août 27, 2024 - 8:30am
Oasis est de retour. Après des années de querelles, Liam et Noel Gallagher ont enfin enterré la hache de guerre pour reprendre le trône du Britpop qu’ils avaient abandonné abruptement en 2009. Après des jours de teasers pas si cryptiques sur Instagram et X — et la dédicace caustique de ‘Half The World Away’ à son frère au Reading Festival — Oasis a officiellement annoncé une tournée de retrouvailles de 14 concerts pour l’été 2025.
Pour les fans d’Oasis — moi y compris — c’est une bonne nouvelle. Malgré 15 ans dans le désert, la popularité du groupe a vraisemblablement augmenté. Noel affirme que le groupe continue de vendre autant de disques que lorsqu’ils étaient ensemble. ‘Wonderwall’ à lui seul a plus de 2 milliards de streams sur Spotify — une plateforme principalement post-séparation. Il ne fait aucun doute que nous assisterons à une guerre des billets. D’avides pères de famille centristes et fan de Britpop, et une Génération Z accro à TikTok vont se battre pour avoir la chance de témoigner de la nostalgie de l’ icône Cool Britannia incarnée.
Cependant, tout comme le retour notable d’un nouveau New Labour, la tournée de retour d’Oasis ne marquera pas l’aube de Cool Britannia 2.0. Bien au contraire : le fantôme de ‘Things Can Only Get Better’ a été soigneusement exorcisé. En fait, la réunion d’Oasis a été annoncée le même jour où le Premier ministre Keir Starmer prononce littéralement la phrase : ‘Les choses vont empirer avant de s’améliorer.’
La Grande-Bretagne à laquelle Oasis revient est bien loin de la nation optimiste et dynamique des années 90. À l’époque, le pays était imprégné d’une assurance confiante incarnée par le Britpop et le dynamisme de Tony Blair. Plutôt que de fournir un rajeunissement culturel, cela ne sera qu’un événement sur les réseaux sociaux. Le Sunday Times se vante déjà que cela ‘sera clairement l’événement de l’été’. Cependant, de tels sentiments sont un pincement de nostalgie pour une époque où les artistes prestigieux étaient forgés par les médias traditionnels, et non recommandés par des algorithmes. Dans un environnement médiatique et culturel atomisé, où la production et la consommation culturelles sont détachées de tout sens cohérent, moderne et singulier de ce qu’est vraiment ‘la britannicité’, les Britanniques cherchent simplement quelque chose qui ressemble à un chez-soi.
Le défunt philosophe marxiste et théoricien de la culture pop Mark Fisher avait prévu cette époque. Dans son essai de 2014 ‘The Slow Cancellation of the Future‘, il écrivait que ‘la période allant grosso modo de 2003 à aujourd’hui sera reconnue — non pas dans un avenir lointain, mais très bientôt — comme la pire période pour la culture (populaire) depuis les années 1950’. Bien que l’art ait toujours été hanté par ce qui l’a précédé, de nombreuses pressions sociales modernes conspirent pour limiter la créativité : un marché du travail précaire, des coûts de la vie de plus en plus élevés, une surstimulation culturelle et technologique, et une industrie musicale qui tend vers le monopole au lieu de la variété indépendante.
Cependant, la célébration de la reprise d’Oasis signale encore que nous avons atteint une impasse culturelle ; nous sommes non seulement hantés par le passé, mais nous n’arrivons pas à imaginer de meilleurs futurs. Les incitations du marché poussent les créateurs culturels à réchauffer ce qui a été essayé et testé. Tout comme le Labour et les Conservateurs se tournent vers Blair et Thatcher pour susciter des émotions ou voler des idées, la notion que la tournée d’Oasis pourrait être l’événement de 2025 reflète ce que Fredric Jameson appelle ‘l’emprisonnement dans le passé’. Dans son ouvrage Postmodernism and Consumer Society, Jameson soutient que ‘dans un monde où l’innovation stylistique n’est plus possible, il ne reste plus qu’à imiter des styles morts.’
La Grande-Bretagne n’est pas seule dans son désir de revenir au passé. En Amérique, Hollywood est devenu incapable de produire quoi que ce soit qui ne soit pas une suite, un reboot, un remake ou un biopic d’une figure passée. Une étude récente d’EntTelligence, une plateforme de recherche de marché cinématographique, a révélé que parmi les 60 films les plus rentables au box-office, seulement cinq pouvaient être classés comme originaux. Pire encore, il y a 135 suites en production. Les commentateurs d’Internet ont rapidement remarqué que l’annonce récente de Shrek 5 coïncidait avec le retour du Parti travailliste — les quatre films précédents ayant été réalisés sous Blair et Brown.
Le mot nostalgie est étymologiquement enraciné dans le grec nostos signifiant ‘retour à la maison’ et ‘algos’ signifiant douleur. Le Complexe Industriel de la Nostalgie, incarné ici par les vieillissants frères Gallagher, n’est qu’un produit de notre incapacité collective à envisager un avenir pour la Grande-Bretagne qui semble aussi cohérent et inspirant que le passé ne l’était autrefois — et c’est douloureux. Tant que nous ne confronterons pas activement notre manque d’une histoire audacieuse et inspirante pour notre avenir national, nous continuerons à être hantés par nos rêves du passé. Noel et Liam ne semblent peut-être plus regarder en arrière avec colère — mais nous sommes encore loin de regarder vers l’avenir avec vigueur.
Louis Elton is a cultural researcher and strategist based in London. He writes on his Substack, Nation of Artisans.
LouisElton96
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAt the end of the day, there is no way for any government, church, or well meaning individual to protect other individuals from the consequences of their own bad choices. These girls are simply taking advantage of the fact that biologically speaking, girls become women in terms of sexuality from about ages 12-15 and the males of our species are biologically driven to pursue fertility and youth. We have laws that protect children, as we should, but there’s no law against a twenty year old pretending to be younger or an easy way to objectively define what constitutes impersonating an underage girl if we wanted to pass one. These women are simply taking advantage of the intersection of base instinct and personal freedom to make a buck, or a lot of bucks. I can’t have much sympathy for anyone who has the combination of fame and wealth that gives one the ability to fly on a private jet to the Super Bowl, nor can I blame them for pursuing this route to wealth and prosperity. The same goes for the men who pay to see them prance about and take their clothes off. Aside from the few who take it too far and become stalkers, they are simply getting what they paid for and whatever consequences that has for their own lives are on them as well. With these I am basically content to live and let live. The problem is that the success of these few ladies encourages truly underage women to imitate. It’s unfortunate, but unavoidable. How would one go about putting a stop to such things? Shutting down OnlyFans won’t end prostitution or men lusting after younger women. Those things existed before, and women were exploited before, often in much worse ways and with less power to change their situation. As sad as it is, the existence of OnlyFans constitutes progress insofar as it enables women to engage in a practice that is old as the species itself and enjoy the profits of said practice themselves rather than being dependent on possibly abusive brothel owners, pimps, and porn producers. Nobody should be celebrating this activity, but this is actually a marked improvement over most of human history. At any rate, I doubt we’ll have to witness the spectacle of disreputable behavior and sites such as OnlyFans much longer, because real women with cameras will be replaced with cheaper and more compliant virtual AI girlfriends. I suspect that despite the fact that such a scenario completely removes the possibility of abuse or exploitation of an actual person, feminists will still find reason to complain about this development as well.
Well OK, but isn’t it also normal for a grown man to find such girls (and 20 year olds who imitate them) childish, immature and frankly irritating? The most creepy thing about this is that the childishness seems to be the appeal.
I actually found them childish, immature, and irritating when I actually was 12-15 so I’m probably not the best person to ask. I’m certainly not anyone’s example of normal. Personally, I do find it creepy, distasteful, and mildly disgusting, but why should my opinion matter more than anyone else’s? As long as nobody is being abused, exploited, or forced to do things against their will, who am I to judge? I can only speak to what I know of history and biology. It’s a fact that in most cultures until very recently it was accepted if not commonplace for women as young as 14 to be married, basically whenever they reached sexual maturity. In many cultures, unmarried women over a certain age faced significant social stigmas. It’s also a fact that basically all species of mammals consider potential fitness of mates and that for males, this generally revolves around youth and fertility. We can look at documented history and understand how biology works and make the logical inference as to what’s going on here, that these men are making a connection to the appearance and behavior of the younger women that they probably were interested in when they were that age and for whatever reason couldn’t get, and are now participating in this economic transaction where the women are selling wish fulfillment and fantasy and the men are buying. As long as they’re not becoming stalkers and take it too far, it’s none of my business.
Apparently this is the case according to this article.
As an XX chromosome carrier I find this proclivity, in a way, mystifying.
I can speculate. The object of the interest is a sexual encounter without all the inconvenient baggage of emotional entanglement. The ultimate zipless f***k which as I understand from significant other, is the ultimate nirvanha – a blinding orgasm with a tight anatomy without the irritating sequelae of a small, demanding, independent human being 9 months later.
Of course there are a multitude of XY chromosome carriers on this planet who are unaware that some (increasing) number of XX carriers start menstruating at he age of 8 especially in well fed western countries.
As my father in law expounded over a campfire in the Nevadan desert “A stiff d***k has no conscience”. A wise man.
The most interesting factoid about his article is that no numbers are quoted – “many”, “a few”, “average”, “normal” – what is this in gross numbers and percentages divided into age cohorts ? – straight into the “too difficult basket” for the average innumerate journalist.
The amygdala rules and the world burns.
Males can also become victims of their infactuation by sending large amounts money to sexy online penfriend girlfriends who are actually not sexy girls but a deceptive money making schemes to exploit some mens weakness. There does need to be some moderating to ensure neither parties are harmed, like with gambling.
Again, it’s a free country and people have to be responsible for their own choices. We can give people information and education about the hazards that exist like we do with tobacco products but at the end of the day, there’s no way to eliminate self-destructive choices and behaviors without taking a sizable chunk out of our basic personal freedoms as collateral damage. In my view, this is included under the heading ‘freedom isn’t free’.
Fair points, though there may be a middle road between caveman hooker abuse and what we have here. I am unconvinced that it’s all so completely unavoidable. The content is fundamentally poisonous, and neither the production nor consumption of it is something that should be encouraged.
“…with these I am basically content to live and let live”. I would bet you do not have children, or any vested interest in the future of society.
One man, one woman, one lifetime. Every other path leads to disaster. Carthago delenda est.
I’m not quite sure why anybody is still pushing this line any more. Clearly large numbers of men are highly susceptible to this stuff, and large numbers of women are clearly willing to exploit it. In a way you can’t blame them, it’s easy money and the men are easy dupes, but let’s not be naive about who is exploiting whom here.
I wouldn’t call these men dupes. They are getting what they want for a reasonable price. Men have always had to pay for access to sex. Paying these young women is probably a lot less expensive than a girlfriend or wife. Less time consuming and disease free too.
This argument only holds true if you believe that having digital access to someone’s commercially filtered sexual social media is in any way akin to having an actual real girlfriend. Which it isn’t. No one can truly sell that directly. Yes relationships tend to have a degree of exchange of power and often that is the male’s resources/status/looks for her time and (temporary) allegiance but this still is another dimension to paid digital sex or paid real sex for that matter.
I take your point but there’s plenty of evidence to indicate that digital access is perfectly adequate for a significant , and growing, percentage of men.
Once advanced sex dolls arrive, and it’s inevitable that they will, a majority of men will be entirely satisfied to never experience the real thing.
When that time comes all that will remain for a majority of women will be exactly what these young women are already doing.
Is there some sort of rule of activism that means that the more pointless a movement becomes, the more frequently the waves come rolling in?
This is the nature of activism. It is incapable of taking ‘yes’ for an answer or accepting victory. The grift is now the point.
70 years ago, in my late teens, my grandfather told me about real female motivations … the 6 ‘A’s …. Appearance: Adornment: Aromas: attire: Accessories: Assets … all acquired by SEX and that would include any wife I married. Nonsense of course, but, call me a cynic now …… he was right enough.
Reminds me of the old Rod Stewart song. “I wish that I knew what I know now, when I was younger.”
70 years ago.
Thankfully some XX chromosome carriers have found something better to do with their energies since then.
Th best we can do is to insist on our autonomy – Isn’t that precisely what these young women are doing? Does Polly mean, “insist on using our autonomy only in ways of which Polly approves”
I think Poppy (not Polly) is referring to the autonomy of the consumer of this “content” when she urges them to get off-line. The only thing that will work if you wish to see such content disappear — and I think most people still do — is to deprive it of the oxygen of attention. Technology enabled the production and mass-consumption of this shite, so cutting the technological cord that connects producer and consumer is the simplest way to end it. Of course, some individual self-restraint is required, and that seems to be in short supply: witness the number of people who seem to think that Jeff Bezos is the anti-Christ, but are all awaiting their next Amazon delivery.
While I agree this is all perfectly terrible, I would be more impressed by the numerous UnHerd feminists decrying it, if they acknowledged just why and how feminism led to so much female anguish. I mean, will this author or her UnHerd colleagues ever just come out and say, “sex is marriage glue” so don’t have sex until you’re married and don’t cheat on your spouse? No, that would be giving a patriarchal institution of control over women legitimacy it does not deserve! Instead we get hand-wringing articles like this full of flowery evasion and studied ambiguity about why the author’s belief system has gone off the rails. They see the destruction they have wrought but still don’t have the moral courage to examine their own role in wreaking it.
None of this would have happened if our great governments hadn’t permitted free access to pornography on the Internet.
This is so sad.
No wonder religion is making a comeback, and conversions to Islam are at an all-time high.
Western societies are disintegrating before our eyes. So sad.
So this basically just replaces the rich husband with ten thousand “rich” digital boyfriends, then.
Insofar as “the men” and their dirty, seedy voyeurism, none of them were ever MeToo’d for looking at pornography. They’re now known only by their credit cards, with no awkward nor unwelcome interactions, just a spotlessly impersonal financial transaction.
Think how safe everyone is now – is this not the world feminists wanted?
This is sickening
And why would any attractive young woman take herself offline when she can make big bucks? Meanwhile her peers in university are paying high tuition and studying hard in hopes of getting an ordinary white collar job upon graduation.
We must be tolerant, for there often is no analytically defensible reason not to be. Elsewhere on one of the pages of this issue of this organ is depicted Jeff Bezos fully togged up in full evening wear regalia with only his bald pate left uncovered for us to inspect. He has a companion – suspect his wife. She is standing alongside in an expensive couture dress with half her mammaries hanging out of it. I find that intensely pornographic and would like to ban such displays of the female anatomy. But how would I justify doing so? The fact that something offends my sensibilities does not seem to be a good reason.