Taylor Swift as Catastrophe. Photo: Ethan Miller/Getty Images
Show Hide image

Taylor Swift’s Bad Blood, Beyoncé and Nicki Minaj: what makes a great pop star alter ego?

A new name and haircut doth not an alter ego make.

Pop loves a good alter ego. Nobody wants a mild-mannered pop star, and a dazzling character is both a powerful tool for self-expression and easy to idealise. In the past decade, there’s been a flurry of female solo artists with alter egos that personify strength, defiance and sex appeal.

Taylor Swift takes this to its logical conclusion in her latest video, “Bad Blood”. In it, she stars as Catastrophe, with a host of all her beautiful, famous girlfriends in dominatrix-esque bondage with oversized weapons and aggressively punning names like Slay-Z and Mother Chucker. They form a futuristic crime syndicate that see the London skyline burn.

It’s a great idea, in theory. But somehow, it doesn’t quite work. The alter egos on display are thoroughly unconvincing. Cara Delevingne may have eyebrows explicitly designed for aiming fierce side-eye at the camera, but the same cannot be said for all Taylor’s friends: Ellie Goulding, Lena Dunham and Hailee Steinfield all look a bit lost and confused in a sea of pleather and chrome. But even the most believably intense girls are cookie-cutter versions of empowerment: standardised femme fatales with no discernible personality, even if “each individual actor/actress chose their character’s name and persona”.

Alter-egos succeed when they are expressive, taking elements of a character we already feel we know to unapologetic extremes. Beyoncé’s Sasha Fierce let her roll all her strength and all her sweetness up into one ball, allowing the boldly independent side to her character we saw in Destiny's Child tracks and solo songs like “Irreplaceable” to flourish, while pushing the doubt, fear and vulnerability she equally explored musically to one side (quite literally, she dumped it on the other disc of her double LP, I am... Sasha Fierce). She uses a similar technique to bring her sexuality to the fore on her self-titled fifth album, creating slick, sensual Yoncé to conquer the embarrassment she felt about remaining sexy after becoming a mother. In an interview at the time, she explained:

In real life I was this woman, this mother, trying to get my focus and my dreams and myself back, and recording this album was such an outlet for me to escape, and create whatever world and whatever fantasy that definitely at the time was not happening. [Laughs] 

I know finding my sensuality, getting back into my body, being proud of growing up, it was important to me that I expressed that in this music because I know there are so many women that feel the same thing after they give birth. You can have your child, and you can still have fun, and still be sexy.

Nicki Minaj uses her alter ego, Roman Zolanski, as a similar outlet: through him, she lets loose of her craziest faces, her most manic laugh, her rawest aggression, and her silliest self. It's obviously significant that Minaj, a female rapper in a male-dominated industry, has a male alter ego – lest we forget the advent of pickle juice feminism after her 2010 documentary My Time Now:

When I am assertive, I’m a bitch. When a man is assertive, he’s a boss. He bossed up. No negative connotation behind ‘bossed up’. But lots of negative connotation behind being a bitch.

When you’re a girl, you have to be everything. You have to be dope at what you do but you have to be super sweet and you have to be sexy and you have to be this, you have to be that, and you have to be nice. It’s like, ‘I can’t be all those things at once. I’m a human being!’

Taylor usually works towards this same goal of self-expression using a different technique. Rather than creating a series of dramatically differing selves that reflect parts of her, Taylor’s fans often trace what they call her “character development”. She has moved gradually from being a country girl in torn blue jeans and ringlets, dreaming of love she’s heard about from fairytales, to one in high heels, red lips, more concerned with surrounding herself with intelligent women than chasing boys. She often accepts these contradictions in her lyrics, never rejecting that part of her that helped her to write her first album. She signs her foreword to 1989, “From the girl who said she would never cut her hair or move to New York or find happiness in a world where she is not in love... Taylor Swift”.

But even though Taylor surrounds herself with women she knows and loves for “Bad Blood” (its highlight is her power struggle with bestie Selena Gomez), the video is a stark departure from her usual efforts precisely because it seems artificial. It’s an unashamed PR stunt for her, and everyone involved, and despite the cast and context (“Bad Blood” was supposedly written after a feud with Katy Perry), the video says little about Taylor’s position as a woman in music. 

In contrast, Beyoncé and Nicki’s alter egos come from a sincere and generous desire for an embodiment of a self that would otherwise be difficult to voice. It’s why their new video for “Feeling Myself” is so successful. I would sooner have the lyrics to “You Belong With Me” tattooed on my face than criticise Taylor as an artist (her songs are heartfelt and wonderful), or pit women in music against each other – but unlike “Bad Blood”, the “Feeling Myself” video works because Beyoncé and Nicki are doing something more radical. Their alter egos are stripped away here, because they’ve already done their work: forcing onlookers to accept their multitudes. 

Anna Leszkiewicz is a pop culture writer at the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

How can the left make the case for immigration?

All too often, we drift into telling people we want to convince that they just don't get it.

We don’t give the public enough credit. You’ll often hear their views dismissed with sighs in intellectual circles. In fact on most issues the public are broadly sensible, most are these days supportive of cutting the deficit and dubious about political giveaways, but in favor of protecting spending on the NHS and education. Yet there is one issue where most, “knowledgeable” folks will tell you the public are well out of step: immigration. 

With [today’s] net migration figures showing yet another record high, it is an ever more salient issue. On a lot of measures ‘too much immigration’ ranks highest as the number one concern (see Ipossmori). The ongoing rise of right wing political parties across Europe demonstrates that simply enough. But concerns about immigration don’t just sit with those with more extreme views, they’re also shared across the mainstream of public opinion. Yet unlike thinking on cutting the deficit or funding the NHS the public consensus that immigration is bad for Britain, flies flat in the face of the intellectual consensus, and by that I mean the economics. 

Given the intense public debate many a study has tried to spell out the economic impact of immigration, most find that it is positive. Immigration boosts the nation’s GDP. As the theory goes this is because immigrants bring with them entrepreneurialism and new ideas to the economy. This means firstly that they help start new ventures that in turn create more wealth and jobs for natives. They also help the supply chains to keep ticking. A example being British agriculture, where seasonal workers are are needed, for example, to pick the strawberries which help keeps the farms, the truckers and the sellers in business. 

Most studies also find little evidence of British jobs being lost (or displaced) due to immigrants, certainly when the economy is growing. Indeed economists refer to such “ “they’re” taking our jobs” arguments as the “lump of labour fallacy’. On top of all that the average migrant is younger than the native population and less likely to rely on welfare, so their net contribution to the state coffers are more likely to be positive than natives as they don’t draw as much state spending from pensions or the NHS. 

So why haven't the public cottoned on? Many progressive types dismiss such views as racist or xenophobic. But it turns out this is to misunderstand the public just as much as the public ‘misunderstand’ immigration. When you study people’s views on immigration more closely it becomes clear why. Far from being racist most people asked by focus groups cite practical concerns with immigration. Indeed if you go by the British Social Attitudes Survey a much smaller number of people express racist view than say they are concerned about migration.  

The think tank British Future broadly set out that while a quarter of people are opposed to immigration in principle and another quarter are positive about it the majority are concerned for practical reasons - concerns about whether the NHS can cope, whether there are enough social houses, whether our border controls are up to scratch and whether we know how many people are coming here in the first place (we don’t since exit checks were scrapped, they only came back a few months ago). But more than anything else they also have very little confidence that government can or wants to do anything about it. 

This truth, which is to often ignored, begets two things. Firstly, we go about making the argument in the wrong way. Telling someone “you don’t understand immigration is good for our economy etc etc” is going to get a reaction which says “this person just doesn't get my concerns”. Despite the moans of progressives, this is precisely why you won't hear left leaning politicians with any nous ‘preaching’ the the unconditional benefits of immigration.

More importantly, the economic arguments miss the central issue that those concerned with immigration have, that the benefits and effects of it are not shared fairly. Firstly migrants don’t settle homogeneously across the country, some areas have heavy influxes other have very little. So while the net effect of immigration may be positive on the national tax take that doesn't mean that public services in certain areas don’t loose out. Now there isn't clear evidence of this being the case, but that could just as well be because we don’t record the usage of public services by citizenship status. 

The effects are also not equal on the income scale, because while those of us with higher incomes scale tend to benefit from cheep labour in construction, care or agriculture (where many lower skilled migrants go) the lower paid British minority who work in those sectors do see small downward pressure on their wages. 

It’s these senses of unfairness of how migration has been managed (or not) that leads to the sense of concern and resentment. And any arguments about the benefit to the UK economy fail to answer the question of what about my local economy or my bit of the labour market. 

Its worth saying that most of these concerns are over-egged and misused by opponents of immigration. Its only a small factor in stagnating wages, and few local areas are really overrun. But the narrative is all important, if you want to win this argument you have to understand the concerns of the people you are trying to convince. That means the right way to make the argument about immigration is to start by acknowledging your opponents concerns - we do need better border controls and to manage demands on public services. Then persuade them that if we did pull up the drawbridge there is much we’d loose in smart entrepreneurs and in cultural diversity. 

Just whatever you do, don’t call them racist, they’re probably not.

Steve O'Neill was deputy head of policy for the Liberal Democrats until the election.