Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Wicked: Art Mirrors Our Modern Social Divides

Opinion

Wicked: Art Mirrors Our Modern Social Divides

NEW YORK, NEW YORK - OCTOBER 28: Cynthia Erivo attends an Special Cast and Filmmakers Screening Of WICKED at DGA Theater on October 28, 2024 in New York City.

(Photo by Kevin Mazur/Kevin Mazur/Getty Images for Universal Pictures)

The 2024 film adaptation of Wicked arrives as more than mere entertainment—it emerges as a powerful commentary on our contemporary societal fractures. With Cynthia Erivo's groundbreaking portrayal of Elphaba, the film more effectively conveys its central plot line about identity and marginalization, speaking directly to viewers' personal experiences of exclusion, self-affirmation, and activism.

At its core, Wicked offers an artful critique of how society constructs and maintains differences. Elphaba's green skin is an unmistakable metaphor for visible racial, physical, or ability-based differences. The casting of Erivo, a Black actress, in this role interestingly drives home the racism allegories, transforming what could have been abstract commentary into immediate, resonant social criticism. The film's treatment of ability and difference extends beyond mere skin color. Also, the character of Nessarose, Elphaba's wheelchair-using sister, presents a complex examination of ableism and the intersection of physical difference with power. Wicked challenges moviegoers to confront their preconceptions about ability, worth, and the right to occupy societal space.


The stark contrast between Glinda's privileged background and Elphaba's outsider status illuminates the deep-seated class divisions that plague Oz and our society. Wicked's opening scenes explore central themes related to gender and race, establishing how social hierarchies are maintained through overt and subtle forms of discrimination. Perhaps most pertinent to our current political climate is the film's examination of how othering is systemically curated. The Wizard's strategy of uniting society through a common enemy proves eerily relevant, mirroring contemporary political tactics. The film’s depiction of how truth becomes distorted through propaganda is an enlightening aspect of our 'fake news' climate. Additionally, the manipulation of public perception and the exploitation of prejudices are central themes, demonstrating how those in power can shape narratives to maintain their authority.

Wicked recognition that various forms of discrimination don't exist in isolation is compelling. The film portrays how different types of marginalization—whether based on appearance, ability, class, or beliefs—often intersect and reinforce each other. This intersectional approach helps audiences understand how systems of oppression work together to maintain social hierarchies. This is coupled with the themes of resistance and solidarity. Such heavy thematics in the story speak of the hope inherent in resistance and alliance-building. For example, the unlikely burgeoning friendship of Elphaba and Glinda demonstrates the power of crossing social boundaries and challenging ingrained prejudices. Their relationship suggests that meaningful social change requires individual transformation and collective action.

Wicked is a story whose themes of scapegoating minorities, manipulating public opinion, and resistance against authoritarian power structures feel less like fantasy and more like a mirror held up to our nation's current events. It succeeds as entertainment and a powerful lens through which to examine our social divisions and prejudices. It reminds us that the process of othering—whether through ableism, racism, or classism—serves political ends and that resistance begins with recognizing our shared humanity. Its message is and resonates more powerfully than ever.

Johnson is a United Methodist pastor, the author of "Holding Up Your Corner: Talking About Race in Your Community" and program director for the Bridge Alliance, which houses The Fulcrum.


Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism
Monopoly's mr. monopoly in a graffiti collage
Photo by Artur Ament on Unsplash

Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism

The signs are everywhere. For many Americans, buying power has improved only modestly despite decades of economic growth. Corporate profits are at an all-time high. We have reached a level of wealth inequality last seen almost a hundred years ago. By many measures, our capitalist economy seems to have failed to deliver broadly shared prosperity.

However, the failure isn’t with the free market as an economic approach. Instead, it’s our failure to regulate and moderate the free market, or more accurately, that we have spent 40 years undermining or removing the regulations of the New Deal that made our economy work for more Americans.

Keep ReadingShow less
Woman putting savings in a white piggy bank.

America’s economy now rewards asset ownership over wages. A policy proposal: a $35,000 Birthright Account for every child, and how it could be funded.

Guido Mieth/Getty Images

The American Dream Needs a New Economic Operating System

It is, by now, not an exaggeration to state that the traditional American Dream—work hard, buy a house, raise a family, and retire securely—is failing. It was built for a labor-based economy in which steadily rising wages allowed ordinary families to accumulate wealth. But America has become an asset-based economy, and ownership of those assets is extraordinarily concentrated.

Since the 1980s, the returns from capital have far outpaced the returns from labor. Inflation-adjusted wages for ordinary workers have risen only modestly, while the real value of equities has multiplied many times over. Housing, education, healthcare and childcare costs have soared, employment has become less secure, and defined-benefit pensions have largely disappeared. Even two-income households with respectable jobs often struggle to buy a home, build savings and accumulate enough for retirement.

Keep ReadingShow less