COLLECTIVIZING AND MOBILIZING “PEOPLE LIKE US”
How Kelly Clarkson’s Pop Record Eases the Tension Between Feminist Ideals and Pop Culture Matthew Chisling
BCom, McGIll University | MSc, London School of Economics (In Progress)
This is an academic paper originally published for submission and review to a Professor in the Communications studies department at McGill University during my undergraduate career. All photos here are used for academic purposes, and are not the property of the writer.
Kelly Clarkson has come a long way since her days on American Idol. Since 2002, she has gone on to sell over twelve million albums. In late 2012, Clarkson released her first Greatest Hits collection, which included “People Like Us,” a “throbbing outsiders anthem” that VH1 classifies as “inspiro-pop” (Golden, 2012). Lyrically, the song has been compared to Lady Gaga’s number one hit “Born This Way,” in the sense that it is a record which advocates that underdogs, whoever they might be, must band together so as to fight back against bullies. A full copy of the lyrics is attached in Appendix A, along with an audio link. A close reading of the lyrics presents an interesting paradox: Clarkson is clearly trying to appeal to many individuals within this one song, often referring to members of these marginalized groups in non-specific terms, such as “people.” Furthermore, a critical analysis of the message, and musicality, of the record reveals that this song might be appealing to women through a feminist lens. However, given the fact that Clarkson is a major label artist, and she is widely considered a product of the music industry’s biggest corporate machine, there is tension in the Feminist community as to whether a record like this, with its anthemic message and infectious beat, could be considered a feminist record. In this paper, I argue that a record like this does not necessarily have to be explicitly feminist or not: Rather, this is the type of artifact that opens the door to the question of whether mainstream, mass-audience pop music can still have a feminist message and exist amongst the slew of messages that inhibit women. This paper will first critique “People Like Us” within a larger industry context, through writers such as Sarah Banet-Weiser and Kristin Lieb. After placing the record within context, the record will be framed by Ednie Garrison’s analysis, which will consider whether the record’s message can be a point of identification for members of the third-wave feminist movement. Finally, the record will be used as an illustrator of arguments that Andi Zeisler and Susan Douglas make about the power popular music has for young women, despite being corporate in nature. The goal of this paper is to complicate the binary of media being necessarily feminist as opposed to anti-feminist or post-feminist, and to fuel the question whether this kind of record can be appreciated for some, or all, of its value. It is important to start an analysis of this record by looking at Kelly Clarkson’s record within its neoliberal, industrial context. Much criticism has been made of the ways that major media industries, including the music industry, re-appropriate feminist ideals into commodities to be bought and sold to an audience. Sarah BanetWeiser is one author whose critical of this type of media production: Through her analysis of the Dove Beauty Campaign, she acknowledges the impact of “commodity feminism”, a theory that suggests that “feminist ideologies and practices are emptied of their political valence and meaning and offered to consumers as commodities” (Banet-Weiser, 46). Banet-Weiser is critical of the way in which feminist ideals are produced in mass media, but without the meaning behind it. In this sense, Banet-Weiser may argue that “People Like Us,” is problematic: The record was not actually composed by Clarkson. Rather, an unknown songwriter by the name of Meghan Kabir wrote it. Ultimately, this means that the new vocalist has, in some way, altered the original message of the song. Banet-Weiser’s work does not necessarily argue that, because of this, the record is anti-feminist or void of value to a feminist community. However, her criticism of industries that profit off of selling feminist discourses suggests that she would be critical to describe this record as being a feministproduced media artifact. She is weary of the way that industry is able to potentially trick people into buying their commodities by selling them a discourse or idea, which, in the context of this artifact, is the idea of rallying up those who are maligned and encouraging them to be expressive (Banet-Weiser, 49-51).
Another author who would critique the presence of an artifact like this one is Andi Zeisler, whose work considers the way that feminist media is surrounded by anti-feminist media, even under the same corporate umbrella. Something that Banet-Weiser is critical of in her work on Dove is the way that the Dove brand is isolated form its parent company, which markets other products that are thoroughly antifeminist: Andi Zeisler makes a similar argument, stating, “it [is] difficult getting behind the Dove ads knowing that Dove’s parent company also owned Axe body spray, a product known for its relatively sexist ads” (141). Zeisler wishes to argue that, because of the concentration of media industries, just because a particular message has a feminist tone, does not mean that the artifact should necessarily be considered feminist: one has to look at a larger business portfolio. Clarkson’s record label, RCA, also produces Chris Brown’s music, for example. Brown’s music, and his celebrity identity, can hardly be considered representative of feminist ideals. Because the record label is against feminist ideals by promoting music by Brown, its appreciation within a feminist community might be lessened. Kristin Lieb’s analysis of Clarkson’s presence in the music industry also shows a tension between feminism and capitalism. Lieb is critical of the way the music industry brands artists to last for only a short-period of time in a cookiecutter process that places them in typecast images during their careers (87). She explicitly critiques Clarkson for falling victim to this model by deciding to lose weight, go “blonde,” and change her image from that of a good girl to a temptress for her second album, in a fashion that most female pop artists do when trying to make a lot of money (102). However, later on in her work, Lieb champions Clarkson as being one of the women that she believes will change the way women are handled and marketed in the music industry (Lieb, 165). She notes, of Clarkson, “[she] is adamant about claiming her position as an artist… her music-first posture is refreshing” and praises her for not adhering to standards set by the music industry, including her wardrobe choices and her weight management (Lieb 167). Within her own work, Lieb cannot agree on how she feels about Clarkson: Her analysis suggests that she is unsure whether to consider her a feminist role model because of her actions, or to see her as part of an anti-feminist music industry by participating in some of the standards set by record labels. Lieb’s analysis of Clarkson represents a turning point in the analysis of “People Like Us.” Her paradoxical assessment of Clarkson, and her music, suggests that Clarkson is opportunistic of her ability to take a stand while being part of the corporate machine.
“People Like Us” is a record that pushes this tension because of the inherent message of the song: Ednie Garrison’s work on the third-wave feminist movement suggests that this record might be appreciated within thirdwave communities and audiences because of its content. Garrison’s work primarily looks at third-wave feminist media production, and, for Garrison, third-wave feminist media is crucially produced by those in marginalized communities using “democratized technologies.” However, in spite of this point, Garrison might still appreciate the message of this artifact as being in line with the message of third-wave feminism. Garrison argues that the third-wave feminist movement is attractive for women because of the way it leverages “subcultural movements and networks, and differential oppositional consciousness” (142). The message of Clarkson’s song fulfills these important characteristics and, thus, has a “third-wave” connotation: Garrison says that an important component of third-wave discourse is referring to those involved in it as diverse: “Who counts as [third wave feminists] has changed substantially in the late-capitalist and postmodern world,” notes Garrison, who specifically suggests that third-wave feminism is able to acknowledge that “race, culture, class, and sexuality are not… any less significant than gender” in critiquing society (144-146). In short, third-wave feminism looks at the ways a wide variety of individuals are marginalized by different agents, and stresses the need to consider each individual’s case. This is something mirrored in Clarkson’s record. One of the strengths of “People like Us” is that it is not specifically referencing one type of individual: She acknowledges to her audience at one point, “This is the life that we choose, this is the life that we bleed” (Clarkson, “People Like Us). I argue that these lyrics are strategically included to suggest that the people she is referring to might be different because of genetics, in cases like race, gender, and sexuality, but might also be different because of life choices. Yet Clarkson is not suggesting that any of these differences are any more or less significant than others; any marginalized member of any group can fight back against the structures that limit them. Clarkson even sings, in the chorus, that “we are all misfits living in a world on fire,” a suggestion that maybe everyone, in some way, is marginalized by structures around them (Clarkson, “People Like Us”).
In “People Like Us”, Clarkson suggests a necessary call to action; this “call” is something that Garrison would appreciate within her argument about third-wave feminism and technologics. Garrison suggests that, within third-wave feminist movements, “networking is a critical concept… [it] involves a ‘technologic,’ a particular practice of communicating information over space and time, a creation of temporary ‘unified’ political groups made up of unlikely combinations and collectivities” (150). In other words, she feels that an important component of third-wave feminism is seeing those in marginalized groups working together to create a strong movement of consciousness against those in power. This is a clear message of Clarkson’s record. In the chorus, she declares, “people like us, we gotta stick together. Keep your head up, nothing lasts forever… Sing it for the people like us, the people like us” (Clarkson, “People Like Us”). Clarkson ultimately calls for a “revolution,” and she asks for this revolution to happen through self-expression. This kind of message is what satisfies the argument in Garrison’s piece. Garrison suggests that marginalized individuals need to network through common methods so as to create a presence: Similarly, Clarkson is advocating for those who “come into this world alone” to “know that [they] are not alone (“People Like Us”).
Clarkson’s song is powerful in the sense that it might serve as a powerful artifact for young women, in spite of being a byproduct of corporate America. In her analysis of girl group music of the 1960’s, Susan Douglas is able to draw some powerful conclusions about the importance of popular music for young women. When describing her own experiences with this kind of music, Douglas writes, “[girl group music] gave voice to all the warring selves inside us struggling, blindly and wish a crushing sense of insecurity, to force something resembling a coherent identity” (87). She acknowledges that music produced by women and for women was “deeply personal and highly public” and that the music was so successful because, “though [the records] were mass-produced, they were individually interpreted” (Douglas, 87-88). Given the way Douglas’ work applauds popular music that was targeted to women, I argue that Douglas would likely praise this record for its same ideals. The record is specifically addressed to misfits, to those who are “like us,” with similar problems and concerns. However, the generality of the song suggests that just about anyone can appreciate the message of the song as being just about them. Douglas argues that girl group music was important because of the way it enabled identity building, and the song’s malleable message creates a powerful point of identification for young girls, in a way that Feminist critics might appreciate. Given her analysis of girl group music, I argue that Douglas would also appreciate the musicality of “People Like Us.” Clarkson’s record is nothing short of anthemic: With a pulsing baseline and soaring vocals on the chorus, Clarkson’s record is not one of angst; it is an uplifting one that pushes the listener to get moving while listening to it. Douglas work praises records like this: She says that, “[Girl Group music] made us sweat, and celebrated the capacity of girls to love like women… dancing to this music [in groups] created a powerful sense of unity, of commonality of spirit, since we were all feeling, with our minds and our bodies, the same enhanced emotions at the same moment” (Douglas, 94). Douglas is happy with the way that music for girls was a powerful agent, largely because of its ability to generate self-expression for girls in the form of dance. “People Like Us” is a record that continues in this tradition nearly fifty years later: it combines a Feminist lyrical message with a musicality that encourages women to move in a way that is liberating without being anti-feminist or postfeminist.
To further open the debate about Clarkson’s place in both feminist discourse and popular culture, Zeisler’s analysis will be brought back into consideration. Zeisler acknowledges that there is still a tremendous gap between the ideals produced by pop culture and those desired by feminists. She comments, “pop culture has always been about commerce, and feminism and pop culture will always be uneasy bedfellows in a larger culture that remains conflicted about how much power, agency, and autonomy women should have” (15). Zeisler would likely claim that “People Like Us” has a feminist message, but that the structure around the recording limits its potential to be a truly appreciated feminist artifact within the collection of third-wave feminist materials. Regardless, Zeisler acknowledges, “there’s nothing wrong with loving, consuming, and creating pop culture with an eye toward how it can be better: smarter, [and] less insulting to women” (21). Zeisler’s suggestions about being more critical regarding pop culture are complemented by her desire to actually leverage pop culture to promote feminist ideals: “[Feminism] also needed a commercial, consumer approach to appeal to all the people it hoped to reach” (122). In short, because of the hegemonic power that pop culture has on society, Feminists needed to find a way to play along, and the best way to do this is to praise forms of popular culture that actually help create a feminist identity, or support a feminist conceptualization.
Zeisler encourages her audience to be critical of media artifacts like pop music records: “Media literacy,” according to her, is important within the context of a record like “People Like Us” because it is birthed from such a hegemonic power elite like the major record labels: This is something that Lieb and Banet-Weiser also consider. However, at the same time, Zeisler helps us look at the way that a message within this structure can still be important for feminists, and she, along with Douglas and Garrison, illustrate the way that popular music could actually help the Feminist cause, despite who created this record. Maybe Kelly Clarkson, and her music, can represent the struggle that individuals feel balancing desires to embody feminism and capitalism at the same time. “People Like Us” is paradoxical in that it could satisfy the needs of two communities at once. As long as the record is a hit on the radio, young women, and those of other slighted groups, will hear its message and maybe take action the way Clarkson, likely genuinely, hopes they do. This will be true even though it ultimately makes the capitalist industries happy as well. Zeisler argues that there is an uneasy relationship between feminism and pop culture: “People Like Us” may represent a compromise in that relationship. It represents proof that there are players within neoliberal structures that actually wish to help feminist causes, and, as such, it should be embraced for that, in spite of some of its flaws.
References Banet-Weiser, Sarah. “”Free Self Esteem Tools?” Brand Culture, Gender, and the Dove Real Beauty Campaign.” Commodity Activism: Cultural Resistance in Neoliberal times. Ed. Roopali Mukherjee and Sarah Banet-Weiser. New York: New York UP, 2012. 39-56. Print. Clarkson, Kelly. “People Like Us.” Greatest Hits: Chapter One. 2012. Sony BMG. MP3. Douglas, Susan J. “Why the Shirelles Mattered.” Where the Girls Are: Growing up Female with the Mass Media. New York: Times, 1995. 83-98. Print. Garrison, Ednie Kaeh. “U.S. Feminism-Grrl Style! Youth (Sub)Cultures and the Technologics of the Third Wave.” Feminist Studies 26.1 (2000): 141-70. Print. Golden, Zara. “Is “People Like Us” Kelly Clarkson’s “Born This Way”?” VH1 Tuner. VH1, 15 Nov. 2012. Web. 14 Apr. 2013. Lieb, Kristin. Gender, Branding, and the Modern Music Industry: The Social Construction of Female Popular Music Stars. New York: Routledge, 2013. Print. Zeisler, Andi. Feminism and Pop Culture. Berkeley, CA: Seal, 2008. Print.