everything is that deep
In the early days of the COVID pandemic, I was cautiously optimistic that we were on the cusp of freeing ourselves from the shackles of celebrity worship. I had assumed that something about seeing those with the most privilege bemoan isolating themselves in their mansions would shake something up within the rest of us, their viewership. Regrettably, I see now how I was unfortunately far too optimistic with that take. Stan culture is so deeply embedded in our society, and it informs how much resistance there is online to any reasonable critique of our faves - whether that be politicians, influencers, musicians, movie stars, etc.
There’s something to be said about who working-class people identify themselves with, and how often that alignment is not a reflection of their lived reality or experiences, but of their aspirations. That also explains why you will regularly see everyday people online, dying on the hill to defend people who share no material reality or class solidarity with them. Instead, they may find a false sense of kinship or representation if they share the same gender identity or cultural background with said celebrity. With that in mind, I think it’s really important for us to unpack our allegiance to people who have shown us plainly they do not care about us; they only want to extract the most capital from us.
Pair that celebrity worship with the surge in anti-intellectualism, and we often end up hearing from the “it’s not that deep” crowd when there’s any pushback towards their fave. While anti-intellectualism may seem innocuous, I think about how the fascist country we are in counts on your resistance to critical thinking to ensure your obedience. These elements may seem disconnected at first… but when you start to consider each issue as being interconnected, you can better see how they have concocted the perfect storm.
Celebrity worship survives through regular people subscribing to anti-intellectualism. Stan culture requires a lot of cognitive dissonance to thrive. I believe that no one is above critique. But many people online are unwilling to acknowledge their blind spots with their faves. You cannot have both firm principles and show unwavering loyalty to a celebrity who acts or behaves in a manner that contradicts your principles - hence, the cognitive dissonance. And I think that people internalize critiques of the celebrities they defend because they see any critique of them as an indictment of themselves. That discomfort you feel when forced to face the reality of a celebrity you have idolized is the feeling of cognitive dissonance.
When grappling with criticism of their faves, people tend to immediately deploy the “it’s not that deep” argument, waving the flag of anti-intellectualism. In turn, this spread of stan culture has effectively created the conditions for obedience. Obedience to capitalism, obedience to politicians, obedience to new, harmful systems. In the absence of critical thinking, we all become a bunch of mindless, endlessly loyal worker bees under capitalism, conditioned to fall in line behind anything or anyone. (No matter how harmful they may be towards us.)
Hubris has a lot of people convinced that they are simply “too smart” or too aware to fall victim to manipulation, propaganda, misinformation, dog whistles, etc. I think what people miss with this presumption is the false promise that your intellect can insulate you and your emotions.
Fear and anger serve as such powerful engines of society. Both drive the populace towards visceral reactions to everything from pop culture moments to human rights issues. Fear drives so much of the messaging that the news media anchors their output in, such as the politicization of “crime waves” or the talk of “war-ravaged Portland”. Anger drives viewers to engage with contentious shows and topics (ragebaiting). To their credit, both strategies work. Fear-mongering and rage-baiting are effective ways to get people to engage with content and to serve as de facto advertisers for them by posting their 30-part opinions online.
There is no shortage of cultural and political moments to point to when thinking about how the media and/or companies have engineered our fear or anger against us to drive engagement with their content and/or their politics. A few months ago, Sydney Sweeney and American Eagle partnered up for an odd ad for denim, which was immediately met with outrage online. Anti-intellectualism reared its head with the plentiful responses of “it’s not that deep”, when people started to unpack the clear language of eugenics in the video. Sweeney said:
"Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality, and even eye color. My jeans are blue."
In the fascist world we are living in, context matters. It’s not lost on me how strange it was for the focus of a denim ad to feature a white woman, with blue eyes and blonde hair, opining on how “great” her genes/jeans are. But, I guess it’s not that deep, right?
Taylor Swift recently put out an album, The Life of a Showgirl, that has received a considerable amount of backlash. Swifties and non-Swifties alike have gone back and forth on some alleged allusions to Black women on the album (“I’m not a bad bitch, and this isn’t savage”), critiques of songs like Opalite, which introduce contrasts between darkness and light (which is odd, considering Travis’s relationships with Black women), etc. As far as the lyrics go, it has been quite telling to see people who have defended her artistry through her lyricism for years now find issue with people problematizing the depth in her lyrics.
In one of the more bizarre developments since, Swift also came under fire for a promotional necklace she released (and has since taken down), allegedly laden with Nazi iconography. And yet, plenty of her stans have rushed to her defense online to either a) feign ignorance or b) claim that “it’s not that deep”.
Whether or not the criticisms hold credence, I think the rush to defend Swift is a reflection of the impulse I mentioned earlier - a knee-jerk reaction from stans to protect their fave, given their shared identity. Swift represents the epitome of white girlhood (despite her age), and she’s built a following of girls who see themselves in the awkward teenager/scorned lover she presents to the world. Perhaps critiquing her would force her stans to reckon with themselves, their own identities, and how closely aligned they actually are with their billionaire fave.
Since being on Bluesky, I have seen quite vividly how stan culture presents itself in everyday conversations about politicians. If you live under a rock, you may have heard that a certain former VPOTUS is on a book tour right now. While on that book tour, she has been on the receiving end of vocal heckling from attendees in response to her involvement in aiding the genocide in Palestine.
Given the fact that she is now actively rewriting her role in the genocide on this book tour, and that no American politician has dealt with the repercussions of their war crimes in the Hague, I think it’s safe to assume that the heckling is likely to be the worst thing that she will have to deal with. Frankly, I think that any politician who has facilitated war crimes should be booed for the rest of their days. But seeing how quickly regular people have rushed to her defense online, the impact of stan culture on how we make room for criticism of our elected officials becomes even more visible.
Many of the defenses of Harris have been born out of a loyalty to shared identity. People have rushed to defend her, providing cover for any reasonable critiques of her actions by flattening the protests as a dual attack on her womanhood and Blackness. In that regard, I do not believe that it is inherently misogynistic to hold a Black woman accountable for the things that she did in office - I see it as being honest. Harris continues to benefit from the mantra ‘protect Black women,’ and the genocide against Palestinians continues. While I find comfort in people embracing the directive to protect Black women, that protection should not render us incapable of perpetuating harm. I think that we lose our integrity and our principles when we continue to lead with that mantra, uncritically.
All things considered, everything actually is that deep to me. I think that we collectively need to be more critical about the news we consume, the music we listen to, and the people we choose to represent us. Instead of blindly accepting all of the messaging we receive, it’s important to think critically about what celebrities are saying and selling. What and who we choose to defend is often a deep reflection of our politics. While some of us may not be willing to leave celebrities behind, at the very least, I think it is imperative to resist the impulse to accept anti-intellectualism. The powers that be need your uncritical obedience to sustain themselves, and we make it far too easy for them to do so. Reserve your unwavering loyalty for your principles, not to a party, a politician, or any celebrity.
