Voices and Power: How the JK Rowling fiasco reveal the weakness of the internet discourse

The public sphere is a concept created by the German sociologist, Jurgen Habermas, referring to a space where citizens, undefined by any other social identities, engage in free and equal discourse for the betterment of their societies. The public sphere is one of the most influential concepts in sociology. It is often used as an indicator of free speech and pluralism in opinions. It is seen as a weapon against the establishment and the habitat of the intelligentsia. Back in the 19th Century, Europe saw the public sphere appearing in physical spaces: the coffeehouse and the salons where people engage in political discussion, as well as intellectual spaces: newspapers and books. This expansion of the public sphere allows criticisms against the status quo, and is often connected to the wave of revolutions that spread across Europe and the Americas in that century. The second and third wave of democratic liberation – which happens in Africa and Southeast Asia – correlate with the expansion of the public sphere in those places. The bulk of the evidence – both in the field of sociology and political science – indicates that the public sphere is the key to a liberal and democratic society.

Since the advent of the social network, we have entered a new era of the public sphere. Once again, social scientists have become entangled in endless debates about whether or not this development has improved or degraded the public sphere. Indeed, the public sphere has expanded to an almost global reach. From the 2011 Arab Spring to the 2020 George Floyd protest, this past decade had seen social and political discourse expanded beyond the confine of nations. However, discourse has also been spread thin. As phrases, images, headlines and hashtags travel at unbelievable speed across the virtual landscape, there is less time to sit and think about what one is saying. In his 2015 video titled Atemporality, Nerdwriter captures this feeling of not knowing what one is saying or listening to as the medium that enables quick and immediate exchanging of opinions. This results in the simplification of ideas and narratives.

(Image credit: The Economic Times)

In 2020, JK Rowling, the author of the book series Harry Potter and the writer of Fantastic Beast: The Crime of Grindelwald, posted a tweet about transgenderism.

The tweet starts trending, and there were rapid responses. Many of us are aware of the tweet without ever actually seeing the tweet itself. We engage in a discourse that seems to multiply in magnitude but grows shallower in depth and nuance. As of now, the tweet sparked calls to boycott, defend or explain the author’s position. Harry Potter stars also jump into comment on the situation, alongside many other people we haven’t heard of. JK Rowling herself also isn’t shying away from rebutting the criticisms thrown her way.

The interesting thing is, it does not seem to matter what is really said during this pervasive and multilayered discourse apart from the fact that Rowling is branded as transphobic. The discourse quickly becomes a polarising issue. The fans of the Harry Potter series are faced with a dilemma of reconciling their love for the series and the problematic opinions of its creator.

JK Rowling’s controversy about transgenderism is emblematic of the problem with contemporary social discourse. While many of us like to blame the deterioration of the public sphere on certain ideological groups – i.e. the SJW snowflakes or provocative rightwing trolls – the harsh reality is that, this development is natural and almost inevitable.

Identity politics have been on the rise since the late 20th century and it feeds into the expansion of the public sphere through the internet. Social media provide a perfect space for forming opposing identity groups that engage in battle of words rather than meaningful dialectics.

So, in contrast to the identity-less debate of the 19th century, what we have today is hashtag wars. In the 1970s, a debate between academic thinkers like Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault may be televised, but nowadays we keep our eyes on celebrities’ tweets. Who’s going to stand up for which side? Will Emma Watson, the feminist, stand up against JK Rowling the homophobe? And what will the male celebrities do? Will they tweet a black screen, wear a “time’s up” pin and call out Donald Trump on his daily tweet vomits?

This is not discourse. But it is often framed as that. People use terms like “talk” or “conversation” when there is really no intellectual engagement in a twitter war. In debate, you are engaging in an exchange, a bilateral engagement. In twitter wars, you are a performer. You are making statements that recipients identify as either X or Y.

However, the shallowness of contemporary discourse is not the only issue here. We have to talk about the power dynamics of the new public sphere.

This article is motivated by Lindsay’s Ellis video on the issue. One can say that it is a sort of continuation from her video on Death of the Author. We highly recommend our readers to watch both of her videos (see above).

The point that Ellis is trying to make in these videos is that you can’t separate the artist from the art. You can’t really watch Harry Potter without knowing about Rowling. In her first video, Ellis points out that we live in a culture dominated by personal brands. How can we read texts and compartmentalise our opinions if, more often than not, the artist has a personal brand – an active identity? This point is even more poignant when applied to Rowling, who is very active on Twitter. She is also very active in creating and crafting the world of Harry Potter. She is synonymous with it. If you’re a Harry Potter fan, no one can blame you for feeling a bit of a cognitive dissonance. Ellis ends the video by stating that ethically it might not be possible to keep consuming Harry Potter while opposing Rowling. This is not only because Rowling claims so much authoritative power over the Wizard World, but also because she’s still profiting from it. The expansion of that universe’s popularity feeds into her personal brand.

(Image credit: Seventeen Magazine)

This point tacitly supports the argument for the cancel culture. Yes, cancel culture does not help to improve the discourse. It is shallow and contradictory to the liberal tradition its proponents tend to espouse. It degrades the public sphere.

But to say that individual choices and actions are directly responsible for this degradation would be inaccurate.

We have to keep in mind that the expansion of the public sphere now involves power differences. As identity politics promote conflict between groups, stratification arises. For instance, after 911, it’s difficult to make arguments that go against the USA. And following the #MeToo movement, it’s really hard to argue against various aspects of feminism. This stratification of power necessitates attempts to monopolise discourses. When studios make films that are blatantly supportive of feminism, that’s what they’re doing, they’re monopolising this area of the discourse. They are essentially buying the people who engage in that discourse. How many people from the feminist camps jump to support Ghostbusters 2016 when people say they didn’t like the movie? Corporations are happy to be a part of this discourse, because by paying lip service to certain identity groups, they are buying that area of the discourse.

When Ellis said ethically, you can’t keep consuming Harry Potter while ignoring JK Rowling’s comments, she is recognising the intersection between social discourse, personal brand and corporate identities. Social Media has expanded so widely, that these things become so entangled, you can’t make an argument that wouldn’t be appropriated by identity groups or corporations or even certain fandoms. You simply cannot compartmentalise. You cannot declare the author dead, separated from the world of the art.

The world of the art has merged with discourse and corporations. The public sphere is tainted now by struggles of power.

That said, cancelling Rowling won’t solve the issue here. The sentiment to abandon certain areas of the discourse and to take concrete actions that result in some kind of financial impact is totally understandable. However, that would mean we are abandoning the public sphere, that mythical space to which we could wield our freedom of speech and to a certain extent, our democracy. The fact of the matter is while our words are becoming more and more meaningless on the internet, there is always a chance at a reversal. We can already see backlashes against this kind of shallow discourse and identity politics in the form of a yearning for more nuanced conversations. Perhaps we could aid this by speaking less on the internet. Instead, let's be more meaningful and nuanced in how we talk to one another in the real world.