The Vibe-Shift Explored and The Spirit of Populism Explained
The fashionable term vibe-shift captures an important development in the state of Western culture. There is little doubt that the great vibe shift of the 2020s is driven by the exhaustion of the pre-existing cultural order and the system of meaning that has enjoyed a hegemonic status since the turn of the 20th century. Like all cultural shifts this one represents a reaction to the pre-existing emotional climate. However, this shift has a diffuse and intangible quality that pertains to the domain of feeling rather than of meaning.
The term vibe shift was coined in 2021 by Sean Monahan to refer to what can be described as a cultural tipping point. Though his version of the vibe shift referred principally to the domain of fashion and branding the term has been embraced by others to capture a wider mood that touches on politics and culture. It is widely used as an anticipatory metaphor that expresses the intuitive sensibility that change is in the air. It is also used to underscore a manifest change in the political sentiment whose main beneficiaries have been anti-woke and populist movements. The commentator Nial Fergusson has noted rightly that this shift has become a global phenomenon[i].
Advocates of the old status quo and cancel culture frequently complain that the vibe shift has been weaponized by the political right[ii]. According to a commentary in The New Statesman, the term vibe-shift ‘is more of a cudgel than an instrument of clarity’. It adds that what this cant term does do, in its trivial assimilation of radical change, is provide a kind of rationale, a moral framework even, for the impending historical catastrophe the political right is fomenting’[iii].
One leftist commentator has contemptuously dismissed the vibe shift in the following terms;
‘There’s an undeniable sense that a right-wing vibe shift has taken place over the last eighteen months. Bashing migrants, trans people and women’s rights is “in”, as is climate denialism and the unfettered right of billionaires to accumulate as much money as possible. The hard right have become normalised; they are the mainstream in politics’[iv].
To highlight her polemic against what she sees as reactionary character of the vibe shift, Eleanor Morle cites a ‘top banker’ who told the Financial Times ‘I feel liberated’, and now ‘We can say “retard” and “pussy” without the fear of getting cancelled ... It’s a new dawn’[v].
Though the supposed statement made by this banker comes across as base and vulgar it does illustrate a crucially important development in public life; which is that many people now feel free to express sentiments that they hitherto felt inhibited from airing in public.. Arguably, one of the most important manifestations of the vibe shift is the significance that a growing section of the population attach to the new possibilities it offers for finding their voice. Millions of people who until recently felt that they had no choice but to self-censor suddenly feel liberated. Consequently they are no longer prepared to keep quiet.
During the past two or two years the taboo surrounding the discussion of race, gender, immigration, multiculturalism and a variety of other issues has been gradually undermined. For example, in the UK it is no longer the case that the discussion of the phenomenon of the grooming gang is a taboo subject or that the policy of diversity cannot be challenged. In the United State many people no longer allow themselves to be silenced by the assertion that they must not say anything that offends.
The phrase vibe shift is used in a variety of different contexts. It can refer to changes in taste, fashion, music even in the sphere of spirituality. According to a columnist in The New York Times, America is experiencing a ‘spiritual vibe shift’ and is in the ‘middle of a religious awakening’[vi]. Though these shifts have an aesthetic and attitudinal significance they are not any more profound that the usual cultural changes that society has experienced in the modern era. What is however important about the vibe shift is its effect on the political landscape. That is why I prefer the term the new spirit of populism or of the populist zeitgeist to that of the vibe shift. Unlike the phrase vibe shift which focuses on the diffuse sensibility of the feeling of change the spirit of populism highlights the possibility of a new era of democratic politics.
The spirit of populism summed up
Outwardly the spirit of populism appears as a backlash against the cultural politics of society’s elites. To be sure this spirit communicates sentiments that are hostile to cultural politics that seek to undermine the consciousness of nation, and which extoll the supposed virtues of multiculturalism, diversity, mass migration and gender ideology. However, the populist zeitgeist is not simply a negative rejection of the identity obsessed outlook of the managerial technocratic elites.
The spirit of populism celebrates the sense of belonging offered by communities that are organically linked to the past. It is driven by an egalitarian impulse, which its opponents mistakenly interpret as simply anti-elitist and anti-pluralist. One of the most penetrating account of the spirit of populism is provided by Arthur Borriello, Jean-Yves Pranchėre and Pierre-Étienne Vandamme.[vii] These authors characterize populism as ‘an egalitarian impulse against oligarchic tendencies, centered on anti-elitism and the defense of a democratic common sense’.[viii] They note that this egalitarian impulse is ‘mainly defensive-reactive in nature and rooted in a democratic commonsense, rather than in a fully-fledged ideological worldview aiming at the establishment of a radically new social order’.
The spirit of populism encourages the valuation of democratic common sense which conveys the belief that citizens possess the capacity to judge issues and policies that concern them. Populism’s affirmation of common sense is not ideological. It represents a taken-for-granted assumption that affirms the common experience – past and present – on which the sensibility of common sense is constructed.
The sense of community belonging is the most important sentiment motivating contemporary populists. This sensibility of local or national patriotism is expressed through an attachment to national sovereignty. From the standpoint of national populism, sovereignty is significant for two reasons. First, because it provides the largest terrain that humankind has discovered so far where democratic accountability can be exercised and have real meaning. Popular sovereignty can occur within a local community, a city or a nation – but it cannot be exercised in a territory larger than the nation. National sovereignty is also regarded as essential because it provides a context for the cultivation of a real, felt identity. There are other possible ways for people to develop their identities, but for most people the nation constitutes the largest area within which their identity can be forged and gain real purchase.
Since the 1980s attitudes associated with the spirit of populism have been systematically disparaged and demonised by the ruling classes and their cultural institutions. To ensure that they retained cultural hegemony they sought to marginalise dissident views in the media and institutions of culture and education. Since the turn of the century, they have also assumed control over the use of public language which served to silence those opposed to the outlook of the cosmopolitan managerial-technocratic regime.
Thankfully the vibe shift has encouraged the unravelling of the ruling elites’ cultural hegemony and the new spirit of populism has served to empower people to voice views which they rarely dared to air in public. Arguably the single most important manifestation of the spirit of populism is the outburst of sentiments and views that were hitherto kept private. Suddenly silent majorities found their voice and people discovered that their views were shared by millions of others.
A moment of transition
There is an understandable tendency on the part of the political beneficiaries of the growing influence of populism to overestimate the depth and effect of the vibe shift. Numerous commentaries speculate about the ‘end of woke’. Others prematurely celebrate the demise of cancel culture or of the irrational policies of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI). Even supporters of DEI and other woke policies have concluded that they lost the battle[ix]. No doubt many of their divisive policies and related forms of identity politics have been forced on the defensive and are now in retreat. However, far from dead, woke policies dominate the legacy media and most institutions of culture. Most important of all they have retained their control of schools and institutions of education and continue to exercise considerable influence over the outlook of the young.
The vibe shift can be interpreted as a harbinger of transition – but the answer to the question of ‘transition to what’ is far from clear. An illustration of the limits of this shift is exemplified by the case of Reform MP Sarah Pochin and the reaction to her comment. In an interview with TalkTV’s Peter Cardwell, Pochin complained about TV adverts being full of black and Asian people – those who are ‘anything other than white’[x]. Her comment that these ads were ‘unrepresentative of British society’ struck most people as a reasonable statement of fact. Recently published research showed that black people remained vastly overrepresented on screen: they featured in more than half of the adverts in 2022 in the UK. Drawing attention to this vast over-representation of minorities in Tv Ads, Rakib Eshan stated that ‘to put this astonishing over-representation into perspective, the 2021 England and Wales Census showed that the black population is around 4 per cent’[xi].
However, whatever the facts the British cultural and political elites are not prepared to tolerate a statement that alludes to the overrepresentation of minorities within their institutions of culture. Pochin’s comments were swiftly denounced as racist by politicians from the Labour, Lib-Dem and Conservative parties. Prime Minister Keir Starmer called it ‘shocking racism’ and demanded that Nigel Farage, the leader of the Reform Party condemn her. Under pressure, Farage was forced to say that her comments were ‘ugly’ but nor intentionally racist. In the end Pochin apologized, stating that her remarks were ‘phrased poorly’[xii].
What this incident indicated is that in line with the erosion of the quarantine that prevents serious discussion on matters touching on race, Pochin was prepared to raise openly a matter that was a hitherto unacknowledged concern shared by significant sections of the public. It is unlikely that an elected member of parliament would have made such a statement a decade ago. However, that in the end under pressure, Pochin backtracked and felt the need to apologise indicates that the vibe shift has had only a limited influence in altering what can and cannot be said. What this incident shows is that though the policing of language has lost some of its influence it still retains force and is able to exercise considerable power to influence public discourse.
Although the political dimension of the vibe shift is to be welcomed it is important to realise that changes in the vibe have only a limited impact on the underlying moral, spiritual and institutional conditions of society. What that means is that though there is a perceptible shift in public mood this has not yet led to fundamental transformation in the spirit of the age. This transformation will not be realized until an alternative system of meaning emerges to take hold of the imagination of the public.
The spirit of populism that has emerged alongside the vibe shift anticipates a different orientation to the problems facing society than the current hegemonic regime. It points an alternative that is still in the phase of being rationalized and codified.
As matters stand what we have is a shift in feeling but not in meaning. Altering this situation requires a willingness to engage in a cultural revolution against the holders of cultural power.
[ii] https://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2025/03/how-right-weaponised-vibe-shift-donald-trump
[iii] https://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2025/03/how-right-weaponised-vibe-shift-donald-trump
[iv] https://redflag.org.au/article/resisting-the-right-wing-vibe-shift
[v] https://redflag.org.au/article/resisting-the-right-wing-vibe-shift
[vi] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/26/briefing/a-spiritual-vibe-shift.html
[vii] Borriello et al., ‘Populism and democracy’.
[viii] Ibid., p. 416.
[ix] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2025/jun/10/how-does-woke-start-winning-again
[x] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/10/28/not-racist-to-notice-black-asian-ad-overrepresentation/
[xi] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/10/28/not-racist-to-notice-black-asian-ad-overrepresentation/
Perhaps the vibe shift is the realisation among hoi polloi that they are not alone, that more people think like them - about immigration, cancel culture etc - than elite running dog media like the BBC or Guardian care to admit. Once enough people realise that their hitherto private thoughts and feelings are shared and, crucially, that becomes common knowledge between them then coordination and cooperation become possible. The media under reported, for example, vaccine passport protests - there was one in April 2021 completely unreported that was easily around 100,000 - lest common knowledge breaks out and even more people become willing to step forward. The recent 'Unite the Kindgom' rally, where the throng backed up from Whitehall across Westminster Bridge and along the South Bank to Backfriars was perhaps three or four times the 100K the media reported. The establishment did not want people to know the truth how many were out demonstrating. It's also why slurs about fascim, racism, far-right etc are used by Starmer and MPs to suppress any impulse to come forward and join the people who might then realise they have common knowdelge and feeling. The strategy to contain commonality is breaking down and Starmer et al (like the EU) resort to ever more control freakery in the increasingly forlorn hope that they can control the narrative. The by-election in Caerphilly, while a disaster for Labour, did show that slurs can still work - just - with letting Plaid in presumably a price worth paying. I think Farage was wrong to slap down Pochin for in so doing he let the left define what racism is. He should have challenged their implied defintion - that mentioning ethnicity in any context is racism - and hit back with all the anti-white comments that go unchallenged. Reform's problem is a lack of confidence over comon knowledge. Unless they take some risks the commonality will be limited exactly as the left want. Perhaps, once next May's elections are out of the way, they will be bolder. Someone needs to be.
Was it just a coincidence that just 3 hrs ago I was talking with a man who was erecting a fence for my neighbour. He told me that he wished he could move out to the small hamlet where I live rather than live in the centre of town. He spoke of how quiet it is in comparison with the flat he lives in with the constant noise and constant arguments going on round the clock. What struck me as refreshing almost ,was that he was prepared to openly state that these disruptive people who were making his and his young daughter life difficult to say the least was that he couldn't understand a word they were saying. He told me that they sleep all day and then emerge 'rat' like to create mayhem throughout the night. I laughed with him, but sensed that he was worried for his young daughter.