Constructing Public And Counterpublic In Singing: A Discussion

Russell Brand’s Opinions and Beliefs

Discuss about the Constructing Public and Counterpublic in Singing.

Jeremy Paxman is a British broadcaster and a journalist who is conducting the interview of comedian Russell Brand. Russell Brand has never voted in his life, but he is currently editing a political magazine. The conversation between the participants is about the current social and political scenario and how Russell Brand has the authority to edit a political magazine without ever having voted in his life. The purpose of the interview is to understand how the political system needs overhauling and how showing apathy by not voting is not the solution. on one hand, Russell Brand looks for an alternative political system where the rights of the underclass will be preserved and their voices will be heard and on the other hand Jeremy Paxman wants to know how voting is important in a democracy and only by voting can the common people raise their voice and change the system. Russell wants revolution where the underclass can revolt against the corruption that is prevalent and propose a socialist egalitarian system. The interview will make the corporations wake up to their responsibilities of paying taxes, the duty of the Government to preserve the environment and make sure there are no economic disparities.

Russell Brands tells his story of being a drug addict till the age of 18 and that has affected his mentality of revolting against the rich and the developed who are trying to oppress the economically deprived class. He tells his story of being a drug addict and coming from a socially deprived class that has not their rights heard. He is voicing his opinion as a representative of a social class which is devoid of a proper representation and is underserved by the political system which only cares for the rights of the rich. Drug problem is a recurring issue of the social and economic class that he belonged to which has been impoverished and denied of basic rights (Monaghan and Yeomans 2016). Not having their issues resolved and their rights preserved, they do not resonate with the political system and therefore considering voting for them a futile exercise. They believe that the political system is apathetic to the needs of the deprived and they see that the political system is serving the rights of the big corporations because they run the economy. The political parties are defending the big banks and corporate because they believe that the big corporate will curtail the taxes and the political system is only trying to keep the interests of the rich and the powerful in mind while devising their policies. In the opinion of Russell Brand, he is saying that the government is creating segmentation in the society and by doing that they are not addressing the issues of people coming from the lower strata of the society management.

Jeremy Paxman’s Views on Voting

Russell Brand has never voted in his life and he does not believe in the idea of voting someone to power who will have the same mentality of serving the rich and the powerful and not pay attention to the needs of the poor. Paxman says being an editor of a political magazine without having voted will reduce his authenticity in the eyes of the people because no one should take anyone seriously who ahs not exercise their democratic right to vote.

In the video, Russell Brand believes that voting will not make any difference and people should not vote because the political party for whom people are voting is apathetic to the needs of the underclass and voting for them will not make any difference. This is an opinion which is not buttressed by facts. The fact is that in a democracy people have the right to vote and voting for the right candidate will bring change and the society needs for responsible people to take care of the needs of the society.

The interview is conducted to understand how the people in a democracy react to the political parties and their policies. How an actor, a comedian explains why there is a demanding need to overthrow the current political system because it is not doing its job of addressing the problems of the underclass ( Arthurs and Shaw 2016). In Russell’s opinion, the power at the hands of the undeserving is corrupting the environment, is creating two classes- the privileged class and the underclass and there is huge exploitation at the hands of the upper class (Arthurs and Little 2016). Brand is representing the underclass which is feeling threatened by the growing oppression, and therefore he plans a revolution of change, an alternative political system headed by people who are adept at understanding the needs of the society (Brassett 2016).

Russell seeks a socialist egalitarian system, an ideal world where there are no class divisions, where there are no elites whose rights get preference and the poor are left in the lurch without anyone having to fend for them. Brand kept talking in rhetoric about how there is a need to change the existing system but from the interview it seemed like he did not have any plan. He makes a point cogently how there needs to be change, there needs to be an alternate politics for the betterment of the society but when asked how he plans to go about devising that plan, he does not have a concrete idea. The interview was an informal discussion about the current political system and both of the participants were assertive about their opinions. Brand represents the thought process of the new generation that is not satisfied with the way out society is moving forward. He speaks on behalf of the current societal framework that needs a leader who is compassionate for the needs of the underclass, a leader who tries to bridge the gap between the socially deprived and the ones oppressing and a leader that makes everyone vote for him.

Bourdieu’s Field Theory and Cultural Capital

In the interview, it seems like Paxman is trying to personally attack Russell for having an opinion, calling him trivial because he hopes for an egalitarian system. A way the participants could have presented themselves better would have been to not attack each other personally for having a voice that speaks volumes. The theory is based on Bourdieu’s Field Theory, which is a heavily influenced theory that draws its influence from Karl’s socialist theory (Ferrare and Apple 2015). His idea is devised to refer to a collection of skills that shape the society, like skills, tastes, clothing etc (Harker, Mahar and Wilkes 2016). Bourdieu talks about cultural capital that states that people in same colleges, schools have similar tastes in music and life skills but they might also diverge in their thinking (Willing, Waltorp and Hartley 2015). The same schooling or college does not warrant same set of thought process and therefore it is important that people should be seen as separate entities with different identities and thought process (Kluttz and Fligstein 2016). He also says that social capital is also another source of inequality in the society as some cultural capital is valued over others creating a sense of disharmony and inequality (Hilgers and Mangez 2014). The same was seen in the context of going to the same school. Russell says that he along with Boris went to the same school but they did not have the same opinions because that is absolutely normal (Krarup and Munk 2016). Boris subsequently went to another comprehensive school in North London. This just buttresses the theory of Bourdieu that says that people from same schools or colleges have similar approach and they have the similar skills and languages about with time they start developing their own ideas (Shammas and Sandberg 2016). Brand talks how to secure the political system that engages the rights of the underclass. He is of the firm opinion that there is no need to vote till the people is satisfied that their rights will be preserved and they will be heard.  The need of the hour is to vote cautiously and bring to power people who are responsible and engaged in the interests of the underprivileged. The faith of the people needs to be restored in the political system (Fligstein and McAdam 2015). The socialist egalitarian system advances the school of thought that states that everyone has to be treated equally and there shall be no discrimination between the rich and the poor (Qian 2018). The same thought has been reflected by Russell in the interview that states that no one shall be discriminated on the basis of the education they get or the class they belong to (Bielsen 2015). Everyone’s rights should be prioritized and they should be given the worth of their life (Elizabeth 2017).

The Need for an Alternative Political System

Conclusion

This interview saw a myriad of views by Brand that he confidently pulled off to state that a socialist economy is needed to be in place and people should vote only when they are confident that their issues will be resolved and their plights will be taken care of. The alternative political system is an utopia at the moment but a revolution of change shall change the scenario and better the situation where the environment shall be protected, the demarcation between the rich and the poor will be done away with and everyone shall have equal access to justice, economic rights and opportunities management.

References

Arthurs, J. and Little, B., 2016. Russell Brand: Comedy, Celebrity, Politics. Springer.

Arthurs, J. and Shaw, S., 2016. Celebrity capital in the political field: Russell Brand’s migration from stand-up comedy to Newsnight. Media, culture & society, 38(8), pp.1136-1152.

Brassett, J., 2016. Satire is (un) dead: how comedy became a language of democratic politics. Democratic Audit UK.

Elizabeth, S.A., 2017. What is the Point of Equality?. In Theories of Justice (pp. 133-183). Routledge.

Ferrare, J.J. and Apple, M.W., 2015. Field theory and educational practice: Bourdieu and the pedagogic qualities of local field positions in educational contexts. Cambridge Journal of Education, 45(1), pp.43-59.

Fligstein, N. and McAdam, D., 2015. A theory of fields. Oxford University Press.

Harker, R., Mahar, C. and Wilkes, C. eds., 2016. An introduction to the work of Pierre Bourdieu: The practice of theory. Springer.

Hilgers, M. and Mangez, É. eds., 2014. Bourdieu’s theory of social fields: concepts and applications. Routledge.

Kluttz, D.N. and Fligstein, N., 2016. Varieties of sociological field theory. In Handbook of contemporary sociological theory(pp. 185-204). Springer, Cham.

Krarup, T. and Munk, M.D., 2016. Field theory in cultural capital studies of educational attainment. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(5), pp.761-779.

Monaghan, M. and Yeomans, H., 2016. Mixing drink and drugs:‘Underclass’ politics, the recovery agenda and the partial convergence of English alcohol and drugs policy. International Journal of Drug Policy, 37, pp.122-128.

Nielsen, K., 2015. On the Choice between Property-Owning Democracy and Liberal Socialism.”. Unpublished. Posted online at https://phil. ucalgary. ca/profiles/kai-nielsen.

Qian, J., 2018. From performance to politics? Constructing public and counterpublic in the singing of red songs. In Re-visioning the Public in Post-reform Urban China (pp. 107-136). Springer, Singapore.

Shammas, V.L. and Sandberg, S., 2016. Habitus, capital, and conflict: Bringing Bourdieusian field theory to criminology. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 16(2), pp.195-213.

Willig, I., Waltorp, K. and Hartley, J.M., 2015. Field theory approaches to new media practices: An introduction and some theoretical considerations. MedieKultur: Journal of media and communication research, 31(58), pp.1-12.