Shut Up and Sing!

The terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 shocked America to its core, and in the subsequent atmosphere of anxiety and fear, the people of the United States searched for a unified image of strength and solidarity to rally behind. This image was promoted by leading members of the government, as well as mainstream media, and consequently, public approval for the president, as well as for the war in Afghanistan, soared immediately following the attacks. The music industry, for a variety of reasons, embraced this ideology of nationalism, and popular music performed and produced during this time overwhelmingly supported the war effort and the administration’s foreign policy. It is into this backdrop that the lead singer of the Dixie Chicks, Natalie Maines, made her controversial comment: “I am ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas.” The backlash generated in response to this comment and the subsequent boycott of their music is indicative of the power redundant and repetitive discourse has in the minds and beliefs of a society; it also provides a cautionary tale to how and why healthy dissent against mainstream opinions can easily be denied a voice in contemporary political debates.

Music holds an incredible amount of power in contemporary American political debates. Because music operates at the iconic and indexical level, it bypasses the reasoning and logical part of our minds. Ideas can be advocated and promoted without anyone necessarily needing to verbalize them coherently in a sentence. Therefore, music can be an important tool in shaping the general opinions concerning many political policies and ideologies. That is why so much attention is paid, for example, to soundtracks of political rallies. It is a powerful and compelling force in contemporary political debates.

It is clear now that the purposeful suppression of anti-war and opposition music was occurring during the time following the attacks on the World Trade Center in order to support a political agenda in favor of the war. Because modern-day America is dominated by large conglomerates and corporations, and because American citizens were already being bombarded on all sides by pro-America, pro-war rhetoric following the 9/11 attacks, the move to shut out protest music was not difficult to achieve, and it was not widely recognized until much later. Although the American airway never turned as far as, for example, Nazis Germany in its outright control of what was being played on the radio, there was a degree of pressure and intimidation to conform to what was considered proper and mainstream at the time, and at the time, the vast majority of American citizens supported the war in Afghanistan and approved of the administration’s policies.

When considering the Dixie Chicks’ difficulty following Natalie Maines’ statement, it is important to realize that the Dixie Chicks were not the only leading figures in the music industry who did not support the war. They were just the only leading figures that dared to say anything publicly. Many other artists, such as Dave Matthews, Bruce Springsteen, and Pearl Jam may have agreed with the sentiments of Natalie Maines’ words, or at least, they may have supported her constitutional right to say such things, but there was an extreme social pressure to not produce or publicize that type of music or say that type of thing. Yes, much of this was politically instigated and driven; but pressure to conform to the social rhetoric that had been developed was strong. Politicians were effective in indexing words that linked the War on Terror with patriotism to such an extent that soon, it was understood that those who opposed the war were unpatriotic. This was reflected in the music industry. Singers who sang songs that spoke of America’s greatness and who praised the country’s efforts abroad topped the charts. The one-sided political and musical discourse effectively silenced dissent. Artists began censoring themselves for fear of social and economic ostracization. Nobody wanted to be “Dixie Chicked.”

Hegemony is a term that refers to the consent provided by the people to the government to lead. Although this also includes the consent of the government to lawfully use violence for the purpose of maintaining social order, hegemony requires sincere belief in the system to be successful. In this way, there is social pressure and expectation placed upon individuals by others in the system to conform to laws and to obey the rules outlined by the government. That is why obedience to a society’s laws does not require police force the vast majority of the time. With this understanding, it might be easier to comprehend the shockingly powerful boycott of the Dixie Chicks by many Americans. To a certain extent, the Dixie Chicks, by speaking out against the strength and solidarity of America that was being promoted at the time, were defying a social hegemony surrounding the appropriate discourse American citizens as a whole were permitting each other. An atmosphere of intolerance for opposing viewpoints had been cultivated. The dissonance of the conflicting views became a persuasive force in providing external pressure to conform to the majority opinion.

In modern day America, we are connected to mainstream ideas in a much more direct way than ever before in our history, and this influence should not be ignored in considering contemporary political debates. Speeches can be replayed in the media to such an extent that the words become dangerously redundant and unquestioned. Songs can be replayed on the radio, on every station, until the entire country knows all the words, whether everyone likes the music or not. This connection can be harmful and detrimental to the encouragement of diverse and open political and social discourse.

Although American citizens are provided a great amount of civil liberties under the United States Constitution, there can be, at times, a great deal of subconscious, social coercion in keeping quiet and keeping mainstream, and heterodoxy is suppressed. If any lesson is to be taken away from the experience of the Dixie Chicks, it is a lesson in the importance of the exercise of our constitutional liberties. Although our rights as American citizens are not unlimited and are not always guaranteed in every circumstance, their mere existence is something that needs to be celebrated rather than downtrodden by the masses. The freedom of speech, and of religion, of assembly, and of the press was not created in order to protect the majority opinion. In light of the experiences of the Dixie Chicks and other music artists of post-9/11, the attitude towards the minority needs to be rethought. Recognizing the influence of popular music and political discourse in contemporary America is the first step in avoiding such unhealthy reactions to dissenting opinions in the future.