The role of celebrities in development and international affairs
can be a double-edged sword. As the Cooper and Dieter/Kumar articles
presented this week, the initiation of celebrities into areas of diplomacy and
development beyond acting as a spokesperson, began with Bono. Since then the
world has seen an increase in the involvement of celebrities on matters from
development spanning from region specific development such as Ben Affleck's
Eastern Congo Initiative to thematic initiatives such as the Leonardo DiCaprio
Foundation, focusing on environmental issues. A quick scan of celebrities
involved in development and diplomacy reveals that this notion is,
unsurprisingly, a predominantly Western idea and despite the amount of
criticism celebrities have received for oversimplifying issues and a lack of
expertise, they don't seem to be slowing down. In the face of this realization,
how can governments and NGOs curtail the potential damage done by everyone's
favorite rock stars and actors? Furthermore, if they can't be stopped, what
benefits can be taken from their involvement?
I find that the formation of
institutions by celebrities such as foundations and cooperatives, demonstrates
a further understanding of the issues of development and aid beyond that of the
bull-headed tactics of Bono, who inserted himself into matters and has offered
himself as the both the benefactor and expert. The creation of these
institutions allows celebrities to tie their name to a cause, raise awareness
of and fund it, but also allows them to gather a group of experts to address
the issues.
On the converse side,
foundations can be poorly led, and uninformed funding will likely lead to
wasted resources. If these matters are then left solely to politicians and
professionals, how can they use the star power of these actors? A recognized
fact across the international sphere seems to be that celebrities inarguably
bring visibility and relevance to an issue. They can drum up support on a mass
scale and bring unrestricted funding that many governments and NGO's do not
have the luxury of using.
For example, when the UN
announced their Sustainable Development Goals in 2015, they used celebrities to
raise awareness of the goals, stressing that visibility was key to winning the
backing of the world's leaders. The goals were launched with a concert in New
York starring artists such as Beyoncé, Coldplay, and Pearl Jam (no U2 or Bono).
They also used radio spots, social media, and ad campaigns and hired acclaimed
director, Richard Curtis (Bridget Jones Diary, Notting Hill), to film an ad
spotlight for the campaign. Apparently, it was successful as the SDGs were
later adopted, funded, and are now being implemented.
Since celebrities seem to be
sticking around for the time being, it falls to NGO's and governments alike to
figure out how to incorporate them into a more nuanced and complete
strategy.
Wulfhorst, Ellen. 2015. "Celebrities, artists launch campaign backing UN's development goals" Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/development-goals-celebrities-idUSL1N11922P20150904.
I think that you hit a lot of very important points in the benefits of the option to have celebrity status as part of an organization.
ReplyDeleteCelebrity status provides many benefits beyond simply funding, they have unprecendented access. While it may have been a funny movie (debateable) " The Interview " shows a benefit of incorporating celebrities that I think is overlooked.
celebrities have value for their star status and key personnel in high ranking government positions enjoy rubbing elbows with these individuals. The potential intelligence that could be gleaned as well as the opportunity to provide a platform in a private setting is phenomenal.
Celebrities can rub elbows with personnel that would otherwise shun a diplomat for fear of the political repercussions. The potential for back channel diplomacy is lucrative and needs to be more readily utilized. Certainly the fear of celebrities going rogue is relatively high and also the way to motivate them to take risks would be an interesting technique.
There is a common opinion in international relations that certain countries are very "crazy" due to outspoken opinions that call to question their rationality. More often than not we see that these protestations are a cover or have another agenda. I think celebrities are also similarly more shrewd than given credit for. The skills with deception and acting could prepare them for intensive negotiations. It's not like they are unprepared to discuss multi-million dollar deals and business decisions.
It's certainly an interesting prospect to consider.
Having laid out similar to points to what I myself have in my own post on the same topic, I wonder if you have the same questions that I have. While I chose to fall on the side of agreeing with celebrity activism for its positives and not just the inevitability of their existing in the public sphere and acting, I did still have questions on the subject. They are as follows:
ReplyDeleteDo you think it is a government's or organization's responsibility to limit or hinder celebrity activism, especially in cases where it appears to detrimental to the public good (i.e. anti-vaxxing celebs)? In such cases, do you think such constraint would be effective?
Conversely, riding on the inevitability train, do you think that organizations (as some have already done) should partner with celebrities in order to control the narrative as it were? In such an arrangement, they would help provide legitimacy and competence to a celebrity and use their star power to push a planned out initiative.
Just some thoughts that came to mind when thinking on the subject. I personally think that celebrities should have some personal responsibility and, if they decide to be the face of a cause, surround themselves with relevant experts and work within and without political/NGO structures to add legitimacy to their work.