Emma Watson, Effigy Politics and Us

 

By Stacy Lee Kong

 
 

Image: twitter.com/emmawatson

 

Earlier this week, I read an opinion piece from a Starbucks barista and labour organizer about the short-lived viral moment that coalesced around the coffee chain following Charlie Kirk’s death, when Fox News, Libs of TikTok and other right-wing influencers tried to turn Kirk’s name into a political rallying cry by, um, asking baristas to write it on their cups when they ordered their morning latte. The igniting incident was a video that seemingly showed a barista saying she couldn’t do that because of a company policy forbidding them from writing “political” statements on customers’ cups. The ensuing firestorm prompted the company to issue a statement that seemed more about placating the angry online mob than defending their employee. (And of course, Starbucks didn’t say anything about how that no-politics rule is related to their own union-busting efforts.) The whole thing is interesting from a business and labour perspective, but I’ve actually kept going back to it because of a phrase that writer Cassie Pritchard used: effigy politics. 

“People on the far right seem to think they’ve harnessed Starbucks as their proxy, with the urge to discipline wokeness made real by the actual threat of discipline from our bosses,” she wrote. “This is a manifestation of what I call effigy politics. It eschews the work of democracy in favor of highly visible moments of symbolic dominance. It builds nothing. It only burns down.”

This might be very specific to me, but I find it very satisfying when I learn a term for something I’d noticed, but hadn’t previously had words for. But also, there’s something particularly clarifying about the phrase ‘effigy politics.’ Pritchard is using the idea of an effigy (that is, a physical representation of a person or thing that was made specifically to be destroyed in protest or anger) to describe the Trumpian approach to politics, which is a performance designed to embarrass, shame and punish a political opponent. Trump’s politics are 100% about degradation and ‘winning,’ 0% about the work of governance. Which we all kind of knew! But the term itself forces me to actually think about what’s behind the conservative obsession with subjecting their political opponents to these humiliation rituals—and reminds me just how pointless it is to equivocate or compromise on your values in the face of their performance. 

And of course, I have a celebrity example.

Poor Emma Watson really can’t win

Last week, actor and UN Goodwill Ambassador Emma Watson was a guest on Jay Shetty’s podcast, where she talked about the pressures of fame, her decision to step away from Hollywood and various life-lesson-y things (Learning to Trust Your Inner Voice, Loving Yourself Without Judgment, Finding Acceptance in Community, and so on). But perhaps the most viral part of the interview was about J.K. Rowling, and what it feels like for Watson to clash with her one-time mentor and authority figure over trans rights.

“I really don’t believe that by having had that experience and holding the love and support and views that I have, means that I can’t treasure Jo and the person that I had personal experiences with,” Watson said in response to Shetty’s question. “I will never believe that one negates the other, and that my experience of that person I don’t get to keep and cherish… I just don’t think these things are either/or. I think, it’s my deepest wish that... I hope people who don’t agree with my opinion will love me, and I hope I can keep loving people who I don’t necessarily share the same opinion with… I guess where I've landed is, it's not so much what we say or what we believe, but very often how we say it.”

She goes on to say that she sees a world where we “seem to be giving permission for [a] throwing out of people or [idea] that people are disposable,” which she disagrees with, and notes that “there's just no world in which [she] could ever cancel [Rowling] out, or cancel that out, for anything.”

The exchange was… dissatisfying, to put it mildly. Shetty’s brand is already a whole thing, but even putting aside his self-help-tinged approach to interviewing, I have a problem with Watson reducing her advocacy for trans people’s right to safety, security and self-determination and Rowling’s literal hate speech to a mere difference of opinion. That implies their perspectives are equally valid, and positions Rowling’s behaviour as an interpersonal issue, when it’s more of a human rights one. JKR uses her platform to foment violence against trans people; this is much bigger than hurt feelings. To be fair, the framing of the question was about interpersonal disconnection, which is on Shetty. And also to be fair, I think Watson does have to grapple with something that is legitimately complicated: the knowledge that someone you love, and who has previously treated you with love, is actually deeply hateful. That fundamentally changes not just the relationship and what you think of that person, but also undermines the idea that love, and loving, makes people good, and that really can be destabilizing. 

I get the desire for civil debate, but I also think we have to let that go

But. Emma Watson is a public figure. She’s not chatting with a bestie about her innermost thoughts, she’s making public statements—which she knows, because she’s been exposed to media training since she was 11 years old. So, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect her to consider the impact of those words. Especially since her diplomacy and care for Rowling probably didn’t achieve what she wanted it to, seeing as the author didn’t exactly receive those comments well. Instead, she clearly perceived it as an attack and responded in kind, reposting X posts that mocked Watson, sharing an essay that claimed “gender fanatics” had “abandoned” the actor for expressing her admiration for Rowling and finally writing her own post about how Watson was a hypocrite who had essentially betrayed her. And this is where effigy politics comes in, because it’s clear that Rowling’s aim here is not authentic engagement with someone she cares about, but instead to symbolically dominate a political rival. It’s about the appearance of winning, with little regard for the substance of what she’s saying—and I think this is actually really useful to understand. Because yes, it’s painful to be in conflict with someone you love and respect, but when that person is engaging in effigy politics, it’s futile to try to reason with them. 

That’s also why Watson’s assertion that she’s still open to a conversation with Rowling is so frustrating because… a conversation about what?! Rowling’s hurt feelings that Watson (and her Harry Potter co-star, Daniel Radcliffe) have spoken out against her, and in defence of trans people? There aren’t really multiple, nuanced sides to that conflict; there’s just right and wrong. And honestly, the idea that a feel-good conversation can traverse that chasm is not just naïve, it’s a hallmark of the liberal obsession with civility. 

As political science prof and author Alex Zamalin wrote in his 2021 book, Against Civility: The Hidden Racism In Our Obsession With Civility, which LitHub excerpted a couple of years ago, “many liberals worry about internalizing the same uncivil hate that they see in their conservative opponents. So ideas hostile to equality are invited into the mainstream under the guise of civility and cloaked as tenable, even if controversial, positions. Neo-Nazis, white nationalists, xenophobes, alt-righters, and anti-Semites aren’t just being tolerated. They are being invited into the public sphere: in op-eds, on cable news, and on television programs…The plea for activists to be civil—in the past, now, and always—[implies] that things can’t really be that bad. After all, how can one even call for civility if catastrophe is staring one in the face? Isn’t the call to civility a product of a smug insistence that individual moral virtue will magically fix an ailing society? It can’t and it hasn’t.”

I think this is easy to understand on a structural level; a civil conversation isn’t going to change Trump’s approach to immigration, which was always about finding ways to strip people of all immigration statuses (including white Americans) of their civil rights. It’s harder to see one-on-one. I do empathize with Watson, because I am definitely a person who believes, at least on some level, that if I can just communicate a little bit more effectively, I can make someone understand how oppression is at play, the intersectional issues that are compounding injustice and/or that real people are in pain. The problem with that line of thinking is that people who are engaging in effigy politics do see those things; they just don’t care. (And sometimes oppression, injustice and pain are the goals. See: J.K. Rowling.)

Do liberals practice effigy politics, too?

A last thought: I don’t think liberals are immune to effigy politics themselves. Or at least, I wonder if the term could be a useful framework to understand the liberal politicians and thought-leaders who are more concerned with making a statement than ushering in real change. For example, the photo that Jimmy Kimmel posted of himself, Seth Myers and Stephen Colbert with the caption, “Hi Donald!” The people on my social feeds were very entertained, and honestly, I laughed too. But was it brave? Did it establish this trio of privileged white men as champions of free speech, as I saw some people saying? Or… was it just satisfying to see them dunk on someone we don’t respect? I think it was actually the latter, and if that’s the case, I’d argue that’s effigy politics, too. Maybe it’s not the same intentional attempt to dominate a political opponent, but there is something similar going on with the desire to do so, especially when it’s at the expense of meaningful action.

Going back to Pritchard’s op-ed, the point she was trying to make was that ‘destroying’ an effigy—or, approaching political disagreement as rhetorical dunk competitions—is “pointless catharsis-seeking.” Instead, she argues, “we need to rediscover hope for a politics that can offer us more than the fleeting warmth from effigies on fire.” She meant that as an argument for strengthening and supporting unions, but I think there’s a wider application here. Or maybe this is just where I’m at personally and politically, tbh! Either way: I think I want us to have some discernment when it comes to political debates, and to understand that we don’t have to offer bigots civil conversation, or adopt their framework of humiliation and rhetorical destruction. Instead, we could stand firm in our values, refuse to compromise and focus our energy on productive, practical action.

I’m not saving never dunk on anyone, ever—but let’s not mistake that for actually doing something, you know?

Thank you for reading this week’s newsletter! Still looking for intersectional pop culture analysis? Here are a few ways to get more Friday:

💫 Upgrade to a paid subscription to support independent, progressive lifestyle media, and to access member-only perks, including And Did You Hear About, a weekly list of Stacy’s best recommendations for what to read, watch, listen to and otherwise enjoy from around the web. (Note: paid subscribers can manage, update and cancel their subscriptions through Stripe.)

💫 Follow Friday on social media. We’re on Instagram, YouTube and (occasionally) TikTok.

💫 If you’d like to make a one-time donation toward the cost of creating Friday Things, you can donate through Ko-Fi.

Politics, MediaStacy Lee KongJimmy Kimmel, Donald Trump, Charlie Kirk, Emma Watson, J.K. Rowling, Jay Shetty