The Pet Shop Boys and the Political

[the8thark]

Hi everyone,

Has anyone here read the book called:
The Pet Shop Boys and the Political

It just looks like a collection of essays or papers from random people who work at Universities. Basically social and political commentary themed around the Pet Shop Boys influence on the world.
I can’t seem to find any reviews on it.

Would you recommend it or should we just pass on it?

[Vintage Youth]

I have it, quite enjoyed it. The author/editor is a big fan, I follow one of their social media accounts. There should a a thread or mention on here if you search.

[markus]

The book’s core message according to AI is:

Queerness as politics: PSB don’t do activism through slogans or protest songs. Instead, they normalize gay desire, ambiguity, irony, and outsider perspectives within mainstream pop. That visibility itself is political.

Style over slogans: Their restraint, distance, and coolness are deliberate. By refusing confessional pop masculinity, they undermine traditional ideas of gender, power, and emotion.

Pop as a cultural battleground: The book treats pop music, fashion, videos, and performance as places where identity and ideology are negotiated—not just reflected.

Britishness, class, and irony: PSB’s work engages with British social structures (class, education, manners, repression) and uses irony as both protection and critique.

Ambiguity as resistance: Rather than telling audiences what to think, PSB leave meanings open. This frustrates some listeners but allows their work to travel across cultures, regimes, and decades.

In essence, the book says:
Pet Shop Boys changed what could be said, shown, and felt in pop music—not by shouting, but by calmly standing there and refusing to conform.

[richwill]

I haven't read the book and an AI summary can't be trusted (there are reviews and proper summaries out there), but the notion of the PSB as essentially radical can be countered by the argument that while they and others have helped shifted the parameters of mainstream culture slightly to be more accepting of gay identity, they're essentially and increasingly conservative and conformist in their stances. They've changed pop culture a little (but no more than say DM, Soft Cell or Bronski Beat) and then dwelled within it. They've never shaken any foundations; Neil Tennant is Tony Blair. As for irony, that's partly (but increasingly) how the entire British class structure sustains itself, they certainly haven't subverted it.

[Patrick Bateman]

I haven't read the book and an AI summary can't be trusted (there are reviews and proper summaries out there), but the notion of the PSB as essentially radical can be countered by the argument that while they and others have helped shifted the parameters of mainstream culture slightly to be more accepting of gay identity, they're essentially and increasingly conservative and conformist in their stances. They've changed pop culture a little (but no more than say DM, Soft Cell or Bronski Beat) and then dwelled within it. They've never shaken any foundations; Neil Tennant is Tony Blair. As for irony, that's partly (but increasingly) how the entire British class structure sustains itself, they certainly haven't subverted it.

Excellent post. My younger (more naive) self thought they were more subversive than they turned out to be. I think the 'outsider' element was partly responsible - they were writing about gay subjects at a time when the overriding culture was actively homophobic - this was the 80s, with Clause 28, The Sun and Thatcher rampant. However, as the UK changed to a more tolerant culture with gay marriage and the like, they went to Downing Street and eventually became 'national treasures'. You don't tend to last 40 years in popular culture if you hold radical views, particularly in an age of cancellations.

Arguably, Nonetheless was their most queer album, which is a reflection of the culture changing and their place within it as elder statesmen. There's no longer any need for coded messaging.

[markus]

So, trying to make sense of Pet Shop Boys’ current politics: they seem to regret Go West and their participation in the post–Cold War moment, taking some of the blame for the backlash that became Putin’s Russia. They now appear to trust that the former Soviet republics will find their own way, and they place their faith in Zelensky, whom they see as representing the voice of the people standing up to a tyrant.

[richwill]

They use Ukraine and Russia like some socialists were accused of doing wrt Latin America the 80s, as a means of signalling progressive credentials while disclaiming any engagement with their own political setting. The British ruling class is not ostensibly responsible for what the Russian state does, so cheerleading Zelensky and the deeply problematic Navalny is a means of letting everyone in their social circle off the hook. It's decades since they engaged with British politics, although Neil did disparage Brexit and, more significantly, Corbyn. He doesn't agree with any radical solutions - listen to 'Twentieth Century'. They did briefly represent something different in 1985, but in any case they were stylings they'd borrowed from Soft Cell etc. What what I can see of that book, it does seem to be arguments that could be made of any number of groups. The queerification of pop was already underway, it was a movement (or rather a shift) they were part of rather than being pioneers.

[richwill]

I haven't read the book and an AI summary can't be trusted (there are reviews and proper summaries out there), but the notion of the PSB as essentially radical can be countered by the argument that while they and others have helped shifted the parameters of mainstream culture slightly to be more accepting of gay identity, they're essentially and increasingly conservative and conformist in their stances. They've changed pop culture a little (but no more than say DM, Soft Cell or Bronski Beat) and then dwelled within it. They've never shaken any foundations; Neil Tennant is Tony Blair. As for irony, that's partly (but increasingly) how the entire British class structure sustains itself, they certainly haven't subverted it.

Excellent post. My younger (more naive) self thought they were more subversive than they turned out to be. I think the 'outsider' element was partly responsible - they were writing about gay subjects at a time when the overriding culture was actively homophobic - this was the 80s, with Clause 28, The Sun and Thatcher rampant. However, as the UK changed to a more tolerant culture with gay marriage and the like, they went to Downing Street and eventually became 'national treasures'. You don't tend to last 40 years in popular culture if you hold radical views, particularly in an age of cancellations.

Arguably, Nonetheless was their most queer album, which is a reflection of the culture changing and their place within it as elder statesmen. There's no longer any need for coded messaging.

Excellent points! Our era has seen massive changes in social norms and their work simply reflects that.

[richwill]

Btw. I'm generously ignoring Agenda, which was kind of laudable but ham-fisted at best. It would have been nice and made sense if they'd signalled Dreamland as a proepective anthem for refugees, but they chose not to, if you compare how little they've said on the topic with how much they've put into advertising their support for the Ukranian cause.

[Spittingcat]

Here we go again... the suggestion that they avoid challenging and commenting on British political and social norms and use Ukraine as a distraction, or for virtue signalling, doesn't stand up if you listen to any of their albums. They've always been political, and always written negatively about UK politicians and movements (and USA ones).

[NotInvisible]

I'm generously ignoring Agenda

Of course you are, because you've got your own and Agenda makes a mockery of it. This thread is a series of hot takes, none of which stand up if you actually listen to the music.

[lalolalo]

Awesome book!
One of the best books written about them or their music.

Best being "Smile if you dare", by Ramzy Alwakeel.

[richwill]

Here we go again... the suggestion that they avoid challenging and commenting on British political and social norms and use Ukraine as a distraction, or for virtue signalling, doesn't stand up if you listen to any of their albums. They've always been political, and always written negatively about UK politicians and movements (and USA ones).

Give us a recent example.

[richwill]

I'm generously ignoring Agenda

Of course you are, because you've got your own and Agenda makes a mockery of it. This thread is a series of hot takes, none of which stand up if you actually listen to the music.

I don't know what a 'hot take' is in this context. Or an 'agenda'. They're my impressions and opinions. This is an internet forum.

[markus]

I think it’s a misconception to call them “political.” Neil and Chris are intellectuals which gives them much more freedom. They never tell you who to vote for, and they carefully avoid the messiah role that artists like Bono take on. Which is why they don't comment on something like Gaza no matter how self-absorbed it seems.