Yesterday evening the University Philosophical Society (the Phil) gathered for their final debate of 2016 to put forward the motion, “This House Would Hail Queen Bey”. The motions that the Phil present in order to attract the eye of the campus pop culture fanatic grow more outlandish by the week – who knows what they’ll be debating by the end of 2017. A small crowd gathered in the Graduates Memorial Building (GMB) debating room for a half-comedy, half-serious debate to discuss Beyoncé’s brand of feminism, the limit of her success as an artist and global icon and the extent of her potential if she were to govern as a ruling monarch.
Sporting glittery antlers, tinsel, twinkly lights and ugly Christmas jumpers galore, members of the Phil began the annual Christmas debate with a light start. Ludivine Rebet, for proposition, determined that since the motion would so obviously pass, she would get the serious discussion out of the way so a comedy debate could ensue. Rebet focused on Beyoncé’s two-part message concerning race and feminism. She maintained that Beyoncé stands up for black women as the strong member of the family, that she is “unapologetically black”, and her Lemonade album showed a glimpse into a world that Rebet, as a white female, truly doesn’t understand. Rebet said this gives her an awareness and appreciation of that world, which cultivates a sympathy and empathy. Beyoncé’s message is “not an affront to white-hood or white culture, it is a togetherness”. Rebet stated that, like Beyoncé’s unapologetic attitude towards her race, she is also “unafraid to be unapologetically angry”, cultivating a feminism that is “incredibly sexually empowered”. Addressing Beyoncé’s large female fanbase, Rebet argued that perhaps Beyoncé’s sexuality isn’t doing that much for men because it is not directed at them.
Niamh Herbert began the opposition’s argument by stating: “Beyoncé has made feminism so redundant.” She argued that some of Beyoncé’s traits – her aggressiveness and powerful presence – impersonate men, creating a brand of feminism that is dangerous for the feminist cause. “I believe in a feminism where I can be myself and I don’t have to impersonate a man… why do women have to impersonate men to validate ourselves?” Herbert went on to compare Beyoncé to Kim Kardashian, claiming the latter is far more worthy of our reverence. Reactions from the crowd here were quite profuse. “It’s either Jay Z and Beyoncé, or Kim and Kanye”, Herbert stated over shouts from the audience, firmly maintaining her belief that Kim should be hailed as queen. Herbert also accused Beyoncé of not writing her own songs or choreographing her own dances and taking all the credit for the work of others.
A rebuttal from Dafe Orugbo began with “Beyoncé transcends what it means to be a feminist”. He claimed that she presents alternative perspectives to feminism, a feminism that is about more than being sexually liberated, but encapsulating both assumed masculine and feminine traits. Orugbo argued that having a domineering or powerful trait is not copying a man or being inherently masculine. He argued that “Beyoncé exudes power and control”, and argued that Beyoncé is multi-faceted as a singer and successful businesswoman. Orugbo proceeded to quote Lemonade like nobody’s business to support his argument. He added that Beyoncé’s status in her field is inspiring for the younger generation and that for young black woman, having a role model doing what you want to do makes that space more accessible and inspiring for you. Orugbo wrapped up by asserting that Beyoncé doesn’t need to be Kim Kardashian – she’s not perfect, she just needs to be herself.
Lisa Nally, who was participating in her first public debate with the Phil, took a different and refreshing approach against the motion “This House Would Hail Queen Bey” by detailing why Beyoncé would not be a suitable monarch. Nally put forward many valid points: Beyoncé has no idea how to represent a state, the taxpayers would lose out, and she lacks the capacity to keep peace – evident in her silent bystanding in the infamous “lift incident” as her sister Solange physically confronted husband Jay Z. Furthermore, Nally argued, “Do you want to stand up for a queen who uses Tidal to release her music?”, to general applause and amused assent from the audience. Nally came to the conclusion that “queens don’t actually tend to be that interesting” and Beyoncé is “simply too cool to be a queen”.
Niamh Egleston brought the debate back to a serious note and put forward her points for the motion by stating that Beyoncé is a “complete and fleshed out version of what feminism can be”. Taking Lemonade as an example, within the album Beyoncé presents “two entirely different conceptions of womanhood”, showcasing the acute vulnerability specific to women and the powerful, angry wrath that a hurt woman can feel. Egleston argued against Herbert’s point that Beyoncé may not write all of her own music: “Neither did Elvis or Frank Sinatra”, and they are not judged for it. Egleston discussed American capitalism, a system that is “tailor made to systematically exploit and oppress women, especially women of colour”, and how Beyoncé has achieved an enormous feat as she “sits atop the system that was built to oppress women like her”. Egleston also addressed Beyoncé’s ability to “genre-hop” and possess an artistry that incorporates other artists, ideas and genres into her platform.
Of course, no debate about a powerful black woman is complete without a privileged white male speaking out to have his say on the matter. Shane Kenneally, also participating in his first public debate with the Phil, argued that we cannot claim Beyoncé is any more superior than any other artist at the moment: “We can’t sell our allegiances and our values to the queen of the top 40.” Kenneally argued that Beyoncé is “unfit to wield the influence that she represents” and “is not responsible” with the messages she portrays in her music, in terms of both racial and feminist issues. Kenneally referenced the Black Lives Matter movement and stated that despite Beyoncé’s apparent support of and resonance with black struggle, she does not use her influence and leadership to support the movement. Kenneally claimed that Beyoncé endorses violence in her music video for “Formation” and that despite her apparent feminist beliefs, many of her lyrics objectify and sexualise women. Kenneally asserted finally that Beyoncé “doesn’t do enough for women, singing of girl power and then sidelining all the members of Destiny’s Child”, and that she “leverages her fame when it suits her”.
Anna Nichols toned down the heated shouts and “shames” from the audience with a logical approach to her proposition argument: what do we mean when we actually hail someone? She states that it is not to do with worshipping a figure, but more accurately it means to wish someone the best, to want them to succeed and thus celebrate what they bring to the table and support the platforms they utilise and have made available. Nichols reinforces the proposition argument made so far that Beyoncé encompasses the many ways to be a woman: “Women don’t exist in one box, women don’t exist in tropes.” Nichols points out that the fact that “Flawless” and “Partition” are on the same album shows that being a businesswoman doesn’t mean you can’t be an artist, “being a queen doesn’t mean you can’t be a hot mom”. Nichols also brought the argument into the context of college life, stating that girls should be able to go out and be confident in their bodies in the club and still be taken seriously the following morning in their tutorial. For Nichols, Beyoncé promotes this multifaceted feminist narrative.
The final speaker for the opposition, Sheila Naughton, concluded the debate by illustrating why she was a firm believer in Beyoncé yet opposed the motion to hail her and put her on a pedestal. Firstly, Naughton focused on how we should not “analyse art to death” and should instead appreciate and enjoy the music for what it is. Furthermore, Naughton argued that when we raise an individual up onto a pedestal, “we leave that person open to negativity and debate”, stating that Beyoncé as an individual should be able to produce the art she wants and live the life she chooses, including being her own kind of feminist. Naughton stated that “any woman who wants to can identify as a feminist. It is not for us to discredit or question any woman’s dealings with feminism”. By raising Beyoncé above other black women, or other women in her field, or above other feminists, Naughton believes this “creates barriers” and “creates a definition of feminism that could somehow leave women excluded”. Finally, Naughton ended the debate with a statement that tied up a few of the loose ends from the evening’s discussion nicely: when faced with a problem, Naughton declares that she “would think, what would Beyoncé do? And I would still do my own thing, because that’s what Beyoncé would do”.
The motion was put to the floor, and judging by the audience reactions, it was accepted.
