It is only in the last few years, that something which Professor Andrew F. Cooper calls ‘celebrity diplomacy’, has truly come under the magnifying glass. He asserts that even this notion of ‘celebrity diplomacy’ has over time evolved, and distinguishes between the old type of ‘celebrity diplomacy’ where celebrities are ‘entrapped’ to only working for a certain institution or charity and promoting only that cause, and have rarely made it on their own outside the boundaries of that institution or charity. (Vallely, P. 2009) The new ‘celebrity diplomacy’, even though the old one is still very much alive, is the emergence of those celebrities that are completely independent in their diplomacy actions, and that this is a ‘new phenomenon’. These celebrities, and Andrew Cooper especially mentions Bob Geldof and Bono, with their massive fame who are able to get more face-to-face time with national leaders than traditional diplomats are. (Ibid.) Therefore, have celebrities become the diplomats of the modern age? What is the criticism towards celebrity diplomacy compared to traditional diplomacy? Are there limits to celebrity diplomacy?
Legitimacy is one big criticism that usually comes up when looking at ‘celebrity diplomacy’. As Andrew Cooper and many others who are looking at celebrity diplomacy, Bob Geldof and Bono are usually the names that pop up most often. Where does the legitimacy for these two celebrities come from, that they are able to successfully push their own views out, even though they are not diplomats, and the fact that they can actually influence national leaders to do what they want to get done. (Vallely, P. 2009) Jack Spence, a professor at King’s College, merely calls Bono and Bob Geldof ‘lobbyists’ and not diplomats. ‘Lobbying’, according to Jack Spence, is what Bono has done especially when it comes to raising awareness about issues such as aid and debt, and fears that even though raising awareness is good, when it comes to other more complex and important issues, there is a fear that people would be more easily intrigued and swept away by what these celebrities say, which is not necessarily a good thing. (Ibid.) Heribert Dieter of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs highlights the issues relating to raising awareness of debt and aid and the need to raise money that Bono does, is the fact that it ‘gives people the false impression that aid is the solution to everything’. (Ibid.) Others believe though that celebrities have extreme legitimacy that derives from the idea that ‘they speak for the common man’, explains Professor Raymond Cohen from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. This idea derives from the fact that celebrities, unlike other diplomats and politicians, are not attached to interests of one’s state, they have no national interests at heart and do not represent just those interests, but rather seen as advocates of universal interests. (Ibid.) Celebrities are also more often than others very willing to talk about their causes and concerns in interviews and on television, which gives a sense of transparency to what they are doing and people are easily more attracted to that, and that there is always a kind of reservation of people to anything that politicians say, but not necessarily towards celebrities. (Ibid.) Celebrities though, most often, seem to have their own kind of ‘niche’ in their diplomacy efforts, and that is raising money and raising awareness of issues. Celebrities are rarely able to influence bigger more complex issues like trade matters, which are securely in the domain of states and because these issues are more complex, they are less able to be influenced, which highlights the limits of celebrity diplomacy and exactly how far it can go. (Ibid.)
Still, celebrity diplomacy is something worth looking at. Even though it is less or more successful depending on the area of diplomacy efforts, it is a worthy source to use for addressing global problems. It is not the only source though, and not too much emphasis should be put on the absolute importance of celebrity diplomacy, but as an alternative and additional channel very useful. Public Diplomacy in the 21st century is different, and celebrity diplomacy reflects this new era of the importance of ‘networking’ by all necessary actors, not just states. (Bentley, M. & Cussen, S. 2007)
References:
- Bentley, Melissa & Cussen, Sarah (2007) Celebrity Diplomacy: Challenges and Opportunities. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Canada Institute. September 25. From: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1420&fuseaction=topics.event_summary&event_id=274217 Accessed: 2.4.2011
- Vallely, Paul (2009) From A-lister to Aid Worker: Does Celebrity Diplomacy Really Work? The Independent, January 17. From: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/from-alister-to-aid-worker-does-celebrity-diplomacy-really-work-1365946.html Accessed: 2.4.2011
I think you raise some good points, especially regarding the limitations of celebrity diplomats. While they have the scope to reach wide and various audiences, they may have little knowledge of addressing political issues or the complexities of actual diplomacy. Although, their ability to raise awareness and finances should definately be seen as a good thing. Sometimes, however, some celebrities appear to be wrapped up in egotistical pursuits that are somewhat self-orientated and can simply seem to promote thier own status further. Having said this, as you indicate, the field of diplomacy has undergone serious changes in recent years and celebrity diplomacy is one aspect of such developments. If celebrity efforts only serve to raise awareness at the very least to people who had no previous understanding then, ultimately, this can only be seen as a good thing.
ReplyDelete