Major Effects and Challenges of Celebrity Humanitarianism

CELEBRITY HUMANITARIANISM
Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Institution
Due Date
Celebrity Humanitarianism
Introduction
Today, stories about the suffering of different groups in the world make their way to news channels fast. For example, in the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, numerous videos have gone viral as the whole world continues to feed on the actions of Russian soldiers in Ukraine as well as the determined effort being staged by the Ukrainian forces. Videos of people scampering or scuttling for the borders and others who currently live in basements and underground parking lots are pervading the media houses. Also, social media platforms appear to showcase other short clips of the events happening in Ukraine. Cries for advocacy have also increased in intensity as the whole world is looking to the Western countries to intervene and help Ukraine. Aside from the events in Ukraine, the world has also witnessed some of the most gruesome natural disasters, including hunger, earthquakes, and disease infestation. Some of these occurrences have attracted the world’s attention as well to the point of moving global celebrities to offer to be a part of campaigns to help victims. The involvement of celebrities is believed to be done in good faith as many wish to raise awareness of some of the disparaging and horrific scenes of natural disasters. However, celebrity humanitarianism has been called to question because of its implicitness in addressing the root cause of some of the issues it seeks to address. Therefore, it is against the backdrop of such suspicion that this paper posits and seeks to showcase that celebrity humanitarianism is another type of capitalist power and not an alternate form of political agency.
Celebrity Humanitarianism
Celebrity humanitarianism mainly entails the aspect of using celebrities as the faces and ambassadors of humanitarian events. As Daley (2013) indicates, celebrities are not limited to the individuals in the entertainment sector but include every person who has managed to climb up the success ladder and thus has a ‘high public profile.’ Such individuals, including the ones in the entertainment industry, have dominated the humanitarian space, with notable names like Bill Gates, Madonna, Angelina Jolie, and Bono being heavily involved. A majority of the actions of such celebrities are directed to Africa, and as Daley (2013) indicates, the continent has been a focus for such activities mainly because of the narrative regarding its inferiority to the world’s developed nations. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a majority of African countries received aid from Western countries as their economies were badly affected. Food donations, vaccines, hospital equipment, among other products, were shipped to Africa to help cushion the effects of the pandemic. However, regardless of the aid and participation of celebrities, it is crucial to ask how much help and change the involvement of celebrities brings. The answer is not positive, as most celebrities simply end up gaining more than the people they help, which furthers their individual agendas at the expense of the needy.
One of the major effects of celebrity humanitarianism is that it transforms humanitarianism from something noble and done out of the values of compassion and empathy to spectacularized humanitarianism. Spectacularized humanitarianism entails the use of the media to hype and direct attention to the actions of a few people. Celebrities happen to attract a lot of attention to themselves, and this is a great tool that aids in their pursuit of increased recognition and an inlet to platforms and forums they would not have had access to before. In his book, Kapoor (2012) speaks on spectacularized humanitarianism, noting that the entire world is often reduced to an audience that watches its most celebrated individuals extend a hand to the poor and sick in society. For example, whenever Angelina Jolie and Madonna adopt a child from a poor country in Africa, such stories make headlines as the stars are made to appear as heroines on the continent. However, as Cole, Radley and Falisse (2015) ask, who stands to benefit from all the celebrity activism, and what lasting help is gained through their actions? The truth that many celebrities may not want to confront is that they stand to benefit a lot more than the people they are helping. The hiring of expensive PR experts who help spread the news of the adoptions and the individual projects they run clearly indicate that they are helping while enhancing their personal brands. As Drezner (2007, p. 23) indicates, “just as Nike or Pepsi recognize the benefits of developing a positive brand image, so do George Clooney and Sheryl Crow.” The celebrities know how much mileage they get to earn to enhance their brands when they engage in humanitarian projects. In the end, their fame and access to international forums continue to grow on the backs of the hungry, sick, and needy Africans in different countries.
Aside from the above, celebrity humanitarianism also promotes and greatly harbors colonial undertones that speak to the inferiority and superiority of Africans and Western countries, respectively. Kotilainen (2020) indicated that celebrity humanitarianism has instances of colonial undertones and further promotes the imperfect hierarchical arrangement that pervades the world’s economic, political, and social aspects. The essence of capitalistic power is to ensure that the most powerful continually gain on the backs of the ones considered less powerful. Also, capitalistic power runs and promotes the narrative that the powerful are in a much better position to help the less powerful countries. Cole (2012) writes on the white-savior industrial complex where the white people appear to be the ones at the forefront of helping Africans or poor countries. The United States, for example, has been at the forefront of helping out countries all over the world with aid. However, as Cole (2012) indicates, this help often comes with a lot of U.S. interference in the running of countries, further exacerbating the problems in some countries. In 2012, as the Egyptians were increasingly protesting against a suppressing military government and moving closer to attaining democracy, the U.S. was funding the same government $1.3 billion annually. Such help came with excruciating and lasting disadvantages for the Egyptian people, as the powerful U.S. continued in its power and control while the relatively poor and underdeveloped Egypt continued languishing in poverty and unrest. In such instances, inequity continues to pervade as Egypt remains in shambles as the U.S. flourishes.
Another challenge that emanates from celebrity humanitarianism is that it seeks to cover up or plays blind to the evils that pervade the system. According to Kapoor (2012), celebrity humanitarianism leads to decaf capitalism. He explains that decaf capitalism is one where the few continue to become increasingly wealthy and accumulate as much wealth as possible while the poor can only be taken care of through charity. Kapoor (2012) notes that celebrities’ role through humanitarian exercises is equivalent to preventing the system from spinning out of control. One way that this happens is through course-related marketing. Course-related marketing mainly entails organizations pushing their products with the promise that part of the proceeds will be directed to charitable exercises (Ye et al., 2021). Celebrities have long been used as brand ambassadors, especially when companies are trying to push their sales through course-related marketing. As Thamaraiselvan, Arasu and Inbaraj (2017) indicate, celebrity credibility plays a major role while trying to push product sales through course-related marketing. However, the question still remains, who stands to benefit the most? In such instances, celebrities gain through their contracts with organizations, while organizations gain through increased profitability. Further, such exercises obscure certain conversations that are just as cruc...