Ed Sheeran Is Vaclav Havel's Greengrocer, Come to Life

In his 1978 essay, The Power of the Powerless, Vaclav Havel cites the example of a shopkeeper living under communism who displays, in his window, a sign saying “workers of the world unite”. He cites it as an example of compelled speech. In his example, the shopkeeper does not particularly believe the message displayed in his window. His customers do not believe the message. The communist regime understands that the shopkeeper does not believe the message. So why does the shopkeeper display it?

He does so, simply, to signal his compliance. By displaying the sign, the shopkeeper expresses his willingness to accept the regime’s authority and to host its propaganda. This is a two-way trade: the shopkeeper’s business goes unmolested, his family are left alone, and his business is permitted to thrive. For the regime, the sign represents a signal of submission – a message to others that those who say the words and perform the rites are left unmolested.

Such rites and performative compliance are usually, in the public eye, associated with the long-dead regimes of communist Eastern Europe or novels like Orwell’s towering Nineteen Eighty-Four. Yet the very same performative compliance is in full view today.

Because in the end, Ed Sheeran bent the knee.

Sheeran Bends the Knee

The world may never know what true feelings on the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians Sheeran actually holds. To his credit, until this weekend past, he had never expressed them and had instead stuck to the position that his concerts and his music were an apolitical space in which to bring humans together, rather than divide them. It may be assumed that, like most people, Sheeran had his own opinions. It need not be assumed that his preference was simply not to reveal them.

But in the end, he genuflected. Taking to the stage at his first concert after the enormous controversy that engulfed his North American tour, the singer visibly read a statement from the autocue in front of him. “What is happening in Gaza is catastrophic, unjustifiable and disproportionate”, he said.

https://twitter.com/Variety/status/2101473840652251462

Compelled Speech, Not Free Speech

While Sheeran’s brief statement has, at face value, the appearance of free speech, it was anything but. It was in fact something centuries older and deeply sinister: the same sort of compelled speech of which Havel wrote, nearly half a century ago.

Coming out and publicly saying something that nudged in the direction of a condemnation of Israel was the price his critics demanded for leaving him alone and allowing him to simply sing.

In the end, it was not even about Palestine – it rarely is. It was actually about submission: validating and bending to the power of the left over the culture; proving to them that Sheeran accepted their authority over his personal platform.

You might be interested Sheeran, Macklemore and Israel: A Fight on a Cultural Fault Line

Where the Mob Derives Its Power

The parallel with Sheeran, and other musical artists, is no longer particularly subtle: while Sheeran refused to say some words about Palestine, his character, career, identity and even permission to perform in some parts of the world were in question. After consulting with his PR team, he simply said the words.

One of the things that makes online mobs so dangerous is the fact that mobs by their definition are made up of people who, individually, are rather powerless. Their power comes not from themselves, but from their part in a collective. The mob is an intoxicating phenomenon to be part of because suddenly, from their bedroom or basement, a 22-year-old woman or 45-year-old man who has never before in their lives been taken much notice of, feels important. Their voice is amplified online. They experience a feeling of becoming leaders or people worthy of notice. Perhaps for the first time in their lives, they can make people – even global superstars like Sheeran – bend to their will.

Power like that, once experienced, is something that few human beings lay down willingly.

Musicians Are Especially Vulnerable

In music and entertainment, prominent people are especially vulnerable to the power of the mob. There are several reasons for this.

The first is that musicians and entertainers are used to being loved. Unlike politicians, for whom implacable opposition from a sector of the electorate is de rigueur, musicians and artists generally experience widespread appeal and adulation and rarely, if ever, encounter serious anger. Thus, when they do, it can feel like an enormous crisis – even if the anger is coming from only a small group.

You might be interested When Pop Stars Turn the Stage into a Political Platform

The second is that record labels are businesses, terrified about the bottom line. For many music executives, whose job it is to sell records, even a small-scale boycott of one of their major acts could be commercially existential. These people are not particularly incentivized to stand on principle in the face of an angry mob.

Eurovision

Consider the example of Eurovision, which has been pitched in recent years right into the middle of the Gaza war, with a mass campaign across multiple member states to boycott the contest unless the Israeli act was banned from taking part. In multiple countries – Ireland and the Netherlands the primary examples – national broadcasters have complied. In many other countries, national broadcasters have found the experience of standing up for their own participation in the song contest exceedingly painful.

Further, enormous political and cultural pressure has been placed on Eurovision to change its rules with the implicit – though not overtly admitted – objective of ensuring that the very large chunk of Eurovision voters who have supported Israeli acts over the past three years have their influence reduced. It is not hard to see that for the Eurovision organizers, the prospect of an Israeli victory – and having to host the contest in Haifa or Tel Aviv - is something close to their worst nightmare. Not for security reasons, but for political ones.

A Cultural Left That Brooks No Resistance

The particular vulnerability of music maximizes the power of the cultural left, which increasingly understands how to use the weapons at its disposal in a way that borders on the totalitarian: pain is inflicted until public compliance is achieved.

This mechanism – along with, in some cases, sincere conviction – is one of the reasons that the arts and the music industry are so reliably left-wing and so reliably in hock to the priorities of progressive activists. Singers, actors and other beloved celebrities know that there is an enormous price to pay for stepping out of line – whether that be on Palestine, transgenderism, abortion, immigration or any other hot-button topic. On all of these issues, musicians and music labels understand too well what the only commercially viable strategy is: say nothing if you can – but when saying nothing is no longer an option, say what the left wants you to say.

Ed Sheeran is not a coward. He cannot be blamed. Indeed, it is entirely possible that his sincere personal conviction on Palestine actually matches the words he uttered over the weekend.

But the way he uttered them cannot go unnoticed: he spoke, not from the heart but from an autocue, because that is what the mob in its rage demanded.

For the rest of us, understanding that celebrities live the same life as Havel’s Greengrocer is essential when it comes to weighing their words and the value of their opinions. They put up the sign; we read it; the mob approves.

But both shopkeeper and customer, in their heart of hearts, understand what the sign truly represents.