Post on 24-Jun-2020
Taylor Swift Isn’t Feminist: A Critical Analysis of Feminism in Online Discourse
Sarah Katz Professor John Oddo December 17th, 2015
Abstract Feminism is one of the most widely discussed topics in academia and popular culture today. Many critics have established that we are currently in the third-wave of feminism, which values multiple perspectives and is particularly nonjudgmental (Snyder 2008). Studies have been conducted about the use of third-wave values in teen magazines (Keller 2011) and in online discourse surrounding celebrity (Lamb et al. 2013). Few papers have studied how online discourse uses these celebrities to construct ideas of feminism. The goal of this paper is to add to the understanding of how online bloggers discursively construct feminism using celebrities who define as feminist. The paper studies the discussion of Taylor Swift and her feminist ideas in particular. It uses the idea of brand, evaluatives, and critical discourse analysis to come to a better understanding of how feminism is constructed. It concludes that in order to be a feminist you must be perceived as having core feminist values, and that you are not constructing your own brand of feminism. It also questions how pervasive third-wave feminism is and our understanding of its characteristics.
2
Introduction
Defining what the term “feminism” means has been a widely discussed topic for years.
Modern feminists critics find this enterprise especially difficult when trying to incorporate new,
younger voices into the conversation. It is widely agreed that a third-wave of feminism is
happening, but figuring out what third-wave feminism means is more difficult than it first
appears (Snyder, 2008). This paper attempts to cultivate a better understanding of how younger
voices discuss feminism by focusing on the discussion of the pop star Taylor Swift. In particular,
this analysis studies four examples of online discourse surrounding Swift and feminism. By
looking at the different linguistic choices used to describe Swift and her feminist discourse, we
may come to a better understanding of what it means to be a feminist today.
Although an exact definition of third-wave feminism has not been agreed upon, there are
some general characteristics that many critics agree help to define the wave. Snyder (2008)
illustrates many problems with pinning down an exact definition of third-wave feminism, as well
as establishing an origin point for the movement. She notes three aspects that differentiate third-
wave feminism from other waves, specifically that it “foregrounds personal narratives that
illustrate an intersectional and multiperspectival version of feminism,” that “third-wavers
embrace mulitvocality over synthesis and action,” and “third-wave feminism emphasizes an
inclusive and nonjudgmental approach that refuses to police the boundaries of the feminist
protocol” (p. 175-176). Looking at the feminist debate surrounding Swift could help uncover
how this third-wave of feminism is discursively created. The language these bloggers use to
describe feminism has large implications for how the broader movement and the third-wave
functions in practice. As my analysis will show, many bloggers are particularly judgmental when
it comes to feminism, while simultaneously noting that feminism is a large subject that does not
3
have one correct definition. They illustrate these ideas through particular linguistic choices,
including evaluatives and a reliance on pop culture knowledge.
Numerous bloggers also focus on one celebrity in order to discuss their own feminist
ideas. For many of the bloggers studied, Swift acts as a kind of launch pad off of which they
discuss their own beliefs regarding feminism. This discussion of celebrity feminism has not yet
been studied, even though it has ramifications for how feminism is constructed and perceived by
the public. These online discussions of celebrities and feminism are likely the only feminist
discourse most women are exposed to, since many do not have access to scholarly feminist
journals. Furthermore, these celebrity feminists are often the only feminist icons women have
because they are not reading feminist literature. Through studying the ways in which feminism is
discussed in this celebrity context, we can better understand how some of the U.S. population
sees feminism and how they practically employ feminist ideas. This analysis will also help
illuminate how celebrity often complicates the discussion, specifically through its relationship
with the idea of brand. The bloggers studied are acutely aware that Swift is first and foremost a
celebrity selling her brand, impacting the way they discuss this pop star’s relation to feminism.
The concept of brand has been discussed by many scholars. Hearn (2008) discusses what
a brand entails, writing, “The function of the branded self is purely rhetorical; its goal is to
produce cultural value and, potentially, material profit” (p. 198). Furthermore, a “brand no longer
refers to a simple commodity but to an entire ‘virtual context’ for consumption” (p. 199). Thus
when people buy Swift’s albums, they are not just purchasing her brand but participating in
context that she has created to sell said albums. Hearn also notes that there has been a change in
the way brands function, stating, “While the object of the logo or trademark was initially
intended to guarantee quality, it has now become the sign of a definite type of social identity,
4
which summons consumers into relationship with it” (p. 199). Thus in this context, “brand”
encapsulates not only Swift’s name on the album or t-shirt, but the image that she has created,
the relationships she cultivates with her fans, and the consumer’s identity. This idea is
particularly important because part of Swift’s brand is that she is a feminist. In this way
feminism has become commodified, wrapped up in Swift’s albums that when purchased indicate
that the consumer is also a feminist. Thus brand becomes an important vehicle through which
feminism and feminist ideas are dispersed to the public.
Swift’s brand, however, is not solely based on her identity as a feminist. In fact, Swift’s
brand has changed dramatically since her first album was released in 2006 when she was only 17
years old. Originally Swift created her image as a country music star, sporting cowboy boots and
glittery guitars. As she grew up her style changed significantly. She cut her hair, started using
new electronic synthesizers in her songs, and traded in her cowboy boots for more mainstream
fashion pieces like highwaisted pants (pants that rise to the natural waist line). As Swift
cultivated her pop star image, she wrote songs and spoke publically about cultivating friendships
among women. This is when Swift enters into the feminist conversation. Her friend group of
famous and beautiful singers, actresses, and supermodels has been widely criticized for being too
generic and contrived. People have also claimed that Swift put together this group in an effort to
cultivate her feminist brand, stating that these women are seen together to support each other’s
images rather than support each other as friends. Even though Swift has publicly announced that
she considers herself a feminist, many bloggers have condemned Swift’s pronouncement as
affected and designed to sell an image. Others have defended Swift, relying on an acutely third-
wave idea that feminism can be whatever women consider it to be. These arguments regarding
5
Swift and feminism are complicated and diverse; this paper will study a small sample of these
opinions in order to illustrate how these authors use Swift to construct their ideas of feminism.
Studying the perception of a pop star through online writing is not an entirely new
concept. Lamb et al. (2013) studied the perception of Miley Cyrus, another young pop star, after
a particularly scandalous pole dancing performance at the Teen Choice awards in 2009. Lamb et
al. studied the role of feminism and self-sexualization, a term that “refers to the choice that girls
and women make to conform to the norms of sexiness in culture in order to get rewards” (p.
166), in online discourses. They surveyed articles and blog posts written after the 2009
performance, breaking them down into subthemes and performing critical discourse analysis in
order to understand any underlying ideologies (2013, p. 170-171). Lamb et al. conclude that the
online discourse primarily revolved around what kind of sexuality is considered “appropriate” or
“shameful” (2013, p. 179).
Critical discourse analysis has also been used to study third-wave feminism in teen
magazines. Keller (2011) interviewed editors of teen fashion and beauty magazines in order to
gain a better understanding of their definitions of feminism. She discusses the different ways in
which these editors define “feminism,” finally concluding that they “employ practical strategies
informed by a distinctively ‘third wave ethic’ to integrate elements of popular feminism into
their magazine content” (p. 4). She notes that even though many editors consider themselves to
be feminist, they decide not to use the word “feminism” itself in many of their articles because
they think readers are afraid to use the word (p. 7). Keller also discusses the contradictions in
definitions and ethics that arise when third-wave feminism is introduced into a corporate or
business model (p. 10).
6
This paper is different from these previous studies in that it focuses specifically on the
relationship between celebrity and feminism in online discourse. It is not concerned on the
perception of a pop star, as Lamb et al.’s paper is, but rather how celebrities can be used to talk
about feminism more broadly. Furthermore, this paper is focused on how feminism discursively
constructed in a particular text, and is not particularly concerned with the contradictions in
definitions of feminism or their application in the larger world. This paper attempts to answer the
following research questions:
1. What evaluative structures do online bloggers use to discuss Taylor Swift and feminism?
2. What particular linguistic features do these bloggers use to define feminism, Swift and
feminism, and what makes someone not a feminist?
Methods
In order to answer these questions, I gathered four articles all from major blog sites published
in late summer of 2015 to early September 2015. This narrow time frame was selected because it
coincided with the start of Swift’s tour to promote her newest album, as well as two major music
video releases that inspired large debates on feminism. Once the articles were collected, they
were analyzed by pulling out all the evaluative words, terms, or phrases that were related to
Swift and feminism. I use Hunston and Thompson’s (2000) designation of evaluatives and their
functions. They write that evaluatives function “to express the speaker’s or writer’s opinion,” “to
construct and maintain relations between the speaker or writer and hearer or reader,” and “to
organize the discourse” (p. 6). The first two types of evaluatives are the main analytical tools
used in this paper. These evaluative phrases were broken up into tables that show similar
linguistic features, such as the use of possessives and the use of the word “brand.” I use Hearn’s
7
(2008) understanding of the word brand as both a commodity and a public context. I believe that
Swift’s brand, or image as pop star who wants to sell albums and cultivate a following,
influences the way that people write about her in terms of feminism. Thus part of this study
focuses on the idea of Swift’s brand and how it relates to feminism. I also looked at how the
authors named and defined specific kinds of feminism, pulling out specific noun phrases or
modifiers and organized them based on the genre of feminism.
Analysis
Two of the four studied texts came from sites owned by Gawker Media, including
“Taylor Swift Is Not Your Friend” by Dayna Evans, which was published on Gawker.com on
July 22nd, 2015. The second article by Puja Patel’s “Taylor Swift’s ‘Bad Blood’ Video Is Not A
Feminist Manifesto” was published on May 19th, 2015 on an offshoot of Gawker.com called The
Concourse. Searching for articles on either Gawker.com or TheConcourse.com will yield results
published on both sites, indicating that TheConourse.com is simply a sub-blog of the larger
Gawker.com. The third article “Taylor Swift’s ‘Bad Blood’ Hypocrisy: An Anthem Fit for
Regina George” by Amy Zimmerman was published on August 28th, 2015 on
TheDailyBeast.com. The last article entitled “Taylor Swift, the Feminist of Our Wildest Dreams”
by Audrey Hayworth, was published on TheHuffingtonPost.com on September 9th, 2015. This is
the only article included that takes a positive stance toward Swift and feminism; all of the others
cast the pop star in a much more negative light.
One of the ways they portray Swift’s idea of feminism in a negative manner is through
referring to it as a brand. Many authors explicitly use the word “brand” to discuss Swift and
feminism, indicating that Swift’s feminist proclamations are constructed and do not come from
personally held beliefs. They also employ possessives in order to illustrate that this kind of
8
feminism is particular to Swift. In these ways, the authors create an image of Swift and feminism
as something that is fake and separate from the rest of the feminist discourse. A complete list of
brand and possessives is provided in Table 1.
Linguistic Feature
Evans Hayworth Patel Zimmerman
Brand None None 1. Taylor Swift’s self-affirming brand
2. her brand of feminism is deceptive in its inclusiveness; it’s frequently for show, or worse, only for Instagram.
1. Taylor Swift’s brand of feminism
2. Swift’s brand of feminism
3. Swift has built her new brand on girl power
4. Swift, who’s never met a white size zero model she didn’t Instagram with, didn’t need any help confirming that her specific brand of femininity isn’t exactly inclusive.
Possessive 1. Remember the female pop star catfighting of the ‘90s and ‘00s? Swift’s feminism is something of the positive inverse to that.
1. articles rebuking her feminist ways were rampant
2. Both of the above examples.
1. All of the above examples.
2. Swift’s feminism is like a malfunctioning Pokémon
3. Swift’s feminism can be seen taking the form of white solipsism
4. Swift insists that her feminism is more than just “some strategy.”
5. While we’re all happy that Taylor Swift’s found her feminist spirit animal in Lena Dunham, her current feminist scorecard is as unconvincing as a Dr. Dre
9
apology. Table 1: Brand and Possessives
The use of the word brand is important because it provides a specific cognitive frame for
understanding Swift and feminism. Swift is discussed as having a specific brand of feminism
mainly by two articles. A condensed list of these instances is shown in Table 2.
Patel Zimmerman 1. Taylor Swift’s self-affirming brand
1. Swift’s brand of feminism
2. her brand of feminism is deceptive in its inclusiveness; it’s frequently for show, or worse, only for Instagram.
2. Swift has built her new brand on girl power
3. Taylor Swift’s brand of feminism 3. Swift, who’s never met a white size zero model she didn’t Instagram with, didn’t need any help confirming that her specific brand of femininity isn’t exactly inclusive.
Table 2: Brand
As described earlier, a brand refers to a rhetorically constructed identity that has the
potential create profit (Hearn 2008). It is this idea of creating a brand that these authors use to
question Swift’s relationship to feminism. Zimmerman explicitly highlights the idea that brands
are constructed when she writes, “Swift has built her new brand on girl power.” In this quote,
“girl power” refers to the kind of feminism Swift is known to support; that female empowerment
and friendships are important. The word “built” highlights the fact that a brand is something that
is created. This implies that Swift is using feminism to manufacture a particular image, and that
Swift’s feminism does not stem from her values. Patel also emphasizes this idea through the use
of the phrase “for show” in the second example listed in Table 2. Saying something is “for show”
implies that it is not real but an act that is performed and constructed for the benefit of an
audience. Thus these authors invoke the idea of brand to illustrate the idea that Swift does not
actually believe in feminism, but is instead using it to construct a specific kind of feminism that
is meant to be shown and distributed to an audience. The word brand thus frames how the
10
authors understand Swift in feminism, as something that is false, manufactured, and meant for
distribution.
These authors often use possessives when talking about Swift and the brand of feminism
she is selling. In doing this, they show that Swift has complete control over this kind of
feminism, and thus separate her from the rest of the feminist discourse. Table 3 lists all of the
instances of possessives and feminism.
Evans Hayworth Patel Zimmerman 1. Swift’s
feminism 1. her feminist
ways 1. Taylor Swift’s
self-affirming brand
1. Swift’s feminism
2. her brand of feminism
2. her specific brand of femininity
3. Swift’s brand of feminism
4. her new brand 5. her feminism
Table 3: Possessives
Here we see repeated use of the possessive pronoun “her” as well as the apostrophe
possessive construction. In all the articles excluding Hayworth’s, which I will return to shortly,
these possessives function as a way to seclude Swift from the rest of the conversation of
feminism. The possessives draw a clear line between Swift’s ideas regarding feminism and the
rest of feminist discourse. They indicate that there is something special about Swift’s
conceptions of feminism that separates them from the rest of the dialogue surrounding the
movement. It also signifies that Swift has complete ownership over this feminism. This idea
makes sense in the context of understanding Swift and feminism as a brand. If Swift’s feminism
is a brand that is constructed and distributed, then it would make sense that Swift would have
complete ownership over it. It would also follow that it is somehow separate from the other kinds
of feminism since it was constructed out of feminist ideas rather than an untampered reflection of
11
them. Thus possessives in this case work to back up the frame established by the word “brand,”
while simultaneously isolating Swift from the rest of the feminist discussion.
Hayworth’s piece, on the other hand, uses the possessive “her” in a distinct way. The
possessive pronoun in the phrase “her feminist ways” aligns Swift with the entire feminist
movement. The pronoun “her” is modifying “ways,” which in turn is being modified by
“feminist.” In this way Hayworth is indicating that Swift’s actions are in line with the feminist
movement, and are not separate or dissimilar from it as the other authors suggest. This makes
sense considering the overall argument of the piece. As mentioned earlier, this article takes a
positive stance toward Swift and feminism. Since Hayworth is arguing that Swift should be
considered a feminist, it is only logical to associate Swift with the rest of the feminist movement.
Evans’ piece is also unique in that it addresses an aspect of Swift’s brand that the other
articles do not specifically mention, namely that Swift is a performer. After describing her
experience at one of Swift’s live concerts, Evans writes that she took a few days to “meditate on
the performative feminism that Taylor Swift was shoving down my throat.” Through the use of
the word “performative,” Evans conveys the idea that Swift’s feminism is something that Swift
has created for display purposes. It is the same kind of constructed feminism that is implied with
the word brand, but with a particularly emphasis on Swift’s identity as a performer. Earlier in the
article Evans even refers to Swift’s tendency to bring on stage her famous female friends as
“Swiftian performance art.” Thus it appears that even when her brand is not invoked, Swift’s
identity as a performer can be used to attain the same kind of evaluation of Swift’s feminism as
manufactured or fake.
One would think that in order to make this claim of what the kind of feminism is “real” or
“fake,” the authors would have to provide definitions of feminism. Definitions can come in many
12
forms, including the standard X means Y, or the opposite, X does not mean Y. There are other
forms, however, including one or more modifiers before a noun. Definitions can also take the
form of a list of attributes or appeals to authorities that say what a specific term or idea means.
Recognizing a definition, then, can be a difficult task. For this analysis, definitions of feminism
are considered any phrases that attempted to provide a clearer idea of what feminism means.
There are surprisingly few instances of actual definitions of feminism as a whole. Table 4 lists all
the definitions regarding feminism. Patel’s article is not included in the table because she did not
give a definition of feminism.
Evans Hayworth Zimmerman 1. There are
different kinds of feminism and inclusivity is essential.
1. Webster’s defines a feminist as “the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.”
1. Swift’s brand of feminism is less “an intersectional approach to structural systems of gendered inequality” and more “look at my friends, they’re hot and they like me.”
2. I often have conversations with my female friends about the two sides of feminism: the complimentary, bestie feminism—the kind that Swift is currently selling—and the cutthroat, realistic, we-
2. No mention of how one should go about that.
2. there’s no such thing as a perfect feminist
13
exist-in-this-male-world-too feminism, the kind that expects women to act to standards that have already been set for us, and to do so by acting better and stronger and in alignment with each other.
3. Nor, whether or not you can be heartbroken as a feminist.
Table 4: Definitions of Feminism
It’s important to notice that no two texts define feminism in the exact same way. Although they
use similar linguistic tools, the ways in which these authors deploy them are distinct. This lack of
conformity could indicate different ways of understanding what feminism means, which in turn
could influence how they judge Swift in this context.
For instance, Hayworth appeals to the authority of Webster’s dictionary in order to define
feminism. From there she uses negation to further refine the definition of feminism and feminist,
specifically mentioning that there is “no mention” of how to act like a feminist, “nor whether or
not you can be heartbroken.” For Hayworth, then, what matters about this definition of feminism
is what is not explicitly stated. She uses negation to emphasize a broad definition of feminism in
order to allow Swift to be incorporated into the term.
Zimmerman also uses these tactics but arrives at an opposite conclusion. Her appeal to
authority, however, is more complicated. Unlike Hayworth who attributes her quote to Merriam
Webster’s Dictionary, Zimmerman has no cited source for either quotation present in her
14
definition: “Swift’s brand of feminism is less “an intersectional approach to structural systems of
gendered inequality” and more “look at my friends, they’re hot and they like me.”” In the first
quotation, Zimmerman is clearly trying to define what feminism means more broadly. It also
sticks out from the rest of the article in that it is written in a more academic register. Words like
“intersectional” and complex noun phrases like “structural systems of gendered inequality” are
not typically used in everyday speech, but are reminiscent of scholarly discussions of feminism.
Because this quotation is unattributed, Zimmerman is not appealing to the authority of who
created this definition as Hayworth does, but to the academic register of the quote itself.
Zimmerman is relying on the belief that the academic register conveys a certain knowledge and
thus authority on a topic. Later in the article Zimmerman qualifies this definition through
negation, writing, “there is no such thing as a perfect feminist.” This negation implies that
feminists come in many forms, all of which are flawed but equally valuable. By this logic, it
might make sense to conclude that Swift’s ideas of feminism must also be valuable. It is
important to remember, however, that Swift is considered not to be a feminist because for her
feminism is a brand and not a set of values, therefore she cannot be incorporated into this
otherwise broad definition of feminism.
At first Evans also describes feminism in a similarly broad way, but then makes it more
specific later on. Even though Evans writes that “there are different kinds of feminism and
inclusivity is essential,” when she further defines feminism she leaves room for only two options.
She describes them as:
two sides of feminism: the complimentary, bestie feminism—the kind that Swift is currently selling—and the cutthroat, realistic, we- exist-in-this-male-world-too feminism, the kind that expects women to act to standards that have already been set for us, and to do so by acting better and stronger and in alignment with each other.
15
This “two side” metaphor implies that these different definitions are contradictory and mutually
exclusive, like choosing opposite sides of a coin or opposing armies at war. This metaphor also
indicates that there is no middle ground in feminism—you are either on one side or the other.
Furthermore, the definition of feminism that is in contrast to Swift’s “bestie feminism,” which
will be discussed later, is one that relies heavily on male agency. Even though the phrase
“already been set” is passive, the reader need only look earlier in the sentence to find an actor,
specifically the words “male-world.” Even if men are never explicitly referred to, it is their
actions that help to create this definition of feminism.
The definition of Swift’s feminism is just as varied as the definitions of feminism in
general. Table 5 lists all the instances in which the authors define what they think Swift’s
“brand” of feminism is. Hayworth is not included in this table because, as stated earlier, she
argues that Swift can be considered a feminist in the general definition of the word.
Evans Patel Zimmerman 1. I often have
conversations with my female friends about the two sides of feminism: the complimentary, bestie feminism—the kind that Swift is currently selling—and the cutthroat, realistic, we- exist-in-this-male-world-too feminism, the kind that expects women to act
1. In a clip released from her Maxim interview, Swift talks about her view of feminism:… “So to me, feminism is probably the most important movement that you could embrace, because it’s just basically another word for equality.”
1. We’re living in the heyday of the Swift wave of feminism—go girls, no boys allowed, etc.
16
to standards that have already been set for us, and to do so by acting better and stronger and in alignment with each other.
2. Remember the female pop star catfighting of the ‘90s and ‘00s? Swift’s feminism is something of the positive inverse to that.
2. Swift’s brand of feminism is less “an intersectional approach to structural systems of gendered equality” and more “look at my friends, they’re hot and they like me.”
Table 5: Defining Swift's Feminism
One thing to notice about these definitions of Swift’s feminism is some of them rely on
the audience’s assumed knowledge. For instance, the use of the abbreviation of the word etcetera
in Zimmerman’s definition “go girls, no boys allowed, etc.” implies that Zimmerman does not
have to go on to describe this kind of thinking because the audience already knows what it
means. Evans’ second definition of Swift’s feminism as “the positive inverse” to the “catfights”
in the 1990s works in a similar way. She relies on her audience’s ability to recall the
“catfighting” in order to create her definition.
It is also important to notice that many of these definitions are created through
contrasting ideas of feminism. By talking about Swift and feminism in this way, these authors
reinforce the idea that “Swift’s brand” of feminism is separate and distinct from the larger
feminist discourse. For example, the male driven feminism Evans defines is contrasted with
17
Swift’s decidedly female “bestie feminism.” The word “bestie” is slang for “best friend.”
Although the slang itself does not imply a single gender, Evans establishes earlier on in this
article that “bestie” in this context refers to a female friend. She defines “bestie” in this way
when she notes Swift is “decorating herself with women besties.” This contrast in gender
underscores the more obvious contradictions between the words like “complimentary” and
“cutthroat.”
Zimmerman also relies on contrasts to define Swift’s feminism. As discussed previously,
the first definition of feminism is written in a highly academic register. When defining Swift’s
feminism, Zimmerman uses an extremely informal voice that, like Evans’ definition of Swift’s
feminism, relies on slang. This definition comes in the second quotation in the second example
listed in Table 5, in which Zimmerman writes, “look at my friends, they’re hot and they like
me.” The simple syntax implies both a simplistic knowledge of feminism when compared to the
previous quotation, and emphasizes its informality. Furthermore, the word “hot” is clearly being
used in this phrase in its colloquial meaning of “attractive,” and not in its literal temperature
sense. In these ways Zimmerman draws a clear contrast between what feminism is and Swift’s
feminism.
Patel is the only author who lets Swift define feminism in her own words. She cites an
article in Maxim magazine in which Swift is interviewed for the cover story. Opting to quote
Swift rather than place in her contrast to other definitions of feminism could indicate that Patel is
not concerned with how Swift fits into the feminist discussion as a whole because Patel does not
view Swift as a feminist. Instead, it could be that Patel is solely concerned with breaking down
what Swift has to say about feminism in order to advance her view.
18
Even though Patel gives Swift the space to speak on what feminism means to her, she is
quick to evaluate Swift’s definition. After quoting Swift, Patel writes, “That’s a perfectly
common and privileged definition of feminism! One that I feel like I’ve heard before!”
Evaluatives like these are abundant in these texts, present in almost every instance of reported
speech or definition. Zimmerman even goes as far to say that Swift’s feminism is “unbelievable
and contrived.” Many of these evaluatives fit into Huntson and Thompson’s (2000) first defined
function of evaluatives, specifically to express the author’s opinion (p. 6). These authors also use
evaluatives that showcase Huntson and Thompson’s (2000) second function of maintaining
relationships between the reader and author (p. 6). For example, in the previously discussed
passage in which Evans writes, “Remember the female pop star catfighting of the ‘90s and ‘00s?
Swift’s feminism is something of the positive inverse to that,” she creates a particular
relationship between her and her reader. The rhetorical question implies a kind of informal
relationship between Evans and her reader as well as a shared knowledge base and thus common
ability to discuss this topic, since it presumes that the reader knows about these “catfights.” At
the same time, Evans places “Swift’s feminism” in the context of these fights and thus explicitly
evaluates it, both through referencing these fights and through the phrase “the positive inverse.”
This kind of assumed pop culture knowledge is one of the primary ways in which these
authors evaluate Swift’s feminism and maintain the equal relationship between the author and
the reader. A particularly enlightening example comes from Zimmerman’s article. She writes:
Taylor Swift’s brand of feminism is like that time your friend told you that One Direction was going on hiatus and you pretended that you were only tearing up because something was stuck in your eye.
This example relies on the knowledge of who or what One Direction is, the news that they are
“going on hiatus,” the belief that this news is bad news, and the idea that many would be
19
embarrassed if others knew that they were emotionally affected by this news. In short, in order to
fully understand this evaluative claim, you must understand not only pop culture figures, but also
the popular opinion of this group. One Direction is a British boy band that announced a few days
before this article was published that they would be taking a break from writing music. Their
audience is mostly young girls who are often criticized for being too obsessed with the band
members. It is clear that Zimmerman is relying on the idea that no one wants to be associated
with this audience when she writes “you pretended” you weren’t upset rather than expose your
true feelings and align yourself with them. The reader must understand this social stigma in order
to understand why they would not want to share their true emotions. If the reader is able to
understand all the references and social pressures involved in this phrase, they will come to the
natural evaluation that Swift’s feminism as completely artificial, fake, and not stemming from
true beliefs.
The evaluatives Zimmerman employs also rely on the pop culture knowledge of Swift
herself. In defining the “Swift wave of feminism,” Zimmerman writes,
It’s the kind of wave you ride in a highwaisted retro bikini next to your 10 most flawless, expertly cast model friends, before taking a series of artful Instagrams on your private beach.
Those who are familiar with Instagram, a photo editing and sharing social media site, and who
follow Swift’s account will easily recognize this as a critique of many of Swift’s posts. Swift
personal style often includes highwaisted garments and she is famous for putting together her
“squad,” or her group of famous female friends. The reference to her “expertly cast model
friends” is clearly meant to call these friendships into question, implying that these friends are
like actors “cast” in a role and are not actually seen together because of a mutual friendship. But
in order to understand any of these evaluatives, the reader must also understand Swift’s pop
20
culture identity. This definition creates an image of Swift and feminism as one that is largely
dependent on popular culture. She is a pop star, therefore her feminism will take on a particular
pop culture slant. But this evaluative also calls into question the authenticity of Swift’s wave of
feminism. The implied critiques show that Swift’s feminism is an image to be distributed
through social media, and is not actually a meditation on the values of feminism.
These authors also use specific names to evaluate Swift and feminism. These names work
to question Swift’s role in the feminist conversation and her ideas of what feminism is. A
complete list of these names is provided in Table 6.
Patel Zimmerman 1. Taylor Swift’s self-
affirming brand as the Leader of Young Women Everywhere
1. this Swift-ism reinforces Swift’s fatal mistake: believing that by simply having a group of friends, she has cracked the feminist code.
2. she took the stage as some sort of matriarch for the future of teen babies everywhere, telling her fans she ‘loved all girls.’
3. her attempts to position herself as the Modern Feminist of the Future feel awfully cynical.
Table 6: Evaluatives and Names for Swift and Feminism
The example from Zimmerman’s text listed in Table 6 refers to a quotation of Swift
talking about how she considers female friendships important and empowering. Zimmerman
names this kind of speech or ideas a “Swift-ism,” explicitly separating it from the conversation
about feminism that Swift clearly wants to be taking part in. “Swift-ism” suggests that the
discussed quote is a different kind of discourse with different characteristics and values, and that
21
it is separate from the rest of feminist discourse. Furthermore, the term “Swift-ism” implies that
Swift is out of touch with the discussion regarding feminism, and thus evaluates it as misguided,
self-interested, or even wrong.
Patel reaches the same evaluation but in a different way, specifically through naming
Swift herself rather than her words. Labels like “Leader of Young Women Everywhere,”
“matriarch for the future of teen babies everywhere,” and “Modern Feminist of the Future” read
as decidedly ironic, since it is obvious that Patel does not believe any of these things. The use of
capitalization in two of the titles only furthers this irony through implying that these could be
real titles or roles. In reality the titles are not only impossible to achieve but somewhat
ridiculous. Patel reinforces these titles’ comicality through producing an audience that could not
possibly exist. We see this most explicitly in the second title “matriarch of teen babies
everywhere.” The phrase “teen babies” is inherently contradictory, since a person cannot be a
teenager and a baby at the same time. In this way Patel further distances Swift from the feminist
conversation.
Discussion
This analysis has large implications for ideas regarding third-wave feminism. As
discussed earlier, many critics agree that we are in a third wave of feminism. This third-wave is
conceived of as nonjudgmental, inclusive, and values personal stories (Snyder 2008). The
studied bloggers, however, do not appear to be upholding these tenants of the third-wave. They
are quick to judge Swift’s feminism as fake, rather than accepting her ideas and stories without
question. Instead of valuing the unique perspective Swift could offer, they show that Swift is not
part of the feminist conversation at all. These conclusions could mean either that the third-wave
22
is different from how we conceive of it now, or that these authors are not participating in third-
wave feminism at all, leading us to question the third-wave’s pervasiveness.
This analysis also shows how modern women discursively construct third-wave
feminism, or feminism in general, and its relationship to celebrity. Many of the authors use the
concept of brand to discredit the authenticity of Swift’s ideas of feminism. They draw
particularly on the idea that a brand is something that is constructed in order to make their
argument. They point to the idea that Swift is selling her image to imply that her ideas of
feminism do not actually come from personally held beliefs, but from the desire to sell more
albums and advance her brand. These authors use linguistic features like possessives to further
separate Swift’s brand of feminism from the rest of feminist discourse. They also set up contrast
between what Swift’s feminism is and what feminism more broadly is. This discussion illustrates
that in order to be considered a feminist by these authors, you must show that you personally
believe in feminist ideas. More specifically, you cannot be seen as building your own kind of
feminism, but instead must understand feminism in terms of a definition that already exists.
These definitions of what feminism is and Swift’s feminism, however, are surprisingly
hard to come by. Largely speaking, Swift’s feminism is particularly female; it is often criticized
for focusing too much on friendships between women. Through criticizing this kind of feminism,
these authors could be arguing that modern feminism should incorporate all genders, which is a
characteristic of the third-wave. At the same time, these authors rarely explicitly define what this
modern feminism is. This silence could indicate that the authors believe that their audience
already knows what feminism means, and thus defining it further would just be wasting space.
It is clear, however, that one aspect of these author’s ideas of feminism is that many
people are able to participate in the feminist discussion. We can see this through the use of pop
23
culture references that place the authors and the readers on equal footing. Since they both have
access to the same information, they are both equally equipped to talk about feminism in this
manner. This kind of assumption could show that a person does not need to be an expert to
engage in the feminist conversation. All one would need are core feminist beliefs and access to
this kind of popular knowledge.
In order to argue any of these theories in a persuasive way, more research must be done
into the perception of third-wave feminism and its role in popular discourse. Specifically, further
research should be conducted in how celebrities are talked about in terms of feminism and how
the average woman conceives of feminism. In this way we can better understand how the third-
wave functions in practice. Until then, this analysis serves to show how celebrity feminism is
discursively constructed and evaluated.
References
Evans, D. (2015, July 22). Taylor Swift Is Not Your Friend. Retrieved November 7, 2015, from http://gawker.com/taylor-swift-is-not-your-friend-1717745581
Hayworth, A. (2015, September 9). Taylor Swift, the Feminist of Our Wildest Dreams. Retrieved
November 7, 2015, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/audrey-hayworth/taylor-swift-the-feminist_b_8101182.html
Hearn, A. (2008). ‘Meat, Mask, Burden’ Probing the Contours of the Branded ‘Self’. Journal of
Consumer Culture, 8(2), 197-217. doi: 10.1177/1469540508090086 Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (2000). Evaluation: An Introduction. In Evaluation in text:
Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 1-27). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Keller, J. (2011). Feminist editors and the new girl glossies: Fashionable feminism or just
another sexist rag? Women's Studies International Forum, 34(1), 1-12. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.cmu.edu/10.1016/j.wsif.2010.07.004
Lamb, S., Galing, K., Wheeler, E. (2013). ‘Pole-arized’ Discourse: An Analaysis of Responses to
24
Miley Cyrus’s Teen Choice Awards Pole Dance. Feminism & Psychology, 23(2), 163-183. doi: 10.1177/0959353512472482
Patel, P. (2015, May 9). Taylor Swift's "Bad Blood" Video Is Not A Feminist Manifesto.
Retrieved November 7, 2015, from http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/taylor-swifts-bad-blood-video-is-not-a-feminist-manif-1705257983
Snyder, C. R. (2008) What is Third-Wave Feminism? A New Directions Essay. Signs, 34(1),
175-196. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/588436. Zimmerman, A. (2015, August 28). Taylor Swift's 'Bad Blood' Hypocrisy: An Anthem Fit for
Regina George. Retrieved November 7, 2015, from http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/28/taylor-swift-s-bad-blood-hypocrisy-an-anthem-fit-for-regina-george.html