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