On Thursday, we talked about the positive and negative aspects of celebrity activism and I learned a lot after the reading and hearing my classmates opinions.
Kim K and Her Publicist Machiavelli: first, you have a Machiavellian celebrity. Kim K is a prime example of a celebrity who wants to appear virtuous but actually isn't. The other day, on Instagram and Twitter, she posted in support of trans visibility while Kanye supports Trump and argues against social justice. Her publicist definitely read Machiavelli and took the infamous 'appear to be virtuous line' a little to seriously. She often does this to appeal to the majority of her fans but continues to support Kanye's insensitive mindset which shows her lack of virtues. However, a good example of celebrity activism starts with education. Celebrities that are educated and cite and partner with forms and organizations show they actually want to learn how to enact positive change. For example, Ashton Kutcher uses his platform in a positive way because he co-founded an organization called THORN with UN envoys, child specialists, and police forces. By combining his platform with educated professionals, he advocates for children in human trafficking circles in a way that is helpful. He draws public attention to the problem but actually partners with organizations that can help them. Since 2016, with the adaptation of new child-identification software, THORN has saved 6,000 children in trafficking circles. This is celebrity activism at it's most effective level. Additionally, to further the negative impact of celebrity activism, Wyatt summarized the problem of the negative result of celebrity activism in that, "westerns tend to come to foreign countries with a solution without understanding the problem". I agree. Westerns won't typically ask the people they are trying to help what they need them to do. They think of a solution themselves without regards to the long-term impact of their 'help'. This could be the fulfillment of their self-gratification to help others, or sheer arrogance, or assumptions without proper research. These 'solutions' are not really the answer to their problems. There are so many celebrities that travel to developing countries (mostly in Africa) to 'help the needy and civilize the poor'. But why is this a problem? Mostly because when celebrities bring aid to developing countries, they often disrupt the economy of the country they're attempting to help. By bringing vast amounts of rice to countries suffering from famine, rice farmers are now out of work. While some intentions are pure and celebrities are attempting to use their platform for good things, the outcome is not always helpful. I do want to give them credit for trying because, like Corwin said, if they didn't try to help in some sort of way, we would never learn how to help those in need.
1 Comment
Wyatt Foster
10/28/2018 07:44:20 pm
Well first of all, thanks for quoting me, I appreciate the publicity :) but second of all, I think it's great that you're able to see the good and bad that can come from celebrity activism. It really is up to the morals of the person and the organizations and causes they choose to support that determine the good or the harm they can be responsible for. It's just up to them to decide the type of effect they want to have when using their platform.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI'm Hannah Andress from Atlanta, GA! I am an SIS major and I am on the Women's Swim Team. I am interested in national security, policy making, and the Middle East as my country of interest! Archives
December 2018
Categories |