RESEARCH & INNOVATION
Marley , for example , was a musician who was “ avowedly antipolitical ,” yet his songs about the experiences of the Jamaican underclass became clarion calls for political and cultural liberation by those who understood little about Jamaica or Marley ’ s beliefs . Similarly , Tupac ’ s critiques of U . S . social inequalities have been generalized as indignation and rejection of the status quo . “ What is critical to understand is their resonance ,” Prestholdt says . “ How they have been interpreted and reimagined by artists and audiences to address particular sociocultural concerns .”
ICONS OF DISSENT
How new audiences help shape ideology .
BY ANTHONY KING
CHE GUEVARA . Bob Marley . Tupac Shakur . Osama bin Laden . These are major “ dissenters ,” according to UC San Diego history professor Jeremy Prestholdt — four highly recognizable figures who have represented challenges to the world order . And while they originally stood for very different causes , Prestholdt believes they have been similarly revered by the changing face of an increasingly connected society : a face that alters history to suit its ever-evolving ideologies .
The remarkably similar myth-like representations of these very different men is one of the takeaways from Prestholdt ’ s research , published this spring in the book Icons of Dissent : The Global Resonance of Che , Marley , Tupac , and Bin Laden . Prestholdt discovers that what each icon symbolizes in society ’ s collective memory depends exactly on that : the “ collective memory ” of need and desire , where historical facts are not always relevant . What ’ s more , the meaning of each icon changes over time .
“ These are icons that have been able to capture a popular imagination for social or political change ,” Prestholdt says . “ They don ’ t necessarily have the same vision nor did they necessarily attract the same followers , but they evidence a recurring phenomenon : they attract large , global audiences who perceive them as symbols that challenge the predominant sociopolitical order in the world .”
Prestholdt breaks apart the history and often misremembered life of each icon :
Prestholdt ’ s courses on African and global history are popular with undergraduates ; they draw on his research into the popularity and impact of these four individuals . By looking at the commercials , murals , graffiti and mass-produced symbols of these figures , Prestholdt says global icons are “ born of transnational dialogue ” while being “ domesticated by diverse audiences .”
And while it may come as a surprise that some global audiences adopted bin Laden ’ s image as a symbol for those who felt the West was indifferent to the suffering of Muslims , it ’ s what happens over and over with figures like him . “ While their ideological positions may contribute to their initial resonance ,” Prestholdt says , “ they tend to gain larger audiences as they are distilled into essences of general sentiment or common interests .”
They become “ fictions ,” a condensed history of dynamic images . But Prestholdt is clear that it is the changing human condition — through consumerism , globalization , and the rise of millennials seeking a common rallying point — that affects how such icons are interpreted .
“ For iconic figures like these to remain relevant , they must be reimagined ,” he says . “ The figures that remain in the popular imagination often do so because audiences see them differently in each new historical moment . They ascribe alternative meanings to them , which keeps them solidly in the collective memory .”
12 TRITON | SPRING 2019