“With great power comes great responsibility.”
It seems that with fame comes the expectation to be politically vocal. We demand a greater level of activism from celebrities than we do from ordinary people, suggesting the existence of a “celebrity social responsibility”, according to The Influence Agency. They have a greater reach and much more money than us, so why shouldn’t society expect them to use their position for good?
The power celebrities have is undeniable. When Taylor Swift shared a voter registration link during the US’s 2024 elections, her Instagram story drew over 300 000 people to the site. However, this number did not necessarily equate to the same number of new voters, nor does it guarantee that new voters necessarily voted in favour of Kamala Harris, the presidential candidate who Swift publicly endorsed.
This begs the question: does solidarity create any change or is this simply an act? Some argue that sharing one’s political views encourages the supporters of a celebrity to take the initiative to learn more about and actively participate in political affairs. However, when they choose to not provide resources or suggest actionable steps people should take to enact change, the effectiveness of outspokenness actually leading to change is questioned. Furthermore, proclamations of political stances without proper nuance may encourage people, especially younger, more impressionable fans, to adopt a celebrity’s political stance without actually understanding what it means.
So, celebrities should be providing political education, resources, and nuanced perspective. Easy peasy, right? But, is it possible that this is too much responsibility to put on a single person? A single person who does not have a degree in political science and, quite frankly, may not be the most knowledgeable on the state of current affairs? At least not to the extent that they should be looked to for political guidance. Politics is a complex field, and it is difficult to fully understand the state of current affairs, let alone formulate one’s own opinions on it. In an era of fake news and misinformation, it is difficult to know what is true and what is not. The world is not black and white, and most political issues do not have a simple solution. Is it so wrong for a celebrity to not speak on an issue that they simply do not know enough about when there are people who are willing to choose the path of activism and do the work that it takes to responsibly be an agent of change?
The alternative perspective is that neutrality is complacency. Fans want to know that by supporting a celebrity, they are not unintentionally supporting people with bigoted views, especially when those celebrities are active in their bigotry. Everyone loves Harry Potter, but there is a reason why supporting JK Rowling by buying products related to the franchise is generally frowned upon. Rowling is vocally against the realisation of the rights of the transgender community. By making her political stance known, Rowling allows readers to spend their money in ways that align with their own politics. Maybe this is why we want celebrities to be vocal on the political stage – so that we, as fans, can be comfortable in the fact that we are aligned with the people we support. But then comes the argument that we should be able to separate the art from the artist and enjoy the work of people we do not necessarily agree with.
The question of celebrity activism is a nuanced topic and there is no clear-cut answer. On one hand, celebrities seem to have a wide reach and impact that most activists and politicians simply do not have. But on the other hand, those working in the realm of politics have the knowledge and perspective to responsibly and effectively act on the political stage. So the question remains: are celebrities the new activists,\ and are they equipped to be?
Visual: Jemma Thompson
