Hail to the Chief...I mean celebrity!
Celebrities... they are a major part of the American culture we live for movies, TV shows,action hero's, etc. As a nation, we support an industry by simply paying and actor or actress money to see his or her talent. If we really like them then we pay more money! So when an actor tries to do good and tries to bring an awareness to important global issues, the claws come out! Just like it did during last weeks discussion. As I sat and listened to everyones view point, I though what if the celebrities did absolutely nothing, what if they weren't role models and was ok with getting rich off of us? Would be still be so critical for them doing absolutely nothing? In Beyond Hollywood and the Boardroom Cooper, A. (2007). Beyond Hollywood and the Boardroom. Politics and Diplomacy, 125-127 Cooper brings up an interesting point he states that because of the growing opportunities celebrities have to actually have access global leaders(opportunities other may not have) that leaders in the international community has been left befuddled and if not down right critical of this phenomenon. So what is the root to this uproar? Is it a trust issue? Sometimes when someone comes onto the scene and in the experts mind has not earned their stripes (so to speak) can stir up conflict and worries on whetherr they are going to cause a global melt down because they do not know what they are doing. However, besides the Rodman incident in North Korea we really have not seen a harmful impact by these celebrities getting involved. Now if you want to go on what if''s you can but it is unfounded and will not hold out at best. So who are they really hurting? Are we that closed minded that we are not willing to work with celebrities in solving the problems of the world? I mean they do have resources that others do not have. Can we not use that to our advantage?
I think the claws came out (or at least mine did) because poverty alleviation and development are complex, multifaceted issues. There are a lot of moving parts and it seems that celebrities promote a one-size-fits-all idea of giving more foreign aid. Foreign aid is a dicey topic. Humanitarian/emergency aid is necessary, but there are arguments that standard foreign aid is not since we're not really sure whether or not it works. Does it really contribute to the long-term development of a country, or is it short-term with potentially negative effects in the long-term? It's difficult to measure the effects, so it's irksome that it seems to dominate the development discussions when it is only one part.
ReplyDeleteBut maybe this isn't the celebrity's fault. You're absolutely right that they do have access to leaders and funds that the standard person does not, so maybe the NGO they're working for should re-tailor the message. I think we'd have a better understanding of development if celebrities could sell/promote the actual issues. It's not sexy, but maybe that would do more.