Academia and teaching Politics

Russell Brand, celebrity and imputed authority

As you no doubt know, Russell Brand has recently been calling for revolution. The revolution will most likely be televised (younger readers, that’s a reference to a Gil Scott-Heron song/poem that’s worth listening to, regardless of how you feel about Brand or revolutions), but that’s pretty much all we know about it. Things are broken, politics doesn’t matter, and you shouldn’t vote.

You can read Nick Cohen or even another comedian, Robert Webb, for arguments as to why Brand’s comments – even if well-intended – are wrong-headed. What I’m interested in adding to the conversation is the observation (not a unique one, of course) that while Brand’s interview on Paxman and subsequent columns have certainly been entertaining, and certainly deal with important issues, that doesn’t make them interesting or worthwhile as political commentary.

While people were still #Occupying things, I wrote a column that expressed a similar sentiment about the South African incarnations of the Occupy movement. In short, what we seemed to be seeing was an inchoate shouting about things that were broken, without any attempted solutions being proffered, except for “demolish what we have because it isn’t working”.

There are two immediate problems with that “solution”. The first is that it states the obvious, and the second is that it’s as crude as what it claims to be rejecting.

It states the obvious in that since time immemorial the Bolsheviki, the hippie, the 1st year politics student, or the occasional Leftie in a suit have been railing against “the system” or “the Man”. Regardless of how defensible or not it is that inequalities persist in our economies, we can ask whether these celebrity and/or very well-publicized protests (like Occupy) get more people talking about the issues in an informed and useful manner.

It’s not intrinsically good or useful to simply “raise consciousness”. Earlier today, when I tweeted

many responses told me that “at least it’s starting a conversation”, and variants on that theme. But simply starting a conversation isn’t in itself a good thing – I can (as I responded) start a conversation by developing the practice of skinning kittens. Everyone would talk about me for a while, but to what effect? Unless we began speaking about how to stop me, or why I started doing this, nothing good can come of it except for entertainment (not for me, I mean, but for you – the prurient attention of a scandal-obsessed public would be sated).

Sated, at least for a short while. Because Brand can call for revolution all he likes, but it’s a different question as to whether you can persuade people living in Britain to reject their government when so many of them are leading perfectly acceptable, even if not exceptional, lives. As the Floyd remind us, “hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way”, and the same is no doubt true for many of us elsewhere – but that quiet desperation remains preferable to rejecting the status quo in favour of a completely undefined and unknown alternative.

And for a figure like Brand to respond to critiques of his view by saying that he’s just a comedian, and can’t be expected to come up with the answers, raises a different and quite important problem of its own – namely, it dumbs down what serious political conversation can be about, and leads readers to treat serious commentary as only “matters of opinion”.

On Twitter, some people like to use the hashtag #justsaying when they a) say something, and b) want to sort of leave it hanging there, as a pregnant thought that will presumably lead you to some revelation. It’s a stupid thing to do because obviously you’re saying something, and to add the “just” to it means that you’re trying to evade responsibility for the implications of the thing you’re saying. If you just hint at it, you see, it’s the audience that interprets it rather than you saying it.

To say “I’m just a comedian”, or something of that ilk, is to treat statements calling for violent revolution as #justsaying. And to tell us something as serious as that “all political systems and economies that currently exist are broken”, then follow up with #justsaying, as Brand is effectively doing, is good for nothing but entertainment value.

It’s as simplistic as he claims the broken thing is, because it’s a flat rejection of the status quo, without allowing for any possibility of fixing the status quo using its own tools and resources. Democracies – or even more generally, systems in which people vote for political leadership – come in various shapes and sizes, any of which might work better or worse than another in some other context.

And, democracies allow for the creation of a socialist state also, which is presumably what Brand is envisaging. One might suggest that the primary reason he rejects democracy is because he knows that too few people would actually vote for socialism, so we’d have to get there by persuading people to revolt.

The last point, which perhaps requires a separate post of its own, is that this is another instance of the (quite alarming) death of authority when it comes to various fields of expertise including science, as I’ve recently written about, and here politics. Russell Brand does not appear to be a sophisticated political thinker. He’s wonderfully charming, entertaining, and a great speaker. So, his Paxman appearance and related writings are seductive, to be sure. But being seductive doesn’t make them right.

And if we want to improve our lot as a species (not to mention the welfare of other species we might care about), maintaining the distinction between concepts like “entertaining” on the one hand, and “educative” on the other is quite important. So yes, let’s have a revolution – let’s go back to reading, and thinking, and remembering that (in general) comedians don’t make for great public intellectuals.

To conclude with a word of warning to his defenders: you might also want to stake a little less on his sincerity in this regard – the revolution he’s calling for might, in the end, be quite a British one itself, judging from images like this (posted to his Google+ profile)…


By Jacques Rousseau

Jacques Rousseau teaches critical thinking and ethics at the University of Cape Town, South Africa, and is the founder and director of the Free Society Institute, a non-profit organisation promoting secular humanism and scientific reasoning.

12 replies on “Russell Brand, celebrity and imputed authority”

This theme is quite common. “Everything is broken, we have to destroy everything and rebuild it!” without any idea of how to rebuild it, why things are the way they are and how we got here. I have had a few conversations with anarchists who want the government to go away because governments are sometimes corrupt. It would be functionally equivalent to bombing an entire town because there was a murderer on the prowl there.

I really liked the Robert Webb article, I could hear him saying all of that in his typically sarcastic tone. “In brief, and I say this with the greatest respect, please read some fucking Orwell.”

Indeed 🙂

Well, if you read Orwell… You read 1984 or Animal Farm. Let’s not be obscure.

So either people are overthrowing the government and, the natural consequence is, the pigs rule the (unpredictable) world. Or everybody is filming everybody else to within an inch of our lives. Either way.

@rustyrockets inch of ‘their’ lives.

@Tjaart “Everything is broken, we have to destroy everything and rebuild it!”

Fact is: Everybody just sits there and accepts broken shit. It’s boring. Why shouldn’t we rise up?

Rising up by overthrowing the government never works, which is why we have democratic processes. I really wish you had kept your replies to one comment instead of multiple ones. I believe it is possible to edit a comment in disqus so there is no need for multiple replies.

QUOTE: “It would be functionally equivalent to bombing an entire town because there was a murderer on the prowl there.’

Disagree. Government currently infiltrates every facet of our lives. A murderer merely haunts us.

Overthrow the government. Get anarchy, where basic human nature really comes to the fore. Let the dingo

You are abusing my analogy by attempting to overextend it. The concept of government can be improved without destroying the entire system. That was the point.

The rest of your comment doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me.

I’m going to start by using my usual line: In the Paxman interview, Brand comes across as someone who forgot to take his medicine.

In my opinion, he makes 3 key mistakes .
1) He believes that, having swallowed a thesaurus, its somehow ok for him to have an opinion on things. I watched and re-watched that interview and, as you so wonderfully put it, all he came up with in 10 mins of babbling is that he doesn’t vote and “demolish what we have because it isn’t working.” This does appear to be more the African politicians approach, using lots of big words without actually saying anything useful or interesting.
2) His lack of solution is immature. Like the teenager who skulks around a mall on Friday hating capitalism and smoking cigarettes he bought from the local supermarket, Brand sits and says he’s just a comedian with no solution. Fine. If its a teenager doing it we know to ignore them until they grow up. When a well known public figure says things are broken we expect him to come up with a solution, even if its a core ideal.
3) Brand talks over Paxman in his usual manner. Brand must have known Paxman’s MO and, if he actually had anything to say, he’d allow Paxman the chance to ask him questions, to unpack the ideas Brand has once he’s told everyone how he doesn’t vote. The sheer force of him talking over Paxman or any other interviewer at every chance points to a scared, worried little man who believes his big words and beard are enough to stay popular. Very soon his followers will start to realise they are dealing with someone who lacks the ability to plan and see things through and will hopefully start to abandon him.

*Disclaimer. I think Russel Brand is a complete moron.

I sense a great deal of ivory tower preciousness.

A famous comedian has used his considerable media mouthpiece (to which you, ahem, have now made your own small contribution) to agitate for the poor to be given a better deal. He is not claiming any “intellectual authority”, challenging Marx’s theory of capital or claiming to be giving some sort of “educative” treatise. He claims to be nothing more than a bloke mouthing off and what he says happens to resonate quite sweetly with large numbers of people. You don’t need to be a peer reviewed professor to see that income disparities are getting way out of hand.

If this causes even the slightest sphincter twitch amongst the ruling classes then I battle to see how his rant is a bad thing (ie that the negatives, of which there are plenty, outweigh the positive of some famous geezer using his fame to speak up for the poor).

Your #justsaying theory is really just a weak strawman. There is nothing wrong with highlighting injustices even if you don’t have solutions – if he did provide solutions you would justifiably give him both barrels of the Tim Noakes treatment.

Arguably the most lastingly successful revolutionaries of all time were Beatrice and Sydney Webb, who went about things as scientifically as they could. They even created the London School of Economics so that things could get even more scientific. They educated politics so that politics saw social science as desirable and as an eventual result even conservative politicians came round to their way of thinking about many things.
They had Bernard Shaw to Russell Brand for them, but whether this helped or hindered their revolution I’m not sure..

Comments are closed.