The song ‘Blurred Lines’ by Robin Thicke has provoked considerable controversy due to its supposedly misogynistic lyrics and music video. The University of Edinburgh’s student union, Edinburgh University Students’ Association (EUSA), has gone as far as banning the playing of the song on any premises they control.
This is in spite (or because) of the song’s success. It has sold in excess of ten million copies worldwide and has topped charts in nine countries. It is also the longest-running number one of the 2010s in the US, topping charts for almost 13 weeks. It is now not far from being the longest-running number one of all time.
Thicke’s song has proved controversial due to its apparent objectification of women. The music video in particular (featuring naked models being molested by Thicke and his mates) has been accused of being based on crude misogyny.
Kirsty Haigh, EUSA Vice President of Services, explained to The Independent: “The decision to ban ‘Blurred Lines’ from our venues has been taken as it promotes an unhealthy attitude towards sex and consent. EUSA has a policy on zero tolerance towards sexual harassment, a policy to end lad culture on campus and a safe space policy – all of which this song violates.”
The ban is part of EUSA’s policy to “End Rape Culture and Lad Banter on Campus”. Established March last year, the policy seeks to fight “myths and stereotypes around sexual violence” and “misogynist views”. This is to be achieved through a combination of aggressive social pressure and censorship.
The specific targeting Blurred Lines over other similar songs seems arbitrary. For example, recent hit ‘Talk Dirty to Me’ by pseudo-rapper Jason Derulo, concerns how you can exploit women regardless of what language they speak, because “booty don’t need explaining”. The targeting of a particularly successful song suggests that this is more about posturing than results.
In fairness, Blurred Lines may have worrying overtones. The lines “I know you want it; I hate them lines” can apparently be read as an attack on a fixed, black & white understanding of sexual consent. This may not be the intent of the lyrics, but it remains possible that someone could interpret them as that.
According to the censoristas, hearing the song can inspire people to imitate what it may or may not endorse. This is akin to saying that listening to Prodigy causes you to commit arson or that Marilyn Manson is responsible for killing sprees. The idea that music determines one’s opinion of rape is ridiculous.
It is also unlikely that censorship will do much. EUSA controls venues located in four buildings in Edinburgh. They are unable to affect what other establishments play and have no control over what students have on their i-pods and computers. They also have no relevance outside of the university. The impact on the song’s airplay will be minimal.
EUSA have actually managed to increase the song’s publicity and, if anything, the ban will make it more, not less, attractive. The song now looks controversial and edgy, whilst EUSA look like unintelligent, puritan bullies. Precisely because overbearing moral crusaders tell people to do something, they will do the opposite.
If the aim was to alter cultural attitudes by making the song look unacceptable and out of step with moral opinion, then it has already failed. Censorship is never a good tactic. It will not achieve its goals, and it may severely damage the ends it was supposed to achieve. It is always better to employ non-coercive means.
Criticism, debate and ridicule are all superior tools. In this case, ridicule could have worked particularly well – the video is much more risible than it is offensive, and anyone who emulates smarmy Thicke’s effected swagger will never be in a position to commit date rape anyway. Instead, EUSA have decided that they prefer being figures of fun themselves.
Banned is the wrong word. If a bar or group controlling a number of bars doesn’t want a particular type of music played by its DJs surely any Libertarian would say that it is the individual rights of the people who own and run the bars to decide what songs can and cannot be played at the bar. No-one is stopped from privately enjoying the song wherever they like within the campus but the bars are not playing the song. I’m sure there’s a long list of songs that most bars outside of EUSU don’t want played because it doesn’t match the atmosphere or style of the bar. What right does anyone have to tell a business what songs they can or cannot have playing in thier bars?
That is true. However, EUSA are not business owners. They are supposed to be a representative body for the student population. Although they have a (vague) mandate for combatting ‘lad culture’, they have no mandate for banning a song.
Also, although the business owner or controlling group has the final say in what is played in their establishment, you can still criticise the choice. Likewise, even if the student population as a whole were in favour of the ban, there’d be room for attacking this decision whilst conceding that they were within their rights.
It’s also important to note that a large problem with this move is not the censorship per se, but that this will achieve nothing other than making EUSA look stupid. Their goal has some merit, and using means like this discredits it.
I think the SU probably do run and fund the bars, that’s usually the cop there.
Yeah, I think that that is the case. And I’m not saying that they do not (in principle) have the right to determine play lists etc. They are, though, supposed to be a representative body. Supposedly, these measures are done through voting at meetings. But the meetings are not advertised, and it is only a small minority who get to decide.
Just because they have the right to do it does not mean it was a good thing to do. I think censorship should be challenged or criticised, even when done privately. This doesn’t mean you can prevent it occurring on private property or within a business, but you can still attack it.
Further, the biggest issue concerns the results of this action. It discredits a worthwhile cause and it is not going to do anything effective, and will probably prove counter intuitive.
time to tell the truth..
“This may not be the intent of the lyrics, but it remains possible that someone could interpret them as that.”
I was going to respond that people are capable of making decisions for themselves and their morality and judgment calls are not dependant on lines from a song… then I realized these are the same people that believe everything published by The Libertarian, the Guardian, and The Daily Mail - and I changed my opinion.
Ban the song.
I say in the article that people are capable of making such decisions. And, if a minority are unable to, then it is them and not the media that are dangerous. However, the end result of them doing something negative (like date rape) is no different from someone doing that for any other reason. The response (placing all responsibility on the rapist) should be the same regardless.
Lol at putting The Libertarian, The Guardian and The Daily Mail in the same bracket. Polly Toynbee, Peter Hitchens and I are in fact close friends who agree about many issues.
Well, we do strive for the same numbers in readership
Time to tell the truth
U. of Edinburgh is demonstrating Authoritarian Socialism at is finest. It is puritanism disguised as progressiveness. They are even making terms up like “Lad Banter”.
Time to tell the truthhhh
Nice false flagging. no one is buying it.
Try harder dumbass