The Cult of Storytelling
Elites have traded making the world a better place for “telling better stories.”
Thank you for reading Gen Zero! I have been on break because I have been working on some music projects, but will (probably, hopefully) start releasing weekly again. If you are not already, consider subscribing by hitting the button below to receive all articles directly to your inbox. Thank you!
President Obama has a podcast with Bruce Springstein. The Obamas (Barack + Michelle) have a media company and partnership with Netflix. Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are also in the content space with their own Netflix partnership. Bill Gates too, a podcast. And Hillary Clinton.
You know, I may be almost 21, but I remember a time when global elites would be loath to enter the frivolous media space. They wanted to run organizations, win elections, and tend to their multi-billion dollar estates. And they still are, but on top of their list of benevolent projects is a notable new one: “telling better stories.”
The idea that “storytelling” has the power to shape our world and selves holds a powerful position in our discourse and it often comes in the form of specific lines and phrases, the most prominent being “the importance of seeing oneself on screen.” This line, which has been deployed by everyone from our Vice President to Instagram influencers, speaks to the importance of seeing those that look like you, usually referring to race, gender, ability and sexuality, represented in media and positions of power. These representations can be anything from aspirational characters that you can model yourself off of or complex human portraits that reflect your own experiences. And while the phrase “better stories” can take on numerous applications, today it is essentially a stand-in for greater representation.
To be clear, greater representation in the media is not merely a performative project. There is evidence that our media reflecting our demographics can have a tangible impact on individual behaviour and ideologies. A 2019 Forbes article states the following:
One study found that nonverbal racial biases in facial expressions and body language, as represented on popular television shows, influence white viewers’ racial biases. Furthermore, a lack of contact between racial groups can lead to greater reliance on media stereotypes when formulating ideas about people outside one’s race. Studies show that audiences substitute stereotypes they see on screen for reality when they have not had any direct interactions with particular racial groups.
It goes on,
In addition to aggravating racial tensions, the erasure and negative portrayals of people of color can adversely affect how people of color see themselves. Prolonged television exposure predicts a decrease in self-esteem for all girls and for black boys, and an increase in self-esteem for white boys.
Many identity-politics-skeptical leftists will shrug off the project of increased representation as merely dressing up the same systems of harm, or the same cultural tropes, in new, diverse faces. And in many instances, that’s the case. But it would be naive to cast the whole thing as some purely surface liberal project. In an increasingly digitized world, media representation has an outsized effect on people’s behaviour and perception of the world.
But ultimately, the larger project of telling “better stories” is so vague, so uncritical of its own premises, that it is often rendered meaningless in practice. For example, the former President shooting the philosophical shit on topics such as race and America with Bruce Springstein on their podcast could, on one level, be seen as expanding hearts, minds and ideas by putting a Black man in conversation with the bastion of white working class consciousness. It could be seen as “better” for the mere identity of its authors. But it could also be seen as two multi-millionaires, one of which used to head the world’s largest military apparatus, performing a certain type of consciousness-raising for an unwitting public.
In the press-release announcing his deal with Netflix, the former president wrote that he “hopes to cultivate and curate the talented, inspiring, creative voices who are able to promote greater empathy and understanding between peoples, and help them share their stories with the entire world.” But why is this the aim of a political actor? It seems that the nondescript charity or thinktank of the past is the media company of the present. Instead of publicizing vague efforts for enacting social good, these new elite ventures make content that has the potential to shift hearts and minds with the ultimate goal of, well, having those awoken hearts and minds shift public policy and social mores. The irony though is that these same elite individuals with media ventures, be it Obama, Gates or Prince Harry, could get on the phone with anyone and make the case for new laws and programs.
Why would someone like Obama want to inspire us? What is the end goal of “better stories” but more thoughtful, more empathetic consumers? Or more empowered consumers? More confident consumers? This can be good in and of itself, but it is not the primary good that a society should strive for. And crucially, it is not a solution to our social ills. We simply have to be clear-eyed in saying that media representations are not the world. Storytelling is not the world. The world is the world. And it is easier to “tell better stories” than actually enact policy that materially changes people’s lives. And we have let the former leader of American empire, as well as royals and billionaires, utilize the idea that “better” storytelling is better for the world without asking why these elite actors would want to be telling “better stories” and without even questioning the utility of such stories
As I say this, it feels so painfully obvious. But it also feels strangely heretical. The cult of storytelling, the idea that it has the power to shape hearts, minds and society is repeated so often that its veracity is a given. More representative, “better,” stories are offered as an unassailable good. But if they are serving cover for elite complicity in systems of harm, well then, it’s not all good is it? In the end, I think saying “storytelling has the power to shape our world” is as aspirational as it is descriptive. It can, but it does not always, and it is definitely not a substitute for policy, programs and good, old-fashioned resources.