What does it mean when cultural output becomes the ultimate signifier of one’s political beliefs? Comment Editor Safreen AC unpacks the idea that personal preferences can reflect the totality of someone’s character.
“Hating Barbie is a red flag”, “Books you do not want to see on your partner’s bookshelf”, “Avoid people who like these red flag books and films”: these are just a few examples of things you’d see online in 2025. Judging someone’s personality based on their taste in books, film, TV or music is something most of us have engaged in. The idea is based on the assumption that the media we consume can reflect or say something about our character. This assumption does have some truth to it — personal preferences about books or films can give us insight into a person’s interests or personality. Sharing something that we’ve enjoyed or found meaning in can be a way of communicating aspects of ourselves.
More recently however, this assumption has lent itself to a universalising approach to cultural output. Liking or disliking something is no longer a matter of enjoyment or intellectual stimulation — instead, the point of culture is primarily to demonstrate goodness or badness of character. It’s not uncommon to see someone explain their interest in a book or TV show based on whether or not it has a “good” creator, the right kind of diversity, or political perspective. There is nothing wrong with liking something that happens to reflect your worldview. However, assigning virtue to art solely on the basis of whether or not it is morally flawless can stifle critique and interpretation.
Take the example of the discourse around Barbie in 2023. People were jumping to defend their like or dislike of the movie primarily in terms of their assessment of the film’s level of feminism. It is key to note, that this was not the same as analysing the film through a feminist lens; instead, the criteria revolved around whether or not the film was sufficiently progressive. Rather than approaching the film based on its production context and what it was, the focus was on whether or not it was what people wanted it to be. Personal preference around the film became a way to assert the progressiveness of one’s politics.
Writer P.E. Moscovitz refers to this cultural impulse as secular puritanism, “a quasi-religion in which your adherence to rules and norms endows you with moral authority over others, a religion in which any misstep from these rules and norms is viciously punished.” They also note that this phenomenon is mostly discussed by the far-right in the context of “cancel culture,” a phrase that has come to be associated with those who are upset that they are being held accountable for their bigotry. I use Moscovitz’s term instead of the more well-known cancel culture to make it clear that criticism of harmful rhetoric is not the issue, despite what conservatives may tell you. However, viewing things solely through this puritanical impulse raises other concerns. It has a tendency to erase complexity and turn everything into a duality of good vs bad.
This is not to suggest that we should focus solely on enjoyment and abandon critical analysis altogether either. However, reducing personal taste in art to a signifier of personal politics or morality isn’t exactly critical examination either. The desire to have others acknowledge a work that moved you or made you feel seen is a perfectly normal thing. The secular puritan, however, desires not only that the work be acknowledged but that they are seen as someone with “good” politics solely based on personal preference. Criticism of that work then becomes equivalent to criticising the person’s politics or challenging their “goodness”. While this is not the sole reason for the intensity of the discourse around media online, it does offer one explanation for why people feel the need to offer ideological justifications for their opinions.
There are certain situations in which choosing to engage (or not engage) with a piece of work is a reflection of someone’s political considerations — examples include refusals to support JK Rowling’s work or cultural boycotts that come under BDS. That being said, the idea that personal preferences around media are the ultimate expression of one’s political principles assumes a very limiting view of the realm of politics. At the end of the day, liking or disliking a movie, TV show, book, or any other art isn’t a vehicle for political change in itself. Assigning moral or political authority solely on that basis not only stifles interesting engagement or critique but also plays into the idea that the only thing that matters is affirming moral clarity over others, rather than enacting actual change.
Bad people can make good art, and good art doesn’t always align with our ideological beliefs. Or as I like to put it, everything is problematic. To acknowledge that does not mean that we should ignore the political dimension of cultural products or reduce everything to a binary of good vs bad or right vs wrong. Personal preference alone cannot determine moral authority or transgression. Personal taste is certainly shaped by ideology and politics, but at the same time, it is not the ultimate expression of someone’s virtuousness. The idea that we can make sweeping assumptions about people based on their like or dislike of a single piece of media is anything but progressive.
The reality of the world is that things are complex and rife with contradictions. Someone disliking a TV show with a diverse cast does not automatically signal that they are a racist. Similarly, liking that same TV show does not make someone a good person. In fact, more often than not, most people enjoy and like things that do not align with their political principles. Critical engagement is important and cultural products are shaped by social and political forces. At the same time, it is okay to simply like or dislike something and express that without couching it in ideological explanations. Maybe, just maybe, owning a copy of The Catcher in The Rye simply means that someone owns a copy of The Catcher in The Rye.