On September 10, after the televised debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, singer Taylor Swift declared on Instagram that she supported the Democratic candidate. The message, which was liked by 11 million people, was treated as major political news and relayed by the world press. Of course, the singer is a star and is followed by nearly 300 million subscribers on this network, but is it really reasonable to imagine that the outcome of the election could be influenced by the support of a show business personality, however talented she may be? There is something shocking about imagining this possibility for a sincere Democrat. Let’s try to put our preconceptions aside for a moment to approach the question analytically.
It is necessary to recall some figures to keep in mind that Taylor Swift is an incomparable phenomenon: 200 million albums sold to date, an economic effect identified at each of her tours by the head of the New York Fed… and even an earthquake of a magnitude of 2.3 caused by the enthusiasm of her fans during a concert in Seattle! Can this be transmuted into political power? This question is difficult to answer, but let us note that her support has multiplied by ten the number of visits to the government website dedicated to voter registration. This is not nothing, but it does not mean either that this mobilization will transform into votes.
The “popularity bias”
We hate to admit it, but the fact is that a number of the ideas we defend can be influenced by the points of view that we seem to share the most. This is not unreasonable: we are a deeply social species and it is not unreasonable that we are inspired in part by the circles we frequent. Research shows that the credibility given to information is correlated with its power of exposure. This is what is called the “popularity bias”. At a certain level of visibility, the diffusion of an article, for example, will continue to increase: the more a person is exposed to an idea, the greater the chances that they will adopt it and end up spreading it in turn. This is why the influence of people who benefit from a strong “visibility capital” is not just a ready-made thought. It is a fact that has been studied and exploited a lot in the advertising field. Several studies have shown that celebrity is the best asset to ensure that an advertisement is better remembered and its message better accepted.
If these personalities are used as agents of influence, it is also because they can serve as a support for promotional stories. Such an actor will embody a spirit of rebellion, such an athlete the idea of merit… We could deplore it but a well-conducted narration has more impact on our minds than statistics. It is measured that the prescriptive effects of a commercial campaign are improved when it is based on a plot rather than on facts. And it is also on this point that Taylor Swift’s political support deserves our attention. Indeed, her popularity is also supported by the narration she has made of her life. Considered a “post-media” celebrity, she has addressed her community directly, and for a long time, via social networks: each album, each little misery of life, each victory… all this is editorialized and composes a mythology in which millions of people recognize and identify themselves. It’s a feeling that sociologists call “parasocial”: an illusory impression of proximity, which is the star’s best weapon of influence.
The Taylor Swift effect should therefore not be underestimated, especially since the American election could be decided by little in key states like Georgia or Pennsylvania. It will have no impact on those who have a very strong political opinion, but who can say, at a time when the world seems open to all adventures, whether a pop singer will not be the butterfly’s wingbeat for some undecided people?
Gérald Bronner is a sociologist and professor at La Sorbonne University.
.