In their article The Downside of Celebrity Diplomacy: The Neglected Complexity of Development, Dieter and Kumar argue that "celebrities are ill-equipped to solve Africa's problems," that an increased celebrity presence in the domains of diplomacy and development would lead to a "further trivialization of development challenges," and that the consequences of such an increased presence are "simply too negative to contemplate" (2008; 263). Yet the close-minded view that these scholars take of the importance of global public awareness of issues and the role that celebrities will (almost inevitably) play in that same sphere of public awareness trivializes, in turn, their more legitimate argument that celebrities may be ill-equipped to address certain areas of policy.
Let's begin with the phrase "simply to negative to contemplate," a most dramatic ending to the impassioned conclusion of this paper. Is it not, first and foremost, the task of scholars to contemplate the possible consequences of future courses of action? Avoiding the potential realities of a situation seems counterproductive at best. The question should not be will celebrity diplomacy continue to be a reality, but rather, how can we maximize the utility of celebrity diplomacy and minimize its drawbacks? Dieter and Kumar are so atremble at the former question that they do not even attempt to address the latter, with the consequence that their scholarship, such as it is, contains no useful quality except, possibly, to frighten the reader.
Second, the pair seems to have a real bone to pick with Bono. Dieter and Kumar derail the legitimacy of celebrities on the strength of U2's financial success, and likewise lambast "celebrity competence" because they disagree with Bono's choice of economic policy advisors. Using one, albeit one important, example of a celebrity with whose choices these two authors do not agree hardly proves that celebrity diplomacy must be detrimental.
Despite poorly buttressing their arguments, Dieter and Kumar touch upon some important aspects of celebrity diplomacy. It is true that there can be risks associated with the acquisition of social, and some measure of political, power by figures who are not held accountable within the political system. It may even be the case that it is not the place of celebrities to propose sweeping solutions to global problems, which are often more complex than they appear on the outset. It is, however, necessary to acknowledge that in this age of increasing interconnectedness, the role that celebrities play as public figures, and the strength of their voices when they choose to speak out about politics, are too significant to be ignored — but not, let us be clear, "too negative to contemplate."
A more productive approach might be to examine some celebrities who are navigating the delicate path between fame and activism in a way that is likely to benefit the people they are trying to help. Emma Watson is a good example. A U.N. Goodwill Ambassador and spokesperson for HeForShe, a "solidarity movement for gender equality." The basic premise of HeForShe is that the gender equality movement must include the active participate of both sexes, not simply women fighting for women. Watson's role is primarily in raising awareness of the campaign and its goals, as well as emphasizing (for example, in a speech at the United Nations) the positive impact that gender equality can and will have around the world. I would argue that her advocacy is a good model for celebrity diplomacy. She is not proposing one-size-fits-all solutions, but she believes that her voice is just as worthy of being heard as any politician's. And she has brought to the forefront of the public consciousness an issue that has not, historically, had a preeminent place on the floor of global policy debates.
Let's begin with the phrase "simply to negative to contemplate," a most dramatic ending to the impassioned conclusion of this paper. Is it not, first and foremost, the task of scholars to contemplate the possible consequences of future courses of action? Avoiding the potential realities of a situation seems counterproductive at best. The question should not be will celebrity diplomacy continue to be a reality, but rather, how can we maximize the utility of celebrity diplomacy and minimize its drawbacks? Dieter and Kumar are so atremble at the former question that they do not even attempt to address the latter, with the consequence that their scholarship, such as it is, contains no useful quality except, possibly, to frighten the reader.
Second, the pair seems to have a real bone to pick with Bono. Dieter and Kumar derail the legitimacy of celebrities on the strength of U2's financial success, and likewise lambast "celebrity competence" because they disagree with Bono's choice of economic policy advisors. Using one, albeit one important, example of a celebrity with whose choices these two authors do not agree hardly proves that celebrity diplomacy must be detrimental.
Despite poorly buttressing their arguments, Dieter and Kumar touch upon some important aspects of celebrity diplomacy. It is true that there can be risks associated with the acquisition of social, and some measure of political, power by figures who are not held accountable within the political system. It may even be the case that it is not the place of celebrities to propose sweeping solutions to global problems, which are often more complex than they appear on the outset. It is, however, necessary to acknowledge that in this age of increasing interconnectedness, the role that celebrities play as public figures, and the strength of their voices when they choose to speak out about politics, are too significant to be ignored — but not, let us be clear, "too negative to contemplate."
A more productive approach might be to examine some celebrities who are navigating the delicate path between fame and activism in a way that is likely to benefit the people they are trying to help. Emma Watson is a good example. A U.N. Goodwill Ambassador and spokesperson for HeForShe, a "solidarity movement for gender equality." The basic premise of HeForShe is that the gender equality movement must include the active participate of both sexes, not simply women fighting for women. Watson's role is primarily in raising awareness of the campaign and its goals, as well as emphasizing (for example, in a speech at the United Nations) the positive impact that gender equality can and will have around the world. I would argue that her advocacy is a good model for celebrity diplomacy. She is not proposing one-size-fits-all solutions, but she believes that her voice is just as worthy of being heard as any politician's. And she has brought to the forefront of the public consciousness an issue that has not, historically, had a preeminent place on the floor of global policy debates.
Hannah - This blog post highlights so many really great points! Many of these we discussed in class and I completely agree with, but in this comment I will focus on the point you made in your final paragraph highlighting the importance of perhaps looking at celebrities who are making a positive impact on their respective causes. I agree, and I would even argue that seeing more deterministic and quantifiable research around the results of "celebrity diplomacy" can help us to understand if this new form of activism is effective or not. Neither of the articles really told us what sort of effect the celebrities had on their organization's success (or lack thereof). Great post!
ReplyDeleteHannah, good post and an outstanding job bringing up Emma Watson and the role she has played in promoting gender equality worldwide. To answer your second question: how can we maximize the utility of celebrity diplomacy and minimize its drawbacks? There are certainly limitations to celebrity advocacy and efficacy, and numerous detractors. Journalist and non-profit board member Peter Stanford expresses that "the fabled benefits of celebrity support have rarely lived up to the hype...we may live in the celebrity age but to imagine that a big name will automatically open wallets and hearts is to underestimate our potential supporters."[1] I would argue that celebrities help appeal to elites and raise a meaningful, although superficial, general public awareness on an issue. The trouble is to translate this public goodwill into meaningful policy change: like Bono and Bush in Africa or Princess Diana and the UN on Land Mines. I think that international civil society has already done an excellent job of doing this, by pairing celebrities with non-governmental organizations which cultivate the scholarship and issue expertise required to create meaningful change. Celebrities fail most often when they embark on their own causes without qualification or education (Dennis Rodman and North Korea).
ReplyDelete[1] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jun/26/celebrity-ambassadors-charities-debate