Changing meaning of the Chicks / Dixie Chicks controversy in cultural memory (a thread)

My main area of interest concerns how the meaning of cultural artifacts and phenomena change over time. Here I consider the Chicks' 2003 controversy (see Burns and @data_jada's excellent 2010 article ( https://www.jstor.org/stable/40926939 ), as well as Wilman's Rednecks and Bluenecks.

The controversy is ostensibly the defining moment in the Chicks / Dixie Chicks career. Notably, the issues central to the controversy included pacifism during war, conflict between pacifism and patriotism, and questions of simultaneous support for troops and opposition to war.

I find it fascinating that the Chicks controversy still resonates broadly in our culture even while much of 2003 culture is forgotten (when do you still hear about 50 Cent??). And yet the focus of that cultural memory has little to do with war, the military, or patriotism.

To cut to the chase, I believe that the controversy is really an excuse we use to talk about the ACTUAL defining moment of the Chicks' career: their song "Goodbye Earl."

"Earl" is a narrative song that portrays a domestic abuser and an abused wife (Wanda) who murders her titular abusive husband by poisoning. The unusual part is that she suffers no adverse consequences for her action and, indeed, evokes relief in her small-town community.

To accomplish this, Wanda teams up with her best friend Mary Ann, who later moves in with Wanda. The song is a therefore a narrative about female collaboration to overthrow a malevolent patriarchy, and has, naturally, become a feminist anthem. (It's a great song too)

The song was a #13 country hit and evoked only minor controversy at the time. In the MeToo era, the songs' themes read differently than they did in 1999. Female teamwork and asshole men are now much more central to the cultural conversation; "Earl" looks prescient.

At the time, the song brought awareness to a topic that was too often ignored. Now the song talks about something that is far from ignored. But it proposes a radical and violent solution that is different from the non-violent approach taken by the MeToo movement.

This is not a criticism. "Earl" is a window into the bad old days when victimized women faced few options. The song suggest that back then, women were so powerless that sometimes murder was the only option. Consequently, the song is MORE shocking today than it was in 1999.

Conversely, younger fans have trouble remembering how big of a split the Iraq war was - e.g. schism on the left and between Obama and Hillary Clinton. The Iraq war has not followed Vietnam in historical memory - Vietnam now evokes cultural battles on the homefront; Iraq doesn't.

So, while we are fascinated by the Chicks' story, the struggles are reinterpreted to be about feminism, female camaraderie, freedom to speak unpopular thoughts, and struggle to find a place in a male-dominated world. Those concerns are arguably more relevant today, than in 2003.

This is not to say those issues weren't important at the time - just that they were secondary to questions about the military, pacifism, and support for troops. The latter have faded greatly, forcing audiences to find new reasons to talk and think about the Chicks.

Indeed, The Chicks own story recapitulates this narrative - they stayed together, working to defeat the patriarchal culture of country music, led by men (especially Toby Keith, but also insiders like Chet Flippo) by making defiant music that won them new fans and converts.

(Burns and Watson's article covers this dynamic very well, with special focus on the song Not Ready to Make Nice, and is highly recommended).

Final point: it is notable that Gaslighter, which is being covered as a triumphant return (forgetting the triumph of Take the Long Way), is unconcerned with military themes, but is, rather, about perfidious men. It is, I would argue, a concept album building on...Goodbye Earl.