Radiohead and Philosophy

Radiohead and Philosophy is part of the “Pop Culture and Philosophy” series by local publisher Open Court Books. This series sets up two conditions within which one reads the book. First, the book is a collection of academic-style essays on a range of topics that connect philosophical study with the music, production, and themes of the band. Second, like other titles in this series, the book seems to be either a scheme to cash-in on a captive niche or a vehicle to introduce philosophy to a tightly focused segment that may be plied by a familiar passion. How one is able to reconcile the consequences of these conditions will determine how the book is received.

The first condition causes the readability of the book as a whole, to suffer. The quality of the writing and underlying philosophical expertise are inconsistent because every essay is penned by a different author—each with a distinct background, motivation and original intended audience. Additionally, the editing of the book consists of lumping essays into loose affiliations—soft introduction to the subject, economic commentary, post-modernism, the philosophy of art or politics or technology—based on topic, theme or school of philosophy cited. Whereas a standard primer text would consist of in-depth explorations of various topics while reinforcing a well-defined thesis, this book has to be happy to find enough material that is just similar enough to be coherent.

Furthermore, as each essay was conceived and executed in a vacuum, the same references to philosophical thought or Radiohead lyrics appear over-and-over, but for different and often conflicting purposes. While one author sees the phrase, “If you try the best you can / The best you can is good enough” as an oppressive rally slogan fit for an Orwellian dictatorship, another believes that Thom Yorke is suggesting that “by accepting his futile efforts as his only reality, he becomes the master of the destiny that was forced on him, and his continual uphill struggle becomes enough to make him happy.” Many authors focus on the distinct protagonists and narrators of the Radiohead catalog, paying careful attention to shifting voice. The same verse is referenced a handful of times, each with different interpretations. To some it represents the story arc of a character coming to grips with his bleak reality; others believe the lines are the precursor for a violent rebellion; conversely, some authors see an omniscient oppressor processing despised subjects. This constant recycling of material for disparate arguments can dilute the source material, impeach the authors, and discredit the entire collection.

While the first condition leads to a disjointed reading experience, the second raises issues of authenticity. The publisher may be attempting to make a quick buck by peddling the same snake oil to one loyal fan base after another, or may legitimately hope to baptize the unwashed masses. If the former is true–as evidenced by the inconsistent quality, conflicting arguments and pun-filled article and heading titles–a rabid Radiohead fan may be quick to dismiss the work as an inauthentic and exploitative. If the later is true, the editor must walk a fine line. Material that is too heavy philosophically may miss the mark by confusing the reader. However, relying on the reader’s own interpretation of a rock band to be the fertile ground within which the seeds of philosophy can be planted is equally dangerous if the material contradicts the reader’s firmly-held notions of the band and their work. The fact that the motives behind this book could be interpreted either way further reinforces how careful the publisher must be to ensure maximum impact.

If the disjointed reading experience or lack of a clear thesis is too much for you to handle, you will likely find yourself unable get heavily invested in the text. If you quickly feel like your precious relationship to Radiohead is being taken advantage of, or are unwilling to challenge your own perceptions of the band and their work, you will likely write the book off as exploitative or sacrilegious. However, loyal Radiohead fans who are willing to give each essay equal consideration based on the strength of its writing and arguments, while suspending their cynical nature, just may learn something about philosophy. Those who are brave enough to chop down the precious pedestal that supports the band may learn something about Radiohead and even themselves. Admittedly, a lot must go right for this to happen, but the payoff is worth the risk.