Showing posts with label popular culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label popular culture. Show all posts

Saturday, February 11, 2017

Elizabeth Plank – A 21st Century Public Intellectual

One of the easiest ways for the average person to keep up with the movements and milestones of our world is to tune in to, not even necessarily the news, but the realm of public intellectuals. Depending on who is asked, the public intellectual can have slightly varying job descriptions, but the idea is that the public intellectual is someone who is well-versed in a field and brings concerns of that field to the general public. "Because they had to eat," public intellectuals are often journalists or academics who use their careers to pursue their critical analyses and not the other way around.

Elizabeth Plank is a textbook 21st century public intellectual. Education: she attended McGill University, at which she was on the Dean Honor List, and received her master's degree from the London School of Economics in social policy with specialities in behavioral science and gender studies. Academia: through an exchange program, she worked briefly at the University of Copenhagen, and after finishing her studies at the London School of Economics, she also held positions there as a research assistant and behavioral science consultant. Career: Plank works in various areas of media and communication, having held positions from editor to journalist to web show host. Since her area of expertise is policy in relation to behavior and gender issues, Plank's content usually focuses on "millennial perspective on politics, women's issues, and reproductive rights."

The problem with public intellectuals, of course, is that they are not all-knowing or unbiased, and blindly following and agreeing with them is counterintuitive to the point of their work. How do we then keep the spirit of public intellectuals alive without falling into this Kantian idea of guardians of enlightenment who lead the sheep? Stephen Mack offers an answer:
...It needs to begin with a shift from "categories and class" to "function." That is, our notions of the public intellectual need to focus less on who or what a public intellectual is – and by extension, the qualifications for getting and keeping the title. Instead, we need to be more concerned with the work public intellectuals must do, irrespective of who happens to be doing it.
So, let us stray for a moment from Plank's credentials and actually step backward to a key question: what is the use of a public intellectual? One New York Times article points out the important distinction that a public intellectual is not just an academic or a journalist. Another article emphasizes that the true public intellectual is somewhat of an "outsider" and believes "reason and truth could triumph universally through the transformation of public opinion." Stephen Mack's article mentioned earlier also notes that the public intellectual should capture some kind of "anxiety." In short, I would assess that the use of the public intellectual is in their hybrid perspective of expert and critic, as someone who can keep their audience grounded and informed but also can inspire engagement, questioning, maybe even flat-out controversy.

This leads me to the early work of Elizabeth Plank. Plank could have gone into pure policy or journalism, but she chose to write for the Huffington Post, a site which produces a mix of news and blog content. Her work has also revolved around progressivism, sexism, and how politics and culture interlock. A young, female, budding writer fixated on such issues working for a liberal, online source is certainly not the picture of the establishment, and from the beginning, Plank has used her approachable writing style and obligatory action plug to get the average person thinking about what gender inequality looks like in everyday life. Her first article was about the Amateur International Boxing Association requiring female boxers to wear skirts. In a slightly casual but still fluid manner, Plank describes why forcing female athletes to don skirts is such a problem (hint: skirts have nothing to do with boxing). The most notable part of this article is that she includes a link to a petition against the proposed skirt rule, urging readers to voice their disapproval of this sexist idea. In another article under the Huffington Post, Plank writes a comprehensive piece about the wage gap between white men and women of different races and ethnicities. At the end of her post, she includes the hashtag #WithoutTheWageGapIWould, encouraging her audience to express their own difficulties with the wage gap, and then lists things employers and employees can do about the gap.

I will address exactly how Plank persuades her audience later in this post, but here, I would like to note the crucial part of Plank's content that not only qualifies her as a public intellectual but also makes her an exceedingly good one - Plank consistently prompts people to act on the issues she discusses. She is not a passive commentator, she is not a curious reporter, she is, at the core, an activist. She motivates people to bring about the change they want to see, and that's what sets her apart from mere "laptop warriors."

Plank built the bulk of her career through Mic.com, at which she has worked for four years now. In 2015, two years after she started at Mic, she was placed in Forbes' legendary "30 Under 30" list for her engaging content and for doubling site traffic. Her work has often "gone viral," and she is responsible for social media hashtag movements like #AllMenCanwhich, similarly to #WithoutTheWageGapIWould, asks her audience to get involved in the discussion and contribute their views on how they and others can create a more equal world. How does Plank manage to regularly snag the attention of the notoriously fickle people of the Internet?

From the start of Plank's public intellectual streak, she has been careful to stay away from overly flowery language, jargon, or expecting her audience to know everything about the issues prior to viewing her content. She commits to the "translation" of deeply rooted controversies for the average citizen, even now, despite the fact she is a more widely recognized figure. In 2016, Plank wrote an article on the Orlando shooting, in which she cited several key pieces of legislation necessary for contextualizing her article while also sprinkling the post with more colloquial terms and humor. For instance, she explains the Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act plainly and solemnly, while a few paragraphs before, she writes, "North Carolina has literally politicized where transgender and gender nonconforming people can pee." Plank is able to hit at the hard stuff and also make it relatively easy to digest, and this approach to "reason and truth to transform public opinion" has been, evidently, enormously successful.

By the time she started working at Vox just about a year ago, Plank had started to use humor and social media more and more. In the first installment of her award-winning Vox 2016ish video series, which is also posted on Youtube, Plank interviews Canadian Prime Minster Justin Trudeau, interjecting facts, bystander commentaries, and serious questions with her now characteristic humor: endearingly dorky behavior, meaningful pauses and delivery for emphasis, and sarcasm. In a video on Vox's Facebook from three weeks ago, Plank hilariously engages with the discussion of our new Cabinet in a satirical advertisement. In an ironically cheery tone, the video examines the disturbingly discriminatory platforms of newly appointed members. Plank masterfully uses her humor to highlight how ridiculous and actually upsetting she finds the state of affairs in America today, and with thousands of likes and hundreds of shares, she is clearly striking a chord with the online community.

There is also a huge advantage to using Twitter hashtags (which can get heinous, I know). Plank understands that asking her readers and viewers to contribute their own perspectives can have an entirely different effect on people. While people who dislike Plank may disagree with her purely on the grounds that they don't like her or her humor or her subject matter or whatever it may be, seeing people you know and care about post their everyday experiences can really change your opinion. I revisited the wage gap Twitter hashtag, and here are a few of the many testimonies. #WithoutTheWageGapIWould:


Taking issues as big and historically tense as sexism and framing them in this kind of everyday way, a form of content translation in itself, demonstrates very easily to people the impact and injury certain groups may feel, how discrepancies in treatment influence policy, and how policy cycles back to inform our culture. 

In some of the articles mentioned previously, critics of the public intellectual seem to condemn those who try to uphold the title today via the Internet. Things like "clicktivism," or online activism, are a huge point of contention with the left, and despite the indisputable popularity and power of it, social media is often seen as unhealthy, even a menace to society. But Elizabeth Plank embraces the power of the Internet. She engages extensively through her online writings and on social media platforms, making her content more accessible to her young, progressive audience. She has spread her discussions on sexism and related policy matters, explained the complexities of these issues, and most importantly, incorporated ways for her readers to stay educated, get talking, and empower themselves.

So, once again: how do we then keep the spirit of public intellectuals alive without falling into this Kantian idea of guardians of enlightenment who lead the sheep? The key to success that Plank has demonstrated in her incredible growth in just five short years is the incorporation of audience participation. No one wants to just hear facts, no one wants to just hear opinion. What people want is for them to feel heard, for their issues to be addressed, for them to be able to do something. And on that, Elizabeth Plank delivers.

Saturday, February 4, 2017

Why Can't Celebrities Be Political?

“Sweltering” would be an appropriate word to describe America’s current political climate. In the last several months, politics went from the one topic you should not bring up at the dinner table to the next most unavoidable thing behind memes. So, in this storm of politics, ethics, values, justice… where are celebrities hiding?

Whether or not people like Kendall Jenner or Justin Bieber are your cup of tea, today’s stars have an unbelievable amount of influence, particularly in our youth. Actors, singers, models, and reality stars are some of the most closely followed individuals in life and, obviously, on social media platforms. All but one of 2016's ten most followed people on Instagram are such figures, and all but three of Twitter's top ten are celebrities as well (one of the notable exceptions being Barack Obama). And while there are some deviations from the trend  – Beyonce and Jay-Z for Hillary, Shailene Woodley for Standing Rock, the multitude of award winners at last week's Screen Actors Guild Awards – why do so many famous people refrain from using their platforms and power to have important political discussions?


The most likely reason is that celebrities do not want to alienate their fans. Celebrities bring us entertainment; we pay attention to them because they provide us with shows that distract us from everyday troubles, songs that make us want to fall in love, sitcoms that make us laugh until we cry. Famous people not only inevitably disagree with many fans about politics but also anger fans who want stars to just be stars and keep us away from reality.
There has been plenty of backlash from celebrities' political alignments, and even people within Hollywood like Mark Wahlberg, who believes celebrities are truly detached from the real world, have expressed disapproval of stars making political statements:
A lot of Hollywood is living in a bubble. They're pretty out of touch with the common person, the everyday guy out there providing for their family... Me, I'm very aware of the real world. I come from the real world and I exist in the real world. And although I can navigate Hollywood and I love the business and the opportunities it's afforded me, I also understand what it's like not to have all that.
Reservations like that of Wahlberg are understandable; anyone whose career and lifestyle depends entirely on other people liking them will have a somewhat skewed perspective, and especially for those in the upper echelons of Hollywood, privilege and subsequent ignorance can be in abundance. However, celebrities are still not above politics (at least, they should not be). As with my last post, I would like to touch on the core of politics. Politics is not just today or in the election cycle, it is not just for politicians and their prominent friends. Politics is about the structure of power. It is why we abide by the laws we do and why our society runs the way it does. No matter what occupation you hold, politics affect you. Therefore, celebrities, who are fellow people with rights, privileges, opinions, who are taxpayers and voters, are entitled to their political opinions.

That is not to say I believe every famous person should make huge declarations about every political view they hold. Another reason why stars may choose to keep their opinions to themselves is that bias spreads easily, and some of today's biggest celebrities have many impressionable and young fans. It would certainly be an issue for celebrities to actively try to indoctrinate their followings, but methods exist to have healthy conversations about politics. There is nothing inherently wrong with someone standing up for what they are passionate about, defending their views, or raising awareness about issues others may not know about. Is the default solution for any issue not awareness? True, movie actors are not exactly the most reputable source when it comes to politics, but if every celebrity was vocal about just one topic they were passionate about, how different would our world be? How many more people would at least be exposed to the issues of today?

My own entrance into politics was largely from outside sources, and if people never had public debates about politics, I would not be as aware as I am today. Allowing public figures to share on issues that they hold dear would not only raise awareness but also encourage political discussions amongst average citizens in everyday life. People love to criticize the influence of famous people and the spread of celebrity gossip; maybe we can start to see star power as a force for good.