Ed - Kiss me under the light of a thousand stars,
but don't force me to think out loud - Sheeran
I.
As far as I'm aware, I've never heard a song by Ed Sheeran and, quite frankly, couldn't care less about his musical career. But I am interested in the political predicament he has now found himself in while on a tour in the US.
In brief: one of Sheeran's opening acts - Macklemore - was dropped for making pro-Palestinian statements on stage and performing a song which condemned the Israeli military for their actions in Gaza, triggering a mass walkout by the rest of the tour's support acts.
Ironically, it's framed as a free speech issue - i.e., not the kind of issue that those on the left usually care about.
It should be pointed out that it wasn't Sheeran's idea to remove Macklemore from the tour - this was a decision taken by the promoters under pressure from venue owners and Jewish advocacy groups.
Sheeran, in fact, has kept schtum and, so far, refuses to be drawn on the controversy, releasing a statement only to say that he believes politics should be kept out of showbiz (particularly when audience members are likely to be young and impressionable) and that he likes to create a safe space for all at his concerts.
But this attempt at apolitical neutrality has not gone down well with his critics - of whom Zoe Williams is one ...
II.
Writing in an opinion piece in The Guardian, Ms Williams - whom I quite admire as a journalist - argues that by seeking to stay out of politics, Sheeran has paradoxically made himself "the most political artist in the world", and that by trying to create a neutral space in which to manoeuvre, "he has backed himself into a corner" [1].
Williams rightly reminds her readers that Sheeran has, in the past, only been too happy to share his politics: standing with the Ukrainians, supporting Jeremy Corbyn, and advocating for LGBTQI+ rights "on stage and off, throughout his career".
However, I think she's wrong to insist that, ultimately, Sheeran must declare his position on the Israeli-Palestinian question and cannot be allowed to maintain a code of silence.
It's not enough, Williams says, that he says he is appalled by the conflict and regards all human suffering as a tragedy. He must get off the fence and come down on one side or the other - and ideally that should be the one that leftists like to call the right side of history (and by which they mean their side).
The notion that politics can be kept out of "entertainment, music, or art", is, she says, so last century.
Well, so be it: call me a 20th century boy, but I'm not sure about that.
But what I am sure of is that obliging Sheeran to make his position clear - to confess and, if need be, apologise - is deeply sinister.
One is reminded of the devastating argument made by Barthes in his Inaugural Lecture at the Collège de France (1977) on how language - and the performance of language - "is neither reactionary nor progressive; it is quite simply fascist; for fascism does not prevent speech, it compels speech" [2].
Thus, once an opinion is uttered and shared via the media, it enters the service of power and becomes entangled in politics.
In sum: enforced silence is terrible - but enforced speech is worse.
Notes
[1] Zoe Williams, 'Dear Ed Sheeran, fence-sitting is so last century: musicians can no longer opt out of politics', The Guardian (17 Sept 2026). All other quotes in this section of the post are from this article by Williams, unless otherwise indicated.
[2] Roland Barthes, lecture in inauguration of the Chair of Literary Semiology, Collège de France (7 Jan 1977). It was originally published as Leçon (Editions du Seuil, 1978). The English translation, by Richard Howard (1979), can be found in Barthes: Selected Writings, ed. Susan Sontag (Fontana Press, 1989), pp. 457-478. The Lines quoted here are on p. 461.
No comments:
Post a Comment