In conjunction with the release of her album “WOMAN,” Syleena Johnson has reignited the debate around how to hold rhythm and blues singer R. Kelly accountable for his sexual assault crimes. Her primary argument is that his music has nothing to do with the various charges against him. Given her artistic affiliation with him, this is, first and foremost, a grimy attempt to clear her own name.
More importantly, her claim oversimplifies the power dynamics between artists and consumers, dismissing survivors’ experiences. These women already had their agency taken away from them once before. In sharing this message, Johnson effectively forces them to relive the attack and, worse, justify it. So even if her intention isn’t malicious, this statement ultimately has that sort of impact.
Her justification reveals a poor understanding of what exactly listeners are responsible for here. Of course individuals aren’t implicated in the act itself.
However, as consumers, we are responsible for holding R. Kelly accountable. Hindsight shows us that his fame and wealth allowed him to commit sexual abuse and participate in sex-trafficking — and we’re at fault. Everytime we listened to his songs, a collaboration or anything with his name attached, we empowered him with financial resources.
Yet, the same knowledge reminds us that consumers aren’t powerless. In the free market, we get to decide who receives our support and subsequently has access to an audience. Since the incriminating information has been revealed, what legitimate reason exists for us to listen to his music? His songs did not contribute anything meaningful to musical innovation and they do not deserve to be placed on a pedestal.
And while we cannot escape certain situations, we can be more proactive about avoiding his music and the similarly immoral media when we can. For instance, there is an option to mute artists on Spotify so that their music is never streamed on your account, including when listening to other users’ playlists unless you change the setting. And what would we really lose here? Not hearing “Ignition” is not a huge loss of value in our lives.
As usual, the onus falls entirely on the consumer when corporations ultimately prop up these offenders. Without them, artists like R. Kelly wouldn’t be able to flippantly maintain their presence after getting caught for a crime. That being said, platforms such as Spotify and Apple Music should be mandated to censor those who have been convicted.
Even in “less severe” sexual harassment cases, offenders in corporate settings lose their jobs and livelihoods — as they should. Why should the outcome on streaming platforms be any different for R. Kelly? Let the man fall hard from grace, everywhere.
But accountability measures cannot stop there. Our culpability reaches far beyond our listening habits. The decision to sexually assault someone is not random. It is a part of a wider problem in which society does not adequately address the catcalling, the misogyny and the discrimination that contribute to a sense of entitlement over another’s body.
When we allow people to get away with these “less” consequential actions, sexual assault does not seem like a significant escalation; but, rape culture operates as a pyramid. What starts as unaddressed comments and cyberbullying has infinite potential to become physical assault.
Without the #MeToo movement, it’s difficult to say if there would have ever been the necessary cultural shift.
Even now, it’s incredibly slow. Our society has not taken the necessary steps to create the environment for young women to openly discuss their sexuality nor for young men to define masculinity on their own terms. Power is so tied up in masculinity that, in contemporary terms, it is incredibly difficult to understand what it means to be a man without it.
Taking away R. Kelly’s financial support is the least we can do to dismantle the structures that enabled him in the first place. Contrary to Johnson’s belief, it is very much our responsibility as members of a civil society to hold people accountable for their criminal acts. Only then can we ensure that we have adjusted their legacy accordingly.
