Celebrity Activists and Advocates in Development
BY APRIL R. BICCUM
Global poverty has become an important global issue in the last 20 years and activism on behalf of the global poor has become increasingly popular. Both a symptom and effect of this popularity, is the increased involvement of individual Hollywood celebrities, activists and advocates in development and the increased visibility of developing country issues in the entertainment industry as a whole. Arguably poverty has become popular, and Hollywood has become politicised. This appears to mark a significant shift in events given proclamations in the academic literature in cultural studies such as Edward Said who argued in Culture and Imperialism that part of what makes culture imperialist is precisely its separation from politics.1 Given the increased involvement of celebrity in development advocacy and activism, this appears to have been reversed. Hollywood as a cultural institution has a particular relationship with politics in the historical context of McCarthyism and the Cold War, but it also has an intimate relationship with this ‘new’ era of globalisation. Celebrity involvement in development advocacy has had a presence throughout the 20th century, but in recent years there has been an increasing crescendo of Hollywood celebrity involvement. Celebrities are not simply development advocates—using their high profile visibility to bring awareness to individual issues, like refugees—but celebrities are increasingly development activists, setting up their own organisations or getting directly involved with non-governmental organisations (NGOs).
Given the size of the American entertainment industry and its global reach (in addition to multiple national expressions of celebrity and media culture), this phenomenon is reasonably small, involving only a handful of players. Examples include Angelina Jolie’s role as good will ambassador for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR); George Clooney’s advocacy work on behalf of Sudan, involving the use of satellite technology and Google to monitor the outbreak of civil war; Hugh Jackman’s involvement with an Australian NGO called the Global Poverty Project; Sean Penn’s NGO in Haiti in response to the earthquake there; Bono and Bob Geldoff’s involvement in the G8 and the Commission for Africa; the ONE campaign and their large scale advocacy concerts; Live8 and their involvement in wider civil society networks in the “Make Poverty History” and “Jubilee 2000″ campaigns. There have been other phenomena in which celebrities and the entertainment industry have drawn attention to Africa, such as the high profile adoptions of Madonna and Angelina Jolie; the reality TV show American Idol’s charity instalment called “Idol gives Back”; Oprah Winfrey’s Leadership Academy for Girls in South Africa which has received unwanted critique in the press; and a handful of Hollywood films which are all centred around Africa and/or global poverty—such as the film “Crossing Over” starring Harrison Ford in a narrative about US immigration. Despite the small size of the actual players involved, their reach and scope call for a closer look at this phenomenon.
The significance of celebrity development advocacy chimes with a general shift in development advocacy among civil society actors. Indeed, NGO professionals now rely on large-scale networking and engage with private sector actors, such as high profile philanthropists and celebrities. Government involvement in development advocacy has also increased, such as the funding of development education networks in the UK (under New Labour) and Australia and a general Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) policy push toward Global Citizenship in all areas of education. Moreover, fundraiser concerts and other large charity-oriented events that involve celebrities are part of a new development advocacy, uniquely combining politics and popular culture. In sum, there has been a general expansion of development advocacy across the board. Northern development NGOs that began in the 1970s and 80s focussing largely on project delivery have shifted their focus, largely in response to criticism from NGOs in the Global South, and expanded their advocacy role in solidarity with their southern partners. Increased donor funding has meant that some of these organisations have become very large and powerful, and the use of information communications technology has meant that their advocacy efforts are now global in scope.2
The nature of development apparatuses is undergoing a sea change, with a global compact for poverty reduction as represented in the Millennium Development Goals, the consolidation of civil society advocates and actors, and a veritable explosion of new development actors from the private sector. Not only has there been an increase in the number of people involved in development, but there has also been a professionalization of development advocacy.3 And here I hope the irony is not lost: both development advocacy and activism are growth sectors. The phenomenon of celebrity involvement in development is an expression of the new development players emerging on the international scene, including mega-philanthropists who use their wealth to establish foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (reminiscent of Rockefeller and Ford); multinational firms promoting corporate social responsibility, such as social marketing and microfinance; more than two dozen new bilateral donors including China, Chile, and the Czech Republic, among others; high profile personalities and celebrities; activists among the global public itself, mobilized by celebrity endorsement and the internet.4 The proliferation of new development actors has been attributed to a broader cultural shift facilitated by new information and communications technology.
Some of these new actors, celebrities in particular, espouse a shift in development thinking reflected in the work of Jeffrey Sachs and Paul Collier. They argue that private actors are less encumbered by state bureaucracy and partisan shifts in policy and therefore are more efficient development actors. In particular, they endorse free market solutions, especially the expansion of financial services, as the panacea for global poverty.5 Unlike some of the global development NGOs who expressly advocate from a position of solidarity with the global south, the actors and organisations that deploy the free market paradigm don’t eschew a paradigm of self-interest. Using their independent wealth, prestige and global connections, celebrities are able to establish more flexible charitable foundations, get in on the ground and get the job done, or so the logic goes. This is evinced by Brad Pitt’s reconstructive work in New Orleans and Sean Penn’s work in Haiti6, and Bill Gates’ Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI). Celebrities then use their high visibility status to bring attention to their charitable work and encourage others to get involved. They thus incarnate both the free market development actor and activist.
Yet, where does this attitude shift in the American entertainment industry come from? Why do movie stars express such a strong interest in global problems such as poverty, the environment and the global security malaise? On the one hand, this phenomenon can be explained by the expansion of global knowledge and the globalisation of the celebrity market. The works of the handful of celebrity development activists can therefore be regarded as individual choices reflective of wider global trends. On the other hand, the increase of celebrity in development advocacy and activism reveals an interesting link between celebrity and globalisation. The change in attitude underlines that these new actors have lost faith in the development apparatus, now seeking for alternative solutions in the private sector. Their activism is also fuelling debate among more conventional civil society actors about the efficacy of their involvement.
Added to the complexity around the increased visibility of global poverty is the disillusionment among the wider public regarding the efficacy of neo-liberal globalisation. The last 15 years has also seen the rise of an anti-globalisation movement, increasing mass protest and mobilisations around a number of issues from democracy to free trade, and as a result globalisation and development are increasingly terrains of contestation not reflected in the celebrity endorsement of received understandings of these terms.
The combination of celebrity and political activism and advocacy is not entirely new. The charity work of Audrey Hepburn and her involvement with UNICEF is an early example upon which Angeline Jolie is likely modelling herself. Additionally, television actor Sally Struthers used her advertisement appeals working for Child Fund International in the 1980s. Many of us still remember Live Aid, a 1985 concert organized to raise funds to cope with the persistent Ethiopian famine. The differences in approach between Live Aid and its successor Live 8 reflect a general shift from charity to advocacy and activism. Celebrity involvement in politics has been fairly consistent over the course of the post-war period, particularly from the 1960s onward.7 Not only has there been an avalanche in celebrity involvement in politics increasing its crescendo from the 1950s, but politics itself has been ‘celebritised,’ with politicians modelling their campaigns on marketing techniques and making use of celebrity to increase their popular legitimacy.
There is a general assumption amongst scholars of globalization, civil society and social movements that changes in communications are generating changes in culture and producing new types of subjectivity.8 Whether they arise from new types of labour such as the service sector or new types of organisation and new possibilities for mobilisation, most scholars agree that globalisation and its attendant mass communications phenomenon have changed the way the people interact. The growing impact of celebrities in international relations therefore constitutes a ‘new global subject’.9 Not only are celebrities an integral part of media and mass consumer culture as they have emerged in the twentieth century, celebrity has also been globalised and is simultaneously an expression of globalisation in many ways. The entertainment industry has been liberalised externally and its mode of management has shifted from the studio system to a de-regulated support and management industry that brokers and trades celebrity brands. This change has enabled a new terrain of speculation, capitalising on what is effectively embodied brand as efficiently as possible.10 The celebrity brand can then be deployed for a whole host of purposes from product placement to endorsement of politicians and political issues. Celebrities are embodied commodities of affective labour in which present and future values are speculated upon and traded by this elaborate and vastly networked entertainment industry with global reach. Celebrity identity becomes a form of embodied intellectual property. The entertainment industry has also undergone shifts in its financing architecture that reflect the liberalisation of financial products, such as future trades on films not yet made.11 The introduction of product placement in films has led to a blurring of the lines between advertising and cultural artefact. US celebrities, for instance, have lent their brand to international marketing, advertising products in far-flung markets in ways they might not do for an American audience.
Globalised celebrity has become the lens through which we understand a variety of issues, from nature and wildlife to geopolitics. As a result, celebrities and the entertainment industry are not only affected by globalisation, but they serve as channels through which even the concept of globalization can be understood. Actors, musicians and artists are entities that are able to internationalize entertainment, generalize expansively an expression of individuality and entrepreneurism, and often presage the movement of other goods and services from continent to continent, and nation to nation.12
The kind of entrepreneurialism exhibited by celebrity advocate/activists mirrors to some degree the kinds of entrepreneurialism that shifts in education and development policy at the level of global governance have sought to foster and engender among the ordinary public.13 A new popular literature on development has embraced entrepreneurialism, self-interest and the involvement of private actors as a more efficient alternative to more bureaucratic methods of development practice. Celebrities have embraced and modelled this entrepreneurial approach to development. Interestingly, however, celebrity is itself the manifestation of embodied commodity culture, and simultaneously the entrepreneurialisation and commoditization of subjectivity par excellence. While some civil society actors and advocates might applaud the level of visibility that celebrities afford to issues of global poverty and inequality, celebrity involvement marks a significant shift away from the tradition of advocacy in solidarity with those at the sharp end of neo-liberal globalisation.
April Biccum is Lecturer in International Relations (IR) at the Australian National University. With her research she brings postcolonial theory closer to the study of politics and IR, particularly focusing on International Development.
ENDNOTES
- Said, Edward (1994) Culture & Imperialism, London, Vintage. [↩]
- Rugendyke, Barbara, Ed. (2007) NGOs as Advocates for Development in a Globalising World. London & New York, Routledge. [↩]
- Darnton, Andrew and Martin Kirk (2011) Finding Frames: new ways to engage the UK public in global poverty. London, Bond for International Development. [↩]
- Brainard, Lael and Derek Chollet (Eds.) (2008) Global Development 2.0: Can Philanthropists, the public and hte Poor Make Poverty History?, Washington, D.C., Brookings Institution Press, p.12. [↩]
- Sachs, Jeffrey (2005) The End of Poverty: How we can make it happen in our lifetime, London, Penguin Books; Collier, Paul (2007) The Bottom Billion: why the Poorest countries are failing and what can be done about it, Oxford, Oxford University Press. [↩]
- See http://jphro.org/. [↩]
- West, Darrell. M. (2008) Angelina, Mia and Bono: Celebrities and International Development. In Brainard, Lael and Derek Chollet (Eds.) Global Development 2.0, p.75. [↩]
- Bayart, Jean-François. (2007) Global Subjects: A Political Critique of Globalisation, Cambridge, Polity Press; Falk, Richard. (2002) An emergent matrix of Citizenship: Complex, uneven, fluid. In Dower, Nigel and John Williams (Ed.) Global Citizenship: A Critical Introduction. London, Routledge. [↩]
- Ibid. [↩]
- Marshall, P. David (Ed.) (2006) The Celebrity Culture Reader, New York, Routledge. [↩]
- Friedman, Thomas (2000) The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalisation, New York, Anchor Books. [↩]
- Ibid. p.6. [↩]
- Robertson, Susan L. (2005) Re-Imagining and rescripting the future of education: global knowledge economy discourses and the challenge to education systems. Comparative Education, 42, 151-170. [↩]
