In light of what we previously discussed, a palpable sense of frustration has marked the political climate of the 2020s. Citizens worldwide have grappled with unequal political influence and voice distribution, feeling disconnected from the political structures that should represent them. A further discrepancy has arisen with social media and the rise of internet personalities living different lifestyles and embodying this unequal distribution of political influence and voice. The challenges have been exacerbated by the powerful forces of neoliberalism, which have commodified individuals' voices, the corporate-driven dynamics of social media, and systemic inequalities in political participation. This article explores these complex dynamics, drawing on key insights from Nick Couldry's ‘Why Voice Matters: Culture and Politics After Neoliberalism’ (2010), along with studies on political voice, to examine how political frustrations, especially in the U.S., reflect a deep-seated crisis of representation and voice in contemporary democracy.

Voice as a fundamental tool for democratic participation

Nick Couldry’s ‘Why Voice Matters’ positions “voice” as fundamental to human agency and democratic engagement. Couldry argues that voice represents more than just the ability to speak; it is a means of affirming one's identity, influencing social norms, and asserting political power. In democratic societies, voice should enable individuals to shape policy, hold leaders accountable, and contribute to the public discourse (2010). However, under neoliberalism—an economic and cultural system prioritising market efficiency and profit over public good—voice is often reduced to a commodity. Rather than serving as an instrument of empowerment, the voice in a neoliberal world is frequently repurposed as consumable content, valuable primarily for its profitability.

According to Couldry, the neoliberal framework reshapes voice into something marketable, leading to corporate entities and governments holding significant power over individuals’ means of expression. Media and technology, which theoretically should democratise access to voice, have paradoxically become tools for surveillance and control, distancing citizens from meaningful engagement and rendering their voices performative and hollow (Couldry, 2010). This “commodification of voice” directly undermines the ability of citizens to assert their needs and challenge injustices, as their expressions are filtered through profit-driven motives and algorithmic curation.

Social media and the illusion of amplified voice

Social media, as Couldry discusses, represent the double-edged promise of a neoliberalized voice. Initially, these platforms were lauded as tools for democratising expression, giving ordinary individuals access to wide audiences and enabling grassroots activism. Platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram have allowed individuals to share perspectives that might otherwise go unheard. However, the reality is more complicated. Couldry and other media scholars argue that these platforms prioritise content that generates engagement, often amplifying sensational or divisive posts rather than genuine democratic discourse. As a result, the algorithms governing social media prioritise content that aligns with the platforms' commercial interests, sidelining more nuanced voices and fostering echo chambers rather than open, democratic dialogue.

This commodification of voice on social media produces an illusion of amplified voice, where users feel empowered while their speech is filtered and monetised. In the U.S., where political divides have grown more pronounced, social media has enabled the “branding” of political opinions, transforming what should be robust public discourse into fragmented, often antagonistic, groups. This has also fuelled mistrust in mainstream media, as the sensationalised nature of social media has set a troubling standard for what counts as “engagement.” Couldry warns that the consequences of this commodification are profound: political engagement becomes performative rather than transformative, and the true potential of voice to promote social change is compromised (2010).

Inequality in political voice and participation in digital and offline spaces

Political voice, broadly defined as the ability of citizens to express their opinions, advocate for policy changes, and engage in public debate, is a cornerstone of democratic societies. However, access to political voice is not evenly distributed, as various studies show that income, education, and social status significantly impact political participation. Schlozman, Verba, and Brady (2011) emphasise this disparity in "Who Speaks? Citizen Political Voice on the Internet Commons," in which the internet is understood as a democratised space for political discourse. Despite the internet’s potential to provide a public “common” for free expression, Schlozman et al. argue that access to these digital commons is still influenced by the same social and economic divides offline political engagement. Even though anyone theoretically can share opinions and engage with others online, the reality is that only those who already possess resources and political knowledge are likely to participate actively (Schlozman, Verba, and Brady 2011, 123-125).

These findings are supported by research from the Pew Research Center’s "Beyond Distrust: How Americans View Their Government," which explores Americans’ perceptions of their ability to influence the government. The report underlines that individuals with higher education or income are more likely to feel politically empowered. On the other hand, those with fewer resources often feel alienated from the political process (Pew Research Center 2015). Many Americans believe their government is more responsive to wealthy individuals and interest groups than ordinary citizens. As a result, disenfranchised groups become less likely to participate, leading to a cyclical reinforcement of inequality in political representation. Factors such as time constraints, lack of access to information, and resource limitations prevent many people—especially low-income individuals and minorities—from engaging in democratic processes with equal influence.

Neoliberalism and the erosion of collective power

Couldry’s critique of neoliberalism focuses on how this system reshapes societal values and prioritises individual gain and market-driven principles over collective welfare. In a neoliberal framework, personal agency is encouraged if it aligns with economic goals, effectively sidelining voices that challenge the market’s dominance or demand systemic change. The U.S. political system, heavily influenced by neoliberalism, emphasises individual responsibility over collective solutions. Citizens are encouraged to “brand” their opinions and leverage their voices for personal advantage rather than societal improvement. Couldry warns that this neoliberal orientation stifles the potential for voice to catalyse collective action and solidarity (2010).

In essence, neoliberalism turns speaking out into a market transaction. Individuals become “prosumers” (producers and consumers of content), incentivised to express profitable views or align with the dominant market narratives. This commodification of voice undermines the democratic ideal that all citizens should have equal power to shape society and diminishes the collective nature of political engagement, weakening the public sphere, essential for a healthy democracy.

Toward a reclaiming of voice

Despite the bleak realities that Couldry and others outline, there are calls for reclaiming voice as a tool for meaningful democratic participation. Couldry argues that reclaiming voice is essential to challenging the neoliberal order and restoring democratic practices (2010). This means advocating for media reform to reduce corporate influence, supporting alternative platforms prioritising public interest over profit, and promoting policies encouraging equal political participation. The scholars behind “The Unheavenly Chorus” echo this call, suggesting structural reforms like campaign finance reform and expanded access to voting to address the deep inequalities in political voice.

To rebuild a more inclusive and equitable political system, it is necessary to recognise voice not merely as an individualistic endeavour but as a collective right. Meaningful change will require creating spaces where marginalised voices can be heard without being filtered through commercial interests or compromised by systemic biases. It means fostering solidarity across social and economic divides and encouraging civic engagement toward societal improvement rather than personal branding. A reinvigoration of voice as a genuine democratic tool could counteract the negative impacts of neoliberalism, amplify under-represented perspectives, and strengthen the fabric of democratic governance.

In this neoliberal framework, citizens increasingly perceive their political voice as ineffectual, as government policies appear to cater to elite interests over collective welfare. The emphasis on privatisation and free-market solutions has left many individuals with fewer resources to navigate political channels, and as economic inequalities grow, political inequalities follow suit. Thus, neoliberalism has influenced the political structures that govern who has access to political voice and who does not. Schlozman, Verba, and Brady highlight this in their analysis of internet-based political participation, noting that while digital platforms could be spaces for democratic engagement, they are often dominated by those who already have the means and knowledge to advocate for their interests effectively (Schlozman, Verba, and Brady 2011, 128-130).

Repercussions for democratic participation and public trust

The unequal distribution of political voice has profound implications for democracy, particularly in the U.S., where it perpetuates a system that serves the privileged and alienates the marginalised. When only certain voices are heard, democratic institutions lose legitimacy, as they fail to represent the diversity of opinions and interests within society. Political disillusionment follows as people who feel unheard or under-represented lose faith in the democratic process.

In the United States, this disillusionment is reflected in low voter turnout rates and growing distrust in political institutions. Schlozman, Verba, and Brady note that meaningful political participation requires access to resources and political knowledge, which are unevenly distributed across social and economic lines. Without policies to reduce these disparities, the digital divide and economic inequality will continue to hinder equitable political participation (Schlozman, Verba, and Brady 2011, 135-137).

Conclusion

Addressing the inequalities of political voice in the 2020s is a multifaceted challenge that requires a commitment to structural reforms, both online and offline. In the U.S., policies to reduce economic inequality, improve media representation, and expand digital access could help create a more inclusive and representative political discourse. This includes fostering a media environment that provides equitable representation for women and marginalised groups, implementing economic policies that address the disparities fostered by neoliberalism, and designing social media algorithms that encourage a balanced flow of information.

To achieve a truly democratic system, it is imperative that all citizens—not just those with wealth, education, or influence—have an equal opportunity to make their voices heard. As Schlozman, Verba, and Brady conclude in their examination of internet-based political participation, “for the internet to truly function as a democratic ‘commons,’ efforts must be made to ensure broader and more inclusive participation” (Schlozman, Verba, and Brady 2011, 139). The 2020s offer an opportunity to reimagine political voice in a way that strengthens democracy and rebuilds public trust in governance. This will require a concerted effort to address social and economic inequalities and a commitment to fostering a media landscape that values accuracy, inclusivity, and diversity of thought.

References

Couldry, Nick. “Why Voice Matters: Culture and Politics After Neoliberalism”. London: SAGE Publications, 2010.
Pew Research Center. Beyond Distrust: How Americans View Their Government. Pew Research Center, November 23, 2015.
Schlozman, Kay Lehman, Benjamin Page, Sidney Verba, and Morris Fiorina. "Inequalities of Political Voice." In Inequality and American Democracy: What We Know and What We Need to Learn, 2005.
Schlozman, Kay Lehman, Sidney Verba, and Henry Brady. Who Speaks? Citizen Political Voice on the Internet Commons. Daedalus 140, no. 4, 2011, 121–139.
Schlozman, Kay Lehman, Sidney Verba, and Henry E. Brady. The Unheavenly Chorus: Unequal Political Voice and the Broken Promise of American Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012.