Taylor Swift’s tenacious grip on contemporary culture is irrefutable, her success is unassailable, labelled a virtuoso, a maestro, a Promethean artist and commander of culture. Even those of us who do not listen to her find her permeating all areas of contemporary life.
Swift has been mentioned in the UK parliament and the US Congress on a multitude of occasions, Australian ex Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, even embarked on a ‘Taylor Swift bingo’; seeing how many times he could insert Taylor Swift lyrics into his valedictory speech. For many political theorists, this suggests something about political populism, but it is much bigger than just that. Taylor Swift is the zeitgeist of our generation, and it is because of neoliberalism that she is able to do so.
Whilst Taylor has been topping the charts for her hugely successful albums and singles, she has also been dominating the charts for climate change emissions, ranked as the number one celebrity CO2 emitter by UK sustainability marketing agency, Yard. In 2023, she was found to have emitted 138 tonnes of CO2 in just three months, largely to visit her new beau, NFL player, Travis Kelce. These emissions are equivalent to the annual energy usage of 17 American households. In the same period, climate scientists found that the world has – for the first time – exceeded a 1.5 degree Celsius rise in temperature over 12 months, serving as a warning to humanity. I hear the cries of the Swifties: “why aren't you talking about the big corporations? What about Travis Scott? Kylie Jenner? Beyoncé?” And, “She’s a global star- it's part of her job!” Et Cetera et Ad Nauseum. This article is not a criticism of Taylor Swift per se, but an analysis. It is worth acknowledging, however, that Swift has pledged to purchase double the required carbon credits to offset emissions from her record-breaking tour (though the efficacy of such remains under-researched).
Taylor’s fans have acted as a bulwark against criticisms, claiming that she was being gratuitously scapegoated in order to vindicate large corporations of their climate crimes, and whilst it is true that she is part of a panoply of celebrities causing detriment to the planet, the real question is to do with her ‘Reputation’ (an irresistible pun). For many devout ‘Swifties’, criticising her is almost a form of religious persecution; she represents their hopes, dreams and way of life (which, consciously or subconsciously, are imbued with neoliberal principles). And This is where the dots connect. Taylor’s image is a paragon of the white liberal feminist, a picture which is often weaponised, and serves as a defence of her persona. She is the utterly relatable “girl next door”, and she has often said that she wants to show girls that anyone can do anything, just like neoliberalism and the American Dream tells them they can. How can anyone argue with that?
Neoliberalism is the pre-eminent economic system in many Western countries, embracing free-market values, globalisation, and deregulation, and may be defined simply by the quote ‘the freer the market, the freer the people’. This economic position has been characterised by its phenomenal resilience, even in the face of calamity and catastrophe (i.e 2008 financial crash) it stands utterly unimpeded, leading many to argue it has become ‘the end of history’ (or ‘End Game’, if you will); there is seemingly no alternative to this way of life, there can be no other way of living, lending to a ‘sacralisation’ of the market, creating an unbridled process of commodification, which pervades all spheres of human activity. The traditional separation between politics, economy and society has been eroded, and every sector of life is commodified. Neoliberalism sits in the vacant seat of religion in many Western societies which have undergone secularisation, and Taylor Swift is its ‘False God’.
Taylor Swift was born a brand. Her father, a stockbroker, and her mother a successful marketing manager, decided to bestow Taylor with a gender-neutral name as a child, expectant of her future in the finance world, hoping a gender-neutral name would prevent her from set-backs by corporations. When Swift’s family became cognisant of her talent, they moved their lives to Nashville, and her dad made no haste, reportedly investing a three percent stake in the company that signed her (for the small cost of around $300,000). Anyone can do anything (with a dream and a few hundred thousand dollars). This spring boarded her to fame, and there was no looking back.
Taylor has undoubtedly experienced the sharp vicissitudes of stardom as a woman, notably the unforgettable 2009 Kanye West VMA debacle, and particularly her feud with a music manager over the rights to her music. The latter is where her power as a brand and cultural narrative was truly realised. Musical copyrights are split into two branches, the musical composition, and the sound recording itself (or Master). Taylor Swift cleverly owned the rights to her musical composition as a lyricist, but this meant that she was not the owner of any original audio recordings, meaning she had no control over when and to whom these rights could be sold, and she claimed that her old record label was holding her to ransom over the Masters in exchange for her signing another contract with them. But, as she owned the Musical composition rights to her music, she also owned ‘sync rights’, meaning she held jurisdiction as to whether her songs could be used in advertisement, films etc, thus meaning she could prevent anyone profiting off her Masters in that way. With a fanbase so famously loyal, she decided she could simply re-record her first six studio albums, under the brand of ‘Taylor’s Version’. Whilst the thought of any other artist commandeering their fans in this way is almost unimaginable, the ‘Swifties’ duly obeyed, abandoning any old versions and devoutly following (and financially investing) in the word of their icon.
This legal and economic mastery was made possible by her fans, many of whom see their lives as being dictated by her brand, some even developing a ‘parasocial relationship’ with her, feeling like they truly know her. Taylor Swift is the emotional fibre of neoliberal culture. She is authentic, she is real, whilst simultaneously being an economic construction from her inception. Taylor Swift conforms to the image that many young girls internalise from a young age, she is the perfect girl, she is a ‘girlboss’, and she is exactly what modern day, proper femininity looks like. In modern life, we are made up of cultural material, social mores, beliefs, ideals, and somehow, Taylor Swift complies with all of these values. People feel like they know her as she has lived inside them, even before they knew who she was. She is the apotheosis of the neoliberal ideal that has dominated the dreams of our generation’s young girls. All of her ‘eras’ are distinct aesthetic productions which have culminated ways of living for many teenage girls, out of Folklore was born the curated aesthetic of cardigans and cottage core, in fact ‘eras’ have found their way into contemporary ‘Gen Z’ discourse, whether you’re in your ‘academic era’ or ‘going out era’, you’re being impacted by Taylor Swift’s brand, consciously or subconsciously.
Neoliberalism survives because people believe in it, they believe in its transcendent power, its ability to emancipate us all from the shackles of the past, anybody can do anything, and Taylor Swift keeps so many people believing; she is the reality that the neoliberal agenda promises. Even if people know the deficiencies and inequities of neoliberalism, it supplies them with just enough, be it a Stanley Cup, a scroll, a Taylor Swift album or a dream, there is always something that keeps them believing, and for so many people across the West, Taylor Swift is, that reason. She understands them in a way that any other brand or belief system cannot, she can articulate their feelings, hopes and desires, she is the voice of a generation; and she may not have been heard if not for neoliberalism.
And so what if she (and neoliberalism) have faults, so what if they threaten our biosphere, they do so much good, there can be no alternative.
Perhaps without intent, Taylor Swift is a key tenet of the neoliberal agenda today, her power can change the way young people vote (i.e the Republicans and Democrats tirelessly vying for her endorsement). She is able to keep Gen Z believing in the power of the sacralised free market, and in spite of trials and tribulations, she keeps them believing, hoping and dreaming, the world isn’t burning (yet) it just keeps on turning.
