The Personal is Political

Photo Credit: Clay Banks

By Cale Gressman 

The personal is political. What does this mean? It’s a statement far more popular in left-wing circles than on the right. In fact, it is the right that often denigrates it as being wrong (either morally or factually) or absurd. Because if taken to its logical extent, your buying a burger or watching a particular piece of media, is not merely a personal choice or preference, but rather an action that serves as a political symbol. Personal action (or inaction if you want to get that extreme) is political action. So is this true?

Yes. It is true in the sense that we live in a non-axiomatic age. We live in a world wherein no single definition of the Good (i.e. what we ought to do, what we should pursue, etc…) exists. Our nation was founded on this principle to an extent, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. After this line is not a general blueprint for how to go about pursuing that happiness. 

However, the steep downside of this fact being true is that every action we take is connected to broader socio-political debates. If you like Chick-fil-A and, therefore, eat there, you are supporting a socially conservative company. Or even more narrowly, a socially conservative owner. Your personal eating habits support this, whether you want to or not. We of course can see the issue here. We all want to be able to eat a chicken sandwich and not give a cock-a-doodle-doo about the opinions of the person who made it.  

However, we in recent years have seen the dramatic rise of the overtly political corporation. While corporations have always curried favor with both consumers (their job) and the State. It used to be that companies would desire more than anything to avoid controversy. To be seen as a culturally and politically neutral entity. 

However, in recent years they have felt that they must present themselves as being FOR something. And that something is not merely selling products. Advertisements have always attempted to play on emotion. The basic argument of each is that x product will make your life better. But today, many have sought to signal that they, the corporation are, in fact good. One particularly obnoxious ad (about insurance) declares that they are empathetic. I assure you they are not because companies cannot be empathetic, nor can they be angry, nor can they be happy. 

In a more polarized way, many corporations have decided to become part of politics. They take positions on social issues (bud light). They seek to punish political dissidents. And they try to change policy (breakdown of Sanford Health from NR). And many are baffled as to why. Why would they decide to piss off a decent chunk of their consumer base? 

I would argue that this is the fact that we as a society know when the right goes too far. But we don’t recognize when the left goes too far. This is at least the argument one Dr. Jordan Peterson. I buy it. The corporations believe that overt appeals to the left show them to be “virtuous” at very little cost. 

You don’t have to look very far online to find a list showing company logos during Pride month, with all of them painted a rainbow, even ones such as defense companies. However, a look at those same companies' logos during the same period in places like the Middle East reveals them to be distinctly rainbowless. We must remember that the political left is by and large the establishment. They call the cultural and in many ways the political shots in the culture. To lean left (if not to be overtly left) is to be in line with the mainstream. 

In a recent kerfuffle, Bud Light has come under boycott for featuring a prominent transgender activist, Dylan Mulvaney, in one of their advertisements. This has resulted in a rather large boycott movement spreading all over the United States. Many claim that this has already begun to dramatically affect the profits of Bud Light and its parent company Aunheiser-Busch, however, this remains to be seen. In this instance, the right has apparently smelled blood in the water and has sought to take a “scalp” as Matt Walsh puts it. To drink Bud Light is, in the eyes of many, to support transgenderism. The personal is political. 

Connected to this issue, and occurring prior to it, was the boycott of the video game Hogwarts Legacy. While I have never played the game, the content of the game seems very left-wing or rather “woke” in its presentation o the world. This includes a wildly diverse 19th-century Britain and LGBT representation in most all corners of the game. However, in this circumstance, the game was not boycotted by the right but rather by the Left. 

This is for the fact that the creator of the Harry Potter universe, J.K Rowling, is skeptical of the transgender movement. Or more precisely she is a “trans-exclusionary radical feminist.” That is she believes that, while “male-to-female” transgenders should be accepted, they are not in fact women. This is not kosher in the least with the modern-day left (at least the ones who have the influence), and so the game in question is boycotted by the guilt of association. 

In both of these cases, one individual damned the corporation in question to a boycott. The boycott of Hogwarts Legacy was a resounding failure, while the boycott of Bud Light might very well be successful. But in both cases, the individual to whom each side took issue with, in a sense, is the avatar of what each side is fighting. J.K Rowling represents the “compradorial” force present within the left, while Dylan Mulvaney represents a subversive demoralization of tradition. In both cases, you are either with them or against them. 

However, this very tribal mentality is not unusual. C.S Lewis in his book Surprised By Joy makes a very interesting point. When he became a theist after years of atheism, he began to attend church once more. At this point, he was a theist. He believed in God in general but not in a god in particular. However, he wanted to “raise a banner” that he in fact did believe. And what better way to do it than attend a meeting, inside a building, dedicated to such a proposition? Outward action, thus, portrayed inner belief. 

Humans are tribal and must, therefore, show some obeisance to the symbols and codes of the community. But in our modern age, what are the symbols? What are the codes? In a very real sense, the personal has always been political because politics is based on the community, however extended.