The Network and MAGA#
The Network, Television, and the MAGA Zeitgeist#
Trevor Noah’s reflection on his career—a career that traversed continents, audiences, and mediums—is a profound commentary on the essence of “the network.” When he spoke of the White House Correspondents’ Dinner as a moment of pure creative freedom, unencumbered by “a boss,” it underscored a stark contrast with his tenure at The Daily Show. There, his boss was “the network.” But what does this mean in a broader sense? Networks are not just corporate entities dictating editorial agendas—they are the architecture of human interaction, power, and identity itself.
To understand the implications of Trevor Noah’s statement is to recognize that “the network” is no mere abstraction. It is a lattice of nodes and edges: people, power structures, and the flows of influence and capital that connect them. In the case of television, the network is both literal—NBC, CBS, Fox—and metaphorical: a system of producers, advertisers, executives, and audiences, all interconnected in a dance of production and consumption.
Television Networks: Liberal Hegemony and the MAGA Backlash#
For decades, television networks have dominated the American media landscape, projecting narratives that often skew liberal, urban, and cosmopolitan. This hegemony was not accidental—it emerged from a convergence of elite institutions, cultural capital, and the consolidation of corporate media power. These networks shaped public discourse, set societal norms, and influenced political outcomes. However, as with any dominant network, its centralization bred resentment, particularly among those who felt excluded or marginalized by its narratives.
Enter the MAGA movement. What is striking about the MAGA phenomenon is not merely its content—reactionary politics, conspiracy theories, and a fetishization of “real” America—but its medium. While television networks were the stronghold of liberal media, the MAGA movement found its voice in podcasts, social media, and independent digital platforms. The networked structure of the internet allowed for the proliferation of alternative voices, often amplifying disinformation and grievance-driven narratives.
Podcasts, in particular, have become a weapon of choice for MAGA proponents. Freed from the constraints of FCC regulations and corporate oversight, podcasters like Joe Rogan, Steve Bannon, and others have built massive followings by positioning themselves as outsiders railing against “the network.” Ironically, these podcasters have created their own networks—of subscribers, sponsors, and collaborators—often mimicking the very systems they claim to oppose. This dynamic underscores a central truth about networks: they are both liberating and constraining, depending on one’s position within them.
The Concept of the Network: From Academia to Professional Jargon#
The term “network” has its origins in the physical world, describing a net-like structure of interconnections. Academically, the concept of social networks began to gain traction in the early 20th century, particularly through the work of sociologists like Georg Simmel, who explored the web of relationships that define social life. The idea was later formalized in the 1930s and 1940s with the rise of graph theory in mathematics and the emergence of social network analysis as a field.
By the late 20th century, “networking” had entered the professional lexicon, becoming a buzzword for cultivating relationships and advancing careers. Conferences, LinkedIn, and the very idea of a “Rolodex” reflected the growing awareness that success in any domain required not just individual talent but a network of connections. The term “networking” reduced the complex, organic web of human relationships to a transactional activity, commodifying what was once intuitive and communal.
Networks as the Foundation of Agency and Identity#
At its core, every human achievement is the product of a network. Einstein’s theory of relativity did not emerge in isolation; it was the culmination of centuries of dialogue across disciplines. Galileo’s ideas about relativity, Newton’s laws of motion, and the non-Euclidean geometries of Riemann and Minkowski all served as nodes in the intellectual network that Einstein synthesized.
This is true not just of science but of all human endeavors. Art, politics, philosophy—all are products of networks of influences, collaborations, and intergenerational dialogues. Even personal identity is a network: a web of family ties, cultural affiliations, social roles, and internal dialogues. To speak of “the self” as an isolated entity is to ignore the relational nature of existence.
The Zeitgeist of the Networked Age#
Today, we live in an age where networks have become both ubiquitous and invisible. From the neural networks powering artificial intelligence to the social networks defining our public personas, we are enmeshed in systems of interconnection. Yet, this enmeshment has produced a paradox: as networks become more expansive, individuals often feel more isolated. The very tools that connect us also commodify our relationships, reducing them to likes, shares, and algorithmic recommendations.
The MAGA movement, with its relentless critique of “the network,” is both a symptom and a reaction to this paradox. It rejects the centralized power of traditional networks while creating its own decentralized alternatives. But whether centralized or decentralized, networks remain inescapable. They are the scaffolding of society, the medium through which power flows, and the mirror in which we see ourselves.
Conclusion: Reclaiming the Network#
Trevor Noah’s distinction between working for “a boss” and creating out of love speaks to a deeper longing for agency within the networked systems that define our lives. True freedom, it seems, is not the absence of networks but the ability to navigate them on one’s own terms. In this sense, the challenge of our time is not to dismantle networks but to humanize them, to ensure that they serve as bridges rather than barriers.
Whether in television, politics, or personal identity, the network is both a tool and a constraint. It is the fabric of society and the web of relationships that make us who we are. To understand the network is to understand the essence of modern life—and, perhaps, to glimpse the possibilities of a more connected and compassionate future.