Thinking Styles: An Analysis of Russell Brand's Interview with Jeremy Paxman

This article analyzes the interview of Russell Brand with Jeremy Paxman and discusses the need for an alternative political system. It also evaluates the conflict between the two participants and their thinking styles.

Running head: THINKING STYLES
Thinking Styles
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1
THINKING STYLES
Transcript Analysis
1. Jeremy Paxman is a British broadcaster and a journalist who is conducting the
interview of comedian Russell Brand. Russell Brand has never voted in his life, but
he is currently editing a political magazine. The conversation between the participants
is about the current social and political scenario and how Russell Brand has the
authority to edit a political magazine without ever having voted in his life. The
purpose of the interview is to understand how the political system needs overhauling
and how showing apathy by not voting is not the solution. on one hand, Russell Brand
looks for an alternative political system where the rights of the underclass will be
preserved and their voices will be heard and on the other hand Jeremy Paxman wants
to know how voting is important in a democracy and only by voting can the common
people raise their voice and change the system. Russell wants revolution where the
underclass can revolt against the corruption that is prevalent and propose a socialist
egalitarian system. The interview will make the corporations wake up to their
responsibilities of paying taxes, the duty of the Government to preserve the
environment and make sure there are no economic disparities.
2. Russell Brands tells his story of being a drug addict till the age of 18 and that has
affected his mentality of revolting against the rich and the developed who are trying
to oppress the economically deprived class. He tells his story of being a drug addict
and coming from a socially deprived class that has not their rights heard. He is
voicing his opinion as a representative of a social class which is devoid of a proper
representation and is underserved by the political system which only cares for the

2
THINKING STYLES
rights of the rich. Drug problem is a recurring issue of the social and economic class
that he belonged to which has been impoverished and denied of basic rights
(Monaghan and Yeomans 2016). Not having their issues resolved and their rights
preserved, they do not resonate with the political system and therefore considering
voting for them a futile exercise. They believe that the political system is apathetic to
the needs of the deprived and they see that the political system is serving the rights of
the big corporations because they run the economy. The political parties are
defending the big banks and corporate because they believe that the big corporate will
curtail the taxes and the political system is only trying to keep the interests of the rich
and the powerful in mind while devising their policies. In the opinion of Russell
Brand, he is saying that the government is creating segmentation in the society and by
doing that they are not addressing the issues of people coming from the lower strata
of the society.
3. Russell Brand has never voted in his life and he does not believe in the idea of voting
someone to power who will have the same mentality of serving the rich and the
powerful and not pay attention to the needs of the poor. Paxman says being an editor
of a political magazine without having voted will reduce his authenticity in the eyes
of the people because no one should take anyone seriously who ahs not exercise their
democratic right to vote.
4. In the video, Russell Brand believes that voting will not make any difference and
people should not vote because the political party for whom people are voting is
apathetic to the needs of the underclass and voting for them will not make any
difference. This is an opinion which is not buttressed by facts. The fact is that in a

3
THINKING STYLES
democracy people have the right to vote and voting for the right candidate will bring
change and the society needs for responsible people to take care of the needs of the
society.
Conflict Evaluation
Introduction
The interview is conducted to understand how the people in a democracy react to the
political parties and their policies. How an actor, a comedian explains why there is a demanding
need to overthrow the current political system because it is not doing its job of addressing the
problems of the underclass ( Arthurs and Shaw 2016). In Russell’s opinion, the power at the
hands of the undeserving is corrupting the environment, is creating two classes- the privileged
class and the underclass and there is huge exploitation at the hands of the upper class (Arthurs
and Little 2016). Brand is representing the underclass which is feeling threatened by the growing
oppression, and therefore he plans a revolution of change, an alternative political system headed
by people who are adept at understanding the needs of the society (Brassett 2016).
Russell seeks a socialist egalitarian system, an ideal world where there are no class
divisions, where there are no elites whose rights get preference and the poor are left in the lurch
without anyone having to fend for them. Brand kept talking in rhetoric about how there is a need
to change the existing system but from the interview it seemed like he did not have any plan. He
makes a point cogently how there needs to be change, there needs to be an alternate politics for
the betterment of the society but when asked how he plans to go about devising that plan, he
does not have a concrete idea. The interview was an informal discussion about the current
political system and both of the participants were assertive about their opinions. Brand represents

4
THINKING STYLES
the thought process of the new generation that is not satisfied with the way out society is moving
forward. He speaks on behalf of the current societal framework that needs a leader who is
compassionate for the needs of the underclass, a leader who tries to bridge the gap between the
socially deprived and the ones oppressing and a leader that makes everyone vote for him.
In the interview, it seems like Paxman is trying to personally attack Russell for having an
opinion, calling him trivial because he hopes for an egalitarian system. A way the participants
could have presented themselves better would have been to not attack each other personally for
having a voice that speaks volumes. The theory is based on Bourdieu’s Field Theory, which is a
heavily influenced theory that draws its influence from Karl’s socialist theory (Ferrare and Apple
2015). His idea is devised to refer to a collection of skills that shape the society, like skills,
tastes, clothing etc (Harker, Mahar and Wilkes 2016). Bourdieu talks about cultural capital that
states that people in same colleges, schools have similar tastes in music and life skills but they
might also diverge in their thinking (Willing, Waltorp and Hartley 2015). The same schooling or
college does not warrant same set of thought process and therefore it is important that people
should be seen as separate entities with different identities and thought process (Kluttz and
Fligstein 2016). He also says that social capital is also another source of inequality in the society
as some cultural capital is valued over others creating a sense of disharmony and inequality
(Hilgers and Mangez 2014). The same was seen in the context of going to the same school.
Russell says that he along with Boris went to the same school but they did not have the same
opinions because that is absolutely normal (Krarup and Munk 2016). Boris subsequently went to
another comprehensive school in North London. This just buttresses the theory of Bourdieu that
says that people from same schools or colleges have similar approach and they have the similar
skills and languages about with time they start developing their own ideas (Shammas and

5
THINKING STYLES
Sandberg 2016). Brand talks how to secure the political system that engages the rights of the
underclass. He is of the firm opinion that there is no need to vote till the people is satisfied that
their rights will be preserved and they will be heard. The need of the hour is to vote cautiously
and bring to power people who are responsible and engaged in the interests of the
underprivileged. The faith of the people needs to be restored in the political system (Fligstein and
McAdam 2015). The socialist egalitarian system advances the school of thought that states that
everyone has to be treated equally and there shall be no discrimination between the rich and the
poor (Qian 2018). The same thought has been reflected by Russell in the interview that states
that no one shall be discriminated on the basis of the education they get or the class they belong
to (Bielsen 2015). Everyone’s rights should be prioritized and they should be given the worth of
their life (Elizabeth 2017).
Conclusion
This interview saw a myriad of views by Brand that he confidently pulled off to state that a
socialist economy is needed to be in place and people should vote only when they are confident
that their issues will be resolved and their plights will be taken care of. The alternative political
system is an utopia at the moment but a revolution of change shall change the scenario and better
the situation where the environment shall be protected, the demarcation between the rich and the
poor will be done away with and everyone shall have equal access to justice, economic rights
and opportunities.

6
THINKING STYLES
References
Arthurs, J. and Little, B., 2016. Russell Brand: Comedy, Celebrity, Politics. Springer.
Arthurs, J. and Shaw, S., 2016. Celebrity capital in the political field: Russell Brand’s migration
from stand-up comedy to Newsnight. Media, culture & society, 38(8), pp.1136-1152.
Brassett, J., 2016. Satire is (un) dead: how comedy became a language of democratic
politics. Democratic Audit UK.
Elizabeth, S.A., 2017. What is the Point of Equality?. In Theories of Justice (pp. 133-183).
Routledge.
Ferrare, J.J. and Apple, M.W., 2015. Field theory and educational practice: Bourdieu and the
pedagogic qualities of local field positions in educational contexts. Cambridge Journal of
Education, 45(1), pp.43-59.
Fligstein, N. and McAdam, D., 2015. A theory of fields. Oxford University Press.
Harker, R., Mahar, C. and Wilkes, C. eds., 2016. An introduction to the work of Pierre Bourdieu:
The practice of theory. Springer.
Hilgers, M. and Mangez, É. eds., 2014. Bourdieu's theory of social fields: concepts and
applications. Routledge.
Kluttz, D.N. and Fligstein, N., 2016. Varieties of sociological field theory. In Handbook of
contemporary sociological theory(pp. 185-204). Springer, Cham.
Krarup, T. and Munk, M.D., 2016. Field theory in cultural capital studies of educational
attainment. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(5), pp.761-779.

7
THINKING STYLES
Monaghan, M. and Yeomans, H., 2016. Mixing drink and drugs:‘Underclass’ politics, the
recovery agenda and the partial convergence of English alcohol and drugs policy. International
Journal of Drug Policy, 37, pp.122-128.
Nielsen, K., 2015. On the Choice between Property-Owning Democracy and Liberal
Socialism.”. Unpublished. Posted online at http://phil. ucalgary. ca/profiles/kai-nielsen.
Qian, J., 2018. From performance to politics? Constructing public and counterpublic in the
singing of red songs. In Re-visioning the Public in Post-reform Urban China (pp. 107-136).
Springer, Singapore.
Shammas, V.L. and Sandberg, S., 2016. Habitus, capital, and conflict: Bringing Bourdieusian
field theory to criminology. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 16(2), pp.195-213.
Willig, I., Waltorp, K. and Hartley, J.M., 2015. Field theory approaches to new media practices:
An introduction and some theoretical considerations. MedieKultur: Journal of media and
communication research, 31(58), pp.1-12.