Celebrity Advocacy is a #GoodThing

There are costs and benefits to celebrity advocacy. On the one hand they can bring incredible amounts of attention to a cause or issue where there would otherwise be none, but on the other they can exacerbate a diplomatic situation or create more issues for those trying to rectify those problems. The argument between Dieter and Cooper, similarly played out in class, underscores these points, with cooper remaining optimistic and supportive of such advocacy and Dieter lambasting it. It begs the question, one asked in class, of whether celebrity advocacy is worth it?

I enjoyed this question very much because like states people are fairly autonomous actors, especially rich people who have a global audience and maintain passports that can get them wherever they want to go. If a famous person wants to advocate something, they're going to advocate for it and nothing you are I say will change that. But for the sake of argument I would like to take the side of defending celebrity advocacy.

While it is true that celebrities lack a mandate, "competence," and have the possibility of making a situation worse, the sheer number of pros for celebrity activism outweigh those cons. They can act far more quickly in crises than governments or organizations; there are no rules on how they spend money, thereby allowing them to marshal resources quickly and effectively for rapid reaction. They can slide between both the public and private spheres; a celebrity can influence both public and private actors because of their fame, allowing them to assist in positive outcomes for their cause. Some even have access to world leaders, diplomats, and politicians. Most importantly, however, they have access to the public. Celebrities, despite being rich and famous, remain far more relatable to people than a bookish diplomat or politician. When they talk people are already listening closer because, aside from their fame, they communicate on a similar wavelength. They are used to communicating to the public at large. As such, celebrities can raise awareness, fundraise, and call people to action far more effectively than a lay person or public servant ever could. The risk of them "making the situation worse" is always there. In my mind, however, doing nothing is always worse than trying to do something.

Week 13 Post-Class

Celebrity diplomacy is a bit of an abstract term which describes any celebrity involvement in international affairs and it can take many shapes. Celebrities can serve as advocates for international issues which require humanitarian aid (such as disease prevention), they can raise awareness of political oppression globally, and they can act as unofficial liasons with foreign government and non-government actors. At times, due to a combination of a lack of diplomatic training or general awareness of the intricacies of social problems they are advocating on behalf of, celebrities can do more harm than good, particularly when international politics are concerned. Because of this harmful potential, celebrity diplomacy is most benefitial for advocacy of humanitarian crises and fundraising for natural disasters.

Advocacy and fundraising efforts provide many PR and financial benefits to a region, and have limited opportunity for negative backlash. There are negative consequences from inappropriately advocating for or funding a particular cause, for example terrorist organizations could be funded or supported as a result of improper vetting. That being said, the likelihood of severely negative consequences is limited in scope, and on the whole the benefits of celebrity advocacy and fundraising greatly outweigh any potential risks inherent in these efforts.

Symbolic Power: America's Dairyland

When reading Kathleen McNamara's "Constructing authority in the European Union" I was intrigued by theory of how institutions gain and maintain political authority. The point that drew me in the most was of how symbolic power is most effective when it is least obvious. This made me think about authority that I legitimized, without even knowing. Specifically, the state in which I live, and the constant bombardment of the name, just incase I may have forgotten where I live, and who gets to make the laws that I have to follow.

Other than the European Union, I found another example of symbolic power in my state identity. The state identity might be more self-explanatory if you knew that I am from Wisconsin. I am constantly reminded that only do I live in Wisconsin, but also how great of a state it is (at least in some respects). Even if you don't live in Wisconsin, the next time you buy cheese, I challenge you to look at the packaging. Often you will find a symbol that says it was made in Wisconsin, with Wisconsin dairy, or that it is proudly Wisconsin cheese. Seeing these symbols daily on any products with dairy in them, reinforces the idea into your head that obviously the milk in WI is just better than other states, especially California. Don't even get me started on California milk. But this reiteration of a sense of belonging and pride also comes in regards our football teams. Ignoring the NFL team from WI, the University of Wisconsin-Madison is a big deal. Game days are equivalent to holidays, and everyone screams like a teenage fan-girl when they see Bucky.

Everywhere you look, you see the word Wisconsin, especially on t-shirts. Without even thinking about the university, many parents buy clothing for their children with the large, proud letters. I noticed this "extra" sense of pride when I attended a university in Minnesota for my Bachelor's degree. Without even realizing it, I owned, and wore, many shirts with WISCONSIN across the top. It was pointed out to me by a professor from Louisiana that he always knows whether a student is from Wisconsin, or just a fan of their sports. He said the difference was that students from Wisconsin consistently wore the apparel, even when there was no game that day.

These visuals are purposefully pushed at citizens to create the sense of belonging, and legitimizing the state as an institution. Citizens of WI do not realize that by accepting that the state is farm state, that it has the best dairy, the best beer, or that we make Harley-Davidson bikes, we are giving the state the power to take actions that continue and better these interests. After all, we are America's Dairyland, and that's all that matters.

https://auisgroup1summer18.blogspot.com/2018/07/symbolic-power-americas-dairyland.html

The double-edged sword of celebrity activism

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.