A football game. A sandwich. A Netflix show. What do they have in common? According to many, they’re all political. In today’s world, the distinction between the personal and the political is becoming increasingly hazy. From what we eat to what we wear, our daily decisions frequently reflect deeper social, cultural, and political dynamics.
Fashion, for example, is more than just a personal statement; it’s a form of communication. Clothes can express protest, identity, or solidarity. A hoodie bearing the words “Black Lives Matter,” a hijab worn in spite of discrimination, or even the imposition of school dress codes can be a powerful statement. Not only do dress codes establish guidelines, but they can also reinforce gender or cultural norms, favoring certain identities over others.
Sports are by no means apolitical either. A blatant act of protest, Colin Kaepernick’s kneeling during the playing of the national anthem sparked a national conversation. In an effort to maintain neutrality, organizations such as FIFA have banned political messages from their uniforms worldwide, frequently in favor of prevailing norms. Decisions about which sports are given money, publicity, or field space, even in schools, reveal underlying beliefs about what and who is worthy of being celebrated.
Food might seem like a neutral space, but it’s entangled in politics as well. Cultural biases are frequently reflected in the pricing and labeling of “ethnic” cuisines. While some foods are stigmatized or misinterpreted, others are hailed as trendy. In food culture, there is also the continuous debate about cultural appropriation versus appreciation and how some communities are denied the opportunity to benefit from their own customs. Furthermore, boycotts of food brands for political reasons— ranging from discriminatory donations to labor violations— illustrate how our consumption patterns are frequently influenced by political decisions. One example can be found at Trader Joes, a popular and well-known supermarket. The main source of Trader Joe’s controversy has been the names of its products, particularly “Trader José’s,” “Trader Giotto’s,” and “Trader Joe’s Ming’s,” which critics argue exoticize and stereotype other cultures.
This discussion now includes entertainment as well, from streaming options to celebrity activism. Supporting or avoiding particular creators can be a reflection of one’s own values. These days, political statements, calls to action, statements about justice, or criticisms of systemic issues are frequently included in award shows. These days, the media we consume is frequently seen as a reflection of our morals rather than merely being for our amusement.
This raises an urgent question: when can we “just enjoy things”? It makes sense because it can be exhausting to sort through all these levels of meaning. Perhaps the objective is to approach things with more awareness rather than to deprive them of their political significance. While not all situations call for activism, being aware of the consequences of our decisions makes us more responsible members of society.
Therefore, how we react to this reality may be a more pertinent question than whether everything is political. Joy can be enhanced by awareness rather than taken away. Our experiences may become even more significant as a result of this awareness. We can still enjoy politics even if we acknowledge their presence in our daily lives. It simply indicates that we are aware of their context and possess the authority to determine how to apply that understanding.
Edited by Amir Mason
