class consumers. The villains in this reality are not structures and cultures but individual broadcasters, politicians, and corporations. Public debate is centred on language, words, and purchasing power. Often the broad thrust of social media is similar to mainstream media in harnessing our demand for instant justice – a cyber pitchfork if you will – to fight individual enemies with invective.

The use of consumer boycotts has become a popular tool. Notable in America, these have included the movement targeting Wal-Mart and McDonalds as exclusive evils – with those including myself as a young polemicist-reading politics student having boycotted such businesses on ethical consumer choice alone. More recently this has extended to public language such as the attempted boycott of US fast food chain Chick-Fil-A over homophobic statements by its CEO; and this year in New Zealand over the John Tamihere and Willie Jackson’s infamous Roastbusters interview, the Metro Magazine joke debacle, and moves against Bob Jones for backwards comments about sexual violence towards women.

The flaws of this approach – especially Tamihere and Jackson, Metro, and Bob Jones – reminds me of The Simpsons episode ‘Itchy and Scratchy and Marge’ – where Marge founds Springfieldians for Non-Violence, Understanding and Helping (SNUH) to demand an end to cartoon violence as the cause of youth violence. Successful in its aim, SNUH tries to rally Marge to lead a campaign against Michaelangelo’s David on display at a gallery Springfield. When Marge disagrees with the premise, she is confronted with the hypocrisy of opposition to one form of public obscenity but not another – resulting in both Itchy and Scratchy being revived and David being displayed in Springfield.

The effective discouragement or attempted removal of offensive words, views, and media being broadcast within the public sphere is a noble aim but whose focus wrongly implies if individual public concepts or figures are taken down or forced to change then the problem has been destroyed. The precedent is the selective choice of targets – in which we often base on our political and cultural biases rather than consistency. Selective consumerism can channel public rage for easy, temporary victories that often fail to address the institutional, political, and cultural roots and often backfires spectacularly – like Chick Fil-A, which made more profit in backlash. That Wal-Mart and McDonalds are bigger than ever in spite of ethical consumer choice is reflective of the ability for corporates to change only as a purely market response.

Movements must have concrete aims to change laws, institutions, and culture to be effective. Gay liberation movements worldwide have been effective through focusing on concrete changes legislative changes to legalise consensual same sex acts; anti-discrimination; institutional cultural changes within police, judiciary, and the education system; now towards gay marriage and adoption. Denial and attempted public removal of opposing views – no matter how heinous they might be – can isolate otherwise flawed citizens who may not be closed to change who could be engaged through public debate to break myths.

The anger at the so-called nanny state associated with the modern left (the right will be addressed next post) is less about regulating environmentally-unfriendly lightbulbs, showerheads, and junk food and more a perception of overemphasis on immediate tolerance of diversity and correct consumer action rather than working to address myths and the roots of cultural and structural behaviour. All voices short of incitement to harm have the right to be included within the public sphere. Personally, my favourite figures on the left are those who effectively use satire to reduce the most threatening institutions, scary garbage people, and their garbage views to rubble – far more effective than boycotts. If this piece accomplishes anything, it will be more people listening to the Bugle just to get the idea.




“Darling, you don’t fall in love with somebody *because* they’re beautiful.
People are lovely *because* we love them, not the other way round”.

-The Line of Beauty

I don’t know who first used the term ‘creative’ in a career sense. For my generation, the term has become an aspiration for careers that involves a degree of freedom. Especially given mass production that removes us from consumping our own creations, we idealise creative career fantasies: fashion design, freelance writing, music, art, bespoke cheese-making, or alpaca farming. The ideal of creativity and career as mutually exclusive is not yet achievable for most of us because of the nature of capitalism: the lack of opportunities reflected in unpaid internships and lack of broader market emphasis on creative independence as an asset. Because a full-time/ freelance creative career is not possible for most of us, we devote ourselves to blogs and writing projects, bands, painting, cheese-making courses, squirrel away money, and may be discovered or take a chance.

Often my generation has a distorted definition of creativity. The advent of social media especially reflects contradictory extremes – one end of the spectrum that emphasises the image and the other on overproduction.

If in a bad mood it’s not wise to view Instagram or Facebook – from which you wrongly compare yourself to others’ creative accomplishments which in the end is just image. Social media is too frequently used to craft an online self to project culture and creativity. Become known for the cute animal pictures, refine that awkward meme-ish pose you do in front of famous landmarks, and use your full name/ weird pseudonym. This is akin to a Family Guy reference or any Buzzfeed post: a nudge and a wink to gain that might want individuality but screams to be demanded as one of the group.

At the other end of the spectrum is the cultural expectation of perpetual creation. In Melbourne, the term ‘creative’ – that code word in flat ads – screams synth band and writing side projects, mural painting, and baking artisan sourdough – a true diluted homeopathic essence of Melbourne. Overall, I am pleased with the rise of creative pursuits among my generation as a reflection that many in my generation desire a connection with their consumption. However, the expectations of this level of creativity we project onto each other through social media and conversation are often unrealistic. Too many of us overreach in multiple pursuits but few are truly talented at the everything – that’s why Rhodes Scholarships are so exclusive. People like David Byrne, Kurt Vonnegut, or Patti Smith have applied themselves well to different media and have set for my generation a high bar of expectations we too often try to qualify for. Also, our long daily commutes to work, study, and socialising, and the expenses incurred makes most of us incapable of engaging in multiple creative pursuits – which mostly lie half completed and scattered like a mad tinker’s backyard.

Most who can actually juggle a multitude of pursuits spread their creativity too thin and produce bad results – and almost always accompanied by the image of creativity. I call this the James Franco Principle. James Franco is symbolic of our generation’s creative ambition to be the ultimate slashie. Studying a PhD and attending classes sporadically, writing mediocre novels such as Palo Alto – which after the first page I considered setting on fire in disgust – acting in a multitude of gay film roles that would be better left to gay actors, and treating gay sex like a joke detracts from his actual talent – acting. My generation idolises him probably because it values results. A plethora of mediocre side projects qualifies as creative even if the output is bad as long as also backed up by image (like this).

The need to present oneself as creative at all times and be constantly creating demeans our own creativity and replaces it with laziness. Creativity is simply a process, is not a constant state of being or mind. Consider the entire lyrics to the song ‘Artists Only’ from my favourite band, Talking Heads.

I’m painting, I’m painting again
I’m painting, I’m painting again
I’m cleaning, I’m cleaning again
I’m cleaning, I’m cleaning my brain
Pretty soon now, I will be bitter
Pretty soon now, will be a quitter
Pretty soon now, I will be bitter
You can’t see it ’til it’s finished
I don’t have to prove that I am creative
I don’t have to prove that I am creative
All my pictures are confused
And now I’m going to take me to you

Three of the four band members – David Byrne, Tina Weymouth, and Chris Frantz – studied at Rhode Island School of Design so can attest to the creative process – ideas, doing, mood swings, insecurity, and working for your satisfaction rather than someone else’s praise. Writing this piece was a frustrating process that included writing awful rants, regret, almost setting the thing on fire, and procrastination involving way too many TV docos like ‘The Worlds’ Scariest Cult/ Fat Female Tumor/ Penis Bite’.

Creativity requires an almost fascistic sense of self-discipline and the acceptance of fluctuating levels of inspiration and confidence. Anyone who claims to constantly create could be an idiot savant but more likely is lying or producing substandard work. Our posts of completed projects don’t show the overthinking, injuries, tears, doubts, stress-induced arguments with loved ones, almost setting the project on fire, and most importantly the fucking up and learning.