DIVIDE AND RULE - How the 'culture wars' are a reactionary backlash constructed to distract us, and how to respond
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
DIVIDE AND RULE How the ‘culture wars’ are a reactionary backlash constructed to distract us, and how to respond
CONTENTS Introduction....................................................................................................................................................................... 3 What are the ‘culture wars’ and how do they play out?........................................................................................4 What are the tactics that conservative commentators and institutions use to their advantage?............5 Exaggeration Fabrication Distraction What are the common characteristics that underpin ‘culture wars’ debates?...............................................7 When is it useful to enter debate, and when is it not? .........................................................................................8 Decision checklist What tactics can progressives use in order to engage with these debates more effectively?...................9 Know your stuff Talk to the audience, not the person in front of you Connect to economic and material issues Message testing Bring high vibes Case Studies................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Case Study - Maya Goodfellow on LBC Case Study - Dalia Gebriel on the BBC What not to do ............................................................................................................................................................. 13 Don’t fight on their terms Avoid the term ‘culture wars’ Don’t feed into respectability politics Don’t play into metropolitan elite stereotypes or LARP the working class Don’t wait until it’s a media firestorm (if possible) What wider strategies are needed to support an end to the ‘culture wars’?............................................... 14 Collective spokesperson strategy Defined endgame Deep organising and public education Focus on the media industry Structured support and coordination Final thoughts................................................................................................................................................................ 16
INTRODUCTION
In recent years there has been a noticeable increase in what have been described as ‘culture wars’
stories in the UK media. As this report sets out, the rise of these stories is no coincidence. Instead it
is the result of a toxic combination of a purposeful campaign from the reactionary right and a media
environment that is bent towards dangerous sensationalism and bigotry.
The media landscape, especially the print media, has a long history of pushing divisive narratives.
From overt racism to anti-immigrant sentiment and attacks on those seen as undeserving of state
support, editorial decisions have often been driven by profiteering over genuine newsgathering. In
recent years these attacks have become relentless and increasingly appear on broadcast media. A
new landscape of ‘share-driven’ written media is now replacing traditional newspapers. At the same
time, established broadcast shows are losing listeners and viewers, especially on the BBC, and social
media platforms are becoming de facto unregulated media outlets. Those in power have utilised
this dynamic to push stories they know to be divisive - using radio and television as a platform for
false debates and confected outrage, often with little or no opposition from other politicians.The
success of the model is already evident, with stations like LBC reporting record listening figures and
Good Morning Britain (before Piers Morgan’s departure) gaining a greater audience share than BBC
Breakfast.
More changes are set to come about in the UK media landscape. GB News is set to launch - chaired
by veteran broadcaster Andrew Neil and promising, among other things, a ‘Woke Watch’ segment.
In parallel, there are rising concerns regarding the ability of Ofcom, as the UK’s media regulator,
to enforce the rules on impartiality with Paul Dacre (a longtime editor of The Daily Mail) being
considered as its next chairman. With these changes expected to occur in the first half of 2021, it
would be safe to assume that there will be much more media content generated with the explicit
goal of sowing division while creating cover for the many failings of the government and the
economic system.
Though the debates we have seen around the ‘culture wars’ are inherently skewed in favour of
reactionaries on the right, there is a risk that by not engaging with them we give a platform and no
counter argument to those sowing division. Some argue that by stepping away from the debate,
even for very legitimate reasons, we may fail to provide a counter narrative to the watching and
listening public. With this as background, in November 2020, NEON commissioned Align to
produce a report on the ‘culture wars’ in order to generate and harness reflections on how they play
out, and to explore ways of engaging differently in order to better respond to the media cycles that
enable them.
This report aims to provide a nuanced definition of the ‘culture wars’ and to present some tactics
that can help navigate our present moment with strategic intentionality and care in order to avert
situations that have created real harm to people in the past. NEON believe that the media is one
of the key arenas in which the narratives that shape our society are moulded. The reactionary right
know this, and they use the media to shape perceptions in favour of dangerous policies and to draw
focus away from the failing of a system that has produced poverty and persecution for generations.
This report is asking how we can proactively shape a narrative that eliminates the ‘culture wars’.
To produce this report, Align conducted a total of 21 interviews with people who appear in
the media and with thinkers, writers, academics, campaigners or activists involved in cultural
engagement. Questions were posed during a one-hour Zoom interview and included the following
interviewees (in alphabetical order): Adam Elliott-Cooper, Adam Ramsay, Anat Shenker-Osorio,
Ash Sarkar, Carys Afoko, Dalia Gebrial, David Wearing, Elena Blackmore, Ellie Mae O’Hagan, Faiza
Shaheen, Gavan Titley, Huw Lemmey, Jeffrey Ingold, Kojo Koram, Maya Goodfellow, Nim Ralph, Oli
Foster, Paul Hebden, Satbir Singh and Will Davies.
3The following priorities informed the process of selecting interviewees:
Ҍ Interviewees were selected taking into consideration representation from across the progressive
movement.
Ҍ Interviewees represented a range of roles and experiences.
Ҍ Interviewees were selected taking into account equitable representation across identity markers
such as gender and race.
Anonymised quotes in quotation marks come from interviews, unless otherwise indicated.
WHAT ARE THE ‘CULTURE WARS’
AND HOW DO THEY PLAY OUT?
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose
it to mean—neither more nor less.” - Through the Looking-Glass, Lewis Carroll
The term ‘culture wars’ gained prominence after the 1991 publication of a book by the sociologist
James Davison Hunter called Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America. In the book he described
a struggle to define public life between what he called ‘progressives’ and ‘the orthodox’ which
manifested in polarities around ‘hot-button’ issues of the time, including abortion, gun control,
separation of church and state, drug policy, and LGBTQ+ rights.
In recent years, the term has been imported (and fuelled by sections of the UK media
preoccupations with ‘political correctness’ and the ‘loony left’), co-opted and warped to include an
ever-expanding set of issues. The ‘culture wars’ no longer serve as a descriptor of cultural impact
alone, but are weaponised as a political strategy, sometimes by both sides of the political spectrum,
but mostly by the establishment and the far-right in order to mislead the public and undermine the
goals of the progressive movement. The ‘culture wars’ now serve as a conservative shorthand, the
goal of which is to diminish, delegitmise and decontextualise issues that might affect minority or
marginalised groups.
In any ‘culture wars’ set-up or debate in the media, the underlying driver is clear - it is to ask: “Is this
minority group legitimate in asking you to change how you think about things or how society is run?” The
implication is always “no”.
While the term may have been imported from the US, the debate format we see play out in this
country’s broadcast media is very British indeed - inherited from the Etonian and Oxbridge style
of debate, it is the comfort zone of many of those working in the media establishment. The impact
of the debate format is monumental, reinforcing the sense that the issues at hand are just part
of a wider game where the primary goal is entertainment, and where there is a clear win or lose,
right or wrong. Most often, the very premise is up for debate, where the panel can’t even agree
on the terms being debated, or where issues of human rights are up for debate as if they are
commensurate with interest rates or tax.
As one person we interviewed said, “The format of debate isn’t helpful. It’s a simplification of issues, a
dumbing down of complex topics that employ banal questions, like, ‘Are trans women women?’”
As we’ll explore below, the debate format is often used intentionally in order to push progressive
spokespeople to defend things that are difficult to defend on the terms the media has set up.
4WHAT ARE THE TACTICS THAT CONSERVATIVE
COMMENTATORS AND INSTITUTIONS USE
TO THEIR ADVANTAGE?
“It’s the weaponisation of cultural tropes as a means to do two things - disrupt or reverse
progressive social change, and to divert media and public attention from unpopular and
destructive economic policies.”
The modern media industry is primed to contribute to the ‘culture wars’ in two ways. The first
relates to the issue that many positions of power in the industry are held by those with ‘orthodox’
beliefs. The second relates to the industry’s attempt to monetise outrage by scouring social
media for stories to repackage and amplify in order to get as many clicks, likes and engagement as
possible - thus providing a solid return for advertisers.
As a result, we see conservative commentators employing a range of tactics to drive this type of
engagement, with little internal objection from, or accountability within, their institution. Below
we outline three tactics that our interviewees have encountered - exaggeration, fabrication and
distraction.
Exaggeration
The first tactic is perhaps the most prevalent. It is where the media take an existing story and
overplay an aspect of it to create a media moment by, as one interviewee said, “keeping boomers
angry by picking the most extreme example”. One instance of this came during the lead up to the
BBC’s Last Night of the Proms in September 2020. The BBC had taken a decision to drop the
lyrics from the performance of ‘Rule! Britannia’ as part of making the performance Covid-safe.
This prompted a backlash in the press and an intervention by Boris Johnson, who recast the BBC’s
decision as an example of ‘PC gone mad’ in the wake of both the Black Lives Matter uprisings
of the summer and valid criticism of the ‘Rule! Britannia’ lyrics, which reference colonialism and
slavery, by music industry figures such as Chi-chi Nwanoku and Gareth Malone.
The sentiment that the BBC was now ‘coming for our songs’ led to such outrage that the decision
was reversed and the lyrics were sung by a small group of socially-distanced singers.
Fabrication
In addition to exaggeration, media outlets are increasingly resorting to the total fabrication of
events in order to create ‘culture wars’ firestorms. For example, in the midst of the Rhodes Must
Fall campaign in 2016, it was reported that Oxford Student Union had issued a leaflet banning
members from using the pronouns ‘he’ and ‘she’. This leaflet was entirely fabricated, but the
fabrication did its job in perpetuating a certain narrative around the Oxford student body.
In December 2020, Keir Starmer was criticised for not challenging an LBC caller on her views,
including her articulation of the racist ‘great replacement’ conspiracy theory. What wasn’t
reported was that, according to allegations in Private Eye, LBC purposefully tracked down the
caller with the knowledge that she was a member of the far-right group, Patriotic Alternative, and
primed her on what to say in advance. The intention was to create a ‘culture wars’ moment that
would advertise both LBC and the specific show.
5Also, in January 2021, the Mail on Sunday published an article titled ‘Grease is “racist, rapey,
homophobic and slut-shaming”’ and should never be shown on TV again, say woke snowflakes’.
The journalist, Katie Hind, had built this article around a handful of tweets she found after the
BBC Boxing Day showing of the film. Of these, one was from a right-wing troll account, one was
from a US-based account and tweeted in November, and the others were either taken out of
context or got a miniscule number of likes. But the story escalated, and was picked up in other
newspapers and amplified on broadcast media, such as Good Morning Britain.
Distraction
This last tactic shifts the debate from the issue at hand to focus on a specific action or event
that is often trivial, reducing complex and nuanced topics to a black and white simplification. An
excellent example of this came in 2019 when Marks & Spencer launched a limited edition LGBT
sandwich (lettuce, guacamole, bacon, and tomato!) in order to raise £10,000 for AKT, the UK’s
national LGBTQ+ youth homelessness charity, and €1,000 for BeLonG To Youth Services for
LGBTI+ young people in Ireland. Instead of using its spotlight to discuss the plight of young and
homeless LGBTQ+ people, Good Morning Britain invited gay spokespeople on to debate whether
or not the sandwich was, in Piers Morgan’s words, “virtue signalling, PC crazed garbage”.
A key element of this tactic might be called ‘whataboutery’, where the terms of the debate
shift in order to accommodate a more black and white debate format, or for the sake of
‘entertainment’. For example, a conversation about trans rights might be derailed by the
commentator asking, “Should trans women be allowed to compete in sports?”
These three tactics comprise just a few examples of how the media ecosystem has become
“incredibly divorced from the consequences of its actions”, habitually using social media to locate
extreme or unrepresentative views and then asking progressive spokespeople to defend them,
for the sake of entertainment.
Some of the people we interviewed thought that these tactics were employed by a cultural class
who understand that they do not have cultural hegemony. They understand that youth culture
is going in a very different direction and is less tied to homophobia, racism or xenophobia, and
so feel their only option is to ridicule and demonise progressives in an effort to build allegiance
amongst older generations. A generation that has been key in mobilising around election cycles
to vote the Conservatives into power. At the heart of this strategy is a desire to maintain the
structures that have historically kept power within a specific strata of society; one that has
historically benefited from Anglo-British nationalism. This section of society now seeks to
present and maintain these structures under the guise of needing to ‘protect’ the UK’s identity,
despite the fact that the identity of an imperialist Britain is no longer reflective of the UK’s
present, or future, position in the world.
These tactics are also designed to distract from unpopular economic policies and to decouple
cultural issues from any material analysis. We know from polling that neoliberals have lost the
support of the public when it comes to austerity, privatisation and inequitable taxation policy.
But conservatives are more aligned with mainstream public opinion on issues concerning law
and order and LGBTQ+ issues, and so focus all their energy on promoting these shared values
whilst keeping quiet about their destructive economic policies. They are “polarising people on
social issues where normally groups would be aligned on economic issues”, resulting in the “creation
of cultural bogeymen who are the cause of all our problems, while ignoring the men who are lining their
pockets”.
6This approach is working well for conservatives, preying upon and exploiting the loss of political
and material power that many people have experienced over the last few decades in the UK, and
especially since the 2008 recession. The aim has been to “create a moral panic, evoke a response,
and then point at the left as representing everything you hate about the world”. The result has been a
race to the bottom, with the Labour Party adopting similar tactics, for example, with its ‘Controls
on Immigration’ mug in 2015.
WHAT ARE THE COMMON CHARACTERISTICS THAT
UNDERPIN ‘CULTURE WARS’ DEBATES?
“They make us look like clowns who don’t want to enjoy anything. We’re bitter, sour. We’re
coming after your songs, your food. We’re dour and anti-joy.”
‘Culture wars’ debates are generally set up to portray the progressive spokesperson as a radical
prude or bully who is obsessed with censorship. Whatever the issue at hand, it will often be boiled
down to a debate that concerns freedom of speech, safe spaces and no-platforming in order
to prove to the viewer that ‘you can’t say anything anymore’. To highlight this, the conservative
‘opponent’ will often be a charismatic man (e.g. Laurence Fox) who prides himself on saying ‘the
unsayable’ but who, ironically, often goes on to play the role of bully in the ensuing debate.
As described above, debates do not allow enough space or time to have a nuanced or complex
conversation, and the media outlets in question will often purposefully stoke controversy in
order to repackage a segment as clickbait. They do this by taking a huge issue with material
consequences, such as decolonisation - a political project to redress and centralise the issue of
coloniality in making the modern world - and reducing it to a cultural hot button issue, such as
whether ‘Rule! Britannia’ will be sung at the Proms. By refusing to engage with the substantive
nature of the issues that progressives want to talk about, conservative commentators and
institutions force us to take positions on things that we would not ordinarily think about.
This takes advantage of the fact that progressives have not figured out how best to have these
conversations, even amongst ourselves. As one person we interviewed said, “The left in the last 10-
15 years has largely divorced these arguments - we either talk about immigration and race, or we talk
about economics.” This has left the progressive movement wide open to ‘culture wars’ style attacks
- collectively, we have not done the work ourselves of connecting economic, material and cultural
issues, and of communicating those linkages effectively.
As one of the people we interviewed said, “our methodology was to say this isn’t ok and we didn’t
explain why... [there has been] no education around why not to say or do things”. As a result, one of
the ways that conversative talking heads, such as Jeremy Clarkson or Laurence Fox, have grown
support is by successfully subverting the hero / villain narrative and reassuring people that they
are not ‘bad people’ if they say, do or believe the ‘wrong’ thing. They have built an appealing
political identity around what had been previously framed as a personal failing.
7WHEN IS IT USEFUL TO ENTER DEBATE,
AND WHEN IS IT NOT?
“It’s lose-lose at the moment - but one form of loss is worse. You can’t win a battleground when
you’re not fighting it.”
“The only way out is through.”
After reading all of the above it’s easy to wonder, why bother? Wouldn’t progressives be better off
turning down invitations to speak and refusing to even participate in the so-called ‘culture wars’?
When asked to consider the pros and cons of boycotting such appearances, our interviewees
largely agreed that while spokespeople need to be discerning about what they do and don’t agree
to (see decision checklist below), on the whole, the progressive movement has to engage. One
said, “The stakes are high, elections are being won and lost on this ground. We don’t have a choice, this
is our collective moral responsibility.” While another said, “It’s the price to pay for being a radical in
today’s world. You have to fight for the progress that is needed, and you need to engage with the culture
war as part of that.”
It’s not about fighting a losing battle. When tackled well, ‘culture wars’ debates present a rare
opportunity to flip the script in front of a large audience, and rally the progressive base.
However, the ‘culture wars’ have inflicted real harm on targeted communities, and those who
engage in these debates are often subjected to an onslaught of attacks and bullying. In order to
both get progressive messages across and to minimise harm to those willing to engage, there is an
urgent need to re-strategise.
Decision checklist
Half of the battle is figuring out when to say “yes”. Here are some questions
to ask yourself (and the producer) before agreeing to appear on a broadcast
segment. Remember, it is okay to decline or pass on an opportunity.
Does this media outlet reach the people we want to reach?
Who is the presenter?
Who is on the panel?
What is the premise of the debate or segment?
Whose agenda is this debate or segment serving?
Is this an opportunity to discuss or pivot to a substantive issue that
needs the spotlight?
Is there someone else who is better placed than me to do this?
Do I have the time to prepare?
Am I willing to give the mental and emotional time and space to
this today? And do I have access to support after the interview?
Will there be any progressive voice if i don't do it?
Is the audience for this show large or influential?
Is it paid?
8WHAT TACTICS CAN PROGRESSIVES USE IN ORDER TO
ENGAGE WITH THESE DEBATES MORE EFFECTIVELY?
“The left can not and must not abdicate the throne of freedom.”
Here are some suggestions to help counter the strategies used by conservative commentators
and institutions.
Flip the script
As a spokesperson you can successfully flip the script by trivialising or defanging the opponent’s
argument then naming the more substantive issue, or naming who is stirring up the debate and
why.
Ҍ For example, in the case of the M&S LGBT sandwich, you might want to say, “I’m not here to
argue about a sandwich, what I’m really here to talk about is rates of homelessness amongst
LGBT teens”, or similar.
Ҍ One person we interviewed shared a tactic he used when asked whether the song ‘Fairytale
of New York’ by The Pogues should be edited for radio play to exclude the word ‘faggot’.
His response was a perfect example of flipping the script to highlight the substance of the
conversation, “It actually doesn’t bother me, but why do you want to say it?”
Know your stuff
You can show up the other side by introducing key statistics and facts that challenge their
narrative.
Ҍ For example, one person we interviewed who was asked whether trans women should be
allowed to participate in sports was able to counter with, “Did you know that the Olympics have
allowed trans people [to compete] since 2004, but no trans people have participated? Why do you
think that is?”
Ҍ When you can add other statistics, such as trans people making up 0.5% of the population,
and refugees making up 0.04% of the population, you can highlight the absurdity and injustice
of the outsized focus that conservative commentators and institutions spend on both of these
groups.
Ҍ A fantastic example of using statistics to your advantage is Akala speaking about knife crime on
Good Morning Britain in March 2019.
Talk to the audience, not the person in front of you
“Good messaging energises the base, persuades the middle, and alienates the opposition.”
Don’t worry if you are not persuading the commentator or panel in front of you, your job is
to persuade the people in the middle who are watching, and include a rallying cry for your
supporters. We want to get to the point where your opponents read as pathetic and are
representative of “the whining of the professional class”; not you!
9Ҍ One way to do this is to highlight the differences between the centre and the far-right as much
as is possible. The arguments and opinions of the far-right must be named for what they are:
boring, tired, full of conspiracy theories, and horrible. Most people watching will not want to be
aligned with such views.
Ҍ Always appeal to common social moral language that meets people where they are. This is a
media intervention, not your one chance to articulate the most radical position possible.
Ҍ Move conversations from the theoretical to real life examples. Tell stories that the audience will
connect with and bring in a human element. Dissolve people’s fear by using real life examples
of the people conservative commentators are telling others to be afraid of. For example, when
speaking to trans rights and bathroom use, one person we interviewed always makes sure to
bring up a hypothetical scenario including a trans woman that most people are familiar with,
rather than keeping it abstract.
Connect to economic and material issues
Although conservative commentators are keen to leave economic issues out of ‘culture wars’
debates, it is important that progressive spokespeople do not capitulate to their desires.
Ҍ Try to name the material sources of loss that the watching audience are experiencing: lack of
investment in social services, lack of jobs, lack of adequate housing, lack of social mobility. Say,
“I’m trying to talk about these things, you’re trying to shy away from them.”
Ҍ Use these as part of your line of attack, rather than in response. For example, “Boris Johnson is a
lot more comfortable coming out to talk about the Last Night of the Proms, however, he is nowhere
to be found on the failure of the test and trace system.”
Ҍ Bring it onto your terrain. Instead of being cornered into talking about, for example, one statue
that has been taken down, add context. Say, “It is really important to recognise what it means to
take down statues. It’s about the history we tell, who gets to write it, and how it impacts society now.”
Message testing
Whatever issue it is that you work on, start researching and testing messages that connect
with people as early as possible. While message testing can be complicated and expensive,
working with informal focus groups can prove to be a more affordable option. Message testing is
important since, while we often know what we want to say in order to affect a specific outcome,
we don’t necessarily know whether or not it’s going to work. Testing our messages with key
audiences is important in helping us challenge assumptions that can get in the way of the change
we are seeking.
Ҍ For message testing to be successful, it is important to run your test multiple times and make it
an ongoing part of your work.
Ҍ Seek to get clear about the catchphrases that polarise people, and develop key messages that
avoid these as necessary.
Ҍ Take a step back on a regular basis to assess whether or not your messages (and messengers)
are helping you to achieve your goals. This also provides an opportunity to reassess whether or
not a different strategy might need to be taken.
Ҍ This resource from PIRC outlines how you could be testing your communications taking
different budgets into consideration.
10Bring high vibes
It’s not just what you say, but how you say it. Audiences connect with people who are authentic,
socially adept and can respond with humour and lightness when required. That’s not to say
that the issues progressive spokespeople are called on to address are not of entirely serious
consequence. But in a ‘culture wars’ set-up, you are trying to appeal to the audience more than
your opponent.
Ҍ Don’t just regurgitate talking points. Prepare your messaging beforehand in a way that feels
authentic to you and your voice. What do you want to say, and how will you say it in a way that
connects with the audience?
Ҍ Be mindful of your emotional state when accepting an invitation to be a spokesperson.
Sometimes it will be helpful to bring high emotion, and sometimes it won’t. Take space if it’s
appropriate, or put the right support networks in place.
Ҍ “Kill the part of your brain that processes shame.” This is the strategy of one person we
interviewed. It’s not a strategy that’s available to everyone, but good to keep in mind. The other
side will seek to bait, belittle, bully and embarrass you. Don’t let them kill your vibes!
CASE STUDIES
Case Study - Maya Goodfellow on LBC
Maya Goodfellow is being asked to comment on recent media
coverage around free speech in UK universities. Government plans
for a ‘free speech champion’ to regulate England’s campuses raised
ANALYSIS
concern with The National Union of Students saying there is no
evidence of a freedom of speech crisis on campuses. 1 Maya employs a relaxed
demeanour throughout,
helping reinforce the
PRESENTER: Is there anything wrong with England’s education impression that this is a
secretary standing up one day and saying, look, I’ve had a think made-up issue and not one
that warrants the present
about this. It matters, here are my proposals. response from the
Government
MAYA GOODFELLOW1: Yes, I think we need to contextualise2
2 Widens the focus of the
this. I agree. Obviously free speech is really important.3 I work debate
at a university and when I’ve taught, like all of my colleagues, 3 Affirms there is no issue to
what I’ve been focused on is encouraging debate in the debate around free speech.
classroom exploring different schools of thought.4 There is no censorship at play
that needs to be addressed.
But I do think that is a confected row.5 We have so many pieces 4 Double impact: Maya
reinforces her credibility as
of legislation already on free speech and universities. The a university professor while
1968 Education Act, The Higher Education and Research Act shedding light on existing
of 2017. There really isn’t much robust evidence for this being practices around free
speech at the university. She
a widespread issue in the way that Gavin Davidson seems to counters the narrative that
be talking about it. And so one thing that I would point to is a there is a problem
2018 report by the parliamentary Human Rights Committee 5 Directly calls this out as a
which said they did not find wholesale censorship of debate in manufactured debate
universities, which the media coverage has suggested.6 6 Facts!
11Case Study - Dalia Gebriel on the BBC
Dalia Gebriel is being asked to comment on a report released by
the National Trust stating that many historical properties it
manages have a colonial past and links to slavery. The National
Trust came under attack for producing this report with Tory MPs
calling for its government funding to be reviewed.
PRESENTER: We are talking about the National Trust
because there is a debate on the future of the organisation in
Westminster hall today. Now this comes after Tory MPs from
what’s called the Common Sense grouping wrote to the Daily
Telegraph to condemn the Trust for “being captured by a clique
of powerful, privileged liberals who want to rewrite our history
in their image”. It started off, you can see the quote there,
“History must not be sanitised nor rewritten to suit ‘snowflake’
preoccupations.” Joining us to discuss this is Dalia Gebrial
an academic and editor at Novara media. Welcome to the
programme.
ANALYSIS
DALIA GEBRIAL: I must say I am very confused as to why this is 7 Dalia opens by trivialising the
'scandal' as manufactured
such a scandal.7 What happened was very simple. The National
Trust commissioned a report looking into the historical links 8 Factual recap of what happened
between their sites and historical colonialism and slavery. They 9 Names the conservative strategy
produced an interesting piece of historical research for those 10 Paints the other side as overly
sensitive and flips the script.
who want to find out more about the context of the sites that
Pivots to what should be a
they visit.8 substantive point of discussione
11 Flips the script again and
It feels like this is getting blown up into a manufactured culture hammers home her message
war9 and I think it’s very interesting that the MPs in their 12 Appeals to audience by asking
statement said, as you mentioned, that history must not be them to do their own research
sanitised or re-written to suit ‘snowflake’ preoccupations. But it and come to their own
conclusions
seems to me that the only snowflakes here - the people wishing
to sanitise and rewrite our history - are those who are harassing
the National Trust for simply doing historical research and
revealing some things about their sites, which are interesting
even though some people might find that uncomfortable, but
that doesn’t mean that is not worth knowing about.10
I will go back again to the fact that this is not rewriting history
it’s the exact opposite, it’s writing history. It’s giving us more
information, in this case the sites that are looked after and
curated by the National Trust, and producing a report like this is
perfectly within their remit.11
It’s about writing that history and people can either choose
not to read the report if they are so offended by it, or they can
read it and choose to do with that information what they will
and they come to their own conclusions. I’m very confused as
to how doing historical research can be seen as rewriting, or
editing, or sanitising history.12
12WHAT NOT TO DO
Don’t fight on their terms
Try to pivot the conversation onto your terrain, and don’t play into their hands by:
Ҍ Don’t talk about things you don’t know about.
Ҍ Don’t act as a censor and police their language (unless the word or example used is deeply
offensive).
Ҍ Never connect the conversation to more substantive issues or shared values.
Avoid the term ‘culture wars’
‘Culture wars’ as a phrase has become a signifier that polarises by its very use. It is used as shorthand
by conservative commentators for ‘this isn’t actually very important’, and, as many of the people we
interviewed pointed out, it is often used by progressives in the same way.
Ҍ We must use our own terminology that highlights what is really going on. The substance of these
conversations is more accurately described by the terms ‘reactionary backlash’ or ‘history wars’, so
avoid the use of the term ‘culture wars’ where possible.
Don’t feed into respectability politics
Persuading the middle does not mean playing into the tropes of respectability politics, such as
perpetuating the ‘good immigrant’ narrative.
Ҍ Try to speak to, and question, the structures and systems that deem some people more worthy
and deserving than others.
Don’t play into metropolitan elite stereotypes or LARP* the working class
Messengers can be more important than the message. Be honest with yourself and others about who
is best placed to speak to what issue, and on which platforms. As one person we interviewed said,
“When you have people that have really clear, very posh voices, it just plays into the right’s view of who we
are. It’s embarrassing. They can say we’re just ‘ventriloquising the working class, so what would we know?’”
Ҍ At the same time, challenge the opponent’s stereotypical depiction of the working class and
metropolitan elite. It is not the ‘white working class’, it is the ‘multi-ethnic working class’. Speak to
your own history and background, if appropriate.
Don’t wait until it’s a media firestorm (if possible)
Because so many ‘culture wars’ stories in the media are absurd, it is tempting for progressives to
ignore them or wait for them to blow over. Don’t underestimate the concerted and effective effort
behind these headlines, as this kind of stance cedes ground for the sensationalised agenda to take
hold. As one person we interviewed said, “I couldn’t have imagined people responding so strongly to the
statue removal of someone they didn’t even know. I was wrong.”
Ҍ As soon as you see a story start to snowball, be proactive. Put out reactions online or in op-eds
and open letters. Start preparing your key messages and responses.
*LARP = Living Action Role Playing
13WHAT WIDER STRATEGIES ARE NEEDED
TO SUPPORT AN END TO THE ‘CULTURE WARS’?
This ‘war’ will not be won through media segments and messaging strategies alone, it will
take deep organising, clear strategy, and a strong collective supported by adequate resources,
coordination and independent structures.
Collective spokesperson strategy
In the short-term, the people we interviewed identified the need for a larger, diverse community
of spokespeople, made up of allies and those with lived experience, who could speak to multiple
issues and who are briefed on the same talking points and strategies.
Ҍ Our messages, our visions, our plans need to become common sense, and this happens by
“flooding the zone”, ensuring that key talking points are repeated again and again by a multitude
of people and in multiple outlets.
Ҍ Selecting spokespeople needs to happen strategically in order to bring the needed experiences
and voices in relation to the topic being discussed.
Defined endgame
The ‘culture wars’ have generally seen progressives on the back foot, reacting to provocation and
goading from conservative media outlets and commentators. A great example of progressives
shaping the narrative is the Black Lives Matter movement, which has to a great extent forced the
media and general public to contend with a different narrative of what constitutes racism, while
also capturing the imagination of what a different world could look like. Progressives need to learn
from this and operate more on the front foot by:
Ҍ Injecting broader principles and ideas into messaging.
Ҍ Spending more time and effort on information sharing and building a value-based narrative,
rather than always focusing on the problem.
Ҍ Building a vision for the future that is as inclusive as possible, where people can see where they
would fit and hold a sense of pride in both themselves and in society.
Deep organising and public education
“To change people’s mind, and also change their evaluation system so they are not single issue voters,
is by doing the work of organising. With the deliberate destruction of unions, people have essentially
no lived experience of collective action. We’ve reduced participation of democracy to the performance
of voting. Shaping people’s perspectives is through organising and talking to them where they live and,
ideally, having people in their networks they listen to talk to them on the issues at hand. For the left,
and our belief in collective power, we use this radically capitalistic model of communication, while the
right is using the grassroots.”
The ‘culture wars’ are being waged through messaging but they are working because of ground
level support for those messages. Progressives will only start turning the tide when our organising
game is stepped up. We need to:
14Ҍ Focus on organising people historically considered ‘less important’. In the last US election,
an enormous group of voters who were previously considered less important because they
couldn’t swing elections came out, voted and... swung an election.
Ҍ Continue demonstrating power in numbers where we can. For example, through open letters
signed by many people, which prevent any one person being identified as the focal point and
which give time and space for the adequate articulation of a position. A good example of this
is the open letter to The Sun signed by sixty trans and non-binary writers, charity bosses,
academics, lawyers and community leaders condemning the ‘cruel, cruel, malicious and
misogynistic’ treatment of JK Rowling by the newspaper.
Ҍ Develop spaces and programmes for comprehensive public education around complex issues
that acknowledge nuance and allow people to come and have their minds changed without
being pilloried.
Focus on the media industry
The ‘culture wars’ are a symptom of a media industry that is in financial crisis, where many of our
more ‘centrist’ media outlets sit behind paywalls, inaccessible to the general public, giving tabloids
more of the market share without also being held accountable for some of the questionable
practices they follow. Progressives can:
Ҍ Build more and better relationships with progressive journalists and producers in the media.
Ҍ Conduct our own investigative journalism that uncovers the money, relationships and vested
interests that underpin and fuel the ‘culture wars’.
Ҍ Support and protect independent institutions, such as Ofcom, to hold our media accountable.
Ҍ Make the media a target for public education. As one person we interviewed said, “It’s just that
they don’t know much about the issues themselves. We’ve seen the BBC, for example, drop getting
climate deniers as they are coming to know more about the issue.”
Ҍ Create an alternative to the current media landscape, through building our own outlets and
institutions.
Structured support and coordination
There is definitely space for more structured support and coordination from NEON, the
spokesperson network, funders and other organisations.
Ҍ For example, there can be more resources and structure provided for polling, message testing,
and equipping grassroots groups with the basics of strategic communications.
Ҍ There can be greater guidance and preparation in understanding what to expect - both from
the experience of going into a studio that often feels hostile, to what happens when you are the
subject of a coordinated online troll attack. A more collective response to pushing back on, and
reporting, trolling attacks would also be helpful.
Ҍ Having support groups to connect with before or after interviews would be excellent for
feedback and support.
Ҍ Further support could include, for example, helping spokespeople clean up their SEO, providing
formal therapeutic support, and hosting spokesperson ‘reunions’ where people can share and
unpack their recent interviews. With certain high-profile spokespeople, support in funding a
libel case or hiring investigative journalists may also be needed.
15FINAL THOUGHTS...
The progressive movement is now at a crossroads in its engagement with the ‘culture wars’.
There are some key lessons that need to be harnessed moving forward in order to circumvent the
political gains and momentum of the conservatives instrumentalising the ‘culture wars’ as a key
tactic.
The Black Lives Matter movement is a clear example of what can result from proactively setting
the media narrative, engaging a wider audience, and providing a future vision that captures the
imagination of people and mobilises them. There is an urgent need to embrace such strategies on
an ongoing and systematic basis when it comes to intersecting causes still being fought by the
progressive movement.
We hope the reflections and findings in this report will prove useful to the NEON community and
allies, current and future spokespeople, as well as groups working on cultural engagement who
are eager to take on a new approach with regards to the ‘culture wars’. The stakes are high, and a
concerted effort is necessary to address the structural issues at play as the media landscape in the
UK is redefined. The sooner these efforts begin, the better our chances of turning the tide.
16NEON is a network of over 1,600 UK organisers from 900 different civil society groups. We run powerful trainings and support campaigns to help progressives win Written by: social, economic and environmental justice. @NEON_UK neweconomyorganisers.org
You can also read
