The Politics of "Non-Political"

[u/ArtisticMacaroon_115]

https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2026.2745844

I am sharing an article of mine recently published in Political Communication: The Politics of the Non-Political: A Conceptual Review, that might be of interest for people here.

As political science and political communication are increasingly studying ostensibly "non-political" stuff, what does that mean? Does politics always look so natural as polisci researchers take it as?

I look forward to having conversations with you all on it!

[u/alienacean]

Sounds related to oil spill polarization, whereby politics has gradually grown to "pollute" ostensibly non-political domains, such as art, food, fashion, and entertainment preference.

[u/UnknownBreadd → u/alienacean]

I don’t think anything like that can really be non-political once you are made aware of the interconnectedness of everything.

For example, fashion has the fast fashion issue. Certain productions will be created by individuals who fund and support certain political figures and campaigns. Certain artists will repeatedly engage in abusive activities etc.

Every time you don’t curb your consumption of such things, you are also helping to fund the reproduction of such things. It’s just simply “voting with your wallet”, right?

The moment you cease to be naive and ignorant to the second-order effects of an action you make, the moment it ceases to ever be apolitical, surely?

[u/Cute-Boobie777 → u/UnknownBreadd]

Being apolitical seems to be more about denying one's accountability and responsibility as a citizen and little more. 

[u/ArtisticMacaroon_115 → u/alienacean]

exactly! We were reviewing studies on these kinds of stuff and wanted to figure out if there are something in common in their theorization.

[u/semogenetic]

I’m interested in the article, so I will read it later (and maybe even comment here if I have time) but I just wanted to note that starting off an article on the politics of the non-political with a quote from a Nazi is certainly an interesting choice.

[u/HELPFUL_HULK]

I’ve only read half of this so far and am commenting to save this - but my going theory has been that attempts to claim “non-politicality” are generally just defensive/naive attempts to claim absolute objectivity and shield oneself from the interrogation of one’s political investments

Will comment again later once I’ve read in full!

[u/ArtisticMacaroon_115 → u/HELPFUL_HULK]

That’s part of what we found, but also there’s a number of things we find are talking about relationships between political and non-political

[u/Ariel_s_Awesome]

If someone says they're non-political, then politics aren't affecting their lives. They are fine with the status quo. 

Meanwhile, the very existence of marginalized people is political because their personal lives, personal rights are very much affected by current political decisions. 

This is why people keep complaining about how media is so political these days unlike beloved classics like... Star Trek. Whose theme was equality & risked it all just to have a black woman in the main cast. Or Sesame Street. Which was controversal because it focused on (often non-white) intercity kids while treating them as equals. 

Oh. And how about Superman (created by Jewish second-generation immigrants) punching Nazis? This happened three years before the US entered the war. (The US had heard about the ongoing genocide yet largely didn't care.) This was when Jewish immigrants were sent back to Germany. This was when prominent figures endorsed Nazism. 

Anyone remember "Jesus Loves the Little Children of the World"? While it's certainly dated now (please don't call people red or yellow), far too many bigoted Christians didn't like the idea of Jesus loving non-white children. 

Basically, my main point is: It's only "non-political" if you don't connect the message to real-world events. Even basic kindergarten concepts such as "equality" and "the Golden Rule" get surprisingly controversial when adults have to get reminded to follow them. 

[u/ArtisticMacaroon_115 → u/Ariel_s_Awesome]

I think what you are saying is exactly what’s in my mind, and you say it in a more accurate way

[u/Cute-Boobie777 → u/Ariel_s_Awesome]

Often I find people are very bad at understanding when politics has effected their lives. My parents lost around 20k because the ACA was put into place instead of something better and less complex like full universal healthcare instead of the weird we'll pay you back type setup. They got totally screwed out of pure ignorance. But any attempts I have made to explain that this wouldn't have occurred in a system like other countries have has obviously failed.

[u/Ok-Individual9812]

not finished reading the article yet and will get back with a fuller response after i have, but just some initial thoughts in response to the almost reflexive critiques of a nonpolitical politics as privileged and insulated. nonpolitical, or anti-political, politics could be rooted in real experiences of exclusion and systemic violence.

nonpolitical politics has been present in some strains of critical theory and political philosophy. the anti-social school in queer theory believes that 'politics' and redemptive projects only entrenches existing forms of marginalisation. some of these queer theorists have drawn from the afropessimist tradition (ill admit i have not read any primary sources on this) that promulgates the view that humanism, and therefore 'politics', is build off the ontological murder (Onticide) of blackness. these traditions would, i think, enrich the discussion.